Is anyone else fed up with the extremism on both sides of the gun/gun control debate?

[No1der]

@jimbob86

When you're right you're right. We don't need a gun laws wing of a law library, simply need to enforce the laws that we already have. Enough of the legislation cause it's not going to stop anything.

Lets start with enforcing existing laws and start arresting criminals who get flagged at gun shops while trying to buy a gun. That's one heck of a start.

@Armoredman

Special mention for posting all the motivators. They were fun to look at/read.

[coachteet]

Yeah, you can't give an inch to the anti-gun campaign. Logic truly doesn't enter into the picture when these people come out to protest. The tragedy in Connecticut is an example of how gun restrictions do not prevent crime. The Brady Campaign ranks Connecticut as having the 5th toughest gun control in the nation. And they did nothing to stop this maniac. I would argue that the strongest firearm restrictions imagineable would not be nearly as effective at saving lives in a school shooting as a few teachers carrying concealed firearms. But you wont be able to sell the idea to anti-gun people-- trust me, I've tried.

The simple fact is that a person who is simply "anti-gun" is not operating logically, but emotionally. Firearms frighten them. Therefore, we need to pass laws that will eventually uninvent firearms altogether and also eliminate the desire of humans to do harm to other humans. These people exist in a fantasy. When you allow them to restrict firearm ownership, the failure of these new restrictions to reduce gun violence only proves to them that further restrictions are necessary.

[PH/CIB]

“It is beyond the scope of this forum but an out of control scientist in a home lab could do way more than any gun or all the guns ever created...”

This is one of the most insightful statements I have ever seen on the internet. I would modify the statement to include scientists and criminal or terrorist or government labs and I have read books on the Soviet Union and United States bio-weapons programs that will scare your socks off. Whether for population control or terrorism or a natural mutation event, this is by far my worst nightmare, even more than nuclear war or conventional war or economic collapse or food or water shortages or a natural disaster.

In 1950 when I was a little boy there were around 150 million people in the United States and around 2.5 billion people in the world, today there are around 315 million people in the United States and getting close to 7 billion people in the world, in fifty years there will probably be around 500 million people in the United States and over 10 billion people in the world. To a certain extent an expanding economy depends on an expanding population. Human over population is the greatest danger to all living creatures on this planet including ourselves, yet you hear of very few people talking about it, let alone high level people. Our planet has limited resources and more people sharing finite resources means more haves and have-nots which means more stressed out and hateful and resentful people which might increase violent events such as the recent school shooting. Logically if a certain percentage of the population are born with or develop mental health problems and there are substantially more people, then more of these violent people and violent events will also probably occur. In a more crowded and complex and stressed out world, governments will strive for even more control and will continue to chip away at our freedoms and our constitutional rights especially the 2nd amendment.

With that in mind I would say to not give any ground or compromise whatsoever, but I say that knowing that strategy works only if it wins or loses less ground than compromise would have.

Reminds me of the famous statement made by I believe a Russian General after the end of the Winter War with Finland who said something like this, “We won just enough ground to bury our dead!”

[Ben Towe]

Lets start with enforcing existing laws and start arresting criminals who get flagged at gun shops while trying to buy a gun. That's one heck of a start.

This. But first the FBI needs a computer system that is slightly better than the one used by the Gravel Switch, Kentucky police department. I got delayed on my last purchased and never did get a call back, thank God for automatic proceed. I'm sorry but that is ridiculous.

My rough and tumultuous past includes a dropped assault charge when I was 18 over a fistfight and a PI charge a few months ago (apparently it is illegal to even ride in a vehicle after drinking two beers, at least it is when that town needs money that month). I did some hard time for that. Three hours of filling out paperwork at the PD and a $400 fine. Public Enemy Number 1 here.

The point I'm trying to make is that the whole system is pretty much a joke. Has anyone ever even been arrested after a NICS denial? Has it ever prevented a crime? If not, what is it besides an annoyance and a drain on public funds?

So what can we do? Wait, what was that thing we used to do? Oh yeah, we strapped killers and rapists to an electric chair or put a noose around their neck. The rest of the lowlifes got thrown in a deep dark hole somewhere for several years. It won't make this Never Neverland, but it couldn't hurt.

[44 AMP]

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.

Actually, I believe it does. That's why it was written that way. As an absolute check on the lawful (constitutional) behavior of the govt. The fact that beyond a handful of years following the founding, it was not completely successful is a different argument.

On the Federal level, it actually was fairly successful for a fairly long time. Where, and when was the first Federal gun control law? 1934? earlier?

Where we first saw serious erosion was at the state and local level. Now, under the system our founders set up, states and localities were intended to operate under the State Constitutions, and while most either directly copy, or closely mirror the Federal Constitution, there are differences in the language of many of the state's versions of the Fed 2nd Amendment.

