Previous Post
Next Post

“What I see us talking about in the media and on social media is this hardline, ‘Guns are evil, we need to get rid of all of them and the NRA’s evil,’ and, ‘You can pry my gun out of my cold, dead hand; don’t come after my guns.’ I think most of us are in the middle, but that’s not where the discussion is occurring. And because of that, we can’t have a sane discussion that results in sane solutions.” I like how Columbine High School English teacher Paula Reed portrays the pro-gun rights position at Actually, I don’t. I prefer to characterize it as  . . .

“The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Seems pretty simple to me.

But not to the article’s authors, who proceed to chronicle the history of Colorado’s infringement on residents’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms with only a sideways glance at citizens who value their firearms freedom. And end like this:

Democrats have been able to increase funding, get better candidates to run and benefited from a shifting demographic. But Straayer said Republicans have contributed far more to Colorado’s leftward shift since the 1970s.

“The Republican Party, over a three-decade period of time, pretty much eliminated the moderates in the party and moved further and further to the right and made themselves less and less attractive to the moderate voter, to the swing voter, to the unaffiliated voter,” [Colorado State University political science professor John] Strayer Straayer said.

Is that true? If it is, if Colorado Republicans have alienated voters by lobbying for Constitutional rights, is it regrettable? More to the point, the film accompanying the article exhorts viewers to “come to the table” because “we have to do something.” Is there some “middle ground” where pro- and anti-gun loyalists can meet?

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Exactly.

      If most of the U.S. population were in the middle as to whether or not rape should be a crime, how far to the middle should the people go who oppose “legalized” rape?

      I can hear the pleading, “Come on, a man who uses his fingers to violate a woman doesn’t even come close to going all the way. We should just make it legal already so we can finally make some progress on this. Think of all the men who will be satisfied at that level and no longer feel a need to force women to go all the way. Think of how many times men will not have to beat women into submission — look at all the injuries this will prevent!”

      It will prevent injuries! That should be reason enough for women to submit to “moderate” rape, right?

      Oh, Hell no!!!

      Moving anywhere from “shall not be infringed” is wrong … just as moving anywhere from “women shall not be violated” is wrong … where “violated” means touched or molested in any way without their full consent in the absence of duress.

    • To some extent there is a middle ground. It is called being a Fudd. It means you like some guns but you do not support the second amendment.

  1. Yes. Its called REAL common sense solutions. Are you a domestic abuser? No guns for you. We need better storage laws particularly in households were medicated or mentally ill persons reside. Restraining order put on you? Need to seriously consider taking their firearms. If we as the pro 2a community continued to stimey any and all regulative legislation then we will lose in the long run. Period. Shout me down or w/e, I don’t care and you know its the truth.

    • “Shout me down or w/e, I don’t care and you know its the truth.”

      I’ll make you a deal. I won’t shout you down so long as you don’t tell me what I know to be “truth” or not.

      Saying “agree or disagree, but you know I’m right” is weak ground to stand upon.

    • It’s been said here before: If you can be trusted to walk around in public, you can be trusted if you choose to own a gun.

      More to the point: Show me an anti-gun state that has said: “we have found the middle ground, this is the last gun regulation we will pass.”

      • “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

        Pretty sure the words “if you can be trusted” do not appear in that amendment.

        And even if they did, who gets to decide who is trustworthy?

        • “Pretty sure the words “if you can be trusted” do not appear in that amendment.”

          Those words are not present, but “we the people” are content (proved by lack of revolution) to live as if they were.

          Am I promoting revolution? NO. But if people do not move beyond talking to themselves, take political action, then we will remain subjugated to clear violations of the constitution. If the POTG cannot win politically, then we are left to be the compliant minority, or chose direct action. So far, we have proven we continue to be law-abidingly compliant.

    • “restraining orders” are easier to get than renting a video in some places . “Domestic abuser” is about as meaningful a term as “assault weapon”. If criminal conduct is involved, guess what? there is a criminal statute to cover it, that presumptively reflects the view of the voting public as to how serious that conduct is. I don’t need to shout, your so-called “common sense” is patently unconstitutional infringement on not one, but several enumerated rights. And the word is “stymie”.

    • The only thing I know to be true in your post, is that you are a statist-collectivist and an anti-Liberty gun-controller.

      You advocate for prior restraint, prohibion, regulation, control and categorization of individuals into groups…all classic manifestations of Collectivism.

      In a free Republic, individuals are free to exercise their fundamental essential Liberties and ONLY if and when THAT individual actually commits a ‘bad-act’ and causes ACTUAL harm to the Life, the Liberty or the Property of another individual..only then is that individual sanctioned or punished by government, which would be exercising its proper role in a free society.

      Ponder this….you and your statist-collectivist cohorts can weasel into existence any law you can manage, but if you or your agent, government, attempt to use force or threat of force upon me for my peacefully and without harm exercising my fundamental Liberty, I will not comply, I will resist and I will use appropriate and righteous defensive-force if and as necessary.

      So then, Skippy…ruck-up, stack-up and be the first in the line of apparatchiks to kick my door in to attempt to enforce your desired tyranny. To do less would show you to be a pussy and a coward who is simply nutless and long on mouth and who hides behind others to enforce his purported ‘convictions’.

      Remember, there are at least hundreds of thousands of men, just like me, who merely wish to be left alone to live as they wish and to exercise their free-will and their Liberty as they see fit and who have not and will not harm anyone else.

      Of course, this is not acceptable to statist-collectivists like you who just cannot leave others to do as they wish, so you and those like you always attempt to force your world-view and desires onto us.

      If you persist and you see it carried through to its logical conclusion, we WILL resist with force and, if necessary, with force of arms.

      Ponder that, collectivist…k?

    • Declaring yourself right in a debate doesn’t actually make it so. Maybe you can point to one of the states with very strict controls and demonstrate that they have had a real and tangible affect on public safety such as a noticeable downtick in their overall homicide rate (not just with firearms) and then maybe you would have a point.

      All that giving into your “common sense” solutions does is pave the way for more “common sense” restrictions on our rights when they are shown not to work.

      Eventually we wind up like France, Germany or the UK where it’s not a right at all it’s just a privilege.

      I have no problem with those who are opposed to the 2nd Amendment being honest and saying so. There’s a process for amending the constitution of the United States so I would strongly recommend putting your money where your mouth is and working towards re-writing or eliminating the 2A since clearly you believe that being free doesn’t include the right to own weapons for your personal defense.

    • A restraining order is not due process and therefore is not grounds to forcibly remove someones firearms. You are making the common mistake of not factoring in government authority and it’s limits. You are asking “should this person have a gun” instead of asking “is there cause to employ government power to remove someone’s private property.” The fact that the property is a firearm does not create a legitimate reason to short circuit restraints on government power.

      ANY TIME government exercises power over an individual, no matter how slight, the government has an obligation to prove both that it is exercising the power within the constraints and procedures put forth in law, and that the situation fulfills the requirements to trigger those procedures set forth in law.

      There does not exist a situation where this requirement can be safely done away with, nor are the examples of it being ignored a valid precedent for doing so further.

      Take your example of domestic violence. Everyone pictures a male abusing a female, however not many realize that women are equally likely to perpetrate domestic abuse as men are, and men are equally likely to be the victims as women are. What is very common is that both partners are beating on each other equally and the man is arrested based solely on tradition, or if the woman is the aggressor and the man defends himself in such a way that bruises his female attacker, he can be arrested, again based solely on tradition (the idea that men beating their wives was ever commonplace or accepted is a myth).

      So if police show up to a domestic violence situation and arrest the man, should he be prevented from owning guns? Should he face jail if he’s caught in possession of one while his wife does not? There’s a 50/50 chance he’s the victim of his wife. If that is the case and his wife escalates things to involve deadly weapons, like kitchen knives, then it’s the husband who should be allowed to secretly stash a firearm where his wife cannot find it to protect himself and should not face jail for that.

