Thursday, March 28, 2013

Senator Kay Hagan's True Colors

David Codrea pointed me to this article at his War on Guns website. The article appears in the Greensboro New and Record, entitled Sen. Kay Hagan favors expanding background checks for guns. Well, she is a Democrat, after all, and as such favors all sorts of things that stomp on your freedoms and liberties. The NRA and GOA both list Hagan as "F" rated, meaning they don't expect much support from Hagan on issues favorable to gun owners. Hagan doesn't disappoint with this latest pronouncement.  But, if she is reading this, and if she doesn't have a hidden agenda, then here are some reasons not to support extending the background check system.

The first reason is that background checks don't prevent a determined criminal from getting a gun.  Most such criminals know not to go into a gun store to purchase their armaments, for reasons we shall soon see.  Instead, they go on the black market.  After all, if they can smuggle drugs into this country, they can smuggle guns right along with them.  Do you honestly think that if background checks become "universal" that black marketers are now going to run background checks on their "customers?"  Then there is the fact that the Sandy Hook shoorter would not have been deterred by having universal background checks because he simply stole the gun he used after killing his mother, the rightful owner.  The colmbine shooters obtained their weapons illegally as well, so no background check would have spotted these two.  Many others obtained their weapons through legal channels and there was nothing in the system to flag them.  But I talk about that later too.

On principle, there are several problems with background checks.  The first problem is that once you have a background check system in place, the prospective gun owner is forced to prove, to the satisfaction of unelected bureaucrats, that he is not guilty of one or more of the items for which a person currently may be prohibited.  This turns the American justice system on its head.  After all, a person is innocent until proven guilty.  But here, to exercise a fundamental right, a person has to prove himself innocent.  The way the system works, you fill out a form 4473, which asks a number of questions of you, after which you sign it swearing it to be true. Then they do a background check. If they find that everything sworn to is not true, you have just self incriminated. I don't know how a court might rule in a case brought up on such grounds, but I would think they might have some qualms about a system that requires a criminal to self incriminate. If, therefore, criminals can not be held to this standard, who is the system designed to catch?

Then there is the problem of continuously adding classes of people to the list of prohibited persons.  In every legislative session throughout the country, there are bills advanced to make more and more behaviors illegal, to ban ever more objects, and to make the law tougher by making more of these prohibitions a felony. The Overcriminalization of America by John Whitehead describes governments at all levels making crimes out of perfectly legal activities. Further, mens rea, the "criminal mind" is no longer required. Simply doing whatever has now been determined illegal is enough to bring the government, complete with SWAT teams down upon you. For any number of new crimes, you could find yourself suddenly a prohibited person.  If the activity for which you now find yourself in hot water was a legal activity at the time, fairness says you should be able to keep your guns, but of course, the law requires that you forfeit your rights to self defense.

Then there are people who are charged and convicted in foreign courts for crimes that may or may not be crimes here.  In most cases, the conviction occurred in an environment where the rules of evidence are, shall we say, less strict than our own.  Should we uphold convictions that do not meet our own standards of justice?  Also, is there no statute of limitations to the background check system?  How is it that a man who had a conviction 40 years ago for simple assault (with mitigating circumstances), but served no time, has retired form the Navy with an honorable discharge, and led an exemplary life ever since now finds himself a prohibited person?

Then, there are the mentally ill.  Most who have looked at the rampage shootings that have occurred have concluded that there was something mentally wrong with the people who committed the shooting.  Most have noted signs beforehand that in retrospect should have been acted upon to get the individual some help, or if he or she did not want help, then seek to involuntarily intervene to help them.  Understand that most of the mentally ill are totally harmless, which is why there is so much reluctance to single out people with mental issues for public humiliation, so nothing will really be done about them. These problems, and others are highlighted at The Gun Guys, a liberal pro-gun site. Author Cindy Hill talks about the many failings of the Brady background check. Go read what she has to say. Then, if you still feel that we need a background check system, work to make it fair and narrowly limited.

The 80 million gun owners who didn't commit these crimes, and who vote, will be grateful to you.

