Why 2A Rights are now a Partisan Issue...

[5whiskey]

Ok, I had to weigh pros and cons on posting this. I don't want to delve into partisan politics, but I found some tidbits in this article that merit discussion.

THIS SOURCE IS A BIASED AND PARTISAN SOURCE. I KNOW THIS. VALID POINTS ARE MADE IN THE ARTICLE AND THE OVERALL TONE IS CIVIL. IT DOES NOT DENIGRATE A POLITICAL PARTY

The article is here...

https://townhall.com/notebook/bethb...est-surrounding-guns-and-gun-control-n2498272

It basically discusses how gun ownership has evolved over time to be as partisan of an issue as it is today. My take-away now is that since we are at the point that Pro-2A is almost entirely Republican issue and gun control is almost an entirely Democrat issue, we have reached a critical mass where it can't separated from partisan politics. Having a pro-NRA stance as a Democrat candidate means you likely will not win a Democratic primary in most areas. Supporting any form of gun control as a Republican means you are likely doomed in any Republican primary. Because of this, we are likely to see no Democratic party support for 2A rights. In other words... neither party is likely to change their tune.

What struck me in the article is it shows this evolution. In 1993, 50% of Democrats had a favorable view of the NRA. Today? 24%. Once upon a time, gun control wasn't as partisan as it is today.

 

[BarryLee]

I suppose we could debate forever as to why things have evolved to this, but it does seem to be the case. I realize there are still some individual exceptions, but when you look at the national party platforms there is no doubt where the two groups stand. I know many gun owners who still vote for the party of gun control saying something along the lines of not being a one issue voter. I can understand that, but I wonder what philosophically allows one party to support the Second Amendment and one party to oppose what seems to be a clear Constitutional Right. I suppose we are seeing that difference in the battle to replace Justice Kennedy. Maybe the issues are less about gun control and more about how they see the Constitution and the rights/responsibilities of the individual over those of society.

 

[ATN082268]

Maybe the issues are less about gun control and more about how they see the Constitution and the rights/responsibilities of the individual over those of society.

A person's stance on one issue (like gun control) will frequently bleed over to other issues as well. If I disagree with someone on gun control, it is a pretty good bet that I will disagree with them on most to all other issues as well.

 

[5whiskey]

A person's stance on one issue (like gun control) will frequently bleed over to other issues as well. If I disagree with someone on gun control, it is a pretty good bet that I will disagree with them on most to all other issues as well.

I understand your point there, and I hold the same opinion. But, why is it like that? Why do we automatically believe that because we disagree with someone on gun control, we will also disagree with them on tax policy or immigration? Is it because we have been conditioned to a certain set of opinions because of our overall party affiliation? I'm just posing the question, I don't know the answer.

And my big question is how did one political party so effectively sell it's base on gun control over the last 25 years? That's one thing that I didn't really realize until reading that article. Gun rights has not always been a party line vote R vs D issue.

 

[ATN082268]

I understand your point there, and I hold the same opinion. But, why is it like that?

I'm sure there are a variety of reasons. Some people undoubtedly vote for party "x" for their whole life even though that party may not be the same as when they started voting for it. Some of it may be ideological. If you like to be personally responsible and independent, then you might not like big government.

 

[WyMark]

What struck me in the article is it shows this evolution. In 1993, 50% of Democrats had a favorable view of the NRA. Today? 24%. Once upon a time, gun control wasn't as partisan as it is today.

In my opinion almost all of the partisanship as well as the negative view is directly attributable to one person: 'lil Wayne. It's easy to trace the split back to his appointment in 1991.

 

[zukiphile]

I understand your point there, and I hold the same opinion. But, why is it like that? Why do we automatically believe that because we disagree with someone on gun control, we will also disagree with them on tax policy or immigration? Is it because we have been conditioned to a certain set of opinions because of our overall party affiliation? I'm just posing the question, I don't know the answer.

For different people, the answer will differ. People with whom you align generally may share your view of human nature, the value of constitutional tradition, or may simply know lots of the same sort of people amongst whom a view prevails.

I've spent lots of my life taking up positions that are unpopular amongst most of the sort of people I know. There is a process of virtue signalling wherein a person states an opinion to those around him primarily for the purpose of affirming group membership. I see Robert Deniro's most recent attempt at public speaking this way.

It's also true that the COTUS is more likely to be discounted by people who see it as an impediment to what they would like the state to do. One can't be an enthusiast for FDR and the New Deal and seriously contend that the commerce clause is an important legal limit on Federal power to be read and applied literally. We have a decades long tradition of excusing away constitutional limits we dislike.

There is also a notion about the perfectibility of human nature that is at odds with accepting that man is deeply and inherently flawed, and that smart government both accepts and reasonably limits the harm caused by those flaws.

And my big question is how did one political party so effectively sell it's base on gun control over the last 25 years?

I don't think it did.

A generous environment in which civil liberties flourish isn't man's natural setting. People don't need to be talked into destroying rights they don't think will help them; it's a natural myopia that drives people to empower the state to limit the freedom of those they dislike.

That's why we should be stingy with excuses around constitutional limits; those limits are the fences around our freedom, such as it is.

 

[rickyrick]

Easy... media, politicians, corporations and celebrities wanted it that way.

 

[turkeestalker]

Interesting article, but one line jumped out early on that caused me to seriously doubt it's content.

"Having a gun in the home for hunting and/or self-protection is no longer common practice."

That is a blatant lie.
How much stock do you care to put into the rest of what the article has to say?
So rickyrick omitted one reason in my opinion... propaganda.

