Personally, I think we need to be careful not to underestimate these folks. That was how we got the original ban. We need to ramp up the pressure and give these anti's an idea of how many Americans REALLY do not want this. They keep preaching they have a majority on their side. We need to show them otherwise.
I think the 2A argument can lead to an argument we NEED to have in the US. Take the hunting point. Personally, I would not carry 30 rounds of ammo in a hunting rifle while hunting. If I needed 30 rounds to take down what I hunt for, I would need to go back to the range first and take care of that. Now when I went to the range I would really want that 30 rd magazine cause I like to spend my range time shooting not filling my magazines over and over and over.
But the discussion that NEEDS to be had, because I do not need 30 rounds to hunt, that does not mean Radagast, Incredigord, and BrassRain's rights need to be taken away. We have become so darned self centered we allow our rights to be quietly taken away from us because we specifically do not use that particular right. When the original ban went through, I was too young to vote, but I WOULD have supported it. Why? because I bought into the argument that I did not need something, so nobody needed it.
That discussion needs to be had if we are going to survive as a nation. We lived through WWI and WWII partly because as a nation we understood the greater good, that we were not the center of the universe, that the nation came first. Can you imagine if they enacted the WWII level restrictions on gas, rubber, sugar, etc now? The ACLU would sue the crap out of the gov. We'd have folks screaming it was racist, sexist, etc. to get back what they were entitled to, the war effort be damned.
The die hard in your face will be that way even more so, as can be seen on both sides at the moment...
