It's not the way social change is accomplished. I know that people talk in those terms – especially politicians – but it's not how politicians and the ruling class work change in America. It's how they prove they are on one side of the issue or another. It's how they prove they're no threat and that their opponents provide the threat. It's how they've done business for forty years – and it's a winning strategy. Donald Trump made a speech in which he alleged that Hillary Clinton "wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment." Mrs. Clinton, in the third debate said, "I support the Second Amendment." In 1994 – and since – she supported the Clinton gun ban, a ban on certain firearms and "ammunition feeding devices." This was a law that saw prices on "pre-ban" guns and magazines sky rocket and saw chief law enforcement officer letters going to manufacturers to allow their officers to have these "highly dangerous" arms, these "weapons of war," according to the former Secretary of State. Meanwhile, at a Clinton campaign event on Sunday, October 23, in Las Vegas, Mr. Obama said, "They said I was gonna take everybody's guns away. So people have been hearing that, they start thinking, well, maybe it's true. So if the world that they've been seeing is that I'm powerful enough to cause hurricanes on my own and to steal everybody's guns in the middle of the night and impose martial law even though I can't talk without a prompter, then is it any wonder that they end up nominating somebody like Donald Trump?" While there were fringe elements trying to make the case that Mr. Obama was born overseas, that he was going to impose martial law and suspend the elections, and that he was going for firearms prohibition, his record makes it clear that his objective is indeed increasing restrictions on firearms ownership, carry and use – over time. It's something that the elders among us have seen since the mid-1960s in regards to firearms, but it is how the political class rules in America. See, they tried Prohibition – of alcoholic beverages – in the early 20th Century. They never forgot how that ended up. So when they hit upon the evil weed tobacco, they didn't ban cultivation, production, transportation, sale and possession of that substance: they did it piece by piece. They did this by use of media campaigns, taxation and co-opting useful idiots to send their message. In the case of tobacco, I personally have no problem with people not using it and moving others away from its use. To be fair, I'd think that if it was the deadly substance they say it is – they do have science on their side – not banning it while maintaining bans on other demonstrably dangerous substances is hypocritical. Now, as to guns, they've been using incrementalism to cut away at the Second Amendment since the clear and obvious success of the National Firearms Act of 1934 – which has likely contributed as little to public peace and safety as any statute ever passed. It doesn't have to work. You just have to have 'common sense regulation,' controlled by organizations that are never associated with common sense: government bureaucracies. Even the Los Angeles Times has finally recognized their technique. In a "Capitol Journal" report filed on Monday, Oct. 24, George Skelton laid out the case for doing what gun grabbers have been doing since before passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act: Proposition 63 would enact the toughest gun controls in the United States. But it also would do something else: represent an astonishing historical milestone. And if passed as expected, the ballot measure would illustrate a textbook example of how public policy can be radically changed in a democracy laden with competing checks and balances. How is that? Through the long, slow process of taking incremental steps over decades. By pushing hard and steadily, but with patience. (Source: Prop. 63) Hence the story is "death by a thousand cuts," being consumed a bite at a time. So what's the response? We've seen it: gun owners go on offense. You hit them by contact with legislators, from city councils all the way up to the Congress. You get on social media with every bit of news regarding nonsensical, silly and unconstitutional infringements so others in the gun culture are aware of it. You vote even when the non-prohibitionist candidate has no chance. You talk with other gun owners – those who own guns but depend on "us" to fight off assaults on the Constitution and basic civil rights. Gun owners have been successful in pushing pro-gun owner legislation state-by-state since 1986. There are more "free states" now than any time in our modern history as far as lawful concealed and open carry of firearms. The way to continue the trend is to learn from the enemy: bit by bit, piece by piece. Stay on offense. Push pro-freedom legislation and support pro-freedom candidates. As to the founding of this nation, what did the founders give us? According to the old story, Benjamin Franklin responded "a republic – if you can keep it." And that's the hard part. -- Rich Grassi