Any moderates around here?

[Vanya]

Heck, overhead, it goes back at least to ancient Greece -- see this Wikipedia article on demagogues.

Here's a taste:

Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.

Sound familiar?

[OldGrumpy]

Extinct....like the tasmanian tiger. Bush killed the last one

Actually Governor Perry killed it on one of his morning jogs while he prepared for his presidential bid!

[overhead]

Originally Posted by Vanya

Heck, overhead, it goes back at least to ancient Greece -- see this Wikipedia article on demagogues.

Here's a taste:
Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.
Sound familiar?

Yep, you are correct again. This discussion would take this thread WAY off topic, but I will comment anyway. I wonder why it is they seem to limit the demagogues to democracies? I can think of many example of this type of thing being used by leaders of authoritarian governments, Stalin and his "war" against the Kulaks, for example. He certainly did not require their votes to keep his job, but he did require their actions to achieve his goals. The useful idiots needed stimulation just as the voters in a democracy need stimulation to action.

Back to the topic again, it is unfortunate, but "compromise" from moderates is not always a good thing. We don't want moderates "compromising" with extreme elements of either party so that only part of their extreme policies are implemented. A compromise is now doing only half of what some other person may support while they don't do anything that you support. That is caving to their demands, not compromise. "Compromise" is going the way of the word "right". Everything someone "wants" is becoming a right and a "compromise" is only giving them half of what they demand.

[Tom Servo]

moderate = lukewarm

Not necessarily. I've been called a political moderate. Heck, I've been called a sellout because my personal politics don't fit neatly on the checkboxes on either side's surveys.

I understand politics enough to understand that it is the art of compromise, and that the public is generally wary of extreme views. Now, on the 2nd Amendment, things are a little different.

We've never been given the chance to compromise. We've simply endured having things taken away without recourse. Aguila Blanca's link to the LawDog post is very illustrative of this.

When I'm asked about compromising on the 2A, I point out that the NICS system was just that. It can't be proven to have done much good in reducing crime, it presents a great inconvenience to the law-abiding, and to some, it denies the 2A altogether due to administrative errors.

As for the "holster rattling," yeah. I've heard plenty of it. In fact, I've heard some truly horrifying things said that shouldn't be said even in jest. The ironic thing is, most of it comes from folks who can't even be troubled to vote.

The majority of voters in this country could be considered moderates, and they're leery of extremist sloganeering. We need those folks on board, and both sides of the political spectrum would do well to heed that when they're resorting to cheap shots and scare tactics.

[Apom]

I'm all for background checks. I have no criminal background. I do not plan to commit any crimes in the future.

Mandatory background checks on all purchases would save lives. If this was not the case..then the current laws governing machine guns would not work..and schools, malls, and movie theaters would have higher casualty rates because the shooters would be using machine guns.

Which is what I dont understand.. why didnt the Aurora and SH shooters use machine guns? Its so easy to get them.

[ScottRiqui]

Which is what I dont understand.. why didnt the Aurora and SH shooters use machine guns? Its so easy to get them.

It's NOT easy to get them - they're horribly expensive, and there's a long, involved application process.

The reason that machine guns are used so rarely in crimes has very little to do with the laws governing them - it's just because there are so few of them. There are nearly 300 million firearms in the U.S., and I believe that when the machine gun registry was closed in 1986, there were only something like 175,000 guns on it that could legally be bought and sold between private individuals. A large percentage of those rarely see the outside of a safe, so they're not likely to end up at a crime scene.

[45_auto]

If this was not the case..then the current laws governing machine guns would not work..and schools, malls, and movie theaters would have higher casualty rates because the shooters would be using machine guns.

Interesting thought process you have there. You believe that someone willing to murder 30 or 40 people with life imprisonment (at best) or a death penalty for EACH murder doesn't use a machine gun because they fear the 10 year prison term for an illegal machine gun?

