United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- Sometimes, defending the Second Amendment is a balancing act. In fact, this is the case far more often than not, and the best techniques are those that hit the right spot in a given situation. After all, we Second Amendment supporters rightly object to being lumped in with those who misuse their rights to commit horrific acts, especially when anti-Second Amendment extremists are pushing to inflict injustices upon us in the form of wrongly diminished liberty. The least we can do is show our fellow Americans the courtesy that anti-Second Amendment extremists are denying us and them.
When people are saying that just pointing to the Second Amendment should end the debate, they are either completely ignorant of nearly 150 years of history that proves otherwise, going back to Southern laws that were used to disarm African-Americans, notably recently-freed slaves, or they are gaslighting Second Amendment supporters. If that technique worked, or was in any way effective, we would not be in our present position, and our freedoms wouldn’t be infringed as badly as they are in some states.
Given that track record, Second Amendment supporters need to tune out the self-appointed commissars who have counseled this strategy in the past and continue to do so today, and who heap abuse on those who suggest alternate paths. What they need to do is to first recognize whether the person is a committed anti-Second Amendment extremist like Michael Bloomberg or Eric Swalwell or if they might be reachable on the issue.
If the person is considering supporting a ban on modern multi-purpose semi-automatic firearms, but is potentially reachable, then it might be better to outline the facts about the issue in a calm, reasonable tone that helps you come across as someone who isn’t just knowledgeable, but trustworthy. This is common sense.
Ask yourself, has Beto O’Rourke’s increasingly strident and condescending tone towards those who don’t immediately accept his push for an unjust Australia/New Zealand-style gun confiscation made you re-think your support of the Second Amendment? Do you feel less willing to defend your rights when Elizabeth Warren labels your defense of our rights corrupt?
Be honest now, the tone of O’Rourke and Warren (not to mention other anti-Second Amendment extremists) actually makes you more inclined to fight for our freedoms as opposed to the effect that they sought: You to give up. If it fails for the likes of O’Rourke and Warren when they have the backing of major media outlets, what chance is there that a similarly dismissive approach to our fellow Americans will work better if we try it without that sort of media backing?
Being flexible enough to tailor your approach to winning over those who are asking question, or who even lean towards supporting restrictions and turning them into new Second Amendment supporters is not betraying any part of the Constitution or your fellow gun owners. It certainly is not being a “Fudd.”
The fact is, being faithful to our ultimate goal of restoring our Second Amendment rights to their proper status is not going to happen overnight. Even if such a shift were to take place, it would be but a fleeting victory unless we are able to persuade our fellow Americans to not try to reverse it. This upcoming Supreme Court term could very well cause such a shift, and it will be incumbent on Second Amendment supporters to be ready to handle whatever ruling emerges. Many of our fellow Americans will have honest questions and legitimate concerns. In this case, flexibility will matter just as much as faithfulness to the Constitution and returning to the vision of the Founders.
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.
Wrong-o! We do NOT need to find (or even try to find) any kind of “common ground” with anti-2nd Amendment advocates. Who actually gives a tinker’s damn if they try to reverse the 2nd Amendment? They can go straight to hell. The Constitution says exactly what it says (not just whatever popular “interpretation” happens to be this week’s liberal agenda!). Remember Marbury? Any law that is opposed to the Constitution is NOT enforceable! If the government enacts legislation that outlaws firearms, the firearms do not become illegal… the government becomes illegal!!! It’s about damnable time that patriots stood up and… Read more »
Mr. Hutchison, pardon my english, but you are so full of bear shit!! Maybe the American Militia should note your na,e as a collaborator to the dummycratic socialist. Myself, I’d hate to be on their list. The 2nd Amendment “IS NOT TO BE INFRINGED!!” what part of this statement do you not understand. You sound like you come from Sweden or Holland or New Zealand. If you are I’d go back!!
Flexible, you say, Harold? What, so they can bend us over and rape us?! I think not! I will remain rigid!
Mr. Hutchinson,
The anti gun politicians and anti gun groups have never been flexible when it comes to agreeing with the Pro 2A side. They will listen not that they’re interested what the pro 2A people will say, they will still do what they intend to do.. We should be flexible? Got off it!!
They have been enemies of freedom for a long time and wanting to take away God Given Rights, not just the 2A, but other rights as well. They are SUBVERSIVES , bent on destroying what this country is and stands for.
You don’t really get it, Mr Hutchison. Maybe you’re too young to have understood what’s been happening for the last 100 years.
We will no longer have the conversation with anti gun totalitarians. Decades of debate has resulted in nothing but compromise and loss of rights from our side. It’s only recently we’ve accomplished much in the way of restoring some of our God given rights, and that’s because we’re refusing to compromise anymore.
No more. We’re done. Conversation over.
Should we negotiate bullet to the back of the head or front of the head also? WE have been compromising since 1934 and look what it has gotten us. We are now at the point of door to door searches. Harold you could be more wrong but I doubt it. One problem is compromising not only looks weak it is weak. WE and our organizations (NRA) have failed miserably at educating the public as to what is really going on and the source of rights. This idea that the 2nd or any part of the Constitution gives us any right… Read more »
“Blessed are the flexible….for they shall be bent over.” Not a good moral stand, buddy. We were flexible with hearing protection, and I don’t see any “flexibility” on the Liberal side to improve gun safety and allow me to protect my hearing. June 26, 1934 was the last day I was flexible.
Oh I’m more than flexible Harold. Even though I’m left eye dominant I can still put shots on target with a gun in my right hand.
Good ol’ Harold once again pleading for political correctness when dealing with anti-gunners in order not to hurt their feelings. NO compromise in defense of the Constitution, any and all parts of it, especially the 2nd Amendment. Compromise, soft soap, back peddling or putting anti-gun people’s feelings above the 2nd Amendment is nothing but FAILURE! You can’t use logic and common sense when dealing with people who have no common sense and logic (Democrats & liberals).
NOT ONE STEP BACK! If you are not prepared to go to war against the traitors, just hand in those guns. The time for talk is passed.