Told ya so . . .

[flamin lib]

I've been doing this gun discussion thing for 40 years. Until Dec 14, 2012 it was purely esoteric, an exercise in debate tactics and scoring points. That changed when I watched Sandy Hook unfold in real time on live TV with my 3 year old granddaughter sitting on my lap and two grandsons in elementary school a block away. That changes a man.

In all those years the same half dozen false arguments surface, among them those who aren't firearms experts shouldn't promote gun legislation because they simply don't have the knowledge to realistically formulate a law that can work. My response had always been that if this is the case it is like wanting to cure cancer but not being a oncologist. Further, if only gun experts can formulate laws it follows that the NRA and other gun rights groups should be deeply involved in formulating legislation to reduce gun violence.

This didn't get me very far. I even had one Gungeoneer tell me that everything was going their way and they were going to take everything they could while they could. I'd reply that the danger in that approach is that when the pendulum swings it invariably over compensates and they probably would not like the results.

So here we are. Since the '70s the loyal opposition promoted ideas that we could live with, not what we actually wanted; incremental changes. That is over. Now the approach is go for it all.

Look at what's being promoted by Democratic Primary candidates and supported by voters at large. Universal background checks, once the "please, Sir, may I have more" was the big push. No more. Now we want licensing to BUY a gun, federal registration of guns and owners, a total ban on and buy back of semi auto weapons with removable magazines, background checks on ammunition, red flag laws, liability insurance, safe storage laws and we're just getting started.

That whole slippery slope argument is dead. It's now push-us-to-the-edge-and-by-God-we'll-jump-over it-and-take-your-damn-guns-with-us.

You had the chance to get involved. You had the chance to take part and have a meaningful role in reducing the carnage. Too late now, we are on our own and don't need, want and won't accept your input.

Will we get everything now? No but for the first time in my 72 years I believe it will happen in my life time.

[Newest Reality]

1. Thanks for sharing that.

As a part of this, I highly recommend some research into the general history of the NRA since its inception. Well, you may have, but more people would benefit from that knowledge and the changes that have occurred in that organization, especially since around the 80s.

To me, it provides some very useful background and knowledge with which to formulate strategy and mount a response. Some people may find that background both interesting and surprising. Even a short gloss of their history may be valuable.

I think that gets filed under "know your opponent".

[flamin lib]

2. This is a good start.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-nras-true-believers-converted-a-marksmanship-group-into-a-mighty-gun-lobby/2013/01/12/51c62288-59b9-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html?noredirect=on

[Newest Reality]

4. I have read several...

Here is another overview that includes a podcast version and a book reference for more, in-depth reading, that does not require turning off private browsing:

It should help open people's eyes when they read about the early values and goals of the NRA and how quickly gun legislation was enacted in California due to racial bias.

I think this quote makes a good point and could be used as a catch phrase:
"The voices of the few must no longer prevail over the interests of the many." - LBJ

(oh, and didn't Mr. Spock say that?)

http://professorbuzzkill.com/nra-extremist/

[Newest Reality]

5. From the article...

I found this one to be rather pertinent:

For the most part, the NRA supported the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934. During the congressional hearings held when the bill was being considered, NRA President, Karl Frederick, said, “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. … I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

The obvious reason why that matters is that we can then contrast it to the modern and morphed version of the now very radial NRA and its negative impact on our culture and the danger that presents to the safety of all citizens.

There was another period of intense gun violence on the city streets back in the Prohibition Era when the mob was mowing down people with automatic weapons,(aka, Tommy guns) so we have a precedence there, as well.

[billh58]

3. Like their MAGAt friends,

Second Amendment absolutists and "cold dead hand" gunners will never admit that we have a severe gun violence epidemic in this nation, nor will they attempt to do anything about it.

It took them (the NRA and GOA) several decades to bring us to the point of millions of guns on our streets, and it will take just as long for reason and sanity to regain a balance by reducing that number drastically -- but it will happen.

The American public has had enough of mass killings as the result of easy access to guns, and especially to rapid-fire lethal weapons designed for war.