VA Dems float prosecution, Nat. Guard deployment if police don't enforce gun control

**jpmuscle** · 02-18-20, 10:34

Originally Posted by BoringGuy45

And that's been a big part of the right's problem: We won't settle for anything less than the moon right here and right now. Any incremental change is considered "compromise" and that's a no-no.

It’s like you haven’t been paying attention to anything, ever.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**BoringGuy45** · 02-18-20, 10:38

Originally Posted by jsbhike

I rarely hear of any incremental changes for repeals of bad legislation other than during campaign season. Once the majority is achieved they ain't got no time for that with having to wait for the 94 Clinton ban to sunset as just 1 good example.

What I'm saying is we need to go for the "shoot for the moon and then see what we can get" strategy. Anytime a pro-gun bill comes up, it's always very minor, so it's only hit or miss in that case. I say get aggressive and audacious with the pro-gun bills and see what we can get out of them.

**jsbhike** · 02-18-20, 11:37

Originally Posted by BoringGuy45

What I'm saying is we need to go for the "shoot for the moon and then see what we can get" strategy. Anytime a pro-gun bill comes up, it's always very minor, so it's only hit or miss in that case. I say get aggressive and audacious with the pro-gun bills and see what we can get out of them.

Ahh gotcha, yes that should be the way instead of hollow excuses.

**BoringGuy45** · 02-18-20, 12:27

Originally Posted by jpmuscle

It’s like you haven’t been paying attention to anything, ever.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I gave your opinions any thought, I might be insulted.

**LoboTBL** · 02-18-20, 14:45

Originally Posted by BoringGuy45

And that's been a big part of the right's problem: We won't settle for anything less than the moon right here and right now. Any incremental change is considered "compromise" and that's a no-no.

I disagree. We on the right really haven't 'shot for the moon' at all. We've been steadily trying to scale back the draconian laws that were passed nearly a century ago while simultaneously playing the 'find the loophole' game all while those on the left keep trying to infringe further than they already have. Every time we do gain a little ground, the left comes after something else. I'm pretty sure you've seen the cake analogy that has been posted on threads of this nature before.

**BoringGuy45** · 02-18-20, 16:15

Originally Posted by LoboTBL

I disagree. We on the right really haven't 'shot for the moon' at all. We've been steadily trying to scale back the draconian laws that were passed nearly a century ago while simultaneously playing the 'find the loophole' game all while those on the left keep trying to infringe further than they already have. Every time we do gain a little ground, the left comes after something else. I'm pretty sure you've seen the cake analogy that has been posted on threads of this nature before.

That's what I'm saying. We need to shoot for the moon. Ask for exactly what we want, and maybe we'll get some of it. Then when the dust has settled, do it again and hopefully we'll get more. The problem is, we don't ask for anything because too many on the right won't accept anything unless they get everything. If you shoot for everything you want, and come to an agreement to, at the time, only get some of what you want, you'll be derided as a sellout. But that's the way the game is played. It worked for the Dems, which is why they are in the position they're in.

**jsbhike** · 02-18-20, 16:34

Originally Posted by BoringGuy45

That's what I'm saying. We need to shoot for the moon. Ask for exactly what we want, and maybe we'll get some of it. Then when the dust has settled, do it again and hopefully we'll get more. The problem is, we don't ask for anything because too many on the right won't accept anything unless they get everything. If you shoot for everything you want, and come to an agreement to, at the time, only get some of what you want, you'll be derided as a sellout. But that's the way the game is played. It worked for the Dems, which is why they are in the position they're in.

I don't recall anyone that wants anti-gun laws repealed complaining over any laws getting repealed. What I have seen is candidates running on a pro 2nd Amendment platform and then not doing anything pro 2nd when they get in and their boosters saying other issues are more important.

It is rather telling that typically the only time pro 2nd legislation is brought up is when democrats are in the majority.