      And again, mentioning ‘domestic abuse’ seems to reference some ‘common sense’ solutions that base the firearms confiscation and ban for an individual based solely on an arrest or charges, not on the result of due process determining that he has, through a violent and criminal act against another, legitimately forfeited his rights by violating theirs. And again, THERE IS NO SITUATION THAT VALIDATES IGNORING THIS REQUIREMENT.

      The problems surrounding domestic violence are not guns. If you want to solve that problem set up shelters for victims of both sexes so they can be apart from the person initiating the violence instead of having to live with them and the constant stress and frequent eruptions living with them would bring.

      You mentioned restraining orders, which are meaningless. They are not enough evidence of ones potential for violence to even compel police to investigate those who violate them, or to be held liable for refusing to do so, even when it results in death or injury to the person who sought the restraining order against another.

      None of the situations you mention constitute a valid reason to deny someone their privately owned property, even if that property is a firearm or other weapon, and removing the firearms from these situations does not increase anyone’s safety in any significant way.

      ALL SOLUTIONS focused around the guns themselves are doomed to fail, as guns are not the problem. ever.

      • Domestic battery is a misdomeaner, first and second offense. 911 calls result in one or both parties being arrested. No injurys have to be sustained, he(she) hurt me is probable cause. A person looses a constitutional right for a misdeamnor? Hello Bill Clinton. The era of the gun grab. And no, antis and pro”s will never find middle ground.

      • Most, if not all, major urban centers have “Domestic abuse shelters” where abused women can and often do go for protection against abusive (deranged) spouses or partners. So far as I know the locations of these shelters are kept as strictly confidential as possible so said partners cannot continue their abuse and threats.

        If, just speculating here, IF the women in those shelters availed themselves of their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, how many of those supposed abusive, deranged partners would approach those locations, even if they were advertised on the Internet? And how many people would mourn those Darwin award winners who were foolish enough to try?

        • And, against that plethura of domestic shelters for WOMEN, where is there even ONE such shelter for abused MEN?
          REALLY? Not even ONE? Where is the basic fairness in THAT??????
          More like; “Where is the bias?” Step right up. it’s everywhere!

    • Who is this “we” you speak of? By “pro-2A” do you mean prohibit-2A community? Everything you just mentioned is prohibitive and based on the notion that a right is subject to government approval and regulation.

    • No, we won’t. We just need to make sure the public understands the reasoning. If we fold, and certain gun control is passed, then the anti’s wait some, and then call for more “reasonable” regulation, and rinse, repeat.

    • You sound like Mike “the gun Guy Weiser. First of all, California has all but one of the restrictions you propose. There are bans for accused domestic abusers, safe storage requirements state-wide for anyone who has children in the house (and safe storage requirements for everyone in LA, SF and Oakland, even if one lives alone), bans and limitations on anyone taken into a mental health facility for evaluation of his or her dangerousness to self or others, irrespective if that person is admitted voluntarily or not, “gun violence” restraining orders for those who are not crazy enough to be locked up, 10 day waiting periods on purchases, state and federal background checks, “firearms safety certificates” for required for purchases, funding of investigations of persons banned from firearms through gun transfer fees, a ban on .50 cal, a ban on automatic weapons after a certain date, a ban on this and a ban on that. It hasn’t done anything to the crime rate. Has this satisfied the gun banners? NO. Like the salami slicers, now they want to ban all semi auto rifles and shotguns with detachable mags, require special (and expensive)licenses for buying ammo, video recording or everything going on in a gun store, and a ban on all home based FFLs. Is this “reasonable” regulation? The end game is always the same–a ban on the private ownership of firearms. And if that means banning hunting, that is good too.
      The rights under the Constitution are not subject to, and should not be subject to, the popular vote based upon their perceived “social utility.”

    • If the guy cant have a gun, what makes u think he’s safe with a fruit knife in a taxicab?

      Due process or not, the justice system is fragile and easily manipulated. Trusting the govt with something we would use to keep them in check? How in the world does that make sense to you?

      We’ve already lost too much ground. You give the gobbermint an inch, they gain a mile. Ask commiefornia, NYC, the expired-but-always-brought-up AWB, or those who died while waiting for a hopeless carry permit how sensible strategic concessions are working out

    • It is already illegal for a domestic abuser to get a gun, if convicted. Federal law prohibits domestic abusers whether convicted of felony or misdemeanor domestic abuse to purchasee or own a firearm. To label someone a domestic abuser by the existence of a restraining order denies due process.

      How are “stronger storage laws” enforceable? If someone murders another person, how many years does breaking a storage law add to the sentence?

      How are background checks on private sales enforceable? If two criminals engage in a sale of a gun, they obviously won’t get a background check.

      The problem here is that the gun control side is obsessed with “Common Sense” gun laws that are anything but. These laws will only be followed by those who won’t commit a crime anyway and they will do nothing to stop gun violence or mass shootings.

      We believe that universal background checks are just your first step and that the limitations and unenforceability of these laws are so self-evident that there must be some other agenda. When they do nothing, the next set of “common sense” proposals will come out and the second amendment will be further eroded.

      There is middle ground. How about we commission a study of psychotropic drugs and their relation to gun violence. How about figure out how to deal with the violent mentally ill? These things may actually do something.

      How about we discuss eliminating so-called “gun free zones?” Those are beyond stupid. They are dangerous. It is statistically proven that concealed carry permit holders are incredibly law abiding. They don’t kill people and guns don’t go off by themselves. But then again, those are facts, and they don’t factor into “common sense” in your world.

  2. This is a false dichotomy. We are already living in the “middle ground”. No other right is an infringed as the right to bare arms.

      • As I see it, the middle ground has been definitively identified by the gun sense supporters:
        Nobody is allowed to have a gun. Take them all away, and we are all in the middle of a society that does not allow gun ownership.

        • The gun sense folks are megalomaniacal lunatics.

          They want the power to control everyone and everything. And they shouldn’t be taken lightly.

    • Yes, this is true. In principle, negotiation could be possible. However, as long as one side is not negotiating in good faith, compromise is fruitless in practice (from our perspective).

      • As I have noted in other venues, the “gun control debate” would certainly be less acrimonious if one side didn’t insist on basing their positions on ignorance (that shoulder thing that goes up, .30-caliber magazine clips that empty in half a second, “high-powered” .223 cartridges), hysterical fantasy (“Wild West!! Blood in the streets!! Every fender-bender a shootout!!”), and outright lies ( “gun manufacturers are shielded from all liability”).

      • The only compromise related to any fundamental Liberty, is a move toward tyranny.

        Why would any sane person consent to give up any Liberty at all and instead, empower Liberty’s enemies and move toward tyranny, seriously?

        • Agree, there should never have been any “compromise” in the first place. But it is too late for that. Regardless, with you that the only logical position now is absolute opposition to further regulation. Never give them an inch again without a fight.

    • Sure there are.

      There is a coordinated attack on the entire Bill of Rights, e.g., on the right to free speech, on the right to free assembly, on the right to due process, on the right to a free ‘independent’ press, on the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, on the right to to a jury trial, let alone a speedy trial, on the right to reasonable bail, on the right to exercise all other non-enumerated rights and on the Tenth Amendment which reserves all non-enumerated rights to the States or tho the People.

      Where have you been?

      Government at all levels is absolutely hell-bent on abrogating all individual Liberty and on making the several States into subserviant vassel-states rather than free and independent States which, via the People, created the Fed-Gov.

      We are witness to an evil, ill-intent and successful coup on Liberty and we are witness to the final stages of the deliberate destruction of the Constitution and any imagined limitations it laid out.

      Once again, where have you been?

    • Yeah, there’s the right answer.

      The true middle ground is mostly just people have haven’t decided one way or the other out of ignorance or indecision. And I don’t mean either of those to be denigrating. We all started somewhere and that’s okay.

    • Exactly. The right to keep and bear arms has been thoroughly infringed at this point. There is no more ground to give.

      • There is ground to take back, certainly no more to give.

        Start with repealing so-called background checks, which are blatantly unconstitutional.

  3. No. gun control advocates always say ” give me part of what I want and I won’t bother you again” . Then they are back the next day saying ” that was good but we need a little more, then we won’t bother you again” each time you give them something. Finaly you end up with UK or mexico where almost all firearms are completely outlawed. That is exactly how they got there .

