1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gun debate muzzles the middle ground-Christian Science Moniter

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Matt King, Sep 6, 2007.

  1. Matt King

    Matt King Participating Member

    Apr 17, 2006

    : Some factual errors in this one.
  2. M_Olson

    M_Olson New Member

    Jun 27, 2007
    Hugo, MN
    so basically she complains about the bickering between the two sides and says it needs to stop and the only way to make it stop is to agree with the anti side? sound logic...
  3. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Elder

    Dec 30, 2002
    Deep in the Ozarks
    It would be expecting too much to just respect the Constitution, I suppose?
  4. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Senior Elder

    Dec 29, 2002
    Los Anchorage
    Well that's the question--what exactly does the Constitution protect. Or more importantly, what will the federal courts say it protects? Currently, there is virtually no legal safety net for people on our side of this debate. Compromise is a bad idea because there is nothing stopping the antis from "compromising" the RKBA right out existence. There's no assurance that a federal court would step in and stop the slide at some point. There's a HOPE, but that's all. So the only reasonable position is extreme caution. If we start to slide that may be the end of it all.

    I love this bit of nonsense. The US government does not require registration of motor vehicles and never has. Giving the BATF power to license and register firearms is on par with giving the EPA the power to license and register cars. And the antis know this perfectly well.
  5. General Geoff

    General Geoff Mentor

    Nov 28, 2006
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    Doesn't sound much like a middle ground at all.
  6. yesit'sloaded

    yesit'sloaded Participating Member

    Aug 15, 2007
    It sounds like a decent article from someone who has no clue about guns. She did mention self defense as a legitimate reason for owning and using a firearm. She doesn't seem to know that gun ownership is a right and not a privilege."The United States can require registration of guns and proficiency tests for gun owners, just as we do with cars, without making it impossible, or even difficult, for law-abiding citizens to buy guns." In a perfect world I see no problem with that. However right now it is difficult to buy a gun and registration serves no purpose other than to let the government keep tabs on you. If I could go to the store and buy a half gallon of milk, three pounds of ground beef, and a 9mm pistol without any more trouble than it is to buy everything but the pistol now it would be cool. Sad that we can't trust a government made up of the people. Guess we are the "wrong" people.
  7. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Dec 26, 2002
    Gee, funny how the so-called "middle ground" is composed entirely of gun-control proposals that the antis are too weak to win via the legislature. I thought a compromise was where both sides got something out of the deal?

    What exactly do gun rights supporters get? "If you play nicely, register all your guns and yourself, submit to background checks for everything you own, then we will support your right to own guns for hunting and self-defense as long as we don't find those guns too scary or dangerous." I especially like the idea that after giving all of my rights away, all I get in return is a promise to actually support a right I already have according to the Constitution.

    Sounds like a hell of a deal to me. Where do I sign up? :barf:
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2007
  8. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Dec 24, 2002
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    We, the people, have spoken with our check books.

    The leftist extremists need to sit down, shut up, and learn the obvious lesson, starting with this one: compromised freedom isn't freedom, but serfdom.
  9. ServiceSoon

    ServiceSoon Participating Member

    Jan 3, 2006
    That is a very compelling article. It does a good job making pro-2nd amendment people look like deceptive unreasonable people.
  10. Samuraigg

    Samuraigg Member

    May 9, 2007
    Central Illinois
    Exactly! I love reading this figure. I laugh when I see the antis bemoan the power of the "gun lobby", as if they gain power by some nefarious activity. Where do they think the gun lobby gets it power!? From people, like on this forum, who donate time and money to the cause.

    Oh, and what the heck is the deal with mentioning the gun confiscations in Katrina like that was a reasonable activity? I think most reasonable people (including those on the fence about gun control) would agree the government should NOT have the power to confiscate guns in an emergency. Heck, didn't even Obama vote in favor of the bill to stop that?
  11. Ohio Rifleman

    Ohio Rifleman Active Member

    Jul 15, 2006
    Standing Wolf, I just might want to use that in my sig line.
  12. Technosavant

    Technosavant Senior Member

    Mar 24, 2005
    St. Louis, MO
    Exactly. That is what all gun owners and freedom-loving people need to realize. Any "middle ground" when it comes to your freedoms is nothing more than oppression on the installment plan. Middle ground in regards to the RKBA means BOHICA for us "gun zealots." However, the gun grabbers never seem to feel the need to give even a micron.

