I submit that every politician, federal or otherwise, who runs on a claim of support for the 2nd Amendment should be faced with the following question:
What gun control laws will you work to repeal first?
I look forward to a day when gun haters are forced to debate the question of how they can reasonably accommodate our demands. If that day does not come, and soon, our defeat is inevitable.
January 31, 2013
From the gun email list at work.
[Only in rare cases can you win a battle or a war if you only defeat the attacks of your enemy. To win you must eventually go on the attack.
When you attack you are better able to chose their weakness which is far superior to defending your own. That is why we made progress on concealed carry for the last 20 years. Their denial of the right of self-defense was their greatest weakness. Prior to this strategy our opponents were close to banning handguns. The names of our opponents reflected this. Examples include National Coalition to Ban Handguns and Handgun Control, Inc. They say, in their own strategy documents, they should delay the attack on handguns in favor of an attack on “assault weapons” because of lack of progress.
“Assault weapons” were a softer target than handguns even though they had more interest in banning handguns. Our attack on their denial of a right to self-defense is a good part of the reason they could not make further progress on the handgun front.
With our success on the concealed carry and self-defense front we were able to make progress in the culture war and in the courts. We now need to find a new weakness to attack while continuing the attack in the courts on their continued denial of the right to self-defense.
At this point I don’t have any clearly winning ideas for a new front to attack. The most plausible would seem to be:
- Elimination of the registry and heavy tax on suppressors.
- With our huge debt, anything that costs money such NICS. California is currently unable to confiscate firearms from people they know have guns illegally because they don’t have the money (H/T to Mitchel M. from work for the link). We may be able to leverage this on multiple fronts. This is especially true if we can demonstrate the law not being enforced is pointless anyway.
The problem with the suppressor front is that it probably doesn’t motivate the vast majority of gun owners.
The problem with attacking the NICS check is that background checks seem like a great idea on the surface. It’s a “no-brainer” at first and even second thought. This will generate even less support from the majority of gun owners than making suppressors easy to obtain. It will be difficult to convince even strong gun rights activists background checks are pointless.—Joe]