  4. Is there a “middle ground” on the 1st Amendment freedoms of speech, press and religion? Is there a “middle ground” on any of the other rights in the Bill of Rights?

    Here is my middle ground on guns: Everyone who wants to ban guns should be prohibited from owning or using any firearms, and should be prohibited from hiring or using any armed bodyguards (cough, cough, Obama, Zuckerberg, Bloomberg, Pelosi, Biden, Clinton, et al). That will solve the problem – they will be safely defenseless, and we won’t have to listen to their hypocritical crap.

    • Unfortunately, the answer for many is yes. You don’t think the Feds fight with Apple is really about San Bernandino do you?

      • Of course not – it’s about the gummint’s ability to trash the 4th Amendment and rummage through every aspect of your life. What do they say? “If you are not guilty, you have nothing to hide.” Can we apply that to Hillary’s e-mails and Obama’s “Executive privilege” claims, or does that quote apply only to us peasants? (Rhetorical question alert.)

    • “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when you know that you mave have to back up your actions with your life.” – Robert A. Heinlein, “Beyond This Horizon”

      The concept of an armed society in this book was that everyone, even the “Control Naturals” had the right to be armed and self defense. If a citizen chose not to be armed in public they were required to wear a shoulder brassard stating their unarmed/non-combatant status. This brassard was intended to protect them from being attacked or insulted, but every Good Guy who WAS armed was expected to come to their imidiate assistance if anyone violated that societal norm.

      So, yes, go unarmed if that is your desire, but announce yourself and your position publicly and wear that announcement proudly, if you really think it’s a good idea.

  5. Is there a middle ground on guns?

    Yes, and it’s reserved for foot-snare wires and inter-locking fields of fire, EFP IEDs, and house to house fighting.

    “If we can all just get rid of guns” I’ll make more. Better (and easier) to get rid of the idiots who think you can get rid of guns.

  6. We crossed the ‘middle ground’ long ago, beginning with NFA 1934/38, followed by GCA 1968, Hughes Amendment to FOPA 1986, Brady 1993, “AWB” 1994,and all of the state schemes arising from, among other things, Sandy Hook.
    Based on all of that, our definition of ‘middle ground’ is much different than the anti-2A definition. Given that their ultimate goal is disarmament, they will continue to move the goal posts…

    • NRA sold out on ALL of those bills. Look at NRA Illinois lobbyist Todd Vandermyde in Rep. Brandon Phelps HB183 “NRA backed” carry bill in 2013: criminal penalties of 6 MONTHS or 1 YEAR in jail for hundreds of gun-free zones, an unlimited privacy waiver combined with an unelected Star Chamber licensing review board, and of course Duty to Inform, so police criminals can disarm and kill licensed citizens at will.

      NRA’s definition of “middle ground” is to give anti-gun police unions everything they want and let the cops write the gun bills. Step by step NRA constructs the legal infrastructure for a criminal police state where armed citizens can be stopped, frisked, disarmed and murdered at will by police criminals or police impersonators. The only people who can’t figure this out are NRA members. Send in your life membership!

    • Are you the real troll 2asux or one of the trolls trolling 2asux? It’s impossible to seperate the trolls without a scorecard. Do you have a scorecard?

        • It’s cool. We love you just the same.

          Well, not really, but we don’t hate you… Well, at least I don’t. Or at least not like hate, hate – you know, more of a mild dislike.

          But hey, like it or not, you’re here wasting your time right along with us. Which means you are just as dysfunctional as we are.

          Welcome aboard!

  7. Personally speaking, if I have to compromise, I would not be against Czech gun laws.

    They are pretty reasonable to me, in the fact that there are some hoops to jump through along with mandatory first aid training (And mandatory, “I am not a dumbass” courses) but the whole shebang is Shall Issue, so its not like anybody can arbitrarily deny an individual.

    • The only way I would agree to that is if there were no other restrictions on firearms. I’ll pass your course, but I want my M240G ready for pickup when I’m done.

      • As far as I know any semi-auto is game, anything full auto goes up to may-issue.. So belt-fed fun might not be too well within reach unless you’re rich, but thats the way it is here anyways.

        The advantage is that you can at least buy new machine guns if you do get that permit.

    • Incidentally, the tests MUST be taken in Czech, no translator allowed…so if you’re a foreigner living in country, you’re SOL until you learn the language. Which is reputed to be difficult (how much so, compared to Russian, I wonder.)

      • It would take several years of living in the country and seriously learning the language to learn it well.

        However the written exam consists of 27 out of ca. 500 A/B/C questions. Which, given enough effort, could be probably learned by heart even with mediocre language knowledge.

        For the practical part you mostly need to understand what the examiner is saying (check the gun, field strip, etc.) and be able to give simple answers. I think that several months of learning the language hard should work.

        I don’t speak any Russian but from what I’ve heard, Czech is significantly more difficult.

      • As I mentioned in earlier posts, Czech language is a bitch. It’s hard to teach it even to my kids who have both parents Czech, but have been born in US. They think in English and try to translate their sentences to Czech which often sounds funny. (Just like my English must sound to Americans.)

    • That is still Unconstitutional ‘infringement’. Is it better than the status quo in some aspects? Sure, but a slippery slope for certain. As others have stated many times, would these same ‘compromises’ look as appealing applied to the First Amendment? Mandatory courses to Speak you mind. Waiting periods before you can practice Religion, Misdemeanor charge of offensive speech and you lose your rights. No thanks.

    • The only problem with Czech gun laws is that they can be changed at the whim of Czech politicians. They have no constitutional guarantee.

      • What is a constitutional protection? What is a constitutional guarantee? With no means to enforce, what is the real effect?

      • I agree, lack of constitutional guarantee of right to be armed is the main problem of Czech gun laws.

        On the other hand, with over 20% of members of parliament having CC licenses and the general knowledge that banned doesn’t equal “not existent”, just “illegal”, it seems we in the Czech Republic are facing far less gun rights infringement crusades than you in US with the 2nd amendment (especially looking at places like California, NY, etc.).

        It is really a matter of political philosophy. Take the recent EU proposal for ban of “black” semi-auto rifles.

        To a bureaucrat in Brussels, this idea equals to having “dangerous” weapons inaccessible.

        To a Czech bureaucrat it equals tens of thousands of rifles filed as lost/stolen, police having nothing to do for years than just paperwork concerning “lost” guns, black market thriving. HA Czech bureaucrat will fight such proposal to blood just to keep his 9-5 work routine in balance if not for any other reason.

    • Let’s not forget registration of all firearms. You have to bring your newly aquired gun to police station to get it registered and written into your licence. Some stores refused to sell me any ammo other than for my registered guns. Sorry, you can’t pick up couple boxes of cartridges for your friend on your way to the range if he shoots something different. Usually they even kept evidence of how much of what and to whom they sold. Yes, you have to show your papieren to buy ammunition.

      No open carry. Period.

      And there is the thing about safe storage. If you have more than 5 guns you have to keep them locked behind steel door in brick and mortar room with bars on windows and cops don’t need warrant if they come to check on you.
      No hollow points for defensive use. They are not human according to the Czech antis.
      At least that is as I remember it from last millennium. If the law changed in last 18 years I may be completely off the mark and will welcome anyone to correct me.

      It is still better than the rest of Europe, but I don’t think most Americans would like to trade their gun laws for Czech ones. CA, NJ, NY might though.

  8. Absolutly not, because the anti gunners never offer the pro gun side *anything* beyond being grateful to be allowed to keep whatever firearms are not currently banned. They negoitate in bad faith, period.

    If they wanted to pass a Universal Background check bill in D.C. in exchange for de-listing SBR’s, SBS and silencers from the NFA, that is what I call a compromise.

    If they opened the machinegun registry but say required a waiver of your HIPPA rights to pass an expanded background check to acquire one, I could support that.

    Instead they just demand more and more and more restrictions slowly pushing us towards Auzzie style laws.

