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.
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.