Friday, March 22, 2013

Way Up North: A Christian's Use of Lethal Force

Way Up North: A Christian's Use of Lethal Force  Go read the whole thing.  Nothing more needs to be said, and thanks to Rev. Paul for providing this useful post.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Thoughts on the series "The Bible"

Yesterday, I was discussing "The Bible" series with a co-worker. The 4 part series was hailed by Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Rielly, and probably others before its premier in the History Channel. My friend thought it was somewhat of a let down, in the parts that were glossed over, and some of the acting. Overall, I like it, and have been watching it. Certainly, the producers, Roma Downey and her husband deserve credit for even attempting to make a modern film about the Bible.

Discussing it however, brings up an interesting point: namely that the Bible is notoriously difficult for the modern reader to slog through and understand. The Old Testament, in particular, can be difficult to understand without some background and history. I know this will offend some of you, but to read it as if it were the literal words of the Almighty is to miss much of the message. Much of the Bible was first written down during the Babylonian Exile, as a way for the Jews to keep the faith. What must be understood is that the Bible stories showed God's grace in time after time saving the people of Israel, His Chosen People. It is written from their point of view.  To appreciate it, one must also take on their point of view, and look at things as the ancients looked at them.

Take, for example, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.  God says to Abraham that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are so evil, that he will destroy them. What their great evil was is never mentioned in the Bible, probably because it wasn't that important to the story.  What is important is that Abraham knows that his nephew, Lot, lives in one of the cities.  Abraham then begins a thinly veiled negotiation with God with the result that if even only 10 righteous men can be found, God will not destroy the cities.  Now, to the nomadic sheep and cattle herders sitting around a camp fire at night, and hearing this tale, cities were places of evil in any case.  Of course, as it turned out, only one righteous man could be found, Lot.  But God does not punish the innocent, so he send two angels to get Lot out of the cities before they are destroyed.  God's great grace is shown by his being willing to spare the cities if even just 10 righteous men can be found, and the herculean efforts to spare Lot, the lone Hebrew living in the cities.  The men of the cities, however, are throw away characters who aren't even named.

The Bible also often doesn't tell us any extraneous details, details that the people who heard these stories would assume, but that we may not.  A modern writer might write that "He went out the door to his ground floor apartment, and found the keys to his red,1965 Mustang.  He backed it out of the parking space and turned west."  But the ancients didn't bother setting the scene for us, for they lived there.  They were more interested in understanding God's will.  When God told Abram to come out of the city of Ur, to a land he would show him, no mention is made of anyone else.  The modern reader gets the impression that Abram and Sarai set out alone across 500 miles of wasteland to the Promised Land.  In fact, Abram was probably a leader of a huge tribe of people, who brought their tents, their belongings, their cattle and servants with them.  After all, Abraham brought 10,000 men to war against the Kings of  the Plains to rescue his nephew.

Also, the Bible is not history, at least not as we understand it here in the West.  The Old Testament only contains a few dates, and these are relative.  The only date I am familiar with in the New Testament is the date of the Resurrection, which takes place on the first Sunday after the Passover.  The closest writing to that we understand in the modern sense is Luke, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Letters from Paul.  Place names often shift, and it is difficult to get the context of certain peoples and places. For example who, or where are Gog and Magog? If you click on the link, you will see that even scholars have trouble placing these two names, but evidently in the 6th century BC these two names must have been known. Of course, no modern map will help you find the Hittites (Central Turkey), Persia (Iran), Babylon (Iraq), or the Philistines, who apparently came from Crete. 

Friday, March 15, 2013

Are You Dumber than a Sixth Grader?

Yesterday, there was this exchange during the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting before the vote on the AWB, Between Senator Cruz and Senator Feinstein:
Cruz asked the Democratic lawmaker whether she would consider it “consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?”
Her answer, whic was nonresponsive, but instead accused Cruz of lecturing her on the Constitution. This sort of evasiveness has become all too common with the Left. The jig is up, guys. We know you have no intentions of following the Constitution, and we know you know we know. So answer the question. It's a legitimate question. The answer instead was of the sort that Nancy Pelosi gave when asked where in the Constitution Congress derived the power to make us buy insurance. "Are you serious? Are you serious!?" is not an answer to the question, a question that deserves an answer.

Because, the fact is that there is nowhere in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to require people to buy insurance. And, no, Feinstein would not do to the First or Fourth Amendments what she is proposing to the Second. But, instead of going back and rethinking their approaches to legislation that clearly goes against the Constitution, these Leftists are bound and determined to do it their way, because power is what they are after, and legislation is the way to give themselves more of it.