  9. The Constitution is pretty clear on the 2nd amendment. Unless the Progressives are able to legally amend the Constitution, all laws, regulations, and court opinions that attempt to alter the 2nd amendment are simply unlawful, and those to enact those laws, regulations or court opinions are essentially criminals.

    • Oh, and what is this thing about the Democrat Party becoming more moderate. That is complete BS. The Democrat Party went far left, and we are talking about that crazy “let’s send everyone to the gas chamber” kind of left. Hello! Bernie Sander is a socialist. Last I heard, socialism is not moderate. Heck, most of the Democrat Party platform follows along a political ideology that would make Hitler and Stalin happy. Moderate my freaking rear.

      • This.

        I heard Commissar Bernie’s newest radio ad this morning. Typical railing on the banks, ranting about the TARP bailout (which the federal government MADE MONEY from), evil fatcats, pay their fair share, yada.

        He ended the commercial by saying that if he is elected that he will make them “…obey their president”. To people like him, the constitution is nothing but an obstruction to progressive dreams.

      • This is a mad statement. There is no gas chamber. Democrats generally oppose the death penalty

        Obama put through a health care plan designed by a republican think tank and a stimulus plan that was weighted to tax incentives (ie republican) versus fiscal stimulus that democrats proffered

        That is why liberals think the dems are more moderate, or are essentially 70 s or 80s style republicans at this point

        • “This is a mad statement. There is no gas chamber. Democrats generally oppose the death penalty”

          I can show you *numerous* examples of Liberal/Progressive folks outright calling for gun owners to be rounded up and executed.

          I am *not* exaggerating on that, a few have stated that right here in the comment section of TTAG…

      • Are basic human rights real if there is no method to defend them? The laws say what “rights” are/are not. We have a basic human right to defend ourselves. Government determines the means allowable for that defense. Do we have a basic human right to defend ourselves with whatever weapon we choose? No. We all agree that some weapons are just unreasonable for a person to use to protect basic human rights.

        • Except when you’re protecting your basic human rights from gov’t and its agents…

          In that instance, the gov’t deciding the means by which you are allowed to protect yourself is akin to playing no-limit poker and your opponent being able to pick your cards and bet for you.

        • Yet the government already decided which weapons you cannot have, and I bet near 100% of everyone on this blog (if not near 100% of the populace) agree: flame thrower, RPG, recoiless rifle, tank, bio-chem, artillery, up-gunned Hummer, GAU-30, fighter aircraft, warships. If one agrees there are “reasonable” restrictions on private ownership of weapons, then the argument boils down to choosing between opinions of “reasonable”. The second amendment has no such restrictions. Attempting to interpret what “might have been” in the minds of the founders means dragging things not in evidence in the wording of 2A. If there ANY reasonable restrictions to bearing arms, then we are just arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a straight pen.

        • “Yet the government already decided which weapons you cannot have…”

          And this is why the “middle ground” argument is false. The last restriction is always an excuse for the next restriction. I guess, you would argue an abused spouse should just buck up and take it on the chin – I mean you put up with it for this long.

          “and I bet near 100% of everyone on this blog (if not near 100% of the populace) agree: flame thrower, RPG, recoiless rifle, tank, bio-chem, artillery, up-gunned Hummer, GAU-30, fighter aircraft, warships. ”

          Clearly, you don’t hang out around here very much.

          “If one agrees there are “reasonable” restrictions on private ownership of weapons, then the argument boils down to choosing between opinions of “reasonable”.

          Fair enough. I don’t agree there are reasonable restrictions. So, you can argue you for more, and I’ll argue for less. You had as of a much choice in the guns laws which were around before you were born as I did. So, don’t feed some line about putting up with it thus far, if people just accepted thing as they were without question we would still be living in caves. You’re just trying to shut-down opposing ideas.

          “The second amendment has no such restrictions. Attempting to interpret what “might have been” in the minds of the founders means dragging things not in evidence in the wording of 2A.

          You know, it would be nice if the founders had written down their ideas You know, in something, like maybe papers. Yeah, papers for all the people to read and see their arguments for states to ratify the Constitution… Like Federal papers, which take about restrictions on government…

          Wait a tick! By George, what is this?

        • The amendment is what is written, not what is written about it.

          “Papers” may be illuminating, but they are not the amendment. The amendment means what it says, or it doesn’t. If the founders intended restrictions of any sort, and they then talked about them in other documents, those documents are not the controlling authority. If one can impute writings of one founder, then writings (and there was opposition) of those who disagree can be imputed.

          Point being that either “the people” have a right to weapons that will repel a rogue government, or they don’t. If one reasons the “some” weapons are obviously too dangerous, the same case can be made for any weapon; “reason” is opinion, nothing more.

          Pointing to the fact that the republic is quite at ease with restrictions on all constitutional rights does not mean the people must continue to endure, but they do. History is a fair predictor. The government should have been stopped long ago; it was not. What is there at hand that indicates that “the people” will do anything different in the future? For all the “patriot” talk about resisting the government, there is precious little to show for it. Which means, “the people” are not required to endure forever just because they endured up to now, but what evidence is there that “the people” will not continue to submit?

        • Sam, with a tax stamp a flame thrower is quite legal.

          As for fighter aircraft, there was an article here in TTAG a number of months back about a guy who owns a P-51 Mustang who had *six* fifty-cal machine guns installed and posted a YouTube video of them test-firing them…

        • “A tax stamp” is tacit approval of the government stance that the government can determine which weapons you may use to resist tyranny.

        • Now I remember you. Sam I am.

          You do this same crap on other sites, too. Now it all makes sense.

          Yeah, you’re just here to stir up problems. Damn, get life. Or not. You will probably just stick with not.

        • Stir up problems? No need to stir, the nation is near evenly divided on the necessity of the constitution and bill of rights; there are plenty of problems. Recounting the problems, which is most of the commentary here does nothing to get us forward persuasively. Indeed, many here don’t seem to care to persuade because, “I got my rights, dammit, I cannot be forced to comply with any rule I don’t like.” Every pro-gun lobby group is dissed because none are pure. Every pro-gun politician is dissed because none are pure. While we are busy talking to our belly buttons, the opposition is relentlessly pounding the mantra that we are a bunch of dangerous, out of control, backwoods bumpkins. So far as I have seen, only one, one commenter to any string has noted the usefulness and success of one means of reaching the nation; Eddie The Eagle program. Is that it? A bunch of loser pro-gun organizations, and a bunch of loser pro-gun politicians, and a single success for our side?

    • How utterly refreshing to see such clarity and such an accurate and simple expression of the bottom-line.

      My Brother. 🙂

      • “…are simply unlawful, and those to enact those laws, regulations or court opinions are essentially criminals.”

        And to which police/court do we turn for arrest and trial of said criminals? If you are thinking it would be “the court of last resort”, why has that not happened?

        • You do realize civil wars and open revolts are not mythological concepts, right?

          I’m not saying America is headed towards civil war or social unrest, by any stretch, but it has happened, even in the “modern age.”

        • The notion of rebellion runs rampant here, but no one can explain why it has not happened. How much more encroachment on individual liberty will be tolerated? The founders went to war over stamps and tea tax. We so-called defenders of individual liberty would be considered the problem in those days.

        • There is still a peaceful means.

          Search the web for the Convention of States (COS) 5 states have joined so far.

          Or if you think all is lost, the chance to turn the tide is hopeless, and the people should just kick things off now, then I offer this suggestion –you first.

        • “There is still a peaceful means. Search the web for the Convention of States (COS) 5 states have joined so far.”
          – – from what I read, 34 states have petitioned Congress to call for a convention, but the call is not the action; the convention would be the action.
          – – – so far, “the people” do not have sufficient numbers to corral the government

          Or if you think all is lost, the chance to turn the tide is hopeless, and the people should just kick things off now, then I offer this suggestion –you first.
          – – “You first”, the battle cry of sunshine patriots (read Paine,, about that)
          – – – Waco should have been the trigger; federal government assaulted a private group who had committed no crime
          – – – Cliven Bundy refused an unwarranted federal demand, and backed it up with arms; where were the patriots?

