Picking a Fight the Other Side Can’t Afford

We know from various sources around the Internet that it’s not the best of times to be a gun control group from a fundraising standpoint.  If you look at the issue strategically, the National Reciprocity bill is really quite the master stroke, considering how much in the way of resources the other side is going to have to try to marshal to defeat it.  Now we have evidence that Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is fronting ads on behalf of Tom Mauser (ironic having a gun control fanatic named Mauser) to target Bennet and Udall for their vote on the Thune Amendment.  Keep spending, gun control people. Keep spending.  Having them on defense is a good thing.

8 thoughts on “Picking a Fight the Other Side Can’t Afford”

  1. Mauser had a comment at the Politco link defending his position. I responded as follows:

    Mr. Mauser, I’m sincerely sorry for your loss. I can’t imagine what it must be like to lose a child. In this case though, I think your efforts are entirely misdirected. You state that one of the results of the Columbine massacre is the restriction of CCW permits from 18 year olds. How would this have prevented the killings at Columbine? Are you arguing that a potential killer would get a CCW before they would carry out their heinous deed? If someone is intent on murder, I suspect that they are going to carry illegally since the ultimate crime they are going to commit is illegal as well. If you want to change things it might be more fruitful to direct your energy towards the actual criminals and push for stricter punishment for violent crimes. The people who jump through the bureaucratic hurdles to get CCW permits are not your enemy. Does it make sense that a criminal would ask for a permission slip from the government before the commission of a crime? –Respectfully

  2. Good idea to keep them on the defensive – when do we try to get the ban on SBR’s and suppressors lifted?

  3. when do we try to get the ban on SBR’s and suppressors lifted?

    I’d forget about going for suppressors for a bit and try for SBRs and pistols with detachable stocks first, suppressors are going to be too easy for the media to demagogue because people think of movies and TV and associate them with hitmen.

    SBRs and stocked pistols are going to be much easier to get deregulated, you can argue that the reduced weight and smaller size can be beneficial to those with poor upper body strength, are of small or slight build or are disabled. I’m not saying abandon deregulation of suppressors, but I figure go for something that’ll be easier to get passed first. Even if you could get things deregulated to where you were just paying the $200 extra in taxes, and not dealing with the miles of red tape and registration, it’d be a marked improvement.

  4. I think suppressors would be a slam-dunk if you could effectively pimp the OSHA/health & safety angle.

    “If I take the muffler off my motorcycle, I get a ticket.
    If I take the muffler off my car, I get a ticket.
    If I take the muffler off my lawnmower, I get a ticket.
    If I put a muffler on my .22, I get arrested.
    Is my health important or isn’t it?”

  5. Civil disobedience Tam style would be a loud annoying world. Too bad apathetic gun owners would never get involved.

    I guess you haven’t been watching the health care “reform” bills where the .gov wants to decide who’s health and body is worth what? You’re an icky gun person, you life is worthless in the utopian village of amerikan apologism.

    Are we still waiting for a nice “perfect” case to come along on the issues of SBR and/or pistols?

Comments are closed.