The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 30, 2012, 08:11 PM   #101
claymore1500
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 20, 2008
Location: northcoast, Ohio
Posts: 241
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.
claymore1500 is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 08:17 PM   #102
dpetty121263
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2011
Posts: 3
I am not willing to compromise anymore....sorry OP guy!
dpetty121263 is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 08:25 PM   #103
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,702
Quote:
This is what I am suggesting, rather than *just* crying infringement. I'm not saying it's not an infringement, either, just saying that merely discussing utopia does not bring utopia to be.
First, "Utopia" does not exist in this world: One man's Heaven is another's Hell.

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!
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/

Last edited by jimbob86; December 30, 2012 at 10:16 PM.
jimbob86 is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 09:57 PM   #104
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,197
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:
"I don't know that there is a way to prevent," said Mayor Michael Bloomberg. "There's always going to be somebody, a deranged person. You can say it's only two out of the 3 or 4 million people that ride the subway every day, but two is two too many."
In other words, when a crazy person uses a train to commit murder, it's the crazy person's fault. When a crazy person uses a gun to commit murder, it's the gun's fault. Talk about dissonance ...
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 30, 2012, 11:22 PM   #105
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,957
We should ban assault trains. It's for the children.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 05:15 AM   #106
Sport45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 1999
Location: Too close to Houston
Posts: 4,050
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:
I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".
__________________
Proud member of the NRA and Texas State Rifle Association. Registered and active voter.
Sport45 is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 06:15 AM   #107
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,197
In his convention acceptance speech in 1964, Barry Goldwater said

Quote:
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
Why is extremism (not that I agree that asking to abide by the Constitution IS extremism) suddenly a vice?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 06:22 AM   #108
Salmoneye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,317
Quote:
Why is extremism (not that I agree that asking to abide by the Constitution IS extremism) suddenly a vice?
You heartless brute...

It's for the children...

[/sarcasm]
Salmoneye is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 06:46 AM   #109
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by MedicineBow View Post
Reason has never been in the closet, so your premise is faulty.
Thanks for coming out. If you desire "reasonable" restrictions to you natural right then you are not using your reason.

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?
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 09:14 AM   #110
TailGator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,966
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.
TailGator is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 09:16 AM   #111
MLeake
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.
MLeake is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 09:50 AM   #112
45_auto
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2011
Location: Southern Louisiana
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by medicinebow
I have never once heard of a non-felon, non-crazy who couldn't buy a gun or two or five in this country when he wanted to. Not a single one.
Are you saying that you believe that you can legally buy a gun and take possession of it in California (mandatory FFL transfer and 10 day waiting period), or legally buy a gun in Illinois if you don't have a FOID (Firearms Owner Identification) card?

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.
45_auto is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 10:27 AM   #113
Strafer Gott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,118
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?
Strafer Gott is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 12:22 PM   #114
dajowi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 976
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.
dajowi is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 04:16 PM   #115
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by TailGator
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.
When the two extremes are debating something that's a matter of opinion, seeking a middle ground is a viable and reasonable approach. However, when the two extremes are arguing a matter of fact, both can be wrong but both cannot be right, and if one extreme is right then any middle ground must necessarily be wrong.

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.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 04:33 PM   #116
No1der
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?
No1der is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 06:04 PM   #117
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 1,971
Quote:
The fact is that the 2nd Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Unfortuneatley for us gun owners, the word "infringed" is open to interpretation by Society and our Judicial system. This fact means while wording in the Amendment doesn't change, the meaning of it can change greatly, depending on culture and court challenges. This is what scares me and why I said I hope this snowball quits rollin'.
buck460XVR is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 06:27 PM   #118
rellik74
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!
rellik74 is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 07:03 PM   #119
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,702
Quote:
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.
What? And undermine their power? If they actually prosecuted these felons, then they'd have to do some actual work..... and the problem would get smaller. Smaller Problem = Smaller Budget.

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 ......
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 08:56 PM   #120
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
When the two extremes are debating something that's a matter of opinion, seeking a middle ground is a viable and reasonable approach. However, when the two extremes are arguing a matter of fact, both can be wrong but both cannot be right, and if one extreme is right then any middle ground must necessarily be wrong.
This is exactly my position on the 2A.
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 10:12 PM   #121
Sport45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 1999
Location: Too close to Houston
Posts: 4,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by No1der
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.
Is that a law? I know a prohibited person is not allowe to buy a firearm, but I'm not sure the law prohibits them from trying.
__________________
Proud member of the NRA and Texas State Rifle Association. Registered and active voter.
Sport45 is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 10:28 PM   #122
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,702
Quote:
Is that a law? I know a prohibited person is not allowe to buy a firearm, but I'm not sure the law prohibits them from trying.
Quote:
....... I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction is crime punishable as a felony. .....
-from the form 4473, right above the block where you sign acknoledging that you read and understand the above ......


.... or do you just sign stuff w/o reading it?
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/

Last edited by jimbob86; January 1, 2013 at 06:52 PM.
jimbob86 is offline  
Old December 31, 2012, 11:23 PM   #123
ohiomossyoak
Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2010
Location: East Central Ohio
Posts: 92
Quote:
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.
Why? Give me a line or reason and the data/stats you have to back up your line of reasoning..



Quote:
Originally Posted by medicinebow
I have never once heard of a non-felon, non-crazy who couldn't buy a gun or two or five in this country when he wanted to. Not a single one.
Should have checked Ohio state law from about April 2004-Sept 2011....

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
ohiomossyoak is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 08:50 AM   #124
Bud Helms
Staff
 
Join Date: December 31, 1999
Location: Middle Georgia
Posts: 12,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

When the two extremes are debating something that's a matter of opinion, seeking a middle ground is a viable and reasonable approach. However, when the two extremes are arguing a matter of fact, both can be wrong but both cannot be right, and if one extreme is right then any middle ground must necessarily be wrong.
Bravo, AB!
__________________
"The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion." - John Lawton, speaking to the American Association of Broadcast Journalists in 1995
Bud Helms is offline  
Old January 1, 2013, 04:41 PM   #125
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,122
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.
44 AMP is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.17479 seconds with 7 queries