Question of the Day: Is There Common Ground on Guns?

Love is a many splendored thing (courtesy The Truth About Guns)

Over at the Hartford Courant, gun control advocate Rand Richards Cooper has a question for gun rights advocates: “Can we agree that 30,000 annual gun-related deaths (and many more injuries) is undesirable; that it is a problem? If we can agree on that, we can proceed to discuss how one might reduce these numbers without threatening the fundamental right to own a firearm?” Before you answer, clock Cooper’s characterization of the “gulf” between pro- and anti-gunners. “The bottom-line fear on the other side is that that we ‘gun-grabbers’ want to take their guns away. On my side it’s that ‘gun nuts’ are absolutists who will never agree to any limitation or regulation of gun use whatsoever, no matter how reasonable.” Sounds about right to me. So is there any common ground?


  1. avatar Stuart Anderson says:

    There is common ground in the sense of that many deaths is a bad thing and we want to stop it. The methods…no. Not much common ground.

    1. avatar Anthony Leanza says:

      Too true.

    2. avatar CK in CA says:

      This pretty much sums it up. I like to point out to gun control advocates that no restrictions have ever decreased crime rates. However, overturning restrictions (Chicago handgun ban, ’94 “assault” rifle ban) has decreased crime rates. They don’t like those methods.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        I’ll give the other 109 comments a fair perusal, but it may be tough to top this one. It’s what I like to call the trump card, and there’s not much to counter it.

        The gun grabbers can wail all the want about so-called gun deaths. However, when they ignore the plain facts, denying the proven ineffectiveness of their proposals and the abundant effectiveness of ours, it not only strains but smashes credulity to take their alleged death reduction goal at face value.

        These people are against firearms themselves, for whatever irrational reasons, or they’re against the self-reliance, personal responsibility, and individual sovereignty that eventuate from firearms ownership among civilized people.

        Whatsoever, it’s not about the pretext of crime reduction.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          It’s that “polite society” stuff that’s the bugaboo for them. They’re constitutionally incapable of being polite, so want a guaranteed carte blanche to be obnoxious pains in the arse without facing any effective deterrent to their assholery.

      2. avatar A samurai says:

        I think the problem here is not that there is no common ground. I think every American wants to safeguard the lives of other Americans. Of course we all agree on that. I think the lack of common ground exists because “gun grabbers” have already assumed that the ONLY way to reduce gun crimes is to take away guns. Then they want “gun nuts” to come to the negotiating table with only the assumption “less guns is less crime”. It represents negotiation without good faith. I would love just once to hear some “gun grabber” say, “we need better firearms education in this country” But that will never happen because the “gun grabbers” goal is to take away guns. The reduction of crime is a side note used to prove their point and forgotten when it doesn’t prove their point. I’m so sick of listening to people who have no reason or common sense talk about reasonable and common sense ways to take guns away from law abiding Americans.
        There could be common ground. If the Antis ever learn to LISTEN instead of just yelling and waving bloody shirts. Currently there isn’t because the goal isn’t to reduce deaths or crime, its to reduce guns.

    3. avatar Calvin says:

      Some of those 30k were good people just trying to lead their lives. If anything bothers me about that number is which ones died, not how many. We already have enough ineffective laws that try to address the part about too many guns in the wrong hands. To fix that we need more guns in the right hands.

      1. avatar ChrisB. says:


        1) Nearly 2/3 of that are suicide. A score of peer reviewed studies say that somewhere between zero to 250 of those would not occur if all guns disappeared form the planet tomorrow.
        2) About 1/3 is gun murder. a score of studies by police departments around the country show that 85% to 90% of those the victim is an active criminal, gang member, paroled early release felon, multiple felon or person with several arrest, including for violent crime.
        3) a small number of those are accidents. The majority of those are accidents in the homes of illegal criminal owners. The second largest number is with Biden shotguns/. The third is hunting, which with accidental gunshot death is safer than skiing or playing soccer. A few dozen accidental deaths other than that occur, around 60 per year.

        The real number of excess deaths not associated with people who are habitual criminals, gang or cartel members etc getting killed by other criminals, is between 1,000 to max of 1,700 or 5% if the insanely high “30,000” thrown around.

        1. avatar djb says:


          Point 2 is very important. Gun rights advocates rarely point out that the majority of murder victims in this country are actually violent criminals themselves (usually associated with drugs) which is not the case elsewhere, and that if they are eliminated from the murder rate then the US is as safe as any country in Europe, and safer than most.

    4. avatar Cliff H says:

      “…many deaths is a bad thing …”

      Not true. What is true is that some people really NEED to be shot. If that were NOT true, why do we want/need/carry firearms?

      We need to subtract from their sensationalist number of 30,000 the number of criminals who shoot each other (good riddance) and the number that are (unfortunately) suicides. Perhaps from that smaller percentage left over we can devise a way to minimize the number of accidental shootings through voluntary, appropriate and reasonably priced training and legislation that makes armed defense against criminal assault or other felonies less onerous, such as enhanced “Castle” doctrines or “Stand Your Ground” laws.

      If Bad Guys shoot each other, we should be pleased, so long as they do it accurately. When people use guns for suicides we should be saddened at their torment and the sorrow they bring their families, but statistically they would have attempted the suicide with or without the gun. Accidents can be reduced, but never eliminated, by proper education. For all other homicides the only Constitutional approach is for the good guys to be able to defend themselves and their neighbors without fear of economic disaster or vindictive prosecution.

      So is there any common ground with the Anti-2A Civilian DIsarmament people? None that I can see.

    5. avatar p.publius says:

      In every school, in every state, an annual gun safety class, with a written test, and optional live fire demonstration should be mandated. In addition, like the Japanese show gory photos of car crashes to new drivers and when they renew their drivers licenses, graphic photographs of the damage that bullets do to the human body should be shown to high school students during the annual refresher gun safety training/

  2. avatar Notguiltfree says:

    Nope, just hit the ground with your boots on!!!

  3. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    Given the history of the civilian disarmament movement, and statements of record, no, no middle ground. I can’t trust you. There is nothing that has happened that allows me to trust you. So let’s work on the trust issue shall we?

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Past performance is a very good indicator of future performance.
      So, it is they, who need to start the change.

      1. avatar B says:

        The middle ground in the gun debate is currently about a mile back behind their position. They’ve been moving the “middle” for the past 200 years, and the only way to get back there is for us to fight for every inch.

      2. avatar ropingdown says:

        And note the author accepted your right to “own” a gun. He couldn’t force himself to say “and bear” a gun.

        1. avatar Davis Thompson says:

          Nor does he define what type of gun you can own.

    2. avatar Burnout says:

      Yep. Can’t have a conversation with liars, frauds, or deceptive propagandists, Democrats, or media. But I repeat myself. Only conversation I am interested in having with these Marxists is the conversation about abolishing every gun law everywhere in the entire U.S. Yes. All of them. But But But then even felons can have guns! Well, sadly, due to federal and state corruption, a “felon” could be nothing more than a political opponent. Ask Connecticut. Until the government is trustworthy, all gun laws everywhere should be repealed. For the children. Thanks for the conversation. Oh, one last thing: Shall not be infringed.

      1. avatar John Thomas says:

        like the S.L.C. reference.

    3. avatar Jim Scrummy says:

      Hitting the nail on the head with that statement! The only compromise comes from 2A supporters. Not compromising anymore, because the antis cannot be trusted. EVER!

      1. avatar Rad Man says:

        We’ve been compromising since NFA ’34. What have they given in return? Nothing. There is no common ground when one side gives and the other side takes without reciprocation.

    4. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      Exactly! Until the grabbers realize the fundamental flaw it their “not taking is giving” ideology, there will be no middle ground.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        Unfortunately, many, if not most, of the same folks have that same attitude about pretty much everything. Whatever the government is not taking away from you, it is “giving” to you. For example, when a proposed tax hike is delayed for a year, they will squawk that the government is “giving” an “interest-free loan” to you for that year.

  4. avatar Jeremy says:

    Nope, none at all. They don’t care about a dialogue that involves the real issue of humans being violent. They think if they regulate guns away people will suddenly become perfect nonviolent little angels.

  5. avatar Jürgen says:

    Tell him to uninvent gunpowder, then we can talk.

    1. avatar Nous Defions says:

      Then they will want your sword. And your knife. Oh, and your tooth-pick. Save a child.

      Nous Defions

  6. avatar Steve says:

    If more people were brought up in families, with all family members present, and brought up with respect for people and guns, things like this wont happen. Most deaths due to guns are suicides, 67% via FBI. More deaths are caused by abortions, yes abortions, so who really is the killer in this country. Guns dont load or fire themselves, this is caused by people. Hateful people. Criminals are criminals because they dont abide by the law. Making more laws is silly and counterproductive, except to make constituents feel safer, nothing more. Criminals will get weapons, any weapons they desire. All the laws do is infringe on second amendment, and make law abiding citizens less likely to protect themselves against, CRIMINALS.
    Politicians are kidding themselves about gun laws. Its control of people they want, thats all.

    1. avatar Nick says:

      The only people that abortions kill are those who have medical complications that ends in their death. Abortions bring the death for the potential to life, but it’s not really a human.

      Really, abortions are eugenics that kills off the dregs of society; the mothers getting them would not be fit for parenthood. And before you say HURR MUH ADOPTION, since Rowe V Wade there has been 150 MILLION abortions. Could you have found 300 million people to adopt those kids? Every single family in America right now would have an adopted kid.

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        “But it’s not really a human” so said Hitler about a Jew..

        You, Nick; the way you can dehumanize an obvious human being is why mass slaughter and genocide has happened all through history up to the current time.

        Now you can sympathize with Hitler; you know how he thought and felt. What does it feel like being as one with a mass murderer?

        1. avatar Jake Tallman says:

          Tell me, how is a bundle of cells that has no sentience and cannot survive outside the womb is an obvious human being?

        2. avatar doesky2 says:

          @ Jake

          So when you meet a woman who is pregnant, do you ever ask her “So when is your “bundle of cells” due”?

        3. avatar ThomasR says:

          So let me ask you Jake T, if your mother had the retroactive ability to abort you before you were born; what would you tell her?

          Of the tens of millions of babies that would have been born from those “mass of non-sentient” cells, how many would have chosen to live?

          So in the end, a person that has lived for eighty years; seventy nine years and seven months he had a right to life, the first five months he’s not human and can be killed on a whim.

          Sorry JakeT, the mental gymnastics to make this kind of rationalization about the ability to end a unique and precious life, is incomprehensible to me.

        4. avatar Jake Tallman says:

          No, of course not, because it would offend her. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s true. I also noticed you failed to refute any of my other points and simply honed in on the way I worded something. It’s worth noting that I’m of the opinion that there should be a time limit on it (aborting a baby at the end of the third trimester WOULD be murder, no doubt about that), but to say that something that COULD grow into a baby is a full human and entitled to the same rights as you or I is fallacy.

        5. avatar Jake Tallman says:

          ThomasR, what makes you think that every aborted child will be brought into a stable, loving household? I agree that it’s incredibly irresponsible for women to get abortion after abortion for convenience and her own lack of responsibility, but those cases are in the vast minority. If a woman is pregnant, and she can’t provide for the child (can’t provide financially, or maybe her husband is abusive, or maybe she wouldn’t love the child, or whatever), you would still say that the child needs to be born?

          Again, your argument seems to hinge on the idea that something that WOULD grow into a child (but that isn’t a child yet) should be treated as a child. Also, you asking me to consider if I had been aborted raises an interesting point, but unfortunately, it’s impossible for me to consider not existing. Sure, I like that I’m alive, but if I didn’t exist, I couldn’t possibly be unhappy about it. It’s an interesting paradox to consider from a philosophical standpoint, but not something to base an argument around.

        6. avatar Jake Tallman says:

          Oh, sorry ThomasR, I misunderstood the first part of your post. If she had the retroactive ability to abort me, I would ask her not to, and she wouldn’t. I’m not even sure what the point that you’re trying to make is, maybe that all mothers love their children? Or something like that (which isn’t true, by the way, that all mothers love their children). And if you really want to get into it, she technically has the ability to retroactively abort me now, the same way anybody could end me, as I’m not immortal. Try again, and maybe make your point a bit more clear.

        7. avatar Nick says:

          So what you are saying is that I am LITERALLY Hitler?

          This is why the republican party is dead, and the saddest part is your taking our gun rights with you. I put gun rights #1, I would vote for a communist who supported gun rights over a republican who didn’t.

          I want to start a political party called the rationale party. If it makes logical sense, it is good. Abortions should be legal, the government should be streamlined and efficient, gay marriage legal, weed legal, guns of all types legal, a healthcare policy that isn’t all kinds of messed up, and of course, low taxes.

        8. avatar Another Robert says:

          @ Jake–Not sure about that “non-sentient” thing, fetuses have been observed to respond to outside stimuli. And we’re all “just bundles of cells” if you want to get that technical.

        9. avatar ropingdown says:

          I find the abortion issue odd. We know that during the 1st trimester the fetus has not quickened. An abortion during that time does not strike me as homicide. We know that a fetus in the 3rd trimester can indeed survive outside the womb, and so 3rd trimester abortions do seem (to me) like homicide.

          But given the above here is what strikes me as odd. How is it that women do not know in the 1st trimester that they are pregnant, but are not prepared to carry the fetus to term? To equivocate for six months strikes me as monstrous, or at least very very dull witted. I’ll have to inquire about this. The issue has been an election albatross.

        10. avatar Accur81 says:

          @the abortion supporters

          A couple of points:

          1. At one time, YOU were that “non-sentient bundle of cells” in the womb of your mother. You exist today, ironically in support of abortion, because your parents chose to follow that natural process of human development from an embryo to a human being.

          2. I’ve yet to see someone see my hi-def 3D color image ultrasound of Emerson (my son) and remark that he’s a good-looking “fetus.” He was a 6 month old baby in-utero at the time, and was nearly born pre-mature. He was moving, reacting to stimuli, and had recognizable features which he still has today. He also was able to open his eyes and recognize my voice immediately after being born. Why? He heard my voice in the womb. He also heard mom’s voice, Collective Soul, Gun N Roses, Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin, Switchfoot, etc.

          3. Abortion rights activists seem to have no care – or very little – for the illegal practice of partial birth abortion. Abortion rights activists also don’t care about a viable fetus – or a baby that could survive birth, being ripped apart by a vacuum. Further, all infants require constant care from the moment of birth from the 5 1/2 month premature baby to the the full term 9 month / 40 week baby.

          4. I would have a lot less of an issue with abortion if it were the baby’s choice instead of the mother. I wouldn’t go back in time 38 years and choose to be aborted. Would you?

          And so many of the pro-death, pro-abortion, anti-responsibility themes that go with abortion can be blasted by pictures of babies, ultrasounds, natural human development, etc. Pregnant women who have been punched in the stomach can have murder charges brought against the attacker. Interesting. If it is merely a valueless bundle of cells dies, why should there be any consequences for destroying it?

          If find the mental gymnastics required to call an unborn child a baby if it is wanted and a fetus if it is not to be along the same lines as gun grabbers. It’s an “assault weapon” in the hands of the unwashed civilians hands and a patrol rifle when held by uniformed police.

        11. avatar doesky2 says:


          You make it seem like there is some kind of magic or unusual circumstances that the baby COULD end up being a “full human”. In reality it isn’t some rare occurrence that an embryo is going to make it to walking human. Unless you vacuum it out of the womb or snip its neck with a pair of scissors, that “bundle of cells” will make it to their first day of kindergarten.

          Some day hopefully you’ll grow up and understand how fvcked up your thinking was.

        12. avatar ThomasR says:

          This is for Jake T. and Nick; since I find both of your reasoning pretty much identical, in your collective view point.

          For me, it’s pretty simple, just because the baby isn’t developed enough to exist outside the womb, doesn’t make it a thing with no value as a human being; and then suddenly, at 20 or 22 weeks when it can live outside the womb, suddenly it has value as a human being? the fact that you both can make such a distinction is based, I believe, on one basic premise.

          This is the same premise of all gun grabbers; that individual human life has no value outside the collective; that the individual is only important in some amorphous group; and that the individual can be sacrificed to that collective good. This is why the Liberal/progressive hates the idea of an individual carrying a gun, it is saying that an individual has importance, has power outside the collective.

          You both; show this in your attitude that the most helpless and powerless among us; a young undeveloped baby still in the womb; is without out value; and can be killed because of convenience.

          To me,what you both are really showing is a hatred for life; an embracing of the idea that life can be sacrificed for convenience; and that this embracing of mass murder is simply a choice.

          It really shows, I believe; at a deep level; is a hatred of yourselves, clothed in the mantle of “rational(e)” thought.

