Pull up a chair and let Uncle Tom tell you all a little story.

Once upon a time, the nation wasn't quite as divided on guns as it seems today. Well, they were--there were always those who wanted to restrict gun rights in some way or another and others who didn't want that--but it looked a lot different. Pro-gun folks were willing to sit down and talk. They were willing to try and give a little in the name of maintaining some domestic tranquility and hoping that it would put an end to the gun grab.

They were so naive they were almost adorable.

What actually happened was that anti-gunners took what they could get, and then before the ink was dry on the new law, they started trying to work on getting more gun control passed. 

Over and over again, what we've seen is that "compromise" on guns just means us giving up more and more of our rights while offering nothing in return. In time, we stopped playing. We realized where that path would lead and none of us wanted to go down that road. Here's my friend LawDog explaining how things went using his now-famous "I want my cake back" metaphor.

But it seems that some people think the way to get us willing to negotiate is to basically just threaten the Second Amendment, as gun control fan Dr. Tom Hastings argues. 

I would personally suggest the gun control groups develop a BATNA to help induce more good-faith negotiating. 

BATNA? Yes. It’s the ""best alternative to a negotiated agreement. It’s a term coined by William Ury and others at the Harvard Negotiation Project back in the late 1970s and first published in their little 1981 popular book, Getting to Yes. It simply means that, if you are trying to negotiate with anyone, it’s important to not only think about “what if these negotiations fail,” but to let the others know what you will be forced to do in that case. 

... 

So, back to gun control vs gun rights. My choice of BATNA would be, “Look gun rights people, we want to negotiate common sense regulations with you. However, literally every time we pass such measures at the local or state level, you work to overcome the will of the people by challenging those commonsense measures in court, with your lawsuits, and it’s all based on the Second Amendment. 

“No other country has anything like the Second Amendment and other countries that have dealt with this issue have passed commonsense restrictions, such as the assault weapon ban in Australia virtually immediately after a mass shooting there. 

“So we have a best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Our BATNA is that we are going to stop all other gun control work and focus all our resources on a campaign to repeal the Second Amendment. We have a template for that; the amendment outlawing alcoholic beverages was passed and a decade later that Amendment was repealed. We are either going to get your commitment to allow our democratically produced local and state laws honored or we will end our negotiations and begin a massive campaign to overturn the Second Amendment. 

Now, this is an approach that requires a dedicated, reasoned response completely with annotations, footnotes, and the works.

Here it is:

via GIPHY

Seriously? This guy actually thinks this is the way to get us to capitulate on gun control?

My guy, we've known that was the goal from the start. The only way that works as a BATNA is if that wasn't already understood to be the endgame of the entire effort in the first place. We call people like you "gun grabbers" because we know that was always where this was going to go.

But guess what? You're more than willing to try that approach here and now. Come on, I dare you to do just that.

As things currently stand, more than half of the states have some form of permitless carry. This was an issue that was fought over and battled against by gun control groups over and over again, and in more than half of the states, they lost.

So what you're proposing is that you rally up all the gun control advocates who have spent literal decades telling us, "I support the Second Amendment but..." and decide to go after the Second Amendment, all because we won't let you gut the Second Amendment, which would mean getting two-thirds of the states to agree with you despite more than half of them clearly being pro-gun.

See, the threat of a more dangerous alternative only works under two conditions. One is that the other side hasn't already figured that's the endgame anyway, as already noted, but the other is that the threat is viable.

For example, if I negotiate with the powers that be here at Bearing Arms for a pay raise, but offer the alternative of blowing up the moon if I don't get that raise, there's no reason for anyone on the other side of the table to take my threat seriously.

That's pretty much what this guy is advocating for, and frankly, it's hilarious. Not because he wants to try this but because he really doesn't get how well we understand his side of the debate.