Incidentally, there is way to amend the Constitution.  It has been done 27 times, so although it is difficult, it is clearly not impossible. But these Leftist know that the American people would never give up their rights to weapons, so they go about it as though the 2nd Amendment read "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except that semiautomatic rifles shall not be allowed to the people."

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Of Sand, and Lines Drawn Therein

The report from Hershel Smith that the GOP is getting ready to cave to gun grabbers is distressing. According to Smith, the GOP leadership is set to approve universal background checks and gun registration. You can read Smith's report over at the Captain's Journal. The report also indicates that the NRA may be mixed up in helping the GOP leadership cave.

I believe Smith's reporting is sound because this has been the behavior of so-called conservatives and the NRA for years.  Smith accurately notes that his sources may be shaky, but we have been down this road before.  Rather than drawing a line in the sand, and standing on principle, they eventually cave.  Sure, they kept the gun grabbers from getting everything, but as I pointed out before, the gun grabbers will be back again, with yet more demands.  The gun grabbers will not be satisfied until the Second Amendment is a dead letter.  Oh, they might let you keep one overpriced and heavily taxed shotgun for skeet and trap shooting, down at the gun club, locked up so that you can't access it, and regularly inspected by the ATF.  They might.  But as far as keeping and can forget that.

In talking to other gun owners, there is a certain ambivalence about background checks.  Most have no problem with a background check because they pass it, at least for now.  You see, once a background check is instituted, and a reasonable list of those who should be prohibited is created, then you have the constant expanding of the list of prohibited persons by the gun grabbers.  Returning veterans with PTSD are routinely put on the list with only the word of a government paid psychologist.  No court findings, are necessary, and the veteran need not be convicted of anything.  They don't even have to state that the veteran may be a danger to himself or others, just that he isn't capable of managing his finances.  Are you getting a divorce?  Divorces are often ugly, and many women seek a restraining order out of revenge, or in order to hurt their husbands in such situations.  If your wife seeks such an order, you are a prohibited person, whether or not you have ever threatened her, and again, whether or not you have been convicted of anything.  In recent years, there have been laws proposed that would make everybody on the "no fly list" a prohibited person.  The "no fly list" is a secret list.  How you get on the list, and how you might clear yourself if you find you can't fly is also a secret, and you and I have no need to know.  There is once again no due process.  A judge does not have to have found you guilty of anything to be on the list.

Then there is the problem of results.  An often cited statistic is that 80,000 people have been prevented from buying a firearm since background checks were instituted.   But, that statistic only reflects buying firearms from a legal, Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealer.  How many of those 80,000 people turned around and bought a firearm on the black market?  Of course, nobody knows the answer to that, but a good guess would be a substantial number of them did exactly that.  Do you think the black market will dry up because of universal background checks?  Criminals will get the guns they need, no matter what is done to prevent them.  The only people who are inconvenienced by background checks are peaceable citizens, the very people you don't have to worry about.

As for gun registration, which the Attorney General has stated is a necessary part of any universal background check system, there are words in the law to the effect that background checks may not be used to create a registration system of guns and gun owners.  But as we have seen with the Fast and Furious scandal, the ATF hasn't any problem with breaking the law.  In the Seattle office of the ATF, agents have been going around to the FFLs and copying their bound books of 4473 forms, thus gaining a registry of guns and gun owners despite the law.  I am not holding my breath while Congress jumps on this infraction of the law, for I would have to hold my breath a long time indeed.  But here's just one problem with registration. The State of California knew where to go because that State requires registration. The injustice came about, in part, because a nurse wrongly wrote down that Mrs. Phillips was involuntarily admitted to a mental hospital. Note, once again, that no due process was involved, no finding by a judge that she represented a danger to herself or others, but now she must go before a court to get her husbands gun rights back. Talk about turned around.

We have made a system in which in order to exercise a right that we all have by virtue of our Creator, we must prove ourselves innocent to the government's satisfaction.  But our government keeps moving the goal posts, making more and more of us ineligible to own the means of self defense. Someday you may find yourself ineligible if you have ever had a parking ticket.  There would be no merit to such a system if it did work.  Unfortunately, it isn't working, as one can predict. Instead of going after people who abuse or misuse their rights, they instead go after the some of the tools used by the miscreants. They pretend that killing with a gun is somehow worse than killing with a screw driver, or a hammer, or a two by four. Well, no more. The GOP leadership should take this to heart:  Our line in the sand is drawn.  Molon Labe.     

