Category: Guns

I was going to respond to a comment on Ahab’s site, but haloscan seems want to keep reloading, failing, and then clobbering my post. I’ll just do it here:

I know you already realize all of this. Where the problem comes in, I think, is that you guys are targeting different groups for different reasons. David et al are working against the abuses of the “ruling class” and unifying gun owners for a giant political battle – one that the Bill of Rights, not just the 2A, hinges on.

You, and I think most gun bloggers, are more focused on a more grass-roots “get Suzy Soccermom to see guns aren’t scary” strategy, and as you state, you want to instill a culture of self-defense.

And both methodologies need the other to succeed.

Read the whole thing, it’s a very insightful comment. I agree with Jay’s point here that we’re all in this together, and each have our place.

What I would point out, though, is that Suzy Soccer Mom is an intrinsic part of the political struggle. Pro-gun activists, and people who care about the issue, just don’t have enough votes on our own to be able to dictate terms to the politicians. We outnumber the anti-gun activists, but we don’t outnumber other voters. Politicians are not courageous people; they worry about appearing extreme. Scare Suzy Soccer Mom and her demographic too much, and we lose.

Base rallying is an important part of any political movement, and moderate rhetoric won’t typically accomplish that as effectively as more radical rhetoric. But in politics, it’s always a fine line. Every political movement has this problem; you have to keep your activists, volunteers, and donors excited about what you are doing, and involved in the issue. But you also need to avoid firing them up so much that you scare other people out of the movement, or scare voters who are non-ideological.

I don’t disagree that we need each other, and there are certainly people out there who feel very disillusioned about the state of our rights, and would drop out of the issue entirely if they didn’t feel they had a voice out there. I am not the voice for folks of that persuasion. I think we’re winning, both the political battle, and hearts and minds. There’s still a lot of road ahead, but I think we can make it.  There are still dangers: a uniformly hostile media, among other things, and we’re succeeding despite that.

I would just encourage everyone to remember there’s a fine tightrope that must be walked between base rallying, and going so far that we scare ordinary voters away from supporting, or at least not opposing us.

I want to clear up some things I said yesterday, and talk about a few issues. I definitely don’t want anyone to think I’m implying that other gun bloggers are extremists, or that more radical bloggers need to pipe down and be quiet. We’re all extremists compared to views of much of the general public, and I think it’s important to be cognizant of that. I also definitely don’t want to imply anything negative toward Ryan Horsley and how he’s handling his situation. Government agents are trying to close Red Trading Post, his family’s business. I don’t blame him at all for fighting back, or the way he’s been fighting back, and I hope he sticks it to them in the end and keeps his FFL.

My post from yesterday can best be summed up as “We have to be careful what we tell people, because there are boneheads out there.” If people show up to take a peek at what inspectors are doing, I really want them to be reasonable, because this kind of thing could get ugly fast if they are not.

David suggested that he’s not critical of the moderates, but that a more radical approach has it’s place, and I think he makes a good point with this. I read David’s blog because he picks up a lot of important stuff other people don’t, and the way he approaches our issue has a lot to do with the difference in content and style. I can’t, and wouldn’t deny him his place.

My objection to the radical approach has less to do with a disagreement with the radicals on many goals, than the fact that I think it’s not politically effective. Politics in a republic is really a debate between factions, and the voters are the ones who get to judge which side has the better arguments. American voters tend to be pragmatic, and not terribly ideological. In many ways this frustrates me, but in societies where that isn’t the case, they resort to violence more often to settle political questions. In the American political climate, you have to appeal to the voter’s sense of pragmatism, which means you need to use arguments they can relate to.

In talking to people about shooting, carrying, and the right to bear arms in general, I’ve had some that look at me like I had just eaten a kitten. Had even more who’s eyes gloss over, or who get that “oh god, I wish this guy would shut up” look. Our ideas and beliefs are pretty radical when presented to your average voter. This is a sad sad state of affairs, but it’s the reality that’s been made for us by a century of progressivism, urbanization, and a uniformly hostile media environment. It will take a long time to undo.

I consider people adhering to a more radical approach to be allies in this fight, but I won’t hide that I think a more incremental and moderate approach is more effective, and I will advocate for that.

UPDATE: Oops… I didn’t intent to close comments.