Will Victory Defeat Us, Ever

Perhaps it is just my imagination and perhaps I just haven't paid close enough attention but it seems to me that a number of Democrat reps. have essentially stopped pursuing gun legislation. They seem to have come to the conclusion that it is a lightning rod and is sure to get fierce opposition from republicans. So much so that it doesn't even get used as a bargaining chip (i.e. we Dems will drop the gun leg. from this bill if you Reps will agree to this other clause here) anymore.
I think many of them realized it just doesn't pay and have left it to the hysterical Barbara Boxer types. Even Harry Reid tends to avoid it for the most part.

I haven't seen anyone acting complacent.

The evidence is that the more the gun control debate is in the public eye, the stronger we get. We tend to win the debate when it comes up.

Years ago, Carville said in a TV interview that gun control "was not a vote getting issue for us", and the national party has backed away from it. But we still have pockets of anti-civil rights activism that will take a long time to root out.

As long as there are forums like this one where we can see that we are winning some battles yet still losing some, most concerned gun owners won't fall into complacency.

Personally, I don't see Heller, MacDonald, Illinois and California as decisions that will cause the antis to wave the white flag. But I do see them as encouraging signs that we CAN win more 2A ground if we keep working.

While we celebrate Peruta, antis in NJ are arguing that only terrorists need 10-round magazines. If anything, we're just celebrating going into half time with a nice lead.

When I can buy a full auto AR-15 for under $1000 and outfit it with a suppressor that doesn't require a $200 nuisance license, maybe I'll relax and say "We won!"

I think they are trying to find ways to indirectly ban/restrict guns rather than doing it head on. Hopefully I am wrong

Until our side starts over-reaching like theirs and ruins the gun-movement's legitimacy, I see no way we can lose by pursuing freedom. That is why I bristle at those asinine laws passed in a few towns to mandate gun ownership/carry --pushing our ideals onto others by force is the absolute wrong way to go about this (that's what the courts are for ).

Personally, I agree about the dems more or less gaining a newfound respect for the tenants of the gun movement (that's what you call it when they no longer think they are dispensible tokens to be bartered away for any thing in particular) after we bucked them off post-Newtown. Nearly anyone, including us, would have been certain that we would be fragmented and defeated after such a trauma not one day before the shooting, but instead we seemed to dig deep, collect ourselves, and have a long hard look at what the proper course of action needed to be (nearly nothing, it turns out). It seems we had that "conversation" they were talking about after all, just not with them, but with each other and the 'silent majority' amongst us who tend to lay low or be ambivalent with regards to tedious politics.

So having said that, I actually think the time is right to start making entreaties to bring them on board. They know it's a losing issue to be anti-gun, many of them really wish they didn't have to tow it along; why not push some bipartisan gun reform while we have some momentum? Doesn't even have to be much, I'd settle for laws reflecting what SCOTUS has already decided recently, if only to further legitimize the precedents, build a 'gun coalition' in the Congress, and most importantly get the Congressional branch to endorse the SCOTUS rulings. Get them to agree with us on anything, and we suddenly have much more legitimacy than they could ever make up from bogus polls and slander. I'm well aware that the concept of pro-gun legislative reform is a very new concept for our side --it's never even been an option before-- and many will only see the risks and unintended consequences if the Feds dabble in the issue at all, but the fact is if we are to lead on the issue we need to become the guys pushing the ideas. Remaining defensive while dominant will only allow the other side time to regroup and flank us once more.

A non-binding 'Carry Bill of Rights' reflecting the very basic concepts of an individual right to self defense and lawful carry in/outside the home would be a good place to start; hardliners (both R & D ) would recoil at the lawful carry part, but I would be surprised if a majority couldn't agree to some similarly basic tenants. Especially since it, being a non binding resolution, won't cost nuthin', won't do nuthin', and won't even have much precedence since those issues are currently working their way through courts. But it would at least give the pro/neutral sides of the issue in congress a chance to demonstrate what the majority congressional view actually is.

TCB

"I think they are trying to find ways to indirectly ban/restrict guns rather than doing it head on. Hopefully I am wrong"

They are, where they can. Imported parts kits are demilled worse than ever, and can't even come in with drilled bores anymore, they must be cut into pieces or worse. I fully expect more restrictions, like missing FCG parts or destroyed bolts, since The One has full authority to regulate these matters, so it's really just a matter of time. But as far as factory made 'normal' guns, they are just such an obvious target that they are very well protected against non-legislative action, and rightfully so.

There is also apparently an effort underway to reinstate non-violent felon's voting rights; we'd better wise up and demand their 2nd amendment rights be restored as well as part of the deal or the crimes removed from the felony list. The more 'tolerable' we make life as a felon in this country, the more we will tolerate the expansion of that category, and it's far too broad already.

TBC

It all gets very tiresome. The liberals have unlimited money, names, and most importantly, time. They have all the time in this world, and for the older ones like Bloomberg, the next existence, to hope that their gun free world comes to fruition.

I, for one, feel that they are doomed to lose. The God given right to self defense is such a basic human instinct ,that it inevitably will out in whatever run it will take.

It will probably be a very,very, long,long run. But we'll win it.

The same thing that happens every time, people get too comfortable and lazy.

Democrats have realized all they have to do is wait for peoples' short term memories to fade and get too lazy to vote, they'll get their people into the senate and house and once they have the votes enact what they want.

Then of course once it's too late we all jump in arms and act.

It is a never ending battle, it will always be a never ending battle. It is unfortunate we are inherently lazy. Remember? Everybody can relax, Obama doesn't want your guns... gee that worked out just great.

I think success will defeat us less than it would defeat the other side. If they somehow pass a law that really crosses the line, then the purpose of the 2nd amendment will be realized once again.

