Is anyone else fed up with the extremism on both sides of the gun/gun control debate?
- Thread starter myshoulderissore
- Start date
ohiomossyoak
New member
Why? Give me a line or reason and the data/stats you have to back up your line of reasoning..
Should have checked Ohio state law from about April 2004-Sept 2011....
The person is under indictment for or has been convicted of anyoffense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking in any drug of abuse or has been adjudicated a delinquent child for the commission of an offense that, if committed by an adult, would have been a offense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking in any drug of abuse.
Any drug charge or related even non-felonies meant if you possessed a gun,you are having weapons under disability...Now this did not show up on the NCIS check at a dealer and many didn't even know the law read that way....
Now(as of sept 2011) the law states felony drug charges in a similar manner to FED law etc..But the Ohio CCW law does not reflect this change...So if you got caught with 2 joints 14 years ago you can own an open carry firearms in ohio...But ya cant get a CCW permit.....(It did not state if anyone was grandfathered etc prior to 2004).
Maybe thats the middle ground
The cake analogy is a pretty good one.
The problem with a middle ground position is similar in one way to the problem of our highways and streets. You can walkl on the left, you can walk on the right, but if you walk in the middle, someone will run you over.
The other problem with a middle ground is that from the beginning, the anti's position has been "what's mine is mine, and what's your's is negotionable".
That is not compromise, or anything even remotely resembling it.
Laws have proven, for thousands of years, that they do not stop anything. ALL they can do, when they actually DO it, is punish those who break the laws. And lots and lots of recent laws punish everyone to some degree, rather than just the guilty.
Each "extreme" position, on both sides believes they are fundamentally and morally correct. Those people's minds, you won't change. The bulk of the "middle" is either un or under informed, and is spoon fed lies from the media 24/7, all with the intent of furthering the anti gun agenda.
For most people, who don't have, or use guns as part of their regular lives, all they know about guns, gun rights, and self defense is what they get from the corrupt biased media.
Survey says...its a great way to run a game show, but a lousy way to formulate public policy, particularly when the surveys themselves are, shall we say...of questionable integrity.
"Most gun owners favor more restrictions" or "Most Americans favor more..." That's what I'm hearing today from the media. Now, I won't claim to know "most" gun owners, or most Americans, but I do know more than a few, and NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM has changed their opinion about gun control, on EITHER SIDE!
This latest shooting is a sad thing, as all are. Worse for some, emotionally, because it was mostly children. Tragic. And frustrating, because, once again, the shooter took the easy way out.
We can focus on mental health, but that too, is a red herring. It is already against the law for someone who is adjudicated mentally incompetent to buy a gun. Could we tighten up the system? I suppose. Should we? Yes, of course, if it can be done. But no system is going to be comepletely foolproof. There will always be someone(s) who "slip through the cracks".
And, there is no system that can tell if someone, sane today, won't go insane tomorrow, or next week, or next year. Because of that, they will say no one should have guns. Again, another red herring. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle, especially not now, hundreds of years after the invention of firearms.
And, even if you could wave a magic wand, and make all the guns just go away, what do you accomplish? You put us all back to the rule of the jungle, where the strongest do as they please. Someone with determination and four feet of sharp pointy steel can kill 20 kids and 6 adults just as easily, he will just have to run a little more to catch some of them.
No law prevents evil from acting. TO me, it is not reasonable to tell me I have to wear chains and shackles because someone half a continent away ran amok. (even if it was next door, it still wouldn't be reasonable)
The old bumper sticker that said "Fight Crime! Shoot Back!" isn't just an extreme view, it is the only thing that has proven to work.
I don't think it is extreme to want to keep what is mine by right. Our natural rights were not given by the Founders, what the Founders did was write a rather clear document about what the government could, and could not do to us regarding those rights. It took the right deniers a couple hundred years to sufficiently muddy things up so they could evade some of the restictions the Founders wrote. And they are still at it....
Middle Ground? go stand there, and enjoy what they allow you. I will stand where I have always stood, for the rights of the individual citizen.
The problem with a middle ground position is similar in one way to the problem of our highways and streets. You can walkl on the left, you can walk on the right, but if you walk in the middle, someone will run you over.
The other problem with a middle ground is that from the beginning, the anti's position has been "what's mine is mine, and what's your's is negotionable".
That is not compromise, or anything even remotely resembling it.
