Vox Gets What No Gun Control Group Does

If I had a list of rules of effective political advocacy, on that list would be that you should be able to know and argue your opponents position as well as, or better than they can. The left-leaning runs an article speaking truth about who they are up against in the fight for more gun control, and I think they pretty much get it right.

But money alone cannot explain the gun lobby’s success. Members of the NRA and allied groups bring an intensity, volume, asymmetry, and geographic reach of passion that is rare in American politics. Until that is matched on the other side, the gun lobby will continue to win.

This is essentially why Bloomberg struggles for success, despite being able to outspend us. If the Democrats were supportive of the Second Amendment, even if it was just lukewarm, I could probably find better things to do on election days when I’m dissatisfied with the Republican choices on other issues (which I usually am).

14 Responses to “Vox Gets What No Gun Control Group Does”

  1. Miguel says:

    The sad part (for them) is that the explanation will be ignored for thr narrative they themselves created.

  2. Roger Wilson says:

    One must always remember,most of the gun grabbers work on an emotional lever not a logical one. It’s one reason why that when they quote statistics they are not hard to refute.

    • tincankilla says:

      and their general desire is to eliminate violence in society, which is a laudable goal, but guns are not some magic reagent that makes all violence happen.

      • HSR47 says:

        No. They claim to want to eliminate violence, but that clearly isn’t their goal.

        If their goal were truly the elimination of violence, then they’d care about violence when it doesn’t involve firearms, and they wouldn’t stir their useful idiots up to endorse violence against us.

  3. ctd says:

    The personal imperative of survival will always outweigh the abstract imputed threat justifying hatred of “them”.

  4. The_Jack says:

    A lack of “Red Team thinking” on their part is a large advantage we have.

  5. Jack (Not Markell) in Delaware says:

    It is perhaps unfortunate that we have moved from having supporters in both parties (although not uniform or strong support from either) to having most of our supporters in one party, and that one the Outer Party, whose function it is to surrender slowly on everything else the Inner Party decides it wants. It does not bode well for the 2nd Amendment in our grandchildren’s time.

    • HappyWarrior6 says:

      You can’t use purely the language of politics, parties, or candidates to speak to societal gains on individual rights. There is a good article on this topic on

      The momentum is toward individual freedom and autonomy, and both parties are struggling to catch up. The Dems think they own it with gays, and the GOP thinks they own it with guns.

      Regardless of which party “wins”, the great question is if liberty is fostered whether the politicians care to embrace it or not.

      • Jack (Not Markell) in Delaware says:

        On that metric, I find it hard to view the past century, and especially the past half-century, as anything but disastrous for individual liberty. One can point to bright spots, though gay rights are at best a wash in my book; nobody’s squared the circle of treating gays decently without pissing on the religious (and other) people who think homosexuality is a net negative for society. All we’ve managed to do is stop pissing on one group and start pissing on another one.

        Gun rights are something of a bright spot, at least since 1994, but we’re still far behind where we were in 1960, culturally. Remember, Justice Scalia used to take his rifle to high school on the New York City subway. Normal then, inconceivable today. A lot of ground still to make up.

        • RAH says:

          We almost lost gun rights by 1994 . The narrative in schools and everywhere was guns are bad. However it shifted when Florida approved conceal carry and slowly every state did the same. The same arguments that blood would run was used and experience showed otherwise. The preppers and survivalists in the 1990 increased gun sales. But it was the urban shooter that changed. They wanted the ability to carry. It is hard to be for guns when you can’t carry.
          Each mass shooting the lesson is that the shooting would be over if someone else had a gun. VT or Newtown. Wayne said that on David Gregory after Newtown Noticed how many states started to allow guns in school.

          Now we have movie theater shootings I would guess the pressure is to allow cc in movies because though it may not save the first victim it probably would reduce the body count.
          These are the lessons that are being learned and it keeps the narrative that it is better to have a gun than not.

  6. LC Scotty says:

    There is a parallel here with the marriage equality movement that I think most people fail to see. People opposed to marriage equality lose exactly nothing if they fail to stop it. Their wallets don’t change, their schools, roads, their own marriages-nothing changes for them. And so it is for the gun grabbers. If open carry or shall issue or AWB repeals pass, they lose nothing. Oh they cry about seeing guns in a similar fashion that others cry about seeing gay men hold hands or some such nonsense.

    On the other side, those in favor of marriage equality gain or lose quite a bit depending on how they fare in the courts and legislatures. And so it is with gun owners. We are the ones with literal skin in the game as we stand to lose jobs, homes, freedom, families or personal property.

    • Archer says:

      Good point. I’d add that this goes double for people like Bloomberg, who are always sure to write in exemptions for police and private security that they currently pay for, and will continue to do so.

      I’d also bet that Bloomberg doesn’t eat at McDonald’s, doesn’t buy Big Gulps, and is on a low-sodium diet.

      He literally has nothing to lose either way on any of these issues — it’s not like making these things available will force him personally to consume them — but he loves to make his opponents lose.

      He’s a sociopath with delusions of grandeur on a power trip. The only difference between him and any other delusional sociopath, is that he has the money to try and make his delusions a reality.

  7. Sigivald says:

    “If only gun rights weren’t so widely popular!”


  1. SayUncle » Why we win - […] Even Vox gets it. […]