Are We Fighting Gun Control Wrong?

[giggitygiggity]

I've been thinking a lot about how to get people to support 2A rights and I think we, as a gun community/culture have been doing some things wrong. I think the biggest thing that we do is make 2A rights a party issue. The stereotypical Republican supports guns, is Christian, favors defense spending, dislikes welfare/social programs, against gay marriage, is pro-life, etc whereas the stereotypical Democrat is the opposite.

I think we create this idea that if you are a gun supporter, you have to be a Christian, favor defense spending, dislike welfare/social programs, be against gay marriage, be pro-life, etc. Therefore, when you have someone who is pro-choice or gay or shares a belief/ideal that is not in line with the stereotypical Republican, they naturally exclude themselves or we (the gun community/culture) exclude them from our hobby. There is this idea that it is all or nothing. "I am not going to become a gun person because all gun people are Christians, against gay marriage, etc and that's not where I stand on those issues."

We need to stop making this a party issue and start making this a civil liberty issue. We need to stop lumping gun rights in with all the other Republican beliefs. We need to say be able to put aside other differences in beliefs and invite and expose others to the gun community/culture. For instance, you have a coworker who has never been shooting and you don't want to hang out with him outside of work because he supports gay marriage and you don't; if he is otherwise an OK guy, put that difference aside and ask him to come shoot one day after work. If he likes it, that's cool and perhaps he'll pick it up as a hobby and support gun rights; if not, there's no loss.

I suppose my main point is that we may be losing 2A supporters simply because we outcast people because they don't share the stereotypical gun supporter's extended beliefs.

I'm interested in your thoughts. Before this thread gets carried away, recognize that I used some generalizations. Also, please don't make this political and get the thread closed down. Stick to the issue of how we can better sway people to support gun rights.

 

[AlexanderA]

Yes. I agree completely. What you are describing is a symptom of the growing "political tribalism" that has taken hold in the country in the last few years.

The gun rights movement, to be successful, must transcend partisan divisions. The NRA used to pride itself on being non-partisan. It would support Democrats and Republicans alike, as long as they were strong on the gun issue. For example, the longtime Michigan Democratic congressman, John Dingell, was on the NRA Board of Directors.

In recent years, under the leadership of Wayne LaPierre, the NRA has transformed itself into an arm of the Republican Party. And more than that -- in his recent editorials in the American Rifleman, LaPierre has seemed to enlist the NRA, as an organization, as part of Trump's personal fan club. Considering that Trump's personal support base is no more than 35% of the electorate, this makes organized gun owners part of a distinct minority. This strategy, in the long run, is suicidal for gun rights.

 

[Sam1911]

This is going to be difficult to keep within the tight lines we set out for keeping THR out of political discussions except as pertains most directly to gnu rights.

However, I completely agree and have argued this exact point in very recent threads. (Like the one on the NRA's latest ad attacking social justice protesters.)

The question isn't simple and how you feel about it depends a lot on whether you really like the split society, us-vs-them, Liberal-vs-Conservative, situation we're deep into right at the moment. If so, you probably like this video.

If you feel that society will not continue to be so rigidly fractured along party platform lines, then you probably see that gun rights should never be rigidly tied to any other social issues, or to either political party.

RKBA =/= abortion, religion, climate change, social justice, immigration, healthcare reform, Republican Party, prayer in schools, etc. =/= RKBA

Society may go in any number of directions as we sort out all of those other issues. We do not want our right to bear arms tied to any of them in the public consciousness, to float or sink with them.

 

[jdc1244]

We need to stop making this a party issue and start making this a civil liberty issue.

Agreed.

 

[nettlle]

I don't think that it is correct to say that those that support gun rights are always tied to a particular party. Although for the last few decades I seem to have been so.

I have always voted 100% pro-gun. That's not all that hard to do. What ever political party tags along for this ride is more than welcome.

 

[equin]

I agree. I’m not a member of this organization, but I understand the Liberal Gun Club has been growing in numbers. I wonder if the rhetoric sometimes espoused by a few within our national gun culture is driving that growth and dividing 2nd Amendment supporters as a whole.

