According to gun rights advocates, Democrats support gun control because they’re statists. They believe the government should take care of citizens’ safety (as well as most everything else). They don’t want to take on the responsibility of armed self-defense, and don’t think anyone else should either (excluding the police and the military). Which is true enough but not the whole truth. As the investor.com poll above indicates, Democrats cling to their anti-gun animus for another reason: they believe more guns = more crime. This despite the fact that . . .
the opposite is demonstrably true. Both individually (as evidenced by defensive gun use) and America’s falling crime rate (even as gun ownership rises to unprecedented levels).
Facts schmacts. With the disappearance of pro-gun Blue Dog Democrats, the Democratic Party has become dominated by left-leaning big city voters. Thanks to racist gun control laws and cultural antipathy, these supporters have no practical experience legally and responsibly keeping and bearing firearms. All they “know” is more guns = more crime. So gun control! Because less guns means less crime! Like this:
The vast majority of Democrats think gun control makes them safer. The vast majority of Republicans think gun control makes them less safe. It’s obvious who’s right (in both senses of the word). As I said before, the facts of the matter don’t matter. Like all people, Democrats are listening to WII-FM (What’s In It For Me). For the Democrats re: gun control? Nothing. There’s nothing in it for them. They don’t have guns.
Which is why big city Democrats have no interest in stories of defensive gun uses: they can’t identify. How could they? In most Democrat strongholds, voters can’t keep and bear arms. It’s too expensive, too bureaucratic and/or illegal. For those [mostly white] Democrats in Blue State strongholds who can afford gun ownership, those who know how to jump over bureaucratic hurdles and pull powerful strings, the anti-gun gestalt runs rampant. Owning a gun is simply not the done thing. Someone might get hurt!
All of which means asking Democrats to oppose gun control is asking them to defend your right to keep and bear arms, not theirs. Again, they don’t have guns. In effect, they don’t have a right to keep and bear arms. Worse, all they see is bad guys using guns to threaten, wound and murder. So Dems are quite happy to sacrifice your gun rights to see if gun control’s promise of less bad guys with guns pans out. Again, what have they got to lose?
As for the convincing pro-gun control Dems that privately held firearms are a bulwark again tyranny, most big city Dems aren’t educated enough to know what a “bulwark” is. Or, for that matter, tyranny (even though they live under the soft version of same). Those Dems who do understand the concept of armed defense against government tyranny are over-educated. They’ve been brainwashed to believe that civilian gun ownership isn’t relevant to questions about the government’s power.
There’s only way to change this pro-gun control Democratic dynamic: put guns into the hands of inner city Democrats. If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a hundred times: the NRA and other pro-gun groups must reach out to minorities and other traditional Democratic voters and teach them how to keep and bear arms. Until and unless that occurs, the political divide on guns will continue, and the balance could tip in either direction. As the antis like to say, it’s guns for everyone! Especially our “enemies.”
Reaching out to the uninitiated is a good thing. If just 1 out of 10 firearms owners took just one newbie to the range every year, we would bring an ample number of opponents over to our side and settle this once and for all.
Absolutely true. I never even thought about owning a gun until my friend brought me to the range with him in college. Now I have nine and bitterly oppose ill informed efforts to control what guns I can own. My change in view was entirely due to exposure and subsequent education. I’m one of those gun enthusiast leftists. Image that. An article where Farago doesn’t completely shit on my ilk AND I’m replying positively to one of your comments? Never though I’d see the day.
” I’m one of those gun enthusiast leftists.”
Curious, do you still vote ‘Left’?
If so, how do you reconcile that with gun rights?
I don’t see the relationship between gun rights and tax cuts for millionaires… or gun rights and dirty water, polluted air, anti birth control, anti-gay…
I believe everyone should be armed, all of the time… it would de facto end crime.
However, I will not vote for a party that thinks sending someone to prison for smoking a joint equates with justice.
There are a few of us who are left of center and are pro-gun. Gun control is magical thinking plus animism.
More guns in private hands than ever before in history and crime sitting stable at record lows for a decade+.
Anti Dems are the new flat earthers?
You know your comment just reminds me of the Pharisees vs. Jesus Christ, where He says “And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” (Luke 16:31 KJV)
Basically, their denial is so strong and their very essence so rooted and grounded in error that they will literally murder and defend to the death their opinion, even if proven wrong by Supernatural means. We’re [2A supporters] far less than Supernatural, so our mere “Facts” will never convince these devils.
