T or F? For a liberal place DU is a friendly place for RKBA "moderates"?

[Wonk]

Poll question: T or F? For a liberal place DU is a friendly place for RKBA "moderates"?

By moderate I mean those who fall somewhere between the "there should be no regulations on firearms at all, according to how I read the 2nd" and the "if you want a gun then join the Army/militia, nobody else has that right according to how I read the 2nd" extremes (which, to me, are equally nuts but in opposite directions).

This poll was inspired by
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x65774
which currently has 95% voting that DU is a friendly place for gun enthusiasts (which is, of course, open to interpretation, depending on how you define "gun enthusiast"...)
and
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1791620&mesg_id=1791620
which currently has 49% of DUers who voted supporting waiting periods, AWB, no CCW, and gun registration. It also has 74% of DUers supporting at least two of those, as I write this post.

[FeebMaster]

1. Sure.

Other than a few whiny gun grabbers who have no power beyond whining.

[alexwcovington]

2. Spend a few days in the Gun Control forum.

It's MURDER. Uhm. Maybe that came out wrong.

The point is, no, it's not friendly. It's all rhetoric and no real discussion.

[billbuckhead]

4. J/PS is extemely rude and unrepresentative of DU intellectually

The RBKA extemists are very rude and call anyone who disagrees with them a "gungrabber" and yet the majority here like in the nation itself, favor at least some amount of more gun regulation but don't want to pig wrestle with them and be called names.
I wonder how those of us for sensible gun regulations would be treated at Free Republic?

[T Town Jake]

5. "The RBKA extemists are very rude..." Gee, bill...

...I was just thinking the same thing about a small segment of the gun control crowd down here...thanks for saving me the typing time by allowing me to quote you directly, though in an admittedly different context...

[FeebMaster]

6. The only people I treat rudely are the ones that deserve it.

I have had plenty of reasonable conversations with people who are willing to reasonably discuss the issues. You do realize that the vast majority of pro-gun people here support all kinds of gun control, right?


Wouldn't directly calling someone a gun grabber be considered a personal attack?

When I refer to gun grabbers I always do it like so -> If the gun grabbers would quit whining about assault weapons and actually read the damn federal firearms laws, they might actually figure out how to get something accomplished other than massive amounts of whining.

See, I'm only attacking gun grabbers as a group, which is acceptable.

[OpSomBlood]

9. BB calling people "rude"...priceless.

You do realize that the vast majority of pro-gun people here support all kinds of gun control, right?

I'm very pro-gun and very opposed to the AWB...but several times I have expressed my willingness to accept state "shall issue" gun ownership licenses and extending background checks to private sales.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Yes

I'm an "RKBA moderate" who sincerely dislikes the NRA's radical agenda. By which, I mean their jihad against Democrats, liberals, and liberalism.

Where do I draw the line about gun rights? Restrictions should follow the logical extensions of the idea of legal competency. Once this is established, ownership should be limited in scope alone, with easy ability to "upgrade" for collectors, trainers, or anybody who is responsible and understands the law.

In other words, the customary permit would allow a person to have, say, a dozen guns; the permit would require some basic kind of demonstration of responsibility with weapon ownership and use. For an extra (non-exorbitant) fee, the permit would allow ownership of a larger number of weapons, or more exotic weapons. Weapons fees would be dedicated to an educational and loss-compensation fund after the administrative bills have been paid.

This certainly isn't a perfect proposal, but it allows gun enthusiasts to collect guns AND allows the state to make sure they are kept away from people who are irresponsible.

Actually, the best thing we could do concerning weapons would be to educate people, starting in childhood.

First, encouraging marksmanship as a sport would give us an opportunity to take kids who are facinated by weapons and guide them into being responsible shootists instead of gun nuts. I don't think it would take much to turn fetishism into a well-developed hobby and appreciation for shooting and the artwork and engineering that goes into well-made firearms.

Second, and most important, we must teach our kids to value peacemaking and conflict-resolution. Teaching them how to fight fairly, in what ways and for what causes, would also be a good thing. Violence is the root gun crime as it is the root of all crime. Once we have that problem under control, the guns won't be so dangerous.

I'm sure I've missed something here ... any input?

--bkl

[T Town Jake]

7. While I might quibble with...

...some of the details in your proposal, that's certainly a valid and rational basis from which to begin the debate, and work towards a sensible compromise on the entire gun control/gun ownership rights issue among Democrats (I don't really care what the GOP does or thinks). What I really appreciate is the willingness to discuss, not rant. I own firearms, and I also want the GOP crowd out of power in Washington. I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive. The problem is with those - and they are a very few, to be fair - at DU (and in the Democratic Party generally) who seem to think they are. I happen to think that there are sensible ways to ensure that those whom own guns are responsible gun owners, without handing the GOP an ongoing "wedge" issue to drive otherwise loyal Democrats into their smarmy arms.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. It's a "fighting words" issue for many people

I don't have much, if any, emotional attachment to firearms. My father was in the Army, guns were part of his job, and he taught me to respect them but that they were no big deal. I don't hunt, I don't shoot, and while I have no hatred for them, I have no compelling interest in them, either.

But many people who either love or hate guns will react emotionally.

The criminal use of firearms has brought enormous suffering to our world. It may seem illogical to blame the instrument instead of the agent, but it's the common, ingrained way of looking at problems. Even most pro-gun people, from all ideological camps, think this way. No matter how cogent an argument you can present, unless and until you deal with the emotional and non-rational reactions, there will be no movement on the issue.

And, incidentally, emotional and non-rational reactions are often fairly sound reasons in themselves.

--bkl