          This is why I see this time we live in is actually one of the most savage and brutal in history; with the mass murder of hundred of millions of living human beings and the unborn to the god-state of communism/liberal-progressivism.

        13. avatar doesky2 says:


          I agree that this is a unique period in time where state-sanctioned mass murder is able to be committed because the technology enables it to be hidden. It’s not as messy as those tangled and twisted photos of Jews at Treblinka and elsewhere. I’m pretty confident that the tide will turn one day and our ancestors will look at what was done and be aghast.

          What’s very interesting is that some states are trying to use technology to enable pregnant women to hear the fetal heatbeat or be shown existing high-def pictures of the embryo at various weeks of development. Oh how the leftists are wailing about how evil the Right is in trying to properly inform woman of the medical decisions that they are making.

          To top it all off, at the same time the mantra of the Left is how “anti-science” the Right is. Uh-huh. So which side in this debate is treating the woman like an adult? Which side is trying to squelch information and education?

        14. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Sorry, but compelling a woman to give birth to an unwanted fetus is nothing but chattel slavery. The skin is the final property line. The inside of other people’s bodies is outside anyone else’s jurisdiction. Without self-ownership, the concept of “liberty” is an empty promise.

          Women have an unalienable right refuse to have their organs conscripted into the production of minions for the Neocon/Theocrats’ Lord and Master, the Almighty State.

          And it’s ironic, not that the Theocrats believe women to be chattel property, but that God Herself, in Genesis 2:7, defines the beginning of life as the moment when the “lump of clay” (the woman’s uterine content) receives the Divine Breath of Life. Until then, it is property.

          And there is no moral, legal, or constitutional way to even know that a woman is pregnant unless she tells you so.

          No, each human is her own property, and the female, being the one who produces the potential human, is the Rightful Authority to determine if any of them are given independent life.

          Freedom is my Worship Word.

        15. avatar Paul G. says:

          Women are not being forced into producing children. Nice false rhetoric.
          By huge margins, the children being refused the right to exist are forcibly removed from the wombs of women who engaged in consensual sex, fully aware that the biological reason for sex is procreation. Even if they used birth control, they were aware that such things are not completely effective.
          Seeing as how the child is the product of two individuals, and seeing as how the father can be held financially responsible for that child for decades, whether he wants to be or not…it is not unreasonable to hold that a pregnant woman be compelled to nine months of caring for the product of her consensual liaison, surrendering the child to the father or the state upon birth, if she is opposed to caring for it herself.
          By the way, the God of the Bible you misquote from is never referred to in the female gender, so if you quote from it, you should also respect that norm. Besides, if you were referring to a she, you would have used “goddess”, I have seen you do so before. Perhaps this is to underscore the satirical nature of your allegations.
          It makes no mention of a uterine form, contrary to your assertion. Are you implying that a female is likened to the ground? Shame on you.
          In that regard however, we find Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”
          Look up fetus…. a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born.
          The female does not “produce” the “potential human”, the male and female both contribute to the conception of a human, who remains in the womb of the female in the earliest stages of its life, as it develops to the point where it can exist outside of the protection of the womb. Maybe you need to revisit sex ed.

        16. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “Women are not being forced into producing children.”

          Then what’s the “pro-life” label about? If they actually acknowledged women’s right to self-ownership, then why all the verbal gymnastics in an effort to justify enslaving them?

          And speaking of “pro-life,” Howcome you never see one outside a clinic with a “We Will Adopt” sign, but only terrorizing vulnerable girls with grisly pictures of botched operations? Howcome they’re also always pro-war?

          No, overriding anyone’s free will for any reason is unacceptable in a truly Free society.

        17. avatar Paul G. says:

          Pro-life definitely does not insinuate forcing anyone to get pregnant. Your rhetoric is becoming asinine.
          There are no verbal gymnastics. It takes two to create a child, so what is your point? Indeed, women’s groups have been quite vociferous in making fathers support and take responsibility for their child. Except when the mom thinks allowing that human to be born would be an inconvenience?

          If a father is responsible for that child (and he should be, he was a requirement for it to be conceived), he has every right to assume the responsibility of making sure that human is allowed to develop, be born, and live a full life. Forcing a man to be responsible for the child he creates is OK, coercing the woman not to murder the child she conceives is not? Yet one is an onus for decades, the other for months? The state also has a responsibility to save lives, not dispose of them.

          You think a one month developed human is not human? Ask a biologist. Check the DNA. It most certainly is human. It takes nearly two decades outside the womb for the typical human to be “fully developed”.

          I can agree with your take on free will, remembering that decisions breed consequences. When a woman freely engages in an act of precreation, murder is not a viable option in the event that procreation actually does take place.

          You do realize there is quite a waiting list for adoptions, right? No need to advertise. There are plenty of children being adopted from outside of the country as a result. This of course, has no bearing on the topic, it is merely your attempt to rationalize what is clearly wrong, even in your own mind.

          As to pro-war, I seriously doubt that anyone is pro-war. False rhetoric again? If you were going to say pro-death penalty, again so what? There is a world of difference between the executing of a person who is a fully developed, sentient being, who most certainly has committed an especially grievous crime; and the snuffing out of the life of the most powerless form of human life that exists on this earth. One has chosen his fate, fully aware of his actions, the other is the epitome of innocence.

          The woman exercised free will in engaging in the act of procreation, both partners in that act face consequences for their actions. Murder is not a way of undoing that action, in the same way that “giving the money back” does not undo the robbing of someone. Murder is much worse than robbery, as well.

        18. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “Pro-life definitely does not insinuate forcing anyone to get pregnant. ”

          Maybe not, but if her birth control fails, then you want to summarily condemn her to twenty years’ hard labor at her own expense. Or maybe spend millions of dollars of taxpayer money tracking down the spermdonor and making him pay for the upkeep of the unwanted new little Xtian soldier. I guess you justify it in your mind as punishment for her sin of fornication, and of course, you are your lord and master’s enforcer on Earth.

          I wonder if you slavers realize that Freedom of Choice doesn’t mean mandatory abortions, which it sounds like you people are afraid of.

          In the interim, you people are one of the reasons I’m so gratified to see the upsurge in the numbers of women taking responsibility for their own defense, i.e., bearing arms.

        19. avatar Paul G. says:

          More false rhetoric? Forced labor? You have a vivid imagination. Nine months, to give birth to a human that she gladly participated in creating, is what is being asked for. I guess when facts do not support you, you build straw arguments.

          You yourself even referred to the unborn person…you know what it is. Your quote about citizenship does not support the idea of the unborn not having rights, so why cite it? Neither does the law. If a pregnant woman is hit by car and killed on her way to get an abortion, the driver faces two counts for killing two persons, not one.
          Resorting to derision only underscores your lack of an argument.

        20. avatar doesky2 says:

          re…Rich Grise steaming pile of hokum.

          By your “reasoning” you can murder a baby 90% out of the birth track except for their head. For Lefty insane scum that’s called partial birth abortion, for someone with any shred of a moral compass, it’s rightly called infanticide. Another vomit inducing moment by Rich.

        21. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “re…Rich Grise steaming pile of hokum.”

          I see you’ve started with the ad hominem attack, since you’re unable to refute any of the facts I have presented.

          Thanks for showing your true stripe so quickly.

        22. avatar doesky2 says:


          There is no reason to refute each of your suppositions when they all boil down to window dressings for infanticide. Nope, no reason to debate the small stuff when you support the dismemberment of a living, kicking, crying baby that’s 90% on the delivery room table. Just think about that for a second.

          For other people who may have a soul…….
          Contribute to the crowd source funding for a movie (not a documentary) about the U.S. biggest serial killer, abortionist Kermit Gosnell. The production team has other movies under their belts and they are at 400K$+ of a 2.1M$ goal.

      2. avatar Publius says:

        Spot on. Sadly, seeing how a large percentage of gun owners are religious wackos, you’re going to be vilified for daring to use science instead of feelings.

        1. avatar doesky2 says:

          It’s rather sickening that our country has degraded to the point that somebody is considered a “religious wacko” when they mourn the fact that the US is missing about 50 million people. Rest assured that some of those so called 50 million dregs would have made great scientific discoveries or added significantly to the fabric of our country. Leftist ideology makes me vomit.

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          Please give me the scientific basis of that “non-sentient” thing–if true, it would be a great comfort to me to know all those feet Dr Gosnell collected came from “non-sentient bundles of cells”. And no, I’m not a religious wacko, thank you.

        3. avatar ThomasR says:

          You make the point Publius; why are so many gun owners; that support the right of an individual to defend their life with a firearm; also so passionate about the right to life of an unborn baby? ie “religious wackos”

          Because we do respect the life of all human beings; even those that aren’t born yet. For the people that can rationalize the murder of the most helpless among us, simply for convenience; they will be the ones supporting the mass murder of the human beings that have survived the womb that they see as a threat.

          Which is why the gun-grabbers/liberal/progressives keep calling for the violence and the murder by government enforcers of gun-owners and of Christians; they already support the murder of the unborn.

        4. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “Because we do respect the life of all human beings; even those that aren’t born yet. ”

          Sorry, but you can’t “respect the life” of a fetus who isn’t born without totally stripping away the rights of the existing person that it is inside of. The only people who have rights are those who can be seen with the naked eye.

          Amendment XIV:
          “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. …” (emphasis mine)

          Doesn’t say anything about unborn fetuses, only people who are born.

          So, sorry, you so-called “pro-lifers” are wrong on every level.

          Besides, if you’re so “pro-life,” If “all life” is so sacred to you, why aren’t you camped out on the White House steps demanding an immediate end to all of Your Lord and Master’s wars?

        5. avatar Paul G. says:

          You falsly assume only citizens have rights. Plenty of resident aliens woukd disagree.

        6. avatar Rich Grise says:

          No, I’m saying that only people who have already been born have rights, whether they’re pregnant or not.

  7. avatar ST says:

    We face a dilemma of philosophy versus reality. Philsophically, modest regulations like, for example, a $5 shall issue CCW permit in the fashion of a library card for all non-incarcerated citizens wouldn’t constitute a big deal for anyone.

    Realistically, given the nature of government, it is inevitable someone of poor ethics will rise to power. When that happens, the library card type CCW permit turns into a corrupt party favor for the political machine of the moment. And stays that way indefinitely .

    To prevent the Yees and Obama’s of years to come from seizing power they don’t have, we are forced to pragmatically default to ” no regulations at all”. That’s the fact the other side doesn’t like to acknowledge-because, a corrupt government entirely derails the basic foundation of modern liberal collectivism.

    1. avatar Dale says:

      You’ve hit at least one nail right on the head. Even if the people -currently- in power were utterly trustworthy (yeah, that’s another conversation altogether) that still doesn’t address the fact that the -people- in office come and go but the laws tend to stick around pretty much forever.

      So sure, maybe the guy pushing for a law/restriction/regulation right now is a “good guy” but what about the guy after him, and the next, and the next….

  8. avatar Pahtun6 says:

    Personally I believe back ground checks aren’t a infringement on the second amendment, as the vast majority of the population can pass one. I think any cap on capacity is stupid and needs to e done away with, and there should never be a registry of firearm owners. And no bans on types of firearms that have been banned in some states.

    Other than that I’m sure we could find some common ground though still. Like wanting to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous felons, and those who have a severe mental disability.

    1. avatar Jürgen says:

      The question about background checks is if they work at all and as we could have seen lately, they don’t seem to be doing much of a job re preventing deranged people from obtaining guns.

      1. avatar Nick says:

        I don’t think any of us think they would do much, but I would be 110% for universal background checks (prpvided free of charge with an E-verify system of some sort, or just opening the NICS to the public) IF it came with deregulation of silencers and SBR’s along with the removal of the Hugh’s amendment.

    2. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      “.. back ground checks aren’t a infringement on the second amendment, ”

      Yes. But no.

      Is it a burden? Slightly. The form is easy enough. The process, when it works, is fast enough.

      Is it helpful? No. Not really.

      Is it an infringement on the Second Amendment? No. But it IS an infringement on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in that a background means I have to prove myself innocent before I can exercise a Constitutionally Protected Right.

      1. avatar Larry says:

        If a background check in not an infringement, then it can only be 100% ineffective. Look up “infringement”! If that is the case, what good is it?

      2. avatar A samurai says:

        “(A background check violates the 4th and 5th amendments because it)… means I have to prove myself innocent before I can exercise a constitutionally protected right.”

        Holy crap… you just blew my mind with so much logic. I never thought of it in those terms and you couldn’t be more right.

  9. avatar Bigred2989 says:

    No because the antis have nothing to lose in these dealings. Most of them don’t own or plan to own guns so they don’t care if it inconveniences people. Just like religious fundamentalists want to ban abortion or gay rights because they think it doesn’t effect them (the former if they are male).

  10. avatar Zach says:


    The problem is we already have too many limitations that make absolutely no sense what so ever, and these jackasses want to stack on even more. They don’t give a damn about the thousand other some odd regulations on fire arms or the fact that they are barely enforced, yet they want to stack on even more limitations on to us for the actions of a few.

    1. avatar A samurai says:

      I think the problem is with “his side”. The problem is that “his side” can only think of solutions in terms of limitations on gun rights, even though years of statistics are showing that limiting guns worsens crime rates not reduces them. The problem is that the “absolutists” aren’t the “gun nuts” its the gun grabbers. If you need any proof of my position just look at his own words. He calls “his side” the “gun grabbers” which is what they are, they are people that want to take guns away, if they could from everyone. Then he calls the pro 2nd Amendment side the “gun nuts”, “nuts” of course referring to people who are so devoted to something they are insane or incapable of seeing reason.
      The words you choose betray how you think. In the author’s mind “gun nuts” are already wrong before they even get to make their argument. After all they are nuts! And that’s why there is no common ground. Not because people like guns, but because people who fear guns all think that gun owners are “gun nuts”.

  11. avatar AlleyF says:

    No common ground. Same problem seen; entirely different paradigns of how to address said issue. No common ground/compromise whatsoever.

  12. avatar Joe Grine says:

    There are more than 30,000 deaths a year from car crashes and yet I don’t hear an calls for banning cars. And lets not even get started on motorcycles.

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      Deaths from car crashes are high, but injuries are much higher. So how is it, I ask, that people prescribed medications labelled “do not operate dangerous machinery while taking this medicine” do not have their drivers license suspended for the duration? Physicians are handing patients medications like Ambien, Xanax, and so forth for which the evidence is conclusive that the patient’s reflexes are greatly diminished, and yet we have no “Physicians against driving while medicated” lobby.

      We have people leaving toddlers in hot cars, running red lights, swerving into DC Capital barriers, hitting children playing, all because we do not enforce the “no drive” common-sense car control for people on medications that impair operator reflexes and ability to pay attention. The information is available. No one has the nerve to act.

      No one even talks about this. My anecdotal experience has been that the people I know taking such medications have all had at least one stupid accident.

      1. avatar A samurai says:

        Because cars and medications aren’t dangerous! GOSH! Nothing is dangerous until it has “that thing on the stock that goes down”, don’t you know anything?

  13. avatar General Zod says:

    As long as they see private gun ownership as the problem? No.

    As long as they rush to punish law-abiding gun owners for the actions of criminals and lunatics? No.

    As long as they justify their position with lies and falsehoods? No.

    As long as they characterize us as fringe lunatics? No.

    As long as they equate gun ownership with racism? No.

    You can’t find “common ground” with people who wear their ignorance like a crown and openly hate anyone who disagrees with their opinions or brings facts to the discussion.

    1. avatar ThomasR says:


    2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      I completely agree.

      I’ve been pitched this “common ground” line before too. There’s nothing new under the sun here guys – all their tropes, lies and so on are just re-treads of the crap from the late 80’s and early 90’s.

      Back then, when someone pitched this “can’t we agree on something?” line (the version then of the “common ground” trope that liberals peddle today), I said “Why yes, we can. We can agree that you’re a liar. I have the official stats here from the UCR to show you that you’re telling lies when you spout your numbers. Once we agree you’re peddling lies and strawmen, then we can talk.”

    3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:


      To put it in words of my father,”You can’t reason with unreasonable people.”

  14. avatar SouthernPatriot says:

    How many people die each year in automobiles? How many of those die each year in automobiles as a result of drunk drivers? Is there common ground to rid us of drunk drivers?

    I am not willing to penalize law abiding drivers because of the actions of some which wreck carnage on the highways, either by using a telephone, reading a map, talking and looking at family and friends in the vehicle, falling asleep at the wheel, or being high on prescription or illegal drugs or any other means.

    I am not willing to penalize law abiding patriots and citizens because of the mentally unsound, criminals, or Muslim jihadists. Period.

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      Not only are car accidents responsible for more unintentional death and injury, but driving impaired has been treated by the police and courts as an fact that diminishes responsibility, and is claimed as such by those who crash cars, see, for example, Kathleen and Patrick Kennedy’s cases.

