"Avoiding visceral reactions and defeatism," or "Don't lie (usually)--sometimes the reality ain't that bad"
-
By Me
05 JAN 2012 (please, do not in the future alter this date to create a perennial email)
-
-
-
All activists work to stir up followers by pointing out potential future dangers to their cause. This is fine and good (presuming the cause is good, of course). What is not good is when an activist takes a "sky is falling" approach.
-
Sometimes an activist organization will exaggerate a particular threat. Take, for example, how the "National Association for Gun Rights," a NRA rival which has done little more than produce a few good YouTube videos, for YEARS sought to make hay--and donations--by warning of "HR 45," a gun control bill which never went anywhere in the House of Representatives. Yet if one reads NAGR's emails, one would think the country was on the verge of seeing the Second Amendment repealed. These activists pushed toward the status of "alarmists."
-
Sometimes, activists will mischaracterize the entire debate, saying their cause is suffering and even losing. Listening to them gives the impression that the situation is increasingly bad for the cause, comparable to, say, what Nazi Germany might have accurately said in the spring of 1945. Defeat is imminent--unless, of course, the listener makes an immediate contribution. Such tactics, when they rise to that level, often backfire with conservative causes, as it gives conservatives--who are self-centered and "introspective" by nature, and not "activist"--an excuse to give up the effort and save their money.
-
The Second Amendment arena sees its share of this latter type. "Purist" groups like "Gun Owners of America" and "But I Wanna Own a Machine Gun/WMD Combo Set" (that last group probably does not exist) will claim the Second Amendment is not merely "under fire," but in fact bogged down at the Alamo. Now indeed, such a situation seemed true--a few decades ago. The 1960s saw the biggest loss of gun rights since the 1934 National Firearms Act regulated machine guns and short-barreled weapons. The 1970s saw regulatory battles, with one victory by pro-gunners in removing firearms products from the purview of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (heading off an effort to use regulate pistol ammunition as a "hazardous substance"). The 1980s featured state-level "assault weapons" bans and a national import ban in the 1990, countered only by the largely-ineffective 1986 "Firearms Owners Protection Act"--which, ironically, included a freeze on the number of legal privately-held machine guns. The 1990s, of course, featured the infamous nation-wide "assault weapons ban"--actually a freeze--and tightening regulations in places like California and New York (city and state). This condition was lightened, however, by the election of a pro-gun Congress in 1994 and increasing numbers of states adopting shall-issue concealed-carry permit systems, a trend which started in Florida in 1987. Notwithstanding, through all of this, public sentiment was indeed on the side of increasing gun regulations, with a clear majority wanting substantially stronger controls on "handguns". Things did indeed look bad.
-
But since then, three things have happened to completely shift the debate. They can be summarized as, "Y2K," "911," and "BHO." The Y2K computer glitch threat--itself something subject to "sky is falling" alarmism (even though some would argue it would have been a good thing)--caused people who previously had been nearly pacifist to consider the efficacy of arming themselves to prepare for possible chaos. Discount chains which had only years ago ceased to sell pistols were seen selling pistol-grip stockless shotguns--a weapon useful only for anti-personnel use. And ammunition was, in the words of one sporting goods department manager, "flying off the shelf." People were rethinking their attitude on the whole issue. This culminated in the post-Y2K victory of a (relatively) pro-gun Presidential administration in 2000, an election the outgoing rather anti-gun President attributed to the Second Amendment lobby, specifically identifying the National Rifle Association as responsible for his Vice President's electoral defeat.
-
Then, on September 11, 2001, the war of Jihad which had faced the Western world since 622 AD/CE was brought to American shores in no uncertain terms. The "911" Jihadist terrorist attacks spawned a huge jump in weapons sales even that very day (spirring some retail chains, and isolated managements in particular stores, to shamefully cease ammunition sales for a day). Uncertainty which was far more imminent and tangible was leading people back to their Y2K course of thinking. People who had bought those stockless shotguns in 1999 were dusting them off, and those who had sold them off in 2000 after nothing happened were cursing that decision. The national attitude toward the private right to arms was shifting substantially to the positive. This was so much the case, in fact, that in 2006, when seditious and treasonous elements in the country turned the gullible American populace to use a Congressional election to betray their troops by denouncing a war they had only two years before upheld despite charges of lies by the administration, members of the opposition "anti-war" (i.e., anti-American)--and traditionally anti-gun--party often had to be expressly pro-gun to get elected. The "assault weapons" freeze was allowed to expire in 2004. No serious or substantial new gun controls were successfully proposed, and concealed-carry options continued to spread through the several states. The country's war effort and the effort of Western civilization to counter a perennial threat was weakened in 2006, but the private right to arms in America was actually improving.
