Is anyone else fed up with the extremism on both sides of the gun/gun control debate? - Page 3

Ridge_Runner_5 · December 30, 2012, 02:05 PM

The problem is, that even if you are making fair proposals, your posts are coming off as combative, which is going to put the reader on the defensive, and less likely to pay attention to the content of your message.

nate45 · December 30, 2012, 02:09 PM

We have to use logic and common sense though.

Firearms are weapons in and of themselves. Cars, spoons, ball bats, etc aren't weapons in and of themselves. Trying to run away from that fact, or making bad analogies isn't useful in my opinion.

myshoulderissore · December 30, 2012, 02:10 PM

I never called anyone insane. I referred to the extremisms coming from both sides as insanity. One does not have to be an unreasonable person to do an unreasonable thing.

And as far as me seeming combative, I don't intend to be hostile. I do intend to provoke, but only thought. I we can't open our eyes to reality, and we get stuck in the black -vs- white ONLY idea, then we move nowhere, and it is merely a game of tug-of-war. If we can move beyond that, and discuss reality, and figure out better solutions, then maybe BOTH sides can have their cake and eat it, too.

buck460XVR · December 30, 2012, 02:20 PM

Quote:

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.

I know exactly what form of government we have.

Other than in cases of our presidential elections, as you stated, our officials are elected by the majority of those that vote. The reason we vote them in is because they reflect our ideals and interests. So, basically the sentiments of the majority in this country are reflected by those we elect. While the chest pounding, "from my dead hand" rants will receive cheers and applause from us here on this and other gun forums, one need not be a brain surgeon to see we are in trouble on other fronts. This is called being realistic. If one looks at the general consensus of those here about who should be our President, and who really got elected, it's quite obvious that we do not have total control over all of our interests. I am the last one to want to give up any of my already stifled rights. I am also the last one that wants to argue with a fellow gun enthusiast about our rights or the form of government we have. I am just admitting we have a tough row to hoe. I am not admitting defeat, nor am I giving in. I just stated we have a uphill battle to fight against current gun sentiment in this country. Arguing with fellow gun owners about trivial things is not gonna make it any easier. We need to unite our ranks, not divide them. Apparently your opinion differs.

BGutzman · December 30, 2012, 02:21 PM

Quote:

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.

The founding fathers in there own time had relatively few gun laws and low and behold the world didn't end... It wasn't a giant firefight zone in the 13 colonies in the post revolutionary era.

Even in almost utterly lawless places in Afghanistan every day is not a firefight amongst the locals... And from what I have read of our own history it seems most the gun laws were enacted to keep the drunks from shooting up the place, not from endless blood filled vendettas. Of course there exceptions, but then again they were not by far the norm.

I contend that you could eliminate every single law that controls or regulates guns with the exception of background checks for felons and the like and you would have hardly a blip change in the murder rate or if anything the overall rate would go down. The reasoning is humans are community animals and we need each other to maintain our lifestyles and existence.

If it were legal to give you a M60 machine gun and a ton of ammunition are you going to go shoot up the place where you work and live? No probably not and neither are most other people. BG's you your area would also be very hesitant to attack you or your home or your loved ones.

So my long answer to your question is the laws we currently have create the opportunity and social climate for these mass shootings. If you know were your going is going to be totally unarmed then what's to stop you if your a BG? The social climate of fear about guns feeds into this self perpetuating cycle. Gun laws don't work, parenting, community and recognition of people with serious mental stability can all go along way to addressing the issues we face. To stop treating serious mental illness the same as a cold would be helpful.

joshf128 · December 30, 2012, 02:24 PM

Wow. I'm pretty surprised at everybody dogpiling on myshoulderissore when he did not suggest anything approaching infringement of the 2nd amendment. I have all the respect in the world for our veterans and for the constitution and believe that an assault weapons ban would be extremely ineffective at curtailing gun violence. That said, what part of requiring background checks for all firearms purchases or transfers violates the 2nd amendment? Or requiring a gun safety class before obtaining a firearm for the first time? Both of those things would allow law abiding citizens to have access to guns and a safety class would hopefully prevent at least some negligent discharges.

