United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- In discussing the immediate aftermath of the El Paso, I noted that Second Amendment supporters needed to come up with solutions.
The reason is simple: As viscerally satisfying as saying, “Second Amendment, screw you” to the anti-Second Amendment extremists is, it will simply backfire, and help Bloomberg by turning a bunch of freaked-out soccer moms into activists for their agenda with the assistance of the media. All because we’re not keeping in mind how we come across to our fellow Americans.
Folks, if the freaked-out soccer moms believe we don’t have any interest in stopping these shootings, we will lose our rights as they vote for Bloomberg-approved anti-Second Amendment extremists at all levels of government. But once the emotional fury dies down, we can convince them to at a minimum, leave us alone.
That being said, getting through an emotional fury that anti-Second Amendment extremists are trying to exploit as they successfully have in Australia, New Zealand, England, and Canada requires strategy and tactics. And like all good strategists, we need to have backup plans and fallback options to limit the damage if we lose this round.
Pointing this out is not treason to the Second Amendment, nor is it being a “Fudd.” It’s common sense. It’s dealing with the world the way it is.
Here’s what happens if the likes of Swalwell get the power to make America like New Zealand and Australia: We not only lose our rights and see a “ban and buyback” happen, but we lose our ability to even make the argument AND the courts won’t save us because they will have been packed with anti-Second Amendment judges.
In 1999, post-Columbine, the same situation was faced, and Second Amendment supporters beat back assaults on our rights at the federal level. The NRA played a big role in that. But we must remember that Columbine was a major event. It drew media coverage, and it marked the beginnings of a shift. Anti-Second Amendment groups began to tap into the fears of suburban moms.
In the wake of the shooting, Bill Clinton proposed an expansive series of infringements on our rights. It wasn’t just effectively eliminating gun shows, it included a rationing scheme, a magazine ban, raising the age for even possessing a handgun to 21, and other unjust punishments that were to be inflicted upon millions of Americans who had never carried out anything illegal involving a firearm, and who were just as horrified at the mass shooting.
Ideally, there would be no restrictions, but the NRA knew that just killing the bill could cause problems for pro-Second Amendment lawmakers in suburban districts. Clinton was tapping into the soccer moms – and so were anti-Second Amendment groups. The Million Mom March was forming, giving them a nascent grassroots capability to go with their waves of support from the media and Hollywood.
So, the NRA came up with an alternative that had a 24-hour wait if the National Instant Check System didn’t clear a transaction. This served two purposes: One, it enabled pro-Second Amendment lawmakers facing tough fights to honestly say they had voted for background checks at gun shows, and improving the odds that the House would stay in the hands of pro-Second Amendment leaders. Two, it would be far less damaging if it actually passed. After the Senate passed a bad gun show bill, the fight turned to the House. Prior to the voting, Second Amendment supporters got a boost from an ABC interview Bill did, where he admitted he felt that “people ought to have to register guns like they register their cars” to Charlie Gibson – and America.
Well, in the fight for the House, the gun show bill came up. We’ll use anti-Second Amendment extremist Jerrold Nadler to illustrate how the short-term fight was won. The House put up Clinton’s preferred version, which was shot down. The NRA’s 24-hour version passed. Then what happened was a stroke of good luck: Nadler and other anti-Second Amendment extremists killed the entire bill in conjunction with Second Amendment supporters from very safe districts.
The short-term fight was won, decisively. That enabled a pivot to a counter-offensive over the long term. This included a push for enforcement of existing laws (Project Exile was a big one). As the emotional fury died down, people became more receptive to the facts. But it also enabled some hard counter-punching, like the harsh and accurate comments Wayne LaPierre made about Clinton.
The anti-Second Amendment extremists let the mask slip further. Al Gore called for licensing gun owners, as Cory Booker does now. Senator Jack Reed introduced legislation to place handguns under the 1934 National Firearms Act. As a result of good strategy and tactics, George W. Bush would win the closest presidential election in history, with Second Amendment supporters making the difference.