 

[JeffG]

I've been thinking a lot about how to get people to support 2A rights and I think we, as a gun community/culture have been doing some things wrong. I think the biggest thing that we do is make 2A rights a party issue. The stereotypical Republican supports guns, is Christian, favors defense spending, dislikes welfare/social programs, against gay marriage, is pro-life, etc whereas the stereotypical Democrat is the opposite.

I think we create this idea that if you are a gun supporter, you have to be a Christian, favor defense spending, dislike welfare/social programs, be against gay marriage, be pro-life, etc. Therefore, when you have someone who is pro-choice or gay or shares a belief/ideal that is not in line with the stereotypical Republican, they naturally exclude themselves or we (the gun community/culture) exclude them from our hobby. There is this idea that it is all or nothing. "I am not going to become a gun person because all gun people are Christians, against gay marriage, etc and that's not where I stand on those issues."

We need to stop making this a party issue and start making this a civil liberty issue. We need to stop lumping gun rights in with all the other Republican beliefs. We need to say be able to put aside other differences in beliefs and invite and expose others to the gun community/culture. For instance, you have a coworker who has never been shooting and you don't want to hang out with him outside of work because he supports gay marriage and you don't; if he is otherwise an OK guy, put that difference aside and ask him to come shoot one day after work. If he likes it, that's cool and perhaps he'll pick it up as a hobby and support gun rights; if not, there's no loss.

I suppose my main point is that we may be losing 2A supporters simply because we outcast people because they don't share the stereotypical gun supporter's extended beliefs.

I'm interested in your thoughts. Before this thread gets carried away, recognize that I used some generalizations. Also, please don't make this political and get the thread closed down. Stick to the issue of how we can better sway people to support gun rights.

Of course you are correct.
For a group, any group to stay strong, and keep wide membership, they have to be INCLUSIONARY, nor exclusionary.... That is waaaaay easier said than done. To be a single issue (pro-gun ownership) person with a group can be tough. It used to be we were all Americans firts. Now it seems groups are splitting off and hating all over the place, some not wanting America to stay sovereign.

Going to the range or LGS and rubbing shoulders with people with other lifestyles and beliefs, simply because we are all 2nd A, gun owners. Example: Going to the range and listening to a group touting the Communist takeover of the government and the military....and smiling and nodding because we are, after all, gun owners.... Hmmmmm....might be a tough pill to swallow sometimes. It flies in the face of a few definitions: conservative, loyalty, veteran, Muslim or Christian, straight or gay... socialist or, or...see?

Trust me I have no solutions, but I have thought about some of these issues....

 

[JohnKSa]

In theory it sounds great. In practice, at some point we must select people to represent us in the legislature if we want something more than a fun social experience out of our group.

If we include people who like guns but vote for representatives who actually hurt the cause of gun rights, then what good has it done the cause to include them in the community?

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the gun community should exclude people based on their socio-political leanings, just pointing out that being inclusive doesn't necessarily pay big dividends when it comes to making concrete gains or avoiding concrete losses.

 

[drk1]

Thank you for your post regarding the 2nd Amendment and party affiliation. You begin by stating: "We need to stop making this a party issue and start making this a civil liberty issue." That is precisely what the NRA has been doing for much of the last 140+ years. Unfortunately, very few people understand the civil rights advocacy of the NRA and when it is brought forward, it is often characterized as insincere, unbelievable, inaccurate or simply a self serving effort to put more guns in the hands of more people. For example, in 2013 when NRA President David Keene spoke about the origins of gun control being racial, he was attacked as inaccurate and the NRA itself attacked as a racist organization. Political partisanship has been a part of "civil rights" and the 2nd Amendment for a long time.

If we look at any general history of the NRA, the organization is portrayed as being formed after the Civil War, by a bunch of officers who found that their troops really couldn't shoot very good and wanted to do something about improving marksmanship. While that is accurate in broad terms, the complications begin right here. First, many of the officers that formed the NRA were also members of the Grand Army of the Republic, which means that they were largely also Republicans. Second, "civil rights" was an issue that both the army and the Republicans recognized as important during the years following the Civil War, particularly when the army was trying to oversee the provisions of Reconstruction in the South. Third, the people opposed to Reconstruction were Democrats. Fourth, the opposition to Reconstruction by Democrats led them to pass a variety of laws that limited the civil rights of freedmen to own and/or carry firearms. So, the link among civil rights, the 2nd Amendment, gun control and political parties has a long history.

