search
top

Is Gun Blogging Getting Harder?

I think this might be a consequence of winning: gun blogging is getting harder. As the idea that the Second Amendment is an individual right is percolating into the body politic, there seems to be less and less Second Amendment related news out there. Interestingly, I’ve noticed a significant uptick in positive shooting sports coverage from the media, which I don’t write about much here because it is either of local interest, or a bit off topic for what we generally talk about here. I prefer to comment on policy issues rather than do shooting sports news.

That’s not to say the controversy is over, but the media doesn’t seem to be as interested in it anymore. Overall that’s bad for gun blogging, but not nearly as bad as it is for our opponents, because I believe the reason coverage of this issue is down is because no one gives a crap about pushing gun control anymore, even the media. I suspect the reason isn’t necessarily that reporters are coming around, so much as they are tiring of the issue, and it’s one that’s not likely to go anywhere.

So if media acquiescence, and perhaps to some degree surrender, on the gun issue makes blogging harder, so be it. In the mean time hopefully things will get easier when we begin pushing our legislative agenda when all the various legislative bodies come back from their recesses or begin new sessions.

29 Responses to “Is Gun Blogging Getting Harder?”

  1. Ian Argent says:

    Well, the diminishment of political items for gun-blogging will still leave the hobby aspects. Look at, say, video game blogging, where most of the activity is about the games, and only rarely do you see an article about, say, Jack Thompson. This will be a Good Thing.

  2. mikeb302000 says:

    Man, you know how to put a positive spin on things. I agree your star is rising, but to call that “winning” sounds a bit to definitive to me. The debate is far from over, as you yourself said.

    One good thing is if you start posting like this, being the influential blogger you are, your side might drop that whiney complaint that the media is biased against them.

    But without that, however will you explain that the proportions of gun misuse to DGUs is still about 100 to 1?

  3. Alpheus says:

    For a couple of years, I liked to google “Linux”, and then read up on Linux news. I stopped doing it more because, when SCO’s suits were pretty much resolved, interesting news articles on Linux dropped quite a bit.

    I don’t think Second Amendment issues will disappear completely like that, though: while the Media has lost interest, there’s still various gun suits coming down the pike!

  4. j t bolt says:

    That’s not a problem with my blog. As long as I shoot like a n00b and learn new things about guns and shooting I have material. That and the ever present zombie menace. My well is bottomless.

  5. Sebastian says:

    I used to blog more about competitive shooting, but that was because I did more competitive shooting a year ago than I do now. I just haven’t had the time lately for more than one match a month.

  6. rkh says:

    The Clinton ban is what drove most of us to activism. It’s gone, nobody’s seriously talking about bring it back, and most tertiary issues have been resolved in gun owners’ favor.

    I’ll take substantive victory over quality blogging any day of the week.

  7. Tam says:

    Define “Gun Blogger”.

    I mean, you don’t really blog about “guns” per se all that often. You blog about a lot of Second Amendment political issues, as well as some more general Conservo-Libertarian political stuff.

    I know I don’t really consider myself a “gun blogger”, at least on my main blog, and although six of the twenty posts on the front page of my blog are firearms related, only one is in any way related to Second Amendment politico-legal issues (and none have to do with hunting or the organized shooting sports; they’re just about guns themselves or shooting in general, really.)

  8. Sebastian says:

    I’m using the term here pretty loosely.

  9. Bob S. says:

    If you think it is tough for a pro-rights blogger, try imaging blogging as an anti-rights advocate.

    Court case after court case being decided against you.

    Popular support going down.

    Gun sales going up.

    Crime going down.

    Posts that get the most comments are on Huffington Post and similar sites — to top it off, more and more of the comments are pro-rights drowning out your message.

    Facts, statistics, trends — all are getting harder to manipulate to give even appearance of supporting your position.

    I think that it isn’t getting hard to be a gun blogger — just harder to find news worthy legal/political fights to cover.

    At least for a while.

    I’m betting there is going to be a slump (post McDonald/Heller) of legal cases that are really making the news. Takes a while for a case to come to national attention but we’ll see more and more cases being decided for pro-rights.

    Then we’ll hit another wave as the Post Heller/McDonald restrictions reach the Appeals Courts.

  10. beatbox says:

    What i find interesting is that I get less google news results for “gun control” than I used to and more for “gun rights” than I used to.

  11. I think it’s a cycle. I used to follow a number of sex/sexuality blogs, and they hit the same wall you mention a few years ago, always focusing on one thing, and it can dry up. Sure you can add different subjects here and there, but that can be dependent on how much you’re willing to reveal of yourself to your *real life* as well as your *online life*, plus you might dilute the blog’s original message.

  12. ExurbanKevin says:

    Switch targets and reload.

    Two things that come to mind right away are suppressors/NFA in general and nationwide reciprocity. We’re acquiring new shooters and CCW holders by the boatload. Once those shooters realize that a) their favourite pistol becomes an illegal gun with the wrong accessory on it and b) how hard it is to plan a vacation and stay safe, the legislative floodgates will open.

  13. Stranger says:

    I would still find plenty to blog about, even if Congress passed a preemption law that wiped out all restrictive state and local laws, GCA ’68, NFA, and all the rest of the legislative idiocy of the last century.

    But the topics would lean toward antique and curious firearms, history, statistics, and of course the two standby’s. Weather and politicians, both of which are the worst in history, no matter when or where you are.

    Stranger

  14. Sigivald says:

    I think you mean “gun policy blogging” or “gun control (anti) blogging”, or something like that.

    Because, heck, none of that makes talkin’ about guns any harder, does it?