See also, “Don’t bother me with the facts, I know what I know” which I’m not sure where that quote comes from but it is the same line of (wishful,ignorant) thinking.
Everyone please take notice of this comment!
All of us who have spent any time at all trying to educate people about firearms have seen it. It doesn’t matter how many facts your bring to the discussion nor how indisputable your facts may be: plenty of people simply reject them. They are not operating based on facts, reality, nor reason. Rather, they are operating purely on emotion and/or what they want.
It is just as impossible to achieve a “meeting of the minds” with these people as it is with a violent criminal. And just like violent criminals, they will only leave you alone if you have the means to FORCE them to leave you alone. That is why we have the Second Amendment.
As Ben Shapiro has stated, the only time it could be productive to debate a hardcore gun-grabber is if fence sitters are listening to the debate. That debate therefore provides an opportunity to persuade the fence sitters … because the hardcore gun-grabber is going to reject everything that you say.
This is a one-issue blog/website, essentially, although it touches on other things in relation to its issue. That said, gun control and facts/logic is not the only thing that Progs cannot be educated on. I have tried similar exercises, complete with facts and statistics and logical analysis on other political issues (my eldest sister is a hard-core Hillary supporter) and had absolutely zero ability to change how she felt on any issue when she had made up her mind that the Progressive agenda FELT like the right thing to do.
I can only suggest that perhaps one needs to find out first if the person you are addressing has any ability whatsoever to integrate facts with their world-view and come to new conclusions. If you find that they cannot, move along, you are spinning your wheels.
A person who lacks facts or information is simply ignorant.
A person who has the facts and refuses to act on them is simply stupid.
The lethal radius of stupid is incalculable.
This is the proverbial truth that can never be overcame , at least not until they find themselves clinging to the bottom of their desk while boots come nearer .
Just like they will never admit the truth about the founding fathers being Christian and our country being founded and grounded in Christianity and the principle truths of the Christian principles .
There are those who deny truths based on inaccurate assumptions of biased opinions of people with agendas and there are those who deny truths by not observing the facts that present before their very eyes , these are the head in the sand crowd , that believe in an abstract so much they refuse to infuse the information that would contradict their positions .
Yes , flat earth , indeed .
‘ Man made climate change ‘.
‘ Junior varsity radical religious nuts ‘.
‘ Islam is a religion of peace ‘.
‘ Guns kill ‘.
‘ SUVs are killing the Polar bears ‘.
‘ Coal is dirtier than Gas ‘.
‘ Electricity is cheaper and less environmentally destructive than fossil fuel ‘.
There are arguments , just as powerful , to each of these issues that will set the scale to balance .
Many people let emotion rule the day and throw logic out with the bath water when the facts do not mix with their agendas , on all sides of the political spectrum , and to the detriment of all .
There are no partys, just party goers. Our political system is broken. At this point I don’t know what can be done if anything.
There are only 2 possible outcomes:
We have another Reagan type, able to bring both sides together…somehow. Or it devolves in to another civil conflict.
Okay… 3… World War 3 happens first.
Reagan never brought both sides together, he crushed the other side. The left hated Reagan, but he usually outflanked them and went over and around their lackies in the press. I don’t that’s possible anymore.
At the risk of starting another argument in the comments section here, there are more choices. Voting third party isnt wasting votes. The American public needs to wake up to the fact that we have been high-jacked by the extremes in both parties. The parties need to wake up to the fact that we hold the power. Term limits for Congress and the Senate will help alleviate some of this as well.
Also, one people fail to do, is vote in primaries. A hell of a lot of people don’t know what, where, or when a primary is, other than seeing debates and what not on TV. A lot of them are also the same ones that claim “votes don’t matter” or “they’re all corrupt why vote.” Look at this year for instance, everyone, and I mean everyone anticipated Bush would easily nip the nomination, and now he’s almost certain to not. As much as establishment GOP hates to hear it, it sends a message and shakes up the party.
I am usually on your side of this argument and have voted Libertarian , when available , quite often , and in principle I agree with you completely . HOWEVER , I must offer this addendum to this coming election for president .
If we full around and end up with Hillary Clinton , Bernie Sanders or DONALD TRUMP , we are absolutely
( in my humble opinion ) done for good .
Hillary is real bad , Burnie would be better and Trump would be totally
100 % disaster .