 

[riffraff]

"A person's stance on one issue (like gun control) will frequently bleed over to other issues as well. If I disagree with someone on gun control, it is a pretty good bet that I will disagree with them on most to all other issues as well. "

I agree with that for the most part but one area where republican voters tend to not see eye to eye on is when it comes to religious ideology. This is probably similar to why the democrats backed off a bit on gun control a decade ago, was deemed divisive within their voter population, as it often can be when a republican goes too far w/ christian ideals in regard to something like abortion - which is maybe why such has been so quiet and one thing that helped Trump (he is not so outwardly religous).

Or another example might be the federal government's lack of action on addressing the inconsistency with how weed is dealt with - still as illegal as it always was but such laws are generally no longer being enforced federally, some states treat it as a dangerous drug, others treat it as you would alchohol - yet the federal government offically treats it as a dangerous drug, even if someone has a prescription. Nobody wants to trouch it - too divicisive, so we continue on with this odd environment of partial tolerance federally.. Like immigration, somebody should step in and grow a pair - enforce the law or change the law, but makes no sense to tolerate breaking the law or only partially enforce the law.

 

[rickyrick]

I’m a moderate, but often forced to vote republican. I don’t agree with all republican issues.
I’m a moderate as it was considered a few years ago, now even a left leaning moderate such as myself, is considered to be to far right. Seems there’s no enough room left in free country to have any freedom anymore.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The NRA did it to themselves. They tied the organization to extreme conservative positions. It might have been a marketing decision to increase revenue from true believers. However, it was not a good decision for the USA in general.

 

[rickyrick]

That’s the worst thing about guns or any civil right tied to one party... a good portion of the country are deprived of a right or to by proxy.

 

[WyMark]

That’s the worst thing about guns or any civil right tied to one party... a good portion of the country are deprived of a right or to by proxy.

What? Are you implying that Democrats don't own guns? Or they're somehow deprived or forbidden from owning them? Maybe Dems only have hunting weapons? Do they have to turn in their handguns in order to comply with the party line? If I change my registration to Dem do I have to destroy all my guns? Or can I sell them to recoup some cost?

Your post doesn't make sense and isn't really even English.

 

[WyMark]

The NRA did it to themselves. They tied the organization to extreme conservative positions. It might have been a marketing decision to increase revenue from true believers. However, it was not a good decision for the USA in general.

Not the NRA, Wayne LaPierre (aka 'Lil Wayne) specifically. He is solely responsible for creating the partisanship and alienating 50% or more of the country.

 

[doofus47]

WyMark:

Not the NRA, Wayne LaPierre (aka 'Lil Wayne) specifically. He is solely responsible for creating the partisanship and alienating 50% or more of the country.

No, there is a popular animus against gun owners that's been rising since the 80s and which accelerated in the 90s. Wayne's sometimes asinine comments aside, the general tenor of the movement is that gun owners are knuckle draggers who don't "need" firearms and have mental issues that require a .357 caliber baby blanket. This divide has been building for some time.

On the upside, a few months ago I was driving through Colorado Springs and passing a pickup truck with a "Black Rifles Matter" sticker on the back. Everything about it screamed "ignorant redneck!" but the guy driving was African American. Just when you think you have the world pigeon-holed, this country surprises you. I love living here.

 

[44 AMP]

I don't see the NRA being to "blame", though I do recognize that Lapierre's leadership has been... less than optimal.

But consider this, where there are essentially only two effective political parties, and the people running one of them (NOT the rank and file, not the blue collar members) make gun control one of their party's political planks, I'd say they are the ones who made it a partisan issue.

When one party does this, where else can gun owners go but to the other party? And because there is no other choice, the other party takes our support for granted, by and large, because they know they are the "only game in town".

Gun owners and gun rights supporters in the Democrat party are trapped by their party elite, and either have to toe the party line, or lose support from the party (not the people).

Dems have always pushed gun control as one of their social "concerns", but not exclusively, and not in lockstep as part of party loyalty, until recent years. THAT, I put squarely on the shoulder of those people running the party. They decided that they were going to make it a political "us vs them" issue, and they succeeded.

 

[KY_blkout]

Both parties have changed over time, while I will agree that not all Democrats or leftists are for gun control but it seems to be a big part of there agenda in today's time. Maybe not 50 years ago or even 30 years ago. They also use to be for state rights and smaller central government, we all see how that has did a 180 the other way. My point being the Republican party is leaning more and more towards libertarian beliefs (small government, less taxes, gun rights, and etc.) While the democratic party is leaning more and more towards a socialism or as they would call social democracy. They probably won't stay this way forever, I'm sure in 50 years it will all be different.

 

[LogicMan]

Guns aren't the only reason the NRA leans Right. The so-called campaign finance legislation that the Democrats heavily supported would have allowed organizations like the NRA to be censored during political campaigns. Since the NRA is a grassroots organization funded by its members, it would thus mean censoring the ability of ordinary citizens to be able to pool their resources to be able to run ads on television and such, and basically make such things a monopoly only of the Michael Bloombergs and Koch Brothers of the world, and the professional political class. If you look at the history of precursors to the campaign finance legislation that the Citizens United decision struck down, the argument from the Democrats was that they wanted it in particular so that they could censor the NRA during campaigns so that it couldn't run ads against Democratic candidates, and so that they could get more Democrats elected to pass gun control. The NRA covered the case extensively in their "America's First Freedom" magazine at the time.

I do wish though that the NRA could act more a-political though. My understanding is that they do a lot of work with the Pink Pistols however (gay gun rights group).

 

[turkeestalker]

while I will agree that not all Democrats or leftists are for gun control

That is an important distinction, the two are not one in the same.

44 AMP is once again, pretty much spot on.

Don't believe for a second that either party is on anyone's side once it hits a point that it is no longer beneficial in the eyes of that party.