I haven't read this whole thread, but I'll try to answer the OP:
The insanity is that pro-gunners won't budge, and want guns for everyone, with no restrictions or controls, and anti-gunners want all guns banned. There is middle ground. I believe that neither solution works, and neither solution actually addresses the facts in any sort of reasonable manner.
The fact is, guns can be a way to protect oneself, can be a way to get food, can be dangerous, can be fun, and more. Education about gun safety should be promoted, and access control should be promoted. Keeping guns out of the hands of the demented, the hands of children, and the hands of those who break laws should not have to restrict responsible users from ownership.
I am dedicated to discussing promoting reasonable methods to promote gun control AND gun ownership. Safe usage of guns should be priority #1 of gun ownership. This includes both safe handling practices and control over who can access them, on a personal level. Children should not have access to them without supervision and safety training, and thieves should not be able to access them without AT LEAST some trouble, locks, safes, etc.
I love my guns, but I also recognize the need to keep them out of certain hands, and the way things are going it is looking like it’s only one way or the other. Let’s have both!
Am I insane, or seeing something here? I want middle ground!
First of all, I'm an honest-to-goodness, card-carrying NRA member. Even at that, I'll be the first to admit that there are some folks that just shouldn't have guns. Violent felons and the mentally ill. I'm all for responsible gun ownership, and those two categories don't make the cut.
With that said, let's talk about what "middle ground" means. To my mind, "middle ground" ought to mean the midpoint between: (a) anybody can own anything they can afford, no restrictions whatsoever; and (b) no civilian ownership of firearms whatsoever. It seems to me that we're already beyond "middle ground" and closer to (b) than (a) as it stands today. On the federal level alone, we already have a background check on the purchaser of every new firearm, and every used firearm sold by FFLs. In many states, you must get state permission before you can carry a pistol, unless you pack it in the trunk of your car. If the seller of a firearm has any reason to believe the buyer is a felon or otherwise prohibited, he has to call off the sale, or face significant penalties. Many of these newly-started "let's just be reasonable" threads seem to operate on the assumption that we (gun owners) should be willing to retreat to a middle ground between the law is it currently stands, and a total ban on civilian ownership of firearms.
The phrase "middle ground" also implies that there is some kind of negotiation, some kind of compromise. Surely someone has already posted a link to the LawDog Files' "Ok, I'll play
?" What the big antis like Feinstein are pushing does not, in any way, shape, manner or form, resemble a negotiation or compromise. What they're pushing is nothing more than stripping law-abiding gun owners of our rights, based on the acts of a lunatic. For most of my life, gun owners had their rights taken, little by little, one piece at a time. And it has all been done in the name of "the greater good."
Note that I said, "in the name of" the greater good. I am unconvinced that the measures were actually taken to improve the good of the many, but that's a discussion for another day. More importantly, we're talking about whether or not I will be allowed to legally possess the most effective means of protecting my wife and my daughter. Right wrong or indifferent, bad things happen. Riots, floods, tornadoes, looting, carjackings, home invasions, etc. I have a wife and daughter and I'm utterly undemocratic when it comes to my family. If it's going to impair my ability to protect them, screw the greater good.