Saturday, March 9, 2013

The War on Guns: Rules of Engagement

The War on Guns: Rules of Engagement

Click on the link and read what David Codrea has to say, then click through and read all that Stewart Rhodes has written on the subject.  Then return here for some commentary from me.

Stewart Rhodes is the founder of Oath Keepers.  He connects the dots to the fact that the President now claims the power to kill, by whatever means necessary, anybody he designates as an enemy combatant.  The definition of being a terrorist is so broad, that under that definition, anybody who wishes for a return to Constitutional governance as intended by the Founders (including all the Founders themselves) could be designated enemy combatants and summarily executed on sight.  As Rhodes points out, this is why they fought a revolution in the first place:

They (the Regime) are tracking almost identically with the long train of abuses our Forefathers suffered under King and Parliament that compelled them to fight a revolution, among which was the denial of jury trial, application of military courts, attempting to make the military power superior to the civil power and the waging of war against Americans.

Earlier in the week, Senator Rand Paul was lionized by conservatives for holding a 13 hour filibuster on the Senate floor to get an answer to whether the President had the powers claimed under the Constitution. He is said to have brought the regime to its knees. While I like Paul, and think he has a number of good ideas, the regime has not changed its mind one bit. I hope Senator Paul is protected by his status as a sitting U.S. Senator, but things happen. Right now, the Left is content with Sen. McCain and Sen. Grahamesty calling Paul a "whacko bird," but others will attempt to discredit him, even if it means making something up. Keep in mind that politicians, like other civilians, do not meet the requirements of being a "lawful combatant."

While you are at it, you should also read Anthony Martin's piece over at the Liberty Sphere entitled US Tyranny to Increase for Foreseeable Future. Martin's point here is that when the government begins to govern without the consent of the people, then the laws holding the people no longer are legitimate. For the laws that bind the people, also bind the government. When their diktats are no longer legitimate, then there is rule by man, not law. Claiming your rights under the law has no meaning if they can kill you on sight, without due process of law.  Claiming your rights has no meaning if they can make you a prohibited person on the word of a bureaucrat or a government paid psychologist.   Your rights are a dead letter, and the only reason anyone can claim them is as a vestigal memory.   

Two Schools and Guns Bills

First up, is South Dakota, where Governor Dennis Dugaard has signed into law a bill allowing teachers and volunteers to carry concealed weapons on school grounds and during school hours. You can read all about it at SD Governor Signs Bill Allowing Teachers to be Armed at Fox News. The bill was opposed by the usual suspects, but the tide changed when bill sponsor Rep. Scott Craig heard from rural districts:
In South Dakota, main bill sponsor Rep. Scott Craig, R-Rapid City, said earlier this week that he has received messages from a growing number of school board members and administrators who back it. Craig said rural districts do not have the money to hire full-time law officers, so they are interested in arming teachers or volunteers.
It seems that people who favor big government always seem to favor gun control as well. The idea of Americans doing for themselves, whether its home schooling, growing their own food, seeing to their own health care, or defending themselves, seems to offend these people. I suppose that people who do for themselves puts the lie to the idea that only government can supply services to the people. I have advocated that teachers who have concealed carry permits, and who receive extra training to know how to handle emergencies such as school shootings should be allowed to carry in classes. Even if you have an armed officer there, the extra back up should be welcome.

Here in North Carolina, we have a bill before the legislature, S.B. 190, Guns on Educational Property Stored in Locked Vehicles. The Grass Roots North Carolina describes the bill this way:
Drafted with assistance from GRNC and sponsored by Sen. Bill Cook (R-Beaufort, Camden, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hyde, Pasquotank, Perquimans, GRNC ****), SB 190 would allow concealed handgun permit-holders to keep firearms in locked motor vehicles on educational properties, further permitting their removal for defensive purposes. Although the bill is not the full campus carry bill which GRNC is shepherding (and which will soon be introduced), SB 190 would apply to all concealed handgun permit-holders, unlike other bills introduced to date. Beyond providing limited means for self-defense, it would prevent thousands of parents, taking children to school, from becoming accidental felons.
This bill is very similar to a Virginia law that allows parents dropping off or picking up their kids to be armed on school property so long as they do not step out of the car. I know its a pain when I get a call to pick up one of the kids for my daughter, and I am doing errands, armed. I have to go home, drop off my weapon, then go to the school to pick up my grand child. If this law passes, I could disarm, place the weapon in a case and lock it, then proceed onto school property. This is a good law that will affect many families, and should be passed. While it doesn't go far enough, it is a modest beginning. Baby steps, baby steps.

