First and foremost, I am not endorsing this guy's approach. However, I was intrigued by his attempt to tap into what he considers "the center ground" on the 2nd Amendment debate.
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/07/24/bullet-initiative-354203.html
While I have an issue with at least one of his recommendation and don't see eye-to-eye with him on some of his underlying assumptions, his overall approach seems to have some potential to tap into the mushy middle of the country.
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/07/24/bullet-initiative-354203.html
Therein lies the chasm between those seeking constitutionally impossible forms of gun control and their political opponents, who view every proposal regulating weaponry as the first step toward dictatorship. Caught in the middle are the majority of Americans who think people should be allowed to keep guns but seesaw over tougher laws regarding those weapons.
There is, however, a simple solution, a common-sense compromise that will infuriate both sets of extremists in the gun debate, but would place the United States on a saner path:
- Ban accessories that serve no purpose other than to transform guns into weapons of mass slaughter, such as attachable drums that carry 100 rounds.
- Adopt rules that make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain firearms.
- Outlaw the public display of weapons.
- Allow the concealed carry of guns using the “shall issue” standard.
- Stop trying to ban scary-looking add-ons that primarily protect the shooter, but don’t make the gun more dangerous to others.
- Forget attacks on the “armor-piercing bullets.”
- Abandon efforts to outlaw “assault weapons”—a politically loaded phrase with a mishmash of meanings that pretty much amount to nothing.
While I have an issue with at least one of his recommendation and don't see eye-to-eye with him on some of his underlying assumptions, his overall approach seems to have some potential to tap into the mushy middle of the country.
Last edited: