There is no sensible gun owner political bloc.

[morningfog]

I want to help all the gun owners who claim to be sensible politically. You are non-existent in the debate. You have allowed the gun nuts, the NRA and radicals to claim the mantle for gun owners. It has destroyed your cause in the public opinion.

If you actually do exist, quit aligning with the NRA and all of its evils. Maybe there are sensible gun owners out there. Maybe they are even Democrats, maybe they post on DU. But, all that is seen or heard is a loud ass bunch of obstructionists that stand so close to the NRA positions that they are indistinguishable.

If you don't want to be associated with those assholes, form your own politically active sensible gun lobby. Until that time, expect ridicule and denigration because even that is more than the NRA and their ilk deserve.

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. Rec'd

I wish it could be more that once.

[Pelican]

2. In the current climate...

I think that no one is willing to give an inch, thinking that the other side will take a mile.

[Eleanors38]

33. Since strong 2A supporters have expanded the RKBA so dramatically,

is there much left to that mile for them? Would it be more likely that those wishing to restrict 2A would really want to take that mile?

Thank you for your post.

[Pelican]

38. It isn't 50/50...

There are a lot of rights and freedom to lose vs rights and freedoms to expand.

They are there though on issues like national reciprocity of CCW etc...

[Eleanors38]

41. I kind if agree with you. I think their is a kind if stasis regarding armed civilians...

which most controller/banners don't seem to recognize; certainly, this is true with technology. Practically, you can have a semiauto -- like the century> old rifle in my safe. Same since the 1930s.. And the expansion of 2A rights seems to be topping out.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

3. I left another forum after attempting to engage some of these alleged sensible ones

Then one of them let out with a post that basically called the entire population of the US a bunch of cowards 'cuz they'd give up their guns without a fight. Pure fascism. But this is what they spout all the time, all of them. Or at least all of them I've seen opine on any forum I've ever been on.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Let me mention one for you that might jiggle recognition

You might even recognize the name from recent news coverage....Gabby Giffords. Let me mention a second one, Mark Kelly.

Yup those two radicals...ask the NRA just how radical they are...are among those sensible gun owners.

They are even busy putting their money where their mouth is.

Something about cutting noses to spite faces comes to mind.

[Ian David]

5. I've been thinking that the Brady people did it wrong.

Instead of becoming an anti-gun group, they should have become a group for sensible gun owners, that believe in sensible laws.

In other words. they should have marketed themselves like the NRA, with a magazine, endorsed products, insurance policies, etc., while also lobbying for sensible gun laws, and educating the public on real, sensible gun ownership.

[LAGC]

8. That would have definitely been more productive.

As it stands now, its kind of hard for gun owners to want to work with a group formerly called HANDGUN CONTROL, INC. that wanted to ban all handguns -- and still does, even though they try to sugar-coat their intentions more these days.

By staking out such an extreme position, it only polarizes the other side and makes any sort of compromise impossible.

[Ian David]

10. Brady doesn't have an extreme position. But it's hard to sell being anti-something.

How do you make money selling not doing something?

[LAGC]

11. Wanting to ban handguns is a pretty extreme position.

And getting more extreme as time goes on...

Most Americans recognize the utility of handguns for personal self-defense.

[Skip Intro]

15. ^^^ THIS ^^^

[Robb]

20. Meh. The fringe defines the debate.

It's a counterweight; action always happens in the middle ground. If you start in the middle, you've lost a lot of territory before you even begin.

[DanTex]

32. No more extreme than single payer healthcare.

Though last time I checked, none of the gun control organizations are trying to ban handguns.

[Recursion]

35. It's still a stated goal of VPC

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htm

Though at least they're right in focusing on handguns rather than modern-style rifles and shotguns. (And, for that matter, I think the Constitutional argument for personal handgun ownership is weaker than for rifle and shotgun ownership -- that said, it's still a rather unpopular position nationwide.)

[DanTex]

36. I stand corrected. I didn't know anyone was advocating for a handgun ban.

True, it is not a popular position, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's extreme. It's certainly not as extreme or as unpopular as the status quo, with unregulated private sales.

I think the comparison to single payer healthcare is pretty accurate.