      “I was just under the influence of prescrible Ambien,” or Phergan, or…whatever. Both drugs must be labelled as impairing the ability to operate dangerous equipment. Prescription of either should cause suspension of driving privileges or, at the very least, presumptively increase the culpability of a driver for any accident occurring within twelve hours of taking the drug. Obviously. Science-based. Are the physicians lobbying for this? The left? No. Surprised?

  15. avatar Tom from Georgia says:


    When he and his kind learn to close their traps once and for all, then I’ll reconsider. Maybe. I’d trust a rattlesnake down my shirt to not bite me more than these Quislings.

    Until then, I consider them to be my mortal enemies and treated as such. I’ve said it a million times before and I’ll say it again a million more times – you do what you what with your skin. Do not tell me what to do with mine. You’d think that would be easy enough to know and understand, but apparently not.


  16. avatar Burnout says:

    Here we go again with the Have a Conversion nonsense. Shall not be infringed. Conversation over.

  17. avatar Noishkel says:

    Honestly I don’t think there is. When ever an disarmament proportionate like this starts going off on just how many deaths there are by gun they immediacy ignore all context of these deaths. As most of us here probably know more than half of those are suicides, a scant few are accidents, and the rest are directly attributed to crime. And even then that number is quickly dwarfed by all other means of death that are reported in this nation. People like this will always ignore the hard facts in favor of going with the emotion.

    On my less charitable days I say these people should all be treated like idiot children that they act and think like…

  18. avatar tdiinva says:

    There should be but there isn’t.

  19. avatar KrkrJak says:

    Only to the degree that we can come to accept the same, actual definitions of what good and evil mean and how they are to be responded to. Without that foundation, we have no common ground whatsoever.

  20. avatar Michael G Marriam says:

    We already have agreed to too many restrictions upon our civil rights. We have let the starting point for “common ground” discussions be moved way too far from where it should be. The assumption that more restrictions will lead to less violence committed with guns is a sophistry: a classical rhetoric technique based upon presenting a reasonable sounding but false proposition designed to lead to a false conclusion. Wake up gunners don’t be sucked into this discussion.

  21. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

    Let’s start by having this guy and other antis get it right when they summarize or stances. We do not oppose any restriction to gun “use,” we oppose restrictions on what we can own and where we can carry.

    We ask believe that guns are only ti be used as the very last of last resorts, when you can see no way of surviving an encounter otherwise. We don’t use them to settle arguments or secure for ourselves the right of way in traffic.

    As long add he is willing to mischaracterize the pro gun stance despite the clarity with which we present it there can be no common ground.

    1. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

      Wow, smart phone typing fail.

  22. avatar Pahtun6 says:

    Jurgen, your right. The point is, and I’ve seen it personally, is people get upset over having to complete a background check, when in all reality it’s not that big of a deal.
    I was also thinking they if mental heth did somehow come into play then there would be no more doctor patient confidentiality.

    1. avatar RAECOREP says:

      Well, for me it’s an infringement! Doesn’t matter where or when, I ALWAYS get delayed. Kind of hard to buy a gun at a gun show or out of town and having to wait usually until the 3 day waiting period is up. ALWAYS! Even though I have had a carry permit for many years. There is no reason for back round check. If you are already not allowed to own a firearm this will not stop you.

  23. avatar former water walker says:

    “Can we agree” is an old salesman technique ( or TRICK “) to get people to relax & let their guard down. I never agree with gun grabbers about anything. Anyone calling me a gun nut I automatically move to the s#!t list. From an old salesman.

    1. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

      That’s the other side of that trick, though. When you refuse to agree with ANYTHING they use that to make you/us look unreasonable to the fence sitters. Ferret out the misconceptions their statements are based on, like “if we get rid of guns then all the deaths that involve guns will stop and NO OTHER forms of violence will replace them,” and correct them. Point out that more people are alive because, and only because, they had a gun than people who died from a gunshot and couple that with the fact that many of the homicides committed with a gun would have been committed with another implement had no gun been available.

      It’s verbal Jui Jitsu, and they are very very good at it. Go with them on a ‘compromise’ and they use that momentum to push for unreasonable ends, stand too firm in your refusal to agree, they use that against you too. Go at their underlying misconceptions directly. In a martial art you don’t want to over commit by leaning into your strike, in this national debate you don’t over commit by making overly broad generalizations that sound ridiculous or aren’t quite true (even if they are close).

      You just need to remember the hand-full of points that trump all their arguments: The UK is more violent than the US, and the violence in the US is mainly confined to gangbangers and those around them. More lives are saved by civilian gun ownership than taken by criminal gun use and violent crime in the US has been steadily dropping for decades even though gun ownership and the carrying of firearms has been increasing significantly.

      Throw it in their face that what they really want is to sacrifice a greater number of lives to save fewer lives as long as those people are dying in ways they won’t read about in the newspapers.

  24. avatar Gun_Chris says:

    If the anti’s would acknowledge and allow gun deaths to be broken down by cause, I think we could have a real conversation about how to prevent them without any infringement of rights.

    But of course their goal is total disarmament, which relies on lumping and conflating, all the causes together (ie. lying) in order to better scare people out of ownership.

    So I suppose the answer is no, there can be no common ground when one group’s entire goal is total disarmament and they are willing to lie to achieve it.

  25. avatar scoolbubba says:

    I assume they lump the Founding Fathers in with the rest of us ‘gun nuts.’ If they’d wanted regulations and infringements, they’d have probably left that whole ‘shall not be infringed’ clause off the end of the Second Amendment.

    If they want to change the amendment, then by all means, have at it.

  26. avatar Kirk says:

    Is there common ground with people talking about mental health problems whose first move is to take away my inalienable Right to defend myself?


  27. avatar Eddie Garcia says:

    Again, the antis are claiming “reasonable” as their exclusive turf. Deny them this. They don’t get to define “reasonable” or “common sense” for the rest of us.

    1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      I personally love the “reasonable” & “common sense” arguments. It opens the door wide open for the “if reasonable & common sense are the standard, we first need to discuss repealing a bunch of unreasonable laws that make no sense at all” argument.

  28. avatar tfunk says:

    It’s interesting to me that the only focus is on “gun deaths”. Why are we not focusing on ALL deaths not from natural causes? Perhaps because they don’t find it easy to blame all of the various hammers/bats/hands/feet/rope/knives/pools/etc for those deaths?

    And we’d actually have to look into the psychology of WHY these murders/deaths are happening?

  29. avatar LJM says:

    Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.


  30. avatar lfodf says:

    The issue was settled in 1787 for all you libtards that don’t know. ALL laws infringing on the unalienable RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR arms are unconstitutional. You may not like that, you may be to stupid to see the genius in that, you may be so femnized that the thought of bad people doing bad things petrifies you and so you can’t deal with evil in a rational manner, but the founders knew evil, they knew what it takes to deal with evil, and that includes the evil that is government. So NO there is no compromise position! NO infringement PERIOD you sniveling libtard.

    1. avatar RAECOREP says:

      HERE! HERE!

  31. avatar Russ in Idaho says:

    To paraphrase Sir Charles Barkley, the poor have been voting for the same party for more than 50 years, and yet nothing has changed. Those same politicians have been railing against the evils of guns, even as gun ownership, open carry, concealed carry, and total guns in circulation have grown year over year while violent crime has fallen year over year. Evidence and facts are meaningless in their quest for continued power.

    I read two other blog posts this morning that both made great points concerning the ongoing question of citizen disarmament. Daniel Greenfield, at His premise, that every mass shooting/gangland murder tears apart the myth that more government is the answer. Worth your time (and my apologies if posting links is verboten.)

    The other is by a career Army Officer who penned a missive that Robert Farago will be mad he didn’t write first about the folks that scoff at an armed populace being able to hold fast against a trynnical US Military, when the more obvious abusive tyrrany (and thus need for an armed populace) lies in our local police and/or the various kitted up Operating Operators Operating for the various Federal Agencies… Again worth a read.

    Thanks for the greart site, and the Armed Intelligistas herein.

  32. avatar Maineuh says:

    These bastards can’t be trusted, so no. Conversation over. Let’s just let the bill of rights decide.

  33. avatar AnotherOne says:

    There will never be common ground. They want us to ‘give up’ things, while giving nothing in return. That’s not how a negotiation works, and we’re out the door before the discussion starts.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      I think you’re on to something there.

  34. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    We have tried many of the laws they want to put back on the books already and they were a total failure. We had an AWB, it had zero effect on crime. We had a magazine capacity ban and we had some of the worst mass shootings in history during this time. We have had bans on handguns or on carrying handguns by lawful citizens and it had zero effect on crime. We have places with gun registries which have done zero to stop crime. We have placed severe restrictions on rifles and shotguns with arbitrary barrel lengths with zero effect on crime. We have placed bans on machineguns with zero effect on crime.

    So tell me again how your “reasonable” restrictions actually affect criminals and stop crime? They don’t! Prohibition style laws do not work. Laws against certain criminal acts are already in place. Murder, assault and so on are illegal. What has been for a good portion of last century was a ban on lawful citizens from protecting themselves which resulted in more crimes. We now have looser gun laws federally and through most of the country and a nearly 50% decrease across the board in crime over the past 20 years.

    The anti-freedom lobby is peddling the same crap they have for the past 100 years that has been proven to be a failure. I won’t listen to your garbage if you can’t come up with a coherent strategy that directly targets criminals and criminal behavior. Once you come up with a plan to go after the proximate cause, then we can talk.

  35. avatar Hannibal says:

    One problem is that it’s being framed as ‘gun-related deaths.’ That term tells me there is nothing to discuss in terms of methods, because the very problem is poorly defined. If he wants to talk about homicides, I will do that… but not just guns. If he wants to talk about suicide, I will tell him to butt out of other people’s business. If he wants to talk about accidental deaths due to children gaining access to unsecured guns, we can talk about that.

    But “gun-related deaths” is a purposely obfuscated term that is used to get whatever new laws the user wants, and I’ll have no part in it.

  36. avatar Don1974 says:

    Not only is there no chance of that happening but what pro-gun person in their right mind would want to go deal with those egg heads.

  37. avatar mike says:

    Yes the common ground is we all live in the same country governed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    For good or bad, some better some worse, we all gotta live with it. Otherwise, simply GTFO.

  38. avatar Malcolm says:

    When those of us who are pro 2a can’t even agree with each other on this web site, I have a hard time seeing much cooperation with the anti-2a crowd.

    1. avatar JeffR says:

      Nice point.

  39. avatar Jeff from FL says:

    Sure. If you don’t like guns, don’t own them.
    If you don’t like scary black rifles, don’t own them.
    Violence in itself will happen regardless of the presence of firearms, and I for one want the ability to defend myself with the great equalizer.
    The only common ground we will ever achieve is this: This is america. We are free. We have the freedom of choice( see above). If you don’t like it, then move.

  40. avatar Larry says:

    Can’t all us peaceful people agree that the only thing which stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun? That is so blatantly obvious it seems EVERYBODY should agree. So, let’s repeal all gun laws and begin dreaming up ways to motivate good guys to carry fine, high powered, large capacity firearms everywhere they go, including generous rewards for defending innocents. Should be possible at a fraction of the cost of fielding policemen to accomplish the same result by the same means.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Even the antis implicitly agree with that–but again, they are only willing to recognize the police and military as “good guys”, and the military only when they are in the foreign field(not, apparently, on bases in the US). So again, as a practical matter, no common ground there.

  41. avatar 505markf says:

    Well, a start would be to agree that the majority – around 67% – of “gun deaths” are suicides AND the ending of a person’s life is their personal choice and responsibility. Is it sad? Absolutely. If a loved one of mine killed themselves, it would haunt me forever. But it is a personal choice.

    We could also agree that of the remaining 33%, the majority of those killed are themselves criminals or engaged in a criminal lifestyle. I’d heard estimates of the percentage of homicides suffered by those with a prior felony conviction ranging from 60 to 80%.

    So, at a conservative estimate, 30,000 X .33 X .40 = 3,960 people are not suicides and not involved in a criminal lifestyle or gang. Can we agree on that? Because when you throw around that 30,000 number you are proving your lack of trustworthiness in this issue. You are showing your true colors, which is that you will lie, inflate, and spin anything in order to prove your point. So, we could agree that as long as you are using the trick above, we have nothing to talk about.

    We could agree to slot firearms death – intentional and accidental – into a list of risk categories and then have a society-wide discussion on which one we want to address first. That would be useful. But then you would have to engage in an honest exploration of the positive side of gun ownership, which is something you will never do because it turns your agenda on its head.

    But basically, until you realize that our side – honest, legal gun owners – have been compromised to death by politicians and gun grabbers and people just like you since the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the dozens of federal acts, laws, and restrictions passed to date – not to mention the even more draconian legislation that has been passed at the state levels in the past 50 years.

    We see hundreds of thousands of our brothers and sisters in arms becoming instant felons in NY and CT because they refuse to register weapons outlawed because your side doesn’t like the way they look.

    So no, I don’t think compromise or even meaningful dialogue is possible on this topic. It damn sure isn’t for me. You try to pass laws against us. Go for it. But don’t ask us to bend over and accept it without pushing back. The time for accord is long over. We have been vilified and attacked enough. We are mad as hell and we aren’t going to take it anymore.

    So, basically, come and take ’em.

    1. avatar Maineuh says:

      I wish to use this answer.

    2. avatar SomeOneInWA says:


  42. avatar Icabod says:

    There’s a picture that addresses much of the issue:

    It’s photos of the Giffords, Aurora, and Sandy Hook shooter/killers. There’s no gun law, no background check, that’s been passed, or proposed, that would stop any of them from getting a gun. All the recent gun laws have been directed against honest gun owners that follow the rules.

  43. avatar rlc2l f says:

    Mr Cooper. You go first and I will speak with you online here in comments, or in person. Stephen Covey’s first rule- Seek First To Understand.

    You do any of these things, and report back-
    1. Read “Gun Guys”, by Dan Baum, written partly to help his liberal friends understand guns. Its not perfect, but you might be interested because Dan is not one of “the Other” you seem unable to demonize.

    2. Go to a quality range, take a handgun safety class, and some lessons- shoot a few guns. You will challenge your own ignorance, inadequacy of mental thought, and meet some nice people.

    3. Take the NRA Eddie Eagle program with your kids, or attend a presentation at a school, church or community group. Or an Appleseed.

    There you go, talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words. Happy to discuss further here in the comments or privately- PM me in forum, same name. rlc2.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Thought of Eddie Eagle myself. Pure “gun safety” for kids, nothing else. Even the most virulent anti should be able to agree to that. But they won’t, not even the “moderate” ones. Perfect illustration of the lack of common ground.

  44. avatar eugene says:

    I long for the good old days that will probably never return. A few days after returning home to our small farming community from Vietnam I went down to the local hardware store and bought a couple of guns. Cash on the counter and out the door. One could buy a gun from the Monkey Ward catalog. Open up one of the small local newspapers to the classifieds and you would find columns of guns of all types for sale. I can only sigh and wish for that time to return.

  45. avatar DaveL says:


    No, we can’t. We can’t because you are lying. Every gun control lobbyist in my lifetime has claimed to want such a discussion but all have studiously avoided actually having one. You want to restrict gun ownership, that’s the bottom line, and all this noise you make about “gun deaths” is just a convenient excuse.

  46. avatar anonymous says:

    Most of those deaths are suicides, followed by drug and gang-related shootings. Address those two issues, and the “gun deaths” are magically addressed with them. I mean, they DO want to reduce suicides and drug/gang violence, right? And not just grab for our guns?

  47. avatar Cesare says:

    If you rang for room service an hour ago and it still isn’t there it’s a problem, unless of of course you were on the Titanic. Point being all ‘problems’ occur in a larger context. Is 30,000 people a lot? Plainly, but even without removing the number who willingly take their own lives this problem is occurring in a 315 million + universe. Further, when you look more closely at the clusters of violent firearms related death it would suggest more an issue of concentrated pockets of regular violence with rare to intermittent violence in the vast majority of the population. So what end exactly is pursued, what ‘problem’ solved by punishing those who have manifestly NOT committed a crime? This emperor has no clothes; let them keep their agreements and common sense for my part I will not be infringed.

  48. avatar cknarf says:

    By ‘regulations’ they mean either registration, or an AWB. There will be no compromise there, as I feel our rights have been limited enough.

  49. avatar rlc2l f says:

    PS: I’m serious about engaging- and I imagine there’s plenty more who feel the same- in fact, we do it every day, among “us” and with those new to guns seeking to be informed and educated.