Laws have proven, for thousands of years, that they do not stop anything. ALL they can do, when they actually DO it, is punish those who break the laws. And lots and lots of recent laws punish everyone to some degree, rather than just the guilty.
Each "extreme" position, on both sides believes they are fundamentally and morally correct. Those people's minds, you won't change. The bulk of the "middle" is either un or under informed, and is spoon fed lies from the media 24/7, all with the intent of furthering the anti gun agenda.
For most people, who don't have, or use guns as part of their regular lives, all they know about guns, gun rights, and self defense is what they get from the corrupt biased media.
Survey says...its a great way to run a game show, but a lousy way to formulate public policy, particularly when the surveys themselves are, shall we say...of questionable integrity.
"Most gun owners favor more restrictions" or "Most Americans favor more..." That's what I'm hearing today from the media. Now, I won't claim to know "most" gun owners, or most Americans, but I do know more than a few, and NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM has changed their opinion about gun control, on EITHER SIDE!
This latest shooting is a sad thing, as all are. Worse for some, emotionally, because it was mostly children. Tragic. And frustrating, because, once again, the shooter took the easy way out.
We can focus on mental health, but that too, is a red herring. It is already against the law for someone who is adjudicated mentally incompetent to buy a gun. Could we tighten up the system? I suppose. Should we? Yes, of course, if it can be done. But no system is going to be comepletely foolproof. There will always be someone(s) who "slip through the cracks".
And, there is no system that can tell if someone, sane today, won't go insane tomorrow, or next week, or next year. Because of that, they will say no one should have guns. Again, another red herring. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle, especially not now, hundreds of years after the invention of firearms.
And, even if you could wave a magic wand, and make all the guns just go away, what do you accomplish? You put us all back to the rule of the jungle, where the strongest do as they please. Someone with determination and four feet of sharp pointy steel can kill 20 kids and 6 adults just as easily, he will just have to run a little more to catch some of them.
No law prevents evil from acting. TO me, it is not reasonable to tell me I have to wear chains and shackles because someone half a continent away ran amok. (even if it was next door, it still wouldn't be reasonable)
The old bumper sticker that said "Fight Crime! Shoot Back!" isn't just an extreme view, it is the only thing that has proven to work.
I don't think it is extreme to want to keep what is mine by right. Our natural rights were not given by the Founders, what the Founders did was write a rather clear document about what the government could, and could not do to us regarding those rights. It took the right deniers a couple hundred years to sufficiently muddy things up so they could evade some of the restictions the Founders wrote. And they are still at it....
Middle Ground? go stand there, and enjoy what they allow you. I will stand where I have always stood, for the rights of the individual citizen.
MedicineBow
New member
Boy, the OP sure hit a nerve.
I read him as saying that the polar positions are equally ridiculous (generally speaking, the one pole being a gun ban, the other pole being no restrictions whatsoever on arms) and will never prevail, so that taking one of those positions, either in the personal realm of discussion or in the political realm, renders you irrelevant.
It made sense to me.
I read him as saying that the polar positions are equally ridiculous (generally speaking, the one pole being a gun ban, the other pole being no restrictions whatsoever on arms) and will never prevail, so that taking one of those positions, either in the personal realm of discussion or in the political realm, renders you irrelevant.
It made sense to me.
CUBAN REDNECK
New member
Compromise=Surrender
OK, so you want to negotiate and compromise, the only problem is that the other side will never do either. The Brady Camp and the VPC will never, ever, accept any type of "compromise" that doesn't result in full prohibition. These organizations collective refusal to accept an enumerated Constitutional right portends to disastrous "common sense" gun laws should we attempt to negotiate with them and their respective enablers.
OK, so you want to negotiate and compromise, the only problem is that the other side will never do either. The Brady Camp and the VPC will never, ever, accept any type of "compromise" that doesn't result in full prohibition. These organizations collective refusal to accept an enumerated Constitutional right portends to disastrous "common sense" gun laws should we attempt to negotiate with them and their respective enablers.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
It only makes sense if you are willing to ignore the inconvenient existence of the second amendment. And, even then, it only makes sense if both sides are truly willing to compromise. But the anti-gun forces are NOT willing to compromise. They have proven this time after time when they get as much as they can from the pro-gun side. The pro-gun side says "Yeah, we don't like it but we'll live with it," while the anti-gun side immediately starts planning the next increment of "compromise." However much "compromise" they get, they are NEVER willing to live with it.MedicineBow said:
Hence the analogy so beautifully expressed in Lawdog's blog.
