Let’s find a middle ground between Obama and the NRA
If you blame the NRA for what happened there, you’re blaming 4 million law-abiding Americans who tuck their children safely into bed every night and who teach them to respect firearms and to use them safely. And if you blame them, you’re also blaming me, because I’m one of those 4 million NRA members.
Responsible gun owners should be at the forefront of any effort to find a balance between rights and responsibilities to make America safer for our children. We understand better than most that guns made this country free and are an important part of our culture and heritage.
I make this solemn pledge to all my friends who are proud, law-abiding members of the NRA: I will defend the Second Amendment with every fiber of my being. And I make this solemn pledge to all my friends in the media and entertainment industry: I will defend the First Amendment just as vigorously.
I’m never going to give up my guns — that will not happen. I support a sensible, comprehensive process that can lead to reasonable solutions regarding mass violence. I will weigh the evidence for any proposals put before me, including ways to address high-capacity magazines and military-style assault weapons, improve mental health treatment, and transform a culture that glorifies violence.
We cannot take a single-issue approach to this problem. The causes of mass violence run deeper than that. Any solution that doesn’t take all concerned parties into account will lack the credibility it needs to become a reality. But we should all be looking for a comprehensive fix. We owe that to Newtown.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Why?
Mimzey on December 22, 2012 at 9:41 PM
Yeah, just like the republican congressional leadership.
cozmo on December 22, 2012 at 9:42 PM
What’s the middle ground between getting rid of the Second Amendment and strengthening the Second Amendment?
Glenn Jericho on December 22, 2012 at 9:45 PM
Shut it down
davidk on December 22, 2012 at 9:46 PM
Thats it^
Mimzey on December 22, 2012 at 9:50 PM
How about you go f*ck yourself.
Mark1971 on December 22, 2012 at 9:51 PM
How can you negotiate with someone who tells you to choose between death or… death?
TheRightMan on December 22, 2012 at 9:51 PM
Republicans compromise and the Democrats promise to accept their compromise if they compromise just a bit more.
Fenris on December 22, 2012 at 9:51 PM
OK, how about Dear Liar keeps the current tax rates, and I keep my guns. Sounds win-win all around.
rbj on December 22, 2012 at 9:52 PM
I’m with Mark1971
ConArtist in Tampa on December 22, 2012 at 9:53 PM
Let’s throw obama and his cabal in prison for their acts of treason, and begin the restoration of America.
Pork-Chop on December 22, 2012 at 9:54 PM
No.
You want safer children? Then get rid of gun free zones. That is where the incidents occur. When good people are disarmed, bad people can do horrible things.
Pretty simple.
There is no “Middle Ground” with Obama. Haven’t you learned yet, Manchin?
Oh wait. WaPo columnist.
Sort of like the fifth column during World War II….
ProfShadow on December 22, 2012 at 9:55 PM
Man, this guy sounds like he could fit right into the GOPe. It’s eerie.
ddrintn on December 22, 2012 at 9:56 PM
Hehe, yeah, middle ground to B.O. means “I won”.
Clink on December 22, 2012 at 9:57 PM
A good place to start may be by blaming the people who do these things instead of the people who don’t.
MikeA on December 22, 2012 at 9:57 PM
No. Let’s not.
dczombie on December 22, 2012 at 9:59 PM
If you cannot stop somebody before they get a gun then you need to be able to stop them after they get a gun.
These mass murderers always go after the unarmed victims.
Also there will always be the unpredictable variable of crazy shooters who are not afraid to die.
To understand how impossible it is to stop somebody determined to kill all you have to do is look at how in Afghanistan the best armed and well trained army being the U.S. still take casualties and they are professional soldiers.
Nobody is more well armed than that.
NeoKong on December 22, 2012 at 10:02 PM
If the libs want to make a deal, here’s one to consider. They’re always saying that when the 2nd Amendment was written it was so people could keep muskets and that the founders never could have envisioned that 250 years later people would have access to so-called military grade assault weapons. (Never mind that at the time muskets were military grade.)
Perhaps we should point out that at the time the 1st amendment was written, mass communication was limited to a crude printing press. They never could have envisioned instant online communications spreading incendiary ideas to global audiences in the blink of an eye. Maybe we need to have commonsense regulations limiting “freedom of the press” to bring it back in line with what they had back in 1787?