[Hoyt]

29. Not as hard as working with group of right wing bigots who spent millions trying to defeat Obama.

When will the gun cultists compromise?

[The Straight Story]

6. There are many that fit that definition

But they are stuck between the people who want to ban all guns and have emotional reactions and those on the far right who want to do nothing.

People will defend those who are for their rights faster than those against them.

Like abortion - there are many who are for the right for a woman to choose (like me). There are some who are for it but only if an abortion is done before 7 months. Some are fine with abortion up until the moment of birth.

If I came out and said I wanted to ban all abortion people would rise up and fight that. I would not consider them 'nuts' for doing such. If someone comes out and says 'hey, I am all for it but after x months maybe not unless there are serious health issues' would they be seen as 'sensible' or still seen as someone who wants to ban all abortions and control others?

The same principles apply to other areas, like guns. Some people want some restrictions in place - but others fear that implementing those restrictions are a stepping stone to broader ones. And if we fear that on one topic why is it surprising that others have the same fear on another topic?

It is simply human nature and our fear that others will control our choices that drive people to distrust the government and it's powers over us. We can't find a middle ground we can all agree on because we fear where it will go next - give the rw an inch and they will take a yard. Some feel the same with the left.

Bans on sodas, smoking in bars, zero tolerance, etc and so on - there is a constant battle to control other people and their choices. So I can't fully blame gun folks for being a bit leery when we tell them that we want to make even more laws based on what less than 1% of them do - especially when you have some here on DU wanting to remove all guns and only allow those in power to have them.

[krispos42]

7. My reasons for wanting or not wanting certain things done...

...have nothing to do with the fantasy reasons that the NRA and the other right-wingers feel the need to feed into. I don't need to fantasize about race war or a second Civil War or an armed insurrection or Doomsday in order to think that people should be able to own an AR-15. For example.

[rrneck]

9. Dichotomies like that don't work very well.

Produce workable legislation and you won't have a problem with gun owners.

[morningfog]

12. Form a politically sensible group of gun owners to work with.

[rrneck]

13. That's another dichotomy.

The only way to determine who the politically sensible people are, whether they are gun owners or not, is to produce sensible legislation. Anything less is just arguing about the subtleties of ideology without any connection to the real world. That's where groups like the NRA, VPC and the rest of their ilk make a living.

Sensibility is not determined through fealty to ideology, but through actual solutions to actual problems.

[morningfog]

14. And what I am saying is there is no group with any political power speaking for sane

gun owners. If you are such a sane gun owner, I would think you would want a group to be formed, recognized and have a voice at the table. Otherwise, all gun owners leave it to the NRA represent them. If you are fine with that, well...

[rrneck]

17. When you produce workable gun legislation

the sane gun owners will embrace your ideas. There are about eighty million gun owners in this country, only four million or so belong to the NRA. There are already millions of gun owners who would love to hear a solution if you would but provide one. But you have no authority to demand they follow you if you don't know where you are going or how to get there.

Moral authority without practical application is vanity.

[morningfog]

22. The 80 million, if accurate, are letting a radical minority represent them.

The gun owners need to step the fuck up and offer their ideas if they disagree with the NRA.

[rrneck]

28. The NRA represents its membership.

Why would you assume the rest of gun owners care about the NRA one way or the other? Who are you to tell anybody to "step the fuck up"? If you see a problem, solve it, and people will follow you. Do you really think such an arrogant attitude will build a political coalition? Do you really think demanding people do something just because you told them to will compel them to do anything other than dislike you?

Has it occurred to you that gun owners have already dealt with the "problem"? They dealt with it by buying a gun. "The problem" isn't "gun violence". It isn't some statistical or ideological abstraction. It isn't some political scrum or media creation for ratings. The problem that people are dealing with, whether they decide to buy a gun or not, is a disparity of force between an assailant and a victim. It's not some ill defined group of people reduced to statistics or a set of improper attitudes about proper public comportment but the reality of a particular event in people's lives that has affected them for about two million years. Sometimes people attack one another. When the attack happens it doesn't matter who or why, it has to be dealt with. Some people buy a gun as part of a strategy to deal with that eventuality, others don't. If you don't want people to have guns, offer them a better solution. But here's a tip: Behaving like an arrogant ass is the wrong way to go about it.