A Trump vote is riding the pendulum swing from ‘ left ‘ ( BHO and 8 years of radical Marxism , [ light ] ) ,
to National Socialism and Adolf Hitler’s ‘ right ‘ .
If we do not elect a true conservative , constitutional principled , do what he says and mean what he says , moral to the core , man of integrity , this election , the looming financial crisis and global military conflict coming , will spell our doom . ( My humble opinion . )
God bless America and the American voter .
The problem is that consistent small government conservatives like you seem to be the minority of self-identified “small government conservatives” in this country. People have been assuming otherwise based on the success of the Tea Party, but then Trump came, and now we see that many – arguably, the majority – of those claiming that banner were not at all dedicated to its ideology, but rather temporary allies (i.e. supporting it only so long as their immediate goals coincided).
As much as it would irk me to admit it , and it does to the core . I believe you have a point and would concur , at least to our current position as we see it today , but I hold onto hope that many will come to their senses and see the trees in the forest , realize it is a forest and recognize the potential of a whiplash vote . If the economic collapse comes before the election I will fold away my hope and settle in for a trip through fire that will most assuredly come with a vote for the fake economic genius guru that is ‘ the Don ‘.
Of coarse , you know by now that I pray nightly for Ted Cruz .
Appreciate the discourse and God bless .
Ok, once more….
Vote for the candidate that reflects your values, ideals, hopes and vision. Between the two major parties, one is seeking a fast death to the republic as it was in the middle of the last century, the other party is seeking a slow death; death of the republic, either way. The last 6 presidential elections, the Repubs best claim to be worthy of a vote was, “At least we are not as bad as the opposition”. Demoncrats want to control, Repubs just want to go to all the parties and be on television.
Democrats, by a wide margin, believe that “stricter gun control would reduce crime/keep guns out of criminals’ hands.”
Oddly enough, every time I ask someone who asserts this belief to name one law that accomplishes that end, and how, exactly, the law does so, the answer is always non-responsive. I either get no answer, or I get some non-sequitur like, “I don’t know, but we have to do something“, or, “it won’t, but [insert some ad hominem about gun owners here].”
Yes, the bluest of the blue will not answer my questions. I very politely ask my question. It usually gets a non answer. Then, one of their friends that are SO much smarter than me starts with the ad hominem attack. Eventually the response was “you can believe YOUR sources about YOUR 2nd Amendment but I won’t” So, in other words, facts don’t matter. I even decided to sever connections with an old friend from high school. It was just too much effort.
Yup. It’s infuriating.
I think I’ll summarize as “I would rather do the wrong thing than nothing.” next time to see if that helps any. :p
A thoughtful article RF. Agree on all points.
Didn’t a Democrat say something about America being the Arsenal of Democracy? One would never believe 75 years later that arsenal is needed for citizens to lawfully protect themselves.
Gun rights are what we exercise in America not because of it, and we will continue to ecercise those rights LONG after America gets sh_t-canned by any evil blue a-hole (D) and they are why we have an America and what we would build the next one with.
Anyone claiming to know how long America will last, or that it will outlive you IS LYING, and doing so FOR THEIR SPECIFIC BENEFIT.
Keep your guns for the end of America. Anti-gun a-holes right to (voice a negative opinion or) subjugate your RTKABA never existed, but if it had it would sunset an infinite period before your RTKABA. Don’t let your POS neighbors sh_t on your rights, or your future. They (obviously) won’t be around long enough to help you make one.
We have freedoms because we have fun Rights, not the other way around.
And freedoms are not here to protect governments. Governments are here to protect freedoms ( or they claim to, I think we’d be better off with no state)
Governments are here to protect freedoms. Welll…..in theory…..in reality…..uh, no.
except republicans want to regulate the crap out of it
Yeah, they’re just as bad as the evil blue liberal/progressive/communist (D). Keep saying that up until election day, and maybe you’ll believe it.
I wish guns were the only problem with the evil blue house of (D). Then again, if we could clear up the worlds liberal/progressive/communist (D) problem, we could just talk about guns here.
And how? Look at the amount of regulation vs state colors. Tell me there’s any constitutional carry states that aren’t deep red?
Vermont’s had Constitutional carry longer than any other state, and it’s about as blue as a state can get. It’s the only state that keeps re-electing a senator who proudly embraces the “Socialist” label.