The only effective way to deal with someone who is fundamentally unwilling to compromise is not be unwilling to compromise yourself.
myshoulderissore
New member
The thing is, they ARE willing to compromise, their "small bites" approach is proving quite effective over time. My whole goal with starting this thread was to discuss current reality in reasonable terms, to discuss how WE (gun lovers and whatnot) could improve the fight on our side using the same tactic. But at this point I only hope a few more people could see where I am coming from rather than viewing me as some gun grabbing, totalitarian-rule-wanting jerkwad... My regret is that I am not as effective a communicator as I thought I was, and may have beefed on the delivery. I won't be discussing this outside of the circle of people who know me again, I assure you.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
myshoulderissore said:
How would using the same tactic help us?
They're trying to take something away from us. We have nothing to gain and they have nothing to lose. Any "compromise" by us gives up something we have and gains us nothing in return.
Compromise requires that both sides have something to give and something to gain.
Gun control is completely one-sided. We have only to lose and they have only to gain.
"Compromise" in this kind of scenario is actually appeasement. Hoping to give something up so they'll leave us alone.
They didn't leave us alone after 1934. They didn't leave us alone after 1968. They didn't leave us alone after the Hughes Amendment. They didn't leave us alone DURING the AWB and they won't leave us alone until every formerly legal firearm is GONE.
That's their compromise and we have nothing to gain by going along.
Southern Rebel
New member
Compromising - it depends on who gets to define what a "compromise" is. Sort of like telling Adam that God was originally gonna take an arm and a leg, but He compromised and only took a rib. No one told poor Adam that it would eventually cost him the Garden of Eden! (and later on, the house and the car and half of his retirement program and........... 
)
)MedicineBow
New member
I have no idea what you mean. The Second Amendment does not, has not, and will not guarantee unregulated access to and use of all arms. It is pointless to pretend otherwise.
In any event, I think the problem is that some of us tend to think that in personal discussion and in the political realm that anyone who does not share every view we hold must want to ban all guns. I don't see much of that (though those people exist, of course).
Generally, I hear a lot of folk who recognize the Second Amendment and its attendant rights, don't wish to ban guns, but want to discuss what, if anything, is rational to do.
It was written that way, I think. ..... and thus even folks on our side have ceded ground ..... moving the "middle ground" further toward greater gun control......
Even our when we do manage to get something in return from the Antis for further restrictions in one of these "compromises", such as the NRA's "Firearms Owner's Protection Act of 1986" which was supposed to allow for travel from one place to another with a firearm, even through places where guns were essentially illegal, we get screwed. You cannot fly into NYC and have a layover .... for this we traded away full auto ..... our gain is ignored by the authorities, our loss is honored by us, and ruthlessly enforced by the authorities .... to the point that malfuncioning guns going runaway have been prosecuted as crimes.
No more such "compromises": We are running out of cake.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
That's not compromise. That's deceit.myshoulderissore said:
Compromise, as I posted, is when both sides give up something, reach a genuine middle ground, and both sides agree to live with that middle ground.
If the other side isn't willing to abide by the compromise, and the day after the ink dries they're already working on the NEXT "compromise" -- that's not compromise.
I'm not pretending anything. If you don't think that's exactly what the 2nd Amendment intended, then what do you think it DID intend to protect?MedicineBow said:
Look up Tench Coxe. He was a member of the convention that wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:
"The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people."
Last edited:
Tench Coxe would tell the antis to go... pound sand and we should too. Owning firearms is a right, not a privilege. The founding fathers fully intended us to be allowed the individual military arms of our nation, at a minimum. Rights aren't supposed to be up for negotiation and our predecessors have already negotiated and compromised our rights away far farther than they ever should have.
If the whittling away of our 2nd Amendment Rights doesn't stop here and now, when does it stop? When will the compromise end?
com·pro·mise: settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions
If I and others are sounding too strident, then please tell us the concessions the antis are making?
If the whittling away of our 2nd Amendment Rights doesn't stop here and now, when does it stop? When will the compromise end?
com·pro·mise: settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions
If I and others are sounding too strident, then please tell us the concessions the antis are making?
Responsible gun owners have, for decades, allowed that the Second does not exist in isolation from the remainder of the Constitution. There will always be that small, vocal minority that wishes for NO restrictions. If you cannot see the incremental advances of the other side, gobbling up the Second over the past 75 years, then you are ill-equipped to discuss finding middle ground for reasonable compromise today. That day has truly passed.
