^I disagree. The bill contained some "compromise" that could be used to convince "moderates" that it wasn't all bad. Later the administration would have leeway as to which parts they would enforce or defend in court. We could wind up with all the bad parts as law and have the good parts thrown out (by the courts), not funded, not enforced or not defended in court.
As long as these bills start from the position that gun owners are bad and need more restrictions they need to be fought tooth and nail for every inch of ground.
I think many of us would be happy to see the government use it's power to go after violent criminals who use guns to commit crimes and stop treating lawful gun owners as the problem. If the "compromise" was written from that perspective they would find a lot less resistance from us.
As long as these bills start from the position that gun owners are bad and need more restrictions they need to be fought tooth and nail for every inch of ground.
I think many of us would be happy to see the government use it's power to go after violent criminals who use guns to commit crimes and stop treating lawful gun owners as the problem. If the "compromise" was written from that perspective they would find a lot less resistance from us.
