Last week’s post by BlinkyPete discussing how we would re-write the background check process generated a fair amount of commentary. That’s fairly nsurprising as whenever a post appears on this site from someone within the gun community that suggests any kind of restrictions, a firestorm usually follows. There were a lot of good points raised in favor of BlinkyPete’s proposal as well as a lot of good comments discussing its weaknesses. Once comment that stood out in my mind was MarkPA’s challenge to the “absolutists” to propose a solution that would pass muster with the country. I think this point is important enough that it deserves its own discussion . . .
Let’s acknowledge that under the simplest and most literal meaning of the Second Amendment, “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it sounds like. Any law that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms is simply not allowed. Unfortunately, outside of the absolutist wing of the gun rights community, no one else fully recognizes this definition. Lawmakers certainly don’t. The court system doesn’t either. Obviously the anti-gunners don’t and many who make up the pool of average undecided voters don’t. Heck, even a fair number of pro-gun people don’t support eliminating all gun regulation.
It would seem that RKBA supporters have their work cut out for them. If we really want to roll back restrictions on ownership and open gun usage for everyone at any time, how do we do it? The antis seem to have a plan to take guns away from the people. We need to have one to take us in the other direction. Unfortunately, I can’t see any way to get to the 2A absolutist position that doesn’t involve repeating late 1700’s history. And that approach is simply a non-starter for a whole host of reasons.
So, this is my question then; what is the plan to change the minds of our fellow citizens in enough numbers to make the absolutist vision a reality? Is there even a way or are we doomed to fight against a countervailing tide with little effect? Can we actually achieve gun rights nirvana or do we need to realize that compromise of some sort will always be part of the deal? Many here say, “No more compromise!” Great. How do we do it? Slogans and empty threats don’t win battles. Well-executed plans backed by ideas do.
Let’s try and make this discussion a good reference for the future. Good, workable ideas are something we can all use going forward. With that in mind, I’d ask that comments discuss the pros and cons of proposed solutions rather than simply degenerating into attacks on each other for a person’s position.