The fact that we have accepted so much infringment for so long that nearly all consider some degree of infringment the natural order of things does not mean that the infringements do not exist. Only that we no longer think of them as tyranny.

The legal concept that things are "bad" goes back to feudal nobility. Those selfless enlightened rulers of that gentle age were always loathe to enhance their personal wealth. Right.

The idea that things are "bad" or "evil" was used as a way for the rich to get richer. Your wagon broke loose, ran over a peasant, and killed him, poor lad! your wagon is a dangerous evil thing, and must be surrendered to the crown (or their personal representative in this vicinity), as penalty.

What/ no, thou canst do that, twas an accident!

Well, we could throw you in goal, instead.....

Er, the reigns, my good sir!

The wagon, or the mill, or whatever caused some harm, taken (or banned) by the crown, all for the public good, of course...I see the same concept still at work today.

Today, we only take the "bad" things from bad people, which I gather includes cash, boats, cars, houses, etc., (all ill gotten gains), and of course, the guns (dangerous), and the dope (illegal), etc......

But that's not all they do, nor all they want, now is it? Bad people hurt & kill with guns, so all the guns have to go. That's their mantra, and in nearly 50 years of personal observation, I have yet to see them back off from it. The most reasonable thing I have ever seen the anti gunners do is stop shrieking their message when there is clearly little or no support (such as after 9/11). The don't ever stop saying it, but the do stop shrieking it when its very clear no one is really listening.

Now a decade and some goes by, and there hasn't been another clear slap in the face (or punch in the gut) to remind the insulated elite what the rest of the world has to deal with daily. So they go back to their old, comfortable ways, thinking that the greatest threat to their life and safety is guns in the hands of people who don't work for them. Oh, and they are generous enough to include our safety in that viewpoint, as well. After all, the little people do deserve something....

And where does our obsession with what people own (and lawfully use) come from, if not the above greed of the elite? Look back, before the 20th century, virtually no one gave a rat's behind about what guns you owned, or how many. All that mattered was what you DID with them. And all that mattered about what you did with them was if you were shooting people for fun and profit. That was a serious crime. What you did with your guns short of violence on others was of no concern to anyone, really. (and no I'm not forgetting market hunting or poaching, but that's another issue).

We had shooting galleries as public entertainment in our inner cities in those days! And by and large, the only things that got shot were the targets in the galleries! Cops often didn't carry guns as they walked their beats in those very same places! They did carry a good stout stick, and were quite given to using it, to stop trouble. Quite often, those arrested made nearly full recoveries. And neither the patrolmen, nor the cities got sued, either.

(shifting gears)
Another thing that further clouds all discussion is terminology. Our side has defintions that we believe are just, right and proper. But so does the other side. They are wrong, but refuse to see it.

They see "gunowner" as anyone who is holding (or has access to) a firearm. And they don't make a moral distinction between those who act responsbily with arms, and those who don't. To them, because some "gunowners" are bad, all are bad. To them, anyone who steps off the pavement with a gun is a "hunter". From the trophy hunter to the punks who shoot up road signs and the insulators from power lines, they are all the same, to them.

Oddly enough, shooting small birds with expensive shotguns does not seem to send them into mouth foaming frenzy. They just consider it distasteful.

We think of gunowners and hunters as decent, responsible people, like ourselves, and denounce those who are not.

Neither side is as pure as the driven...hypocrites abound. The biggest ones I see are on the anti side (that may be tunnel vision, but I doubt it), as most if not virtually all of those demanding gun bans are either armed themselves, or protected by paid professionals, with guns.
(got more, will save it for later..)

[wayneinFL]

Lets start with enforcing existing laws and start arresting criminals who get flagged at gun shops while trying to buy a gun. That's one heck of a start.

This is one of the issues that the NRA has been touting for years. The NRA wants this enforced. The problem with this is what Ben Towe pointed out.

For example, shortly after the Lautenburg amendment was passed there was a cop in NY, 20 year veteran, who was denied purchase. He had been in a fight with his dad at 19, and was charged with assault. It was listed as domestic violence, but he had no idea. Imagine if they added injury to insult and slapped him with a felony for trying to buy the gun.

The bigger problem with this is that it will discourage gun ownership altogether. I know several people who have had issues in the past, and aren't sure if they would pass the background check. The threat of a felony arrest would scare them away from gun shops altogether.

[jimbob86]

The point I'm trying to make is that the whole system is pretty much a joke. Has anyone ever even been arrested after a NICS denial? Has it ever prevented a crime? If not, what is it besides an annoyance and a drain on public funds?

What it IS is:

A feel-good measure so the reps that passed it could say they had done something.

A hindrance to gun owners- If you want less of a thing, you make it less convenient, more hazardous and more expensive.