The same approach can be successful here. Ted Cruz has already done a lot of the groundwork to make it work. If we are really lucky, this version gets killed when anti-Second Amendment Nancy Pelosi refuses to bring it up for a vote or if Charles Schumer leads a filibuster. Once the bill dies, and emotions cool, we can then lay out the facts.
This will require very successful outreach to local media. Part of laying out the facts could even include the state of civil commitment laws that are already on the books, so do the research to lay those facts out. Maybe work with your local lawmakers to see if there can’t be some improvements. But it will also involve hitting back hard when that opening presents itself.
The post-Columbine battle is something Second Amendment supporters should remember. The hard and smart fighting in the 19 months after that secured a president who appointed two of the five justices that formed the Heller and McDonald majorities. Similarly smart strategy and tactics could secure the re-election of a president with two pro-Second Amendment Supreme Court justices, and add more to the court. Second Amendment supporters need to fight hard and smart to save their rights.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
well done nice history lesson!
ERPOs miss one very BIG point. If the person is too dangerous to have a gun, what about all their other potential weapons? Hammers, knives, bats, household chemicals, car/truck, etc.?
So it’s OBVIOUS ERPOs are not anti-threat, they are anti-gun.
No Humperdink, It is not common sense, it is not the same as Canada, New Zealand, Britain….. We have a Constitution here in the United States, a Constitution that restricts our government from violating certain boundaries. You have advocated for and apologized for various forms of Gun Control predating the Shootings that took place last weekend for over a year. YOU ARE A TRAITOR TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE CONSTITUTION. You are a brain dead fudd who doesn’t defend the constitution as written. But that is why you are here after all, trying to explain why those of us… Read more »
This American ain’t surrendering shit! But, I will dole out as needed for the circumstance at hand. If we do not stand our ground we will have to take it back. HH needs to pull his diaper up and start thinking as we Americans do, or he can do as you suggest TR!
@mikeL During or just prior to World War Two, Winston Churchill had this to say. “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” And in… Read more »
You are an idiot. With your tactics, we will lose ALL our rights. Like it or not, this is reality. There are simply more non-gun owners than owners. The majority will rule. Regardless of The Constitution, etc. Don’t you understand that they could, with enough time and effort, simply repeal the Second Amendment? What then? Are you planning on posting pithy quotes from notable people to solve that problem? What happens when some nutjob kills 300 or 400 people? You don’t think each and every politician will roll over and sell the 2nd down the river? It will happen overnight.… Read more »
@RT Thank you for showing everyone here you have no concept of who I am, and more importantly that you do not understand the fight for the second amendment. But that’s what idiots do. =) What are my “tactics”. As they have been for years, following the Constitution, non compliance with illegal laws, and defense of rights against tyranny. Pretty simple stuff. So lets look at what you are saying. “Stop infighting, give the left what it wants or they will take it all, someone might kill 300 or 400 people!” Boy I love that last one. Give an idiot… Read more »
RT and everybody: This is not an issue of non-gun owner vs gun owner. This is a battle for the right to arms for all Americans vs those denying the right. The oligarchy that owns our communication and information systems has already designated gun owners as an undesirable subclass. Let us not place ourselves into this class.
Many of our favored politicians have already have rolled overed, with more to come. We must realize that politicians disregard the public with less regard for subclasses.
It is almost as if Harold believes that our Civil Right to bear arms is based upon popularity. Does he not realize that if he were the only person left in the US that owned a gun, and the whole of the country were against him, he could keep his guns and no one could do anything about it. And Harold writes “… if the freaked-out soccer moms believe we don’t have any interest in stopping these shootings, we will lose our rights as they vote for Bloomberg-approved anti-Second Amendment extremists…” I think that Harold is trying, in his long… Read more »
@Wild Bill I had an epiphany the other day after his last piece of garbage was published. Perhaps the reason Harold has no concept or ability to learn our Constitution or the way it is supposed to work is a very simple reason that has been staring us in the face for a year now.. He shares a single, dysfunctional brain with Alexandria Occasionally Coherent. That same struggling braincell that cannot grasp the concept of a pre existing God given right is the same one that says “Well, you just pay for it” when asked how to fund a bill… Read more »
Idiot. Harold isn’t saying any of those things. He’s simply telling you what is happening on a national level. These mass shooting keep happening with regularity, we will lose our rights. All of them. The non-gun owning population will simply have had enough. There are currently more of them than us. No amount of legal action will save us if a nutjob kills 300-400. If there continues to be a news event every month, or week, we will lose it all. It’s not the way that you or I, or Harold want it to be. But that is reality.
