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

[myshoulderissore]

The insanity is that pro-gunners won't budge, and want guns for everyone, with no restrictions or controls, and anti-gunners want all guns banned. There is middle ground. I believe that neither solution works, and neither solution actually addresses the facts in any sort of reasonable manner.

The fact is, guns can be a way to protect oneself, can be a way to get food, can be dangerous, can be fun, and more. Education about gun safety should be promoted, and access control should be promoted. Keeping guns out of the hands of the demented, the hands of children, and the hands of those who break laws should not have to restrict responsible users from ownership.

I am dedicated to discussing promoting reasonable methods to promote gun control AND gun ownership. Safe usage of guns should be priority #1 of gun ownership. This includes both safe handling practices and control over who can access them, on a personal level. 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.

I love my guns, but I also recognize the need to keep them out of certain hands, and the way things are going it is looking like it’s only one way or the other. Let’s have both!

Am I insane, or seeing something here? I want middle ground!

[ronl]

I, for one, am not willing to give up any more of my rights, PERIOD. We have had so many of our rights whittled away. Just take a good look around. There is no privacy. Our phone calls and e-mails are monitored, there are cameras everywhere, they can and do use drones to watch us, and with the coming of the new health care provisions, they have access to all our money in any bank account. To me, gun rights is simply where I draw a line in the sand. To begin with, you simply cannot reason with those willing to drink the hogwash blathered by the misleading mainstream media. I tried last week to reasonably conduct a polite conversation with those on the Million Moms For Gun Control. I tried to point out that the problems is with people, and that we all could support ways to keep guns out of the hands of people with mental issues without harming 2A rights. I was banned from the page and my comments erased; so much for civil discourse.

[BarryLee]

The insanity is that pro-gunners won't budge, and want guns for everyone, with no restrictions or controls

Well, I suppose I fall into that pro-gun camp, but do not agree that everyone should have guns with no restrictions. I doubt that many on this site or gun owners in general think that either.

First we need to do a better job of enforcing the numerous laws which already exist. This means not allowing criminals to plea bargain a firearms crime down to something else for expediency. Those who are convicted need to do more time. Yes, I know prisons do not rehabilitate and that they probably come out worse than when they went in. However, while they’re in they are not hurting innocent people.

Secondly, look at ways of getting the names of people who should be restricted into NICS. We need to assure that all governmental agencies are reporting as required. There have been reports that some States are not doing this. We need to discuss how to enter the names of the mentally ill into the system I don’t know what criteria should be used, but we need to consider this. Also, as I said earlier people who use guns in the commission of a crime should be in the system even if they are allowed to plead to a lesser crime.

[Tom Servo]

I want middle ground!

To imply that there's a middle ground is to imply that each side is willing to put something forth.

What have people pushing stricter controls offered us? Nothing. Oh, maybe they won't push for Restriction B if we agree to Restriction A, but that's more bullying and extortion than it is negotiation.

[zxcvbob]

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

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by myshoulderissore

The insanity is that pro-gunners won't budge, and want guns for everyone, with no restrictions or controls, and anti-gunners want all guns banned. There is middle ground. I believe that neither solution works, and neither solution actually addresses the facts in any sort of reasonable manner.

...

Am I insane, or seeing something here?

I don't think you are insane, but I do think you are absent-minded. You appear to have forgotten that pesky 2nd Amendment thing.

Where is the "middle ground" in a statement as straightforward as "shall not be infringed"? I think we've given up (as in lost) a tremendous amount of what is supposed to be our absolute right to keep and bear arms already. I see no reason why we should be expected to give up more.

Have you seen this? http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2...-ill-play.html

Scroll down about a quarter of the way, until he gets to the part about discussing "compromise."

[okiewita40]

As a sportsman the state I live in as well as the feds already state what I can and can't use as far as amounts of ammo what type and so forth. As a private citizen I can not own anything full auto with out jumping through a bunch of hoops not to mention a bunch of money. As a LEO I do not want to nor will I take a gun from a law abiding citizen.

