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

[myshoulderissore]

XFire, I don't think you read my position... I don't want more. I want less, but more effective with the real issues. Extremism in most forms is a tough way to do anything, and only fuels the fire and the ignorance on both sides.

Glenn, your idea for WLP is something along my lines of thinking. Doing something for change, admitting the current way is broken. I enjoyed reading that, I think you got where I am coming from. My only hope is that more can also.

[jasmith85]

I know I am in the minority here but if it helped safeguard my right to have guns I would live with them making it more difficult to acquire one. Lets say a law was passed to require all gun sales, private or through dealers, must always have a background check ran. It would be annoying but I could deal with the extra hassle if it ended all this anti-gun crap. I don't see that as infringing on my rights since I could still acquire guns. The main thing it would accomplish is making it a little harder for people that can't pass a background check to get a firearm which I am perfectly fine with. The way I see it is if you did something that makes you unable to pass a background check then you gave up your 2nd Amendment rights when you did it. I'm not saying that I think this exact law should be passed. Just using it as an example.

[thedudeabides]

I find it hard to understand how a madman taking innocent lives on a rampage with no respect for his own survival and the rights of law abiding citizens to arm themselves are in any way related and refuse to give up any of my rights so that those panicked by this tragedy can have the illusion of safety.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The NICS issue that we under report dangerous individuals (Cho at VT is a classic case). Even those who have been adjudicated don't get reported at times. That process should be cleaned up.

An absolutist case that the dangerously mentally ill should have free access to firearms is an interesting test case of the 2nd Amend. Loughner and Cho might have been stopped or slowed down. Should they have been?

[myshoulderissore]

Dude, abide! Read the thread, I'm not knee-jerking, I'm firmly against it.

This is why I started this thread. These automatic assumptions that I am anti-gun or that I want *more* laws, these near automated responses of "I need my liberty" rather than a thoughtful discussion of how change could possibly occur are damaging to both sides...

[nate45]

On CBS's Face the Nation this morning, DiDi Meyers predicted that AWB II will not pass and as most of us know, she worked in the Clinton Administration and for Sen. Diane Feinstein.

Although she did predict, that maybe, some further restrictions to decrease the possession of firearms by the mentally ill, might take place.

Which, is basically our sides position, as long as any checks, ect would be meaningful and reasonable.

I honestly believe that the last several years of court victories have greatly angered the anti-gun crowd and their recent outburst of extremist rhetoric was born out of frustration and feelings of impotence. The recent decision that Illinois enact a CCW Law, really frustrated them, but there was little for them to do, but stew. The recent tragedy gave them an opening to lash out.

A drowning victim thrashes the hardest right before the end, hence the outburst from the antis. If we stick to our guns, both metaphorically and literally, I believe we will prevail. If we continue to present our facts with logic and decorum, as most of us have been that is.

[Xfire68]

XFire, I don't think you read my position..I don't want more. I want less

I did read it. You can't have less with "Middle ground"?

I think I understand what your saying and that we need to address issues other then guns like the mental health issues but, that is not what the bans and restrictions from the anti's are addressing. They are going for gun control not looking into fixing problems that make any kind of sense.

[thedudeabides]

I'm just saying, I don't understand how the views to keep gun ownership as they are are considered "extreme," and refuse to give them up.

I think this is a mental health debate, not a gun control debate.

We don't do enough to treat/identify people who are clearly a threat to themselves and others... and don't take warning signs seriously when they do present themselves.

[myshoulderissore]

Here's a proposal... Keep in mind I do NOT want *more* laws, this is an idea for an alternative to, let's just say, waiting periods, mag restrictions, and "scary parts" laws.

Say a well made gun safety course was required, just once, before being able to buy a gun. Something along the lines of a hunters safety course, but with a focus of safe storage, handling, and use of firearms.

I think this would be a reasonable thing to do to replace a slice of the cake that was previously taken. I think it would be a good thing, much better than the generic gun safety insert that rarely gets read by the people who need it most.

And please, before spouting about "we don't need no more gun laws" keep in mind I am not suggesting additional, I am suggesting replacing current RESTRICTIONS with safety training here.

