Category: Guns

There’s some clarifications I want to make to some of my assertions in a previous post. I don’t advocate anyone become a single issue voter, if that’s not their inclination. We certainly do have single issue gun voters out there, and I think that’s fine too, but to me what goes on inside the voting booth is not really any of anyone else’s business. My fatalism that perhaps there’s no way to avoid the circular firing squad stems from what people who have a voice in this issue say publicly where the political establishment is watching (and they do watch, even this far off corner of the Internet).

It is a real problem when one group endorses one candidate, and another group endorses another candidate, and is very public about it. It’s going to make the political establishment, who for the most part don’t care about your pet issue (whatever that issue is), question whether your vote is reliable. It essentially destroys the value of both groups endorsements, when they publicly endorse against each other in the same issue. I don’t think that’s a positive thing, but I don’t know whether it’s a solvable problem. If one group stands back and lets the other group marginalize its endorsement, for fear of the metaphorical circular firing squad, there’s a real risk of candidates believing that the group isn’t willing to stand up for its endorsees. If it fights back it’s undermining the other group, and raising the public profile of the argument, and increasing the chance it’s going to be noticed.

I don’t expect everyone is just going to line up behind NRA’s endorsements. Obviously people have issues with them, especially this election, but it’s been my contention that their issues have nothing or next to nothing to do with the Second Amendment. It is my sincere belief that most of these groups which involve themselves in electioneering are taking advantage of the anti-incumbent public mood in an attempt to boost their stature within the conservative movement, and feather their own nests. NRA, at least publicly, has taken the position it’s a Second Amendment advocate only, rather than a conservative advocate. In truth, I think NRA as an organization is deeply conflicted about this as much as the movement is as a whole.

But this may not be an issue after Tuesday. When many blue dog Democrats are swept away, and all that remains is the left, there’s a very good chance that the bipartisan era of the Second Amendment will come to an end. Conservatives will have the NRA back as a conservative organization. The real shame, I think, is that I believe that’s ultimately bad for the Second Amendment.

John Richardson covers a bit of what’s been going on in North Carolina. This is one area I’m not sure there’s any solution other than the circular firing squad, because what you have is a state group, in this case, Grassroots North Carolina, actively trying to undermine an NRA endorsement over issues that have absolutely nothing to do with gun rights. This particularly annoys me because in the DISCLOSE battle, Schuler was the one Democrat who tried to do the right thing, and get every pro-gun group exempted from the requirement. Not only just every gun rights group, but virtually every political advocacy group.

GRNC is not only wrong on Schuler, they are supremely wrong. They are lambasting the one Democrat who tried to solve this problem in favor of all 501(c)(4) non-profits, including GOA, including CCRKBA, and including GRNC. I will back GRNC to the hilt when they do good work like participate in lawsuits to try to get North Carolina’s emergency powers laws tossed out, but they are wrong to attack Schuler on this issue, and I believe they are shooting the rest of us in the foot in their attempts to smear him on an issue totally unrelated to gun rights.

So what obligation do we have to not return fire when other groups actively being a circular firing squad? I think the answer is we shouldn’t have much. The great trick is not to let it get personal. Argue on the facts, and may the best set of facts win the day.

UPDATE: This is really a collective action problem. NRA promises pro-2A supporting politicians they can deliver the gun vote on election day. To the extent NRA can actually do that, we win. If public infighting draws into question whether NRA can actually deliver the vote, it hurts the organization as a whole electorally, and thus the cause. I will never tell an NRA member not to vote their individual conscience as a citizen. I would be lying to you if I told you that when I got into the voting booth, I’ve never bucked an NRA endorsement. Most certainly I have, because as a citizen, the Second Amendment is important to me, but I weigh that among a number of issues that are important to me.

NRA risks creating a perception that when it comes to supporting Democrats, even liberal Democrats, who support the Second Amendment, they can’t deliver the goods. If that perception takes hold, and you can bet our enemies will do everything they can to push that perception after Tuesday, the whole bipartisan coalition we’re creating falls apart, and we go back to the Republicans treating us like the crazy uncle. Because where else do we have to go?

Collective action is a tough thing for gun owners. It’s always felt like herding cats, and to be honest, I’d probably get worried if it ever wasn’t like that. But ultimately, you have to take collective action to protect individual rights, because politics is a collective action sort of institution. That necessarily has to mean putting some of yourself aside to accomplish goals. Not all of yourself, but it requires a bit of being able to subordinate your own desires for the sake of the greater good. It requires not making the perfect the enemy of good.

The left is very good at this, for obvious reasons. It’s in their blood. It’s not in ours. I wouldn’t want us to be like the left. Not by a long shot. But I think we need to figure out a way to disagree, and to express disagreement, that doesn’t undermine the cause as a whole. We need to be able to speak collectively as a close to a single voice as we can manage, but still have room within the framework for disagreement without seriously undermining the single voice. I’m not going to absolve NRA, and suggest they aren’t part of this problem, because I think they are. But to be honest, I won’t pretend to have a solution. I’m not sure there is a solution. But the fact that the left is very good at collective action, while we’re very bad at it, mostly due to our respective natures, is another one of the reasons liberty loses. Liberty is an individual benefit, but to preserve it you need collective action within a political framework. This is a paradox I’m not sure how to resolve.