In the 20th century the link between gun control, civil rights and political parties became even stronger. Throughout the century, the Democrats opposed civil rights and proposed the vast majority of gun control legislation. Probably the most notable early success for the Democrats was the passage of the Sullivan Act in 1911. The Democrats have followed that path ever since then. At the same time, the Republican Party has recognized that fact, and consequently has come to take the "gun vote" for granted. In short, Republicans realize that "gun voters" really have no place else to go: either vote Republican or vote for the "gun grabbing" Democrats.

So, where do we go? Vote for a Democrat who says "I believe in the Second Amendment," even though he had already proposed licensing and registering gun owners while privately saying that he did not believe in civilian ownership of firearms? That seems to be taking a pretty big chance for many of us. Or vote, Republican and be ignored? Not really much of a choice is it?

 

[MistWolf]

Our 2nd Amendment rights is not a civil rights issue. Civil rights are issued by the government and can be taken away by the government. Our 2nd Amendment rights, along with all other rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights is granted to us by our Creator

 

[grampajack]

I will concede that some dems could be pro gun, just like some conservatives can be liberal on certain issues, like gay marriage or whatnot.

The reason though why gun control will always be a left vs. right issue is that there are two basic philosophies when it comes to government. You either believe in individual liberties, or you believe in collectivism, which sacrifices the rights of the individual for the good of the state.

What it really boils down to is the security of the state being more important than the security of the individual, which necessitates removing guns from individuals at the expense of their personal safety. Free speech is the same way. It represents a threat to the state, so individual free speech must be stamped out.

 

[Sam1911]

If we include people who like guns but vote for representatives who actually hurt the cause of gun rights, then what good has it done the cause to include them in the community?

As with anything political, the picture is more nuanced than that. (And, of course, more nuanced than simply saying "we need to include everyone," would imply.)

At this moment, and for some time now, one party has more or less played along with gun rights and the other has come down hard against. But parties are made up of people and the politicians who rise within those parties have to appeal to the people who make up that party. In some very real ways the parties do tell their members what to think (overtly and covertly), but it's a two-way street. (As illustrated, perhaps, by the recent election.)

Working hard to educate people about guns and gun rights -- not by shouting at them but by welcoming them -- gets more people on "the other side" to lose their willingness to go along with anti-gun schemes. Parties do slowly move around -- gain and drop planks from their platforms.

The end goal is not to perpetuate the R party. The end goal is to move to a place where NO party has an interest in gun control. Where our gun rights are not threatened, no matter whether the Ds or the Rs are in the ascendancy at the moment.

"We" (whatever that means to you) will not always hold the seat of power and all of these social issues may fluctuate. Our kids' kids may not even remember a time when abortion was discussed by politicians. Might only read about a time when gays were looked down on and couldn't marry in text books. Might operate in a technological-economic system that's some new idea that make socialism and capitalism irrelevant. Who knows? But we need to disconnect RKBA from association with "a side" in these debates which will eventually fade away.

 

[AlexanderA]

Our 2nd Amendment rights is not a civil rights issue. Civil rights are issued by the government and can be taken away by the government. Our 2nd Amendment rights, along with all other rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights is granted to us by our Creator

Well, no. Throughout history, rights -- all rights, including gun rights -- have been wrested by the people from reluctant authorities. Often, these reluctant authorities have cited the Divine Will as the justification for their repression (such as through the theory of the "divine right of kings," etc.). (Remember that slavery was once thought to be God-ordained.) Besides that, saying that rights are God-given (rather than Man-secured) ties those rights directly to a belief in an interventionist Deity -- a belief that is by no means universal. We are not passive recipients of divine largesse, but actors with our own Free Will.

 

[Skolnick]

there are two basic philosophies when it comes to government. You either believe in individual liberties, or you believe in collectivism ...

I agree.

I remember watching the Kefauver Hearings with my father (not that I wanted to, but I had no choice) and during a break they put on a skit where they presented two candidates running for office.

