We don’t have to choose between a “moderate” message on one hand, and a “hard core” one on the other (with both “pragmatic” and “SNBI” having both gained negative connotations, depending on to whom one is talking, I changed the terminology a bit–but the meaning is the same).

If both messages are delivered, they can complement one another, rather than compete.

/makes some popcorn

My views are the same, I would love to see America return to it’s founding principles. A free moral society with protected rights, and one right to protect all others. A society not taxed to death. Etc.

I would love to see that return occur through peaceful and political means. However, at the same time. We need to be individually prepared to prevent a similar path as happened to Germany and Russian in the mid-1900’s.

So my thoughts are buy your guns, ammo, gold, silver, copper jacketed lead, food, water, MRE’s, vitamins, etc.

But vote, speak, stand publicly, share your thoughts, vote, speak, share your thoughts. Pacifism is a noble concept but foolish in most cases. That said, we should desire peace over conflict.

Remembering that our founding fathers pledged their lives, and their fortunes. And many gave that up. Look to your wives, your sons and your daughters. Are you ready to give them up? Would you give them up…

To give up such precious objects one truly needs a hope that something better will be formed and a fear that something much worse is upon it’s way.

- The Saj

When I communicate with elected officials, and I do quite a lot of that at the state level, my approach is considerably different.

I am, in short, not disputing the assertion that saying “shall not be infringed” isn’t by itself going to defeat the epidemic of gun laws, but I don’t think anyone is claiming that it will.

I agree with Uncle that no one despises you. I think what Kevin meant isn’t that someone is literally going up to someone’s face and shouting “Shall not be infringed!!” so much as the argument that if we’re just loud enough, or angry enough, or say it with enough force, that politicians and judges are going to listen. The fact is, they aren’t. Few others will too.

I’ll use the example from my local congressional district. I have not vetted Tom Manion, who is the Republican candidate, to assess his purity on the gun issue. My only real concern is that he’s mostly with us, which he appears to be. But I have no issue railing against Murphy, and helping Manion replace him. The message I want to send so politicians in my district is “Sponsor gun bans, and you’ll piss off enough gun owners to lose your seat.” Even if I don’t defeat Murphy, if it’s closer than he thinks it should be, it might be enough to give him pause. In fact, he’s been signing pro-gun bills for cover for the past several weeks. That’s not a reverse course, but it’s a sign he’s worried, and I don’t intent to relent.

That’s exactly the kind of thing I speak of, and the attitude is definitely out there. I wish I could say it’s rare, but it’s not.

Spoken like someone who hasn’t met my ex-girlfriend ;-).

I do think Baker is an efficient toppler of straw men. I challenge him to find one case of the people whose efforts he so disparages saying “SNBI!!!!!” (or with even one exclamation point). If any of us have referred to anyone involved in this argument as “pussies,” I must have missed that, too.

As for our efforts on the political front, I don’t think I (or anyone else) owes anyone an accounting of those efforts, but I’ve worked damned hard in gun rights politics in Illinois, and I sometimes even flatter myself with thoughts that my efforts have made some small difference. Anyone for whom that’s not good enough–long walk; short pier–figure it out.