Incremental Strategy: Please Explain


PDA






antsi
February 24, 2007, 11:15 PM
People who object to an incremental strategy for restoring RKBA seem to hold two conflicting sets of beliefs.

Belief Set A:

The anti-gun folks know they don't have the public or legislative support to totally ban all guns all at once, so they're using an incremental strategy to chip away at RKBA bit by bit. Their ultimate goal is total disarmament of civlilians, but since they are politically savvy, they realize the best way to get there is in a series of small, incremental steps.

If the anti's propose any kind of restriction whatsoever, we have to fight it tooth and nail because every small step toward disarmament amounts to meaningful progress for them and a real setback for us.

A lot of small victories by the anti's can add up to a major defeat for us.
Working incrementally for small victories, playing smart politics, and achieving whatever can be achieved at the moment is a clever strategy for the antis and there is a real threat that they will achieve ultimate victory this way.

Belief Set B:

Despite the fact that we as pro-gun people do not have the public or legislative support to totally restore RKBA all at once, we should pursue an abolutist strategy that demands total restoration of RKBA all at once.
If pro-gun groups propose pro-gun legislation that is limited in scope, that's a betrayal and a compromise because small steps are meaningless.

Our ultimate goal is full restoration of the RKBA, so the politically savvy thing to do is try to pass "fix everything instantly" legislation or get a "throw out all the gun laws" decision from the Supreme Court, despite the fact that we do not have the votes in Congress or the Supreme Court for that to be successful.

Small victories don't mean anything, and will never get us closer to our goal.
Working incrementally for small victories, playing smart politics, and achieving whatever can be achieved at the moment is a "wimp out," "compromise" strategy for pro-gun forces that will inevitably lead to our total defeat.

Please Explain.

It's clear to me that Set A is true. What I don't understand is how anyone can recognize the truth of Set A, and also believe Set B.

If you enjoyed reading about "Incremental Strategy: Please Explain" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
only1asterisk
February 24, 2007, 11:23 PM
I can explain easily. You totally misunderstand Set B.

Belief Set B:

Stop assisting antigun legislation to pass. Then, stop allowing antigun legislation to pass. Once you’ve done that, start working toward restoring RKBA as fast as practical. Small losses are meaningful and occur to often with the support of many gun owners and some nominally pro-RKBA groups.

David

SMMAssociates
February 24, 2007, 11:38 PM
Pretty much what David said....

If we insist on "the big one" (with the possible exception of a simple recognition of the absolute nature of "shall not interfere") we're either not going to get it, or have to wait forever.

The anti's are taking that view - incremental victories.

There's nothing (IMHO) wrong with incremental victories in the pro column either.

For example, OH's CHL law is full of flaws and poison pills. It may have made more sense to wait for a better one. But the "blood will run in the streets" view of the terrorist and criminal friendly folks who opposed it, has been shown to be the nonsense it is. We just fixed some of the worst parts of the bill and hopefully will be able to continue doing that. In short, incremental victories for us are incremental defeats for the terrorist and criminal friendly types. The secret is to make it a win for us and a loss for them, and to show just how wrong they were.

If it's a "two steps forward and one step backwards", well at least we're one step forward....

Yes - you can be too reasonable and compromise a little too much. We have to be careful of that. But I'd rather have half a loaf with an option on the other half, than nothing....

Regards,

antsi
February 24, 2007, 11:43 PM
That's all I'm advocating: do the best you can actually do, given the political realities of the moment. Set the most favorable goal that is achievable, and work toward it.

Waitone
February 25, 2007, 12:51 AM
Get what you can under current circumstances then come back for more at a later and under different circumstances. Where I think we lose is by not demanding rollback of unconstitutional, ineffective or counterproductive gun legislation. Except for the NRA shooting sports participation in the debate is "No".