@RT I love it when idiots cant help but put their foot in their mouths. Yes, it is what Harold was saying, and ironically enough you said it too. Your reply to my comment near the top of the page. You think that the second Amendment getting repealed removes our rights?? Our rights don’t come from the second amendment. The bill of rights are restrictions against government from infringing on the rights we have simply by being born. So tell us, unless you are talking about a poularity vote by non gun owners, how will we lose our rights to… Read more »
@RT, If at the national level, people think that rights can be taken away by legislation, then they do not know what a right is. A right is a very basic concept. It is disturbing to think that such a lack of education would exist at the national level. Has our entire population been educationally misled about the nature of a right? Do they not know that a right is a shield that the government can not pierce, get around or get over. Does the population not know that a right gives then the ability to stop government in it… Read more »
We have proposed solutions, solutions that would actually work and don’t violate 2A, for years and the anti-gunners will not listen. > Instead of red flag, fund expanded inpatient mental health treatment and use existing civil commitment laws to get dangerous people off the street, after due process. > Eliminate gun free zones and offer people basic training in handgun usage and active shooter response. Encourage people to defend themselves. > Better physical and professional security at likely targets > Better law enforcement response to online threats of violence. We do this for foreign terrorism and it works. We need… Read more »
Harold is an apologist for the left though, so he will tell you how those solutions aren’t enough.
Look at his line about “Backup Plans”, that was put there with reason. He is already writing off the Constitution and items short of what the left wants as failure. That is why his last article was talking about how we need to go ahead and have red flag laws.
He’s a traitor through and through. Not one honest (Or courageous) bone in his body.
You forgot one important aspect: Better mental health treatment that does not require commitment!
Dear God!
Just think if we had this asinine strategy in WWI or WWII?
We give up our rights one law at a time while the leftist gun grabbers claim victory not GIVING UP ANYTHING, and declaring we need to do more and the NRA celebrates they compromised on our rights and beg people to pay them to fight for more compromise on our rights.
What a scam.
The very reason every gun owner needs to support the NRA at this time in our nation. Yes the GOA is fighting for our 2nd amendment rights, but the NRA is by and large more powerful in national politics. So, as lovers of all things that shoot and above all supporters of the constitution stop the public bitching about the NRA and put your money where you’re mouth is. Over the course of the months I almost cry at some of the most not only rude comments about the very people who are trying and have been protecting our gun… Read more »
So, we need to support the NRA in fighting against the NRA’s red flag laws and bump stock ban. Makes totally sense.
While all actual gun rights organizations say “not one more inch”, the NRA says “let’s negotiate”. I think we should start a betting pool on what right the NRA will trade away this time.
The ONLY WAY to stop all of this crud ( and I repeat ONLY ) is to use the existing laws to fight back. Every Politician takes an Oath of Office. The first sentence is ” TO Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States. ” Every Politician that attacks the 2nd Amendment commits a FELONY PERJURY CRIME. There are both Federal and State laws against this with sentences of 4 years up to death depending on the attack on the Constitution. If just one politician such as Dianne ( Who violate her Oath blatantly ) were charged, then… Read more »
@ Goboy You sure drank the kool aid that LaPee was serving,didn’t you. Including the last non member action of buying Wayne a mansion in Texas. The NY state attorney general wants to know more about that one.
Some people simply don’t understand the importance of unity. They will continue to promote infighting and division within the ranks, so that the opposition can take over as we fight among ourselves. Not all of our “allies” seem to have well honed gray cells.