It’s also the only state that has a senator with the approval rating of over 80%, and disapproval under 15%. Which, I’d wager, has more to do with Sanders being re-elected than the particulars of his platform, or how he chooses to identify himself.
I’m sure you’re right that most aren’t voting for him because he calls himself a Socialist. But if 80% of the voters are happy with someone who’s far enough left that he’s happy with that label, that ain’t a deep-red state.
Montana is kind of purpleish, and we’ve got ‘Constitutional carry’ outside of city limits.
Montana is purplish? Not so much: http://www.270towin.com/states/Montana At least not when it comes to presidential elections.
Presidential elections are not a good gauge of this, because it only takes a simple majority for the state to go one way or the other, and winner takes all the elector votes. If you look at the graphs at that very page that you’ve linked to, it shows 2008 vote as 47% to 45%, and 2012 vote as 41% to 55%. So it is at least 40% Democrat, and before that it was almost even. That’s pretty purplish – and such a divide is usually more visible in local & state politics (short of gerrymandering, which is not a significant factor for Montana). Consequently, Montana House of Representatives is currently 59 Republican to 41 Democrat, reflecting the popular vote pretty closely.
A “true red state” is something like Wyoming, where you have 51 Republicans to 9 Democrats in the House.
Wisconsin has constitutional carry since it’s inception despite being a “progressive” state for decades.
My latest range converts was a 50yo Cuban friend that I habent seen in 20 years, his daughter, and her NY jewish fiance. After talking about old times for 20 minutes I steered the conversations to hobbies and another few minutes we were arranging a range meetup.
My CZ SP01 gets 3 more notches. They’re asking about first weapon options.
Also scored another win a couple months ago with a fellow employee. Another CZ disciple.
One newbie and one hadn’t-shot-since-a-22-rifle-as-a-kid last weekend. I foresee two purchases within the next week or two. 🙂
Socialists assume anyone owning a firearm is a criminal. Therefore the more own firearms, the more criminals. (Don’t think I have seen an actual “democrat” in the wild lately.) Republicans? Don’t get me started. Who elected these people anyway?
I wouldn’t call them socialists at this point, or Democrats, commies, etc. I call them antifascists. There are organized groups calling themselves “antifascists” and claiming to “fight fascism,” yet they are only ideologically opposed to the ideals of fascism (individual and national strength, national pride, etc). Like the antipopes were not actually the total opposite of the Pope, but claimed to be the “true” pope, these antifascists act like fascists in their thuggery and government-sponsored brutality, but they don’t actually care about improving social conditions or bringing pride to their nation. They just seek ways to get themselves benefits from the almighty government, while acting as hedonistic and self-destructive as possible. True socialists and communists are idealists who want to share the wealth, neglecting the human condition and the inevitable hoarding of resources, but since a state army must be created to actually redistribute everything, the state ends up hoarding all the stuff and becomes interested only in its own self-preservation (just like every politician ever). The antifascists just want to take it from everyone else, with no “altruistic” motivations.
In Texas used to be a lot of “blue dog” democrats, mostly farmers & ranchers. It was fueled by agriculture subsidies but don’t mess with their 2nd amendment rights. It kept meat on the table and pests at bay. Now farm & ranch land turned in subdivisions. Here is the shocker for the new subdivision dwellers, deer live there too, cayotes move in, good bye to kitty & fluffy
Well it occurs to me if you are right, then overcoming a simple mis-perception about the relationship between guns and crime is probably a much easier problem than overcoming actual ideological differences like those you mentioned at the start of the article.
Yeah people tend to get bogged down in fruitless ideological battles. We have to find ways to move past that.
It’s not necessarily just a misperception on the relationship between guns and crime. They advocate for more police (or armed body guards for the rich/powerful) after all, which still leads to more guns = less crime. Too bad they won’t address THAT mental disconnect.
That, sir, is brilliant insight. A winning argument.
Democrats feel “hugs and drugs” will solve all of our social problems. No.
Another reason Democrats want control is that if they can disarm their perceived enemies that gives them awesome power.
hear hear. i have lamented many times before the anti-gun people i know have never fired a gun, don’t own guns and would never think to use a gun to defend themselves, so of course they favor gun control: its not like they would have to give up anything.