The extreme response to the OP by some of the people in this thread is a prime example of our community perpetuating the stereotype of the rabid gun nut that the mainstream media wants to attach to us. I understand it is a passionate subject that we all feel deeply about, but engaging in debate and proposing solutions does not constitute weakness.

Glenn E. Meyer · December 30, 2012, 02:29 PM

Oh, relax folks - I know this is a difficult time and folks are being a touch reactive.

I don't think the OP is calling us insane but just using a term (perhaps too strong) to argue that sides are moving into dichotomous positions.

It's called group polarization when folks leave the middle or near the middle and then take polar and immutable positions. Then they yell at each other and if there are any sensible discussions, they are submerged by the rhetoric.

Let me give you an example, when CCW and CHL laws were proposed, some absolutist organizations, esp. one major organization denounced them as not needed because the 2nd Amend. was all that was needed. They attempted to sabotage some good CCW bills and did in at least one state. That there was a CCW law was seen as an evil compromise. Now we know that with 43 shall issue states - that movement was a triumph for gun owerns and probably saved the lives of those who wouldn't illegally carry.

So discuss without personal invective or seizing on words.

Glenn

myshoulderissore · December 30, 2012, 02:29 PM

Quote:

I contend that you could eliminate every single law that controls or regulates guns with the exception of background checks for felons and the like and you would have hardly a blip change in the murder rate or if anything the overall rate would go down. The reasoning is humans are community animals and we need each other to maintain our lifestyles and existence.

I agree completely, I just want to discuss real possibilities, because just doing away with them, going to zero, is not any sort of possibility for now. Maybe in the future, after steps have been taken towards that goal, but it's no kind of short term goal.

Quote:

If it were legal to give you a M60 machine gun and a ton of ammunition are you going to go shoot up the place where you work and live? No probably not and neither are most other people. BG's you your area would also be very hesitant to attack you or your home or your loved ones.

So my long answer to your question is the laws we currently have create the opportunity and social climate for these mass shootings. If you know were your going is going to be totally unarmed then what's to stop you if your a BG? The social climate of fear about guns feeds into this self perpetuating cycle. Gun laws don't work, parenting, community and recognition of people with serious mental stability can all go along way to addressing the issues we face. To stop treating serious mental illness the same as a cold would be helpful.

I agree completely with you, and would add that on the mental health issue, family and friends of anyone would be well served to not turn a blind eye to issues. Mentally unbalanced people do not just seek help, or even recognize that a problem is present.

Joe_Pike · December 30, 2012, 02:37 PM

It seems to me that the more restrictions there are, the more gun related crime there are. There was a time when firearms were a common sight and people didn't think anything about it when they would see a gun. Lots of folks took their guns to school with them so they could go hunting after classes. Now a gun is portrayed as evil and people have been trained to believe that. The trouble is not guns. The trouble is we have deteriorated as a society and more gun control can't change that. New gun laws will likely, with the stoke of a pen, turn me into a criminal in the eyes of the government. That completely baffles me since I have been a law abiding citizen my whole life that has worked and paid taxes without ever expecting anyone to give me anything.

myshoulderissore · December 30, 2012, 02:43 PM

So are there any views out there other than complete abolishment of all gun laws? Or is that (quite unobtainable) goal the *only* measure acceptable?

I'm asking for real opinions here, ideas that might work, rather than anecdotes for gun ownership or quoting of the 2A. I am pro-gun, there is no need to convert me.

buck460XVR · December 30, 2012, 02:53 PM

Quote:

I don't think the OP is calling us insane but just using a term (perhaps too strong) to argue that sides are moving into dichotomous positions.

It's called group polarization when folks leave the middle or near the middle and then take polar and immutable positions. Then they yell at each other and if there are any sensible discussions, they are submerged by the rhetoric.