At what point will you throw out the anchor and say, "No more. This is as far as I go." ?
I cannot shake the idea of similar attacks on the First Amendment. Where would the self-proclaimed protectors of our fundamental rights be on that one? For sure there have been compromises there too, but the reaction is always a groundswell of protest at the very thought. No pleas for compromise? No scolding for not seeking middle ground?
This is not an argument for our hobby, nor is it an argument for no restrictions of any kind. Restrictions abound. It is a principled argument against encroachment on a fundamental liberty guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights. No less.
OP, for what it is worth I too wish there would be more room for a dialog on the issue of gun violence. I am a gun owner and I wish the overall volume on both sides of the spectrum could be tuned down and a reasonable discussion / dialog around cause and effect could be had.
The following things really irk me:
- When people say that the solution to gun violence is to ban guns. This is a knee-jerk reaction either from people who do not know anything about guns and therefore fear them, or from politicians who thinks it makes it look as if they are doing something.
- When people say that there is no such things as gun owner responsibilities, only gun owner rights. Tiresome as it is, the analogy with the first amendment not giving the right to yell 'fire' in a movie theater is relevant. There need to be responsibilities that come along with gun ownership, such as making a reasonable effort in keeping guns away from minors and other individuals that should not have access to guns (as one example). To state that the second amendment should infer only rights and no responsibilities is invalid. There are regulations around gun ownership and there needs to be regulations around gun ownership.
- When people say that the solution to gun violence is to ban 'assault weapons'. I have read too many articles by ignorant authors who do not have a basic understanding about guns.
- When people say that the discussion to be had is about gun control. The discussion to be had is around gun violence and how to reduce it. Are there components of that solution that involves additional regulation of gun ownership? I do not know but I would be open to hearing about specific solutions as long as they are accompanied by actual data to back up claims being made. There is too much emotion and knee-jerk reactions.
- When people use the way too common 'two wrong things make a right' argument such as "Well cars kill people too, let's ban cars then". Automobiles are highly regulated, as is the ownership and operation of automobiles. Automobile deaths is a huge issue and it too needs to be, and is, addressed but it does not mean that gun violence somehow does not need to be addressed.
Why do so many people have an 'all spikes out' defense mechanism when it comes to the topic of gun violence? Why is it assumed that any discussion on this topic would somehow result in 'them taking our guns'?
I wish that there could be a sensible discussion around gun violence with true cause and effect being examined, based on data rather than emotion. To try to determine what can be done to reduce gun violence. Why is it that a reasonable dialog cannot be held about reducing gun violence?
The following things really irk me:
- When people say that the solution to gun violence is to ban guns. This is a knee-jerk reaction either from people who do not know anything about guns and therefore fear them, or from politicians who thinks it makes it look as if they are doing something.
- When people say that there is no such things as gun owner responsibilities, only gun owner rights. Tiresome as it is, the analogy with the first amendment not giving the right to yell 'fire' in a movie theater is relevant. There need to be responsibilities that come along with gun ownership, such as making a reasonable effort in keeping guns away from minors and other individuals that should not have access to guns (as one example). To state that the second amendment should infer only rights and no responsibilities is invalid. There are regulations around gun ownership and there needs to be regulations around gun ownership.
- When people say that the solution to gun violence is to ban 'assault weapons'. I have read too many articles by ignorant authors who do not have a basic understanding about guns.
- When people say that the discussion to be had is about gun control. The discussion to be had is around gun violence and how to reduce it. Are there components of that solution that involves additional regulation of gun ownership? I do not know but I would be open to hearing about specific solutions as long as they are accompanied by actual data to back up claims being made. There is too much emotion and knee-jerk reactions.
- When people use the way too common 'two wrong things make a right' argument such as "Well cars kill people too, let's ban cars then". Automobiles are highly regulated, as is the ownership and operation of automobiles. Automobile deaths is a huge issue and it too needs to be, and is, addressed but it does not mean that gun violence somehow does not need to be addressed.
Why do so many people have an 'all spikes out' defense mechanism when it comes to the topic of gun violence? Why is it assumed that any discussion on this topic would somehow result in 'them taking our guns'?
I wish that there could be a sensible discussion around gun violence with true cause and effect being examined, based on data rather than emotion. To try to determine what can be done to reduce gun violence. Why is it that a reasonable dialog cannot be held about reducing gun violence?