DrMark
Lone Star Veteran
In my estimation, the NRA's approach present in their recent speech is an intelligent one.
Remember how politics works... Compromise and negotiation may sound like dirty words, but they always take place before a bill becomes law.
The genius of the approach the NRA has taken lies, in part, in changing the subject of the conversation. Now, when talking compromise, we can talk about how many armed people should be protecting our schoolchildren, how we pay for it (which is where armed citizenry [my preference] vs police enters the conversation), and so on.
Soccer moms scream, "We have to act now!" Now, we can reply (with equal emotion) that we agree, and discuss whether police, armed parents, or both should be the on-site protection.
Soccer moms scream, "We need gun control!" Now, we can point instead (with irrefutable logic) to a national discussion on a solution to yield actual protection, and suggest she focus on helping to address the problem instead of attacking the parents' civil rights.
Soccer moms scream, "Guns are evil!" Now, we can point instead to a national discussion on the evil of glorifying criminal violence through entertainment. (No one is suggesting banning media, gamers.)
Now, though we may not agree with everything in the speech, we have a rallying point. This can be referenced in our calls and e-mails to our elected representatives, when we make our reasoned points not solely as reactionaries, but as constituents seeking solutions.
Of course, I'll remind these representatives that I'm a gun owner, and I vote on the basis of their respect for those rights.
To expand on one point, now that the conversation has turned, in part, to good guys with guns protecting our children, we can discuss the best way to do it.
Though discussed at the federal level, I expect anything that's implemented will vary greatly be state.
Repressive states like NJ, MD, or CA will likely continue to reject addition protection, preferring the status quo that brought us the tragedy in CT. Freer states (I hope VA is among them) may decide that armed protection from school admin/teachers/parents, who are already in the schools, through eliminating laws preventing carry in schools, is a better approach in terms of both finances and reduced Federal Government intrusion.
I certainly don't steer VCDL, but I hope no VCDL energy is expended on criticism of the NRA. Instead, take advantage of their changing the conversation, mention the points of agreement (armed good guys is WIN, gun control is FAIL), and work to implement a better variation of the NRA's concept in our Commonwealth.
Like I mentioned, hopefully in VA we can push for armed protection provided by school admin/teachers/parents, who are already in the schools. We can eliminate laws preventing carry in schools. In my opinion, this is a better approach than doubling the number of police, in terms of both finances and reduced centralized Government intrusion.
I'd like an end state of teachers, admin, and parents being able to carry in our schools as they see fit, including mode (open or concealed). Perhaps we can get closer to that end state in VA. That's what I plan to work for.
Remember how politics works... Compromise and negotiation may sound like dirty words, but they always take place before a bill becomes law.
The genius of the approach the NRA has taken lies, in part, in changing the subject of the conversation. Now, when talking compromise, we can talk about how many armed people should be protecting our schoolchildren, how we pay for it (which is where armed citizenry [my preference] vs police enters the conversation), and so on.
Soccer moms scream, "We have to act now!" Now, we can reply (with equal emotion) that we agree, and discuss whether police, armed parents, or both should be the on-site protection.
Soccer moms scream, "We need gun control!" Now, we can point instead (with irrefutable logic) to a national discussion on a solution to yield actual protection, and suggest she focus on helping to address the problem instead of attacking the parents' civil rights.
Soccer moms scream, "Guns are evil!" Now, we can point instead to a national discussion on the evil of glorifying criminal violence through entertainment. (No one is suggesting banning media, gamers.)
Now, though we may not agree with everything in the speech, we have a rallying point. This can be referenced in our calls and e-mails to our elected representatives, when we make our reasoned points not solely as reactionaries, but as constituents seeking solutions.
Of course, I'll remind these representatives that I'm a gun owner, and I vote on the basis of their respect for those rights.
To expand on one point, now that the conversation has turned, in part, to good guys with guns protecting our children, we can discuss the best way to do it.
Though discussed at the federal level, I expect anything that's implemented will vary greatly be state.
Repressive states like NJ, MD, or CA will likely continue to reject addition protection, preferring the status quo that brought us the tragedy in CT. Freer states (I hope VA is among them) may decide that armed protection from school admin/teachers/parents, who are already in the schools, through eliminating laws preventing carry in schools, is a better approach in terms of both finances and reduced Federal Government intrusion.
I certainly don't steer VCDL, but I hope no VCDL energy is expended on criticism of the NRA. Instead, take advantage of their changing the conversation, mention the points of agreement (armed good guys is WIN, gun control is FAIL), and work to implement a better variation of the NRA's concept in our Commonwealth.
Like I mentioned, hopefully in VA we can push for armed protection provided by school admin/teachers/parents, who are already in the schools. We can eliminate laws preventing carry in schools. In my opinion, this is a better approach than doubling the number of police, in terms of both finances and reduced centralized Government intrusion.
I'd like an end state of teachers, admin, and parents being able to carry in our schools as they see fit, including mode (open or concealed). Perhaps we can get closer to that end state in VA. That's what I plan to work for.