    I tried to leave a comment at the Hartford Courant, but I refuse to subsidize FakeBooks privacy invasion for money model, so maybe someone else can do so, or find a way to send him back here-

    One more tip, so you are ready for the sharp elbows here in the RBC:

    here’s the thing, Mr Cooper- when you start out pretending to speak for one group, and characterize another group, as “the other”- you are pretty much “outed” as someone who wants to understand. You seem more to be self-promoting. Thats ok, just save us the sanctimonious BS. Wayyyyy too boring, “we” have seen that same top-down elitism for so long it turns “us” off, and your comments reveal more about your own state of mind, IMHO:

    “There’s an underlying emotional logic to this deadlock. Suspicion about the other side’s basic intentions creates mistrust; mistrust stokes fear; fear feeds anger; anger cues invective”.

    On the other hand, if you REALLY want to know how the entire other half of the country thinks (as you put it- and its not nearly that neat and tidy, because the People of The Gun include all colors, political stripes, sex and preference, btw- you are going to have to actually listen, and suspend your self-imposed biases. Can you honestly do that?

    Next step is yours…lets see how sincere you are…

  50. avatar Jake Tallman says:

    None whatsoever. Besides the fact hat none of the POTG trust the antis (as they’ve demonstrated time and time again that they will not stop until we are utterly defenseless, as well as the fact that they have no qualms about spreading outright lies), there is the simple fact that the idea that any form of gun control is good is based on the idea that guns are bad and need to be regulated.

    It’s also worth noting that compromise is a good thing when one side is not objectively correct, like children taking turns with who gets to be Batman. With gun control, however, it has been proven time and time again that the POTG are objectively right, and the antis are objectively wrong. So why should we cede any ground to those who we know are wrong, especially when we know we are right?

    Sure, it’s an admirable goal to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. But how effective will that really be? Clearly, it hasn’t worked well so far. And it’s worth noting that, while guns are usually the weapon of choice, they are by no means the only way to wreak havoc. Hell, just look at the number of mass killings in China. Know what the weapons of choice are? Knives, and the attacks are just as deadly as our mass shootings.

    No, the mental health care system needs to be improved and the social stigma surrounding mental illness needs to be removed. But more than anything, any kind of gun control (even background checks and “reasonable restrictions” or needing a license to carry a concealed firearm) needs to be abolished, gun safety and marksmanship needs to be taught in schools, and our culture needs to become one where concealed carry is the norm and is considered a responsibility that Americans have.

    Sure, if we could get the CC rate to 100%, some would carry who shouldn’t, without a doubt. But it’s far better to have everyone armed than no one.

    TL;DR No, common ground is impossible. Why should we cede ground on gun control when it has been proven time and time again that we are objectively right and the antis are objectively wrong?

  51. avatar Narcoossee says:

    Before folks start talking about “common ground” solution, they need to have a “common ground” understanding of the purpose of the Second Amendment. All further discussion flows from that. If one side believes that the purpose of the 2A is as a countervailing power to prevent government from acting tyrannically, but the other thinks it was allow woodsmen to hunt rabbits for food, rational debate and mutually agreed upon solutions are impossible.

  52. avatar ValleyForge77 says:

    There once was a time for discussion of ‘common ground’…

    …but that all went away when they felt brave enough to completely reveal their fundamental ignorance of anything firearm-related, their radical hoplophobic zealotry and willingness to lie, mislead, violate the constitution and any other tenant of logic in order to accomplish their cultist ideological mission of the elimination and/or complete emasculation of the 2nd Amendment – all to fulfill their deluded unrealistic vision that somehow by disarming the (law-abiding) people, a new ‘safer’ world will be created where criminals will heed their new laws, and where having no freedoms at all will render the proletariat incapable of harming themselves, or their elitist masters.

    So… NO, I’d say there’s no common ground, because there’s no Trust. Because their already preconceived, tv-confirmed notions and radical ideology do not even allow them to apply even the basic tenants of logic, or even the slightest element of humility or honesty in understanding the issues – or the true root causes of societal ills or the underlying problems that are causing the symptoms we are seeing. They instead blame the tool, not the person. There is no concept of individual responsibility in their socialist vision of the world.

    These people knowingly lie out of one side of their mouth while they quietly snicker and elbow and wink to their fellow cultist comrade with out even a hint of guilt for their knowing desecration of the truth, because it’s not about the truth or reality. It’s about accomplishing their cultist mission.

    Their word holds no value when they use ‘grandfather’ clauses to convince people it’s not so bad and YOU will still be able to keep your assets, only to then go back on their word and confiscate as soon as the air clears in order to complete their mission (think 30 round magazines in SF).

    …and their words hold no value when they engage in naked double-speak that would make Joseph Goebels’ dead corpse blush, such as the CA State Rep’s twisted word game attempt to try to turn their own disgrace and hypocrisy into some means to further their anti-freedom agenda via unilateral action from the Executive branch, when the decried so loudly when those same unconstitutional actions were taken or threatened by GW Bush.

    And their actions even further reveal their true ignorance and halt any progress towards any agreement on any proposed ‘solution” to their ridiculously exaggerated issue, in thinking that somehow a law, that only law abiding citizens will follow, that reduces magazine capacity to 7 or 10 rounds is going to make some kind of difference in any crime or mass shooting, because ‘someone’ (presumably not them), will then charge that psycho criminal and stop him/her sooner. And when you point out any fact that doesn’t fit their deluded preconceived ideological notions, such as how Cho killed 32 people and wounded 17 more with ten round magazines, they simply dismiss said fact and offer up some completely ridiculous non-sequitur from their encyclopedic knowledge of history and firearm fact.

    I’m sure we could all point out a million more examples of their open willingness to lie, their blatant hypocrisy, their complete ignorance of anything firearm-related, their complete lack of acceptance for reality, and their inability to change their minds at all or look at the issues that face our society as a whole, instead of obsess on their ideological war against individual freedoms, and the risks inherent in any free society.

    So yeah, I’d have to say no.

  53. avatar Colt Magnum says:

    I think there can be common ground. First, a national ad campaign. “Plan on killing yourself today? Please, for the children, don’t use a gun. Use some other means”. Also, the gun-grabbers use bad guys, shot by the police, in their statistics.Disarm the police and those “victims” would go away. Neither of these 2 steps would infringe on my 2nd amendment rights.

    1. avatar Publius says:


      That is why if I’m angry and speaking metaphorically, I never say “I want to shoot that person” or some variation of it, I say “I want to stab that person”. Why? Because in the eyes of liberals, murder and assault don’t count if you’re not using a gun.

  54. avatar Giacomo says:

    Oh come on. As gun owners, I bet we ALL know another gun owner who shouldn’t be allowed to _touch_ a firearm, much less carry on a daily basis (the guy at SHOT who kept pointing the 10/22 between my eyes comes to mind). The valid question is: is there a way to identify those people and limit their ability to own or carry firearms without it affecting the responsible people?

    I frankly don’t see one, but I know I’m not the smartest person in the room. I see background checks as a reasonable idea that doesn’t work all that well. I think there’s something to the idea of treating guns like cars: ownership of cars is basically unregulated, but using them in public requires a registration, a license, and demonstrated ability and mod’ing your car on private property with permission is also unregulated. The cases aren’t exactly parallel (registration of guns is a no-no), but carry reciprocity like DL reciprocity and the ability to create any weapon you can on your own property would both be nice.

    The fact that we generally have draconian regulations about carrying at gun shows and SHOT and similar places is a hint that we DO understand that there is a problem: we just don’t think reasonable solutions are being proposed

  55. avatar Nick says:


    (from the other Nick)

  56. avatar dwb says:

    If you are already starting from an intellectually dishonest number that ignores not-firearms related suicides, no.

  57. avatar scooter says:

    Many agree mental health care is an issue from either side, and one of the first things on the list for major gun violence prevention groups is creating a climate of gun safety. Restated: TRAINING to HANDLE GUNS. This is a good thing, as familiarity destroys irrational fears and misconceptions. Win-win.

  58. avatar Gunr says:

    Dis you notice in the statement above by Mr. Cooper that there are 30,000 gun deaths a year, but he said nothing about the many, many, lives that are saved by DGU’s

    How can we have common ground when the anti’s only talk about the deaths caused by guns.

  59. avatar Cyrus says:

    Of course. As soon as one side stops looking down their noses at the other and acts like the grownup. Until then, well…

  60. avatar Fuque says:

    Sorry NO.. redefine the 30k dieing by gun related deaths then we will talk…… A DUI death isnt redefined a gun related death if the guy happened to have a rifle in the gun rack when he crashed…..

  61. avatar Ralph says:

    Common ground? No fvcking way. And the only “middle ground” that interests me is the six feet of it that Bloomberg, Soros et al will someday occupy.

  62. avatar ValleyForge77 says:

    They had their chance at a middle ground and we see what they’ve done.

    We see the laws they proposed at a national level that would have basically marched law abiding gun owners in to be mug-shotted like common criminals, pay heavy taxes on existing assets, and register their firearms to set the zealots up for their next phase of disarmament. We see how they invited the NRA in to talk, only to laugh in their faces as they elbowed each other and snickered. We see how they dismissed adding security to schools as foolish just because the ‘opposition’ proposed it (and most people supported it too). ONLY to then quietly fund such ideas later.

    We see the laws they shuffled through in the middle of the night at the State level by their Democratically controlled State Legislators.

    We have seen what they have done. Are there people caught in the middle on both sides that aren’t zealots? Sure. But we didn’t start this. They did. They saw their opportunity and went full bore all out to the absolute extreme and they lost and it backfired – and in the process broke any means of trust that could have been established. If Obama really wanted a conversation, a compromise, he could have selected people other than the far left extreme anti-gun zealots to lead the conversation, but he didn’t. And here we are.

  63. avatar miforest says:

    No. ” compromise ” is always us giving in to them . thats how brittan , new york and new jersey got the gun laws they have.

  64. avatar Texjim says:

    Some responses here equating to the abortion battle. Difference here is that the anti abortion side is clear when debating their intent to ultimately abolish all abortions. The anti gun side still tries to equivocate their position when if they were being honest, they’d just come out and say they are against all guns. This is where the gun divide really starts for most pro gun folks…they know the real intent of the anti gun side.

  65. avatar SomeOneInWA says:

    Reasonable is in the eye of the beholder. The moment that you accept compromise on a principle (“shall not be infringed”) there is no limit and the goal posts keep moving.
    As Ayn Rand said:
    We should treat the 2A as all other rights: no compromise. There is no other human right more regulated than the rights to keep and bear arms. This must stop and all laws dealing with the right to keep and bear arms should be removed.
    Stop “malum prohibitum”, restore “actus reus” and “mens rea”. Stop crimes due to prohibition, restore the law to deal with evil acts with evil intentions.

  66. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Only when the attempts to impose national gun control by force have failed do the gun grabbers wish to extend an olive branch…

    I fear the Greeks, even when they bear gifts.

  67. avatar John S. says:

    The common ground is most agree the seriously mentally ill and gang members(real gang members) should not own firearms. We disagree on how to deal with that situation. Most of the solutions the antis push are aimed at responsible gun owners, not the mentally ill or gang members. Want to stop school shootings? Arm teachers, parents and hire more security…OHHHH but it costs too much…well…ban assault weapons that will make the next attack less deadly…in theory…if the criminal follows the law.

  68. avatar BR549 says:

    Nope, ……… because we’d be arguing with idiots who STILL don’t understand why the 2nd Amendment was ever added in the first place.

    They are like 6 year olds, who incessantly try to rationalize with their parents why it’s OK for them to stay up till midnight to watch TV. Someday, when they grow up and hopefully mature, they’ll come to understand that the issue was never about the TV, but so far, from what we are seeing lately from these people, all they see is the “warm and fuzzy” rationalizations.

  69. avatar bob says:

    not one inch further. it is time to turn the tide and reverse the already 2000 gun controls already on the books.

  70. avatar Dfens says:

    Can we agree that 88,000 alcohol related deaths per year are too many?


    Is it reasonable that we would solve that problem by banning hard liquor and 24-packs?


    I almost wish the country had a total gun ban for a few years long ago like we did with booze, just so we could point out the total failure of prohibitions.

    1. avatar ValleyForge77 says:

      Perfect illustration:





      …so many more of these. Tobacco, Cars, Gasoline, Knives, Hammers, Swimming Pools, Baseball Bats… Where does it end? In any free society, there are inherent dangers, and we accept that to be free. Isn’t that what we all agreed upon (more or less) after 9/11? Don’t let them steal our Freedom? Just as I didn’t want some foreign terrorist to steal my freedoms, I also don’t want some domestic ‘terrorist’ to do so either. Their retarded simpleton reactive logic is: if someone kills someone with an AR-15, bans all AR-15’s. If someone kills someone with a pump action shotgun (naval base), start calling it an assault shotgun and ban all shotguns, and on and on… where does it end? It’s the same mentality that wants to ban soda cups larger than 12 oz. It’s a zero sum game; freedom and safety hand in hand, yin and yang. You can only achieve ultimate safety by having no freedom. The Founders I think understood this. Our modern day anti-freedom liberals do not.

      And for those liberals who may read this and want to put me in some little box to marginalize me, know that I am not a Republican. I am a radically moderate Independent. So yeah… UH, OH… You’re gonna lose real bad in November.

      1. avatar Maineuh says:

        Nicely put. I stepped on a rake today, cartoon style. Ban ’em.

  71. avatar Chris says:

    –Senator Dianne Feinstein.
    I’m going to say that we’re not going to find common ground.

  72. avatar Don says:

    That thing they call common ground is actually my lawn. Get off my lawn.

  73. avatar Patrick Hayes says:

    20 years ago..maybe.
    Today, not likely. I don’t trust them at all.
    I don’t think the anti’s are even remotely interested in reducing gun deaths. NONE of the laws they have passed in the last 50 years have done that.
    They HATE guns..not gun deaths. They HATE Gun Owners. They are for disarmament of all Americans.
    We have them on record saying so when they didn’t know they were being recorded. They lie and falsify everything.
    The ONLY reason they are asking for a middle ground is they are loosing the fight hands down.
    Screw them. They get nothing. I don’t even care if they exist. Anyone that stupid is a waste of oxygen.

  74. avatar ValleyForge77 says:

    You stepped on the third-rail, bitches. Now reap the whirlwind.

  75. avatar James Lang says:

    Before we can agree to anything the facts need to be plain. 1 How many gun deaths were by inexperienced shooters. 2 How many gun deaths were the result of a “gang-banger” shooting wildly into a crowd. 3 How many gun deaths were the result of suicide. 4 And how many gun deaths were a malicious act. Each item can be addressed on it`s own, Number 1 Can be dealt with by educating young people. to the SAFE usage of a gun. Numbers 2 and 4 only 1 cure arrest, conviction, and execution of the guilty. Number 3 possibly psychiatric help but someone that’s this way WILL find a way to kill themselves no matter what you do to help.

  76. avatar J Mike says:

    There is no common ground when it comes to gun control. Antis believe in their hearts the world would be a better place without guns and are not going to be convinced otherwise.

    The shame is, when we take gun control off the table, there probably is plenty of common ground to be found on solutions to urban gang killings crime, illegal drug trade related killings, suicides, accidental shootings, etc.

  77. avatar Jay In Florida says:

    In a word NO.
    Not as long as the other side keeps using meaningless statistics for death numbers.
    Not as long as there are more drowning’s, suicides, injuries or use of hands, baseball bats etc.
    Car accidents.
    Not to mention the medical profession.
    The biggest killers of them all.
    195,000 a year plus………….

  78. avatar Taco Picasso says:

    No because the anti’s will move the goal post to ratchet up restrictions every time there is an agreement.

  79. avatar Nathan M says:

    Of course there is common ground. Cooper is standing in a portion of it. As gun owner who bought his first firearm in early 80s and who probably falls in the top 10 percentile of gun people, I occupy a somewhat different, but overlapping, portion of it.
    Read Cooper’s full article, including the part where he says “So let me say without hesitation: I am not interested in grabbing anyone’s gun”.
    As for me, I become frustrated when I see the discussion about firearms being monopolized by the extreme positions.
    I see someone arguing that there should be no restrictions on firearm ownership and possession, and I recognize this is not a rational position. If you disagree, then I suggest you make it a point to publicly express your support that those who lack mental capacity, and that felons with long records of criminal conviction for violent crime, should be allowed to own and possess any firearm with no restrictions whatsoever. I suggest you tell this to every person you know for the next week.
    Equally irrational is the concept of banning all firearms. That means no hunting, no law enforcement use, and no military use. If you disagree, then follow the same suggestion I make in the preceeding paragraph.
    Golly gee, I notice dead silence in the room. Then there are muttered comments to the effect of “I didn’t mean that literally” or “that’s not what I meant”.
    Yet that is what both extremes ARE saying. And it is why we need to disregard the extremes and meet on the common ground.
    We should all be admitting that we support reasonable limitations on firearms ownership and possession, AND AT THE SAME TIME we recognize that banning all firearms is not workable.
    Let’s vent our frustrations in private, among our friends. Then we need to throw out the bums on both sides who are monopolizing OUR media and OUR government with their rage and refusal to act like adults.
    That’s why it is called common ground. You don’t own it. I don’t own it. We are here together. The sooner we recognize this and take back the discussion from the extremists on both sides, the better.
    An to those who are going to comment on my post with hatred and (ahem) name calling, I say the following. I am an American. I not only live here, I truly believe in liberty and justice for all. If you believe it is your god given right to hate and advocate violence against people who don’t agree with you being king, so be it. As for me, I’ll continue to be an American in spite of you.