    I don't feel bad in rejecting compromise.
  13. Zoogster

    Zoogster Senior Member

    Oct 27, 2006
    Obviously total anti agenda. The antis have made big strides in the last few decades, and the pro gun side has made a couple. It is not a debate, it is like a race. At the start is full gun rights, at the end is total prohibition. Tons of money and support is put into slowing the race down, and on occasion taking a step backwards towards freedom like with Castle Doctrine. Where does the money come from? Millions of Americans.
    Also the Brady Camp is not a single entity, we have made graphs that show the relationship of anti gun groups and funding, and most of it traces back to a few key players using numerous smaller fronts. The Brady Camp is one of these smaller fronts, just one of the better known. Some are designed to appeal more to the mainstream, and some are designed to appeal to the hardcore anti. All work towards the same goal and share similar funding by the same key players. Contrast that with the NRA, who rather than split into multiple seperate entities to hide thier affiliation with eachother, is a single large entity that puts its stamp on most of what it does. Who is being dishonest?

    Actualy politicly they are often attempting to do just that. There is meetings about "small arms proliferations" and discussions on how to reduce the ownership of arms across the world. There is pressure applied to the U.S. to lead by example and reduce ownership in America as well as other places it has political and economic influance. Most governments throughout the world do not want small arms owned by the population, and many have outlawed most and severely restricted others.
    In fact even our own top law enforcement officer in the nation, privy to details many of us are not has admitted to such. Janet Reno while in office said

    "Waiting periods are only a step.
    Registration is only a step.
    The prohibition of private
    firearms is the goal."

    So while some would like to attribute this to one individual, it is not unique to Janet Reno, she was just the one dumb enough to repeat to the public the methodology and goal of others in her field. So not only is the U.N. out to take arms from the people, but our own government must be highly scrutinized as well.

    It did take guns from law abiding people in harms way! Some are still disputing this?

    The author's version of a "middle ground" is additional errosion of rights. Bartholomew Roberts summed that up pretty well.

    There is so many things in this article that are misleading.
  14. sig226

    sig226 Member

    Aug 13, 2007
    Palm Beach County
    I can't recall the Christian Science Monitor ever offering any kind of support to the right to keep and bear arms. I also can't recall a single instance of a shooting that was made legal by the Stand Your Ground law (correct name for it) that would have been illegal prior to the law.
  15. ilcylic

    ilcylic Participating Member

    Sep 14, 2004
    Desert Southwest, USA
    No, they can't, because such opposition reduces their status as "reasonable people".
  16. the pistolero

    the pistolero Active Member

    Apr 14, 2006
    Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas
    Call me crazy, but I don't think we need the NRA to alert us to the fact that there are people out there who will stop at nothing to disarm us. Does she really think gun people are that out-of-touch with what's going on?!

    Note, of course, that the writer offers no evidence whatsoever to support her assertion. This seems to be a pattern with antis.

    An attempt to check violence. What a way to refer to a blatant violation of the Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. I said it on my blog, and I'll say it here too -- it doesn't speak well of the Christian Science Monitor that they'd let one of their reporters get away with presenting such an outrageously distorted interpretation of events to their readers.

    Every time I hear that "reasonable people" crap, it makes me want to puke. Can it not be argued that .50BMG rifles and full-auto weapons were precisely the types of weapons the Founding Fathers intended the common citizen to have? As for the other side supporting self-defense as a valid reason to own a gun, I fully expect pigs to fly out of my fourth point of contact the day that happens.

    Not so much. I'd argue the vast majority of us on the pro-rights side were savvy enough to recognize that there really is no middle ground, because the antis won't leave us alone. Nothing they've gotten has been good enough. And I for one don't think any of them will ever stop.
  17. ConfuseUs

    ConfuseUs Member

    Feb 13, 2007
    I live on a plain by a few mountains.
    Well the CSM hasn't bothered to study the gun culture very much (as usual). Owning a gun means that the owner is subject to pretty much any radical antigun policies that the elitist billionaire sponsors of anti-gun groups can think of in the future. That is understandably a very significant motivating factor in joining pro-gun groups and voting for pro-gun politicians.
  18. FieroCDSP

    FieroCDSP Senior Member

    Nov 12, 2006
    Wooster, Ohio
    Does the STATE requirements for drivers prevent foolish people, or criminals, from killing people with cars? I got my license with NO training what so ever and have only ever had one ticket, handed out on a holiday weekend. Whereas several guys in my HS class (who took "professional" training) spent their days complaining about how many tickets they had gotten.

