Any moderates around here?

[Fishing_Cabin]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

That seems so odd to me. I've never seen them as organized and united as they are right now. Maybe that's an oddity peculiar to my area.

They are divided here, and basically divided in every way...If support wasn't needed to keep away some of these silly proposed laws, it would be funny. Lets see...

Hunters vs the "modern type rifle owners" (AR's, AK's and similar firearm owners)

Those who support stronger background checks vs those who want less.

Those who support mag restrictions vs those who don't want mag restrictions.

Those who are against NFA (including the proposed new bill in NC to allow suppressors while hunting) vs those who are for NFA

Those who support CCW vs those who have no interest.

Those who support state level protections vs those who support federal level protections for RKBA

The "I got mine" (including those wanting a ban to make money off what they have bought, just to resale for a profit if a ban comes) crowd vs those who are waiting for firearms to become available.

I could go on and on, but the dividing line I see with many people I speak with, is that if you don't totally support their interest, they have no need yours, and it winds out becoming a contest of urination. There just isn't any middle ground.

Also, I seem to run across many folks who either cant be bothered to contact their elected reps, or think it doesn't matter.

[vito]

What some have alluded to in this thread needs to be said more clearly: those who are advocating for "moderate" or "reasonable" new gun control laws have frequently actually been honest and admitted that what they really want is total gun confiscation and the making of private gun ownership virtually impossible to do legally. Once you realize that those like Senators Schumer and Feinstein and the President, and Hilary Clinton, etc., etc., truly want to take away your guns you must face the reality that what they are calling "moderate" or "reasonable" are just more steps on the road to their final goal. Compromising with these folks gets us nothing in return and merely moves the starting line further toward the end of the Second Amendment. If I thought that truly the anti-gunners would be satisfied with universal background checks, or banning magazines of 100 rounds or more, etc. I might actually be willing to consider this, but knowing their never ending attempt to ban all gun ownership I must oppose even their seemingly small requests for more control. And for what it is worth, I think "moderate" or "independent" are terms for the wishy-washy who won't make the effort to take a firm position. In this country, it is the political party, not the individual what decides policy and laws. Voting for a "moderate" Democrat is meaningless when he/she will virtually always vote the way Sen. Reid or Rep. Pelosi says to vote. Ignoring this reality is naïve. So decide who BEST (not totally) represents your beliefs and interests, the Left (Democrat) or the Right (Republican) and then get into the arena.

[breakingcontact]

Originally Posted by Fishing_Cabin

The "I got mine" (including those wanting a ban to make money off what they have bought, just to resale for a profit if a ban comes) crowd vs those who are waiting for firearms to become available.

I cant stand this group. Same ones that lecture people for not seeing all this coming, not preparing, not stocking up beforehand. I do have "mine" so its not sour grapes. Its just this group is not respectful to those who have just turned the legal age for owning, those new shooters who have only recently found the hobby and those who have only recently woken up politically and want to exert their 2A rights.

[Tom Servo]

Fishing Cabin, you'll find divisiveness and selfishness like that in nearly any politically-oriented group. The difference between, say, 1968 and now is that many (but certainly not all) gun owners and politicians are more acutely aware of the issue.

Is it enough? Time will tell.

[Gaerek]

I've known about the divide for quite a while, and been aware of it. And by divide, I mean things like hunters who don't think a semi-auto are needed, etc. What's different this time around is that the divide isn't nearly what it used to be. The bolt action hunters are beginning to realize that banning semi-auto rifles is just a step towards getting their guns banned. I won't say this solidarity is perfect, but it's much stronger than it has been in the past. Gun owners, in general, are realizing that any gun control will eventually trickle down to affect them in one way or another.

[Addler]

Write letters to all federal and state politicians informing them that you will not support them or vote for them if they side in any way that is anti gun....

[Fishing_Cabin]

Tom,

I agree they are more aware of new restrictions now, then they were in years past. To me, it seems that the more its discussed in the news, the more people I know of who are taking varying hard line style positions, and not interested in supporting others interest. Basically, its a "whats in it for me" type discussion.

[ROCK6]

From a political standpoint, moderates don’t seem to have any real convictions or core values; that’s just my perception. Moderates become the sheep of political pressure. Our political system is just too polarized right now to talk about compromise as it is a sign of failure.

Maybe I’m just too simple-minded as our Bill of Rights is pretty clear to me and there should be little need to compromise…there is an agenda when they start talking about that. There are just too many historical examples of what happens when freedoms are abdicated out of misinformation of safety and compromise.

Governments need to hear the rattling of holsters from their citizens…it’s sometimes the only thing they will listen to.