    1. avatar Davis Thompson says:

      I wonder if Mr. Cooper supports Ct’s AWB. I would call that a gun grab. Curious if you would agree.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      Let’s vent our frustrations in private, among our friends.

      What are we, the mafia, that we need to hide our feelings and thoughts? “Never tell anyone outside the Family what you are thinking.” Hah.

      I want everyone to know about my frustrations — especially the clowns in DC and Boston who try to treat me like a subject, and their pathetic enablers in the press.

    3. avatar Another Robert says:

      OK, I usually try to see the other guy’s side of things–in fact, I was a pretty poor lawyer because of that tendency. But here’s what I see when Mr. Cooper says he has absolutely no interest in “grabbing anyone’s gun”: Is he in favor of a “reasonable” restriction on magazine capacity? Then he is in favor of grabbing guns that do not meet that restriction. If to him, “reasonable” means 7 rounds, then he is in favor of grabbing my Makarov. If “reasonable” is 10 rounds, then he is in favor of grabbing someone’s Glock, and so on. Is he in favor of “background checks”? Then he is in favor of grabbing the guns from whoever “fails” the check. Hell, even many POTG are interested in grabbing guns from the hopelessly insane and convicted mass murderers. I see his point, there should be facts we can agree on. But as a practical matter, I don’t see it happening, and even someone like Mr. Cooper does not help when he starts from a dishonest premise.

    4. avatar SomeOneInWA says:

      “I support second amendment, but …”
      Not really interested in what you have to say. I miss the time I spend reading your comment. You are not an American, you are a “statist” pure and simple. I’m curious if you have the same “relative” view about other amendments? Should we suspend the right to a trial for a murderer caught in the act? Why spend the tax money when is very clear that he is the murderer?
      All this “relativism” in regard to our rights are killing America. Period.

  80. avatar MattM says:

    Problem is that with the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968 and the countless other restrictions we have already endured, it seems we HAVE compromised. The probelm is that the gun control side is like the proverbial mouse with a cookie. They always want more…and more…and more.

  81. avatar BluesMike says:

    I’ll agree that innocent people getting killed is a bad thing if the anti-freedom-gunner people will agree that innocent people being saved by a gun is a good thing.

    1. avatar BluesMike says:

      Meant to say:

      I’ll agree that innocent people getting killed “by a gun” is a bad thing if the anti-freedom-anti-gun people will agree that innocent people being saved “by a gun” is a good thing.

      The problem is that they don’t really care about that. They would willingly cause fewer people to be saved (more innocents to be killed) if it met their true goal of taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. Because of that, there is no common ground. Taking guns away is not an end I can agree with.

  82. avatar Excedrine says:

    There is only common ground in so much that the approximately 27,000 annual deaths (and the many injuries) involving firearms is entirely too many.

    From there, it only goes downhill for their side: which is the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex, whose sole and primary goal IS the eventual complete and total disarmament of the populace.

    So long as they continue to openly threaten our rights (and more often than not our lives), I shall always in all things and in all ways continue to out-right refuse to even dream of thinking of doing anything remotely akin to considering anything else they have to say. About anything. Not at any time, not in any place, not under any circumstance, not for any reason whatsoever.

    They are my enemy. They made me theirs after have done exactly nothing to them.

    P.S.: We are the literally the only ones who have even done any compromising in the first place! Is not 26,000+ gun control laws at the local, state, and federal levels not enough for Mr. Cooper?

  83. avatar Muleskinner says:

    Oh my lord, how do you find common ground with liars? 30,000 annual gun-related deaths? What is this clown smoking? The latest statistics show the murder rate in America is 4.78 per 100,000 population. That is just slightly over 16,000 total murders a year. Of those 16,000 murders 70% are committed with firearms or just over 11,000 murders and that number is falling. Hmmm, that is a long way from the 30,000 number pushed by the Hartford Courant. No, I’ll pass on the common ground BS for the simply reason a liar of this magnitude is probably also a latent murderer.

  84. avatar Paladin says:

    Nope nope nope nope nope.

    I have no common ground with deceivers and tyrants, and I am proud of this fact.

  85. avatar Jus Bill says:


    The Yellow Dog journals like the Courant, various Times properties, etc. cannot even agree on a common “frightening” statistic.

    For nearly a century lawful gun owners have seen their rights restricted or legislated away to an alarming degree. We have been compromising, and we see the result.

    This is where it stops!
    This is the year we take our rights back!

  86. avatar juliesa says:

    There’s no common ground whatsoever on guns. None. I’m willing to discuss ways to make it harder for the dangerously mentally ill to be running around loose, refusing to take their meds. However, as far as any proposals regarding guns, those are off the table.

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      One after another, after another, that’s the issue. In VTech, Newtown, Tucson, Aurora…it certainly was the issue. But the left, having decided that keeping dangerous people on the loose was a good cause, simply refuses to face the fact that they over-litigated the issue and got carried away.

      The people that used to be held in those “awful and expensive” hospitals are now filling our awful and expensive jails. That’s the fact in my state, probably in most states. But trying to get the social left to agree that mandatory and monitored medication is a better route has yet to work in PA, opposed by the same people who created (as a well-paid career…) the problem.

  87. avatar McEsteban says:

    It is surprising to me the absolutism in this country. Each side believes the other is a part of an evil cabal that hates safety/liberty and wants to see more people die to prove a point. The only reason that would be true is if you lived inside of an echo chamber. Now to be clear, I am not saying that there aren’t those that hate guns, gun owners, and the freedom that guns provide and will never be convinced otherwise. Those people do exist, but their numbers, organizations, ideals, and allegiances are not nearly as unified as many pro people think. The same can be said for many pro gun people.

    A major pitfall that these divisive allegiances create is alienation. I have seen it here and elsewhere where pro gun folks are denying that anti gun folks are even American or care about freedom. That line of thinking is what allows for civil wars and the like. I think we need to remember that we are all in the same boat here and that most people aren’t working to undermine your freedom, at least not intentionally. Being militantly hostile to anyone that is even slightly different from your point of view is very dangerous, and should not be celebrated. Remember that everyone that you address is your countryman, and they may not be as privy to the same information that you are and may in fact have a different opinion that you haven’t considered. Yet people still alienate.

    One of the reasons folks do that though is because they have been taught by their echo chamber that this homogenous enemy (“those people”) use terms that initially mean one thing but actually mean something nefarious. Looking for dog whistles is a great way to incite paranoia, and that is never a good way to win people over to your side. Too often an anti falls into pro snake pit or vice versa, and through the uses of straw man, hyperbole, and dog whistles totally blow the argument out of proportion. Conversations with people of opposing view points should be viewed as educational opportunities, but they are viewed as winner take all circle jerk shouting matches where the only thing that matters is stumping the other guy, because the other guy just has to be enemy right?

    Having said all of that, I think that we are capable of a legitimate, honest compromise and common ground on many gun related issues. We need only to unshackle ourselves from the tyranny of extremists, alarmists, and absolutists.

    1. avatar Dennis says:

      So, in many fewer words: NO!

    2. avatar SomeOneInWA says:

      Is freedom loving, extremism? It seems that the statists tries to define that like that. When did we arrive at this point? Does the mere ownership of a piece of hardware something wrong? Is the request to be left alone when I did nothing wrong, extremism?
      If yes, I am one of those.
      What common ground can I find with somebody that will tell me what I can own or not? I’m an adult.
      You will not find anybody here that opposes punishing people that use guns to commit a crime. That is the only common ground.

      1. avatar McEsteban says:

        You have successfully proved my point. You believe that your side and everyone on it is homogeneously good, which isn’t the case. You unfairly draw the usually false dichotomy of freedom versus tyranny. You should be allowed to own a firearm, a destructive device designed to kill, maim, and destroy if you haven’t committed a crime. But let’s call it what it is if we are going to call it anything. You aren’t buying, owning, carrying, and using veggies from the supermarket so no it isn’t just another thing. By your logic, you are an adult, should you be allowed to own a nuclear weapon? An opium field? Another human being? So maybe there is a line on what you can and can not own, so we must find where that balance is. Which means compromise.

        Furthermore, your request to be left alone seems good and all, but left alone from what? And where is the line on being left alone? Should I be allowed to withdraw from society whenever I don’t see things going my way? Because that is surely what you are doing. Now you have a damn good reason for it, and I understand why you feel that way, but just because you personally relinquish responsibility to your community and your country doesn’t mean that you still don’t have that responsibility. No matter what the issue being discussed.

        1. avatar Muleskinner says:

          That is the most obtuse argument I have ever read. Who owns the nuclear weapons? Inanimate objects? No humans, humans who are in government and have the means of turning the world into a vast uninhabitable waste land. If the anti’s don’t trust people who own firearms do they also suggest that all government officials give up their authority to use weapons of all types? No, they think that a badge or title somehow makes one human wiser or superior to lesser humans who want to live their lives in peace and safety. Who owns the opium fields? Humans do, because humans harvest a crop which other humans are willing to purchase. Who owns and sells other human beings if not humans? Have you checked on the antics of the Islamic religion that is becoming predominate in this country? The very idea of more compromise is just as dull-witted. I will not compromise my families or my safety regardless of what anyone thinks is necessary. Their hatred, dislike, or fear of an inanimate object is irrational which makes the anti’s nothing less then victims in waiting.

          Don’t you understand what “left alone” means? In case you don’t; it means to be left in peace to pursue one’s own life and happiness without foolish ideals hampering our goals. It means those who think they are superior in their thoughts and needs for societies should STFU and live their own lives in cowardly fear without bothering others. It means we don’t buy their BS utopian ideals which have never worked and we know they still aren’t smart, cagey, or wise enough to make them work. It means we understand that their real intent in disarming others is to murder them. It means we see that their morals don’t have any merit unless they become law and they have those same laws enforced by those who wear badges and are still armed. The anti’s never think about that, do they? They have no problem with humans killing other humans when they wear the proper badge but they can’t stand the thought that people may resist with the force of arms. How naively hypocritical can a group of fools get? Only a pure psychopath can even entertain such flawed thinking. Why aren’t those sluggards being tested?

          I know of no firearms owner who wants to withdraw from society nor do they want to shirk their responsibility to their communities. What is wanted is a just society, with just laws, and free of irresponsible idealistic parasites.

          No more compromise NOT ANOTHER DAMN INCH. Got it?

        2. avatar McEsteban says:

          in the case of nuclear weapons, the idea is that the badge that you take for granted is actually supposed to mean something and not anyone can have it. So there is a difference, though I don’t know why you felt you needed to remind me the difference between humans and inanimate objects.

          I understand your aversion to compromise, it makes sense. However you are looking at that dog whistle again. Compromise is not coded language for take away the guns. Some make it out to be, but that is disingenuous. True compromise requires both sides reaching an understanding and an agreement that ultimately serves both sides. So are you against this dog whistle idea of compromise or true compromise because I hope it is the former. And yes many people don’t understand the necessity of firearms, so teach them instead of retreating and then acting surprised when people that don’t understand your freedom try taking it away. If you are arbiter of the 2nd Amendment, shouldn’t you educated people, especially those that don’t know any better?

          But it is clear that you have no intention of working with your countrymen and solving this rift. You assume that everyone that advocates gun control is a horrible person, or not a person at all. WTH man? Are you so incapable of addressing people of different view point that you resort to devaluing their very life. I said it before, that is how a war starts. Stop thinking them and us and stop breeding paranoia. Do you talk to any anti’s? Do you blow up on em like you just did to me? Is there any reason to believe that as right as you feel you are, and may very well in fact be, that your extremism and simplified view of the world may cost you this extremely valuable debate? I think that that is a real possibility.

        3. avatar Muleskinner says:

          You have bought into the “reasonable” claptrap. There is nothing reasonable about the anti-firearm crowd or haven’t you been listening to their leadership. They know that their only hope for producing a gun free society is through incremental misuse of law (which sane people define as injustice). Again haven’t you heard what they wish to achieve or don’t you believe them?

          You say, “Compromise is not coded language for take away the guns.” Really? And how can you be so sure that you are correct? How many times do a pack of criminals have to tell their intent before you believe them? Your argument sounds more like what the Jews used in the 1930s then a solution to the problem. How do we reach an understanding with those who use lies to further their cause? The whole article that Cooper wrote is based on lies. What makes you think that any “understanding” that is reached isn’t just another lie?

          Don’t hand me this “countrymen” BS. I remember my countrymen holding me in contempt because I served. I watched my countrymen sell out those who were dying in their stead. I have watched as countrymen in and out of government have sold this once great nation along with the honest hard working people in it down the river. Thirty pieces of silver anyone! Now, for your information I have been teaching people to not be afraid of firearms and I’ll bet I have doing it for longer then you have been walking this earth. No, I don’t think they are all horrible people, at least not those of the common rank, but they are also impressionable and many are too scared to even listen to reason. Why, because it isn’t politically correct to listen and learn. Many are cowards having made up their minds to how evil anyone is who doesn’t walk the party line. They would rather be victims then independent, slaves rather then freemen and women. Can’t you see what has happened in the last 13 years? Talk to some of them they hold your kind in contempt because you are wishy washy. They are looking for strength, and safety not another who professes “can’t we just all get alone”. If you want to reach those people you have to prove that your stance is correct from a point of strength and you can’t do that through compromise.

        4. avatar McEsteban says:

          I have bought into nothing. You still think that “those people” have a homogenous leadership and that everyone of them is one the same page and for the same reason. Yes many do believe in incremental disarmament through back handed dealings, labeled as compromise. Those people are entirely wrong and should be made plain and obvious to all others. However, the term that they use to hide back handed dealings is compromise. So when POTG say no compromise, are they talking about compromise or back handed dealings? And since the antis aren’t homogenous, when one says compromise do they automatically mean back handed dealing? Gets a little complicated doesn’t it?

          I am not seeking appeasement so don’t be absurd. You clearly aren’t searching for a rationale discussion on this either. You want to label all others as appeasers and statists and call it a day. How about actually understanding how and why these people think what they think and in turn, they can learn how and why you think the way you think. You can reach a mutual understanding that you can then act on in everyone’s mutually best interest. Or is that too statist or weak to understand your countrymen?

          I am sorry that many of our countrymen have been assholes, and I appreciate your service. But someone else’s abdication of responsibility shouldn’t signify to you to do the same right? You may very well be older than me, though I hardly see the relevance of that. If you want to claim that I don’t know anything because of my years you would be well within your right, but so are the people who disregard their civic duty to up hold a higher standard. That doesn’t make it right though.

          To the amateur or passive antis, yeah many of them do have a different world view that is weak and dangerous, but not wholly corrupt or totally without a reasonable consideration. I can tell you this though, having grown up around many and seen them on TV and seen the adult versions all throughout my life, they don’t respond well to blow hards. I don’t know where you got this idea that I am wishy washy on anything, but that is telling. I think the world is more complex than many antis paint it and many pros paint it (including yourself) which does not make me wishy washy. Just means that I don’t limit myself to bullshit dogma that hasn’t gotten us anywhere. I fully recognize that the country is going to shit and the last 13 years are no exception. But it is foolishness to assume that the answers that got us here are going to be the ones that get us out. Not saying we have to reinvent to proverbial wheel, but just using the ideology that worked back in whatever era you worship won’t fix things. Want proof? Things aren’t fixed despite all the clinging to outmoded dogmas.

          I doubt I have convinced you of anything seeing as how I am a wishy washy child in your eyes but if you have considered anything that I have I would ask you to consider this. Consider all possible positions. It is going to be hard and you will probably refuse, but just take a second to consider how other people internalize and externalize the issues you care about. You don’t have to like any new ones or change your positions, in fact you can disagree with people to the end of time, I encourage it. But at least consider where another person is coming from and what they may or may not know and why they may or may not know it. Life gets a lot more interesting when you start recognizing that these complex problems are actually complex.

        5. avatar Paul G. says:

          The problem is not complex. The labelling of the issue as complex is an attempt to obfuscate a simple issue.

        6. avatar McEsteban says:

          So history is black and white? How about politics? Sociology? Theories about the role of government and how they have changed since our founding? All of those things are so remarkably simple and unwavering. If you honestly think that the world is simple and the answers to its’ problems easy then you haven’t been paying attention.

