From Trial of the Century blog: Good read for the gun control crowd to read.
Why Gun Control Fails
Those who would love dearly to enact widespread gun control within the United States of America are perpetually asking themselves one question in particular: why is it so difficult? They are frequently given to looking at other countries for inspiration, such as England, a nation which years ago rather blithely criminalized most handgun ownership outside of a narrow class of low-caliber pistols. Why, they wonder, can’t we be like them?
The answer to the gun controllers’ question is fairly simple: it is relatively easy to ban handgun ownership in a place like England because it does not have a Second Amendment, nor does it have a body politic whose default position in the matter tends to be strongly pro-gun. America has both of these things: the Second Amendment and a large percentage of the population committed to widespread private gun ownership. The former has been true since the Bill of Rights was passed, and the latter has been true roughly since the first matchlock made its appearance at the Jamestown settlement over four hundred years ago.
Nonetheless, in spite of the obvious inviolability of these two factors, the anti-gun crowd remains baffled, frustrated and furious over the effective impossibility of firearm seizure in the United States. They just can’t figure it out, or else they refuse to. On a fairly regular basis, we’re treated to a bunch of op/eds, media appearances and angry outbursts by the anti-gun Left, in which they lament how little “progress” has been made in the anti-gun effort. Take, for example, a recent piece at CNN by Julian Zelizer, in which the Princeton professor explains to us “Why nothing happens on gun control:”
The most important and obvious factor is exactly what the President mentioned: the overwhelming power of the gun lobby.
This is one of the most sophisticated lobbies in the country. The National Rifle Assocation [sic] and other gun rights organizations employ a full arsenal of lobbying tools — from disputed constitutional arguments, to a massive campaign finance war chest, to voter mobilization drives — that are enough to influence members of both parties.
Note from the outset that Professor Zelizer’s article itself has a deeply flawed premise. He wishes to explain to us “why nothing happens on gun control.” The truth is, lots of things have “happened” on gun control over the past decade or so; it’s just that most of the things that have happened have been humiliating and resounding defeats for gun controllers themselves. The persistent demands for us to “do something” about gun ownership in this country ignore that critical fact: many legislators and activists and commentators have “done something,” namely, lost the debate over and over again.
That being said, it is worthwhile to note how specious and misleading Zelizer’s other points are: his “full arsenal of lobbying tools” are presumably meant to be both frightening and troubling, but it’s hard to see why anyone should get worked up over them. For starters, the NRA does not—for the purposes of the gun control debate—rely on “disputed constitutional arguments.” From the perspective of American legal precedent, the Second Amendment is not “disputed” at all; since 2008, it’s been settled jurisprudence, and very thoroughly and correctly settled, at that. And while it’s true that the NRA spends a good deal of money getting its message out, so what? In the latest election, the 2014 midterms, the vast majority of their expenditures were in the form of “outside spending,” which is money not spent directly on candidates themselves. Zelizer is upset, in other words, that the NRA spends lots of money on what is expressly free speech, advocating for a cause the organization believes is important. As well, if “voter mobilization drives” qualifies an outfit as being “one of the most sophisticated lobbies in the country,” I think it’s safe to conclude that Zelizer’s estimation of lobbying groups is abnormally low, almost comically so.
None of this is to say that the NRA isn’t a particularly successful and aggressive lobbying group, for it certainly is. It’s more relevant, however, to note that most of the NRA’s lobbying efforts would surely be useless and pointless if not for one critical fact: Americans are particularly receptive to the NRA’s message. If the NRA tried to run a similar aggressive campaign in Western Europe, or in the Scandinavian countries, or in Suriname, or Myanmar, or a hundred other nations, it would almost certainly waste a great deal of money. The NRA does such a great job of lobbying in the United States because many, many people in the United States like guns, are receptive to the NRA’s message, and get energized when they feel their gun rights are being threatened. That’s not to say that such a spirit could not be present in other countries—only that it is particularly strong in the United Sates, and that it’s the primary reason that people like Zelizer keep failing completely at changing the gun culture of the country.
Gun control is so difficult in the United States, in other words, because the people of the United States want it to be difficult. We are very, very jealous of our guns, and we know instinctively that we should be wary of the anti-gun platitudes, the rushes to judgment, and the useless proposals that would self-evidently fail to solve the problem of gun violence. When people like Zelizer complain about “the gun lobby,” they are actually directing their opprobrium at a much wider and more diverse target. “The gun lobby” is a stand in for the American people. It’s us, their fellow Americans, thatthey have a problem with. “The overwhelming power of the gun lobby” is actually the overwhelming patriotic and self-deterministic sentiment of Americans and the American way of life. It’s what continually defeats the endless gun control efforts from the Left, ensuring that our Second Amendment freedoms are protected from the vanities of anti-gun progressivism. Let’s keep it that way.