ROCK6

[BarryLee]

From a political standpoint, moderates don’t seem to have any real convictions or core values

I respectfully disagree with this statement. While I do not really consider myself a moderate I will say my political philosophies do not fit totally with either party. Basically I believe in personal freedom and may agree with the Republicans on free market economics and less Government, but disagree when they try to regulate marriage. However, I feel this is not because I, “don’t seem to have any real convictions or core values” but because I do and place them above party loyalty. While I do generally support one party it is often sort of a lesser of two evils, but still feel I make decisions based on the value I place on personal freedom.

I guess my point is labels are hard to define and we need to be careful. I often get frustrated at the folks I feel buy into the “Cult of Personality” and do allow the winds of public opinion to influence their votes. Not trying to put words in your mouth, but I believe this may be more the group you are referring to as opposed to politically moderate individuals.

[mayosligo]

I consider myself a moderate but I do not see compromise on the Bill of Right. They are designed to protect citizens from government. Any compromise would be to give up these rights in favor of government over the citizen.

[Gaerek]

However, I feel this is not because I, “don’t seem to have any real convictions or core values” but because I do and place them above party loyalty.

That's the real issue. People see someone who is "moderate" or (little 'L') libertarian and think, oh they have no convictions. No, they just don't play along party lines. In many cases, their convictions are MORE than someone who pulls the lever because of the R or D next to a candidates name.

As for me? Fiscal Conservative, but socially, I have beliefs that are part of both parties. 5 years ago, I would have said I was a hard line Republican. Today, not so much. Generally, I vote Republican, but that's simply because, in our two party system, a candidate with something other than a D or R next to their name has almost no chance of winning an election, and the "R" candidates typically (NOT ALWAYS) are the lesser of two evils, in my eyes.

[Cowboy_mo]

I will most often vote R because the bulk of the Dems side with the Pres on gun control and all other issues.

For an easy demonstration and explanation of why there are no longer many moderates, I suggest you check out the MSN story on the exchange between Sen Feinstein D and Sen Cruz R regarding Feinstein's latest proposed assault weapons ban.

The kicker in all this is going to Sen Harry Reid. Now good ole Harry is a Dem BUT he barely won his last election bid mostly on the support of the NRA! Now we will see where "the rubber meets the road" and whether or not the NRA made a wise decision in saving ole Harry's hide.

[Jo6pak]

I am a moderate politically, and I know many other folks like me.

The sad part is, is that moderates don't make good copy or good video. Media is in the business of making money, and they make money either by pandering or ticking folks off.

"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right....." and most of us are stuck in the middle.

[doofus47]

I'm pretty darn moderate: Midwestern-raised, middle child, the born compromiser.
I am willing to compromise when I see that two sides can help everyone get ahead a bit by giving up some of what they are asking for. Example: the budget. Yes, we need more revenue; yes, we need to limit entitlements. Make a few changes on both sides and my country's finances won't end up looking like Argentina's. Win/Win/Win.

That's not the issue here; none of the current crop of new laws/bills are written to solve an existing problem. Take for example, Aurora, Colorado, where a crazy man passed existing background checks and obtained a weapon. Why is ABSOLUTELY no one in the Colorado government is talking to any medical professionals to discuss how to put names of dangerous mental patients on the CBI check list without violating doctor/patient privilege? Instead, they want more people to use the existing broken system by banning private sales outside the system. Because???? That worked so well last time? If your solution has no merit, there's no compromise. If you're wrong: there's no compromise. If you have no data to back up your position: there's no compromise.

Brian Pflueger

Nor have I. The anti-gunners seems to have over-reached and the extreme implications of their intentions have united gun owners like I've never before.

You might be right. My sister was telling me that my brother in law who is a bolt hunter who is a die-hard Democrat thinks that Congress is overreaching. I have a buddy of mine whom I got into biathlon has a wife who was, until recently, adamant about no guns in the house. Now, she tells him that if he wants one, he should get it "because you probably won't be able to get one soon." It rankles the American soul very deeply to be told that you can/cannot do something for no logical reason except your gov't is the one telling you. Pile on top of that heaping portion of "we're taking this away from you because we don't trust you with these big-boy toys but we get to keep them," and you've got a "did I just hear a double standard?" eyebrow raised from most adults who can spoon feed themselves.

Today the topic of discussion might be guns, but if someone tells you that you're not qualified for your X amendment rights, you should sit up and take offense. This has nothing to do with moderate and everything to do with civility, power and respect. (And not the trite idea of "respect" you hear bandied about in some rap lyrics or sports circles.)