        7. avatar Paul G. says:

          Perhaps they only seem complex to simple minds.

        8. avatar McEsteban says:

          Congratulations, ad hominem attacks get you nowhere.

        9. avatar Paul G. says:

          I never said you had small mind, but thank you for taking ownership.

        10. avatar Paul G. says:

          I never said you had a simple mind, but thank you for taking ownership.

        11. avatar Muleskinner says:

          Oh please, “those people” don’t have to have a homogenous leadership. Most are lemmings who have no understanding of the consequences of their actions or votes. Most are purely ignorant of history but there is that hard core group who are pushing for firearm confiscation, I am talking about the Feinstein’s, Pelosi’s, Bloomberg’s, Gifford’s etc who are the real power and money behind the movement. You are not going to be dealing with anyone else for the reasons stated above. So let’s not pretend that we can compromise with the poor deluded schmuck who is afraid of firearms who is walking the street. This group has no clue and from what I have seen doesn’t much care one way or another.

          Obviously you don’t understand the questions I posed. When do we believe the power elite means what they say? That is the group you are going to have to compromise with and just how do you have a rational conversation with those who lives are nothing but a lie? They can’t/won’t even keep their oath to uphold the Constitution so there is no rational reason to believe they will keep their word on anything. Now, if this group can’t/won’t keep their word (If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor) and flaunt their lies (We have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.) you can’t do anything but appease because there is no compromise (Mr. and Mrs. America turn them—firearms—in).

          When are you going to learn that you don’t make a deal with the devil? There is no mutual best interest there is only dishonesty and theft of rights and private property. Prove me wrong. You can’t because there is nothing from the SCOTUS, POTUS, or COTUS in recent memory that hasn’t had a negative effect on people lives. Do you honestly believe, given the last 13 years, what you are saying?

          I’ll say it again no one is abdicating their responsibility but there comes a point where you have to say, no more; not one step further. I believe we have reached that point. If you haven’t then I am sorry. You have deluded yourself into thinking you can change the way things are by talking.

          Rabbi Bendory at JPFO in his article Why Jews Hate Guns points to 10 fatal conditions within the “anti-gun” frame of mind. This 10 conditions are:

          1. A desire for utopian moral purity
          2. A disproportional incidence of hoplophobia
          3. A quest for power through victimization of peers
          5. Self hatred and a wish to be helpless, acting out guilt-based behavioral problems that develop in childhood
          6. The Ostrich Syndrome
          7. Garden-variety hypocrisy
          8. Adulterated religion
          9. Feel-good sophistry
          10. Abject fear that yields irrational behavior

          I would be very interested in knowing just what common ground you expect us to have with those who fit in this list.

        12. avatar McEsteban says:

          Your first paragraph is kind of confusing so tell me if I got this right. The hardcore leadership of the antis likely can not be reasoned with, though that doesn’t stop us from trying, I totally understand. But the underlings and the proverbial foot soldiers aren’t the problem because they are not convicted but are the problem because they are not convicted? Which is it? Is your problem that they are politically apathetic and gullible because that makes them susceptible to manipulation, or that their apathy prevents them from becoming engaged? Please explain.

          To answer your question, I don’t am not entirely sure when you can tell. If you are constantly looking for that dog whistle you are going to paint someone the wrong stripe (eg. an ignorant person as a nefarious person) and that won’t help you convince anybody. But also taking everything at face value from the antis has proved to not work and eroded our rights. So there is a balance and we have to be able to discern. Part of this however is simply modern politics. the loudest voices are the most extreme and the commonality of straight talk, no matter what political identification, is frighteningly infrequent. So to actually answer your question, the antis mean what they say when they mean what they say. Probably not what you wanted to hear but there is no other way of putting it.

          But again, treating the antis as if they are homogenous is incorrect. The Texas A&M professor that said we should abolish the 2nd Amendment is the enemy, but that doesn’t make everyone that doesn’t like the 2nd Amendment the enemy. I would argue that the majority are ignorant to the realities of bearing arms, that doesn’t make them stupid, it just means that they haven’t encountered or seen a need to encounter that right. So we must educate. Those people we can have a discussion with. Bloomberg, Pelosi, and the like probably not.

          You are being hyperbolic when you say NOTHING from the federal government has improved anyone’s lives. But you are more right than not. I pretty much agree that the current federal government is not capable with protecting our rights, providing for the common defense, promoting general welfare etc. There is a long a deep list of reasons to distrust the federal government. And I have never advocated deals with them, Bloomberg, or any other devil. I think my previous paragraphs have helped clear that notion up though.

          Now you have made so unfounded judgements about my opinions that I won’t lose any sleep over, but you think that it is delusional to solve problems in our republic by talking. That is concerning, because what other options are there? There is sitting down and shutting the fuck up which I don’t think serves anyone’s purposes except the legitimate statists and taking up arms which is a ridiculous notion at this point. The fact that you are not willing to engage your fellow man when they disagree is disturbing, and it is attitudes like that that get us to where we are. Not enough straight talk about real issues because it is cowardly or delusional to talk the “enemy.” Give me a break. That is abdicating your civic duty, whether you recognize it our not. Sitting on your hands while the country goes to shit in order to save face is a failure that should not be accepted and I am surprised that someone as passionate as yourself on this topic would advocate that.

        13. avatar Muleskinner says:

          Congratulations you still don’t get it. So I will try and spell it out. There are two groups of anti’s. Group A are elitists who you can’t reason with because you can’t trust what they would agree too. Group A hates anything and everyone who has the audacity to want to think for themselves and refuses the precariousness of social control. Therefore, you are a terrorist by default and without recourse. Now, what would Group A want to do to those they deem terrorists? Well, that leads us to Group B

          Group B, is made up of mostly poor, deluded lemmings who are following what they think is the herd. Group B is perfectly content to accept the social control imposed by Group A with all the risk and uncertainty that come with it. The nice part of Group B is that some, not all and not even a majority, can be reached and possibly convinced of the error of their ways. This, however, depends on how dependent any given member of Group B is on the handouts coming from Group A.

          I hope that clears up some of your confusion.

          Now let’s go just a little further, so stay with me. Group B as general rule doesn’t think for itself so those members of Group B who can’t be reached will happily do the bidding of those in Group A, up to and including murder. No need to argue the point history proves it a fact and we have almost 5000 years of written history to back it up. If, however, you doubt me study the lemming mind set of the German people between 1932 and 1944.

          So you see group B doesn’t need homogenous leadership they are followers who are dependent on the crumbs Group A discards. Now, here is where it gets a little tricky. Group A controls Group B with those crumbs. The fewer crumbs available to Group B the more violent Group B will become, thus Group B sees Group A not as their master but as their benefactor. Strange, I know, but look around you’ll see what I mean.

          What are the crumbs that Group A disperses so readily? They can be anything; housing, food, money, cell phones, recognition, etc, etc… What Group B never realizes is that Group A needs the lemmings to do the dirty work and Group B is the chosen one because it is so easily manipulated and most are so thoroughly brainwashed.

          I am going to say it one more time; no one, including myself, is abdicating their responsibility. (That is the fifth time I have said it so please find a better argument.) Those in Group B that can be reached we will continue to try and convert but there is such a thing as reality. That reality is this Group A by virtue of its hatred for us, for showing how impotent they really are, has racketed up this fight. No one, and I mean no one, that I know of wants this to go beyond talking but that is NOT our call. That decision lies entirely with Group A and how they manipulate Group B.

          I will admit that the above is extremely simplified and there is much more that could be expanded on. There is nothing you can do outside your immediate contacts to prevent what the anti elites are planning. Your only hope is to be ready for whatever they decide is the action needed and you can bet your last dollar it won’t have anything to do with compromises. In fact many of your countrymen are planning and looking forward to you demise so, please, don’t delude yourself.

        14. avatar McEsteban says:

          Thank you for clearing up those groups. But a point must be made about percentages. What proportion of the population is group a and b, this can become complicated due to the very low levels of understanding of and participation in politics in the general public. Those involved or paying attention (not speaking on the quality of what they are paying attention to) are few and far between. So how big of a group can b really be? A is rather self explanatory because they are the elitists in power.

          I totally understand your extrapolations on the relationship between A and B, and historically they hold true. But the more interesting question is where in the stages of tyranny are those groups. Are they capable of murder, well of course. But I doubt that if Pelosi got up on stage tomorrow and said today is the day that very many would march to that drum. This is why we have to be careful in preemptively labeling people and sticking them into buckets that we can right off or more easily vilify. If you are right, then we win. If you are wrong enough to be written off by the public then we have lost. That is why realizing that we are all in the same boat will enhance the message. It is not the principles that I am against, but in many cases it is the manner in which they are advocated that I take issue with. Now I am one lone man, but that isn’t a lone sentiment and delivery all to often takes away from other wise great messages. Do you agree?

          Having said all of that, though I agree with much of what you have characterized the groups A and B as, there are basic assumptions that I still find troubling. First, the implications of A’s existence as you have stated is that they are willing to kill people that love freedom. I think that is very small percentage of the population, and few of them are elitists or in positions of power. The idea that A is homogenous and knowingly evil is over used and an over simplification. Many do knowingly want as you claim, but not nearly enough to establish the trend you are looking for. Second, the idea that Group B are simply moochers that would kill for a handout is a gross mischaracterization of the American poor. You have the benefit that the majority of tyrannical take overs throughout history follow your template, however that template requires context and makes basic assumptions about human beings that many would refute for a wide variety of reasons (though I won’t argue on their behalf).

          My whole point is that the current situation is more complicated than many assume it is, but that complication is ignored because it breaks the echo chamber. All sides have echo chambers, it is the way of modern political discourse. But we can and should change that, and we should change the system of electing public officials, and the way that we deal with the disenfranchised. Ideas like that benefit everyone and everyone that isn’t an elitist can get behind. It is a lot easier to prove how corrupt Group A is when you can wake group B up, and it doesn’t take much. If your two groups exist exactly how you say they do, election, entitlement/welfare, and discourse reform would go great lengths for protecting the 2A. If they don’t exist as you think they do or don’t exist at all, it still would go great lengths to protect the 2A, among many other rights, freedoms, and privileges. What do you say to that?

        15. avatar Muleskinner says:

          Well as far a group A goes we have to include authority at the federal, state and local level, including police agencies (of course not all but certainly recent history shows us this split maybe in our favor). How many does that comprise; One or two percent of the population? It could be, but it certainly is not more then 3% of the total population. Group B however, is an entirely different bag of worms. Consider that it is not just the financially poor but it also encompasses many in the upper middle class (the wannabe elites) and most of the media. Of course the financially poor are the most vulnerable for the simple reason they need the most crumbs but historically it is the upper middle classes with their twisted ideologies that are the driving influences behind the social upheaval. Not coincidentally this is the first group (along with the gay and academic communities) to be eliminated by the upper elite once they gain social control.

          It would be interesting to know the numbers but you can’t include all “liberals” since a goodly number of this group also own firearms. The question is which way they would point their muzzles once it became apparent that all other options had been exhausted. Do you have a guess? My guess is another one percent of the remaining population.

          The bulk of Group B has to be the welfare crowd. How many are now on the public tit; 48, 49 percent. That is a huge number; what will they do if they become suddenly very hungry because there is no money for food, clothing, or housing? If “Black Fridays” are any indication we are looking at immediate blood shed.

          So where are Group A and B right now in the tyranny scheme of things? Hmmm, my feeling is they are standing on a razor edge and it can tip either way in a heart beat. Maybe I am being too cynical, I hope so, but I would rather be pessimistic then caught flat footed and unprepared. What happens next and how quickly all depends on the next move of the elites and how prepared they think they are to take control. I am also convinced that New York and Connecticut are the elites test grounds. We will see how those folks hold up. Both those states could have a huge impact on the overall stage of things.

          No, Pelosi couldn’t stand up and say today is the day turning the hoards loose. That isn’t even a consideration. Follow the crumbs; that is where the real power resides. I do agree that we can’t preemptively label people. That is a huge mistake on the part of many. One of the laws of economics is cost and in particular what price desperate people are willing to pay to survive. That is the real key to this whole mess and the elites know it. The pro-gun group thinks is that this fight is about guns. No its not, the real fight is about power and who is going to be allowed to keep it and who isn’t. Firearms are simply the tools that each side has chosen to maintain their power. Mao Zedong was perfectly correct when he said “political power comes from the barrel of a gun”. What is interesting is knowing that the elites know that if they can’t get the firearms through illegal legislation they are casting the dies and may not be able to stand against angry armed civilians many with military training.

          Right now, I agree that those willing to murder are a small part of the population but here again I am convinced that there is a razor edge and desperate people will do unthinkable things to survive. (Although the brutishness of the TSA, and government agencies makes this an interesting question. How willing are such government employee to put their live and the lives of their families on the line?) That is also a key of the elites; they are hoping and praying that they can incite the hoards by withdrawal of enough crumbs. The question is how desperate is murdering desperate? I am not sure anyone has the answer to that question.

          So what is left to the elites? Will it be martial law? Maybe, but what does martial law gain them if there is still an armed angry civilian population? The elites gain nothing but a long blood fight and it is a fight they can’t guarantee they will win.

          Yes, it is complicated political morass? Yes, we should and must use every avenue open to us before we resort to arms. I am frankly surprised that there hasn’t been an armed rebellion before now. Can we avoid armed conflict? Wow, that is a load question. What isn’t going away is peoples love for their freedom to own and use weapons. There is one thing that most haven’t considered and it is this; the second amendment will continue to exist with or without the Constitution. It is a right and governments can’t take a right. The only way a right can become null and void is if we willingly relinquish it. I don’t see that happening real soon do you?

        16. avatar McEsteban says:

          I am real happy that we are pretty much on the same page now. You asked a lot of questions, many hypotheticals, and I will do my best to respond.

          When we factor in law enforcement, the potential number grows. But then we have to remember Oath Keepers who are devoted to their cause, and the fact that the majority of law enforcement isn’t THAT dedicated. Most, not unlike everyone else, want what is best for their family and will likely side that way, not necessarily engaging or joining POTG.

          Group B is of course different. As a person that grew up in coastal southern california, I know the upper middle class folks all too well. A lot of misconceptions on where their bread is buttered and what direction we should go in, but I think sentiment against our current government is growing and would likely make any egregious move against civil liberties impossible, impassible, or instantly refutable. I would hope.

          I share your concern with Black Friday type events. Both in terms of potential flash points and as a sign of our decaying consumerist society. I think that second part will start to change over the next 20 years and hopefully minimize the first part, thought that doesn’t mean that flash points won’t still happen. Some people are still old enough to remember 1968 DNC and Kent State, let alone the numerous civil rights/race riots and protests. Those events were not pretty, but we improved because of them.

          I used to feel that the statists were more capable and that we were one manipulation away from a serious confrontation, but i have come to realize that that isn’t likely and even if it does happen, there are a lot of angry people in this country fed up with all kinds of bullshit. When people start realizing that their TV is out to kill them and that the politicians are judge and jury, we are going to have a lot people demanding change. The question is is how unified will that be. Will it split on traditional party or socio economic lines? Or would we be able to constructively distance ourselves from the corrupt and manipulative institutions long enough to establish what actual reality is and not just what the TV says? I both think and hope it is the latter, though you need only scroll up and down this page to see folks not in a cooperative mood.

          You have some assumptions about what people are willing to do to survive, and I think it is important to recognize that that can not be predicted. We have to ask our selves are people fundamentally good or bad (something or founders couldn’t figure out), are Americans exceptional in their conduct and capacity to succeed and act morally or responsibly where other people maybe wouldn’t, and if a collapse or dramatic change happens will Americans maintain our traditional thoughts on the role government. Those are big questions with likely no answer, but trying to answer them is going to greatly shape our way forward. I don’t think we are going to see people willingly relinquish the 2A any time soon. But that want stop the antis from trying.

        17. avatar Muleskinner says:

          I am afraid you are being far too optimistic in you analysis. Maybe the test of time will prove you correct, but I have my doubts.

          When I was 10, 11, 12, and 13 years old no one even blinked when I, along with my friends, rode through town on our bikes with shotguns, or rifles slung across the handle bars. When we went into Sears, Wards, or a sporting good store we would open the bolts and leave the weapons with a clerk or at the door and no one looked twice at us. Even at those ages we bought any ammo we needed, along with powder, wads, primers, and shot to reload our shotgun shells. No one cared. Heck, we even purchased firearms as long as we had an adult with us to prove it was ok. We never heard of zero tolerance. As we got older we took our weapons to school and left them in our cars so we could go hunting directly after school, no one even questioned us.

          If we were stopped by a police officer he would ask where we had been hunting and how the bird population was. Many times he would give us some helpful and pertinent advice, but he never questioned our right to have firearms or that we were going to be safe with them.