[myshoulderissore]

As a side note, I sis not start this over any specific shooting, and this is not specifically about mental health. This is accumulated frustration with both sides, and the fact that in this highly political world, if an inch is given, the mile is regulated. I hate the fact that "compromise" has been banned due to the use of the word as a way to rob freedoms. I hate the fact that most pro-gun arguments I hear at a local level are along the lines of Gollum ideals, rather than thoughtful ideas.

Yes, I do believe mental health is a facet that cannot be ignored when it comes to anything, not just guns. But it shouldn't be a diversionary tactic to attempt to not discuss our current, and our possible, gun laws.

[DanThaMan1776]

To reach the "middle ground" you speak of would require an infringement of a right which shall not be infringed. The fact is, guns are seen by most as purely a means of taking life... just as cars are seen as a means to get from point A to point B. Although guns can be used for sport and cars for killing, they are defined by their intended purpose. Now we must ask... who in our society should be allowed to possess the means to take life? Oh wait... we all do. Whether by illegally obtaining an easy means of life-taking (bombs, guns), or by the use of a knife... we all do. So instead of trying to fine tune who gets what means of taking life through the states influence.. why not let freedom ring and allow mankind's natural tendency to protect the innocent flourish? Why not try and propagate a societal embrace of responsible gun ownership? Id feel much safer in a society armed to the teeth than in one like ours.. with "gun free zones" and a tendency to see guns as evil.

[Hal]

And please, before spouting about "we don't need no more gun laws" keep in mind I am not suggesting additional, I am suggesting replacing current RESTRICTIONS with safety training here.

Open for a suggestion?
I suggest asking this thread be closed, then asking your question(s) in a different way.
If I'm reading your intentions right, you want to toss out the extremes and concentrate on how to win the middle ground.

[myshoulderissore]

Not looking to win anything, just wanting to get past the extremes and discuss reality. Why would this thread need to be closed? I stand behind everything I have said, and I don't think I am being the least bit unreasonable.

[TheNatureBoy]

People were murdered long before the invention of firearms. My point is that if firearms were totally eliminated murders would continue. You would definitely see a decrease in the "murders committed with the use of a assault weapon" column but you would see a increase of murders committed with other weapons like clubs, spears, knives, strangulation, poison, etc. There is nothing, and I do mean nothing that an individual, organization, or politician can do to stop murder.

[PawPaw]

My big question when I talk with anti-gun folks is simply to ask: What are you willing to give up? It's a part of the compromise process. If I give up something, then the other side must give up something that is equally as dear to them, but which won't affect me.

No one can ever come up with what they're willing to concede. For myself, I'm not willing to concede anything. I want the full Bill of Rights. All of them.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by myshoulderissore

I hate the fact that most pro-gun arguments I hear at a local level are along the lines of Gollum ideals, rather than thoughtful ideas.

And I am offended that you would characterize my position, which advocates nothing more "extreme" than adhering to what is supposed to be the highest law of the land, as being anything other than thoughtful. I am a Vietnam veteran, I am a senior citizen, I have a ppst-graduate professional degree from a respected university, I am a direct descendant of a law school professor and (farther back) a Supreme Court justice. My position is not taken lightly or without thought. My position is not so much "pro-gun" as it is "pro-Constitution."

I'm all in favor of thoughtful ideas, BUT they have to be ideas that don't violate the Constitution or, as far as I am concerned, they are non-starters. So far, all of your ideas represent infringements on the 2nd Amendment. I cannot support them for that reason, and that's not a "knee-jerk" reaction, that's a position forged from approximately 60 years (I don't count the first decade or so of my life, because at that tender age I didn't have any understanding of the Constitution) of respect for the Constitution, and 50 years of living under the recognition that I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

[Hal]

Why close it?
Probably because after 8 posts, it's even more unclear exactly what it is you want.

You lost me here 100%...

If you don't want to "win" anything, then what's the point of any discussion?
You don't seem to be open to what people are saying to you and your mind already seems made up that those of us that view any type of "gun control" as "control" and thus "extremists".

In my case, I admit, I'm one of those nutty "extremists".
Nothing anyone can say or do is going to change my mind that "gun control" has nothing to do with "guns" and everything to do with "control"...

[Patriot86]

Shall not be infriged....pretty plain and simple to me. If that makes me an extremist then so are were the founding fathers.

[buck460XVR]

We've given up too much already. Not another inch.