          My comments are a challenge to crap or get off the pot, you can’t run out the clock and hope for a return to control over the central government; rally the country, accept reality, or take a forceful stand. Continuing to make bold statements at no personal risk will not fix what needs fixing.

        • Your challenge means dick. You’re just looking to create division and angst.

          I better head out to over throw the gov’t, or something, right away, cause Sam from the Internet told me to shit or get off the pot – give me a break.

        • You just wrote the epitaph for the notion that merely raging on this forum will somehow change the political reality. People love to declare what is “illegal”, “unconstitutional”, etc. Yet the sum of effort appears only on screen. Your raging “…means dick”, as you put it. Do something about it. We are losing the culture, encroachment on our freedoms march inexorably forward.

          If you don’t want a revolution, and you don’t want to do anything other than whine about the Left, then please go somewhere else. Otherwise, how about a few executable ideas? Maybe an innovative approach to changing minds? Something other than self-satisfied bragging,

        • Sorry this didn’t come sooner, I went about enjoying my Friday evening.

          Asking me to go somewhere else is just as self righteous and sanctimonious as your challenge.

          No one here cares what you think – you haven’t figured that out?

          I gave you an idea. The COS, but you didn’t like it. So, what’s your idea – war? Roll over and stop trying to fight politically? I live in Texas and gun rights have been getting better, not worse.

          You want war? OK, then go start it. I don’t think America at that point yet. Civil war has happended, but that doesn’t mean that should be our only option. But, if you think so then have at it, hoss.

        • Well, to reluctantly rise to the level of discourse you prefer….get over yourself, doood.

          People here are all in love with declaring this or that is illegal, or unconstitutional, or dictatorial, or tyrannical, violation of the constitution, and a whole ‘nuther bunch of pointless, self-congratulatory chest thumping.

          My question, after all the rabble-rousing commentary is, “We are where we are, deal with it. Either offer some ideas on how to change the demographics, the popular culture, the drift of society, or…..sit on it !

          While we are content to be polishing our barrels, we are losing the country.

  10. Today’s finished compromised agreement is tomorrow’s starting point for new compromise. The slippery slope is a thing.

  11. I think that is partially correct. If one ties all positions on all issues together and declares that to be the “conservative” or “Republican” position, then you will inevitably lose some at the margin. For example, if one strongly supports firearms ownership, but also strongly supports a woman’s right to choose or thinks that Obamacare or some form of expanded healthcare was actually a good idea, one is not likely to be particularly comfortable with either party’s monolithic position.

    There may be a middle ground on some issues, but there is no place in present-day politics for people who are unwilling to accept either party’s orthodoxy in its entirety.

    It all depends on which constitutional rights you believe in (more?) and what you think is more important to lobby for. It is also unhelpful to demonize the people you disagree with. There can’t be middle ground if you are burning all the bridges.

  12. I’ve always thought that the middle ground is best covered by .308, 6.5 Grendel, 6.5×55 Swede, and the like. To reach out further than that bears stepping up to one of the magnum calibers out beyond 800 yards or so. In the short range, less than 400yards, .223, .30-30, and .300 Blackout would be the common-sense calibers. Closer than that it’s pistols, pretty much any caliber you want.

  13. Not anymore, politically. Could I come to a ‘compromise’ on some gun issues if I and another (anti-gun) person were to do so? Maybe. But because the gun control establishment’s idea of compromise is “give me half of what you have today instead of everything and I’ll be back for the rest tomorrow” I won’t support any political middle ground beyond what we already have (and even that is crazy… I’m trying to send a gun for repair and, thanks to the 1968! gun control act it’s a stupid PITA…)

  14. Of course there can be no middle ground with the Gun Ban Left! Think about it, when they had the NFA ’34 did they stop, when they got the GCA ’68 did they stop, When they got the AWB of 94 did they stop, when they got the instant check did they stop? Just like their idols from Marx to Castro to Obama and Clinton, they will never rest until this country resembles the “workers paradise” that was Eastern Europe.

    Any ground you yield to the enemy is ground lost that you may never get back. When you sell your rights for a hand full of nothing that is precisely what you will get from them.

    • “…they will never rest…”

      This is where/why they will beat us. Gun owners believe it is possible to settle this matter once and for all, if only enough people rise up and slap-down the gun grabbers so the grabbers can never again make the attempt to take guns. The gun grabbers are relentless because they know that eventually, gun owners will either be too exhausted to fight back, or be overwhelmed by an ever-increasing populace that wants guns banned, The gun grabbers (well, their leaders) all read Saul Alinsky. For them, an issue is never settled until the other side abandons the field, and prevented from ever coming back. For the gun grabbers, every issue is full scale war until they win. For us, the issue is only one of several skirmishes we face everyday. The struggle is asymmetric.

  15. What happened is a group of very liberal, very wealthy individuals managed to get the Democrats to put aside their differences for a while. They dumped huge amounts of money into organizing a highly effective get out the vote effort with good database management. That resulted in a Democratic majority in both houses of the legislature, and a wishy washy Democrat in the governor’s seat.

    This, coupled with the influx of new residents from blue states and the Republicans’ traditional inability to unify, allowed them to push through a number of things that had been on their wish list for years, including the gun restrictions.

  16. 2 problems with arguing for a “middle ground”. First, is that nobody can agree what an acceptable middle ground would be. Second, that said “middle ground” is always going to move. Say the two extremes are “Let everyone have everything they want” and “Ban them all and take them all away”. Well the middle ground would be “Permit some, restrict others.” They get that middle ground. So some are permitted and some aren’t. Now a few years later they come back arguing the same thing. “We wanta middle ground”. Your current middle ground isn’t good enough anymore, so they propose a new middle ground. “Restrict most, allow some but only under close supervision”. And you accept this middle ground. Well a few years later they come back and say “you’re too lenient, we want a middle ground”. And they take more. And more. And more. Until finally there’s a point where they say “Well hardly anyone has these anyway, it won’t be a big deal to just take them all.”

    They’ll just keep taking the pie, piece by piece, until they have it all. And sooner or later they WILL get it if we keep looking for compromise.

  17. There is no middle ground on this issue, just like there are no middle grounds with anything in a partisan system. Libby parties worldwide are backing themselves into a corner this cycle. Around the world they are vehemently attacking freedom of speech, freedom of religion (unless you’re an Islamist), and gender equality, and the American and Canadian lefties are adding plebeian gun ownership to that list of things of things they hate. The majority of the world’s population is not going to take this sitting down, and we could to see a worldwide civil war in the next decade or so.

  18. “…shall not be infringed” is the middle ground. More accurately: the right of the law-abiding to keep and bear arms is the middle ground.

    Infringing upon the exercise of the rights of the law-abiding will not impact the lawlessness of those who are not law-abiding.

    • Please stop using the ridiculous ‘law abiding’ mantra.

      You do realize that ‘laws’ are enacted constantly and that many are diametrically opposite to Liberty and to Amendment II, so all that need be done is for sufficient ‘laws’ to be enacted to effectively get rid of you ‘law abiding’ submissives.

      I believe TJ had something to say related to this issue.

      “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” -Thomas Jefferson

      • So, why was there no second American Revolution until 1861? Even in Jefferson’s time there were governments and politicians passing laws to restrict individual freedom, And why has there been no third American Revolution? The circumstances that drove the first revolution have been surpassed by a factor of 100, yet we remain law-abiding to illegal, unconstitutional laws. What is the reason? It is important to know the reason because without understanding the reason we cannot change the circumstance.

        PS: I don’t know the reason.

      • Please stop using the ridiculous ‘law abiding’ mantra.

        No. “Law-abiding” has meaning.

        You do realize that ‘laws’ are enacted constantly and that many are diametrically opposite to Liberty and to Amendment II…

        You do realize that I am talking about malum in se laws, and the type of individuals who live generally moral lives and do not cause harm to others as the law-abiding to whom I refer?

        …so all that need be done is for sufficient ‘laws’ to be enacted to effectively get rid of you ‘law abiding’ submissives.