          Compare those days with today and you can get a sense of how much society has been degraded in the intervening 50 years. I honestly don’t see society turning around, those days are gone, and we have only more lack of common sense to look forward too.

          Can we predict with 100% confidence what people will do when faced with long term survival, no, but we can say with confidence that large numbers will turn barbaric. (I would prefer to think they would act like the folks in Atlanta did during this year’s snow storm that stranded people on the freeways.) How large are those numbers? Well, that has to do with people’s morals and that is another whole conversation in itself.

        18. avatar Rich Grise says:


          The point you seem to be missing here is that the power behind the badge, that authorizes them to have and control a nuclear reactor, emanates from the people whose country the guy is working for. The government has the authority to possess nuclear weapons because We, the People, through our votes, have granted that authorization to the government.

          The government was never intended to be the boss of anyone, but only as a procedure for running affairs of state. In fact, the three things they ARE supposed to be doing, they aren’t! Keep us safe from foreign enemies – they’re not doing that, the military is busy occupying other countries and pissing off fanatical relgious jihadists; Secure the borders – just check Mexifornia; protect private property rights – they’ve become the only organized crime mob left in the country except the drug cartels, who have never broken down anybody’s door. Just like the Al Capones of Prohibition, their only “crime” is providing a product that the government doesn’t want their subjects to have.

        19. avatar McEsteban says:

          I haven’t missed any point. Did I say that the government doesn’t derive its’ power from the people? No I didn’t. But I already know where you are coming from. You have made it clear that you find nothing redeemable from the federal government, which I don’t agree with, and you offer no solutions. What solutions that you might have are likely short sighted and denying complexity to the situation. Let us assume that the government is truly as bad as you say and that we truly are the source of their power (which we are). If their crimes are so bad, why haven’t you rioted yet, taken action, stood up candidates, formed a new party or a constitutional convention, mobilized your neighbors, cut through political boundaries, or exposed corruption and provided solutions? You could be doing any one of these things but instead you are on here arguing with assholes like me while you federal government is raping this country. Surely you can offer something better than this? Or perhaps are there things that you haven’t considered about the federal government and its role. Perhaps you have muddled what it is empirically doing, what it normatively should be doing, and what is feasible. Just a thought.

        20. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “you offer no solutions.”

          Not true. I offer the simplest, most effective solution of all – Go back to the Constitution and rescind all the gun control laws.

        21. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “You assume that everyone that advocates gun control is a horrible person”

          That’s not an assumption, it’s an observation. You wish to violate the Constitution of the United States of America. That makes you my enemy. If you want gun control, please move to a country that has gun control and don’t let the door hit you in the ass. Or do. I don’t care, just begone!

        22. avatar McEsteban says:

          Congratulations you have read nothing I have written.

        23. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “Congratulations you have read nothing I have written.”

          I’ve read enough of what you’ve written to know that you’re a pro-infringement gun grabber, and not worthy of note.

        24. avatar McEsteban says:

          Prove it.

        25. avatar Paul G. says:

          I think you already did that job for him.

        26. avatar McEsteban says:

          You can’t cite anything to prove your point because you are wrong. If I am as you claim, prove it. Because there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary. If you are going to troll, at least try and be effective.

        27. avatar Paul G. says:

          Is that your claim, that you are an effective troll. You most certainly are not effective.

        28. avatar Paul G. says:

          Is that your claim, that you are an effective troll? You most certainly are not effective.

        29. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Well, he’s been playing you for a couple of days now. 😉

        30. avatar Rich Grise says:

          ” You unfairly draw the usually false dichotomy of freedom versus tyranny.”

          What part of your brain is so broken that you think “freedom versus tyranny” is a “false dichotomy”? That’s the ONLY dichotomy, in the final analysis.

        31. avatar McEsteban says:

          Do you really believe in your heart of hearts that every single anti, or hell even the majority of antis want tyranny? Do you really think that? Is it possible that your echo chamber that you value so incredibly much teaches you to devalue alternative opinions and over-simplify conflict? Because that is exactly what the dichotomy does the majority of the time. Hence why it is false. And since you asked, its my medula oblongata.

        32. avatar Rich Grise says:


          Not at all. The vast majority are clearly merely dupes.

        33. avatar Paul G. says:

          People need not want tyranny to be supporting ideas that will lead to it.

        34. avatar SomeOneInWA says:

          Ah, the stupid argument about owning a nuke, even better, another human being. We can talk about that when the first person tries to acquire a nuke from their friendly LGS invoking their 2A.
          And by the way, do you think that the current legislation allows for buying nukes? If not, then why you bring that up asking us to compromise from our current status? What is there more to compromise? If not, doesn’t you position proves the point that the other part can not be trusted when bringing such stupid arguments to the table?
          In your world we all are guilty under proven otherwise. In America that our founders wanted is the other way around.
          While you advocate on “reasonable” restriction to own guns on humanitarian grounds, your position is not one of a humanitarian. Thinking that some people are somehow above others and as such they can identify what is best for other human beings is a deeply disrespectful and hateful position.
          Another way to look at it: paternalistic behavior. While that may be good when we deal with our children, we are not the children of the state. We are free people and as such entrusted with free will as long as we don’t infringe on others rights. The government is set among men to defend those rights.
          This is the main reason why we can’t find common ground: you view people as subjects to the State while us see people as individuals with free will.
          I lived in a communist country and I know what the meaning of “common good” means. There are no supernatural beings out there that know better than I do what is good for me, there are no super moral persons out there that can be the benevolent dictators. People are the same everywhere, some are good and some are bad. Government is not an entity formed by super-beings that gave up all the human weaknesses. Why would I trust them with my life?
          We can deal with evil when it is happening. In a society that take seriously defending their life and property there are few opportunities for outliers to do extensive damage. This extensive damage only happens when there are “reasonable” utopian gun free zones.
          See a similar TTAG posting here:

        35. avatar McEsteban says:

          You devalue my argument about nukes, and i admit it is an exaggeration, but let’s not forget that you said that you should be allowed to own anything because your an adult. I was proving my point that there is a balance of what a private citizen should own, and when you balance something, typically with 2 opposing sides, it tends to be called compromise. Hey what do you know? Maybe compromise isn’t the worst word ever after all.

          And then you lost me. Guilty until proven otherwise? Where did I advocate that? Where did I advocate “reasonable” gun control on “humanitarian” grounds? And then you ascribe all kinds of beliefs to me despite the fact that I have said none of what you think I have. Either I missed something or you are grasping at straw man. I actually like a free society with fewer firearm restrictions than we see today. I don’t like the government legislating social changes, at least not in any way that i have encountered so far.

          You should trust the government with your life when it proves that it is capable of defending your rights and maintaining order. The first governments were created to maintain order, it took a few thousand years to figure out that rights part. Another reason to trust you government in a democratic republic is that you have political efficacy and can effect change within it. There is a beautiful reason. So I just gave you two good reasons and you probably already know the examples that you are going to use to prove that the government doesn’t protect rights and won’t listen to someone with as small a wallet as yours and mine. I am way ahead of you and I totally understand. However, we can still change it and fix the system. But it requires deliberation with you countrymen, your neighbors, people you disagree with. You are correct in saying that our current government does not have the moral authority to legislate things that effect you, but the only way to change that is to work with your fellow citizens. Or you can continue to view them as godless statist scum that just want to feel morally superior while you and your loved owns are thrown to the wolves, because that is so productive.

        36. avatar Paul G. says:

          Democratic republic? You just lost any credibility you may have had.

        37. avatar SomeOneInWA says:

          If you are not arguing for restrictions on firearms based on humanitarian grounds, then why you do it? Just because? Indeed, I may have jumped to assumptions, but I relied on the fact that people want to restrict firearms due to too many deaths. That to me seems like a humanitarian reason. If that’s not it, please state you reason why you support “compromise” and what this “compromise” is. Any compromise from the current status quo means to give up something. What else can we give up?

          I did not get that vibe from what you posted initially.
          Again, if so, what is for POTG to compromise on except on giving up even more than we already gave?

        38. avatar McEsteban says:

          I thoroughly have no idea where you got the idea I am anti gun. Nothing I said would have led to believe that yet here we are. I just think we should stop looking at compromise as an inherently bad thing and vilifying it as a tool of the antis. The world is more complicated than that, and recognizing that and working to understand the complications and caveats would make the pro-gun arguments more poignant and not overly brutish, which many of them are. As to where we can compromise, I am not really sure. I know this was been discussed elsewhere but training as a barrier to entry is something to consider. Notice I didn’t endorse, but it should be considered. Outside of what could be compromised on, I think there should be national reciprocity for concealed and open carrying, remove the NFA, remove many importation restrictions, remove the ATF and move its minor law enforcement and administrative duties into the FBI, and flesh out clearer, national stand your ground laws. I think that all of these are solutions that will result in a freer and safer society, but I am not wrapping myself in the constitution, pointing fingers, or looking for dog whistles. Yet I feel comfortable discussing and defending and potentially changing my position on all of those issues if the facts and reason present itself. Not because of fear mongering about the supposed intentions of “those people.”

        39. avatar Paul G. says:

          It isn’t conpromise when one side always is giving and the other is always taking.
          Besides, since wben do such negotiations apply to rights? Would slavery have been ok if we enforced a 40 hr work week?

      2. avatar Rich Grise says:

        “When did we arrive at this point?”

        Right here:

        That was pretty much the death warrant for Liberty as we knew it, unless we can restore/resurrect Free Will before it’s too late.

  88. avatar Rich Grise says:

    We might find “common ground” if the grabbers ever become sane and acknowledge that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

    1. avatar McEsteban says:

      You would be surprised how few people actually think it is a bad thing. They exist, some even in positions of power, but that is not the entirety of the anti platform and characterizing it as such doesn’t do anyone any good.

  89. avatar Mk10108 says:


    Read Cooper’s full article, including the part where he says “So let me say without hesitation: I am not interested in grabbing anyone’s gun”…..unfortunately he and other compromisers don’t understand is gun grabbing is here. It’s bureaucrats collecting our coin, and directing law enforcement to infringe on our rights & liberty. Katrina confiscation & now California digging into past minor convictions and scooping iron. Connecticut enacting a law that makes citizens into felons.

    They want compromise, they want a social bell curve, they want what others have earned, all except liberty. They argue compromise for the good of the nation, from the same construct that people are reasonable. Does a criminal reason? What reason prevailed with Representative Yee? Is a solider, on anti depressants killing fellow soldiers reasonable? What is unreasonable about lawful self protection or preserving your property? What is unreasonable about millions do law abiding citizens responsibly using their 2A rights?

  90. avatar Fred says:

    “Can we agree there are too many laws infringing on our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms?”
    “Can we discuss ways to remove these laws from the books? Is there a chance for common ground here?”

    See what kind of a response you get from the antis

    1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:


      “Can we agree that many more than 30k defensive gun uses per year preventing great harm on the intended victims is a benefit of an armed populace?”

  91. avatar Paul G. says:

    Can we agree that too much of the liberal press is spouting nonsense, lies, and deception? Can we agree that misleading the populace with such bad reporting is a bad thing?
    On the anti-liberal press side my worry is that such bad reporting is dumbing down the people, and brain-washing them into not looking for the truth. From the liberal media side the worry is that expecting facts and research in reporting sounds too much like work, and not enough like “backing the proper agenda”.
    I don’t even care if they keep producing their fact-deficient drivel, I would just ask them to uphold the 1st amendment they claim to cherish, and allow freedom of the press. That includes not trying to have the opposing voiced legislated into silence.

  92. avatar Sam says:

    There is common ground. If you don’t like guns or do not trust yourself with one then don’t buy one. Meanwhile, leave the rest of us alone.

  93. avatar TT says:

    The same amendment that has the words “shall not be infringed” also has the words “well-regulated” in it. Since “militia” in the context of the second amendment basically means the same thing as “the people,” clearly the founders intended for the federal government to be able to regulate the keeping and bearing of arms to one degree or another. In other words, if the antis are not allowed to use the first clause of the second amendment out of context, a pro-2A shouldn’t be allowed to use the second clause out of context either.

    Since the Supreme Court, the federal government, every state government, every local government, and the founders all think some degree of gun regulation is allowed, we might need to look for some “common ground.” Especially since the second amendment had no application to state and local governments whatsover until 2010, it was not clearly established as an individual right until then either, the decision was 5-4, and the electoral college has pretty well handed the presidency to the left for the foreseeable future. Gun rights have been winning the political fights since the 1990s, but pigs get fat, and hogs get slaughtered.

    1. avatar Paul G. says:

      You make assumptions that are very clearly incorrect. When you base your opinions on your own incorrect assumptions, you only add error on top of error. A complete failure of logic.

      1. avatar TT says:

        Please identify an incorrect assumption.

        1. avatar Paul G. says:

          Pretty much the whole thing.

        2. avatar SomeOneInWA says:

          The meaning of word “regulated”: well functioning, disciplined.

        3. avatar TT says:

          The only way the word regulate is used in the Constitution means to pass laws or impose rules. Look at article 1, section 4, clause 1; section 8, clauses 3 and 14; and section 9 clause 6. I get the argument that the word “regulated” somehow means something different in the second amendment, but a fair reading of the way the word is used throughout the Constitution pretty well undoes the claim that “well regulated” means something other than the ordinary meaning of that term. The Constitution itself shows that regulated meant the same thing in 1789 as it does today.

        4. avatar Paul G. says:

          The well-regulated militia was created via powers of Congress, and is not the general populace. The people had reason to be wary of misuse of that militia, and to be uninfringed in arming themselves as a precaution, among other things.

        5. avatar SomeOneInWA says:

          @TT, it seems that I can not reply under your last post so I’ll do it here.
          I’m not a native speaker, but I’ll take a crack at it.
          – “well regulated” used in 2A seems more like an adjective
          – verb “to regulate”: article 1 section 8 clause 3 and 5,
          – nouns “Regulation” article 1 section 8 clause 14 , section 9 clause 6, section 4 clause 1

          regulated – From Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989:
          [obsolete sense]
          1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 “We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

          Also one must look on how that word was used by the the founders in the federalist papers or during the debate of the BOR.
          I think that the usage of the verb “to regulate” and noun “regulation” and not similar on how is used on 2A.
          — Saturday, December 13, 1777.


          Hope this clarifies it for you and you can now get from under the spell of Statists in regard to meaning of “well regulated”. 🙂

        6. avatar Paul G. says:

          You are lost. The need for a well-regulated militia does not imply regulation over the people’s arms. You continue to err further the more you wrife.

        7. avatar DerryM says:

          @TT, What you need to understand is that “A well regulated Militia..” is only the specification of one instance, as it pertains to the State, “..being necessary to the security of a free State,…” and that, in the Founder’s minds, was a generalization applying to polities beyond the polity they were framing in the Constitution.

          The KEY is the phrasing of the second part, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”. You see, “the right of the people” is an absolute reference to an existing right which is an inherent, inalienable right of human beings that exists independently whether it is enumerated in any political document, declaration, or constitution. It cannot be granted, conferred, bestowed. licensed, regulated, or infringed by any State because it exists for human beings despite the existence of any State or Polity.

          So, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” can be viewed as a statement of what the Founders considered absolute, obvious and without question or challenge. And “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,” is more of a “for instance”. After racking my brain thoroughly over this, I cannot think of a better “for instance”, however, I would have preferred that The Second Amendment read simply “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” and excluded this, apparently confusing reference to “A well regulated Militia…” altogether. At this point I can only conclude The Founders thought there was some necessity in including this “for instance” possibly to avoid the appearance of “conferring or granting” a right they thought was absolute and inalienable and inseparable from the natural freedom with which all Humans “are endowed by their Creator” (I advert to the argument about ‘their Creator’, but include it here only as a reference to The Founder’s words).

          The anti’s have seized upon the “for instance” that Arms are used to kill people (which they are), but have chosen to ignore the fact that using an Arm (of any sort) to kill another person (or animal) wantonly (e, g. for gain, anger, criminal purpose, self-gratification) is immoral and illegal in the first place. In so doing they have “thrown out the {proverbial} baby with the bath”. Arms are a tool of criminality, but NEVER a cause. The cause of criminality is the wrong-minded thinking of Human Beings. There is no substantive difference in wantonly killing another person with a pencil shoved through the eye into the brain, or shooting him/her to death with an Arm (specifically firearm).

          So, it is more useful and valid to consider the meaning of The Second Amendment in philosophical and contextual concept than to parse the literal meaning of the words. The former path leads to understanding, the latter to confusion.

        8. avatar Jeb Branham says:

          SomeOneINWA and DarylM, thanks for the solid replies. It’s nice to see reasoned disagreement.

