|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 30, 2012, 08:11 PM | #101 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 20, 2008
Location: northcoast, Ohio
Posts: 260
|
Here is MY "middle ground" proposal.
Repeal the NFA and the GCA, move the BATFE back to the treasury department and out of the enforcement business. Force the "Anti's" focus away from guns and plant it face down in the actual problem, (mentally challenged and violent criminals), control those two aspects better and most of the gun problems will fade. I for one, do not see how increasing the restrictions on law abiding gun owners access to these inanimate objects will curb those that have no problem with stealing or buying from the black market, coincidentally, two venues not affected by controls.
__________________
Where there's a will, I want to be in it. |
December 30, 2012, 08:17 PM | #102 |
Junior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2011
Posts: 3
|
I am not willing to compromise anymore....sorry OP guy!
|
December 30, 2012, 08:25 PM | #103 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
Quote:
Second, discussing "Gun Control" with folks that want guns banned will only move the goal posts further toward a ban. I am done talking to unreasonable people, and will instead concentrate my efforts educating the uninformed. The only reason I would post a comment in response to someone who in one line says he is "not for further restrictions" and then in the next refers to those on the pro-gun side who will not compromise further as extremists, is to point out to the dissonance between those two statements. Either you are unaware of the heap of restrictions we now have, that do nothing to solve the problem, Mister, or you are actively working for the other side. Good Night! Last edited by jimbob86; December 30, 2012 at 10:16 PM. |
|
December 30, 2012, 09:57 PM | #104 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,436
|
Let's put this in perspective. I've mentioned this previously, but I don't recall if it was in this specific thread. Immediately after the Sandy Hook shooting, NYC Mayor Bloomberg started in with his predictable rhetoric about how guns are the problem, and how unsafe schools are and how schools will remain unsafe until no civilians can own firearms. Yada yada ...
But within a span of about two weeks, right in his own NYC, two people were murdered by being shoved off platforms into the path of an oncoming subway. What was Hizzoner's response to those heinous crimes? http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stori...-subway-tracks Quote:
|
|
December 30, 2012, 11:22 PM | #105 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
We should ban assault trains. It's for the children.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
December 31, 2012, 05:15 AM | #106 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 1999
Location: Too close to Houston
Posts: 4,196
|
I just read this at THR and think it sums up nicely the idea of compromise with the anti-gun crowd...
http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2...-play.html?m=1 Quote:
__________________
Proud member of the NRA and Texas State Rifle Association. Registered and active voter. |
|
December 31, 2012, 06:15 AM | #107 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,436
|
In his convention acceptance speech in 1964, Barry Goldwater said
Quote:
|
|
December 31, 2012, 06:22 AM | #108 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
|
Quote:
It's for the children... [/sarcasm] |
|
December 31, 2012, 06:46 AM | #109 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,340
|
Quote:
We did just fine with NO restrictions prior to 1934. What reasonable restriction since then has improved our freedom or increased our security? Did the 4473 deter the CT shooter? Reason says someone intent on murder does not care about other laws regarding firearms, theft, etc. What do you hope will be achieved with "sensible" gun laws and what evidence do you have that crazy or evil people will follow them and thus not commit their violent intent? Let us use our reason and dispense with laws that only restrict and punish the law abiding and that have no discernible effect on security. Let us further reason that liberty is inherently risky, and if we eliminate danger with a burden of laws (if that is even possible in the extreme) then we have strangled liberty. Is it reasonable to surrender liberty for false sense of security? |
|
December 31, 2012, 09:14 AM | #110 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,786
|
When two extremes exist on an opinion, I like the OP am normally one who searches for some sort of truth in the middle ground. On the issue of gun control, however, the stated goal of one side is the elimination of private gun ownership, and the stated strategy is to pass repeated waves of ever tighter regulations, each appearing to most people to be sensible at the time, until their ultimate goal appears to be the next logical step. That strategy leaves no room for compromise, because it sees compromise as a weakness of its opponent instead of a solution.
|
December 31, 2012, 09:16 AM | #111 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Some aggressive dogs respond well to "Good pup!"