        The law-abiding will abide by even pointless malum prohibitum laws, and are quite long-suffering, provided that the basic exercise of natural rights is not infringed. Laws that infringe upon the basic exercise of natural rights are immoral, and immoral laws are illegitimate.

        There is nothing “submissive” about the law-abiding. It was the law-abiding who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence and who threw off British tyranny. It is the same law-abiding who are the bulwark against government tyranny today. Just because we are long-suffering does not mean that we are submissive.

        Your Jefferson quote is quite accurate, and in no way contradicts or disputes my original comment.

        • Chip, Chip, Chip.

          You are wasting your time with “Sam I am.”
          His opinions are bitter, like an over-salted ham.
          He does not like gun rights in a box.
          He does not like them down to his socks.
          He does not like gun right in a tree.
          He does not like for people to be free.
          Why is Sam so mean, no one knows.
          Maybe his mother hung him by his toes.
          “Sam I am” is hateful, yes indeed.
          He acts like a douchbag to everyone he sees.

        • Well heck. I did not realize Chip was responding to me.

          This is what I saw:
          “Chip Bennett commented on Question of the Day: Is There a “Middle Ground” On Guns?.
          in response to JB Karns:”

          Re-reading Chip’s comments, my response is “law-abiding” is a favorite term here for those of us who favor gun rights and open/concealed carry. If we are law-abiding, then when laws go against us, when laws remove our rights, when laws tell us we can be disarmed on mere suspicion, we the POTG will remain law-abiding. If not, then we are as described by the Lefties; good people who are an instant away from becoming bad people.

          Note: the founders were law-abiding until they weren’t.

          @Chip: “Law-abiding” people will suffer unto death, without resistance, laws designed to eradicate the self-same “law-abiding” people.

  19. If there is a middle ground, we have reached it.

    Most anti’s want to gain more and most pro’s want to yield no more.

    The middle ground has been had – the seesaw can level no more – we are at the tipping point.

    Hence why I think both sides are pushing so hard, both recognize the stand-off taking place.

    • The problem with that is that even in Australia the gun banners are pushing to take more away. Pity the poor gun owner there since they have no bill of rights and must depend on the kindness of government (and we all know where that leads).

  20. There is in fact a middle ground here, it’s just that the middle ground has very little to do with guns. “Middle ground”, as it is commonly used on this site, implies that we have to give something up, because there are only two sides of this issue and you have to move along some ideological continuum. But that is not really true. I would argue that the middle ground does not have anything to do with increased regulation of guns, but instead means trying to honestly address some of the wider societal issues that are contributing to violence nationwide, but particularly in cities. Suicide too. This includes promoting policies that aid economic growth, improve k-12 education, and ensure that there are more living-wage jobs available for low-skill workers. On the suicide/mental health front, we need to recognize that we over-corrected after seeing widespread abuses in the in-patient psychiatric facilities of the past. Instead of recognizing that such facilities were necessary but deeply flawed, and trying to fix them, across the country we simply shut them down and didn’t replace them with anything. In the past, a lot of the mass shooters would have been locked up in a psychiatric unit, but these days unless you are actively and immediately a danger to yourself or others, your in-patient options are extremely limited unless your family has big piles of money to pay out of pocket.

    It seems to me that we have gotten so used to fighting against the next infringement on our rights, that we forget that the best defense is a good offense. The right needs to start pushing comprehensive reforms and making sure that people understand that the solutions to the problems we are seeing go deeper than the tools a mass-murderer uses. Fix the core problems, and the left won’t have an ideological leg to stand on when it comes to tearing down the 2A.

  21. There is a middle ground that protects both the rights of responsible citizens (carrying or not) and keeps those that mean to do this country harm from being able to shoot back. But, until common sense gun laws – meaning none of the this makes a gun look evil or lets treat everyone like a criminal except the criminals – are proposed your not even going to come close to the middle.

    Us “conservatives” went far right only because the socialists went, well, communist.

  22. The problem is that the idea of “compromise” is inherently the idea that both sides get something that they want.

    You don’t see the left go “if you restrict capacity to 10 rounds, we’ll let you carry your 10 round firearms in more places,” or “If you are for more stringent background checks in exchange the NFA will go away.” Rather it’s “this is what we want, we’re going to get half of it now, be glad we’re leaving you the other half until we decide to take it all” or perhaps even “We admit that we have inhibited the Smart Gun market through NJ’s legislation, we will repeal the law so that the market can actually move forward” and in a similar vein “California’s micro stamping/”safe list” laws are nothing more than a defacto ban, we will get rid of them.” Moderation and compromise is bringing SOMETHING to the table.

    Look at California right now. They’re looking to confiscate AKs and ARs. As long as places such as these are out there, moderation is off the table. That’s not moderate, why should we be moderate? Ultimately their ideal is making enough laws we become criminals of bureaucracy without actually committing any crime other than having bought X Y or Z in the past and wanting to keep it.

  23. The only middle ground should be if you don’t want one, you don’t have to have one and if you do, you can. Seems fair to me.

  24. ‘ “come to the table” because “we have to do something.” ‘

    No we don’t.

    We have to establish just what problem we’re trying to solve. Having done that, we have to decide (1) if one or more of those problems is soluble at all, (2) would the cost of the ‘solution’ be acceptable to everyone, and (3) whether any of the solutions avoid trampling on rights.

    My rights are not subject to majority vote.

  25. My favorite quote from the article: “as well as a shift in the national narrative, was the impetus for major changes, Straayer said.”

    It’s not about facts, but about the story they weave.

    Admittedly, I stopped there. The rest got boring fast. If you were to ask me, yeah, there’s a middle ground, everyone could just shut up and respect people’s rights and the decisions they make as adults. If you don’t like guns, fine. If you’re apathetic about guns, fine. If you like guns, fine. Neither of these are “wrong,” or “right” – that’s just an opinion, and feelings, and neither of those can be invalidated. What is wrong, is when one group decides to infringe on everyone’s right, and inflict their opinion on everyone.

  26. If you asked me a decade ago, before I became interested in guns, I would have said sure, there is a middle ground; there must be, in fact.

    Now, I don’t think so. First, those who wish to ban guns will never be satisfied with anything less. So that middle will always move. Second, there can’t be a give and take if one side always demands to take and the other side receives nothing for what it gives. There is no reason I can see, based on historical precedent, for the pro gun side to believe giving anything away will result in any net benefit for them in return.

  27. How about “you don’t fvck with me and I won’t fvck with you” as the middle ground?

    It sounds fair to me, but statists, hoplos, socialists, Democrats and other supercilious vermin will find it an impossible task, because they just have to fvck with people.

    They’re like people who eat their own snot. It’s a compulsion. They just can’t help it. They just can’t.

  28. In an argument where one side has given ground at every turn and that is never enough, there is not only no middle ground, the time for discussion is past.

  29. If people-and the government that ostensibly represents them-could be civil, objective and honest, you could probably find reasonable middle ground. However, the anti gun side has proven time and time again that they will not behave in this manner, and, as such, finding middle ground is not possible.

    Furthermore, even if it were possible, “shall not be infringed” does not leave room for compromise. And with human nature being what it is, I’m quite content to leave it that way.

  30. The issue I have with the “middle ground” is the same issue I have with “common sense” gun control. How is someone who has never owned a gun let alone fired or probably even handled a real fire arm going to tell me what is common sense? Are you going to TELL me what the middle ground is like you’re telling me what is common sense and what isn’t? I don’t think there can be a middle ground because I don’t think anti’s can or will compromise from their stance that all guns/gun owners are bad. I suppose if there is a middle ground we’re already there or as close as we will get seeing as the second amendment has already been infringed upon multiple times.

  31. Well… part of this is the usual rhetorical misdirect. The rest is ignoring issues on the table.

    “Middle ground” is used to mean “split the difference between the two extremes” coming up with something nobody actually wants or thinks is right.

    How about “middle ground” as “the stuff we all actually do agree on, likely more ‘moderate’ than what any given POV exclusively prefers.” We already have some “middle ground” of this kind – grenade launchers and bioweapons are not allowed for civilians, even citizens, to possess.