          Federalist 29 is interesting. Whoever Hamilton was quoting was clearly using “well-regulated” in the sense of a disciplined, uniform military body. However, the opening lines of 29 use “regulating” in the sense of congressional authority.

          Federalist 29 overall shows the difficulty of a looking at how the framers saw gun rights and trying to apply that to our situation today. They saw the issue as making sure the federal government didn’t need a standing army and how to allocate the power to handle the substitute for the standing army — the militia — between the states and the federal government. The extent of individual gun ownership rights just wasn’t the issue of the day, like it is now.

          The founders, as a group, certainly did not have a problem with civilian ownership of military-grade firearms. However, something I think many gun owners misunderstand is the founders also had no intention for the bill of rights to limit what kinds of laws state and local governments could pass. The first nine amendments in the bill of rights only applied to the federal government. The bill of rights didn’t start limiting the powers of state and local governments until the courts started extending certain parts of the bill of rights to them in the 1920s based on the 14th amendment. This didn’t happen for the second amendment until the Heller case came out in 2010.

          Ultimately, my disagreement is with those claiming the second amendment has always meant no government — federal, state, or local — can regulate firearm ownership and use in any way. That was not the intent of the founders, and such regulations have always existed. Claiming the second amendment means firearms can’t be regulated at all uses the same kind of reasoning that people on the other side use to argue the federal government has the legitimate authority to ban all military-style weapons without violating the right to keep and bear arms.

          I have a hard time believing anyone really thinks there should be no regulation of firearm ownership whatsoever. Should mental incompetents be allowed to purchase firearms and carry them in public? Should I be able to make a private sale of a pistol to a 10 year-old? Once you acknowledge there is a place for some regulation, you then are arguing over the legitimate scope of it, i.e. looking for the “common ground.”

          If you don’t think there is a need to find common ground, remember that Heller was a 5-4 decision, and the president appoints Supreme Court justices. States that will consistency go to the democrat candidate (CA (55), IL (21), NY (31), NJ (15), MA (12), CT (7), RI (4), DC (3), MD (10), DE (3), WA (11), OR (7), HI(4)) for the foreseeable future hold 183 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win a presidential election. There are another 143 electoral votes in states that went democrat in 2012 that will probably stay that way (FL, OH, MI, IN, WI, MN, ME, NH, VT, NM, AZ and MO). The only state of any size that’s solid republican is TX, and its demographics are shifting to democrat. In other words, the northeast, great lakes, and west coast are gone. The west is going. The south and midwest won’t ever have enough people to make a difference. While gun rights is not a republican/democrat issue at the state and local level, at the presidential level it is. If you’re counting on the Supreme Court to protect your gun rights long-term, you’re quite an optimist since the current, narrow pro-2A majority is almost certain to be gone soon.

          Philosophy can be all well and good, unless it blinds you to real dangers at your door. Ultimately, it doesn’t much matter what the second amendment says. If gun rights are to be preserved for long, it will be at the ballot box, not the courthouse. Like it or not, when fundamental rights don’t have popular and political support they go away. Look at what’s been done to the fourth and fifth amendments over the last 35 years. Alienating people who share 80% of your opinions because they dare to not share 100% of your opinions is a bad long-term strategy.

        9. avatar Rich Grise says:


          Yeah, but sadly for you grabbers, we don’t go by intent, but by what got written down and ratified. And what got written down is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

          Get over it and clue up, or move to a gun-controlled country, like North Korea. You grabbers should be happy there – nobody but the government has guns there, so it must be a virtual paradise for the hoplophobes.

        10. avatar Paul G. says:

          There is nothing but an improper supreme court ruling (Barron v Baltimore) to indicate that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states as well. Everything in the Constitution indicates that the Bill of Rights did apply to the states. If this were not true, the first amendment would not have specifically mentioned that it applied only to the federal legislative body.
          The procedure for amending the Constitution, and the Supremacy Clause, for example, show that the amended Constitution, of which the Bill of RIghts are the first amendments, apply to the states.

  94. avatar Pascal says:

    You will never ever have common ground because of the following:

    1) Most of gun grabber groups simply want to ban guns — that is all. If this was not the case, then they would also be against certain stupid anti-gun laws but the fact is they are for ALL anti-gun laws so as long as you are 100% gun, there can never be a middle ground and the middle ground for them is 90% for them and 10% for you.

    2) What was wrong with the pre-Newtown laws? CT was already ranked 5th as having the strongest gun laws. The shooter did try to buy a gun and was denied. Seems like all the laws were already in place. What would more laws have done? Nothing. The truth the laws were used as an emotional tool to get revenge on people who did nothing but it did satisfy the DNC platform of gun control — that is all it did…nothing more. You cannot have a middle ground with thinking like that

    3) Gun owners have become more absolutist because we are tired of giving up rights to satisfy the emotions of others. There will never be any acknowledgement of what has been taken away already. And, once we give a little more, they will just want more and more and more. There is no end and gun owners have drawn a line. We are done.

    4) The fact is that many on the gun grabber side simply do not trust the fact that anyone can responsibly own guns. when you start from that point of reason, banning can only be the ultimate goal.

    5) Even when the evidence is clear and mentally ill persons have caused a mass shooting, the focus is still about the gun and not the responsible person. This is done on purpose — thus, what is there to compromise about.

    6) The majority of all people killed by guns are black killing blacks — that is fact. There is a major urban problem a cycle of poverty, crime, gangs drugs and poor education. Guns have little to do with the social issues. I laugh when those same gun grabber politicians also believe that raising the minimum wage will solve crime and “lift people from poverty” — no the problem is the same, low wages due to poor skills. Nobody and I mean nobody wants to really tackle the urban issues we have. More to the point, it is my belief, that urban politicians want to keep people stupid because they are easier to control and will vote for them because they are low information voters which are strung along with emotions and promises that they seem to not be able to understand are broken every single time. You have groups of people who are taught how to hate and how to be victims. It is just as silly as believing that people we put in jail will suddenly change their life around when released from prison when we do nothing in prisons to help them and nothing when they leave except to keep track of them.

    7) The police have no duty to respond nor can always do so even when they want to help either because they cannot due to budge cuts or they are spread too thin. We are our own first responders — but gun grabbers believe that the police will someone be there to always help you — this cannot be further from the truth and the situation will become worse as we build mega cities over the next few decades.

    No gun owner wants people or children to die. But banning all guns or restricting them further will not eliminate evil. Banning and restricting booze and marijuana has done nothing. Banning guns will only mean criminals will have guns.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      ” Banning and restricting booze and marijuana has done nothing.”

      Not true – it has caused more death and destruction than the substances themselves plus all of the terrorist bombings and mass shootings that have taken place, ever.

    2. avatar SomeOneInWA says:

      Well said, sir!

  95. avatar haiku guy says:

    I oppose every effort to limit gun rights, because it has been shown, time and time again, that each incremental loss of freedom is followed, immediately, by a new demand. The gun grabbers will never be satisfied until all of the guns are gone. Therefore we must fight each and every battle, and never give an inch. Freedoms surrendered must be repurchased with blood.

  96. avatar A. Nuran says:

    There isn’t. Not anymore. Guns have become a wedge issue which means the players have turned your position on them into a matter of brand name identification. That means positions will become more extreme. Compromise will be seen as treason. Positions which were reasonable twenty years ago will be a cause for screeching hatred today.

    And quite frankly the pro-gun side is much worse than the antis this time around. Remember that up through the 80s the NRA co-authored most of the major gun control legislation from Ronald Reagan’s to the 1968 GCA. Now their only reason for existence is to oppose what they used to support and try to find a way to become more extreme than Larry Pratt without losing funding.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Is it the full moon, or some kind of reaction to some media event? What is it that makes these grabber trolls show up in gaggles?

    2. avatar SomeOneInWA says:

      And rightfully so. The main reason is that Statists never know when to quit, instead of being happy with what laws there are, they ask for more and more compromise. I guess that those 20 years teach us something: no more.
      I think that the last year or so showed even more that enough is enough. The pro-gun sentiment is on the raise. I will say that people finally realized what “reasonable” gun control is about. So you have nobody to blame than you, the anti-gun people. You should stop before is too late and we really revert all the laws on the books. 🙂
      BTW, before Dec 2012 I was what you would call a “reasonable” gun owner. I really evolved this last year due to the stupid laws that they tried to shove down our throats (and some passed) and I’m not sorry a bit. No more infringements.

  97. avatar Pvt.Joker says:

    The only common ground is the earth in which we’ll *all* be buried.
    until then, it’s gonna be a fight.

  98. avatar DerryM says:

    My issue is that we have The Second Amendment, which clearly says “THE RIGHT of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”, so what makes me so recalcitrant is that we also have numerous Laws on the books at the Federal, State and Local levels that clearly infringe “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, so what the antis propose is non sequitur in the first place.There is no “common ground” for a discussion because what they “want” is antithetical to my basic position and therefore meaningless to me.

    Put all the Laws on the books you want and punish the Hell out of people convicted of using a firearm to kill, maim or terrorize others in robbery, theft, personal abuse, homicide, or any other “criminal act”, but these illegal, un-Constitutional Laws that infringe my Right to keep and bear Arms for any lawful purpose (including self-defense) need to be repealed and I will never support anything that further infringes my right to keep and bear Arms. So, until the anti’s are ready to talk about repealing these laws and figuring out how to effectively punish those who misuse Arms in criminal activities…they got nothing to talk to me about.

    It is not that I am unreasonable, it is that they are, and as long as they choose to remain so, there is no possible “common ground”…ever!

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Excellent! Thank you!

    2. avatar SomeOneInWA says:


  99. avatar Bunny says:

    They can keep their 20mm cannons if we can buy the same assault rifles as law enforcement.

  100. avatar Praveen says:

    The problem starts right with the starting line of the argument… “gun related deaths”. Why are you classifying 30000 deaths caused by people using one type of tool and ignoring everything else? Where is the discussion on “hands and feet related deaths”? .. “knives related deaths… anyone?”

    As long as the discussion focuses on “guns” and not people committing crimes, there can be no common ground and no discussion.

    1. avatar Scottlac says:

      Exactly, I had to go all the way to the bottom to for someone to notice the quote only focuses on “gun related” deaths. If the “gun” is taken out of the picture does that mean that those 30,000 people would not have died? Of course not. We would simply trade gun deaths for, knife deaths, blunt object deaths, carbon monoxide deaths, falls from high places deaths, drowning deaths, on and on. More violence will bee committed against women and the elderly who would be left defenseless.

      The focus of this person is on the guns and not the deaths. It’s the cultural violence that must be addressed rather than one particular tool.

  101. avatar jerry says:

    Common ground? We can’t even find common ground with one another on this site, no way we will ever come to an understanding with the gun grabber crowd.

  102. avatar Sug Zerep says:

    I appreciate the question and the opportunity to answer it. For now lets overlook your inaccurate framing of the problem (gun-related death) and how they are accounted for and measured. Lets start by pondering what make death by gun any more special that death by other violent means. Are death by stabbings or assaults more desirable that death by a gun? Most reasonable persons would agree that they are not and that any death or serious injury provoked by unjustified violence is the real problem that plagues our society and the one we should seek to resolve.

    I think at the heart of the people in booth camps (excluding extremists) there is a desire to have a safer society. One where we worry less about our safety and that of our loved ones, friends and neighbors. We can argue individual policies all week long, but after deep though, it is my understanding that the reason for the divide, is how differently the two camps perceive and understand human nature, natural law and the role of government.

    Most anti-gun folks seem to believe that, with enough regulation, education (propaganda), incentives and repression people can be made to behave in a civilized manner. They ignore thousands of years of recorded history where violence between men has remained a constant. Anti-gunners think violence can be removed from a society by simply legislating it out of existence. Most pro-rights folks seen to understand that the human condition includes violence, and thought it is undesirable it is also unavoidable. Most Pro-gun people believe violence can’t be contained or control and that a responsible person con only be prepared to confront violent with force if threatened. These are the very different understandings of human nature, that guide the different policies the two groups promote.

    The other key area of fundamental disagreement is the different understanding of “natural law” and the rule of government in society. Of course we are dealing in generalizations and by definition open to exceptions but it holds true for the majority. Pro-gun folks tend to value the natural right to self defense or the believe that an individual has a right to defense his life against threats. They also believe that this right includes the ability and tools to do so. Many Anti-gun folks tend to believe that in a “modern” society that has enacted rules to outlaw violent threats there is no “need” for self defense. They feel that and this goes to my next point, that society had created police to deal with that and that private citizens should not be allowed to have the means for self defense as this only degrades the states ability to control violence.

    The final point of fundamental disagreement in the role of the government in regulating human behavior and how is responsible for our personal safety. People in the anti-gun community believe or prefer that government be exclusively responsible for citizen safety. They feel security/police forces are trained, equipped and capable of the task. They are happy to delegate that burden to the state. But they also want to force others to do the same. It is a kind of “unless we all do it, it can’t work” argument. The people who are pro-gun tend prefer to reserve the right to self defense. They believe no one is more concerned or more capable of protecting yourself that you are. They appreciate the efforts of the police but don’t believe police are capable of providing the level of protection they require. They support their view with fact that the even Supreme Court has ruled that the police don’t have a duty to protect any individual citizen and that ever growing number of incidents where, besides their best efforts, police were just too late to protect victims of crime.

    I think that many folks on both side could agree on one policy here and another there but unless we can reconcile these fundamental differences in perception and understandings, we will continue to row in opposite directions and perpetuate a sense (in both camps) that not enough is being done.

    A note for the folks who argue for compromise. Why must the only other side always give something up? Anti-gunners perceive that concessions required for a compromise can only be made by the pro-gunners. Compromise by definition is a give and take. Gun owners through legislation have conceded many of their rights to own gun/weapons. Citizens can’t own what are know as destructive devices like cannons and grenades. At one time we could own then and gave up that right. Citizens were allowed to own automatic guns and gave up that right. Citizens have allowed (consent of the governed) multiple limitations to their right to own weapons as evidenced by the thousands of gun control laws currently in place. So, gun-owners have made numerous concessions throughout our history. Today they feel their rights are threatened and they are not willing to compromise further. Many are convinced that anti-gunners just want to create a disarmed society in small increments and many have drawn a line. So even if reasonable compromise could be found, their is little trust to achieve it.

    Back to the original question, what common ground can be found? I suggest a true compromise. Pro-gunners agree to 100% background checks for all gun sales and transfers and anti-gunners agree to a comprehensive national concealed carry reciprocity. If made honestly I think both sides could perceived they have advanced their cause by giving up less that they gained. They true measure of a good compromise.

    1. avatar SomeOneInWA says:

      I agree with how you view both camps.

      I do not think that this a good compromise. I think that that 100% background checks are not possible without full registration (see Connecticut). How else somebody can know if you did bc unless they know what you owned at some point in time? While people may be leery to enter in transactions with unknown individuals (due to danger of entrapment) they will still exchange firearms between trustworthy parties. On top of that 100% background check is wrong in principle. You introduce the State as a middle man in an exchange between two free parties. The premise is wrong: having 100% bc will reduce crime. We know that that is not true.
      I would never agree with a 100% bc for anything that the antis have to offer.
      Any time you compromise on a right you allowed an encroachment on that right. You have a natural right, you were free and you gave up something. There is nothing that other party can offer in exchange. The moment that you allowed that you set a bad precedent. Because now you showed that you don’t stand on principle. If something is wrong with this country is exactly that, compromise on principles. You can compromise maybe on implementation of something but you must agree on the principles.
      Why we are where we are today in regard with our rights (and I mean all of them)? Due to compromise. We compromise safety for our freedom. There is nothing to negotiate in regard to rights. Period.

      1. avatar Paul G. says:

        If the Constitution were being followed regarding the 2A, concealed carry and national reciprocity would not be an issue.
        The rational compromise is to follow the letter of the law, i.e. the Constitution.

    2. avatar Mark Jones says:

      Well written, Sug Zerep!
      I would underscore, though, the phrase “shall not be infringed.” We gun owners have accepted by far too many infringements already. This is why there is so much push back when organizations like “Moms Demand,” the Brady bunch, and Bloomberg’s Mayors and Former Mayors against guns push for “common sense” gun bans.
      The Supreme Court has upheld the individual right to keep arms, and soon they may take a case and uphold the right to bear as well. Why would we give in when we are winning?

  103. avatar Paul G. says:

    Seems the only common ground will be the other amendments that both sides cherish.

  104. avatar cubby123 says:

    We don talk to stupid idiots who know nothing about guns on gun control issues.

  105. avatar cubby123 says:

    I have been debating this issue with an in state liberal on facebook for several days.Every time I cut her off at the pass.I always request her resume on firearms and the Question is ignored.Just like I wouldn t have a lawyer who never went to law school nor would I listen to an ignoramus about guns!

Write a Comment


button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email