[buck460XVR]

There will never be a compromise from the far left or far right. The compromises will come from those in the middle.

originally posted by spacecoast;

moderate = lukewarm

You can make fun of the independent moderates all you want, but truth be told, they will probably be the ones to put one set of values over the top....just like they have in the last two Presidential elections. Since neither anti nor pro-gun folks are a genuine majority in this country, the side that does the best job of courting those that are moderate or neutral to the issue are the ones that will win. So keep makin' fun of them and see where it gets us.

[overhead]

Originally Posted by Apom

I'm all for background checks. I have no criminal background. I do not plan to commit any crimes in the future.

Mandatory background checks on all purchases would save lives. If this was not the case..then the current laws governing machine guns would not work..and schools, malls, and movie theaters would have higher casualty rates because the shooters would be using machine guns.

Which is what I dont understand.. why didnt the Aurora and SH shooters use machine guns? Its so easy to get them.

I understand your position, but I do not think comparing this situation with UBC to machine guns is a fair.I share some of your concerns, but I am not interested in the government tracking every gun transaction and by that creating what is a registry of all guns and gun owners in the country.

The process one has to go through to purchase a fully automatic weapon is a little more involved that what is being suggested with these background check laws. I think others have covered it already in this thread.

I don't plan on committing any crimes either, but, history tells us registration of guns can lead to easy confiscation of guns in the future. I don't trust the government with that information.

I would not have as much an issue with a "voluntary" system that did not require a trip to an FFL. The systems in VA already allow for submitting the paperwork via a computer. Designing a simple system that allowed an individual to run their own background check for a fee cannot be that hard to put together. A simple system that allowed a perspective buyer to enter all the information usually found on the standard forms and then that information could be processed as usual. When an approval is received that person can either print or collect some sort of UID that the buyer could then enter into the system to see that this person is eligible to buy a weapon. Enough info would need to be provided that ID could be verified. There is no need for the type or number of weapons to be recorded...unless our goal is registration. I say it should be voluntary because we all know criminals are not going to use the system anyway. If such a system were available and that system did not track gun type or serial number I would use it. I realize many gun owners/buyers would not and would probably want my head on a pike in the town square for even suggesting such a system. I don't buy and sell guns all that often, but when I have sold handguns I required the buyer to provide to have a CCW and to show it to me. That was just a personal choice and it has not created any issues for me at all. If people don't have one they don't buy the gun I was selling. I realize that is not a choice in every state.

[thallub]

The term "moderate" is used by predominantly anti-gun, anti-self defense party representatives to describe opposition party representatives who might be be manipulated. The term "moderate" is seldom used to describe representatives of the predominantly anti-gun party.

The anti-gunners in congress have made a big deal about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and violent nutcases. At the same time they are opposed to involuntary incarceration or treatment for those same violent nutcases.

The guy who shot US Rep. Gifford is a nutcase, ditto for the guy who shot 70 people in a CO theatre, ditto again for Adam Lanza. The state of CT has some of the most draconian gun control laws in the US. Early last year the CT legislature turned down a bill that would have allowed for the involuntary treatment or incarceration of nutcases. It that bill had become law perhaps Nancy Lanza could have gotten treatment for her nutcase son.

Any "moderate" who compromises our Second Amendment rights should be voted out of office.

[Onward Allusion]

ScottRiqui

The mods here do a good job of keeping the discussions civil and reasonable, but go to some of the other sites, where every third poster has the "tree of liberty/blood of tyrants" quote as their signature, and I think you'll see the "holster rattling". Not only are a lot of guys willing to take on the entire federal government with their AR, they seem oddly excited about the idea.

There most certainly is "holster rattling". The term "civil war" came up during a conversation with a co-worker. She was just relaying what her family believes will happen. She's the daughter from a big farming family and I believe her family is a good representation of the sentiment in the rural areas. Of course, this worries me, 'cause I do enjoy my semi-Bourgeoisie life.