What should be focused on is the black market that is there which is where most of the thugs get their guns. If they don't steal them out right.

Now ask this to someone that wants to ban guns. If you were being robbed/mugged/raped. Would you A) let the thug do whatever and live with it. An hope he doesn't kill you. B) Try and call the police and hope you have time to dial 911 and wait for the cops to get there. C) Have someone with a CCW shoot the thug and stop him.

I know that from having 4 sisters, my mom, wife, daughter and grand-daughter I know I would go for C vs. A or B. YMMV

[stevelyn]

I, for one, am not willing to give up any more of my rights, PERIOD.

Neither am I and I will regard someone trying to throw me under the bus as the enemy they are.

The right to keep and bear arms is all or nothing.

The insanity is that pro-gunners won't budge, and want guns for everyone, with no restrictions or controls,

You seem to be forgetting that we are already have restrictions and controls. We have more restrictions and controls on the tools of exercising of a Constitutional right than than any other manufactured product.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I refuse to give up any more (ptooh).

[wayneinFL]

If we keep giving up a few rights to keep the rest of our rights, sooner or later we're going to run out of rights to give away.

[NWPilgrim]

What is "extreme" about defending liberty? What honor is there in compromising freedom? Moderation and compromise are the very enemy of protecting the individual from the state or in defending one self.

Extreme is the govt wanting to disarm the populace, especially the law-abiding citizens. 20,000 gun laws on the books today is extreme.

You are not insane but you lack a burning love if liberty and you lack the respect of yourself and your fellow citizens as free men.

I reject the perceived need to compromise our God-given, inalienable rights of man to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property and privacy).

Besides, compromise has not brought security and only increases govt control of individuals. Just look at the most gun restrictive states and cities.

[foxytwo]

Compromise the second amendment? No way. Then we would have to start compromising the rest of the constitution, which is happening a little bit at a time. The second amendment may have to be used in the future. How many liberals would want to compromise the first amendment?

[NickySantoro]

What part of "shall not be infringed" seems extreme to you, OP?

[Pilot]

We already have TONS of restrictions, and controls on guns, to the point I need to beg my state for a CCW permit and still can not carry a gun in many states across the nation yet I have a spotless record.

What more controls and restrictions do you want on law abiding citizens with regards to guns? Criminals don't care about laws and restrictions, only us law abiding do.

Everything the shooter in CT did was already illegal including stealing funs from his mother. Did that stop him?

[geetarman]

Our Second Amendment rights have been eroded little by little by some folks who are well intentioned, but not terribly well informed, as well by folks who know exactly what they intend to do and have not deviated from their expressed purpose of removing any and all guns from the hands of private citizens.

I am not willing to compromise at all. I am finished trying to have a dialogue with people who have no intention to compromise.

Leave me and my guns alone.

[thedudeabides]

Lack of enforcement of gun laws is our problem.

Lack of properly diagnosing and treating people with mental health issues is our problem.

Adding arbitrary gun control laws based on hysteria doesn't make anyone safe or the country any better (just see how great Prohibition or the Patriot act made America). Melting down every law abiding citizen's gun won't stop or curb violent crime. Look at statistics in cities where guns are all but illegal like Chicago and DC; liberals will just say that's "gang violence" on TV to explain away why an idyllic gun-free zone of a city is in actuality a Wild West shootout.

Our problem is that we demand our government "do something" when a tragedy happens, and when they "do something" they erode away our Constitutional rights.

There cannot be a compromise, conversation, or whatever the code word for regulation is these days.

What's worse is that the media is taking up the cause of anti-gun activism... like those jackasses posting the names and addresses of gun permit holders in NY.

[Amsdorf]

It seems to me that the focus should remain on the issues and principles and truth involved in these debates and not on persons, on either side of the issue.

That is nearly impossible in our media saturated world that thrives on filling the ever hungry 24 hour news cycle.

