Common ground

[h=2]Common ground.[/h]I know many realise that to succeed in this fight one must find the common ground between opposing sides so that real discussion can take place.

Many think that common ground is acceptance of some gun control so that gun control is appeased and will leave us alone. Appeasement is exactly what gun control wants and it means firearm owners will now accept gun control and promote that accepted gun control.

It is a huge psychological victory for gun control and government that literally spells the end of firearm ownership when all opposition accepts gun control. That end is ensured when any opposition is only interested in cooperation and collaboration rather than objection.

It has taken me many years of careful thought and listening to firearm owners to see that cooperation in ones downfall is a fatal mistake.

The all to pervasive argument of it is impossible, accept, we can still own guns is entrenched by thinking those who do manage are somehow better than others. That only responsible people can own guns, others do not deserve to.

Quite obviously appeasement is not common ground and is a fatal mistake. The true common ground is far more subtle and requires a quantum leap in thinking which we are all capable of. Our personal safety is very very important to us which is why we wish to own firearms for our own protection. Yet we face an opposition that is equally concerned about their own safety which they believe can be obtained by disarming everyone.

Our common ground is personal safety, not guns, not appeasement, not common sense and not trying to force one to accept the other by waging a war of words over guns and firearm ownership. It literally puts firearm owners strategy on its head as counter productive at worst and ineffective at best.

It is not a war over guns it is a question of presenting the truth in the least offensive way so each side can unite in the pursuit of our safety.

Crimefree said:

[h=2]Common ground.[/h]I know many realise that to succeed in this fight one must find the common ground between opposing sides so that real discussion can take place.

Many think that common ground is acceptance of some gun control so that gun control is appeased and will leave us alone. Appeasement is exactly what gun control wants and it means firearm owners will now accept gun control and promote that accepted gun control.

It is a huge psychological victory for gun control and government that literally spells the end of firearm ownership when all opposition accepts gun control. That end is ensured when any opposition is only interested in cooperation and collaboration rather than objection.

It has taken me many years of careful thought and listening to firearm owners to see that cooperation in ones downfall is a fatal mistake.

The all to pervasive argument of it is impossible, accept, we can still own guns is entrenched by thinking those who do manage are somehow better than others. That only responsible people can own guns, others do not deserve to.

Quite obviously appeasement is not common ground and is a fatal mistake. The true common ground is far more subtle and requires a quantum leap in thinking which we are all capable of. Our personal safety is very very important to us which is why we wish to own firearms for our own protection. Yet we face an opposition that is equally concerned about their own safety which they believe can be obtained by disarming everyone.

Our common ground is personal safety, not guns, not appeasement, not common sense and not trying to force one to accept the other by waging a war of words over guns and firearm ownership. It literally puts firearm owners strategy on its head as counter productive at worst and ineffective at best.

It is not a war over guns it is a question of presenting the truth in the least offensive way so each side can unite in the pursuit of our safety.

Click to expand...

Common ground...violent criminals shouldnt be walking the street. Pass mandatory minimum sentencing laws that lock violent offenders away for time plus 40 years mandatory. use RICO statutes and prosecute gang members complicit in criminal enterprise and similarly lock them away. Violent crime plummets.

Crimefree said:

[h=2]Common ground.[/h]I know many realise that to succeed in this fight one must find the common ground between opposing sides so that real discussion can take place.

Many think that common ground is acceptance of some gun control so that gun control is appeased and will leave us alone. Appeasement is exactly what gun control wants and it means firearm owners will now accept gun control and promote that accepted gun control.

It is a huge psychological victory for gun control and government that literally spells the end of firearm ownership when all opposition accepts gun control. That end is ensured when any opposition is only interested in cooperation and collaboration rather than objection.

It has taken me many years of careful thought and listening to firearm owners to see that cooperation in ones downfall is a fatal mistake.

The all to pervasive argument of it is impossible, accept, we can still own guns is entrenched by thinking those who do manage are somehow better than others. That only responsible people can own guns, others do not deserve to.

Quite obviously appeasement is not common ground and is a fatal mistake. The true common ground is far more subtle and requires a quantum leap in thinking which we are all capable of. Our personal safety is very very important to us which is why we wish to own firearms for our own protection. Yet we face an opposition that is equally concerned about their own safety which they believe can be obtained by disarming everyone.