If we would simply return to the old ways when we used to tar and feather politicians and run them out of town on a rail they would get the message much quicker than sending letters and emails to them.

I have for years said CA could only be save by the courts, and lo and behold, we have a huge start in that direction.

The backlash against the Assault Weapons ban of 1994 -- causing the Democrats to lose control of the House -- was something that they remembered for a long time. Even Bill Clinton later admitted that the ban was a political mistake, and he blamed the loss of the House directly on that piece of legislation. Now, it seems that with Obama's push for gun control after Sandy Hook, the Democrats have started to forget that lesson. We have to remind them again this fall. The loss of a few Democratic House and Senate seats, especially if these losses are coupled to the gun issue, will be salutary.

I don't see gun owners becoming complacent. Quite the opposite -- the sense of safety that arose following the Heller decision has been totally reversed by the latest gun control developments. Truly, the scales have fallen from our eyes concerning the ultimate goals of the antigun movement. They will never rest, and neither should we.

The best way to stay on top of this is by voting. We have to turn out en masse and angry. We have to show those running that we are done "compromising" and if they support anti-gun policies, we will help them find work in the private sector by making sure they don't win. We have to turn the election in 2014 and 2016 into a single issue election to show them we mean business.

Once we show them we won't accept their pro-bama views and it costs them their jobs it will show politicians down the line to back off and find other issues to concentrate on. We are a huge part of the country but have seemed ambivalent until recently. Well, the time to stand up and fight is now and the way to do it is by voting. Speak with your vote.

If 60% of the eligible voters do vote then we need 95% turnout. There is no excuse to not vote except that you don't care enough to go out and use your right. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about what happens.

Clean97GTI said:

Perhaps it is just my imagination and perhaps I just haven't paid close enough attention but it seems to me that a number of Democrat reps. have essentially stopped pursuing gun legislation. They seem to have come to the conclusion that it is a lightning rod and is sure to get fierce opposition from republicans. So much so that it doesn't even get used as a bargaining chip (i.e. we Dems will drop the gun leg. from this bill if you Reps will agree to this other clause here) anymore.
I think many of them realized it just doesn't pay and have left it to the hysterical Barbara Boxer types. Even Harry Reid tends to avoid it for the most part.

Click to expand...

Don't confuse their lack of push before election time as finally having achieved real common sense. They won't give up and neither should we.

Strahley said:

I think they are trying to find ways to indirectly ban/restrict guns rather than doing it head on. Hopefully I am wrong

Click to expand...

Bingo. That's the only way to explain legislation like evil feature based bans or the CA "approved guns" list. No rational person can defend such laws on their own merits. They're simply there to lay the infrastructure for more sweeping legislation.

IF we win on carry, I think the next big front will be enforcement of the Heller "in common use" standard. I think the one-feature test clearly overstepped by banning the pistol grip and thus anything remotely resembling the most popular rifle platform in the US. Same with the concept of an "approved gun" list. I'm baffled that the judge in the Tresmond case didn't take issue with the one feature test.

My fear is that if we don't get these issues resolved at SCOTUS soon, we'll end up with a liberal court that will last a generation and will have lost our single most powerful weapon in the fight.

Maybe others might feel untouchable but I doubt gunowners in Colorado, New York, Connecticut, California and a few others states feel like celebrating.

I think you are definitely right. Over on CalGuns a member said something about if Peruta goes the way we want it to and we get a defacto shall issue system, he'd be ok with the rest of California's gun laws.

Don't get me wrong, it will be a huge victory if things go correctly here. But there is so much else wrong with this state. Assault Weapons ban. List of "not unsafe" hanguns. Firearms registration. Far reaching definitions of "prohibited person". Ban on NFA items. Safe storage requirements. Ten day waiting period. DROS fees. 1 handgun per 30 days limit. The list goes on and on.

To me, we aren't done until I can walk into the local Walmart, pick up a select fire weapon, a mixed case of armor piercing, incendiary, and perhaps some sort of explosive round, pay for it in cash with no ID, and take it home, where I put it next to my legally purchased grenade launcher and flame thrower. All the while legally having a pistol in my pocket, with no license or permit for it. That's the day I'll sit back and relax a bit.

That's the day I'll sit back and relax a bit

Click to expand...

Great post! I'm with you. That'll be the day!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That'll_Be_the_Day

One thing I also dislike is the lack of participation by gun owners in pro-RKBA groups. Heck even if we had just a shell of a group for the misers and too-cheap-for-the-NRA that showed we had numbers, big numbers................

Ambivalence and apathy is easy for gun owners, and that's what makes it dangerous for RKBA....

Click to expand...

You assume that gun owners don't join the NRA and contribute to the ILA because we are cheap or ambivalent. I'm a gun owner and a former NRA member. I left about the time Bush Sr. did because the LaPierre era NRA no longer represents my views on gun rights.

I left about the time Bush Sr. did because the LaPierre era NRA no longer represents my views on gun rights.

Click to expand...

I left them too a while back but rejoined when Obama got into office. We may not like or approve of all of their methods but you have to believe that the power of the NRA has kept Obama and his minions at bay. I'd hate to see how the gun rights in this country would look like today if the NRA folded 10 years ago. It's actually a sick picture.

They're earned my respect for standing for the 2A and to be a thorn in the side of those who are true anti-gun people. You can tell how successful they are by the amount of bile that the mention of the NRA creates in so many politicians. Yeah, they've earned my respect and contributions. Without them we'd be like EU or AU. I really believe that.

Without them we'd be like EU or AU. I really believe that.

Click to expand...

I don't. The President can't pass laws buy himself and there is no where near enough votes in Congress to pass new gun regulations. The Senate might have been able to pass a straight background check bill if they hadn't tried to tack on the useless assault weapons ban. Either would have been dead in the House.