Dave Weigel attended the recent NRA convention and notes how the reality that gun rights advocates have won the legal and political battles — when was the last time you saw a serious effort at gun control in Congress? — has done nothing to diminish their constant paranoid rhetoric that government seizure of guns is always lurking just around the next corner:
But the total defeat and withdrawal of Democrats on guns has affected NRA rhetoric not at all. Before Mitt Romney spoke to the NRA’s conference in St. Louis, both of the organization’s honchos, Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre, promised the audience that a re-elected President Obama would reveal his true anti-gun agenda. Victory in November would mean a “pro-Second Amendment” Congress, said Cox — as if the current arrangement of Congress can or would do anything anti-gun.
The Democrats have, as Weigel noted, completely backed away from gun control. The issue, for all practical purposes, does not exist. And the Supreme Court has now tied the hands of Congress with its ruling in the DC case (and rightly so, by the way — the court got it right, in my view). Gun rights advocates — and I agree with them that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns — have won, but they talk as though there’s still a battle going on.
And this fits a larger pattern. In every case where reality undercuts the validity of their arguments, they simply continue to make the same argument, all the louder and more stridently in fact. President Obama has essentially continued every wrongheaded and illegal aspect of Bush’s war on terrorism and has continued the same neo-conservative foreign policy as well. That has done nothing to diminish the claim that he has virtually surrendered to Islamic terrorists and has made America “weak” and emboldened our enemies. The killing of Bin Laden and the capture of dozens of Al Qaeda leaders, the expansion of the war in Afghanistan, the bombing of Libya, the continued use of the State Secrets Privilege, the killing of Al-Awlaki — none of those things have even registered a blip on the right. All evidence to the contrary is simply filtered out and the same old rhetoric of “appeasement” has continued unabated. They are simply immune to reality.
16 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Doug Little
April 19, 2012 at 11:13 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I thought that the trick is not to be anti-gun but anti-ammunition. Does the control of ammunition potentially get around problems with the second amendment?
unbound
April 19, 2012 at 11:40 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Doug Little – It’s funny that you mention that. Shortly after the election in 2008, the NRA caused a massive stir on just that subject (that ammunition would no longer be made available). This created a massive run to the gun shops to buy up the ammunition…of course, those late to the party found that the gun shops didn’t have any ammunition available (in reality due to the quick sale) which just confirmed their fears. The gun store owners, seeing a great series of sales coming their way, mostly encouraged the nonsense knowing full well that it takes time for manufacturing to keep up with sudden demand.
The gun store owners laughed all the way to the bank.
naturalcynic
April 19, 2012 at 11:41 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The standard policy, when confronted by a crazy, is to back away, saying soothing words and making the utmost attempt not to antagonize. No confrontations. How else could one act when confronted by gun fetishists?
raven
April 19, 2012 at 11:49 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Even a lot of gun owners and hunters are tired of the NRA.
It is right up there with xians being a persecuted minority of only 76% of the US population.
While they keep claiming (falsely) that the big bad Space Reptiles are going to take away the guns, anyone anywhere can drive to a store and buy a small (or large) arsenal without any problems.
The conceal and carry laws keep proliferating and IIRC, in Arizone you don’t even need a permit. Jared Loughner didn’t seem to have any problem getting guns despite being so crazy they can’t even try him in court for shooting 18 people.
davidworthington
April 19, 2012 at 12:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I looked briefly a while back but didn’t find anything…is there an organization along the lines of “gun owners for sane gun laws”? I too think there is an individual right (and to be honest, if there wasn’t it wouldn’t matter, there are just too many guns in the pool to do anything about it), and I own a pistol and a shotgun; however, I also think there are limits on type and that registration makes sense.
I also avoid road rage with people who have NRA stickers on their trucks, you know…
Dave
D. C. Sessions
April 19, 2012 at 12:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
naturalcynic: In most States it’s no longer necessary to back away, you can “Stand Your Ground.” Which means, when you get down to it, that you’d best be practicing your quick draw.
Michael Heath
April 19, 2012 at 12:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed writes:
Ed, did you read D.C. v. Heller in its entirety; including Justice Steven’s consent? The reason I asked was that prior to that ruling I leaned about 85% to your current conclusion. However I found Justice Steven’s originalist argument extremely compelling to the point I’m not confident taking any position.
