Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

by **zephyp** » Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:01:47

CowboyT wrote:Hmm...I actually hadn't planned on coming back here. Some of you may prefer that I didn't.

Hey T. Glad you are back and hope you stick around. No reason for you to run off and to my knowledge no one wanted or wants you gone... :wave:

by **dems4guns** » Wed, 22 Jun 2011 19:46:41

Taggure wrote:Hey Cowboy T good to see you back and hope you stay around

Several discussions have gone on in this and other threads about this very topic,

On one side we have folks that believe with every fiber of their being that the Federal Government should back off and not regulate firearms; and on the other hand there are those that believe in what they call sensible regulations (and seem extreme to others). Here both points of view are talked about; (I think this is what you intended this thread to do) that is not the problem; the problem is when politics gets involved.

Both sides of the camp have their ideology and want their points considered in the discussion and this is a good thing. One of the problems that I have seen that continually seems to drive the discussions to a political nature is the perception that 99% (I am just guessing here) of the Anti-Gun regulations or the blocking of the Pro-Gun regulations come from the Left (Liberals, Democrats, or Progressive). This perception can and has made for a difficult task in maintaining a civil discussion at times. I know the Political portion of this is something that must be discussed, but it should be discussed not by just by pointing a finger and saying this is a problem but offering a solution to the problem, and then discussing the solutions that are brought forward understanding that there are those that will never budge. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and ideology and no one should be forced or be brow beaten into changing their stance. Our goal as a Pro 2A community should be to educate and support our stance with Facts that can and have been verified by independent parties.

Moving to the middle ground may seem to be the right tactic and would force both sides to give up their hard-lined stance if only there is a centralized common ground from which to start.

I know I am sticking my head on the chopping block here but the thing is that we all value our 2A right to bear arms and we all have a love of shooting be it for whatever reason, and if that is not a common place to start from then I don't know what is.

Just my .02 worth

Vern

Well said!!!!! :first:

I am in total agreement.
Dems4Guns

by **CowboyT** » Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:52:12

Taggure wrote:Hey Cowboy T good to see you back and hope you stay around

Several discussions have gone on in this and other threads about this very topic,

On one side we have folks that believe with every fiber of their being that the Federal Government should back off and not regulate firearms; and on the other hand there are those that believe in what they call sensible regulations (and seem extreme to others). Here both points of view are talked about; (I think this is what you intended this thread to do) that is not the problem; the problem is when politics gets involved.

Well, it was really more of what we can do to bring more folks over to our side of the 2A. I'm one of those who believe the Federal Gov't should back off. In this, I share Philip Van Cleave's beliefs. My ultimate goal is to get others who may not think so to gradually open their eyes to the logic of this position.

Taggure wrote:Both sides of the camp have their ideology and want their points considered in the discussion and this is a good thing. One of the problems that I have seen that continually seems to drive the discussions to a political nature is the perception that 99% (I am just guessing here) of the Anti-Gun regulations or the blocking of the Pro-Gun regulations come from the Left (Liberals, Democrats, or Progressive). This perception can and has made for a difficult task in maintaining a civil discussion at times. I know the Political portion of this is something that must be discussed, but it should be discussed not by just by pointing a finger and saying this is a problem but offering a solution to the problem, and then discussing the solutions that are brought forward understanding that there are those that will never budge. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and ideology and no one should be forced or be brow beaten into changing their stance. Our goal as a Pro 2A community should be to educate and support our stance with Facts that can and have been verified by independent parties.

Agreed here, and therein lies the problem. The 2A is a not a Democrat or Republican concept, but rather a Constitutional concept--a concept of freedom. This is why I suggested in the piece to discuss it as such, "free from Democrat/Republican junk."

Taggure wrote:Moving to the middle ground may seem to be the right tactic and would force both sides to give up their hard-lined stance if only there is a centralized common ground from which to start.

My mother referred to this very concept. She's said for years, "if you want to move someone to a different position, you can be one step away from them, and you have a good chance of bringing them with you. But if you're two steps away, you've lost 'em." I've observed this to be true.

However, my end-goal is, step by step, to get those who are not pro-2A to the pro-2A position that the Framers described in their many writings on the subject. That means basically unrestricted except for things like nukes. So, in the long run, no, I'm not really moving toward the middle. What I'm advocating is that we take them step by step, not try to do it in a one or a few big jumps. Of course, this will take some time. In my view, it's time well spent.

Taggure wrote:I know I am sticking my head on the chopping block here but the thing is that we all value our 2A right to bear arms and we all have a love of shooting be it for whatever reason, and if that is not a common place to start from then I don't know what is.

Experience has shown me that you're right about that "chopping block". And it's a shame. That's part of the problem.

by **Taggure** » Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:25:34

CowboyT wrote;

Agreed here, and therein lies the problem. The 2A is a not a Democrat or Republican concept, but rather a Constitutional concept--a concept of freedom. This is why I suggested in the piece to discuss it as such, "free from Democrat/Republican junk."

T,

I concur with you on this especially on the "Constitutional concept--a concept of freedom" portion and I think that this is also a common ground from which to work.

I guess the next point would be to define this "Concept of Freedom" as associated to the 2A with the recent rulings by the SCOTUS.
They have in my opinion failed us when their opinions did not define "Reasonable Restrictions/Regulations" and left it open for interpretation. This now has and will lead to more openings for interpretation on what constitutes "Reasonable Restrictions/Regulations" by the Cities, States, and the Federal Government with no clear guidelines.

Currently I do not have a good definition as to what "Reasonable Restrictions/Regulations" would or could be, but just like you I believe that the Federal Government should leave well enough alone and back off.

Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Re: Why We Need to Welcome Liberals to the Cause of the 2A

Who is online