The Moderate Voice is a vehicle for civil discussion of controversial issues. It is about exploring the Grey areas.
So in that spirit I propose a centrist exercise. I offer a controversial topic and invite comments on how to reconcile the opposing points of view.
This involves clarifying definitions, making distinctions between means versus ends, dealing with ambiguity, recognizing practical realities, making compromises, thinking nonpartisan and bi-partisan, considering cost and short and long term implications…
Some folks may find it difficult to function in this environment. For them the issues are a matter of honor, or ideology, or God’s word, or some other context that can only be resolved as right and wrong, black and white, Win or lose. If you’re able and willing to respect the validity of an opposing point of view, please participate.
Some defenders of the Second Amendment interpret it to mean absolutely no regulation of gun ownership. Some believe that the phrase “well regulated Militia” implies some restraint is reasonable. What compromises would you propose to a receptive audience of moderate Democrats and Republican Congressman who want to propose a new and modern set of regulations on gun ownership and sales?