    And I think many other countries have seen what registration of firearms leads to.
  19. El Tejon

    El Tejon Elder

    Dec 24, 2002
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    We can have peace if we only surrender?:rolleyes:

    No, thank you. I won't be surrendering--ever.:)
  20. Don't Tread On Me

    Don't Tread On Me Senior Member

    Jul 19, 2004
    This article, aside from being a propaganda piece that would make Goebbels proud, is also a steaming pile of bull excrement.

    Allow me to break it down for the newbies of THR from the perspective of a true RKBA supporter. Let me begin:

    OOPS! Not even one sentence into this and we have an error. Sorry, Florida law does not "allow" anyone who "feels" threatened to use deadly force. A person must in danger of death of serious bodily injury. The use of these terms is designed to mis-characterize this legislation as negative by implying that it is radical or dangerous or without definitions, standards or controls.

    Bias alert! There's nothing "so-called" about it.

    Error. It did not do that at all. It merely REMOVED the DUTY TO RETREAT, which is essentially an unjustifiable burden on the victim. Unlike the Castle Doctrine as it applies to homes, there is no presumption of deadly force threat on the streets.

    Bias. By who's standard? The Brady Campaign is as powerful as they are entitled to be by their supporters. There is far too much of a sympathetic tone here.
    Bias as well as a loaded phrase. Author automatically frames the facts by implying and assuming that the nation has gun problems. The nation does not have a SINGLE gun problem of any kind whatsoever. The nation has a crime problem, yes. Gun problem no. I never met a gun that jumped off a table and robbed a liquor store. Also, author suggests that there's suppose to be some sort of "middle ground" where righteousness exists and that the correct (who decides that?) thing to do is for these two groups to meet in the middle and solve this non-existent problem. That by itself, automatically forces our liberties and rights to be compromised in favor of gun control.
    This paragraph is completely meaningless. "Not an embrace of equals" ..that's true. The Brady's are not equal to us, because more Americans are interested in preserving liberty rather than restricting it. On the other hand, given the anti-gun tone of this article, this part is more whining and crying sympathy for the Brady's in the context that things aren't fair or right because they aren't equal and that the righteous are facing an uphill battle against a Juggernaut.
    Who cares? For one, that's their problem. Secondly, that information is not some super-secret data available only to attorneys. Welcome to the Internet.

    Note how "shootings" is automatically assumed to be a negative. Hopefully shootings have INCREASED. Yes, self-defense shootings! As opposed to those individuals being murdered/raped, I'd hope murders and rapes can transform into self defense shootings instead. I'd rather not have any of that and the world be happy go lucky and we live like the Smurfs, but this isn't Oprah.
    More bias, like mentioned above. Goliath compared to what? 98% of the entire televised and newsprint media? Compared to most politicians and other popular figures? NRA is a drop in the bucket compared to the overwhelming anti-gun message being disseminated by TV, radio, and every single day in our public school system.
    Here, the author makes a mockery of what are legitimate, confirmable and provable assaults on our liberty. Effort to make the NRA seem extreme and disingenuous in their efforts to combat firearm abolition. To make matters worse, the author even mis-characterizes the claims. IE, Bloomberg's goal isn't just to keep guns out of NYC - he supports a broader gun control agenda on the excuse of protecting NYC.
    Another error. They didn't try. They DID. And not only that, they confiscated tens of thousands of firearms by FORCE, without the consent of their owners, without warrant, without probable cause, and without any justification under the law or the Constitution of the United States or Louisiana -- which is why the NRA won in court.
    "Painted" ....as if Wayne LaPierre, ABC News, 100 Youtube videos and others just fabricated the forced, illegal, unjustified and unconstitutional confiscation of firearms. But no ...there's no rational reason to ever believe the US Government would take way its citizens' guns!!! LOL ...
    Appeal to masses. Logical fallacy.

    VT Shooting != (not equal to) New Orleans Gun Confiscation. To make matters worse, the premise here is that somehow what happened at VT is the result of guns, or the lack of gun control laws, or the NRA. Not because Cho was a psychopath who bought guns through LEGAL means, all of which is irrelevant since we as a society cannot control the actions of each and every single individual - nor would we want to.

    Bias. Why should it gain traction? If I said "the movement to turn American into a totalitarian communist state like North Korea cannot gain traction" should we sympathize with that?
    Logical fallacy. As well as clear bias and loaded phrase. As if not supporting these things makes you "unreasonable" ...

    The above paragraph is an entire Gun Control sermon.
    If there was life and there was death - would a middle ground, like being diseased or beaten up be an acceptable "middle ground" ???

    ** And just think, I didn't even address the full bias and lies of this "article" ... Scary. Like I said, Goebbels would be proud.

Share This Page