Cokie Roberts on NPR this morning was discussing the history of the NRA and gun legislation, and said something that really struck a chord with me: that you have to give them credit – they organize, they lobby, they vote.
And I had an epiphany: why can’t their opponents do the same? Why can’t there be an anti-NRA, that organizes all those who are appalled by gun violence and want to make a change?
If you start with the assumption that politicians are whores, this anti-gun lobby can just merely out-bid the NRA for congressional votes.
As with the right-to-life movement, the NRA contingent of the voting populace contains a lot of single-issue voters. Single-issue voters won’t vote for you regardless of your position on taxes, military spending, universal health care, LGBT rights, the trade imbalance, etc, if your position on their single issue is wrong. And they often will vote for you regardless of your position on anything and everything else if your opponent takes a position on their single issue that they regard as wrong.
Then, on top of that, those voters contribute lots of money to lobbying group organizations like the NRA that they consider to be speaking for them.
A hypothetical anti-NRA would have to be able to raise funds on a similar competitive level, despite the fact that the folks who think the NRA is batshit insane on gun issues tend to care also about civil rights issues, shifting a bunch of the tax burden back to the wealthy, global warming and the environment, police violence, gerrymandering, getting more women into elected office, abortion rights, workplace safety and union rights, and so on and so forth, and hence tend to contribute some money here, some money there, and the antiNRA would be one more Cause with its hand out for contributions.
Then, assuming they’ve got that, that they’ve managed to become well-funded, they go lobby politicians who believe that zillions of wild-eyed gun-toting voters will vote according to the dictates of the NRA, but who don’t believe (with good reason) that the voters whose mindset on gun issues aligns with the antiNRA group are quite as inclined to vote lockstep in accordance with a politician’s rating on this issue.
Actually, Brady doesn’t really have much money. They’ve been effectively subsumed by Bloomberg and the astroturf organizations he funds. Without Bloomberg’s money, the gun control movement would be significantly weakened.
A valid point. So the anti-NRA would need to turn its members into single-issue voters. The aNRA gathers the funds, lobbys the politicians, maintains the mailing lists; and can tell its members “Congressman Dolittle has pledged to repeal the 2nd Amendment – he gets the aNRA stamp of approval (and a big check); go vote for him.”
Yeah, the NRA is an arms industry lobby group manipulating a grass-roots movement. There isn’t really a multi-billion dollar industry on the other side willing to prop up such a group.
That might be part of it, but it can’t be all of it. There are serious environmental groups that make their mark in the lobbying world, and of course there is the famous MADD who got the US to get serious about cracking down on drunk drivers. I guess the question is: Are there any big league (heh) groups that are currently lobbying against a constitutional amendment? Maybe that’s it. It’s a tough row to hoe.
An epiphany? I’m surprised that you are unaware of the many gun-banning, anti-self-defense, anti-2nd Amendment lobbyist groups that already exist. The only thing the gun-banners lack are actual voters who actually believe the propaganda being spread by the many gun-banning, anti-self-defense, anti-2nd Amendment lobbyist groups.
Seeing that the gun industry is relatively small, and there are plenty of people (many with substantial money to give) who want much stricter gun control, it shouldn’t be that hard to run an effective gun control lobby.
If there’s a will to organize and vote (and enough voters to accomplish something), there’s a way. So far it appears that gun owners (most of whom don’t belong to or send money to the N.R.A.) have more energy and staying power.
A multi-billion dollar industry in a multi-trillion dollar economy. A small industry IOW. Not the answer IOW. The answer has been given: voters. A significant slice of the US electorate prioritizes gun rights at or near a single issue level. A negligible slice of the US electorate prioritizes gun control at a similar level.
An open ended suggestion ‘why don’t we change this?’ could be applied to any issue where one side doesn’t have the votes. Just saying that puts you at zero.
The fantasy that it’s driven by money from a (relatively tiny) ‘multi-billion dollar industry’ I think sets you back to less than zero. Likewise meaningless poll numbers about ‘want more gun control’. They don’t say how much more, and again crucially ignore the distinction between ‘yeah more gun control, I guess, that’s what I hear is the right position to have, though I don’t actually vote’ v ‘if you try to tighten national gun control I will never, ever vote for your party no matter what else, and I vote in every election’.