I agree. But like the last coupla Presidential elections that were decided by moderate independents, I truly believe this debate will be settles by those in the middle. Not by the hard core anti's or Pro gun folk, but those more neutral and unaffected. In the last two weeks one can hardly go anywhere, be it work, family get togethers or any other socialization, without this emotional topic coming up. What bothers me is not the talk from either of the extreme groups....but the talk from those that didn't care to be involved before or left the discussion for others. Those folks with one gun or only knowing someone with a gun. Before it was not an issue for them....now it is. Before the thought of Hi-Cap mags or EBRs was something distant and did not affect them. Now, because of the media saturation and the Hi-Profile given to finding an easy and fast solution, they are becoming vocal and involved. These are the folks we need to convince and not drive away. These are the people we need to court and sway. Not bully and intimidate by trash talk and internet boasts. No anti is gonna change the minds of any of us here and vice versa. It's the majority of folks next door, sittin' on the fence that can and will change the future of gun ownership here in America.

myshoulderissore · December 30, 2012, 03:08 PM

Quote:

I agree. But like the last coupla Presidential elections that were decided by moderate independents, I truly believe this debate will be settles by those in the middle. Not by the hard core anti's or Pro gun folk, but those more neutral and unaffected. In the last two weeks one can hardly go anywhere, be it work, family get togethers or any other socialization, without this emotional topic coming up. What bothers me is not the talk from either of the extreme groups....but the talk from those that didn't care to be involved before or left the discussion for others. Those folks with one gun or only knowing someone with a gun. Before it was not an issue for them....now it is. Before the thought of Hi-Cap mags or EBRs was something distant and did not affect them. Now, because of the media saturation and the Hi-Profile given to finding an easy and fast solution, they are becoming vocal and involved. These are the folks we need to convince and not drive away. These are the people we need to court and sway. Not bully and intimidate by trash talk and internet boasts. No anti is gonna change the minds of any of us here and vice versa. It's the majority of folks next door, sittin' on the fence that can and will change the future of gun ownership here in America.

Thanks for your post, this is one of the reasons I want to address the issue rationally for. The masses don't have an opinion, and near anarchist views are less convincing than the ban everything views to a lot of folks. Providing reasonable arguments and objectives is something I am looking for, something I want to promote.

fire4606 · December 30, 2012, 03:10 PM

Joshf128 and Glenn E. Mayer.. EXACTLY........

I'd be all for abolishing all gun laws and starting over with this base..

1.) background checks before any purchases as they are currently done to include private parties, with improvements to catch mental health issues.

2.) firearms safety class

3.) a real gun safe for securing said items when not in use..

After completing those three things you can do as you please, that leaves everything else legal, CCW, Class 3, etc..etc..

MedicineBow · December 30, 2012, 03:14 PM

...and of course middle ground should be discussed, rather than having a debate dominated by people at opposite poles screaming at each other.

It's more entertaining (and more lucrative for those who host the platforms), I suppose, for these two poles to chew the scenery:

First, the gun-banners: they ignore the Second Amendment, the realities of the horse being so far out of the barn it's a speck on the horizon, the facts (which I won't try to enumerate) of the benefits of firearm ownership for the vast, vast majority of law-abiding citizens. Etc.

Second, the Second Amendment absolutists: they ignore that every right is regulated, and that the constitution is a constitution, not a legal code. They ignore that the text is only the starting point, not the ending point. Etc.

It turns out, of course, that most folks, good and rational folks, are sprinkled through the middle: they recognize rights and the benefits of firearms (broadly stated) but also recognize that with a whole bunch of extremely dangerous instrumentalities out there, we need to be able to sort out what makes sense as far as limits or regulations. That doesn't lead automatically to any conclusions -- obviously -- but the more room we give those to talk, and the less room we give the extremists, the better off we are.

zxcvbob · December 30, 2012, 03:28 PM

In my opinion, we need to...

roll gun laws back to 1966 (repeal the Omnibus Crime Act of 1968 and GCA 1968, both are clearly and obviously unconstitutional.)
Next, take silencers off the NFA list and reopen the machine gun registry.
Then, start working on repealing the 1934 NFA completely. This one will take a while.

You can do them in the wrong order and I won't complain.

Guns are not the problem. They might be a symptom.

olddav · December 30, 2012, 03:38 PM

When one proposes compromise in regard to constutional rights, the predictable result is the errosion of constutional rights!