Thursday, March 7, 2013

Placing Odds on Passage of Gun Control Measures

A very good run down on the current status of Senate gun control bills can be found at the Blaze, written by Billy Hallowell. It gives the pros, cons, and the chances of each bill passing the Senate. The chances of becoming law are impossible to estimate at this time, given that some are likely to be attached onto House bills that come to the Senate, and then go into committee. Who knows with the Congress Men and Women we have "working" for us.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Why might you need a standard capacity magazine

The American Thinker offered up another take on Why Does Anyone Need a High Capacity Magazine yesterday by Mark Almonte. Mr. Almonte goes through analysis of hit rates, stopping power, and the fact that the criminal always chooses the moment of attack to favor himself, and put the victim at a disadvantage. All of that is interesting, and I encourage you to read it. In reference to stopping power, I have made the point in the past that handgun rounds are not particularly powerful, because a powerful round creates recoil that can not be controlled. Therefore, a sidearm is a necessary compromise between size, weight, concealability, and power.  But the real reason is, as Almonte states:

We've seen that it's not uncommon for suspects to still be a threat after being shot half a dozen times. Factor in that trained police officers operating under the stress of gunfire are landing roughly only one in ten shots. Statistically, low-light shootings at night or indoors with poor lighting bring down the hit percentages. Compound that with the possibility of multiple attackers and any reasonable person would conclude that limiting a civilian to ten rounds is not nearly enough for self-protection. The NYPD, LAPD, and the LASD don't limit their officers to ten-round magazines. They all issue 15-round magazines, except for the LASD, which now issues 17-round magazines.
Interestingly, the civilian needs the same round capacity for the same reasons, namely self defense. Police typically issue a 15 round magazine in the gun, with 1 in the chamber, and two spare 15 round magazines. Why so many? Because if your gun jams, the most likely cause is a defective magazine. The best method of clearing it is to eject the magazine, cycle out the jammed round, and put another magazine in the weapon.  A trained individual can perform a clearance drill faster than I can type out how to do it.

The current debates on gun control have nothing to do with gun control, in reality.  Instead, they are designed to eventually disarm the American people.  Using Alinski-ite tactics, they have isolated an enemy, focused on it, demonized it, and are preparing to ban it.  But assault weapons, universal background checks, and so called high capacity mags will not be the last..  It never is.  When yet another tragedy occurs, and it will, they will be back, dancing in the blood, and screaming for more.  We must stand firm and say not one more inch.  Then, when the current battles have blown out, we must begin the push back to repeal as many laws as we can.  

Sunday, March 3, 2013

A Very Good Start at Putting Gun Grabbers on their Heels

Selwyn Duke has been carrying on a debate with gun grabber Brett Joshpe at the American Thinker.  Duke's latest can be found at The Great Gun Debate: New Laws? The opening salvo can be found at Sensible Arms Policy by Brett Joshpe, followed up by The Great Gun Debate: Selwyn Duke vs. Brett Joshpe .  Joshpe's first piece essentially asserted, without much proof, that the arguments of gun rights advocates are either dismissed or somehow were less persuasive than the arguments of gun grabbers. Selwyn Duke takes these on in his rebuttal, calling the 22,000 gun laws currently on the books, all of which were supposed to stop criminals from committing crimes "insane."  Joshpe then came back with The Great Gun Debate. Mr. Joshpe:
I have heard on many occasions the argument that "when every second counts, the police are just minutes away." I find the idea that every second counts persuasive. We are reminded that an AR-15 can shoot up to 60 rounds per minute (or one per second). That means six to eight seconds can mean six to eight shots, which can mean six to eight lives. That can make a real difference, especially if your kid is hit by the last bullet fired.
The argument that Joshpe is making is, in essence, the emotional "but if it saves just one life, it is worth it" argument. Joshpe concedes that Duke's response to his original article is basically correct, but Mr. Joshpe still feels as if SOMETHING, anything, must be done. Even if what is done is ineffective, as Duke showed, even if the slippery slope argument in this case has merit, we simply can't let this opportunity to pass without making yet more laws, because...because?   Because people who feel their emotions more than they think with their heads are running in circles screaming and shouting that something must be done.