Candidate A said: Vote for me and I'll be your voice in Washington. I'll make sure you're concerns are heard.

Candidate B said: Vote for me and I'll be your eyes and ears in Washington. I'll look out for your bests interests.

Then they asked which candidate is your favorite. If you say "A", you're a conservative; if you say "B", you're a liberal.



51% of the vote gets you 100% of the power You never need any more than 51% of the votes to govern. If they can win without you, you are less than irrelevant; you can be villified with impunity.

My state rep explained why she voted for the much-despised Michael Madigan for Speaker of the Illinois House. According to her, he was going to win with or without her vote (true), and if he won without her vote, she would be in the position of having the Speaker not take her phone calls. That is how it works.

 

[Skolnick]

I will concede that some dems could be pro gun, just like some conservatives can be liberal on certain issues, like gay marriage or whatnot.

Can you name any Pro-Life Democrats?

According to Democrats for Life, one in three Democrats are Pro-Life. Assuming something like that is true, how many elected or appointed Democrats should there be versus how many are there? The very fact that there are groups that have to identify themselves as Pro-Life Democrats, tells you something.

Every hear of Republicans for the death penalty, or Democrats for tax increases, or Priests for immigration control?

 

[entropy]

51% of the vote gets you 100% of the power You never need any more than 51% of the votes to govern. If they can win without you, you are less than irrelevant; you can be villified with impunity.

Patently false; The Founding Fathers set the system up so this could never happen. Donald Trump would love to have 100% of the power so he could run the Govt. like he runs his business Empire. I thank <insert Deity name here> that he cannot. I am even gladder his opponent didn't win and have 100% of the power.

The Founding Fathers set the system up so this could never happen. I repeat this because the 'progressives' think they have come up with a way around it by using "Judicial Activism", but that is only temporary; Note most Circuit Court rulings that wouldn't stand as laws because of popular non-support are overturned by SCOTUS, and even unpopular legislative action (Volstead Act, anyone?) is eventually overturned by SCOTUS.

Can you name any Pro-Life Democrats?

Question's back on you; If the 1/3rd of Democrats that say they are pro-life voted that way, Roe v. Wade would be toppled easily. Yet is isn't because they won't vote that way! They can say what they want on their websites, and send targeted (pun intended) mail to 2A supporters all they want, but only how they vote is important. And then they do exactly what your State Rep. did; kow-tow to the party line. This goes on in both parties, and we are stuck with the resultant pissing contests, instead of common sense legislation.

 

[Rocketmedic]

I don't know how to defend a lot of gun rights after Vegas...

 

[entropy]

By bringing back good old fashioned "personal responsibility" for one's actions. Hold responsible the person,not the tool.

 

[AlexanderA]

The reason though why gun control will always be a left vs. right issue is that there are two basic philosophies when it comes to government. You either believe in individual liberties, or you believe in collectivism, which sacrifices the rights of the individual for the good of the state.

This greatly oversimplifies things. Left to their own devices, most people have a mix of ideologies -- they may be individualist on some issues, and collectivist on others. For example, they may be socially conservative and economically liberal (or vice versa). The problem with our current "political tribalism" (polarization) is that it forces people into ideological straitjackets. You have to buy the whole program -- even though you may personally disagree with some of it -- in order to fit into your preselected "tribe" or affinity group. This sort of thinking will end up tearing the country apart. We have to bridge our differences, and allow for diversity of opinion.

The whole point of this discussion is that guns are not really a left vs. right issue. Lots of people who self-identify as liberals still believe in gun rights. All the pro-gun people need to work together for gun rights, regardless of their other opinions.

 

[Blackstone]

By bringing back good old fashioned "personal responsibility" for one's actions. Hold responsible the person,not the tool.

While I agree with this, it feels like personal responsibility is about as useful as spouting the usual platitudes of sympathy and condolences after the matter

 

[entropy]

The reason though why gun control will always be a left vs. right issue is that there are two basic philosophies when it comes to government. You either believe in individual liberties, or you believe in collectivism, which sacrifices the rights of the individual for the good of the state.