Oh, what, you don’t like that? Well then STFU about our 2nd Amendment rights.
dczombie on December 22, 2012 at 10:05 PM
I’m going to respond to your suggestion, which I like, by putting quill to parchment and sending by “Pony Express” messenger. I eagerly await your reply:)
Clink on December 22, 2012 at 10:11 PM
And also conveniently left out is that the 14th Amendment had yet to come into being. So the First Amendment only applied as to the Federal Government, with the word “Congress” conveniently being in the first position. It was a limit on Congress’s power. States could censor, pay ministers (many did) and, sacre bleu allow nativity scenes on the town square!
The word “Congress” is conspicuously missing from the Second Amendment.
rbj on December 22, 2012 at 10:13 PM
Middle ground with a radical tyrant is still tyranny.
The right have been finding middle ground with the left for 100 years and look where we are now? Constitution? What Constitution?
katy on December 22, 2012 at 10:18 PM
“The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.”
davidk on December 22, 2012 at 10:21 PM
This hard left push on guns was coming anyway. Everyone knows second term Obama is going to be unhinged left wing crazy on everything.
Anyone that says it has something to do with Newtown is an idiot. That’s a convenient prop, that’s all.
Moesart on December 22, 2012 at 10:31 PM
Manchin’s a Democrat, so that’s his game with this OpEd.
Greg Toombs on December 22, 2012 at 10:33 PM
Says the man who voted lock-step with Obama’s 1st term agenda when he had the chance.
SouthernGent on December 22, 2012 at 10:34 PM
Haha, right on. I’ve been thinking for a while about doing a longer essay on this idea. Maybe it’s time.
dczombie on December 22, 2012 at 10:35 PM
Let’s see. Heller confirms than firearms “in common use” can’t be banned.
The scary AR platform is the most common rifle in America.
So….overturn Heller, Joe?
eeyore on December 22, 2012 at 10:36 PM
We have to stop the mass murder and killing of innocent children. We must find a middle ground to save at least some of those who will be killed this year. There must be a middle ground compromise on the issue of abortion.
Dollayo on December 22, 2012 at 10:38 PM
Middle ground my eye. Stop trying to expand the statist agenda on the backs of murdered children.
Kenosha Kid on December 22, 2012 at 10:41 PM
Just more BS. Why should it be a comprehensive fix. If there are several issues involved and one issue can be “fixed” immediately, why wait to be comprehensive, or obversely, why should we take a blind stab at the complicated ones that take longer to add to the one simple one now, just so we make it comprehensive?
What we owe to Newton are solutions that work. To suggest that that can be found in a compromise or a middle ground approach is just plain retarded and what you are really saying is that Newton has you Congresscritters stuck to hot seats and you folks want off of them ASAP.
God, I hate these people.
Dusty on December 22, 2012 at 10:42 PM
We owe zip to Newtown or any other place
We owe our allegiance to the constitution, you phony cross dressing Dim
TexasJew on December 22, 2012 at 10:44 PM
We’ve already given up too much ground.
The left proceeds from the sheer LIE that the right to keep and bear arms hasn’t been infringed.
We know that is a LIE, how can you negotiate with someone who’s position proceeds from that?
Juno77 on December 22, 2012 at 10:49 PM
That’s the giveaway right there. The SOB supports banning the guns that scare the tyrants.
F**k off Manchin. You can’t have them.
single stack on December 22, 2012 at 10:53 PM
So he’s on board with restricting mags and “military-style assault weapons”. He says he’ll just consider it, but that means he’ll go along with the party as always.
As bad as the GOP is, there is no Democrat that can be trusted not to sell out his constituents for the party line.
juliesa on December 22, 2012 at 10:57 PM
No, let’s get rid of the gun-free zones instead and let people defend themselves and their kids. Instead of cops in every school, which would cost billions and require training hundreds of thousands of new cops, let’s train volunteer teachers instead. If there aren’t enough volunteers, instead of hiring cops some states/localities might offer to compensate teachers who train, certify and carry.
FloatingRock on December 22, 2012 at 11:16 PM
“Gun free” zones are Democrat sanctioned kill zones. The GOP needs to shout this from the rooftops.
The Count on December 22, 2012 at 11:46 PM
The advantage of allowing teachers to train and carry a gun as apposed to cop is that the bad guys don’t have any way to know who is armed, (unless their names are outed by the local newspaper, which has already happened more than once). Keeping the names of people who have concealed carry licenses out of the public domain is essential!
