Beyond the bump stock

Whether or not bump stocks end up banned is a trivial matter.  The war over the Second Amendment will not hinge on the outcome of this particular battle.  Both sides know this; the importance of the issue is entirely psychological. For progressives, a win would be a move in the right direction, evidence that conservatives are vulnerable.  It would be comparable to the Doolittle Raid against the Japanese homeland in 1942 – a strike of no great strategic import but invaluable as a way to shift national confidence from the Japanese to the American side.

For conservatives, there is little to be gained by thwarting this progressive gambit (which is the reason some are prepared to make a tactical retreat).  Why expend resources on such an insignificant matter when winning it will not much advance the Second Amendment cause?  Why, indeed!  The answer is that a defensive mindset leads to defeat.  Fainthearted people rarely win at war.  This is no less true for a political war than it is for a military one.

If either side in a war is not totally committed to the principle for which it stands, then the other side wins.  It may take a week, or it may take years, but ultimate victory almost always passes to the side that more strongly believes in its cause.This brings us to this particular war over this particular constitutional amendment.  As it stands, conservatives are doing nothing more than defending an  existing arrangement.  Progressives are out to change it.  Let us not be deluded by any protestations that their agenda is to refine rather than eliminate the Second Amendment.

We know the progressive strategy: disengage with the enemy until a (real) shooting crisis occurs, at which point initiate a political blitzkrieg that links that shooting to a lack of gun control.  This aggressive tactic is working, and conservatives must counter it with something similar. Here is a suggestion: as soon as the next mass shooting takes place, conservatives should unite around the following message."Our government is incapable of protecting us from such attacks, as proven by the countless times it has failed to do so.  Until it is able to afford adequate protection against mass shootings, the people must be permitted to protect themselves as best they can.  The government must assist the citizens by doing two things. "First, encourage gun ownership.  Second, and even more importantly, train all people on proper gun use and gun safety."


Read more at American Thinker