You need anchor people on both ends of the rope if you want to have a chance at pulling things to the center.

Notable to the tug-of-war metaphor, things are mighty muddy there in the middle.

That won't get the job done.

Although I would not be opposed to starting with "all guns," I think eliminating the "family deer rifle" (as one poster put it) would be a tough start.

I have no problem with the banning the family "assault" weapons though. In fact, one of our biggest problem is those who actually think "assault" weapons are a great way to spend a family outing.

BTW -- I consider assault weapons as just about any semi-automatic, rifle or handgun. If we banned those, the gun industry would all but dry up.

For example, myself. I own an assault rifle. I only fire it at the range. Little to no ammunition for it is kept in my home. Yes, I go with my family to the range with it. Family outing.

However, I'm fine giving it up if called upon to do so. I don't use it to hunt or to protect my family.

I don't know how they can't feel it. Newton killed a piece of me. I have three kids. Aged five, three and eighteen months. I was already willing to support reform, but that day made me passionate about it.

I don't see there is going to be a win win agreement to this issue. Which ever side is the strongest will win.

But that won't stop the Gladys Kravitz's of the world from pursuing it anyway.

Such a strategy would only play into the hands of those who would (not without justification, apparently) claim "See? that's what they have wanted all along: to completely eliminate civilian ownership of guns!" It would light a fire under the people who currently think "well, they're not after my deer rifle..."

Not sure how successful it will be

Its a very easy strategy to defeat. All they have to do is say, "go ahead" and let it fail.

At that point every more reasonable attempt can be framed as small step to the real goal of "eliminate guns altogether."