In the endzone

Sebastian defined what he calls “our opponent’s endzone” in regards to Second Amendment activism as, “Basically, they no longer have any real relevance in the public debate.”

We might be there because if this poll is correct it should mean that we can “score at will”:

A poll unveiled Wednesday by Rasmussen Reports offers a glimpse into the mind of American voters. The poll found a majority of Americans like the National Rifle Association (NRA) but have a harsher view of the National Education Association (NEA).

The poll found that 54 percent of those surveyed have a favorable view of the NRA — with 29 percent holding a very favorable view of the organization which defends the Second Amendment and promotes gun safety; 41 percent of those surveyed view the NRA as unfavorable. The poll found a partisan divide, with 80 percent of Republicans seeing the NRA in a favorable light, 63 percent of Democrats viewing it as unfavorable. A majority of independents — 53 percent — hold the NRA in favorable regard.

Defenders of the Second Amendment could cheer another part of the poll, which found that 56 percent of those surveyed oppose stricter gun control, while only 36 percent back harsher restrictions on the right to carry arms.

I find it telling that no mention of any anti-gun organization is made. When 54 percent of those surveyed have a favorable view of the NRA what percentage could possibly have a favorable view of the Brady Campaign? And what percentage has even heard of the Violence Policy Center or Coalition to Stop Gun Violence?

If we can keep their coffers full SAF can run play (today–SAF FILES FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST ILLINOIS CARRY BAN) after play (yesterday–SAF WINS INJUNCTION V. CHICAGO GUN RANGE BAN) with our undefeated superstar Alan Gura. The more we run up the score with these court victories while the opposition is in disarray the better off we will be in the long run.


6 thoughts on “In the endzone

  1. It might be time to start offering them my honorable exit proposition soon. Would you like to be involved?

  2. To run with your football analogy this is like scoring a touch down (McDonald), *running* instead of kicking for an extra two (Ezell), and then returning the kickoff for another touch down (the just-filed Moore). The antis haven’t even been in a position to *punt* in years.

  3. @Acksiom, Something along the lines of the Operative in the opening scenes of ‘Serenity’?

  4. Where would modern pro-rights gun owners be if there had not been a sunset ban on the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban? I think it would still be the law of the land. And I think the anti-rights folk would still be demonizing gun owners successfully using the cosmetic features of firearms, as the AWB was designed to do, had it not contained a sunset provision that ended during a short Republican control in both houses of Congress.

    The leftists have only to win ONCE decisively to stop any and all progress by pro-rights groups for a very long time, or permanently. Think NY Sullivan Act of 1911, still in force, think AWB, which lasted “only” 10 years because that was a compromise needed to get it passed. That they only need to win once, is why they believe in the inevitability of their victory.

    They only have to win once, every once in a great while, and still they will make progress in infringing our rights. So run the score up on them; score touchbacks in their endzone, don’t let them have possession or control of the game at all!

  5. @Joe, what I have in mind is a new organization focusing specifically on the identification of and outreach towards men and boys at greatest risk of suicide.

    As I’ve pointed out before, the majority of tragic, senseless firearm deaths in the usa from 1981 to 2007 have been male suicides — 50.13+% (CDC online stats). In fact, suicides overall consistently outnumber homicides; more people kill themselves in the usa than kill others, year after year, at a rate of about 1.7 to 1.. And restricting access to firearms doesn’t appear to affect that meaningfully; the research I’ve seen so far indicates that people simply kill themselves by other means if they can’t get guns.

    So demographically, we don’t really have a gun violence problem in this country. Instead, we have a suicide problem, the victims of which are primarily men and boys (about 80%, or 4 to 1) and who primarily use guns. And since restricting guns appears to not meaningfully change that, we’re therefore all better off focusing on suicide prevention instead.

    I also believe that decreasing the suicide rate through outreach and support would decrease the crime rate in general and the violent crime rate in particular.

    I have to pause there because I have a lot of chores down in the valley today.

    @Phssthpok, more like Miles Vorkosigan citing Sun Tzu’s instruction to leave an opponent an escape route if possible so that they don’t have to fight your forces to the death. Although the original idea comes more from trying to apply Cavilo’s adage about choosing so that ALL paths lead to victory.

Comments are closed.