A veiled threat-

he bigger problem with this is that it will discourage gun ownership altogether. I know several people who have had issues in the past, and aren't sure if they would pass the background check. The threat of a felony arrest would scare them away from gun shops altogether

A sinecure. People in government love ANYTHING that increases the size, scope, and power of that government..... if nothing else, it gives them places to put more people on the pay roll ......

[No1der]

Guys, without a doubt the current laws are very far from perfect. Truth be told, they kinda suck in their current incarnation.

Nevertheless, those criminals getting flagged on background checks law is what we've got and on the surface it is well intentioned. With a bit of tweaking it could even become a decent or "acceptable" law.

What we DON'T need is more laws. Why pass more laws that either aren't going to be enforced or will encumber law abiding gun owners.

We ABSOLUTELY DON'T need any sort of bans on firearms as they aren't the problem. The problem lies with the criminally insane and the criminal element. We've already established that the background check law has many flaws but even in it's current state, if it were enforced, it could stop quite a number of crimes and killings because the criminal who tried to buy the gun is sitting behind bars.

I could be mistaken but I think they did make changes to that law to where "Drug related crimes that were aimed towards drug dealers" and some other aspects of criminals would be the ones that would be flagged on the background check instead of folks with a domestic disturbance 20 years ago. Like I said, I could be mistaken about that but I seem to remember reading that somewhere in the not so distant past.

[wogpotter]

Yes, utterly.

[wayneinFL]

I could be mistaken but I think they did make changes to that law to where "Drug related crimes that were aimed towards drug dealers" and some other aspects of criminals would be the ones that would be flagged on the background check instead of folks with a domestic disturbance 20 years ago.

No, they didn't. Misdemeanor domestic violence is still a dis-qualifier. It's on the 4473 form.

Now, it's probably easier to get it expunged than a felony conviction for drugs, writing bad checks, reckless driving, trespassing on a construction site, grafitti, or contracting without a license.

But you'd have to be very careful to ensure that it's valid according to federal as well as state law, (or international if it happened somewhere else), because you'd still be breaking the law by trying to buy a gun even though you thought you were in the clear.

[Xaak]

As far as I know, there's nothing stopping you from getting an FFL to do the transfer for you. That said, I'll stand by what I've said in other threads: There is no gun show loophole. It's a fiction.

I stand corrected and now have become enlightened. This is absolutely correct and I take a different and stronger position in this. I also will utilize the info and do what was suggested. In light of posing a thought, I was given an education.

I've got to tell you, these forums are chock full of good information and opinions. Glad I found it.

[Xaak]

Was listening to Howard Stern today, and part of the news was about a paper in Nyack printing all of the CCW holders in the area and how it caused such an uproar they had to get ARMED guards for their PROTECTION.

Two solid notes by Howard

1. A laugh that they had to hire ARMED guards to protect themselves.

2. That the people who really should worry about that list being printed is the Non CCW owners. His reasoning, if a criminal reads the list, he knows what house may not have a gun.

Wow, imagine that, free advertising to stay away from my house because I am a legal and trained owner of a firearm. That's how to create a criminal free zone, let them know you're armed and won't tolerate it.

Lastly, a head's up from the State of Virginia, schools in the Richmond, Hanover, Caroline County areas have police assigned to the schools. Television reports show parents relieved that there is protection and in one case, on a College Campus, declared that it was good to feel that level of safety.

[lordhedgwich]

yes im very sick of it

[DesertFox5768]

Go ahead and support the "middle ground" if your ultimate goal is complete gun prohibition. Today's extremism is tomorrow's middle ground, i.e. today only extremists want "assault weapons" and the "gun show loophole," tomorrow the extremists are those who support legal handguns and concealed carry. Eventually only extremists will even want to own a gun period, and the "middle ground" will be complete gun prohibition. But by all means, if that's what you want, lobby for it.

[Ignition Override]

There are always people considered extremists.
Are pro-gun people extreme if they want the opportunity for one/two or more qualified school staff to be able to volunteer to defend children?

Should movie complexes etc allow nobody with a CCW to offer a deterrence to lunatics looking for easy targets?
The Aurora nut picked the nearby theater complex which prohibits legal carry.

Why should the terrible impulses of a few nutjobs make sport utility rifles with (or without detachable) mags illegal for the many millions of law-abiding citizens who never tried to harm anybody?

Forcing all gun show sellers to do background checks would not have prevented the UK Dunblane, Tucson, Aurora or CT massacres, nor the McDonalds in San Ysidro CA etc.

The anti-gun politicians are simply exploiting the publics' ignorance, in their eternal quest to Control and randomly prohibit anything they want, to further even more their insatiable Quest For Power.

Right now it is a clever Emotional Distraction to make the public less aware of the monstrous US federal deficits, the growing, hidden costs of Obamacare, and recent vast growth of regulations which help prevent job growth. etc.
About 400 such regulations were quietly passed right before the Christmas break.