    “Stuff we actually do agree on” is unattractive to the politic-wranglers, mainly because it illuminates concerns they’d rather bury under a cataract of invective.

    Once you start looking for “common ground” vs. meet in the no-man’s land in the middle, the balancing concerns get to be heard. Me, I’m for that. Various issue-mongers are not.

    /Here’s the problem…

    Q – “Why can’t we have ‘common sense’ issue laws, and law-enforcement discretion? What’s your beef?”

    A – “OK, demonstrate a way to do that, that doesn’t become a way to keep guns out of the hands of disenfranchised, oppressed people (*)(**); a patronage scheme; a class-based perk/ disproportionate burden on poorer folks(***); a stealth tax(****), or some combination.(*****)”

    (*) Like, say blacks, in the post civil-war US. That was hardly new. One influence on the US founding documents was awareness of centuries, at least, of “disarming” the proles, to allow their easier exploitation, from feudal warrior arrangements, through banning arms to those darn occupied commoners, across Great Britain, in the non-US colonies of other European states, and doubtless elsewhere that I don’t know about.

    (**) The point being that absent the ability to protect ones’ self, legal assertion of things like franchise becomes a false promise. “Nice kneecap you got there. Would be a shame if anything happened to it while you were trying to vote.”

    (***) “Registration” for a fee hits the less-heeled harder. Look to any argument against use fees. Apparently, this doesn’t happen with regulation of guns.(<- sarc.)

    (****) Long before various local "law enforcement" were funding their cool toys with the take from "asset forfeitures", often enabled by more "liberal" fed law; or "split the take" deals with plate readers and traffic cams; many localities made most of their general fund budgets on traffic violations.

    (*****) In essence "shall not be infringed" comes from three arguments. One is, you can't "infringe" avoiding all these problems just named, which quickly become worse than what you sought to gain. (The other two are natural rights, and political access.)

    The hard line is because there's no way yet found to "infringe" a little on who has how many arms, without running right over these other three things, in total. Show me a way, and we can talk about it.

    “What I see us talking about in the media and on social media is this hardline, ‘Guns are evil, we need to get rid of all of them and the NRA’s evil,’ and, ‘You can pry my gun out of my cold, dead hand; don’t come after my guns.’

    Well, make them make the argument, and it falls down. Start with “The NRA represents 30+ million people who feel differently than you. So, how small does a (statistical) minority (of opinion) have to get to allow you to trample all over their preference with impunity?”

    I think most of us are in the middle, but that’s not where the discussion is occurring. And because of that, we can’t have a sane discussion that results in sane solutions.

    Well, a “sane” discussion, as I said, would be: “What can and do we agree on?” So, what’s your offer?

    Rhetorically, this non sequitur slides in three presumptions, without evidence or argument that feed into un-personing the opposition, vs. addressing their arguments. (This is why reading this piece is so infuriating. You’re being dissed, hard, and it’s hidden so hard to call the author on the BS.) There are a few additional presumptions baked in, but they are simply factual distortions, not name-calling.

    – “I think, most of us are in the middle.” “I think” is window-dressing, to hide the bald assertion (made without argument or evidence.) If “most of” “us” are in the middle, *those people*, are an out-group, arguing for something else. In the course of a common argument among folks to see what they all think, some of the folks round the table are pushed away. Slimy.

    – “… but, that’s not where the discussion is occurring.” So, arguments other than “half a loaf” are off-point. And the people making them must be…

    – “… we can’t have a sane discussion…” So, the people arguing for and about what matters to them are insane. Those un-people.

    Roughly translated, that riff is: “You aren’t “us”, what matters to you is off-point, because you are insane.” OK, way to cultivate useful discussion, dude. Seriously, it’s almost like he really want’s to shut down any chance of exploring the issue, make some people feel good for agreeing with him, and if possible piss-off people who disagree so much they act up. Oh, wait…

    But not to the article’s authors, who proceed to chronicle the history of Colorado’s infringement on residents’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms with only a sideways glance at citizens who value their firearms freedom.

    That’s it right there. Step 0 is to “un-person” the folks who disagree. So, diss them on the sly, then don’t mention them or their arguments. Then you can do whatever you want to them, and it doesn’t count.

    “The Republican Party, over a three-decade period of time, pretty much eliminated the moderates in the party and moved further and further to the right and made themselves less and less attractive to the moderate voter, to the swing voter, to the unaffiliated voter,” [Colorado State University political science professor John] Strayer Straayer said.

    Is that true?

    No. The D’s keep pusing new laws, regulations, and etc, while the R’s, when prompted, occasionally grow a spine and say “No.” Who’s the extremist? Who’s the agenda-monger?

    They’re just bugged that some people hold a different opinion, and that those people have somewhat found a voice via the opposition party. Sorry. Until they crush free speech and franchise, they’ll have to put up with that. (Oh, look what else they’ve been up to…)

    I could give a rodent’s posterior for either, or any, party.

    However, when one party has made a universally de-facto, and often declared plank of their agenda the elimination of a practice, erosion of a natural right, and gathering to themselves and their constituencies of “politics by other means”, I conclude that simply ignoring them isn’t good enough any more. Knock if off, and I’ll go back to ignoring you, which I’d prefer.

    I know this will be difficult for any political animal, particularly among the D’s to grasp, so here it is in small words. I’m not anti- or pro- guns, or anything else, because it’s the position of the D’s, the R’s, or any other party. I’m anti- or pro-guns on the merits as I see them, and occasionally will support a party or candidate to advance my preferences.

    It’s called being a citizen of a republic. Step 0 is don’t let yourself get un-personed out of the public square.

  32. Some facts:

    1) I live in Colorado

    2) Morse is an authoritarian douchebag. “I’m a paramedic” “I’m a reserve cop” blah blah blah. He sounds more like a middle management type trying to climb the ladder.

    3) Front Range (Denver/Boulder commies) politics increase crime: More dopers, more local dope gangs, more dope exporter gangs, more dope tourism, more leftism.

    4) Magazine limits forced on Joe Public. YAY

  33. “Join me on the middle ground” is absolute nonsense as far as I can tell. It is just one side of a coin calling the other side of the coin extreme. If you proclaim where you are as the middle ground what makes yours the right middle ground. Why is my position not the middle ground? These people pretend to seek compromise, but what they really want is for you to be painted as the bad guy so they can arbitrarily savage your right/opinion until they are satisfied. But they never stay satisfied for long.

  34. Until 1968, my grandfather could buy any non-NFA firearm out of a mail-order catalog and have it delivered to his house. Or he could pay cash for a gun at a neighbor’s garage sale. Every hardware store had a bucket full of Mausers, Arisakas, and other surplus gems for sale. He could buy any firearm in any American gun shop and drive home with it as soon as he paid. He biked to and from various shooting trips with his friends, rifles and shotguns slung over their backs. One kid brought his dad’s war trophy Luger to class for show and tell. In high school rifles were kept in lockers during deer season. Nobody so much as batted an eyelash at any of this. This was how my grandfather spent his youth and early manhood in suburban Connecticut, and I won’t feel truly happy until gun rights return to how they were at that point in American history…as a damn good start. “Middle ground” my arse.

  35. “…Is there some “middle ground” where pro- and anti-gun loyalists can meet?…”

    Well, yah, there is. It’s the five hundred yard line at my range.

  36. I’ll discuss “middle ground” on RKBA after we discuss “middle ground” on free speech.

    I should have the right to duck-tape a liberal’s mouth to prevent him from saying stupid things. Give me that first, then we’ll talk guns.

  37. We are already at the middle ground. Decades ago we were asked to give just a little and come to terms on middle ground. We did. Now that middle ground is no longer middle ground in the eyes of the people that want to take our 2nd amendment rights away from us. The left has moved the line enough times that I fully support digging our heals into the ground by refusing to give any more than we already have. It’s time they start conceding. Period!

    • ” I fully support digging our heals into the ground by refusing to give any more than we already have.”

      Any ideas on how to do that? Our congressional representatives are not of the mind to make that happen.