Salmoneye · December 30, 2012, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by myshoulderissore

I just want to discuss real possibilities,

Yet the only 'middle ground solution' you have put forward is to require citizens to 'take a class' like hunter safety in order to exercise a right...

joshf128 · December 30, 2012, 03:49 PM

What part of mandatory background checks erodes 2A? I know many people here enjoy purchasing or selling their guns at gun shows and that adding a 4473 and background check to that transaction might be a slight inconvenience, but if it can help to keep guns away from the "bad guys" then what is the harm?

That said, I am not aware of any mass shooting where the weapon was obtained through the so-called gun show exemption.

HiBC · December 30, 2012, 03:50 PM

OK,all this talk of compromise seems to only go one way.

When Diane Feinstein will sit down and have a rational discussion of adding "Marksmanship" to high school PE classes (it is an Olympic sport) then I will consider it compromise.

The ONLY reversals in restrictive gun leglislation have come through court victories declaring anti-gun laws unconstitutional.

I do not consider that to be a compromomise.

I resent and reject the idea that I am an anarchist because I demand temporary elected officials hold true to their oath to "Defend and Protect the Constitution of the United States"

Honoring the founding supreme law of the land is not anarchy.

Jefferson's comment on the RTKBA "to prevent tyranny in government" IMO,is not so much about an armed uprising and overthrow of the government"
It is more like the canary in a cage in a mine assuring the air is good to breathe for a miner.
If the 2nd Ammendment is compromised,the canary of Liberty is dead.

Appeasement is not the answer.Conceding is not the answer.Winston Churchill knew the answer.Never,never,NEVER give in.

Times of high emotion are exactly the wrong time to alter the Constitution.

BTW,check the fact that per FBI statistics,gun violence is down.Media coverage is up.

For sheer horrific violence comparison,go to youtube and check out "Rules of Engagement".It has a much higher body count.

I have no doubt David Koresh deserved to be arrested for non-capital crimes.I had no sympathy for him.But it seems the collateral damage on innocent men ,women,and children was not justified,so our own government was the mass murderer in this case.

Look,in the 20th century,at who truly was the greatest murderer of innocent men,women,and children.The victims own tyrannical governments.They do it by the millions.

We must preserve,defend,and protect the Constitution.Period.No compromise.

myshoulderissore · December 30, 2012, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Yet the only 'middle ground solution' you have put forward is to require citizens to 'take a class' like hunter safety in order to exercise a right...

And you contributed approximately nothing. Aiming for me solves nothing, sticking to the polar opposites solves nothing. I proposed that as a replacement for other, restrictive measures, because the fact is the anti's will not just go away, and restrictions are already in place. You can't go from 100 to 0 without passing through 80, and several other numbers.

myshoulderissore · December 30, 2012, 03:59 PM

Quote:

We must preserve,defend,and protect the Constitution.Period.No compromise.

How reasonable is this? Do you think that gun laws are just going to poof out of existence? Compromise is already here, has already happened. Do you have ANY solutions other than "my way or the highway"?

Hal · December 30, 2012, 04:02 PM

Quote:

The masses don't have an opinion

That's an utterly false statement and incredibly naive.
Of course the masses have an opinion.
Everybody has an opinion on everything.
It's just not either a strong opinion or one based in fact.

But then again - by your own admission you have no desire to win support from the masses.

With an attitude like that, the anti's have already won...

Quote:

Do you have ANY solutions other than "my way or the highway"?

Sorry to point this out to you - but - that seems to be your attitude in spades...

NWPilgrim · December 30, 2012, 04:07 PM

I notice a spate of "can't we be reasonable gun owners" posts on several gun friendly forums. Is this really gun owners coming out of the closet or is there an astroturf campaign being waged to try to sway gun owners?

Anyone who considers staunch, unequivocal support of the literal and historic intent if the 2A to be "extreme" is mighty suspect to me. The responses in this thread amply demonstrate the OP is out of touch with most gun enthusiasts. He should examine his own beliefs as being extreme, in the wrong direction.

BTW I can't recall the name of a single founding father famous for his willingness to seek compromise and accommodation for reasonable Stamp Acts, reasonable quartering of soldiers, or reasonable restriction of speech and the press.