Our common ground is personal safety, not guns, not appeasement, not common sense and not trying to force one to accept the other by waging a war of words over guns and firearm ownership. It literally puts firearm owners strategy on its head as counter productive at worst and ineffective at best.

It is not a war over guns it is a question of presenting the truth in the least offensive way so each side can unite in the pursuit of our safety.

Click to expand...

I think that people want personal safety but I think the goal of some politicians is to disarm the public. That is more of a priority to me than any other issue.

Crimefree said:

[h=2]Common ground.[/h]I know many realise that to succeed in this fight one must find the common ground between opposing sides so that real discussion can take place.

Many think that common ground is acceptance of some gun control so that gun control is appeased and will leave us alone. Appeasement is exactly what gun control wants and it means firearm owners will now accept gun control and promote that accepted gun control.

It is a huge psychological victory for gun control and government that literally spells the end of firearm ownership when all opposition accepts gun control. That end is ensured when any opposition is only interested in cooperation and collaboration rather than objection.

It has taken me many years of careful thought and listening to firearm owners to see that cooperation in ones downfall is a fatal mistake.

The all to pervasive argument of it is impossible, accept, we can still own guns is entrenched by thinking those who do manage are somehow better than others. That only responsible people can own guns, others do not deserve to.

Quite obviously appeasement is not common ground and is a fatal mistake. The true common ground is far more subtle and requires a quantum leap in thinking which we are all capable of. Our personal safety is very very important to us which is why we wish to own firearms for our own protection. Yet we face an opposition that is equally concerned about their own safety which they believe can be obtained by disarming everyone.

Our common ground is personal safety, not guns, not appeasement, not common sense and not trying to force one to accept the other by waging a war of words over guns and firearm ownership. It literally puts firearm owners strategy on its head as counter productive at worst and ineffective at best.

It is not a war over guns it is a question of presenting the truth in the least offensive way so each side can unite in the pursuit of our safety.

Click to expand...

Well stated.

VanceMack said:

Common ground...violent criminals shouldnt be walking the street. Pass mandatory minimum sentencing laws that lock violent offenders away for time plus 40 years mandatory. use RICO statutes and prosecute gang members complicit in criminal enterprise and similarly lock them away. Violent crime plummets.

Click to expand...

The prisons are over crowded now, I'm all for using the death penalty a lot more liberally. We have plenty of deserving candidates.

NonoBadDog said:

I think that people want personal safety but I think the goal of some politicians is to disarm the public. That is more of a priority to me than any other issue.

Click to expand...

Mine as well.

MickeyW said:

The prisons are over crowded now, I'm all for using the death penalty a lot more liberally. We have plenty of deserving candidates.

Click to expand...

IMO death row should be the organ donor wing.

blaxshep said:

IMO death row should be the organ donor wing.

Click to expand...

Exactly. :thumbs:

Common Ground, I like this....


So let me try to place some "ground" first.

This country has GUNS.... period.... for us to be common is to accept that Guns are here to stay? YES or NO very simple answer?

Goodness I hate using the word Guns....

If we could 100% eliminate firearms..... than the opposite of common could apply..... I would be on board for more weapons laws etc....BUT again... is this possible? 100% elimination of firearms? Is this a reality??? Not in my lifetime....


So common grounds .... Firearms are here to stay.


Secondly. How do we prevent the "abuse" of Firearms?

Consequence, currently there are none worthy of impeding the actions of a sane person and an insane person...... They do not second guess their actions..... This is my personal discussion. To stop someone from doing something, starts with THAT PERSON, thinking about their action prior to doing it.

If I am legal authorized to have a weapon -

If I am allowed to carry it in the open, why would I need to put my hand on it remove it from its safe keeping and utilize it? WHAT action and consequence is there?


If I am NOT legal to have a weapon -

What consequences are there for me even having one? Why would I need one in the first place? (If you are not caught you are not guilty) Again NO self governance and accountability.



By applying PROPER Consequence, people will have to consider their ACTIONS prior to committing to them.


If I walked onto a Firing Range, If I pulled out my weapon and started shooting randomly....what would likely happen? Consequence?

If I walked into a Market and pulled out my weapon and started shooting randomly? WHAT consequence?