Those who make the most "video worthy" comments or do the most "video worthy" things are the ones who will be highlighted and then suddenly *they* become the focus of the discussion, not the issues.

[BGutzman]

Which part of "Shall not be infringed" doesn't the OP understand? Preserving a right is not extremism... You don't do away with a freedom because it can be misused....

If a drunk driver kills someone we don't blame the car.... Why not? This is exactly to the letter what we do with guns! Not to mention so many things kill way more people than guns and yet we seem to have no uproar about it...

The Center for Disease control has a whole database of things more dangerous than guns and its posted on line and guns are part of the database... Heck 1/3 of what people claim is gun violence (roughly 11,000 deaths per year) are suicides..... They in general didn't kill someone else they just did in themselves and if you break it down by age most of these suicides are middle aged and very old men. People get sick, people get cancer, people get all kinds of horrible, painful terminal things and they decided not to live with it.

If believing in the 2A as written is extreme, than I am as extreme as you can get. I harm no one, I am a loyal and lawful citizen, even if I rail against our current atmosphere of security, security, take freedom and make all my life choices for me society. No sir, no disrespect, we have given way too much of our gun rights up.. I will spend as much of my disposable income as I can to fight every anti 2A law on the books and my voice will not be quieted. I will continue to take the uninitiated to the range and work to educate the fearful masses...

Someone please show me where in the Bill of Rights is says I can only use arms if they are locked in a safe or have trigger locks or the mags removed when I CCW or even the need to have a permit... It says "Shall not be infringed"

Of course we expect people to behave responsibly but do we have to legislate every possible thing? We have over 20,000 gun laws right now... when do we reach enough?

I mean no disrespect, Im sorry if my words are a bit harsh, but it is not aimed at you but your question in general but enough is enough... If we tried this crap with our other rights in similar way people would be marching on DC. We are already strangled by 20,000 plus anti gun laws..

[myshoulderissore]

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.

See, I don't think the CURRENT gun laws are necessarily good either. I don't want scary guns banned, I don't want magazines that hold more than 2 rounds banned. I am pro-gun myself. ARs, AKs, these are beautiful things to me! 100 round magazines are the shizz, allowing for some serious range fun! But if all "we" do on the pro gun side is talk in absolutes about no restrictions on anything, the anti crowd is going to remain ignorant, scared of black guns and "high" capacity magazines. I want to promote more talk about reforming current laws and processes, and looking at ways to effectively DO what the current laws are trying to do, without making law abiding, decent people have to jump through more hoops, lose any more privacy, or even put up with as much as currently happens. Talking in extremes loses out on all that, and makes for irrational political wars.

[myshoulderissore]

Also, there's no need to throw any examples such as banning cars due to drunk driving at me... I am the first to point out in daily conversations the fact that the "big" shootings happen where current gun control is at it's finest, including the Ft Hood incident. I am firmly pro-gun, I am just after a better way to do what the current gun laws try to do.

[cornbush]

If one law doesn't work why will 300 more be different?
The laws we have now are selectively enforced at best and completely brushed aside depending on who should be charged and sentenced.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by myshoulderissore

But if all "we" do on the pro gun side is talk in absolutes about no restrictions on anything, the anti crowd is going to remain ignorant, scared of black guns and "high" capacity magazines. I want to promote more talk about reforming current laws and processes, and looking at ways to effectively DO what the current laws are trying to do, without making law abiding, decent people have to jump through more hoops, lose any more privacy, or even put up with as much as currently happens.

Then join us in helping to turn the focus of the discussion away from guns, and toward school security and public safety.

Example: On December 14, 20 children and 6 staff were murdered in sandy Hook, Connecticut, by a nutcase with a gun. Sandy Hook is about 60 miles from New York City. NYC mayor Bloomburg immediately blamed the guns and said ALL schools in the country are unsafe as long as people have access to guns.