When the British held firm on their policies, it was not compromise that won our freedom. And the gun grabbers of today have no more intention to compromise away any laws they have in place than did the Brits of 1775.

olddav · December 30, 2012, 04:19 PM

Well said NWPilgrim

myshoulderissore · December 30, 2012, 04:32 PM

Yes, I'm a spy... Really?

What is wrong with wanting discussion other than "BAN IT ALL" vs "UNRESTRICT EVERYTHING"?

My ideal scenario - Open and concealed carry legal everywhere, except some reasonable places, such as the White House, nothing drastic though. Education pushed actively to gun owners, not just some pamphlet that goes to the trash (maybe a ccw course for everyone??). Safe storage, handling, and usage of firearms pushed. Background checks, sure, because it is a legitimate way to weed out some folks who need not own guns. Suppressors, automatic weapons, SBR/SBS not any more restricted than "normal" guns.

I really think that EVERYONE should be exposed to shooting sports, not that I want it mandatory, but it's great fun, and a great way to educate the masses on at least some basics, regardless of ownership of guns, and a great way to remove the stigma of gun ownership and the irrational "fear" of guns.

Does this sound unreasonable?

December 30, 2012, 02:09 PM	#52
nate45 Senior Member Join Date: July 15, 2007 Location: Illinois Posts: 3,746	We have to use logic and common sense though. Firearms are weapons in and of themselves. Cars, spoons, ball bats, etc aren't weapons in and of themselves. Trying to run away from that fact, or making bad analogies isn't useful in my opinion. __________________ "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ (>_<)

December 30, 2012, 02:29 PM	#57
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Oh, relax folks - I know this is a difficult time and folks are being a touch reactive. I don't think the OP is calling us insane but just using a term (perhaps too strong) to argue that sides are moving into dichotomous positions. It's called group polarization when folks leave the middle or near the middle and then take polar and immutable positions. Then they yell at each other and if there are any sensible discussions, they are submerged by the rhetoric. Let me give you an example, when CCW and CHL laws were proposed, some absolutist organizations, esp. one major organization denounced them as not needed because the 2nd Amend. was all that was needed. They attempted to sabotage some good CCW bills and did in at least one state. That there was a CCW law was seen as an evil compromise. Now we know that with 43 shall issue states - that movement was a triumph for gun owerns and probably saved the lives of those who wouldn't illegally carry. So discuss without personal invective or seizing on words. Glenn __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

December 30, 2012, 02:37 PM	#59
Joe_Pike Senior Member Join Date: December 30, 2010 Posts: 1,581	It seems to me that the more restrictions there are, the more gun related crime there are. There was a time when firearms were a common sight and people didn't think anything about it when they would see a gun. Lots of folks took their guns to school with them so they could go hunting after classes. Now a gun is portrayed as evil and people have been trained to believe that. The trouble is not guns. The trouble is we have deteriorated as a society and more gun control can't change that. New gun laws will likely, with the stoke of a pen, turn me into a criminal in the eyes of the government. That completely baffles me since I have been a law abiding citizen my whole life that has worked and paid taxes without ever expecting anyone to give me anything. __________________ Stay Groovy

December 30, 2012, 03:14 PM	#64
MedicineBow Senior Member Join Date: May 15, 2008 Location: Wyoming Posts: 297	Of course there's middle ground... ...and of course middle ground should be discussed, rather than having a debate dominated by people at opposite poles screaming at each other. It's more entertaining (and more lucrative for those who host the platforms), I suppose, for these two poles to chew the scenery: First, the gun-banners: they ignore the Second Amendment, the realities of the horse being so far out of the barn it's a speck on the horizon, the facts (which I won't try to enumerate) of the benefits of firearm ownership for the vast, vast majority of law-abiding citizens. Etc. Second, the Second Amendment absolutists: they ignore that every right is regulated, and that the constitution is a constitution, not a legal code. They ignore that the text is only the starting point, not the ending point. Etc. It turns out, of course, that most folks, good and rational folks, are sprinkled through the middle: they recognize rights and the benefits of firearms (broadly stated) but also recognize that with a whole bunch of extremely dangerous instrumentalities out there, we need to be able to sort out what makes sense as far as limits or regulations. That doesn't lead automatically to any conclusions -- obviously -- but the more room we give those to talk, and the less room we give the extremists, the better off we are. __________________ Dulce bellum inexpertis