-
Then in 2008, there was "BHO"--"Barack Hussein Obama". In their effort to assuage White Liberal Guilt and throw a temper tantrum over the economy by electing a socialist, Black nationalist Muslim as President (pResident), the American people created a social situation where gun rights were more overtly threatened than at any time in history. Weapons and ammunition sales skyrocketed to unbelievable levels before and long after the fateful election, taking prices up with them. Yet sales continued. And subsequent polling data indicates rapidly DECREASING support for gun regulations. The 2010 election results, though influenced mostly by the selfish and money-minded (such as its adherents actually have minds) "Tea Party" movement, further strengthened the pro-gun character of Congress.
-
However, one development, occuring not in the real world, but in the illusional world of jurisprudence, stands out on the matter of gun rights: The 2008 Supreme Court Heller decision. That decision for the first time upheld the Second Amendment as an individual right. This court decision marks perhaps the biggest turning point for gun rights since the 1939 Miller case cast doubt on the Second Amendment's meaning. Heller and the subsequence McDonald decision applying Fourteenth Amendment incorporation to the Second and making it binding on states, have brought about a complete reversal in legal presumption. Whereas before challenging a gun law in court put the burden of proof on proving it to not be constitutional, Heller and McDonald serve to put a burden on proving the law indeed is constitutional.
- Interestingly, back in the real world, another development, this one in almost an homage to the Y2K era, at least one major discount chain to remain nameless--but its initials are "W-M"--is offering AR15s, a so-called, "assault weapon." In addition to pointing to a shift in both public interest in such arms and regular consumers' tolerance of selling such items in business with a "family" reputation, this development goes far to making the case that such weapons are indeed in "common use," a matter raised by the 2008 Supreme Court Heller decision as to what weapons are protected by the Second Amendment--"Hey, if [W-M] is selling them, they MUST be in 'common use'!"
-
In a very real and objective sense, gun rights and the Second Amendment movement have never been stronger in modern times.
-
Yet one will still hear marginal activist groups talk about this or that threat--e.g., HR 45--as imminent, or characterize just how its cause is on the defensive. What so many won't consider is that since the 1999 Columbine massacre, effort after effort to exploit on the national level some "tragedy" to substantively increase gun control legislation has failed, often never making it out of Congressional committees.
-
Consider this from the today's (05 JAN 2012--please, do not in the future alter this date to create a perennial email) article from Reuters, "FBI data shows spike in U.S. firearm purchases in 2011" ( http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-data-shows-spike-firearm-purchases-2011-045125172.html ). Regarding the aftermath of the 2009 Tuscon, Arizona shootings of a liberal politician by a Leftist mental case (and subsequently blamed on one of the most conservative politicians on the political scene at the time), it states,
-
'PACKING HEAT'
The FBI data for 2011 was released close to the January 8 anniversary of the shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona, that killed 6 people and injured 13, including Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords.
That incident raised serious questions about the background checks after it emerged that Jared Lee Loughner, the accused shooter, had legally purchased the gun he allegedly used in the attack from a sporting goods store - despite having engaged in bizarre, disruptive behavior well before the shooting.
While the FBI data show the number of background checks have risen, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says there has been no progress on legislative efforts to tighten gun control following the Tucson shooting.
Dennis Henigan, the group's acting president, told Reuters the only gun bill that has come for a vote in Congress since Tucson has been the so-called "Packing Heat On Your Street" bill, officially known as "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011" (H.R. 822).
That measure, which has passed the House of Representatives but stalled in the Senate, would make it easier for people to carry concealed handguns across state lines.
"Really it is a national disgrace that the only piece of gun-related legislation to come to a vote since Tucson was this legislation that would have enabled dangerous concealed carriers like Jared Loughner to carry their guns across state lines," Henigan said.