Within the two weeks since that shooting, two people have been murdered in NYC by being shoved in front of approaching subway trains. Mayor Bloomburg immediately blamed the nutcases who did the shoving, and proclaimed that NYC subway's are, on average, safe.

Do you not see the hypocrisy? If the guns are to blame when a nutcase shoots someone, then the train must be to blame when a nutcase uses a train to kill someone. Hundreds of million kids to to school every day of the week without being killed or even shot at, yet we have ONE incident in something like six years (I think the last school shooting in this country was the Amish school in October, 2006) and Bloomburg declares that schools are NOT safe, even though current statistics (depending on how far back you choose to parse your time frame) can easily be used used to show that a person in NYC is far more likely to die by being shoved under a train than any kid in America is likely to die by school shooting.

[myshoulderissore]

Aguila, I read the blog you linked, and I get it. I'm saying instead of taking the cake, gun control laws should attempt to keep the cake out of the hands of diabetics, and the original cake owner should get their cake back. These current gun control laws are ridiculous, I agree. The fact that there are CA approved guns, MA approved guns, is absolutely retarded. These gun laws merely restrict ownership indiscriminately, and affect the law abiding folks like you and me (I assume you are a decent fellow) rather than actually doing anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The only "additional" regulation I would propose is a requirement for gun safety education to buy guns. I've seen too many ignorant discharges on youtube and in person, and gun handling skills are to blame.

Keep in mind I don't want that ON TOP of current, I think replacing some of the ridiculous with some education to the masses would be a good thing. Waiting periods, regulations on "scary" parts like folding stocks and flash suppressors, and magazine restrictions are some that come to mind as "ready to go away".

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The problem of the middle ground, IMHO - is that a major portion of the antigun folks don't agree with two fundamental premises:

1. That armed self-defense is reasonable.
2. That defense against tyranny is a reasonable usage of personal firearms.

Now, surprisingly - I've heard Obama, McCarthy and Bloomberg mention in passing that people have the right to a gun in their home to defend themselves. Perhaps, they are keying off Heller. However, the NY Times editorial board had a recent hissy fit about CCW and CHLs - blood in the streets.

Feinstein, Schumer - etc. - are for removing all guns except sporting uses. On Meet the Press today - the panel was wondering why Gregory had to ask Obama about his gun control plans. The Pres. didn't bring it up. Brokaw talked about not understanding the gun culture and showed a Shotgun News as an example of how a deranged culture wants assault weapons. Since he is a gun owner and shoots birds - he supports having a gun but not an EBR. The sportsmen and women (who shoot birds, deer or paper) must join together to get rid of the EBRs. If you want one, perhaps it could be locked up at a club and then you check it out to shoot.

Well, most of us don't belong to fancy shooting clubs and targets/deer/tweety bird aren't the only reason for EBRs.

Unless, some middle ground acceptance of SD and tyranny rationales is found, then measures to limit access to criminals and the unstable is going to be tied up in the culture split. Unlimited access or no access positions make it hard to even to something like fund better NICS processing.

If I were Wayne LaP. I would start every speech by thanking Obama, Bloomberg and McCarthy for reasonably accepting SD - put them off their stride and move the goal posts. But I'm afraid, WLP isn't that deep at times.

BTW - some pundits think the fiscal mess will paralyze any gun legislation for years to come and then the public's outrage will decay. We will see.

[Xfire68]

myshoulderissore, "Middle ground" there is no such ground. The Anti's won't stop at these bans. They won't stop until they get 100% of what they want. NO GUNS!

So if you think that the pro gunners should calm down or offer up another piece of our freedom just to ease the tensions between the 2 groups I think maybe you should rethink your position?

[Fishing_Cabin]

I dont think its extreme to want, and work towards ensuring my children and grandchildren will continue to have at the very least the same level of rights, if not more, as I enjoy now. In fact, I feel I owe it to the future generations.

What new freedoms have been offered in exchange for new restrictions? I dont know of a single one. Nada, Zip, Nothing.