Problem is, we probably don't have that option. While gun sentiment, both positive and negative changed little after the previous numerous mass shootings, this last one involving defenseless children has had a definite impact. Only a year ago the majority of folks in America thought we had enough gun regulations and control, but in the last few weeks that has reversed. Being a country that is supposed to be governed by a majority, we are in trouble. All we can hope for is that this snowball will quit rollin' and intelligent minds will prevail over knee-jerk reactions.

[armoredman]

Anti-rights "compromises always include the following - "more for us, less for you." There IS no compromise, just "We'll take less than we originally said if you promise to get down and lick our feet."
Want to compromise like they do? We get the GCA of '68 repealed, and they can keep Piers Morgan.

Being a country that is supposed to be governed by a majority

This is NOT a democracy - we are a representative republic. The majority cannot rule, as that is mob rule. According to theory the majority voice is heard and reflected by elected officials who pass laws within Constitutional guidelines, which can be scrutinized by the judicial branch and retained or tossed on Constitutional grounds.
But one thing we are not is a pure democracy.

[myshoulderissore]

My position is improving an already bad situation. My position isn't that more gun control is needed. I don't want to infringe on the second amendment, I want to free up what has already been infringed upon. I would merely like to talk about responsible ways to do it, promoting gun ownership, and promoting gun safety. If all that is presented opposing gun control is the absolute abolishment of any oversight on guns, then reality is being missed. The fact is, gun control advocates are not going to poof out of existence any more than guns would if they had their way. Faced with that reality, what is so offensive about discussing real solutions, rather than this all or nothing attitude?

[BGutzman]

See, this is what I am talking about... I am treated as if I am some extremist wanting *more* gun control, and replies are all about "they can't touch my guns". I seem to recall in my initial post that I said the current isn't working, and I hope I implied that maybe more rational thought should go into it, rather than knee-jerk reactions from either side.

Is it rational to give a right away that you have given blood, sweat & tears for? I gave my youth to this nation. It was my choice but I did so for what I believe and yet despite what I gave, many others gave so much more including life itself...

People look at things that happen and they blame the guns and I don't think you dispute that, I think you have been pretty clear about that... So the answer to your question is IMHO (no sarcasm intended) in your own position..

The guns simply aren't the problem.. So why are we trying to fix something that isn't the problem? The real problem as I see it is:

1. You cant legislate away evil... No law will ever stop evil.
2. You can't diagnose, nor lock up everyone who is mentally ill and may become a danger... - We live in a semi free society and there are no realistic tools to do this.
3. Lawful gun owners arent the ones doing these things and gun laws effectively punish and take away from those who have only been lawful. Think about it, tons of people have one or more felonies so to be a lawful owner means you have followed the rules.
4. Many of those interested in disarming you have no intention of passing a law that will disarm themselves, only everyone else..

Lastly as a retired soldier with tons of good and bad experiences, I can tell you guns aren't by any means the biggest threat to you, your family or your community. It is beyond the scope of this forum but a out of control scientist in a home lab could do way more than any gun or all the guns ever created...

The only effective solutions are to be armed lawfully, to get rid of gun free zones and have government encouraged gun use and exposure combined with appropriate safety classes. Treat the mentally ill more effectively (without spying) and understand more people in our nation means more potential dangers.

[armoredman]

what is so offensive about discussing real solutions, rather than this all or nothing attitude?

The NRA did propose a solution, and was panned for it. Same solution Clinton offered years ago, and was given a media standing ovation for it.
I'll say it again - I did nothing wrong, and MY property and rights should not be forfeit for someone else's criminal act. Punish the criminal, not the inanimate objects.

[myshoulderissore]

Did I say somewhere that we as gun owners need to be punished for the crimes of others? Did I say that guns should be banned, destroyed, more regulated, or similar?

This is exactly what I'm talking about, why is it so hard to actually discuss the issue, rather than just barfing out what has been said many times before? The fact is, guns are already highly regulated, I am asking to talk about ways to loosen up those restrictions, without sacrificing safety, and so far it doesn't seem like anyone is wanting to do anything but promote near anarchist views, like that's going to make the problem go away by magic.

Are there any ideas here, or is it just all or nothing like I see everywhere else? I'm talking about reality here, not some magical world where gun laws or guns can be removed with a lightswitch. I hope to see talk of HOW change can occur, not just that "gun laws are bad, mkay".

[zxcvbob]

In your first post, first sentence, you said we were all insane. What response did you expect?