Another surprise coming from both Heller and McDonald v. Chicago was how Justices Scalia and Alito’s respective majority opinions provided the broad latitudes congressional Democrats with power along with now-extinct moderate Republicans looked to legislate from the Brady Bill onward (James Brady was the man severely wounded during the shooting of President Reagan; he was the president’s press secretary).
So I found these rulings ironic given that the court affirmed government power to do what the center and left with federal power seeks while Steven crushed the original argument that the 2nd explicitly conveys an individual right. [I'm now on the fence because I'm not sure the Constitution conveys sufficient power which allows the government to generally prohibit an individual right, which I don't recall being addressed in Heller. This is consistent with Randy Barnett's argument that regulatory powers to restrict or limit doesn't necessarily extend to prohibition.]
Paul from VA
April 19, 2012 at 12:22 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@2 unbound,
Actually, gun sales seem to have pre-emptively taken off before the election this year, multiple gun manufacturers are reporting major backlogs, and some have even stopped taking new orders.
link to story
It’s not clear what the cause of this spike in orders is…. as far as I can tell there’s no major event that acted as a catalyst….
Skip White
April 19, 2012 at 12:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Doug Little #1
That reminds me of Chris Rock’s bit about making ammunition cost $5000 per bullet.
Modusoperandi
April 19, 2012 at 12:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
D. C. Sessions “naturalcynic: In most States it’s no longer necessary to back away, you can ‘Stand Your Ground.’ Which means, when you get down to it, that you’d best be practicing your quick draw.”
It’s worse than that. Someone thinks you’re a threat, and they draw their gun. Then someone sees that person and draws their gun. Then someone sees that person and draws their gun. Then someone sees that person and draws their gun…
kermit.
April 19, 2012 at 1:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
modusoperandi –
Not that complicated. Everybody wears a uniform; there are only so many sides, and we all identify ourselves clearly (if unsure, just ask any Teabagger in the area for details).
Who wears hoodies? Hoods!
Who wears flag lapel pins? Real Americans!
Police uniforms? Very Real Americans.
Etc.
Scott Hanley
April 19, 2012 at 1:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If I were an NRA member, I’d be inclined to argue that liberals have only dropped their gun-banning efforts because of the diligent and relentless opposition of the firearms lobby — keeping their heads down because of an effective supressing fire, so to speak. If the NRA were to ease up, the liberals would certainly rise up again with new anti-gun legislation.
I’m not sure that argument is entirely wrong, either. Can you really know that they’ve won the battle permanently? Of course it’s profitable for them to keep the issue alive at all costs, but you could also argue their position rationally.
abb3w
April 19, 2012 at 1:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Whether such profound reality-resistance is a tendency resulting from genes, upbringing, environment, or whatnot; the extent the causes are common among the resistant; and the relation of such resistance to political orientation tendencies, seem to make for some interesting questions for potential psychology research. There’s a few journal articles out there, but the experimental data still seems quite tenuous.
scienceavenger
April 19, 2012 at 2:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
IMO its an overblown issue, worthy of the nonactivity of congress. Sure, individual incidents of gun violence are horrific, but there just aren’t enough of them to make it worthy of a national effort. Further, the gunphobes arguments are often as logically poor or downright dishonest as those of the gun fetishists, so they, ahem, shoot themselves in the foot anyway. Better to fight winnable battles.
What the gun issue really should put on the table is just how badly we need a new constitution. Seen through modern eyes, the 2nd amendment as written is laughable. Considering the Founding Fathers understandable ignorance of just how far weapons technology would develop over the last 200 years, its preposterous.
scienceavenger
April 19, 2012 at 2:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
abb3w, your post ilustrates my point perfectly: I can’t tell who you are talking about, those who think the gummint commies will come take all they have if their guns are taken away, or the nervous ninnies who think guns are magic talismans that automatically turn peaceful people into murderous loons [if both, hat tip to ya]. On this issue, there is a ton of reality resistence to go around, don’t kid yourself.
Infophile
April 19, 2012 at 7:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@15 scienceavenger:
I don’t think I’ve ever seen this argument actually being made. The standard far-left argument I’ve seen is that when you give guns to people who are already murderous loons, they’re somehow able to kill many more people than they would be able to with, say, a knife. Insane, I know.>snark<