DesertEagle613
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2004
- Messages
- 221
The anti's have managed to completely set the terms of the gun debate by proposing emotionally charged legislation and then dictating the language used to debate such legislation. We have fallen for it hook, line and sinker. We only play defense: we fight against their attacks, and every so often we manage to get some of their crud repealed, but they are coming out ahead.
We need to change the rules.
For us to have a chance of winning in the long run, we need to start playing their game. We need to propose similarly emotional legislation that promotes gun-rights, framed in a manner that will make opposition difficult, always keeping in mind that the principle of incrementalism can work both ways.
My suggestion for the first salvo: Find an anti-CCW state with a significant rape problem. Propose a shall-issue law for rape victims. Emphasize that this is only for those who WANT to carry. Paint it in all the feminist-empowerment language necessary. Etc.
Even if this particular idea doesn't fly, you get the general idea. We need to put the anti's on the defensive, and start slowly establishing the idea in the "agnostic" mainstream consciousness that self-defense is a legitimate use of firearms, in specific cases that are very difficult to oppose. Once that foundation is set, we move on to bigger game.
To repeat: incrementalism can work both ways.
Any takers?
We need to change the rules.
For us to have a chance of winning in the long run, we need to start playing their game. We need to propose similarly emotional legislation that promotes gun-rights, framed in a manner that will make opposition difficult, always keeping in mind that the principle of incrementalism can work both ways.
My suggestion for the first salvo: Find an anti-CCW state with a significant rape problem. Propose a shall-issue law for rape victims. Emphasize that this is only for those who WANT to carry. Paint it in all the feminist-empowerment language necessary. Etc.
Even if this particular idea doesn't fly, you get the general idea. We need to put the anti's on the defensive, and start slowly establishing the idea in the "agnostic" mainstream consciousness that self-defense is a legitimate use of firearms, in specific cases that are very difficult to oppose. Once that foundation is set, we move on to bigger game.
To repeat: incrementalism can work both ways.
Any takers?