Agree. Having grown up in the big city and moved away, “most people” simply had no exposure to guns (and a lot of other things as well.) And there are precious few shooting ranges in or near any cities, much less Northeast or Left Coast cities. But the “why can’t guns/gun owners be licensed just like cars/drivers” analogy could also be used to change some minds. If they knew that: drivers licenses and car registrations only apply if you are driving on a public road. I can buy a car and have it delivered to my 100 acres (if I had 100 acres) and drive it around all day without a drivers license or registration. It is, in the non-registration states, the same way with guns. In my house, on my property, aint nobody’s business but my own. I can accept the need for CCW license, especially in urban areas, and in any event most of the states in question will never agree to constitutional carry, and in the comparative sense, the CCW is like the driver’s license. I don’t buy into “registration” of a carry gun, but isn’t that the way it more or less works even in Texas (qualify for CCW with a particular gun, or type of gun), much less in a state like NY or CA. My point is that NOW, the way it works with guns is, to a large degree, the way it works with cars. On the other hand, what the anti’s want for guns is very different from what would be tolerated with cars. If applied to cars, the anti’s would say that you cannot purchase a car that is as large or goes as fast as a police car, has greater than a 10 gallon gas tank, has an automatic transmission and all wheel drive, EVEN IF YOU ONLY RUN IT ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY, just because there is a one in 100 million chance that you will all of the sudden lose it entirely, use the car to run down pedestrians in Times Square, and then lead the police on a chase. Maybe, just maybe, enough of the anti’s will understand the absurdity of the argument to fully tip the national debate. Scary that others will agree with the argument — let’s ban personal sports cars and SUV’s and force people into Priuses, preferably shared with others in communal ownership, or onto electric buses next to malodorous homeless people and armed gang bangers, for the good of the planet and the children.
“Democrats cling to their anti-gun animus for another reason: they believe more guns = more crime.”
True that this is their belief, but it goes a step further, or a fork further. On one tine, they do believe that simply removing the guns (as though that could be done at all, let alone simply) would deprive career criminals of the means with which to commit crimes. The flaw is that this ignores means substitution, whereby criminals just use a different weapon or no weapon at all. (Even with guns available, over 90% of rapes are committed by an unarmed assailant.)
The troubling element of their thinking, the other tine of the fork, is the pairing of impulsivity with misanthropy. Liberals, whether Democrats, another party, or unbranded, do not trust themselves and they don’t like others. They view the world through the prism of their own hopeless, helpless, hateful mindset. They regard themselves and everyone else as but one cross word or stray slight away from acting on the lethal ambitions they secretly shelter. That’s why guns must be banished, because anyone could freak out at any moment.
Again, this ignores other lethal means, but it also reveals how coarse liberals regard themselves and others. No one can have guns because everyone is on auto pilot and no one can be trusted. Only the chosen ones, in government, carefully selected, thoroughly vetted and rigorously drilled, can use guns.
Liberals do not believe in the primacy of the Individual, and their attitude toward guns and submission to the government reflect this.
You, sir, win the Intertubez for the day.
Well duh. I get tired of all the trolls who claim there ain’t no difference between parties. Ones bad and ones much worse. Hilariously I just saw Bernie Sanders with a big lead(in Iowa and NH) on the hildebeast-commie vs. madam hickler…hold your nose and vote R(or sign up for the civil war).
>> sign up for the civil war
Pretty sure I’ve heard that 4 years ago, too. And 4 years before that, too.
What happened to all those FEMA concentration camps that Obama was all set to open and start packing with his executive orders any day now?
Laying the ground work for Hitlery’s second term.
The truth of the matter is, Anti-gunner’s actions and burdens on gun-owners past/present/future is
H A R A S S M E N T.
They have negated their First Amendment rights by attacking gun-owners 2nd Amendment rights, it’s an abomination and an attack on civil liberties.
Haven’t they ever realized that they have the causal relationship reversed. More guns don’t result in more crime. . .
But, more crime does absolutely result in more illegal guns.
Better to deal with the cause than a symptom. And for goodness sakes, don’t take away one of the more effective tools a law-abiding citizen has to defend themselves.
The leftists don’t trust people to exercise their rights responsibly, so they try to reduce or eliminate those rights or control them until they are meaningless. I can understand this.
I was born and raised in NYC and I didn’t trust anyone either. Couldn’t, actually. Cities are dangerous places and the smiling stranger who happily greets you is the same person who sticks a knife in your back and steals your wallet.
Outside of the big cities, the smiling stranger is the person in the next lane at the range who offers to let you shoot his near-mint Luger 08.
