I’m not generally one to make calls for unity, probably because I think some degree of debate and disagreement within the community is healthy and understandable. But I have to agree with Dave Hardy on this one:
There are three ways to reach Second Amendment incorporation, at least two of which have present and powerful advocates. I can only say that I’m in correspondence with both, and they really wish there could be an end to to conflict. Bottom line: if the three routes to incorporation each got two votes, it’s still a 6-3 and a win, the other side is left to ponder that “almost” only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades, and the winner who favors one route or another has some votes (for the first time in my lifetime) on which to build. They’re going into the fight of their lives, no OUR lives, and don’t need the distractions. We can all engage in internecine battles after oral argument, or better yet, the decision. For now they need to concentrate.
Hardy is, of course, speaking about the conflict brought about by this, which is one of the reasons I felt it was a poor course of action; that it would promote a conflict at a time when we did not need one. That’s spilled into the blogosphere a bit with statements said here, here, here, and here. However, I agree with Dave, there’s no bad way to win this, the important thing is that we win.