Share:
Why Gun Control Fails
Those who would love dearly to enact widespread gun control within the United States of America are perpetually asking themselves one question in particular: why is it so difficult? They are frequently given to looking at other countries for inspiration, such as England, a nation which years ago rather blithely criminalized most handgun ownership outside of a narrow class of low-caliber pistols. Why, they wonder, can’t we be like them?
The answer to the gun controllers’ question is fairly simple: it is relatively easy to ban handgun ownership in a place like England because it does not have a Second Amendment, nor does it have a body politic whose default position in the matter tends to be strongly pro-gun. America has both of these things: the Second Amendment and a large percentage of the population committed to widespread private gun ownership. The former has been true since the Bill of Rights was passed, and the latter has been true roughly since the first matchlock made its appearance at the Jamestown settlement over four hundred years ago.
Nonetheless, in spite of the obvious inviolability of these two factors, the anti-gun crowd remains baffled, frustrated and furious over the effective impossibility of firearm seizure in the United States. They just can’t figure it out, or else they refuse to. On a fairly regular basis, we’re treated to a bunch of op/eds, media appearances and angry outbursts by the anti-gun Left, in which they lament how little “progress” has been made in the anti-gun effort. Take, for example, a recent piece at CNN by Julian Zelizer, in which the Princeton professor explains to us “Why nothing happens on gun control:”
The most important and obvious factor is exactly what the President mentioned: the overwhelming power of the gun lobby.
This is one of the most sophisticated lobbies in the country. The National Rifle Assocation [sic] and other gun rights organizations employ a full arsenal of lobbying tools — from disputed constitutional arguments, to a massive campaign finance war chest, to voter mobilization drives — that are enough to influence members of both parties.
Note from the outset that Professor Zelizer’s article itself has a deeply flawed premise. He wishes to explain to us “why nothing happens on gun control.” The truth is, lots of things have “happened” on gun control over the past decade or so; it’s just that most of the things that have happened have been humiliating and resounding defeats for gun controllers themselves. The persistent demands for us to “do something” about gun ownership in this country ignore that critical fact: many legislators and activists and commentators have “done something,” namely, lost the debate over and over again.
That being said, it is worthwhile to note how specious and misleading Zelizer’s other points are: his “full arsenal of lobbying tools” are presumably meant to be both frightening and troubling, but it’s hard to see why anyone should get worked up over them. For starters, the NRA does not—for the purposes of the gun control debate—rely on “disputed constitutional arguments.” From the perspective of American legal precedent, the Second Amendment is not “disputed” at all; since 2008, it’s been settled jurisprudence, and very thoroughly and correctly settled, at that. And while it’s true that the NRA spends a good deal of money getting its message out, so what? In the latest election, the 2014 midterms, the vast majority of their expenditures were in the form of “outside spending,” which is money not spent directly on candidates themselves. Zelizer is upset, in other words, that the NRA spends lots of money on what is expressly free speech, advocating for a cause the organization believes is important. As well, if “voter mobilization drives” qualifies an outfit as being “one of the most sophisticated lobbies in the country,” I think it’s safe to conclude that Zelizer’s estimation of lobbying groups is abnormally low, almost comically so.
None of this is to say that the NRA isn’t a particularly successful and aggressive lobbying group, for it certainly is. It’s more relevant, however, to note that most of the NRA’s lobbying efforts would surely be useless and pointless if not for one critical fact: Americans are particularly receptive to the NRA’s message. If the NRA tried to run a similar aggressive campaign in Western Europe, or in the Scandinavian countries, or in Suriname, or Myanmar, or a hundred other nations, it would almost certainly waste a great deal of money. The NRA does such a great job of lobbying in the United States because many, many people in the United States like guns, are receptive to the NRA’s message, and get energized when they feel their gun rights are being threatened. That’s not to say that such a spirit could not be present in other countries—only that it is particularly strong in the United Sates, and that it’s the primary reason that people like Zelizer keep failing completely at changing the gun culture of the country.
Gun control is so difficult in the United States, in other words, because the people of the United States want it to be difficult. We are very, very jealous of our guns, and we know instinctively that we should be wary of the anti-gun platitudes, the rushes to judgment, and the useless proposals that would self-evidently fail to solve the problem of gun violence. When people like Zelizer complain about “the gun lobby,” they are actually directing their opprobrium at a much wider and more diverse target. “The gun lobby” is a stand in for the American people. It’s us, their fellow Americans, thatthey have a problem with. “The overwhelming power of the gun lobby” is actually the overwhelming patriotic and self-deterministic sentiment of Americans and the American way of life. It’s what continually defeats the endless gun control efforts from the Left, ensuring that our Second Amendment freedoms are protected from the vanities of anti-gun progressivism. Let’s keep it that way.
Share:
