Keith,
I was a junior in college in 1968 & well aware of the politics & public mood at the time. Neither the NRA nor anyone else could stop the GCA of 1968. It could have been much worse w/New Jersey type firearms laws for the entire country.
I wish I could allow this statement to stand, but it is absolutely incorrect. It is true that there was a tidal wave of support for gun legislation in 1968, after the Kennedy and MLK assassinations, but there was very little opposition from the NRA or the majority of gun owners for that matter. For that reason, and that reason alone, a majority of Congressmen and Senators went along with the most onerous and sweeping anti-gun law since the NFA of 1934. Liberal Democrat Lyndon Johnson was only too happy to sign. We didn't begin to gain any of our losses back until well after the NRA transformed itself from a mostly Marksmanship Organization into the world's most powerful Gun Rights Organization. Some of it may never be rolled back.
There were extremely strong headwinds against us again back in 2013 after the Left exploited images of dead children after the Newtown Massacre. Many, such as the anti-gun Liberal Left King Brown said it was a battle we couldn't win, and shouldn't fight. King counseled us to give in to Obama and the anti-gunners on high cap mags and Universal Background Checks, and to attempt to claw back some of what we lost after the nation was done grieving.
I'd feel better about 2nd protection if our side stopped shooting itself in the foot with the makes-no-difference between 10 and larger magazines, cross-messaging of the worst kind. The antis are saying if the difference is 6-8 seconds what's the problem of excluding the 10-plus?
Your messages appear as from one who hasn't been involved directly in action of what it takes to beat back grabbers other than a NRA membership. (And that antagonizing NRA comment while the nation mourning was no service to our cause, as I said here at the time. Better that the NRA would consider what Obama proposing and it would respond in good time in the country's best interests etc.) Unwarranted inflaming of public opinion is a mistake, and in confrontations of this kind, it's the faux pas that can kill you. Some November dandies come to mind.
That advice was wrong then, and it is just as wrong now. King Brown also attempted on numerous occasions, to LULL us into complacency, saying we would never lose our 2nd Amendment Rights even when he knew a majority had voted to hold hearings on Obama's proposals on the floor of the Senate. Here, and in developed nations all over the world, there is ample evidence that the Liberal Left will never be satisfied with anything you give up... short of total confiscation. While you are suggesting what you consider modest compromise, the Liberal Democrats are openly demanding much more than you would simply give up.
I have provided several ways to both put them on the defensive, and meaningful legislation they could work on that would save many more lives. Do you remember that number of Americans who die each month from drug overdoses? 1230 per week... and they don't give a crap about stopping the flow of drugs from Mexico. If you wish to roll over like a whipped puppy when there are so many ways to fight and retain our freedoms... I guess there is no amount of proof or reason that will change your mind.
Have you given any thought to what other Constitutional Rights you will be willing to give up whenever mentally deranged criminals and terrorists abuse our freedoms? How 'bout free speech, freedom of assembly, illegal search and seizure...? All have come under assault in the name of public safety and saving "just one life."
I am glad to see Jim back... still fighting.