This administration has got to be one of the dumbest in history because rather than focusing on the economy, they are focusing on things like healthcare, gun control, gay-rights, immigration...etc. Not to give 'em any ideas, but well-fed employed consumers are a much easier sell. Get everyone working, fat, & happy, and this administration could probably pass gun control and all the other crap w/o any resistance.

[Tom Servo]

The term "moderate" is used by predominantly anti-gun, anti-self defense party representatives to describe opposition party representatives who might be be manipulated. The term "moderate" is seldom used to describe representatives of the predominantly anti-gun party.

It isn't used to describe the antis because those are mostly people from the outer edges of one ideology. Those at both the edges use "moderate" as a pejorative.

However, moderates make up the majority of the voting public, and analysts and pollsters are wise to take their opinions into account. Those are the people 2A activists have to sway, and to look at it lately, we're not doing so good of a job.

[TailGator]

I consider myself both moderate and independent. I look at issues on their merit.

On other social issues, I would probably raise the ire of many people on this board, but on the current proposals for gun control I think almost all will agree with me that they are all ineffective.

We had a ban on assault weapons, as defined by gun control advocates, for ten years, and we saw no significant change in crime statistics. The reason is clear if you look at FBI crime statistics. More than twice as many murders are committed with bare hands than with all types of rifles combined. When all rifles account for around 2% of murders, banning certain types of rifles cannot be expected to be a game changer.

Magazine size limits? If I show a new shooter where the magazine release is, he or she can easily change a magazine in under two seconds on the first try. It takes only a little practice to get it under one second. Such a brief pause in the rate of fire cannot be expected to be a game changer in a mass shooting. The guy who shot up Virginia Tech has been reported to have used multiple ten-round magazines, yet the media does not remind us of that in the campaign to ban the magazines that are standard capacity for most full-sized pistols.

Background checks are already required for any transaction with a licensed dealer. The checks suffer from two serious deficiencies. First, they check for mental illness against a database that contains almost no data regarding mental illness. Our society values patient privacy more highly than firearm safety, to the extent that mental health professionals can be liable for civil damages, administrative action against their licenses, and in some instances criminal charges for divulging patient information. Secondly, officials as high as the vice president have stated publicly that straw purchases are not prosecuted, even though the form filled out for every gun purchase clearly states that it is a felony. Without correcting those two deficiencies, increasing the number of background checks is just generating more paper.

So as a moderate who examines issues on their merit, I find no merit in current gun control proposals because I expect them to be completely ineffective.

If there is a way to decrease the access of those with criminal intent and mental illness without compromising the rights of the citizenry to bear arms for self defense and other lawful purposes, it has to my knowledge not been proposed by politicians of either party now in office. A good start might be to enforce the current laws regarding background checks, but I haven't heard anyone in Washington propose that.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Typically,

"Common sense" is anyone who agrees with "me", no matter the topic. "Me" being whomever is speaking.

A "moderate" is alternatively either an insult, if it's someone who used to agree with me on the particular topic or usually agrees with me but doesn't on this topic, or, it is a "compliment" if it refers to someone who can be manipulated or bribed to agree with me.


Everyone else is a fringe, lunatic.

[SIGSHR]

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."

[breakingcontact]

I haven't moved to the Right. The society/culture and elected officials have moved to the left.

[Nathan]

Topics like this weird me out a bit. Here we are talking about middle ground on an unalienable right which has already been infringed upon. Those infringements have not improve the public's safety to they level implied, promised or desired by some.

IMHO, the middle ground is a location which woul require a sigificant expansion of gun rights from where we are today.

Then, it would require real analysis of the conditions we as society hope to improve.

[amd6547]

I find the support for background checks humorous. In my youth, anyone could order any kind of firearm through the mail, with no "FFL". Every store, including Sears, had M1 carbines on display, on the sales floor unlocked, with ammo stacked nearby on the shelf...no supervision, and no problems, either.
An honest man could carry a handgun without a government permit.

