I think I can distill it to two possible outcomes:
1) With Constitutional Carry there will be more idiots with guns and, in the current social climate of hypocritical extremism on all sides, there will be more horrific events that are successfully used to rationalize abridging the rights of responsible gun owners.
2) Even without a sharp rise in violence, (both sides are painting a 'rising violence' narrative to support their positions when, in fact, we're STILL way down off our horrific highs in violent crime, yes, even in those areas so many pro 2A folks use dogwhistles and describe as $%^&holes because they're not REALLY mainly interested in 2A rights but rather some OTHER agendas I needn't name) the extreme anti-gun crowd will be so afraid it COULD happen, they'll successfully persist impose more restrictive policies because "just too many scary guns with too many people".
It seems likely both of these lead to a long term reduction in gun rights on a Federal level. Remember, women had a constitutional right to determine of themselves whether to bear a child for decades until.... not. Nobody should assume Bruen is forever.
Absolutism is met with absolutism.
"Compromise" doesn't mean 'you have been compromised', it means 'we came to an agreement neither party loves but can live with'.
Pro 2A absolutism, engineering 'gamesmanship' (strangely similar to F1 rule interpretation which for a sport is fun, but for 'real life' is a recipe for disaster) for example wherein the "no new full auto" intent of NFA related regs' spirit is being breached, tone elements that raise the temperature like truly reckless or downright fascistic 'GunTubers' being positioned as 2A champions, bozos open carrying at Starbucks... all these are frustratingly self defeating tactics that won't, in the long term, maintain and broaden 2A rights.
I sure would like to be able to have my rights maintained and am absolutely willing to take responsibility for exercising those rights not just responsibly but politely in order to keep and even broaden those rights.
1) With Constitutional Carry there will be more idiots with guns and, in the current social climate of hypocritical extremism on all sides, there will be more horrific events that are successfully used to rationalize abridging the rights of responsible gun owners.
2) Even without a sharp rise in violence, (both sides are painting a 'rising violence' narrative to support their positions when, in fact, we're STILL way down off our horrific highs in violent crime, yes, even in those areas so many pro 2A folks use dogwhistles and describe as $%^&holes because they're not REALLY mainly interested in 2A rights but rather some OTHER agendas I needn't name) the extreme anti-gun crowd will be so afraid it COULD happen, they'll successfully persist impose more restrictive policies because "just too many scary guns with too many people".
It seems likely both of these lead to a long term reduction in gun rights on a Federal level. Remember, women had a constitutional right to determine of themselves whether to bear a child for decades until.... not. Nobody should assume Bruen is forever.
Absolutism is met with absolutism.
"Compromise" doesn't mean 'you have been compromised', it means 'we came to an agreement neither party loves but can live with'.
Pro 2A absolutism, engineering 'gamesmanship' (strangely similar to F1 rule interpretation which for a sport is fun, but for 'real life' is a recipe for disaster) for example wherein the "no new full auto" intent of NFA related regs' spirit is being breached, tone elements that raise the temperature like truly reckless or downright fascistic 'GunTubers' being positioned as 2A champions, bozos open carrying at Starbucks... all these are frustratingly self defeating tactics that won't, in the long term, maintain and broaden 2A rights.
I sure would like to be able to have my rights maintained and am absolutely willing to take responsibility for exercising those rights not just responsibly but politely in order to keep and even broaden those rights.