search
top

Is There Room For Middle Ground?

MPN News asks the question. No, there isn’t a middle ground to be had. Tom Coburn, of all legislators, offered them a middle ground, and because it only included universal background checks and nothing else, it was rejected by those who demanded more controls — controls that would have driven up the cost to transferring a gun to 50 dollars or more and created universal de facto registration. So you tell me: is there a middle ground? The great untold story of this whole struggle was that they were offered a compromise, and they rejected it. It’s not about background checks. It has never been about background checks. It’s about adding as many burdens, traps and expenses as they think they can get away with. Background checks are just marketing — a way to make the bitter pill go down for people who don’t really pay attention to these things.

15 Responses to “Is There Room For Middle Ground?”

  1. HappyWarrior6 says:

    Not only about adding controls, but documentation of ALL legal U.S. gun owners. For what? To us it seems obvious.

  2. Carl from Chicago says:

    At first blush, “compromise” and “middle-ground” seem inherently reasonable. However, the reason they are unworkable is the lopsidedness of the outcomes.

    To gun-control advocates, compromise means getting something that they want, while losing nothing that they ave.

    To gun-rights advocates, compromise means getting nothing that they want, and losing something that they have.

  3. Bubblehead Les says:

    If One stands in the Middle, One can be hit from either side.

    Personally, I think it’s time to stop Compromising and make the Antis LOSE for a change.

  4. beatbox says:

    I like Coburn’s proposal. To be honest, it would actually appreciate the CYA protection before selling a gun privately (something I have never done).

    I described it to an anti-gun friend who accused me of being anti-background checks. His response was a predictable “That is no good. There would be no way to track the gun.”

  5. TS says:

    What irritates the beejezus out of me is how the media and the antis completely ignored Colburn’s proposal- like it never happened. That way they can keep screaming how unreasonable it is to reject background checks, while they are the ones who did it. Ried promised this would get a vote. Where was the vote?

  6. Stan says:

    I look at the middle ground on gun control as the same as finding a middle ground on slavery.

  7. dustydog says:

    I’ve got a compromise:
    “A valid voter registration is a permit to own and possess any firearm and related accessory that any law enforcement person is permitted to possess.”

    That meets the common sense, fair, and reasonable standards of the left. Anyone who disagrees with this compromise is racist.

    • Geodkyt says:

      Nope. Legal residents who are not citizens (therefor would not be registered to vote, at least not for federal elections or even for any election in most states) have Second Amendment rights, just like they enjoy the protection of the rest of the Constitution for anything not specifically limited to citizens.

      “The People” /= “citizens”

      “The People” includes non-citizens who are legitimate members of the national community. (In some cases, such as the Fourth Amendment, the rights secured to “the People” include ANYONE in the country, even illegal aliens.) Keep in mind that under the current militia law in Title 10, non-citizen resident are automatically members of the unorganized militia if they meet the requirements AND have declared their “intent” to become citizens — no matter how far off that citizenship process might be.

      So, using a voter registration card as a “cleared for Second Amendment rights” proof would still deprive legitimate residents.

      However, I DO like your idea. Since legal residents are REQUIRED to carry federal photo ID that shows their status, and anyone who would be denied 2nd Amendment rights on the basis of conduct would be denied residency and be up for deportation, if we amend your idea to add, “or valid proof of legal resident alien status” after “”valid voter registration“, we’d cover that.

      I’d also like to see “permit to own and possess” amended to “permit to own, and possess, and carry

    • Stan says:

      I can see the leftists heads exploding now. They hate guns with a flaming passion and would want to make registering as difficult as possible, but they also hate any form of voter ID laws with the same flaming passion.

  8. Ish says:

    Middle ground? No. This is my cake. You can’t have it.

  9. Cargosquid says:

    I’m curious to see if I get a response.

    I posted this:

    Define “middle ground.”
    Now…what kind of “compromise” is valid when one is discussing the infringement of or the giving up a basic right? What type of compromise would the MintPress News be willing to do if we were discussing 1st amendment rights?

    There is really no middle ground. “Shall not be infringed” is the operative part of the amendment. Every restriction is NOT a compromise. The gun controllers don’t want compromise and, in fact, reject compromise, as they did when they defeated the ONLY actually universal background check bill. The anti-rights side lies.

  10. Jeff Dege says:

    Odd. I thought non-discretionary carry permits was the compromise.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » No, there is no middle ground because you have nothing to offer - [...] But yammering under the guise of starting a conversation is what the losing side usually does. [...]
  2. Wednesday news | Walla Walla TEA Party Patriots - [...] Is There Room For Middle Ground? [...]
top