search
top

Still Irrelevant

I’ve been busy the past few days and I haven’t checked my Google Alerts for a bit. I noticed this:

Google Alerts

Well, well, look who the media’s been talking about in post-election week. more than 3x the number of outlets talking about a gun rights organization as opposed to a gun control organization. Even if the media thinks we took a shellacking in the recent election, they certainly aren’t crediting the win to the irrelevant gun control groups.

8 Responses to “Still Irrelevant”

  1. RAH says:

    Says uncle and some on Reason could not support Romney over Obama and probably chose to vote for neither. Well for that lack of ability to determine who is worse for gun rights they now may have to face those consequences. The progress of gun rights in the last 15 years can be lost just as fast.

    • Patrick H says:

      Maybe that’s because some believe that neither was worse for guns rights.

    • Harold says:

      Obama is going to wave his hands and roll back the last 15 years of shall issue concealed carry state reforms? Oh no, that means I’ll have to surrender my Missouri CCW endorsement! (It went into effect in 2004.)

      (My point is that there are a lot of things Obama can’t do, including most of the ones I care about. On the other hand, I may regret investing in the SIG 55x ecosystem, since cutting off parts imports from Europe would be bad. Although I still think he doesn’t really care that much about these new fangled culture war areas, he’s a “set the wayback machine for the ’30s” type.)

  2. Zermoid says:

    I didn’t ‘want’ to vote for Romney, but I did anyways as he was the only one running who could have won other than obummer.

    So, it was more a vote Against Obama than anything else, sad so many people would rather let Barry finish destroying the country than to at the very least elect someone who would at least slow the destruction if not stop it.

    Worst part is not only do They now have to face the consequences but so do We……..

  3. Andy B. says:

    I have been waiting for some analyses of gun owner impact on the elections that isn’t pollyanna, delusional, or themed “next time send us more and bigger checks.” I have not heard of any yet, though frankly I haven’t looked too hard since I don’t expect to find any.

    If it is true that gun rights voters weren’t relevant to this election, it is because we largely are a known commodity. For the most part, if a pol has an (R) behind their name and says “enforce existing laws” we’ll follow him or her anywhere. So, beyond that, there is no need to consider us in the political calculation. We already had been considered and compartmentalized. No surprises were expected from us, and none came. The vote largely went around us.

    A more worthwhile avenue for analysis, rather than considering candidate outcomes, may be to look at referendum outcomes, like the Louisiana constitutional amendment. So far I haven’t heard of any outcomes from around the country that could be considered anti-gun. However, if our intention is to maintain clout with legislatures, we are not demonstrating either our ability or will to swing elections, and, as a Pennsylvania legislator once said to me (though about another issue) “You have a widely popular issue, but until you can demonstrate that you can and will use it to leave at least one of our cold, dead bodies on the steps of the capitol [figuratively speaking!] the morning after election day, we have no reason to pay any attention to it.”

  4. ecurb says:

    I like how you’ve got your google alerts set up. I’ve been using the default email notification setting, and it’s annoying.
    Are you using a feed reader?

    • Sebastian says:

      Yes… there’s an option to feed Google Alerts to Google Reader so you don’t have to sort through e-mails. I miss too many e-mails for e-mail to be reliable for me, but I can let it build up for days in RSS.

  5. There were very dangerous races outside of the presidency this election that most gun owners had no care about.

top