Why Strategy & Tactics Matter in Defending the Second Amendment
Okay, folks, now we get to the next step after we have determined just what our present situation is. Our objective is simple: Securing our Second Amendment rights and a legacy of freedom for future generations. There is just one problem: Michael Bloomberg isn’t going to give up his dreams of disarming law-abiding gun owners without a fight. Dianne Feinstein will not stop pushing for the day she can say, “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in” without fighting to the bitter end, either. Charles Schumer will not stop seeking to “hammer guns” with “relentless legislative strategy” and to deliver what HCI’s Richard Aborn once called the “rest of the camel” that followed the Brady Act on his own accord, either.
So, the question is how do we achieve that objective in the face of a fanatical drive to disarm us? Well, the answer, of course, is to fight back against Bloomberg. But we can’t just point to the Second Amendment and proclaim an end to the discussion. That isn’t going to work. Beating Bloomberg requires strategy and tactics – and all too often, Second Amendment supporters are not thinking tactically or strategically when it comes to protecting our rights.
Now, we’ve discussed the need to know your present situation. If you have a very favorable situation (significant pro-Second Amendment majorities in the legislature, a pro-Second Amendment governor), it may be worth it to push for major pro-Second Amendment legislation in your state. But you must be willing to adjust your tactics and strategy when the circumstances are not that favorable.
As Duane Liptak pointed out last week, history has shown that at times, you can’t stop anti-Second Amendment legislation from passing in some form. That said, smart tactics and strategy mean that you can render that anti-Second Amendment legislation much less intrusive than anti-Second Amendment politicians want. This was done with the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act 1968 (did you know Lyndon Baines Johnson wanted a licensing and registration scheme and denounced the “gun lobby” over not getting it?), and even the Brady Act in 1993.
Other times, you can kill legislation with poison pills. This approach does five things...
Click here to read the entire article at AmmoLand.com.