December 30, 2012, 03:28 PM	#65
zxcvbob Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 2007 Location: S.E. Minnesota Posts: 4,720	In my opinion, we need to... roll gun laws back to 1966 (repeal the Omnibus Crime Act of 1968 and GCA 1968, both are clearly and obviously unconstitutional.) Next, take silencers off the NFA list and reopen the machine gun registry. Then, start working on repealing the 1934 NFA completely. This one will take a while. You can do them in the wrong order and I won't complain. Guns are not the problem. They might be a symptom. __________________ "Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth

December 30, 2012, 02:05 PM	#51
Ridge_Runner_5 Senior Member Join Date: February 8, 2008 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 1,925	The problem is, that even if you are making fair proposals, your posts are coming off as combative, which is going to put the reader on the defensive, and less likely to pay attention to the content of your message.

December 30, 2012, 02:10 PM	#53
myshoulderissore Senior Member Join Date: September 12, 2010 Location: Boise, ID Posts: 447	I never called anyone insane. I referred to the extremisms coming from both sides as insanity. One does not have to be an unreasonable person to do an unreasonable thing. And as far as me seeming combative, I don't intend to be hostile. I do intend to provoke, but only thought. I we can't open our eyes to reality, and we get stuck in the black -vs- white ONLY idea, then we move nowhere, and it is merely a game of tug-of-war. If we can move beyond that, and discuss reality, and figure out better solutions, then maybe BOTH sides can have their cake and eat it, too.

December 30, 2012, 02:24 PM	#56
joshf128 Member Join Date: February 19, 2012 Posts: 51	Wow. I'm pretty surprised at everybody dogpiling on myshoulderissore when he did not suggest anything approaching infringement of the 2nd amendment. I have all the respect in the world for our veterans and for the constitution and believe that an assault weapons ban would be extremely ineffective at curtailing gun violence. That said, what part of requiring background checks for all firearms purchases or transfers violates the 2nd amendment? Or requiring a gun safety class before obtaining a firearm for the first time? Both of those things would allow law abiding citizens to have access to guns and a safety class would hopefully prevent at least some negligent discharges. The extreme response to the OP by some of the people in this thread is a prime example of our community perpetuating the stereotype of the rabid gun nut that the mainstream media wants to attach to us. I understand it is a passionate subject that we all feel deeply about, but engaging in debate and proposing solutions does not constitute weakness.

December 30, 2012, 02:43 PM	#60
myshoulderissore Senior Member Join Date: September 12, 2010 Location: Boise, ID Posts: 447	So are there any views out there other than complete abolishment of all gun laws? Or is that (quite unobtainable) goal the only measure acceptable? I'm asking for real opinions here, ideas that might work, rather than anecdotes for gun ownership or quoting of the 2A. I am pro-gun, there is no need to convert me.

December 30, 2012, 03:10 PM	#63
fire4606 Senior Member Join Date: May 6, 2011 Posts: 216	Joshf128 and Glenn E. Mayer.. EXACTLY........ I'd be all for abolishing all gun laws and starting over with this base.. 1.) background checks before any purchases as they are currently done to include private parties, with improvements to catch mental health issues. 2.) firearms safety class 3.) a real gun safe for securing said items when not in use.. After completing those three things you can do as you please, that leaves everything else legal, CCW, Class 3, etc..etc..

December 30, 2012, 03:38 PM	#66
olddav Senior Member Join Date: December 21, 2008 Location: Lower Alabama Posts: 727	When one proposes compromise in regard to constutional rights, the predictable result is the errosion of constutional rights! __________________ Never beat your head against the wall with out a helmet

December 30, 2012, 03:49 PM	#68
joshf128 Member Join Date: February 19, 2012 Posts: 51	What part of mandatory background checks erodes 2A? I know many people here enjoy purchasing or selling their guns at gun shows and that adding a 4473 and background check to that transaction might be a slight inconvenience, but if it can help to keep guns away from the "bad guys" then what is the harm? That said, I am not aware of any mass shooting where the weapon was obtained through the so-called gun show exemption.

