I’ve said this over the years, to a number of Second Amendment activists; if you’d have told me 25 years ago that the state of the Second Amendment would be as good as it is right now, in 2013, I’d have said you were nuts.
In 1987, when I first started as a pundit on the issue, Florida was the ninth “shall issue” state, and the first one with a large population. Today, most of the country is “shall issue”, and the number of firearms has ballooned even as the crime rate has plummeted.
In 1988, it looked as if Minnesota’s pre-emption statute was in jeopardy, and that the Metrocrat autocracy would have free reign to act like pocket Daleys.
But for a view of how much things have really changed, and over how m uch time, a longer view is even more interesting:
What about the possession of pistols and revolvers — do you think there should be a law which would forbid possession of this type of gun except by the police or other authorized person?
The question was slightly changed over the years. Since 1980 it’s been:
Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police or other authorized persons?
The current breakdown is just what Europeans would expect of Cowboy Nation. Only 25% of Americans say “Yes, should be” – versus 74% who say, “No, should not be.”
But if you think this reflects a long-standing American tradition, you’re dead wrong. Back in 1959, the breakdown was 60% yes, 36% no. Support for gun-grabbing fell almost non-stop during the ensuing decades, with just one odd reversal in 1979.
It’s too early to become triumphalistic; the seesaw can easily tilt the other way.
But it’s encouraging.
The “why” would be an interesting question to answer. Plenty of speculation in the article, which you should read.
There might be a lesson there for conservatives interested in influencing policies other than gun control. The NRA is focused on a single issue, it pursues its goes relentlessly, it does not compromise, and it knows its enemies are enemies, not ‘friends we disagree with on this issue’.
Thanks for the well-written and optimistically accurate post. It is the perfect counterpoint to the forboding (fund-raiser) letter I just got from Wayne LaPierre.
I hadn’t considered this perspective before. I was raised around guns, shooting, and hunting. My much older brother kept me well-informed at a young age of the (otherwise invisible to a 14-year-old) damage that gun control politicians could do to my gun rights. My first awareness of gun politics was the GCA 1968 and the events that led to it’s passage; a great beginning to general political awareness as well.
You’re right. Those, and many others since, were dark years for pro-gunners, and more are likely ahead. However, when looking back, the current positive state of gun politics really is a testament to those who support the NRA, show up at meetings, and support the right politicians.
Perhaps if the NRA used this approach occasionally, more members would be more attentive, enthusiastic, and generous …