Mark Bauer asks:
I take a slightly different view of both what’s needed and what’s possible. But first, the latter.
As I’ve pointed out in other writings, there is no demand amongst pro-gun types for a “moderate” org that’s interested in giving ground to gun control folks. So any org that understands itself that way is DOA.
I personally am not also interested in compromise for the sake of compromise. Rather, as I mentioned in the welcome post, I’m interested in making things better. So under the rubric of “making things better,” there is already a wide variety of views just among the handful of us that have come together to get this forum off the ground.
I proposed a federal licensing scheme in Politico:
And also, yes, I am down with the GVRO idea.
@Docrader, at least in my experience (but he can speak for himself here) is more along the lines of, “what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ is unclear to you.”
And other folks who’ve been involved in the discussions leading up to this forum rollout can drop in and make themselves known, because I’m sure there are even more takes on this.
But we all have a few things in common, the first and foremost being that we believe civilian gun ownership is a critical part of the bigger picture of “safety” and even “gun safety.” From there, individuals will diverge and probably even evolve on the specifics of what that looks like.
So, speaking for myself, I am always up for considering “measures that save lives,” and actually I imagine that’s true of most folks who’d be interested in something like Open Source Defense. So if you can show me a measure that will save lives, then to the extent that you can convince people here that it really will save lives while leaving our RKBA intact, I’m sure you could get takers.