  38. If a thief is caught red-handed, how much “middle ground” does he deserve? Should anyone entertain an offer by that thief to return half of the money he stole? Is he entitled to keep anything of yours that he stole, somehow as compensation in return for the efforts and risks that he took in that theft of your property?
    Yet there are gun-haters who now wish to bargain with us over how much of our RKBA that they stole from us should be returned to us. They want to “have a conversation” on gun laws to reach a “compromise”.
    The only compromise is defining a timely schedule of how and when these rights will be restored, fully and completely.

  39. How about this middle ground. If you don’t want to own a gun I will respect your right now to. You must however respect my right to own one.

  40. ***“The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Seems pretty simple to me.***

    And yet, it remains quite confusing for so many folks, because of that whole prefatory clause.

    Who’s up for amending the 2nd Amendment? Especially if a (presumably) 2A-friendly president (even Trump) gets elected? How about we start a petition and just do a strikethrough on the first part, leaving the rest of it to read like you say?

    Note, Louisiana did that; they used to have a “militia” clause, and they got rid of it.

    The States of Pennsylvania, Vermont, Ohio, Indiana, Mississippi, Connecticut, Alabama, Michigan, Rhode Island, Ohio, Oregon, Kansas, Washington, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, Arizona, New Hampshire, Delaware, Maine, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Nevada are already there. Their Constitutions spell out that the people have the right to bear arms for self defense, and that right cannot be infringed or denied. Interestingly, Maine used to have a clause about “for the common defense” and they just eliminated that clause in 1987.

    So that’s 24 of the 38 necessary states, already approving of the wording.

    Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Kentucky, Louisiana and Colorado have the right words, but then they say that nothing in the amendment should be construed to allow carrying concealed weapons. But seeing as all of them issue concealed weapons licenses, perhaps they can be counted on to approve the change in the federal amendment. If we assume that, that puts 7 more states in the “yes” column, for a total of 31.

    Some states are “sort of” there:
    Texas, Idaho, Utah, Oklahoma and Florida are sort of there; it acknowledges that people have the right to bear arms for their own defense, but then says it’s subject to the legislature. At least they acknowledge self defense. Alaska is sort of there, in that they have the “militia” clause, but in 1994 they added a line saying that the individual right can not be infringed.

    So that’s six more that could maybe be expected to vote for getting rid of the militia clause. That’s 37 states. We only need 38.

    All the rest of the states that acknowledge the right to bear arms, do so with the “militia” clause or say that such right is for “the common defense”. Could any of them be convinced to remove the militia clause from their own state constitution, or vote for it to be removed in the federal constitution? It only takes one… and then 2A rights are preserved forever. Ain’t nothin’ a Supreme Court could do to overrule a line that so clearly says, unquestionably in its meaning: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, especially when the people would have just voted specifically to strip out the militia clause.

    • One caution — there is an implicit suggestion that the present form of the 2nd Amendment is NOT a guarantee of an individual “right of the people”.

      The same (but opposite) suggestion of inadequate statement of a desired meaning in the 2nd Amendment can be found in Justice Steven’s suggestion that “when serving in the Militia” be added to its text, to make its intent clear. (HIS intent, that is.)

      As it stands, I see no problem with accepting the “Militia clause” for what it is — a stated reason WHY the Federal Government would NOT WANT to infringe on the people’s RKBA. The primary defense force of the country, on which the nascent Federal Constitutional Government relied for national defense, was the militia drawn from the armed citizenry. That militia might well be all that stood between the officers of that Government and a jail cell, or the gallows.

  41. Added: interestingly, there are only six states that have no Constitutional preservation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Those are California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Iowa, and Minnesota. And the beauty of this is — every Californian, New Yorker, New Jersey-ite, Marylander, Iowan and Minnesotan could all, collectively, vote against the proposed amendment change — and it would still pass! It isn’t about democracy at that point, it’s about the republic, and every state counts equally.

    Seriously, this could happen. Who’s up for it?

    • As a New Jerseyan, I don’t have an explicit state guaranteed RKBA (the incorporated 2nd Amendment right under the 14th Amendment will serve). However, there is a lot of implicit suggestion of that right in the state constitution, which starts off :

      1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and DEFENDING life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and PROTECTING property, and of pursuing and obtaining SAFETY and happiness. (EMPHASIS added)

    • New York doesn’t have the right to keep and bear arms in their state constitution because the people of the time thought it was redundant. As in unnecessary.

      Also, RI’s right to keep and bear arms is unequivocal: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” And yet it’s “may issue” on the state level (“shall issue” for cities). Go figure.

      Check out Dean’s Article The Six States with no Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms:

      And here’s a list of all the state constitutions with a right to keep and bear arms and their wording (some of which, like Colorado, keeps the door open for regulation):

      Here’s an excellent historical perspective:

  42. How about this for middle ground. We’re all free to excercise our civil rights. I’m free to chose whether or not I wish to carry a gun and you’re free to chose the same.

    So simple…….

  43. This is a civil rights issue; no there’s no middle ground. Is there ever on any other civil rights issue? Do you think people would have ever said “You know, we’ll set in the back of the bus, but we want integrated restrooms”.

    No. It’s all or nothing. For us and for them.

  44. Was there a “middle ground” on slavery?

    The anti-gun cult has the same tactics and many of the same motivations as the pro-slavery movement.

  45. Yes, there is. We passed by it in 1934, lapped it in ’68, planted a memorial tree there in ’86.

    Frankly, I’m sick of seeing the place and want to go back home.

  46. That’d be like agreeing to get stepped on by 1/3 of the country instead of all 2/3. Sorry, we’ve tried those kind of compromises before. They suck.

  47. Well, there is a middle ground with give and take. We give and the Statists take.

    Oh, BTW, ABC News just stated that dofus at the lawnmower shop had a fully automatic AK 47 weapon and Obonzo caterwauling for more gun control.

  48. Tell you what, anti-gunners.

    I’ll make you a deal.

    If you repeal NFA, GCA, Brady, NICS, rules against carry in Federal facilities…and pass laws that states aren’t allowed to infringe either, including on carry both open and concealed…

    You can have the two POS guns in my safe. (Leave the other contents as is.) Then go pound sand; this deal, once executed, is FINAL.

  49. Given that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is enshrined in our nation’s constitution and that all the efforts by the anti-gun crowd are essentially a violation of said constitution, it seems to me that a good middle ground would be that we won’t prosecute the anti’s for treason.

  50. That’s kind of the funny thing about rights: they either exist in absolute or they’re not a “right” they’re a conditional option or maybe a permissive use.

    So, no. There’s no middle ground when it relates to a right, whether it is a right to free speech, a right to worship, a right to peaceably assemble or a right to keep and bear arms. They either exist in the absolute or they’re not a right.

    Currently, there’s not one “right” on the Bill of Rights that hasn’t been shaved down to a nub. You can only peaceably assemble in certain times, places and manners. You can only speak if you’re not causing a public disturbance or not advocating “hate” or other hurty-words that might damage the delicate psyche of any conceivable listener. Your right to keep and bear arms is strictly limited to certain kinds of “acceptable” arms under certain “acceptable” conditions with certain “acceptable” styles and functions. And your presumptive right of privacy and to be free from government search and seizure unless a warrant has been issued based upon probable cause is a thinly-veiled joke as the government listens to all calls and reads every text and email and pitches a hissy-fit if they can’t read literally everything you send anytime anywhere to anyone.

    So, no. There’s no middle ground because the statists, fascists, socialists and other freedom-haters can’t stand the idea of a truly free people and are dead-set on destroying liberty. They want absolute, total control. They want to be able to grant or withhold your right to do any of these things, particularly to keep or bear arms. That’s not freedom. It’s slavery which, in its’ simplest form, was defined by Thomas Paine in his “Dissertation on First Principles of Government” way back in 1795: “slavery consists in being subject to the will of another.”

    So ask yourself: is your right yours to exercise or do you have to beg permission from someone else?

  51. liberals often say “we have to DO something”, but they mean “we have to BAN something.

    If they REALLY want to do something about crime, they have to figure out solutions to the truly hard problems. Single parent families. Medical cures for addiction. Meaningful mental health programs. And locking up dangerous thugs.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here