“Increased gun ownership would lead to more crime?”
The ever on-going non sequitur that firearms (somehow) make good people go bad – and that bad people are going to stop being bad because someone took their gun away.
buy my SIG SAUER 1911 MAX at just $850 . very good condition . just text 909-300-5041 for detils?
i agree getting them on board is the best option but a simple retort to anyone saying we can’t fight our government is point to afghanistan and say “they’ve been doing a pretty good job”
It’s a retort that’s too easy to shoot down. Imagine if it was China in Afghanistan, and not US. Imagine the rules of engagement that they’d be using then. Think about the difference in results.
Hell, you don’t even need to imagine anymore. Just look at what Russia is doing in Syria. “School? What school? There wasn’t any school.”
Doesn’t that sort of support his argument? If the U.S. government was facing a widespread domestic guerrilla insurgency, would a take-no-prisoners, scorched-earth strategy work very well? Or would such heavy-handed tactics just drive more people to rebellion?
It’s a different and unrelated argument, though.
I can’t really think of any historical civil war that did not involve take-no-prisoners, scorched-earth type of approach, if neither side is unable to win conventionally. Unlike with foreign intervention, there’s no option to just pull out, or (e.g. when one side is separatist), it is very costly, so hardliners usually get their way.
So I don’t know if a no-holds-barred approach would work long term, but it would almost certainly be tried. So Afghanistan experience (where US forces are anything but no-holds-barred) is not directly comparable.
Truly in their own little world on this topic.
Read that chart carefully, the first pair of stacks on the left tell the story. The anti-gun crowd is winning. Only a little bit, but that is enough to keep POTG under threat. We can’t persuade anti-gun types, we can only out-birth them (not gonna happen).
I am a democrat who does not support gun control.
I am lifetime NRA and SAF member, with pipe dreams of national constitutional carry, repeal of most of the NFA, repeal of the Hughes amendment. I also think a woman’s body is her own, an adults choice to use drugs is their own, taxes and the social programs they provide are a boon to our society, and that illegal immigrants should be granted citizenship, not deported. I listen to NPR and I would even vote for Hillary Clinton if she supported gun rights (or, at least wasn’t such a foaming gun-control advocate).
Unfortunately, because my views don’t fall into one of the two political buckets, I am forced to choose between my gun rights and everything else I stand for and believe in.
You’re not alone.
But remember that we do, to some extent, have control over what happens in either bucket. Primaries, obviously, and other internal party politics; but just generally letting them know that we exist in the first place. Partisanship is getting so extreme that people start to forget that political views don’t have to come in pre-arranged packages like what they’re used to.
In this election, PLEASE register if you haven’t already, go to the primaries, and vote Sanders. Hillary has been making gun control her #1 attack point. If she fails regardless, it will be remembered, and considered by future candidates on all levels.
PLEASE-your FEMA camp is coming-courtesy of your precious dumbocrat candidates. The troll comment stands…
How much crow are you willing to eat if the “camps” are still not materialized by the end of President Hillary’s or President Sanders’ second term? Let’s make a bet. Your choice of currency – dollars, bitcoins, gold, ammo…
There won’ t even be an America-no matter who “wins”. Wait ’till China fails-and I bet 2 bits(that’s a quarter young buck)…
Every R/D party hack is a statist. They just support different forms of statism.
they believe more guns = less government control..
they believe less guns = more government control..
Rational thought requires rational people. You can not be rational with the irrational. Question is, which form of insanity is considered rational? What we have here is a willful lack of communication. (yeah, I give myself headaches too).
“If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a hundred times: the NRA and other pro-gun groups must reach out to minorities and other traditional Democratic voters and teach them how to keep and bear arms.”
Wasn’t it on this very blog that I read an article within the past two weeks about the NRA Recruiter of the Year (retail category) being a oppressed gun shop in a minority neighborhood in Chicago?
Yup — here it is:
Sounds like this proves that the strategy works.
Um Henry Chucks is in RIVERDALE-not Chicago. But I get your point-honestly I doubt the majority of NRA memberships are black folks. Lots of white folks(from Chicago too) frequent Chucks-and they have a gun range too…
Regarding popularizing firearms among minorities: What are good strategies for popularizing 2A among blue-state Asian-Americans, including Hindus and Sikhs?
For Sikhs, ask them why they’re wearing kirpan (their ritual dagger). There’s a specific meaning for it which has obvious applications for RKBA.