I just finished reading US Rep Gabby Gifford and husband Mark Kelly's op-ed on this very topic:
my two takeaways: First, they have two guns at home in the safe, so they do not advocate an outright ban on all guns (did not state what type of firearms, but I'm guessing EBRs are not part of their collection), and second, she/they see the NRA as a malevolent lobbying group which does not reflect the attitudes of their members. A divide and conquer strategy, which I have seen a great deal of over the past several weeks.
They specifically address extended capacity magazines (actually referred to as 'clips')... and no specific number of rounds was included in this description, but other than that, I noted no specifics of a proposal. It was simply advocating a "common sense approach", which I also have heard/read much of from the last few weeks. It is essentially a preaching to the anti-choir and the message, to me at least, is "do something...anything".
Now, I mean no disrespect to Ms. Giffords nor her husband, and take nothing away from the tremendous challenges that she has overcome and the brave nature of her recovery. I have the utmost respect for what she has been through. However, her unique experiences qualifies her beyond most to make such an impassioned argument, based on emotion... and her message will be well received by many because of her unique qualifications. The open ended nature of her proposal lends weight to the anti-gun crowd to push for every limitation short of a total ban on all guns... once again, based on emotion. I mean, during this day and age, who could possibly be against her?
The answer is much of what we do here on this very board: separate the emotion from the discussion and deal only in facts. The fact is that more laws only apply to those who respect the law in the first place. We outlawed larceny a long time ago but that hasn't made a big difference. Just be advised that more arguments will be made by others with similar experiences (Sarah Brady and Carolyn McCarthy are two examples, although their experiences are in the more distant past which reduces the effectiveness), and our only hope is to not be drawn into unwinnable debates based only on emotion, because with the proliferation of low-information voters, an emotional message is the most likely to take root.
another point, taken from another thread... is that as a community we must police our actions and words in order to represent the honest and law abiding citizens we are, because when MSM "news" outlets want to get the "other" point of view, you can bet they will be looking for the most uninformed, unintelligent, and profane person they can find to represent our point of view. We gotta vote those types of folks off our island.