December 30, 2012, 03:50 PM	#69
HiBC Senior Member Join Date: November 13, 2006 Posts: 8,286	OK,all this talk of compromise seems to only go one way. When Diane Feinstein will sit down and have a rational discussion of adding "Marksmanship" to high school PE classes (it is an Olympic sport) then I will consider it compromise. The ONLY reversals in restrictive gun leglislation have come through court victories declaring anti-gun laws unconstitutional. I do not consider that to be a compromomise. I resent and reject the idea that I am an anarchist because I demand temporary elected officials hold true to their oath to "Defend and Protect the Constitution of the United States" Honoring the founding supreme law of the land is not anarchy. Jefferson's comment on the RTKBA "to prevent tyranny in government" IMO,is not so much about an armed uprising and overthrow of the government" It is more like the canary in a cage in a mine assuring the air is good to breathe for a miner. If the 2nd Ammendment is compromised,the canary of Liberty is dead. Appeasement is not the answer.Conceding is not the answer.Winston Churchill knew the answer.Never,never,NEVER give in. Times of high emotion are exactly the wrong time to alter the Constitution. BTW,check the fact that per FBI statistics,gun violence is down.Media coverage is up. For sheer horrific violence comparison,go to youtube and check out "Rules of Engagement".It has a much higher body count. I have no doubt David Koresh deserved to be arrested for non-capital crimes.I had no sympathy for him.But it seems the collateral damage on innocent men ,women,and children was not justified,so our own government was the mass murderer in this case. Look,in the 20th century,at who truly was the greatest murderer of innocent men,women,and children.The victims own tyrannical governments.They do it by the millions. We must preserve,defend,and protect the Constitution.Period.No compromise.

December 30, 2012, 04:07 PM	#73
NWPilgrim Senior Member Join Date: September 29, 2008 Location: Oregon Posts: 2,346	I notice a spate of "can't we be reasonable gun owners" posts on several gun friendly forums. Is this really gun owners coming out of the closet or is there an astroturf campaign being waged to try to sway gun owners? Anyone who considers staunch, unequivocal support of the literal and historic intent if the 2A to be "extreme" is mighty suspect to me. The responses in this thread amply demonstrate the OP is out of touch with most gun enthusiasts. He should examine his own beliefs as being extreme, in the wrong direction. BTW I can't recall the name of a single founding father famous for his willingness to seek compromise and accommodation for reasonable Stamp Acts, reasonable quartering of soldiers, or reasonable restriction of speech and the press. When the British held firm on their policies, it was not compromise that won our freedom. And the gun grabbers of today have no more intention to compromise away any laws they have in place than did the Brits of 1775.

December 30, 2012, 04:19 PM	#74
olddav Senior Member Join Date: December 21, 2008 Location: Lower Alabama Posts: 727	Well said NWPilgrim __________________ Never beat your head against the wall with out a helmet

December 30, 2012, 04:32 PM	#75
myshoulderissore Senior Member Join Date: September 12, 2010 Location: Boise, ID Posts: 447	Yes, I'm a spy... Really? What is wrong with wanting discussion other than "BAN IT ALL" vs "UNRESTRICT EVERYTHING"? My ideal scenario - Open and concealed carry legal everywhere, except some reasonable places, such as the White House, nothing drastic though. Education pushed actively to gun owners, not just some pamphlet that goes to the trash (maybe a ccw course for everyone??). Safe storage, handling, and usage of firearms pushed. Background checks, sure, because it is a legitimate way to weed out some folks who need not own guns. Suppressors, automatic weapons, SBR/SBS not any more restricted than "normal" guns. I really think that EVERYONE should be exposed to shooting sports, not that I want it mandatory, but it's great fun, and a great way to educate the masses on at least some basics, regardless of ownership of guns, and a great way to remove the stigma of gun ownership and the irrational "fear" of guns. Does this sound unreasonable?