-
Now consider: The situation is so "bad" for the Second Amendment movement that following this event we see in Congress considering... making it easier to carry a weapon! Truly dark times for gun rights. NOT!
-
Indeed, this little snippit shows perhaps more than any other that the country is truly in "pro-gun" times. Even as events like the 1991 Los Angeles riots not leading to restrictions on Black people and 911 not (unfortunately) leading to restrictions on Muslims shows the establishment of a "civil rights" mentality in America, the consistent failure in the last decade plus to use extreme events to successfully restrict arms-bearers is indicative of a "new reality" in gun rights.
-
Now, to be sure, this is not to argue that gun rights have reached the level of protection from law, custom, and society that, say, "civil rights" have reached, or that there is no threat. Indeed, unlike liberal/Left movements like "civil rights," conservative/Right movements like gun rights suffer tremendous obstacles such as an opposition mainstream media and self-focus on the part of their rank-and-file adherents. Letting down by the movement would invite disaster for the movement.
-
However, the answer to stirring followers to action lies not in "gloom and doom" predictions. To be sure, conservatives--and quite frankly, the Second Amendment community is one of the worst constituencies on this--are self-centered and often reason that, "Well, my personal interests on this are secure, so I don't care anymore," false negatives, as said before, too often turn them to a "Well, it's lost, so I won't work anymore" attitude of defeatism, thus defeating the aim. What is needed is to create by whatever political means an attitude of positive/affirmative effort--that is, trying to expand gun rights and expand their security to new heights. The Second Amendment community needs to use this opportunity, legally empowered by Heller and McDonald to take the offensive and attack the opposing movement, not simply be introspective and self-centered.
-
Please see this article from 01 JUL 2011 on The American Thinker entitled "The Need For A Militant Conservative Movement" ( http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_need_for_a_militant_conservative_movement.html ) for a further discussion of this problem on the Right, and a suggested solution. While I disagree with some characterizations in the last half of the article and believe the writer fails to go far enough with his solution, it marks a serious and still-timely effort to counter the fundamental weakness of conservatism--self-focus. So long as the American people insist upon "liberal democracy" and electing their own leaders, the only viable approach is to act to turn people from a defensive mentality to an offensive one. The domestic political aspect of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) suffered because the administration refused to attack its critics with the means available to them. (To be sure, it barely defended itself as well.) The result was a betrayal of American troops and the strengthening of the Jihadist threat. Strategically, GWOT is potentially failing because of insistence by Leftists, along with Tea Party and Ron Paul/libertarians on the Right, to weaken efforts and act only defensively. This despite the success in diverting enemy attention into a defensive mode--difficult to do with terrorists--by the offensive actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.
-
A defense-only strategy is a losing strategy, as an offensive enemy will wear the defense, much as a tug-of-war team which will only "hold on" and not try to gain ground will ultimately lose to a comparable side which is actually pulling for victory. And in politics, the liberal/Left will always have an advantage. The Second Amendment movement will lose its gains if people do not exploit the current advances. Failure by conservative movements to do this in the past--notably, a failure to use favorable Supreme Court decisions on the Tenth Amendment in the early 1990s to actively seek to roll back federal encroachment on the states--represent squandered opportunities and sometimes the solidification of opposition positions. The Second Amendment movement ought to learn from both the successes of the Left in taking the offense and the failures of the Right in sticking to defense to pursue an offensive mentality on the right to arms (and on GWOT, for that matter).
-
In conclusion, alarmist actions--particularly on the conservative/Right--are so often demoralizing and counterproductive if they misrepresent the situation. Selfishness--such as the tendency in the Second Amendment community to be individualists and focus on simply "keeping one's own guns"--holds an inherent moral weakness that turns such approaches into suicide. Truthfullness is the best option in politics, particularly on the Right (with lies kept well thought out and to a minimum), as it holds both moral strength and credibility-building. Stirring up a confident OFFENSIVE attitude offers the best--and probably only--viable option for success.
-
AND FOR YOUR EDIFICATION AND ENJOYMENT BY MEANS OF MUSIC: "God and Guns," by Lynyrd Skynyrd ( http://youtu.be/Ql49eLRRJ_E ).
-
(Lynyrd Skynyrd was the group that in the 1970s recorded the anti-gun, "Saturday Night Special". Yes, there has been a shift.)
