TexasCHLforum.com

Jim Beaux wrote: Ive considered your position, but seeing that the antis want to totally eliminate gun ownership, I feel that even a little appeasement is letting the camel's nose get under the tent.

There absolutely are some "antis" that want to totally eliminate gun ownership, but they're a small minority. And they don't stand a chance. This is America. I've decided that Chicago and New York are not part of America.

There are also some "pros" that believe that the constitution allows firearm ownership to all regardless of weapon type (full auto) and they we should be allowed to carry 4 of them to the mall. They're also a small minority.

The people that you should worry about are the majority in the middle... Which is why scaring people at Starbucks isn't a good idea.

I understand the view of getting the camels nose under the tent and the slippery slope theory. That camel is likely getting his nose in anyway - at least that sure seems to be where we're headed. Maybe ignoring it will work and nothing will change... I guess I could be wrong.

You're gonna be waiting a while.
To be fair shouldn't we restrict the political term branding on both sides of the isle?
There has to be an entire subset of marketers that come up with these spin terms... I'll bet they do pretty well.

Develop the long game in the face of current realities, shifting demographics, and a shifting society.

Unwillingness to compromise on issues around mental illness and background checks is one issue that I'd (personally) be willing to discuss versus having it implemented in a way that allows far greater consequences. It's a matter of time before all medical information is digital and very available for matters of "national security". (The quotes are intentional)

My point is largely that refusing to even have a discussion about it and calling the other side "wrong" and your side "right" is probably not the best long term game plan.

I'll give a nod towards the idea that discussing it will allow it to change... And discussing it may result in a more restrictive situation than we have today. That's going to be unacceptable to a lot of people. I'm just thinking that "more restrictive" may be preferable to "a lot more restrictive" - which seems to be the way we're almost certainly heading.

I realize my opinion may be very unpopular. I'd just ask that you target personal comments at me directly, not in the forum.

anygunanywhere wrote:No, both sides are not wrong.
The antis are wrong.
We are right. Beyond any doubt right. The only way to prove it would be for the antis to try it our way for once. That will never happen.
Pretty good article. Thanks for posting the linky.
Anygunanywhere

That's exactly how we get no where... You can't even have a discussion that starts with "we're right and you're wrong".
Some good points in the article.

Look, demographics are shifting. The media puts laser-beam focus on incidents of gun violence and has contributed to a situation where any mentally ill person knows how to get the attention that they want. That media influence can sway the broad more neutrally-minded majority. Old hard-core conservatives are dying off with the demographics and social changes. And we've got significant division between 2nd amendment groups.

Digging in is not a good long game option.