The flipside of this, though, is that it is also a smarter move on the part of gun-banners than in the past. The sociopolitical Left has two big psychological advantages over conservative in terms of tactical activism: They find it easier to think beyond themselves, and they don't have the same aversion to step-by-step, two-steps-forward/one-step-back strategies.
In this current bill, we see the first advantage in the form of playing on conservative/Right (and libertarian) individualism. The comparatively moderate substance of the current bill points to this. Since no one suddenly loses anything or has to pay anything or register anything ("If you like your 'AWs,' you can keep your 'AWs'"), the standard conservative self-focus stimies the typical 2A practitioner. It is harder for them to make "conservative" arguments against the bill that don't sound like corny appeals to patriotism or borderline-seditious plans for insurrection. The libertarian might yell about "freedom," but he will not address the public's underlying concerns.
And of course, there's the psychological impact that after years of fighting actual loss, the current bill is obviously a step down in threat levels. For example, noting the extra five rounds over the usual proposed limit is good, as it has political and tactical import. The fear is that the usual conservative aversion to devotion to activism will allow that to create complacency, both blunting any willingness to work for more mitigation now and nullifying any advantage from the time bought.
The grander approach is that this is much more multi-generational. In truth, all "freezes" and such are long term in approach, the idea being that existent stocks will dry up and existent arms will wear out or become so obsolete as to not be the threat gun-banners perceive them to be. In this bill's case, though, the non-transferability of high-capacity magazines points to the real thinking here. In truth, capacity is far more important tactically than grips and muzzle devices. The approach is that as current owners pass away, and their magazines have to be sold to "proper authorities," the capability of owners of any arms to carry out "mass shootings" will fade out within a few generations. The flipside, of course, is that the Militia efficacy of the People is also hampered.
A related aspect of the bill is the transfer requirements. Going through a licensed dealer produces a paper trail, which can be used to create over time a low-grade registry. This has long been the legitimate concern over background checks on private sales. (TDF 41 discusses this matter, with the solution laid out.) This also plays on individualism, as the seller is not impacted, only the buyer who failed to prepare. To some libertarians and individualists, it's almost a case of, "Well, they get what they deserve." And as with the bill itself, it's difficult for such people to come up with a substantive counterpoint that doesn't go against their own individualism.
All of this goes to the whole lesson of this TDF series, and is hardly a complete explanation behind the current bill. Indeed, as I did my usual embedding links to past issues into this text, I was overwhelmed by how much I had indeed covered this same ground. I can't begin to link to everything. And as a result, I have been reminded of why I started this series: "To aid gunners both practically and psychologically in the face what is quite possible and likely with the current Harris/Biden insurrection" (from TDF 25).
Reality is the answer.
Reality is the answer.