As for the people yakking up "civil war," they need to put down the Xbox controller, sit down in front of a pc, and do something useful like write their reps. Or stand on a street corner and/or join a party. Or found their own. Try joining the process before you think that you need to re-invent it. For all its flaws, this is the best wheel rolling right now.

[Tom Servo]

Governments need to hear the rattling of holsters from their citizens…it’s sometimes the only thing they will listen to.

While gun owners are not the minority in this country, politically active gun owners are. In fact, that's a small enough minority that many politicians will scoff at it.

We need to be forming a consensus with those in the middle, because that's where most voters are. The more confrontational and partisan the rhetoric gets, the more mindshare we lose.

[thallub]

We need to be forming a consensus with those in the middle, because that's where most voters are. The more confrontational and partisan the rhetoric gets, the more mindshare we lose.

This!!

i absolutely detest the talk of "civil war" and "revolution" because it does irreparable damage to our cause. Last time my family got involved in a civil war we lost numerous family members and lost the war as well.

Furthermore, it's easy to vote anti-gunners out of office if we gunowners stick together and present a rational appeal to middle of the road voters.

[zincwarrior]

Quote:
We need to be forming a consensus with those in the middle, because that's where most voters are. The more confrontational and partisan the rhetoric gets, the more mindshare we lose.

This!!

i absolutely detest the talk of "civil war" and "revolution" because it does irreparable damage to our cause. Last time my family got involved in a civil war we lost numerous family members and lost the war as well.

Furthermore, it's easy to vote anti-gunners out of office if we gunowners stick together and present a rational appeal to middle of the road voters.

Indeed. Those that talk about "civil war' turn me off utterly.

[TimSr]

If somebody wants to take something away, is givng them half of it a "compromise"?

(If abudget will be increased by 12% and you then decide to increase it by only 6%, is that a "cut"?)

If they come back later for the other half, do you then split it again, in the spirit of "compromise"?

Most would consider a total gun ban to be the "extreme" left. Do you consider keeping the 2nd amendment intact as is currently interpretted by the courts to be the "extreme" right?

If your true desire is to ban gun ownership, then any "sensible" legislation you propose is nothing other than an incremental step towards that goal.

I've found that most conservatives simply want all changes to go through the procedures outlined in the constitution, and all government acitivities to remain within the confines the Constitution places on them. If you don't like what the 2nd Amendment says, there is a procedure to change it, which does not include statutes and courts. To the conservative, the Constitution is sacred.

I've found that most liberals have little respect for the Constitution as a fundamentally flawed, outdated document, and find its government confines and amendment procedures to be an obstacle to the progressive changes they would like to see in what they believe a modern government should look like, and are willing to simply ignore the parts of it that stand in their way, or fabricate arguments to claim it does not mean what it says. To the liberal, the Constitution is an oudated list of suggestions to be admired for its place in history, but not really relevant today, and does not need to be adamantly adhered to if you have a "better idea".

I've found that most people who claim to be "moderates" are either too uninformed, or lack the courage to have an opinion either way.

Either you believe the Consitution is sacred, and must be followed or changed through the amendment procedures it outlines, or you wish to give temporarily elected politicians the power to change it by statute or by politically appointed judges in the courts. What is the "compromise" position on that?

[Come and take it.]

The compromises were made in the 90s. We all are moderates if we agree with those past compromises. No more room for compromise and I don't think the ones made in the 90s, 80s, 60s, or 30s should have been made either.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by TimSr

Either you believe the Consitution is sacred, and must be followed or changed through the amendment procedures it outlines, or you wish to give temporarily elected politicians the power to change it by statute or by politically appointed judges in the courts. What is the "compromise" position on that?

Ah, but the devil is in the details.

The Constitution isn't, in fact, sacred text. It was written by humans, to address human problems -- specifically, those of governing themselves -- in a way that had never been done before.

When it was written, it was anything but a conservative document; figure that the conservatism of the time involved ideas like "the divine right of kings." The ideas at its root were new ones, derived largely from Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke. Ideas like the natural rights of man, freedom from oppression, and government by the consent of the governed: straight out of the Enlightenment, which was essentially a liberal movement.

It's easy to say that "it must be followed," but it's first necessary to decide what it means, which is a matter of interpretation. This has been going on since the beginning. See Marbury vs. Madison (1803) and McCulloch vs. Maryland (1819) for a couple of significant early examples.

It's fashionable in some circles to talk about things like "plain-language interpretation" of the Constitution, but the language isn't actually very plain. If the meaning is as obvious as all that, why did it take until 2008 (District of Columbia vs. Heller) to settle the question of whether the right to bear arms is an individual one?

It's possible for honest people to differ over the meaning of the Constitution. If it weren't, the Supreme Court would have been out of business a long time ago.

