With respect to those of differing opinions, the issue here isn't our "rights", or, more correctly, what we think our rights are. Second Amendment issues are political issues, decided in legislative bodies or courts, and sometimes the voting booth. We have to understand that.
The challenge for us is persuading those who have the authority to make and interpret laws, that we are reasonable people whose positions are reasonable. This has the dual effect of making us sympathetic, and putting the "extremist" label on our opponents.
When I was younger, I was very politically active, mostly on motorcycling and motoring issues. I am a Life Member not only of the NRA, but of the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) and the National Motorists Association (NMA). I spent many hours in Annapolis, and some in Washington, lobbying and testifying on legislation.
Do you guys remember the National Maximum Speed Limit of 55 miles per hour? The NMA was founded in 1982 to repeal that law, and I was involved in that effort almost from its inception.
When I was lobbying and testifying (as a volunteer, not a paid lobbyist) for the repeal of the Double Nickle, I never, not once, took the bait when somebody would say to me "Well, I guess you don't think we really need speed limits, do you?" I always said that I wanted to empower transportation engineers to do their jobs, and set speed limits in accordance with their professional standards. Who could argue with that? It's a rational and reasonable position to take, and ultimately it won the day.
Well, I can easily make an argument in support of magazines that a rifle or pistol was originally designed to use. I can make an argument in support of magazines that I'll see at my rifle club, or in videos from Camp Perry, or in use by the military. I can point out that those very same mags are used every day by law abiding citizens for recreational shooting or self-defense, and that the Second Amendment clearly encompasses them.
I can easily defend the drum magazines for a Thompson, or the snail magazines for a Luger, as historically significant items that are of interest to collectors, and of no interest or value to criminals.
I cannot defend the pistol mags which sparked this discussion, nor can I defend accessories like bump stocks, which -- let's be honest here -- have no purpose but to get around federal firearms laws.
In this debate, I would we rather be seen as reasonable and rational, and the anti-gun folks as the extremists they are. We are in a longterm struggle for survival of the Second Amendment, and if we want to prevail, we have to be smart. That doesn't mean we have to "compromise" with the people who want to ban all firearms; it does mean we ought to pick our battles wisely, and not defend the indefensible.
If you've read this far, thanks.
