Gold Supporter
- Messages
- 24,813
- Reactions
- 37,688
After hearing from a few convincing members in another thread and giving it a lot of thought, I agree that a Train Wreck Strategy would be the right way to deal with anti-gun laws. You might compare it to pulling the band aid off quickly versus slowly. In the case of Measure 114, my original thought was to try and save local gun shops and help gun owners mitigate how Measure 114 will impact their lives. The problem that was pointed out to me is that, if an anti-gun law is implemented smoothly and with more tolerable impacts on gun owners, it may not be despised as much as it would be if the impacts were disastrous.
The old saying no pain no gain might apply here. In the case of Measure 114, if the "gain" is making people realize they should have voted no on Measure 114, made a greater effort to help defeat Measure 114 or have Measure 114 dealt with sooner rather than later in the Courts, we may need to experience "pain" to achieve that.
Using a DEQ law analogy I brought up in another thread, imagine if a DEQ implementation had disastrous impacts versus a smoother transition. What if voters only had 30 days from the time the DEQ law was passed to comply. Imagine further that the DEQ test was required on all cars new and used to register them but the State didn't even have the program set up and funding wasn't being made available to set the program up. Dealerships would be going out of business left and right and massive numbers drivers would be driving around with expired tags, getting tickets, etc. Nobody could buy or sell and legally transfer the vehicles. I bet there would have been a pretty big uproar amongst the voters and courts probably would have been asked to intervene pretty quickly.
Give it some thought, and if you still believe a smoother implentation and less pain is a better strategy, let us know why.
The old saying no pain no gain might apply here. In the case of Measure 114, if the "gain" is making people realize they should have voted no on Measure 114, made a greater effort to help defeat Measure 114 or have Measure 114 dealt with sooner rather than later in the Courts, we may need to experience "pain" to achieve that.
Using a DEQ law analogy I brought up in another thread, imagine if a DEQ implementation had disastrous impacts versus a smoother transition. What if voters only had 30 days from the time the DEQ law was passed to comply. Imagine further that the DEQ test was required on all cars new and used to register them but the State didn't even have the program set up and funding wasn't being made available to set the program up. Dealerships would be going out of business left and right and massive numbers drivers would be driving around with expired tags, getting tickets, etc. Nobody could buy or sell and legally transfer the vehicles. I bet there would have been a pretty big uproar amongst the voters and courts probably would have been asked to intervene pretty quickly.
Give it some thought, and if you still believe a smoother implentation and less pain is a better strategy, let us know why.