[thallub]

Topics like this weird me out a bit. Here we are talking about middle ground on an unalienable right which has already been infringed upon. Those infringements have not improve the public's safety to they level implied, promised or desired by some.

+1
The present administration refuses to enforce present US gun laws while shilling for more restrictions on our Second Amendment rights. Then there is that tawdry gun running affair by the present administration.

Been doing this stuff since 1968. i have never seen gunowners so divided. Its nearly impossible to recruit gunowners to do anything to protect our gun rights. We have gunowners actually demanding more gun control. Folks are eaten up with the "me" aspect of gun control: "I have mine and it will be grand fathered". Ask the folks in NJ about grand fathered "assault weapons".

Was living in WV at the time NJ residents were required to turn in their newly outlawed guns or get them out of the state. i still have guns a friend brought to WV for safekeeping. He passed away and NJ still has an "assault weapons" ban.

Gunowners need to wake up and realize the anti-gunners in the US congress are also anti-self defense and, for the most part, anti-hunting. Despite the cheap rhetoric about "common sense" gun control and their grudging acknowledgement by some of our Second Amendment rights; they will not rest until all our guns are confiscated.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by thallub

. . . .Been doing this stuff since 1968. i have never seen gunowners so divided. . . .

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.

[SPEMack618]

The thing is, you can be a moderate on most things in regards to your political view points, but that moderate viewpoint, atleast from my perspective doesn't do us any good as gun owners.

And I don't mean that as holster rattling, even though that is a really neat term, I mean that as a statement of fact.

I learned in Intro to Political Science that most moderates don't get invovled in politics other than to watch the news and form thier opinions on whom to vote.

I think, we as gunowners, can't afford that strategy.

[Brian Pfleuger]

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.

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.

Even non-gun people seem to be behind the gunners. The anti arguments are so extreme that most everyone else is united against them.

[thallub]

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.

Very recently there was a post on thr by a gentleman from CO. Despite the fact that the anti-gunners are running rampant in the CO legislature; the OP had no luck organizing opposition to gun control bills in the legislature. His experience parallels mine. i can't get gunowners off their lazy butts to write their congressmen.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by Apom

I'm all for background checks. I have no criminal background. I do not plan to commit any crimes in the future.

Mandatory background checks on all purchases would save lives. If this was not the case..then the current laws governing machine guns would not work..and schools, malls, and movie theaters would have higher casualty rates because the shooters would be using machine guns.

You realize of course that in Virginia Tech, Aurora, and the Giffords shooting, all of the shooters purchased their firearms through an FFL and underwent a background check?

Second, you should be reading the actual text of these bills. The current bill proposed by Schumer would make you a criminal if you left home for two weeks and asked someone to housesit. It would allow you to give your brother a firearm but make you both a felon if he loans you one to hunt on your own land. It is chock full of ways for law-abiding citizens such as yourself to easily become criminals - and not just criminals; but felons who are denied any rights to own firearms. The bill is so extreme that even NRA F-rated Mark Kirk backed out of sponsoring it.

Also, mandatory background checks under the current system are the same as firearms registration. You are giving the same people who ate telling you they want to take away your guns a list of what guns you own? How is that going to end when there is another mass shooting not prevented by a background check?

Finally, I believe your logic regarding machineguns is flawed. Long guns of any type account for around 400 homicides a year - semi-auto long guns, despite being widespread, are almost never used in homicides. Machineguns are relatively rare and expensive. Given how rarely long guns are used at all in crime, it shouldn't be a shock it rarely happens (though Dorner did use several registered NFA weapons in his rampage).

[Truth Addict]

If the anti's negotiated in good faith, moderation would be possible. They will take your good faith today and be back for more tomorrow. The definition of an assault weapon can change a lot in 50 years, so can the criteria of who's allowed to buy firearms. The path to hell is paved one brick at a time. Any concession now is a step closer to an outright repeal of the 2nd Amendment.