[BGutzman]

Is it really extreme to expect your right to be useable as written... Too much to expect that the Bill of Rights means what it says? Anybody not understand the words "shall not be infringed"?

People seem to forever miss one of the big intents of the founding fathers... In a technical sense I would argue that you could remove all of the spelled out rights in the Bill of Rights and technically it would change nothing.... The reason being is that the founders believed these rights were inherent... The were rights that simply exist... So the act of removing the amendments would not in theory change anything because you cannot remove things that are inherent. It would simply remove the line of writing, not the right itself...

Maybe a better illustration would be the "Right to Privacy"... No where in the "Bill of Rights" is the right to privacy spelled out and yet over and over the courts have ruled the right exist... That is because the right is inherent...

So is it extreme to expect to use a right that has always existed?

But lets take this one step father and although I'm borrowing this method to argue the point I think its really effective: In our current legal system you are supposedly "Innocent Until Proven Guilty"... Well these anti gun laws are exactly the opposite theory, you are guilty so you must be stripped of these things before you can do them... I could elaborate but I think this drives home the point...

To expect our rights is not extreme, to deny our rights is...

[jimbob86]

There are always people considered extremists.

I can asure you Sir, that extremism in defense of Liberty, is no vice.

[coachteet]

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.

There are already generally laws in place requiring parents to keep guns out of the hands of minor children except under supervision. We don't need a special federal "anti-parental-firearm-negligence" act. And my home already has locks on it. Personally, I keep most of my firearms in a safe, but I have some that are "in-service". Why should I be made a criminal because someone broke into my home and stole a gun? To adequately protect myself and family, I need to have firearms that are readily accessible.

[BGutzman]

The anti side also tends to forget that a useable but crude gun isn't very hard to fashion... (Anyone with a metal lathe could almost certainly create something) My point being for all intents and purposes there is no viable way to stop guns... Its all smoke and mirrors and emotional pleas... The facts however are very different...

[Doublea A]

Below are some of my suggestions or compromises.

1. Enforce current laws on the books. Increase severe penalties for gun related crime.

2. Make all firearm purchasers go through a background check, including private sales. The background check services should be a free service.
(If I'm involved in a private sale of firearm, the most important thing to me is making sure the purchaser is a sane individual and not a felon instead of how much $$$$$$ I can make.) At least it should be a moral obligation.

3. Keep the entire standard so called "high capacity magazines” but we should regulate for example the AR 15 100 round “drum”

4. All people interested in obtaining a conceal and carry permit should take firearm classes. The fee should be reasonable to allow low income lawful citizens to afford these services. If the fee is high it should be allowed to be written off as deduction.

5. All STATES should make their mental health database available to the federal government so we can prevent the mentally challenged individuals from acquiring firearms legitimately.

6. Increase funding for mental health by reducing the amount of foreign aids given all over the world.

7. Finally involve the education of both the risk and benefits of firearms into educational system.

[nate45]

People talk about being reasonable and compromising. People want to try and do something to try and avert another tradgedy. I'm all for that too if, its truly reasonable and will truly help.

None of Doublea A's ideas sound too bad to me. I can't see how any honest, concerned citizens can be against making it harder for the mentally ill, or criminals to acquire firearms.

I well understand the fear of regiestration and confiscation. I well understand not wanting to surrender more of our rights. If legeslation on tougher background checks was carefully crafted, in a way that would actually be effective, I wouldn't oppose it.

I wouldn't ever, knowingly sell a gun to someone who shouldn't have one. If there was an easy, inexpensive way to check, I certainly wouldn't feel overburdened doing it.

[MLeake]

Unfortunately, you nailed the problem in one try, nate45.

Mandatory checks for every purchase would set a very solid foundation for a nationwide registry.

[Rick H.]

Wow!!! What a read! Awful lot of patriotic souls out there. I am sure it has been said at least 100 or so times, but anyone that believes in compromise in this arena is a fool. The Brits tried to compromise. The Aussies tried to compromise too. Compromise is another word for a sellout when it comes down to firearms laws. The other side preaches compromise, but wants ultimate total ban of all, not some, ALL firearms. They will not rest till they get what they want. Look at your history both here and abroad. The answers you seek have already been played out. Wake up for God's Sake!!!!

Rick

[jimbob86]

Make all firearm purchasers go through a background check, including private sales.

That is de-facto registation ...everyone who has bought a gun is on a list as having done so..... and don't give me any BS about the .gov not being allowed to keep those records..... if they can do something, legal or not, they will.

I'm pretty sure that any decent data mining program already has a list of all the firearms I own, of could get it by sifting my TFL posts...... such a program is not covered in the Constitution as a function of the Fed.Gov, but I know such things are done....... that don't make it right.

[Rob Pincus]

To the OP and the title question: YES.