Others have to be convinced that they don't want this fight. |
December 31, 2012, 09:50 AM | #112 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 21, 2011
Location: Southern Louisiana
Posts: 1,399
|
Quote:
If you're saying that any non-felon, non-crazy can acquire one illegally, that's obviously true. If you're willing to become a felon, nothing is going to stop you from anything you want to do. Last edited by 45_auto; December 31, 2012 at 10:00 AM. |
|
December 31, 2012, 10:27 AM | #113 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,315
|
My brother fell on hard times and had to sell his Colt AR, so I bought it from him, for full retail. Funny about that part, because it looks like half price today.
Anyway, I gave it back to him for Christmas. Talk about a happy guy! He said something to me that sort of struck a chord. He said "Now I feel like a citizen again!" Wow, huh? |
December 31, 2012, 12:22 PM | #114 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 1,196
|
I think a big mindset for anti-gun people is that they view firearms in general as an anachronism best left to the American revolution and the wild west.
We have shopping centers and law enforcement. So according to them we don't need guns to kill our food nor to protect our homes. |
December 31, 2012, 04:16 PM | #115 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,436
|
Quote:
Your statement, unfortunately, reminded me of the day I fully became cognizant that my first marriage was doomed. My then-wife asked me how to spell something. It was a word I knew, so I told her how to spell it. That was not, however, the way she wanted to spell it, so her response was "You think you're so smart! This is a free world and I'm entitled to my own opinion." And, indeed, she was entitled to her own opinion. But just as calling a dog's tail a leg does not create a five-legged dog, holding or espousing an opinion that is contrary to fact does not cause your opinion to overrule fact. We all have an absolute right to be wrong. The fact is that the 2nd Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The anti-gun extremists say "WE want ALL your guns." Meeting them in the middle and giving up only most of our guns and allowing them to regulate (i.e. "infringe"] the rest does not make their position any less wrong, nor does it make the "middle" (cough, cough) right. |
|
December 31, 2012, 04:33 PM | #116 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 19, 2012
Location: NOVA aka Northern VA
Posts: 123
|
The only thing that I MIGHT be in favor of is screening out the Mentally Disturbed and the Criminally minded from being able to buy a gun.
I don't know how to get to this point that I'm describing above so basically I'm just saying what I don't want. I also think that the laws we already have should be enforced (they aren't enforced at the moment) and if someone with a criminal record goes into a gun shop, tries to buy a gun and the background check shows that he's a fellon then not only should he not be able to purchase that gun but the Police should be arresting him for trying to acquire a gun. That law is already on the books, it's not being enforced. The last thing we need is more laws that hinder law abiding gun owners.
__________________
I didn't know you could bend it like that? |
December 31, 2012, 06:04 PM | #117 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,341
|
Quote:
|
|
December 31, 2012, 06:27 PM | #118 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 3, 2000
Location: Trinidad, Co. , USA
Posts: 225
|
Give an inch, they take a mile.
__________________
My X representive Fran Coleman told me that if I don't like the laws of Denver I could move, So I Did! |
December 31, 2012, 07:03 PM | #119 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
Quote:
Far better to use the resources they have to make more potential criminals, rather than deal with the ones they have in a slam dunk case....... Selective enforcement is a power all it's own ....... they can make people jump just by threatening to do something, without actually haveing to do anything at all ..... leaves more time for politically motivated activities like F&F ...... |
|
December 31, 2012, 08:56 PM | #120 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Quote:
__________________
Molon Labe |
|
December 31, 2012, 10:12 PM | #121 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 1999
Location: Too close to Houston
Posts: 4,196
|
Quote:
__________________
Proud member of the NRA and Texas State Rifle Association. Registered and active voter. |
|
December 31, 2012, 10:28 PM | #122 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
Quote:
Quote:
.... or do you just sign stuff w/o reading it? Last edited by jimbob86; January 1, 2013 at 06:52 PM. |
||
December 31, 2012, 11:23 PM | #123 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2010
Location: East Central Ohio
Posts: 143
|
Quote:
Quote:
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
__________________
First it's pretty tires, then it's pretty guns and bows...next thing you know, you're shavin' your beard and wearin' capri pants |
||
January 1, 2013, 08:50 AM | #124 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 1999
Location: Middle Georgia, USA
Posts: 13,198
|
Quote:
|
|
January 1, 2013, 04:41 PM | #125 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,685
|
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.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|