There’s no logical reason that a teacher who is sufficiently trained and undergoes a background check is inherently less qualified to carry a gun than a cop. Being a cop requires a broad array of training to carry out their duties, but as far as firearms training is concerned there are many civilians that are as well qualified.
Teachers are already present in the schools and will not acclimate the children to living in a police state as would be the case with uniformed officers. It will save billions of dollars we don’t have. Children will be far safer. It’s the most logical, rational solution.
If people want to get into the weeds with their family on the topic over the holidays, here is a brief thought on the tactics of this solution: If a school shooter is going to invade a school with uniformed security, they’ll be targeted first, which might be easy to accomplish and then the killer could start on the kids. But if random, unknown teachers are armed then a killer would have to start out by targeting all the teachers and staff first, and that would take time during which one or more of those teachers might take out the shooter. The shooter will have to come to them, or else the shooter will be able to take out the shooter when his back is turned and he will be vulnerable. Even if the shooter does manage to take out all of the teachers, it is likely to take so much time going from classroom to classroom that they won’t have time to target a bunch of kids.
Arming some of the teachers and staff is the only tactically sound plan to secure the nations children. Anything less is just more security-theater.
FloatingRock on December 22, 2012 at 11:50 PM
Find a middle ground?
“Hide and watch.” is the best advice for these ‘moderate’ douches.
LegendHasIt on December 22, 2012 at 11:51 PM
fix
FloatingRock on December 22, 2012 at 11:54 PM
I know I shouldn’t be, but I’m startled that Joe Manchin of all people would be foolish enough to show his colors like this.
And I’m shocked that I’m startled, because the last four years have proven without exception that there are no moderate or unorthodox Democrats. But somewhere you couldn’t help but make an exception in the back of your mind – at least for gun rights – for a guy who literally shot the Obama agenda in his flagship campaign ad.
It goes without saying that “seeking common ground” and “splitting the difference” or whatever else is a full-throated embrace of gun bans and confiscation. Maybe on Facebook feeds and dinner conversations there’s such a thing as honest discussions, but pols are wide awake and full participants in the game. The last Senator to make a non-cynical statement was sometime around 1852. When a Senator says “I make this solemn pledge” and “I’m never going to give up my guns — that will not happen,” it means he’s about to support bans, which he does in the very next sentence.
HitNRun on December 22, 2012 at 11:54 PM
Right Middle Wrong
Middle MiddleWrong Wrong (where we are now after having gone through this before)
MiddleWrong MiddleWrongWrong Wrong
…
Any questions?
astonerii on December 23, 2012 at 12:08 AM
You can’t compromise with those that don’t bargain in good faith.
And you sure as hell can’t bargain away your own safety.
So again, NO!
ProfShadow on December 23, 2012 at 12:12 AM
A person can bargain away their safety.
A race car driver. A fisherman. A miner. Military and so forth all do this all the time, and there is nothing wrong with it.
What you should not be able to do is bargain away other peoples’ safety, particularly other peoples’ rights.
astonerii on December 23, 2012 at 12:47 AM
You should definitely not get away with bargaining away other people’s safety and rights, and then cal it “compromise.”
Kenosha Kid on December 23, 2012 at 2:21 AM
the “middle ground” is occupied solely by walls.
tom daschle concerned on December 23, 2012 at 6:29 AM
You make very good points. My hunch is that in most areas, in all but the bluest, there will be school personnel willing and able to carry, with proper training and some extra duty pay.
One example of your tactical model would the the air marshal plan, which seems well suited for state and local governments to use in public schools.
petefrt on December 23, 2012 at 8:07 AM
With the rhetoric he’s using, Manchin is less about a middle road and more about packaging rights infringements in a way that will sell with 51% of his constituency.
JohnTant on December 23, 2012 at 9:00 AM
Why not? Chamberlain found a middle ground between Churchill and Hitler.
PersonFromPorlock on December 23, 2012 at 9:14 AM
How about the effing constitution Joe? There’s your damn middle ground, in fact it’s the only effing ground.
bgibbs1000 on December 23, 2012 at 9:16 AM
The 2nd ammendment has been infringed massively over the years.
Gun grabbers have their background checks at the very least. They have their ludicrous NFA provisions. In blue-state nirvanas there are draconian and capricious controls on all aspects of firearms ownership.
The time for compromise is long past – if the GOP caves to this entirely manufactured storm created by the Democrats and the MSM then they can swing.
CorporatePiggy on December 23, 2012 at 9:24 AM