In addition, if this were true, it would be the Libertarians vs. Democrats. Both sides want to restrict things they don't trust themselves with for everyone.

While I agree with this, it feels like personal responsibility is about as useful as spouting the usual platitudes of sympathy and condolences after the matter

That's because the last 4 or so generations of people living where you are grew up with little to no personal responsibility, whereas it's only 2 generations here. Sadly, there is little hope for them, unless they have personal epiphanies, but we can start by wresting the education system from the collectivists.

 

[1stmarine]

The politicians are no fools, they know how to exploit the fears of the people to polarize the population and sometimes bring them to extremes
and make promises on things that can never be delivered. The primaries process is part of the problem where it all becomes a big pack of lies from both sides.
IMO the main problem is that, as individuals, although we might have strong principals, we fall short in, enthusiasm and determination to come together and to defend fundamental rights.
I don't see many people defending the violation of 2A rights with the same fervor and respect as 1st amendment rights whether they are color, religion or freedom of speech.
When is the last time you assisted a massive rally or we came together with massive disruption to claim responsibility to those who got our votes and failed to deliver?
The lack of accountability is not something the politicians created. We have allowed this because we have been very complacent.
I think we have allowed political correctness to relegate some rights as "less important" when the 2A is as important as any other rights.
I agree we should make very clear to any politician from any party that the 2A will not be used as a bargaining chip to cash in votes and to further polarize
people on other subjects and following the trend of social and political tribalism. Fundamental rights must be first. Then we can talk about the other things.

 

[Skolnick]

Patently false; The Founding Fathers set the system up so this could never happen.

Yes, I should have worded that more carefully.

The Founding Fathers set up a wonderful systems of checks and balances. To completely control the FEDERAL government is as humanly impossible as anything can get. That being said, 100% of the power of each office goes to the candidate with 51% of the vote.

The premise of the movie "Swing Vote" is about a quirk in New Mexico law that has the entire president election literally coming down to the delayed vote of one man. In reality, the 2000 presidential election was decided by 537 votes in Florida. Likewise, in real life, two consecutive Congressional Representative elections in my district came down to 20 votes collectively; one was decided by 6 votes. There have been instances where mayoral elections were decided by a coin flip. The winner of those elections, by fractions of a percent or coin flip, got 100% of the power of the office. The loser didn't even get an honorary position of advise and consent.

Question's back on you; If the 1/3rd of Democrats that were pro-life voted that way, Roe v. Wade would be toppled easily. Yet is isn't because they won't vote that way! They can say what they want on their websites, and send targeted (pun intended) mail to 2A supporters all they want, but only how they vote is important. And then they do exactly what your State Rep. did; kow-tow to the party line. This goes on in both parties, and we are stuck with the resultant pissing contests, instead of common sense legislation.

I am not sure what the question is!

But I agree, the game is rigged.

As always, actions speak louder than words. Regardless of what politicians say or promise, it is what they do that matters. And for the most part, big city Democrats are far less likely to vote in favor of gun rights.

Also, I would like to note that the slow, but sure growth of the country coupled with the fixed size of the House moves politicians further away from the People. The Framers set it up as one to 30,000; by 1910 when they fixed the size, it was one to 215,000; today it is one to 570,000. With about a fourth of our population, the British House of Commons has 650 members. With less than 20% of our population Canada has 338 members in its House of Commons.

Again, the more people each politician represents, the further away from the people they are. If that wasn't true, they would only need a President in Charge of Everything.

 

[everydefense]

Yes, thankfully (us) Libertarians embrace those folks that are turned off by GOP politics but believe in freedom in general, including the RKBA. You (the OP) are right that often people mistakenly believe that politics are a "all or nothing" package deal, though. Good point.

I don't know how to defend a lot of gun rights after Vegas...

What detail about the Vegas shooting would you ban, and how would that improve the public's safety? How would you implement your new law so that it would cover 100% of persons in the country? Or would the new restriction(s) simply be another "feel-good" law that simply restricts law-abiding citizens while criminals/terrorists continue unaffected?

 

[bikerdoc]

I don't know how to defend a lot of gun rights after Vegas...

Simple, deflect to the failed mental health system. This guy should have been on the radar long ago.