As is often the case for me, I found that my comment to this post grew a bit lengthy. So, for once, I decided to just make it a post of my own. The main thing that got my attention in this post was his reference to the "SNBI extremist" slur that floats around some of the gun blogs. To that, I had this to say.
While I do see the "SNBI" mentality criticized off an on, I really don't see people criticizing the belief that "shall not be infringed" means just that. It was my understanding that SNBI was used to refer to people like the following:
- Believes that just yelling "Shall not be infringed", or similar, in debates/conversations about gun rights is an effective tactic to sway those in the middle with no real opinion.
- Sees any law pertaining to firearms that infringes in some was as a horrible violation on us, even when it's a law that actually makes things better for us.
- Believes there's a realistic chance of having every bad gun law (i.e. virtually all of them) wiped away in one fell swoop, and anything various groups do to improve things that still fall short of that are proof of us "selling out".
There are a few things that I think are pretty safe to assume are true. First, gun owners are a minority, and gun owners that really care about gun rights are an even smaller one. Second, until we get more people in the middle to look at firearms the same way they do at a fire extinguisher, power tools, or a spare tire, we won't have much chance at getting the court decisions and laws that we would really like to see.
Personally, I refuse to alter my behavior to accomodate those who fight to take away my rights. But I will alter what I say and do to sway those in the middle towards my point of view. The way I see it, the former is just a pointless compromise, because nothing you will change their goal. But the latter drastically increases my chances of adding more people into our fold.