If you're considering these idiot's "wish list" as chiseled in stone before any debate takes place, I guess we're screwed already.
Their wish list is merely their "opening barrage;" I'm sure they'd be willing to give up one or two items in the name of compromise
Another Sun Tzu Quote:
"So long as my strategy remains formless, the keenest eye cannot discern it, nor the wise make plans against it"
Now that we know what we may be up against, we can shape our tactics against it. Unlike the Fiscal Cliff "deal", we'll have plenty of time to contact our reps. I would say that above all others, the registration clause is easily the most dangerous, and must be stopped at all costs. That's not to say we should trade this for the others, but we definitly need to prioritize on that.
Such a database would enable the effective implementation of any subsequent restriction, up to and including confiscation
I think most of the items on the list are politically untenable (even AWB and mag limits) and most of the other stuff will be too expensive to pass off even in the name of public safety.
Personally, I think the goal of this whole exercise is to put up a Grand Public Safety Bill as a hail Mary, let it die in Congress, and blame the Republicans for a failure to save the children during the midterms. These Political Farces are SOP for the administration this far, so it'd suprise me if they're truly serious about
passing this bill, as opposed to simply hanging it around the necks of their opponents like an Albatross during fiscal negotiations (the stuff pols
actually care about). Obama tends to not waste his energy on projects that aren't already likely winners (bailouts, stimulus, healthcare, taxes, etc.). Obama's party/people were all solidly behind those measures from the get-go, unlike gun laws (though I deeply disrespect him, Reid has been at best reluctant to go into this matter).
When the political climate here is so fraught that members can't say one unrelated thing and have it be so openly, challengingly and derisively misconstrued, it has a really chilling effect.
Indeed. We are not at war, there is no need for shouting down skeptics or dissenters. Many of us who have crystallized our beliefs regarding gun control could be described as "radicals" (myself included) whose views are far out of the mainstream of the blissfully apathetic unarmed. Being "radical" in beliefs makes us a more co-hesive group with reinforced ideology, but makes us more insular at the same time. It can also limit our flexibility. That is not good, and will inevitably limit our voice. Instead, we should welcome others' dissenting comments, and if possible, make rational arguments to support our ideas over theirs, and hopefully persuade or educate them to our point of view.
Being close-minded does not help us curry favor with anyone, but being short-sighted (i.e. focused on immediate self-preservation) doesn't ultimately serve us well either. We really must hang together because vocal gun owners are a minority, and our various subsets are even less significant on the national stage. Only by banding together in our common interest will we achieve relevance.
Anyone in favor of drafting a Gunowners' Bill of Rights? I'll start a thread in General to see what kinda lively debate
that kindles
. Not as an addendum to the 2nd, but more as an "appendix" explaining what it specifically protects, any limiitations, and any implied protections. We seem to focus too often on the
purpose of the 2nd Amendment, but not as much on the brass tacks of how it
should be practiced (as opposed to what we do now).
TCB
