Guns Win: The political ramifications for candidates taking a strong position on gun rights
Jeff Knox
October 12, 2006
Politicians and political advisors - particularly those on the left side of the aisle - are finally realizing that gun control is a losing issue in elections. What they can’t seem to grasp on either side of the aisle is that gun rights is a winning issue.
In the 2004 elections, both parties demonstrated a willingness to risk offending their base supporters by giving lip service to opponent’s issues. Nowhere was this more evident than in the presidential campaigns and the gun issue.
John Kerry, with a long anti-gun record in the Senate, and endorsements from all of the major gun control groups, made quite a show of his support of hunting and, "...the second amendment, as it has been interpreted in our society." Of course Kerry’s gun posturing was a prime example of what former Democrat Senator John Patrick Moynihan referred to as, "…just boob bait for the bubbas." Kerry had seen the gun issue cost Al Gore his home state of Tennessee and possibly the Presidency so he thought some camouflage would help. Unfortunately for Kerry, most of the bubbas saw right through the camo and let him know what they thought about it.
Behind the scenes, Kerry’s people were reassuring the gun control groups that the Senator was still 100% with them, that he was simply moderating his rhetoric to mitigate damage expected from defecting pro-gun Democrats – particularly union members.
At the same time, rather than encourage his strong pro-gun base, George W. Bush was going out of his way to declare his support of “reasonable” gun control measures like bans on so-called assault weapons. Granted Bush was in a difficult position in that his campaign had painted Kerry as a “flip-flopper” and he, Bush, had included support for the assault weapons ban in his 2000 campaign. “Flip-flopping” on the issue would have been difficult to defend.
On the other hand, Bush’s apparent eagerness to declare his support for banning certain guns because they're scary looking was unnecessary and was clearly an attempt to demonstrate to “mainstream” America that he was not in the pocket of the NRA – whom Republican pollsters say is perceived as “radical” by “mainstream” America.
Of course, Bush had people behind the scenes reassuring the NRA that the President had no intention of actively pursuing any gun control legislation. The problem there is that, as politicians and political consultants need to recognize, NRA is not the “Gun Lobby”. NRA is just a front organization for the 70,000,000 gun owners and activists who actually comprise the gun lobby.
While the Bush campaign might have had an understanding with the NRA, they did not have an understanding with the millions of gun-voters that make up the real gun lobby. That oversight cost them many votes and could have easily cost them the election.
Had John Kerry not been stupid enough to go back to Washington to help defeat the firearms industry liability protection bill and get his picture taken with Ted Kennedy, Dianne Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer in the process, many more pro-gun voters might have bought into his camouflage and given him their votes or simply stayed away from the polls.
Luckily for Bush, Kerry just couldn’t help showing his true colors and most of the gun lobby noticed.
In the end, Kerry lost no support from the anti’s by claiming to be pro-gun and gained nothing from the gun-voters or "Middle America" with his camouflage campaign.
Meanwhile, Bush gained nothing from anti-gun voters or “Middle America” but lost vital support from many gun-rights activists - votes which could have cost him a second term.
While the Bush team and the NRA congratulated each other for the win, the belief that politicians are all liars who will say anything to be elected was solidly reinforced and gun owner’s mistrust of the Republican Party was rightly increased.
Had President Bush made strong pro-gun statements instead of wobbly anti-gun comments, gun-voters would have turned out in droves to support him while the rest of America would have voted just as they did anyway.
A candidate (especially a social conservative) who strongly supports individual firearm rights, responsibility, and accountability, gains votes from gun-voters (and people gun-voters have influence over), but loses nothing. Gun rights supporters will work and vote for a candidate with whom they disagree on virtually every other issue, but gun control advocates almost always have other priorities swaying their votes.
No one ever lost an election because they were pro-gun, but many have lost because they were anti-gun. Likewise, few have ridden to victory on a gun control agenda but many have been elected as a result of support from gun-voters.
As November approaches, politicians and campaign advisors would do well to remember that in politics - like knife fights - guns almost always win.
In the 2004 elections, both parties demonstrated a willingness to risk offending their base supporters by giving lip service to opponent’s issues. Nowhere was this more evident than in the presidential campaigns and the gun issue.
John Kerry, with a long anti-gun record in the Senate, and endorsements from all of the major gun control groups, made quite a show of his support of hunting and, "...the second amendment, as it has been interpreted in our society." Of course Kerry’s gun posturing was a prime example of what former Democrat Senator John Patrick Moynihan referred to as, "…just boob bait for the bubbas." Kerry had seen the gun issue cost Al Gore his home state of Tennessee and possibly the Presidency so he thought some camouflage would help. Unfortunately for Kerry, most of the bubbas saw right through the camo and let him know what they thought about it.
Behind the scenes, Kerry’s people were reassuring the gun control groups that the Senator was still 100% with them, that he was simply moderating his rhetoric to mitigate damage expected from defecting pro-gun Democrats – particularly union members.
At the same time, rather than encourage his strong pro-gun base, George W. Bush was going out of his way to declare his support of “reasonable” gun control measures like bans on so-called assault weapons. Granted Bush was in a difficult position in that his campaign had painted Kerry as a “flip-flopper” and he, Bush, had included support for the assault weapons ban in his 2000 campaign. “Flip-flopping” on the issue would have been difficult to defend.
On the other hand, Bush’s apparent eagerness to declare his support for banning certain guns because they're scary looking was unnecessary and was clearly an attempt to demonstrate to “mainstream” America that he was not in the pocket of the NRA – whom Republican pollsters say is perceived as “radical” by “mainstream” America.
Of course, Bush had people behind the scenes reassuring the NRA that the President had no intention of actively pursuing any gun control legislation. The problem there is that, as politicians and political consultants need to recognize, NRA is not the “Gun Lobby”. NRA is just a front organization for the 70,000,000 gun owners and activists who actually comprise the gun lobby.
While the Bush campaign might have had an understanding with the NRA, they did not have an understanding with the millions of gun-voters that make up the real gun lobby. That oversight cost them many votes and could have easily cost them the election.
Had John Kerry not been stupid enough to go back to Washington to help defeat the firearms industry liability protection bill and get his picture taken with Ted Kennedy, Dianne Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer in the process, many more pro-gun voters might have bought into his camouflage and given him their votes or simply stayed away from the polls.
Luckily for Bush, Kerry just couldn’t help showing his true colors and most of the gun lobby noticed.
In the end, Kerry lost no support from the anti’s by claiming to be pro-gun and gained nothing from the gun-voters or "Middle America" with his camouflage campaign.
Meanwhile, Bush gained nothing from anti-gun voters or “Middle America” but lost vital support from many gun-rights activists - votes which could have cost him a second term.
While the Bush team and the NRA congratulated each other for the win, the belief that politicians are all liars who will say anything to be elected was solidly reinforced and gun owner’s mistrust of the Republican Party was rightly increased.
Had President Bush made strong pro-gun statements instead of wobbly anti-gun comments, gun-voters would have turned out in droves to support him while the rest of America would have voted just as they did anyway.
A candidate (especially a social conservative) who strongly supports individual firearm rights, responsibility, and accountability, gains votes from gun-voters (and people gun-voters have influence over), but loses nothing. Gun rights supporters will work and vote for a candidate with whom they disagree on virtually every other issue, but gun control advocates almost always have other priorities swaying their votes.
No one ever lost an election because they were pro-gun, but many have lost because they were anti-gun. Likewise, few have ridden to victory on a gun control agenda but many have been elected as a result of support from gun-voters.
As November approaches, politicians and campaign advisors would do well to remember that in politics - like knife fights - guns almost always win.
Print
Email