Common ground.... needs common sense.... unfortunately, this lacks in many minds as people are so FOCUSED on the metallic object in ones hands that makes a very loud noise and fires something metallic and a very high rate of speed destroying anything in its path.

RATHER than focusing on WHY someone chooses to pick up THIS metallic object and use it in horrible ways......


Common Ground?..........unfortunately not so common =(

NonoBadDog;1066258742[B said:

]I think that people want personal safety [/B]but I think the goal of some politicians is to disarm the public. That is more of a priority to me than any other issue.

Click to expand...

I know they want personal safety. Both firearm owners and gun control advocates. That is common ground.

Do you not see that politicians simply use the momentum and support provided by gun control. These are one and the same issue. What reasons do politicians give for disarming citizens?

I must ask in case I have missed something, how do you propose to prevent politicians disarming people? What strategy applies to succeed? Why will it succeed?

Exactice said:

Common Ground, I like this....

Click to expand...

That's a good start.

So let me try to place some "ground" first.

This country has GUNS.... period.... for us to be common is to accept that Guns are here to stay? YES or NO very simple answer?

Click to expand...

Well no you want to discuss guns I want to discuss safety. Now let me ask why do you want to discuss guns? Because you feel unsafe?

Goodness I hate using the word Guns....

Click to expand...

So do I and firearms is correct.

If we could 100% eliminate firearms..... than the opposite of common could apply..... I would be on board for more weapons laws etc....BUT again... is this possible? 100% elimination of firearms? Is this a reality??? Not in my lifetime....

Click to expand...

Well first of all why do you want to remove firearms? Lets get that right first. Is your safety not more important?

So common grounds .... Firearms are here to stay.

Click to expand...

I don't know I have not got to this stage yet. Who knows I'm not even sure that what you propose is valid. You cannot just expect me to do a leap of faith surely? How did firearms just get into this? Tell me about your safety first. Mine is very important to me which is why I think this needs discussion.

I really think that you have diverted here to something else and that is the conflict that exits because we are not ready to discuss the real issues. I don't see any conflict if your motivation is personal safety the same as mine. Well I extend mine to public safety because they are really one and the same.

So I'll cut this here and wait for you.

Crimefree said:

That's a good start.

Well no you want to discuss guns I want to discuss safety. Now let me ask why do you want to discuss guns? Because you feel unsafe? Fair point!... I cant disagree with you on this one and I think this is were it will get really tough, Which came first , the chicken or the egg. You say you want to discuss safety, Well sure, IF we got rid of ALL firearms, Then safety is implied correct? But after firearms are removed, likely humans have a tendency for violence, whats next, box cutters, knives, baseball bats etc. (sorry I know that sounds a little immature) My point being again, Firearms are in this country and the likely hood of them being 100% removed is unlikely, so we must coherently discuss how to improve "Safety" while being tolerant of those that posses such weapons.

So do I and firearms is correct. Outstanding

Well first of all why do you want to remove firearms? Lets get that right first. Is your safety not more important? I have no reason to get rid of firearms, unfortunately, I feel its like any other potentially hazardous equipment, from a car, to a knife to golf club, All can equally cause a great amount of trauma, yet can be avoided with proper conditions set. As for my safety, Yes I have my firearms for my safety and that of my family, Yet while I posses them, I have the ability to cause great harm to others, WHAT stops me from acting? Self Governance, My CHOICE not to do something stupid with my Firearms.


I don't know I have not got to this stage yet. Who knows I'm not even sure that what you propose is valid I agree my proposal may not be valid, yet it just a simple one mans opinion! =). You cannot just expect me to do a leap of faith surely? Of course not, as stated in another thread, you can take my comments as a debate/discussion or an insult =) Which I do not think you are taking as an insult btw. How did firearms just get into this? Tell me about your safety first. Mine is very important to me which is why I think this needs discussion. Your Safety is extremely important! I will not discredit that in the slightest. So I ask you, as now to be fair.... Your Safety from what? or Whom?

I really think that you have diverted here to something else and that is the conflict that exits because we are not ready to discuss the real issues. I don't see any conflict if your motivation is personal safety the same as mine. Well I extend mine to public safety because they are really one and the same.
My Apologies, if I missed your point of the thread, I saw "Common Ground" and I thought we were looking as a whole, not just public safety. Since you have highlighted Safety as whole, let me try to answer you the best I can.