  15. Carl from Chicago says:

    I’ll echo Bob S’s comment regarding litigation. There is a virtual hailstorm of second amendment litigation pending (not counting the inevitable “I want this gang-banging felon of the hook” type of litigation that will go nowhere). That litigation takes a LONG time to move … and the practical effects will likewise be very slow to come. But frankly … this is a very good time for second amendment bloggers who are interested in arms laws … and interested in covering the systematic elimination of all those various statutes, especially when the courts settle on the hightened scrutiny that fundamental rights typically enjoy.

    Hell … during the next 10 years or so, the discussion might shift from the waning “gun control as crime control” to thoughtful and intellectual discussions regarding the far more interesting and relevant militia purpose of the second amendment. Because after all, the militia clause is right in there, next to the general guarantee of our right to bear arms. The argument that the that the militia clause means everything is dead. Now, perhaps we can move toward discussions surrounding the fact that the militia clause means something.

  16. Carl from Chicago says:

    mikeb302000 Said,
    December 6th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
    Man, you know how to put a positive spin on things.

    I think you may be giving Sebastian too much credit. This compares nothing to the post Heller and McDonald positive spin created by Helmke and Henigan …

    2008 – “The Heller decision is a resounding victory for the gun control movement in America!”

    2010 – “The McDonald decision is a resounding victory for the gun control movement in America!”

    I mean … I know that’s comparing apples to pine nuts … but still.

  17. Ian Argent says:

    Wow. @Mikeb sez “But without that, however will you explain that the proportions of gun misuse to DGUs is still about 100 to 1?” Gun misuse? What’s that? DGU is pretty easy to define – the presence of a gun aborted a crime, by display or use. Gun misuse means what, exactly?

  18. Ian,

    I think by “Gun Misuse” MikeB is referring to “Gun Ownership.”

    Just saying.

  19. Ian Argent says:

    Oh, I been here long enough to pick up that vibe. I just wondered how he would sugar coat it.

  20. mikeb302000 says:

    By gun misuse I mean any and all, accidents included. The bar is set way too high at felony to qualify for loss of rights. All gun misdemeanors as well as any domestic abuse even if guns aren’t allowed should be included.

    Think about it. About five years of that and you guys could quit lying to describe yourselves as responsible and upstanding citizens. Right now there are too many bad apples among you, this would weed them out.

  21. Sebastian says:

    And what other constitutional rights to we permanently remove from people because of a misdemeanor conviction? Why not lower the bar to summary offenses?

  22. Tirno says:

    “Right now there are too many bad apples among you, this would weed them out.”

    Who is this plural ‘you’ that the bad apples are among in such high number to warrant concern?

    As far as the research shows, there are less bad apples among concealed carry licensee population than any other definable subset of the population, including police (even factoring in “professional courtesy”). The statistics from Texas (which is the study I reviewed) showed that the only crimes which CWL people committed in excess of the rest of the population were crimes that you’re only subject to if you have a CWL.

    Accident rate with firearms is lower that that of buckets full of water. While even one accident is a tragedy, to suggest that the extremely low rate is worthy of the wholesale abrogation of rights is absurd. Our way to deal with accidents is education, and there’s be a lot more education going on if there weren’t a certain class of persons that insist on ignorance.

    Also, research shows that the vast majority of crimes (or “misuse” outside of accidents) committed with guns are perpetrated by people that are not legally allowed to have guns anyway. These people are not part of the plural ‘you’ that I belong to, and if you presume to lump me in with them, then I reserve the right to publicly call in question your intellect, honesty, parentage, moral and ethical deficiencies.

    Basically, your entire argument, from first principle to last, relies on ignorance, misinformation, confirmation bias, an authoritarian tendency and an inability to distinguish truth from falsity.

    Congratulations, you are performing as expected today. Welcome to yet another day of driving people away from your position.

    I am motivated to go take a couple neophyte coworkers to the gun range this weekend and introduce them to the safest sport in America. Have you got a couple gun owners you’re going to take to the anti-gun range this weekend and persuade them to turn their firearms in to the local ‘Gun Buy Back’? No? Better get on that.

  23. Ian Argent says:

    Project much, Mike? I have one question for you, and you have to answer straight up yes or no; nothing else. Is self-defense a human right? Yes or no?

  24. mikeb302000 says:

    Ian, Straight up – yes. But I question whether guns are necessary to exercise that right. This is apparrently what we disagree on.

  25. Sebastian says:

    And how do you exercise that right without effective tools for doing so? It’s not much of a right if you force me to bring a knife to a gunfight.

  26. Ian Argent says:

    What other tool is as effective or as easy-to-master as the firearm for self-defense?

  27. mikeb302000 says:

    I’m not opposed to your having guns, that is if you’re responsible with them like most of you are, I’m sure. I’m opposed to your calling it a “right.” That’s where we differ.

  28. Bob S. says:

    So Mikeb302000,

    What justification did you give yourself when you illegally owned firearms?

    Was it for self-defense or not?

    Simple question.

    Did you illegally own firearms for self defense? Yes or No.

  29. Sebastian says:

    Well, it kind of makes sense, Mike. If self-defense is a natural human right, then protecting your right to have adequate tools to exercise that right would seem to run along the same lines. Self-preservation is the right in question, it’s just that those who founded this country chose, as a means to protect that right, the right to keep and bear arms.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » Consequence of winning? - [...] Is Gun Blogging Getting Harder? [...]
  2. The View From North Central Idaho - Quote of the day—Say Uncle - [...] breath somewhat easy today and talk of gun rights blogging being more difficult (BTW, I completely disagree) but things…
top