Independent Gun Owners of America

[PDM 91]

I just came across an article -- "Gun Owners Must Take Center Stage" by Richard Feldman, former NRA lobbyist, in The Huffington Post of all places. It mentioned that he has formed a new organization called Independent Gun Owners of America, essentially seeking to "bridge the gap" and conduct a rational dialogue on gun issues that might find practical solutions to crime and violence without infringing on law abiding citizens' second amendment rights. For those not familiar with Feldman, it appears that he is a true 2A advocate who also understands that the NRA is often more interested in the fight (and fund raising) than in practical solutions. I really like the mission statement of this new group. I know, there are plenty of you out there who are absolutists and like to spout the mantra "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand." But that BS won't hold any water in places like NJ, where the NRA is about as popular in the general population as the klan. Anyone else familiar with his group? I'm curious as to what people's opinions are of Feldman.

[lunker 274]

I think that you are underestimating the dynamics of this fight between gun rights activists and anti-gun activists. The other side does not budge in their relentless quest to strip all of us of any gun rights. Concessions on our side will not be met by concessions on theirs. By conceding even an inch, you are shifting the argument an inch into the anti-gunner's territory.

[PeteF 1,044]

conduct a rational dialogue on gun issues

 

 

Might as well substitute the phrase "sensible gun control laws".

[Duppie 73]

While I personally believe that compromise on several 2'nd amendment issues is inevitable, we're dealing with a very slippery slope here.As others has indicated, giving even a small concession on the part of gun owners will be considered a sign of weakness and merely a opening to larger and more devastating concessions. When ever I have misgivings and doubts about some of the rhetoric I hear or read, I remind myself about the UK and their situation. No thanks.

[PDM 91]

I don't think any compromise on 2A issues whatsoever is required to make progress on public safety and essentially "box out" the gun grabbers. For example, take the "gun show loophole" (ie background checks for private sales). Feldman's position is that gun shows are legitimate gatherings of individuals seeking to purchase firearms and accessories or simply share their enthusiasm for firearms. He proposes that shows in fact be protected, and rightly points out that a huge number of guns hused in crimes are in fact stolen, not purchased at gun shows. However, if you agree that people with violent criminal records shouldn't be allowed to purchase or own guns, it should be a relatively simple matter to set up a procedure for NICS checks for private sales at gun shows. Transfers through inheritance, to family members, etc. could be excepted. An alternative could be, leave the choice to the individual. You want to sell a gun to a complete stranger at a gun show or elsewhere? Fine, you can do so without breaking any laws. BUT, if that gun is later used in a crime, the law should provide that YOU are criminally and civilly liable. You want to immunize yourself from liability, conduct a NICS check and if the purchaser is clean you are held harmless and free of any liability for subsequent use of the gun. That leaves the choice up to the individual -- you are comfortable transferring to a family member or friend, go right ahead and there is no need for a check.

 

That's just one example. Background checks don't violate the 2A. Yes, I agree 100% that The Brady Bunch, Violence Policy Center, etc. are NOT interested in compromise and are a bunch of liars. They are not the target audience. The target audience are the majority of Americans who agree that people have a right to keep and bear arms, but are turned off by the NRA's absolutist and obstructionist rhetoric.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

but are turned off by the NRA's absolutist and obstructionist Constitutional rhetoric.

 

 

Fixed it for you

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

The target audience are the majority of Americans who agree that people have a right to keep and bear arms, but are turned off by the NRA's absolutist and obstructionist rhetoric.

 

That right there is a gun control fanatic talking point.

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

I just came across an article -- "Gun Owners Must Take Center Stage" by Richard Feldman, former NRA lobbyist, in The Huffington Post of all places.

 

Anyone else familiar with his group? I'm curious as to what people's opinions are of Feldman.

 

Feldman is a stooge for the brady bunch. If the brady bunch applaud Feldman and Zumbo, you know nothing but pure BS is headed your way.

[MrP 81]

I don't think any compromise on 2A issues whatsoever is required to make progress on public safety and essentially "box out" the gun grabbers. For example, take the "gun show loophole" (ie background checks for private sales). Feldman's position is that gun shows are legitimate gatherings of individuals seeking to purchase firearms and accessories or simply share their enthusiasm for firearms. He proposes that shows in fact be protected, and rightly points out that a huge number of guns hused in crimes are in fact stolen, not purchased at gun shows. However, if you agree that people with violent criminal records shouldn't be allowed to purchase or own guns, it should be a relatively simple matter to set up a procedure for NICS checks for private sales at gun shows. Transfers through inheritance, to family members, etc. could be excepted. An alternative could be, leave the choice to the individual. You want to sell a gun to a complete stranger at a gun show or elsewhere? Fine, you can do so without breaking any laws. BUT, if that gun is later used in a crime, the law should provide that YOU are criminally and civilly liable. You want to immunize yourself from liability, conduct a NICS check and if the purchaser is clean you are held harmless and free of any liability for subsequent use of the gun. That leaves the choice up to the individual -- you are comfortable transferring to a family member or friend, go right ahead and there is no need for a check.

 

That's just one example. Background checks don't violate the 2A. Yes, I agree 100% that The Brady Bunch, Violence Policy Center, etc. are NOT interested in compromise and are a bunch of liars. They are not the target audience. The target audience are the majority of Americans who agree that people have a right to keep and bear arms, but are turned off by the NRA's absolutist and obstructionist rhetoric.

 

The quote in bold is sort of ridiculous. If I make a private transaction even with a family member who in 20 years uses it to defend himself, and in NJ is naturally found guilty of manslaughter, why would I be charged? Even if I sold a firearm to a non family member with valid FPID/P2P's why am I liable if he commits a crime? If he has an FPID and P2P, he's obviously not a felon so how could I possibly predict what he might do down the road?

[Cemeterys Gun Blob 165]

I think that you are underestimating the dynamics of this fight between gun rights activists and anti-gun activists. The other side does not budge in their relentless quest to strip all of us of any gun rights. Concessions on our side will not be met by concessions on theirs. By conceding even an inch, you are shifting the argument an inch into the anti-gunner's territory.

 

Sums it up quite nicely.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

No one wins when there is compromise and it hurts both sides equally. When your looking at the big picture compromise means altering the end result you wish to achieve. This isn't bargaining, where you set your goals high in order to achieve the middle ground you wish to achieve. The NRA is trying to reverse the compromises we have made in the past. When we go for the middle ground we loose out every time the issue is brought up. At first you loose half, then you loose half of that, and then half of that and so fourth. Having concrete ideals values and virtues with no compromise not only shows dedication, but it shows a no BS attitude that we need.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

This isn't bargaining, where you set your goals high in order to achieve the middle ground you wish to achieve.

 

 

If you were dealing with people that had common sense or were reasonable I would say yes, in regards to the Anti's neither apply.

 

Harry

[Dan 177]

Just look at NJ's "high capacity" magazine ban. We are at 15 rounds, just a few months ago the cryptkeeper was pushing for 10 rounds. It will never end. Do not give an inch or they will take 10,000 miles.

 

Whatever rights are given up in the name of "compromise" should be considered lost forever, and it will serve as a springboard for the next round of "compromises" until we are left with slingshots.

 

The anti-gunners know they can no longer outright ban guns short of amending the constitution. They are focusing all efforts on "regulating with sensible laws" gun rights into submission.

 

There are already thousands of (and many confusing) federal and state firearms laws. Any evil thing someone can do with obtaining or by using a gun is already illegal, any further legislation only serves to erode the rights of law abiding gun owners. The only legislation needed is undoing all of the unconstitutional BS laws on the books.