[Pianoguy]

I'm definitely a moderate on the issue. To me it's just another case of how un-united the country is. I don't call people loonies because they dont' feel safe or feel their children are safe with more people owning and carrying guns. I certainly don't feel law-abiding people carrying are somehow gun-nuts, either (or else I'd be one right now). To me the issue isn't the guns per se but why so many people seem to feel so antagonistic towards others to the point they need to resort to a gun to solve their problems - at 56 I've been around long enough to see that the combination of guns and violence seem to be becoming more common these days and it's the overall culture of the country that somehow has lost it.

Also it should be obvious that our country has evolved way beyond what the 2nd amendment writers could ever have envisioned. There was a legitimate reason to support gun ownership back then. I think we need to try to re-define how gun ownership relates to our society as it stands now in the 21st century. And people from both sides have to talk about the issue and not yell "looney" at the other side (and that goes for pretty much every issue in this polarized country these days). Both sides need some re-educating on the issue because it won't go away. I know compromise seems to be un-American these days but somehow people have to communicate and give a little when there is a reasonable solution instead of just wanting it all.

[Evan Thomas]

There was a legitimate reason to support gun ownership back then. I think we need to try to re-define how gun ownership relates to our society as it stands now in the 21st century.

And there still are legitimate reasons. As to re-definition, the Heller decision was a good start on that, as it established an individual right to own guns, without reference to militia use.

I'd rephrase your point about "the combination of guns and violence" to one about violence in general in the overall culture. It's a problem that goes way deeper than access to guns.

But you're quite right about the difficulty of compromise, or even rational discussion, when both sides do their best to polarize the issue.

[MLeake]

Pianoguy, I fail to see how the actions of an increasingly disaffected and disenfranchised number of bad actors serve as justification for depriving the rest of us the ability to defend against those bad actors.

If you really want to do something about them, rather than disarming me (to any degree), why not:

1) improve access to mental health care;
2) improve funding for pre-school and after-school programs;
3) address a growing lack of parental responsibility;
4) address a growing lack of personal responsiblity;
5) increase personal accountability for bad actions;
6) revamp our correctional system so that violent offenders DO NOT get early release?

Meanwhile, as to whether I am a "moderate" because of my stance on this one, let me ask you something else...

If I were to say, "In order for you to be allowed to do Y, you must let me sleep with your wife at least three times," would you be a moderate only if you said, "ok, but only once or at most twice," or would you be a victim?

If we give up any more of the 2nd Amendment to the antis, our situation will be rather similar.

[thallub]

at 56 I've been around long enough to see that the combination of guns and violence seem to be becoming more common these days and it's the overall culture of the country that somehow has lost it.

Uh no: Violent crime in the US is on the decrease.

[QUOTE]■In 2011, an estimated 14,612 persons were murdered in the United States. This was a 0.7 percent decrease from the 2010 estimate, a 14.7 percent decline from the 2007 figure, and a 10.0 percent decrease from the 2002 estimate.
■There were 4.7 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, a 1.5 percent decrease from the 2010 rate. Compared with the 2007 rate, the murder rate declined 17.4 percent, and compared with the 2002 rate, the murder rate decreased 16.8 percent. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)QUOTE]

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...t-crime/murder

Crime Trends:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr..._2010-2011.xls

From Oklahoma:

In 1987 Oklahoma passed the so called "make my day" law in response to numerous murders during burglaries over the Christmas-New Years holidays. m. Burglaries were drastically reduced and have stayed down while other types of thefts remained constant:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-burglary.html


A tidbit from CT:

In 2011 one homicide was caused by a rifle in CT. Six homicides were caused by feet, fists or hands:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...ables/table-20

[buck460XVR]

Margaret Thatcher said it best:
"The problem with being a middle of the roader (i.e. moderate) is that you get hit by traffic going both ways."

Things is, most Moderates aren't just "middle of the road". They can and do have opinions and views that may be extreme left and right. This is why they don't affiliate themselves with one political party. Many are pro-gun, but also are pro-choice.....and have extreme opinions of both. Then there are those that are neutral, because their lifestyle isn't influenced at all by that particular issue. They tolerate both sides because they just don't care. They don't own guns, nor do they mind that others do....somebody has to control the deer they keep hitting with their cars. Again, as I said in my first post, these are the folks that decided the last two Presidential elections and will be the ones the decide how many of our gun rights we retain. They are the ones that will create a majority from either of the two minority opinions on gun control. We need to court them with honey, not alienate and drive them away with vinegar. Even if we can't get them totally on our side, it's better they stay neutral than to belittle and irritate them to the other side.