[rrneck]

42. And by the way...

why aren't you speaking for sane gun owners?

[hack89]

18. I vote for pro-gun control Congressmen

is that good enough?

[Robb]

21. Not if you also support the NRA.

[Skip Intro]

19. Please define "sensible gun owner," and contrast with non-sensible gun owner. n/t

[morningfog]

23. No. If you disagree with the NRA positions, offer your alternatives.

Otherwise you are letting them represent you.

[Skip Intro]

40. You used the term. Can you not define it? n/t

[premium]

24. Here's a pro gun club that's geared towards liberals.

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

The mission of The Liberal Gun Club is to provide a voice for gun-owning liberals and moderates in the national conversation on gun rights, gun legislation, firearms safety, and shooting sports. We serve as a national forum for all people, irrespective of their personal political beliefs, to discuss firearms ownership, firearms use, and the enjoyment of firearms-related activities free from the destructive elements of political extremism that dominate this subject on the national scale. We also actively develop and foster a variety of programs for the purpose of firearms training and firearms safety education, for both gun owners and non-gun owners.

[PD Turk]

25. I think the reason guys like me

I think the reason guys like me don't have a recognizable "political block" in the gun debate is, we aren't one issue voters. We own guns, we shoot guns, but we are concerned with a lot more than guns. Like right now, I'm more concerned with being a middle aged guy who is recently unemployed after 13 years on the same job facing a job market that is hostile to people my age. I face a greater threat of losing my guns from having to sell them to stay alive than I do from the evil gubmint coming t take them away.

[galileoreloaded]

26. most people want to restrict your behavior but not their own

and thats how they vote. human nature.

[davidn3600]

27. There is no trust

Gun owners dont trust the government. They dont trust you. They think with every shooting you will demand more "sensible" laws until the guns are one day banned.

[geckosfeet]

30. Let me try this out on you.

Your attitude, and the perpetual ostracizing, name calling, insulting and demonizing of anyone who claims to be a gun owner leaves them little choice. You chase them into open arms by refusing to educate yourself about existing and proposed laws and their impact on legal law abiding citizens. These are citizens who own and will continue firearms regardless of what you think and say about them. Your choice.

You choose hate and ridicule and denigration - it is your lot. You make it that way. You fail to see that it is your blind hatred that paints others as evil. Those who you hate band together in communities to protect themselves and their cause. Your hate makes them stronger.

Thank you for your continued support.

[Eleanors38]

31. The problem with your outlook...

Most of the tens of millions of pro-2A folks probably agree with the NRA on the legal and legislative substance of the RKBA. That is different from agreeing with the crap the NRA spews otherwise. And most pro-2A folks Here have made that clear. Yet you equate legal and legislative substance with some flaming balderdash and then associate 2A people here and eleswhere with the NRA. That crap logic then allows you and others to smear and stigmatize at will, and carry on with the kind of culture war you seem to really desire.

You are not part of the solution. You are part of the problem.

You may alert, if you wish.

[Recursion]

34. Somebody needs to write actually sensible legislation

The frustrating thing is somebody did write actually sensible legislation this year, but not before people who wanted to ban certain angles of grips on rifles and shotguns had sucked out a lot of the oxygen.

That said, the Manchin-Toomey amendment is sensible, is broadly supported, and can probably pass if we keep pushing.

[geckosfeet]

37. The NY legislation was not sensible. Neither is the proposed MA legislation. CO, legislation,

RI and CT legislation.

None of it will do squat to protect people. All it will do is make it harder and more expensive for legal gun owners to own guns.

But that's what they want. To slowly and progressively infringe the 2A until there is nothing left.

It's no mystery why there is opposition to these proposals. Because their ultimate goal is as transparent as can be. There is no authentic desire to control violence and crime. That's hard. It's easier to play the smoke and mirrors trick and hope no one notices until it is too late.

[hughee99]

39. Amen! The problem is ALL gun owners, not just the "NRA types".

?w=720
?w=688

[CokeMachine]

44. I see what your did there

Kudos

[gejohnston]

43. actually there is

http://www.independentfirearmowners.org/2013/