ConstitutionCowboy
February 25, 2007, 01:04 AM
What the anti-RKBA crowd does is unconstitutional . Their little baby steps are mostly devious, couched, disingenuous, and deceitful. They can't get anywhere any other way. Our quest to unfetter our RKBA is constitutional in nature. One good ruling can remove just about all the unconstitutional law in one fell swoop. Why would you want to dick around with bits, pieces, placations, and divisive complications when it would be so easy to accomplish our task in one step?

He who does not strive for the goal will end up in a constant struggle just to maintain the status quo. Take a lesson from the anti-RKBA crowd. They're struggling along, loosing ground, striving for their little increments. Why are they struggling for but losing their little increments? Because they don't think they can win their goal all at once(and they are right) and won't even try. We are winning because we have the goal of total constitutional uninfringement. We try harder. Our freedoms and rights are at stake. What they have done is wrong. There is no half way when you right a wrong.

Don't ever settle, and don't ever piddle! "Git-er-done!"

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

Waitone
February 25, 2007, 01:36 AM
Our quest to unfetter our RKBA is constitutional in nature. One good ruling can remove just about all the unconstitutional law in one fell swoop. Why would you want to dick around with bits, pieces, placations, and divisive complications when it would be so easy to accomplish our task in one step?
Or one bad ruling can accomplish exactly the opposite, dooming the constitutional right for the foreseeable future. The SCOTUS is a jump ball. We've got two solid players on our side. Two more with high potential came in via a draft. The balance looks like the Star Wars bar scene as it pertains to limited government.

Thank you just the same. I'll fight the badguys barracade at a time. A showdown court under current circumstances us just plain stoopid.

antsi
February 25, 2007, 02:40 AM
--------quote------
One good ruling can remove just about all the unconstitutional law in one fell swoop.
-------------------

Do you really think this is actually going to happen?

I might just as well say that my "magic fairy wand" strategy can restore all our rights in the blink of an eye, but that doesn't mean it is a realistic strategy that's actually going to work.

For your "win everything in one giant Supreme Court case" strategy to work, doesn't it matter who sits on the Supreme Court?

How do you like our chances with the current composition of the Court?

Doesn't the composition of the Supreme Court depend on lots of political factors, such as, who's the President? Who's on the Senate Judiciary Committee? In this case, aren't there an awful lot of little everyday political factors that really do make a very big difference even if RKBA gets decided in one great big Supreme Court case?

Given the fact that several of our Supreme Court justices believe in a "make it up as you go along" judicial philosophy, and embrace the doctrine of "whatever advances progressive social engineering is, by definition, constitutional," doesn't the idea of putting all our eggs in this one basket make you a little bit uneasy?

What if Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes the majority opinion, and decides that in the second ammendment "the people" means "the National Guard?" and "arms" means "nothing more lethal than a squirt gun?"

ReadyontheRight
February 25, 2007, 10:51 AM
If you look at the current legislation - they are trying to ban a LOT of firearms. I assume their goal is to whittle away their demands and get something like the old AWB.

They start at a very extreme position -- i.e. ban all autoloading firearms -- with the goal of "compromising" to achieve as much as they can get.

If there is ANY compromise...we lose.

funfaler
February 25, 2007, 11:06 AM
There is a difference in making a compromise and making an incremental improvement. Give up nothing, take whatever, whenever you can. If slight improvements is all we can get at any give time, that is better than giving up any amount. The more Liberty that we can gain, the more people with join us in our quest for more.

Just got back from a gun show, packed. Lots of people there looking and buying. More and more people are joining the ranks of "gun owners" and they too are getting the sense that there is an assault on our Rights and safety. They will be coming on board with our efforts to restore the Second, given enough time, and education.

ConstitutionCowboy
February 25, 2007, 11:20 AM
I'd believe you guys if what was happening or what was being striven for was removal of unconstitutional law. That ain't what's happening! All I see are laws that make exceptions to unconstitutional law already on the books, and many seem to claim it's a step in the right direction. Don't delude yourself into thinking these steps take you any closer to government honoring and abiding the Constitution; specifically, the second article added to it(commonly called the "Second Amendment"). You want REAL progress? Push for removal of the unconstitutional law!