So I'll cut this here and wait for you.

Click to expand...

Safety, your Safety, My Safety, Everyone's Safety.

Lets start from the beginning, without any Firearms period, Everyone would be free of worry from a firearm related tragedy correct?

Is this a realistic situation? Can we eliminate 100% all firearms to guarantee the public/private safety of all? Personally I do not think so. And more so to believe that all entities would follow suite would be unrealistic. I am using criminals as an example... if they wanted they will get it. if someone has in intent to commit harm they will....


So safety, you ask, safety from whom or what? because the Firearm itself is not what is dangerous, its the person that has the action in their mind, without fear of recourse or consequence.



Ill stop here for a moment to give you a chance!

Crimefree said:

[h=2]Common ground.[/h]I know many realise that to succeed in this fight one must find the common ground between opposing sides so that real discussion can take place.

Many think that common ground is acceptance of some gun control so that gun control is appeased and will leave us alone. Appeasement is exactly what gun control wants and it means firearm owners will now accept gun control and promote that accepted gun control.

It is a huge psychological victory for gun control and government that literally spells the end of firearm ownership when all opposition accepts gun control. That end is ensured when any opposition is only interested in cooperation and collaboration rather than objection.

It has taken me many years of careful thought and listening to firearm owners to see that cooperation in ones downfall is a fatal mistake.

The all to pervasive argument of it is impossible, accept, we can still own guns is entrenched by thinking those who do manage are somehow better than others. That only responsible people can own guns, others do not deserve to.

Quite obviously appeasement is not common ground and is a fatal mistake. The true common ground is far more subtle and requires a quantum leap in thinking which we are all capable of. Our personal safety is very very important to us which is why we wish to own firearms for our own protection. Yet we face an opposition that is equally concerned about their own safety which they believe can be obtained by disarming everyone.

Our common ground is personal safety, not guns, not appeasement, not common sense and not trying to force one to accept the other by waging a war of words over guns and firearm ownership. It literally puts firearm owners strategy on its head as counter productive at worst and ineffective at best.

It is not a war over guns it is a question of presenting the truth in the least offensive way so each side can unite in the pursuit of our safety.

Click to expand...

Common ground, or compromising, only means that both sides lose.

Crimefree said:

I know they want personal safety. Both firearm owners and gun control advocates. That is common ground.

Do you not see that politicians simply use the momentum and support provided by gun control. These are one and the same issue. What reasons do politicians give for disarming citizens?

I must ask in case I have missed something, how do you propose to prevent politicians disarming people? What strategy applies to succeed? Why will it succeed?

Click to expand...

We are saying about the same thing. I don't know how to keep politicians at bay other than what we are doing. Make it an issue and give no ground. I think some politicians want to federalize all police departments. I know if they made some types of guns illegal our sheriff would tell the feds to kiss his ass. He did it with our governor. I can still go to any gun shop in Fort Collins and buy 30 round magazines. Our local police refused to enforce that law as it is unenforceable.

NonoBadDog said:

We are saying about the same thing. I don't know how to keep politicians at bay other than what we are doing. Make it an issue and give no ground. I think some politicians want to federalize all police departments. I know if they made some types of guns illegal our sheriff would tell the feds to kiss his ass. He did it with our governor. I can still go to any gun shop in Fort Collins and buy 30 round magazines. Our local police refused to enforce that law as it is unenforceable.

Click to expand...

I see that but the approach used is different. A few people yelling at a politician is an every day thing and the only people willing to do it are very few. Not one of them knows why nor how important it is for them. Which is why it fails every time.

What is needed is is lots of people yelling at politicians who are serious about it because it impacts on them directly. People = votes in political speak only if they are serious. Firearm organisations and owners need to make this a public issue to get the many. If whatever one uses fails to attract public interest it is wrong. That is true of firearm owners current message.

RetiredUSN said:

Common ground, or compromising, only means that both sides lose.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ common ground means both get what they want.

Well what strategy are firearm organisations and owners using now. It is appease, collaborate and accept. Which current law are firearm organisations "fighting" or objecting to? Quite honestly anything is better that what is being practised now.

Have you seen me compromise on any response here?