@Bill, The US Army, for example, is unified but has many parts. The ground pounders and trigger pullers are just as important as the A10 drivers, and loggys. Why don’t you give twice as much to the NRA, to make up for my not donating anything to the NRA. And I, in return, will contribute twice as much to the GOA, to make up for your not giving anything to GOA. That is unified, but still of many parts.
Good Logic Sir
Bill, you are right. I can’t understand why the NRA keeps dividing the gun culture. We are now fighting the NRA’s own red flag laws, just as we were fighting the NRA’s own bump stock ban. What’s next? Fighting the NRA’s universal background check, magazine restrictions, assault weapon ban, …?
The left never offers any concessions in a “negotiation”, so what is there to negotiate?
The personal insults are uncalled for, don’t you think? If you think this post is BS, please tell us why.
@MM1(SS), My friend Will is just energetic, that’s all.
>> Wild Bill Jeff is right though, Insults remind me of the “SQUAT SQUAD”. Good Verbal manners terminates verbal duels. Name calling never was a solution to any problem. It may make people feel better about themselves but only shows a unpleasant side of their character. Insults are just Slander and is against Constitutional law. Slander laws came about because of physical Dueling with weapons. Reasoning and logic are the only things useful in a confrontation although I once had a Judge tell me sometimes violence is justified. Men are more satisfied when those standards are used in settling at… Read more »
Harold Hackupsome is a problem for us because he keeps preaching a bad philosophy of appeasement.
He is akin to a rancher feeding the wolves in an attempt to keep them from attacking his livestock. He’s still loosing stock. Only now he chooses which sheep gets slaughtered. The problem with that is is just helps the wolf population to boom and then they start attacking the neighboring ranches too. STOP FEEDING THE ENEMY, let them starve and die.
It’s the drugs Harold, the “anti-anxiety” drugs that doctors are passing out like candy. Some people cannot tolerate them well and it causes them to lose their minds; it’s the drugs.
Exactly. If you are on mood/mind altering drugs you should be on the prohibited list. Every one of the shooters have been on a form of these drugs.
So, Alan1018, how much does the Brady Campaign pay you to make gun owners look like certified lunatics?
What’s your professional expertise in this area? Let me guess, you read it on the Internet?
Having known more than one person taking psychotropic drugs and seeing their effects gives me a measure of experience; thanks for asking.
So we have established that you have no professional expertise! I have several decades of very personal experience in dealing with mentally ill people.
Now, what’s your evidence that any of these shooters was on any drugs. What’s your evidence that those drugs were unreasonably prescribed? What’s your evidence that those drugs negatively altered the state of mind of these shooters?
I’m sorry, you don’t know me and you have no idea what expertise I have; you assume much. I did suspect you had a vested interest in keeping the mood-altering bandwagon going though, thanks for the verification.
So, no evidence, just a lot of biased opinions and now personal attacks. Got it! We had several mass murderers that had been diagnosed with mental illness and we had several that had very obvious signs of being mentally ill. Yet, there is no evidence whatsoever that “mood-altering” drugs played any role in these or other mass murders. Mental disorders are a complex issue and simplifying them to something unproven doesn’t help anyone. It’s a good propaganda talking point, though. By the way, most people that have problems using these drugs suffer from depression and are suicidal. They are a… Read more »
Will, there’s more to this battle than sitting on the sidelines throwing grenades from the bushes. It’s not harmful for Harold to keep us informed on the past battles we’ve benefitted from and future battles to plan for.
The problems is all these yards we are giving up to save miles are adding to miles.
Trump had a good idea on regulation laws or reg’. They had to pull off 3 reg for every new one out of the over 22,000 laws why don’t we have them clean up the the laws into something like 2,000 (that can be enforced) before we come up with any new ones.
@TLS, how about we just stop ignoring the Constitution, and all those regulations would just go away.
Trump had a good idea on regulation laws or reg’. They had to pull off 3 reg for every new one out of the over 22,000 GUN laws why don’t we have them clean up the the laws into something like 2,000 (that can be enforced) before we come up with any new ones.
And you just revealed the strategy to the enemy