All the unconstitutional law on the books stays there with all the patchwork concealed carry laws. You may be able to now legally carry a gun around with you in most places, but it shouldn't even be a matter of law! It's a RIGHT! Act like it. Vote like it. Clean it up. Assemble and petition Congress for redress. Demand it.

We are the people of this Union and of our particular state. Don't forget that those people you put there work for you. Since you are the boss, act like it. Demand that they abide by and adhere to their job description. You didn't give them power to lord over you when you elected them. Read the Constitution and you'll see I speak the truth, and you'll discover just what their job descriptions are. It's all right there in the Constitution. Nothing in it gives them power to infringe your Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Don't grovel for bits, pieces and placations. It makes us look weak and unsure of our position. They are doing us wrong, and you'd rather tiptoe around this issue? They can be fired, they know it, and will either respond favorably or get canned!

You will never have to struggle for status quo if you strive for the goal. Adopt the attitude and go for it. So we loose a battle or two. Wouldn't you rather win the war?

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood

longrifleman
February 25, 2007, 11:59 AM
I understand the smart politics of take what you can get today, but one serious problem I see with that approach is any compromise WILL be used to undermine future efforts.

I noticed this problem with the last AWB. We lost hi-cap, ie. normal magazines for ten years and the world didn't end. A lot of luke-warm gun owners will think losing them again as a sign of compromise won't be a big deal. Every time there is a new weapon or function added to that list, the possibility to lose them all at once goes up tremendously. After all, you agreed to that restriction last time, why are you so unreasonable today?

Any compromise is in reality a loss.

I agree that it is not possible ot overturn most laws at once, but "reasonableness" can be a big trap.

ctdonath
February 25, 2007, 12:04 PM
A lot of pro-RKBA incrementalism is happening.

Concealed carry is, across the country, going generally from "no issue" to "may issue" to "shall issue" to "just do it". National carry is being worked on, and looks viable.

States are rapidly changing from "run away" to "stand your ground".

The federal assault weapons ban is gone. The proposed one is a bloated mess that won't last, and is being pounded on while having a measly one sponsor.

Federally, aside from mere paperwork and the annoying "domestic violence" issue, you can have anything you want except new machineguns and some imports.

A lot of progress is being made.
Little of it makes the news, because it's not big - it's incremental.

ctdonath
February 25, 2007, 12:10 PM
That ain't what's happening!It is happening.

Problem is, the network of laws and avoidance by the courts makes it difficult, so those involved are treading carefully.

The key case right now is Parker, which is seeking RKBA in a non-state all-federal venue. The case looks so promising that Marion Barry (DC mayor), scared out of his wits, has proposed a 3-month CCW amnesty - which I presume is designed to defuse the "we can't even register guns" just long enough to get the case thrown out.
The example of this case is: there is a lot of effort going into overturning unconstitutional bans, and the opposition is playing extremely dirty to prevent success.

It's a hard fight - but it is being fought.

ConstitutionCowboy
February 25, 2007, 01:28 PM
The key case right now is Parker, which is seeking RKBA in a non-state all-federal venue. The case looks so promising that Marion Barry (DC mayor), scared out of his wits, has proposed a 3-month CCW amnesty - which I presume is designed to defuse the "we can't even register guns" just long enough to get the case thrown out.
The example of this case is: there is a lot of effort going into overturning unconstitutional bans, and the opposition is playing extremely dirty to prevent success.

It's a hard fight - but it is being fought.

Yes, that is the kind of battle we need to be waging. It's a great example as a matter of fact. The problem is the lack of these battles and the "Oooo, be careful! Don't piss 'em off!" attitude. Everyone in government who does not abide the Constitution needs to fear for their job in stead of us fearing what they might take or attempt to take away from us. Henry Waxman understands the possible consequences: "If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all." Too bad he doesn't behave accordingly.

(One point, though immaterial in all reality, is that Marion Barry isn't the mayor. He is just on the Council.)

Woody

"Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future." B.E.Wood

If you enjoyed reading about "Incremental Strategy: Please Explain" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!