Alright, I watched all four hours of the Senate gun control hearing and it is quite obvious what the game plan is for the gun banners. The gun rights side did a good job presenting their arguments, and initially I was surprised that they were allowed to do so without much vitriol from the gun banners, and I was initially surprised that 3 of 5 testifying were pro-gun. I withheld commenting yesterday as I wanted to mull it over and think on all that I had seen. The pro-gun people were articulate, prepared, and relied on facts to back up their assertions, while the anti-gun people relied on emotion, an attempt to falsely portray themselves as cordial and reasonable, and quite a bit of obfuscation as to their real intentions. All of the anti-gunners made it a point to state their support of the 2nd Amendment and the rights of gun owners, even going overboard at times doing so, as when the one female Senator from Michigan spoke of the large number of hunters in her State, and how "the last thing she wanted to do was anger her Uncle Dick in his deer stand." They (the anti-gunners), were attempting to reinforce into the minds of the uninformed that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was for Hunting and Self Defense, and that anyone who felt otherwise was an on the fringe nutcase. They did this by repeatedly speaking about hunting and how much they personally supported personal firearm ownership and supported the SCOTUS ruling in the Heller Case in DC, and by attempting to marginalize anyone who offered a reason to own a rifle similar to the AR15. They especially tried to marginalize the NRA with leading questions and innuendo when addressing Mr. La Pierre, smiling to his face while trying to trip him up and make him say something to make him (and the NRA stance on the 2nd Amendment as a whole) seem extreme. This was obvious when one of the male anti-gunner Senators asked Mr. La Pierre if he felt that the 2nd Amendment was to allow the people the means by which to defend against a tyrannical government. Only he phrased it as if amazed, and when he finally got an answer from Mr. La Pierre, he acted incredulous and addressed the anti-gun Police Chief from Baltimore (who was a prop by the anti-gunners to give the illusion that the law enforcement community was solidly behind them) with, "I just don't understand this thinking...that it is to protect against, fight back against the government or police" (paraphrased), to which the anti-gun Police Chief (Johnson I believe), agreed that he was at a loss to understand this thinking as well. The pro-gun side did a good job, and the anti-gun side played their hand and clearly showed the tactics they will use. It was also apparent that they allowed the 3 to 2 stacking of people testifying to make themselves appear to not be the aggressors in this debate. In a nutshell, they are playing nice to the cameras and attempting to marginalize and portray as extreme anyone who speaks about the real reason for the 2nd Amendment and anyone who believes in owing an AR style rifle, while at the same time trying to divide and conquer by kissing up to the hunting crowd, (They did this by all of them stating how much they supported hunting, and even had the female Senator from Hawaii talking about how many hunters her State had, and Mark Kelly speaking about how he and his wife were gun owners, how they had no intention of giving up their guns, and how he had recently purchased a hunting rifle from Wal-Mart.) The trick for the pro-gun side (all of us included) to win this, is to not allow them to frame the debate by dividing gun owners. Talk to hunters and all gun owners, and instead of opening with the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment in your conversation, explain to them that the current tactic is a "divide and conquer" strategy, and that hunting and personal defense firearms are no more safe than the AR-15 currently being demonized. Use the new law passed in NY State as an example of the anti-gun crowds true intentions, and encourage them to join the NRA to help keep their firearms, whether they have them for hunting, plinking, or self defense. But above all else, DO NOT COME ACROSS AS EXTREME, as this is exactly what the anti-gunners want you to do to achieve their goal. Make no mistake, they think they will win, they have a strategy to do so, and they are dangerous because they are making a concerted effort to hide their true intentions/goal, and many gun owners will fall for their lies because they are smiling and "making nice". That's it for my impression of the Senate hearing yesterday (Jan 30, 2013), and I apologize for any typos. If you desire, please feel free to share this to spread the word on what is the very apparent tactic (s) being employed by the anti-gun crowd, which coincidentally were all Democrat Senators and their mouth pieces (Chief Johnson and CPT Kelly USN ret).