Interestingly, putting teachers who have concealed carry licenses already, and who volunteer to undergo special training and carry their weapons while at school would do much to protect our children.  If schools were no longer "gun free" and the shooters who commit these crimes knew it, it would stop at least some of them.  If a shooter doesn't know who might be carrying, of where he or she is, that adds an extra problem to overcome.  For, while people who commit school shootings are not thinking properly, the knowledge that nobody at the schools is armed to stop them, by government decree, empowers them to choose schools as opposed to...say...a gun store, as a site to commit their crimes.  Indeed, John Lott has noted that all mass shootings in modern times, except for Gabby Giffords, have occurred in "gun free zones."  Maybe it's time we tried something different, rather than doing the same old thing and expecting different results.

Now, Duke goes even further in demolishing Joshpe's arguments" (emphasis mine):
In other words, guns aren't a panacea - they couldn't be since the problem is people - but they can be a mitigating factor. And they are - every single day. In fact, Florida State University criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck found that guns are used by Americans to ward off criminals 2.2 to 2.5 million times per year. Of course, these defensive uses of firearms wouldn't be necessary if there weren't so much criminality in the first place. And this brings us to the most important point: when criminality increases to fearsome levels is when good people need guns most.

Yet this is precisely when the fear-governed gun grabbers want to take them away.

Does this make sense? You might as well say that the United States should have responded to Pearl Harbor by unilaterally disarming.
As for the argument that Joshpe doesn't know if the magazine capacity should be limited to 10, or15 rounds, but it shouldn't be 30, William A. Levinson has argued that:
When it comes to rifles, police departments believe the answer to be no less than 30 rounds of .223, as shown by their deployment of AR-15s. The only difference between a police officer and a private citizen is that the former has the authority and duty to intervene in situations that the ordinary citizen should, or even must, avoid. If either needs a firearm for any non-sporting purpose, though, he...needs it for exactly the same reason. The definition of a weapon that is "reasonable" for legitimate self-defense is therefore, "Any weapon that is routinely available to law enforcement agencies."
While this assertion will no doubt offend many who have come to look upon the police as soldiers fighting a never ending battle against heavily armed criminals, the truth is much more prosaic. The police are merely civilians who have been given some special training in police procedures, the laws, collecting evidence and a little training in the use of their sidearm and patrol rifle. They have been given special authority because of the job, but beyond that, they have no special moral authority to either command our respect or demand our unquestioned compliance. Rather, every officer commands our respect and compliance by how they act in any given situation, just as any other citizen.

The final point that Duke makes is that we in the gun rights movement have been "compromising" since at least 1934, painting ourselves into an ever smaller and smaller corner.  But as Duke points out, what has been happening is not compromise, because the other side never seems to give something up, and except for the 1994 AWB, nothing has ever been repealed, only added to:

It's like this: imagine some barbarians breach your borders and demand territory in Traditionland. You don't like this, but to avoid conflict give them a quarter of the land they want. But then they return a year later making the same demands - and again you cede a percentage of what's asked. Now, how long before this process ensures you have no homeland left?


I have just explained why conservatives have long been losing the cultural and political war. The liberals will never be satisfied because, being relativists, they have no definite vision of what they want civilization to be. All they can do is oppose what is. And what always is, is the status quo, which conservatives always defend - and always quite poorly. So unless we can stop being conservative and start being bold, and yell "Stop!" and mean it, the only thing in question about our complete and abject defeat will be the rate.
We need to begin formulating ways to push back the existing gun laws on the books at both the State and Federal level. Clearly, we will probably have more success at first on the State level. But there are things in the 68 GCA that can be attacked. Hitting hard on the fact that much so called gun control is racist in origin, and often acts to keep poor people from having the means to defend themselves, we can attack certain provisions of the act. The point is that we need to be on the offence all the time, proposing things that remove restrictions on gun ownership, and getting us back to the Constitution. It would be nice if the NRA led this effort, rather than looking to simply defend the status quo.   Just as the Left has been slowly moving the goal posts for 80 years, we need to start moving them back, with every victory for our side being just a good start.