View Single Post
  #44  
Old 02-22-2013, 1:11 AM
strlen strlen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 119
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Assuming you've already donated to the usual suspects, took your anti-2A friends to the range, here are few other high-impact activities:

First and foremost, vote in general elections. If you're concerned that being registered to vote might (oh the horror!) mean you have to be called up for jury duty, remember that they are already using driver's license information to this end.

Second, vote in primary elections. California's primaries are open: you don't have to be a member of a party to vote in their primaries. If there is a pro-2A democrat is running, contribute to their campaign (to the extent permitted by campaign finance laws), and vote to nominate them.

If a socially liberal republican is running, likewise vote to nominate them, even if they're not any better (in regards to the second amendment) than the democrats -- the point here would be to change California's perception of republican party as that of staunch social conservatives (when that's really not the case -- it is a fairly big tent) so that they're more likely to back pro-2A republicans as well.

Realize that people's political philosophies ("meta-politics", essentially -- not really the positions people hold, but the way they arrive at them) differ -- and know which arguments to use with which group. When writing letters -- especially to politicians on the fence -- unless the issue is clear cut constitutionally (e.g., a ban on semi-auto handguns, a 7 round magazine capacity limit, probably SB347), try to argue on the basics of policy as opposed to on constitutional grounds.

Here's what I would personally say -- "it is not clear whether passing SB47 will save any lives: magazine locks still make it difficult to quickly swap the magazine, no magazine locked AR has been used in a murder so far, it's already illegal to have a high capacity magazine with a fixed-magazine firearm. On the other hand, the ban imposes a burden on 3-gun competition shooters, varmint hunters, and countless other owners of what happens to already been one of the most popular civilian owned rifles in California. Finally, it is also likely that many firearm owners will remain unaware of rules related to registering this weapon, leading to needless suits, arrests, and other enforcement costs which could have used towards that could actually save more lives".

Become involved in your community (this is something I'd like to do more), but don't be "that gun guy/gal". Don't remain ignorant issues other than those that personally effect you. Be well read on history, ethics (*), and political philosophy. If someone proclaims "well wouldn't second amendment mean we can all have machine guns", instead of defending the idea of everyone owning machine guns (**), talk about how strong free-speech rights doesn't mean people can libel each other or make terroristic threats at will. Acknowledge that some restrictions are permissible, but mention that they should begin with a presumption of liberty: when advancing a restriction, be sure that the restriction is actually effective in its goals, while imposing the least possible burden on individuals whose rights are infringed (a layman's version of "strict scrutiny" I suppose).

Finally, stay here -- don't move away: at worst, there is plenty of time before the bills (if passed into law!) take effect, and property values in California will only keep rising further (ahead of other states): if you absolutely can't stand it, it will be more advantageous to leave in March 2014 than in March 2013.

* Understand the difference between arguing on the basis of utilitarianism (e.g., "guns reduce crime, so we should own them") and on an imperative/rights basis ("we should have a right to protect ourselves"). Avoid mixing the two together as it just muddles the discussion. Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals is very good introduction into what is probably common sense imperative/rights ethics.

** Personally I'm in favour of removing the FOPA amendment -- but that is far removed from any of my current concerns and I've little interest in talking about the NFA
Reply With Quote