Want to read a clever, interesting, and unusually original book about guns? Try Firepower, How the NRA turned Gun Owners into a Political Force in American Politics, by Matthew Lacombe, who teaches political science at Barnard College. But don’t make the mistake of thinking that just because the author teaches at an Ivy League school, that he’s just another tree-hugging liberal out to explain why guns are no good.
In fact, at no point during the entire text does Lacombe make any value judgements about guns or the people who own guns at all. What he’s bitten off to chew is the role played by the NRA, organizationally speaking, in the contours of the American political scene. And this is a significant topic at the moment, given the possibility that America’s ‘first civil rights organization’ may shortly be forced to fold up its tent and disappear.
Lacombe’s book is an examination of how the NRA turned its membership into an organized, political force that ultimately made common ground with the GOP. He divides this gradual evolution into three, distinct periods: (1). The ‘quasi-governmental’ period which ran from the 1930’s through 1968 when the NRA resisted federal gun laws but didn’t choose political sides; (2). The ‘party-group’ alignment period from the late 1960’s until the 1980’s when the NRA found itself increasingly aligned with the GOP; and (3). The ‘partisan’ period beginning with Reagan and going through Trump when the NRA’s messaging was more about politics and often never even mentioned guns or gun ‘rights.’
Lacombe analyzes the messaging for each period by comparing editorials published each month in the NRA’s flagship magazine, The American Rifleman, and comparing with Letters to the Editor in four major newspapers, one published on the East Coast, one published on the West Coast, and two newspapers published in between. What Lacombe find is that the topics and the wording which appear in NRA editorials is usually similar to the topics and wording found in letters about guns published in the daily press.
This content consonance between what the NRA says and what gun-owners then repeating allows Lacombe to posit the idea that the NRA has been especially successful in creating a gun-owning ideology which can motivate the members to respond whenever the politics of gun control rears its ugly head.
The book is written in a jaunty, relaxed but academically-rigorous style. The reader will have no trouble following the detailed ins and outs of how various national gun bills were developed, introduced, debated, amended and ultimately either voted into law or ended up on the Congressional floor.
This book should be required reading for gun-control advocates and Lacombe’s findings should be used to craft a narrative about gun violence that might convince at least some gun owners to come over to the other side.
On the other hand, the book’s attempt to explain how the NRA has created and promoted an ideology which links gun ownership to a wider world view and then propelled NRA members into taking active roles on the political stage, is lacking in one, important respect.
In addition to my membership in the NRA, I am also e member of Brady, Everytown, The National Parks Conservancy, Audubon, and The Wilderness Fund. I get contacted by voice, mail, or email by all those organizations put together about as often in an entire year as I hear from the NRA every, single month.
Even in the midst of the organization’s current problems with New York State, its former PR firm and a stupidly-contrived bankruptcy effort filed and now withdrawn, when it comes to the care and feeding of its members, the NRA does a job simply second to none.
As long as the NRA has enough money to publish the monthly magazine, put together their great clothing catalog and start taking reservations for the annual meeting and show, they will have no trouble getting their members to overwhelm politicians who would like to see gun ‘rights’ disappear.
Jun 07, 2021 @ 14:40:58
Come on, Mike. Anyone that you’re endorsing is almost certainly an enemy of gun RIGHTS one way or another. Especially if you’re recommending the book to your fellow antigunners. I wish the NRA a speedy recovery from AG James’ BS lawsuit so they can continue to protect our Second Amendment RIGHTS.
“and Lacombe’s findings should be used to craft a narrative about gun violence that might convince at least some gun owners to come over to the other side.”
That I’d like to see. Hopefully it would be better than the left’s current narrative towards gun owners which is basically: “You’re stupid and racist and you have a small d*ck, come on trust us we promise not to take your guns!”
Jun 08, 2021 @ 08:19:44
The problem with the GVP crowd is that they have painted themselves into a corner right now, but both sides are fairly intransigent, as your comment points out.
The Australian experience shows that one can sort out a situation similar to the one in the US. The buyback was necessary since Oz has a similar takings provision to the US’s Fifth Amendment (actually it’s tighter). The people who will be compliant will turn in their guns for close to what was paid (bluebook value) if the US follows that model. The law abiding folk who wait will get stuck with nothing beyond an amnesty if they turn in their guns.
So, the likelihood of such a thing happening in the US is next to non-existent.
Jun 08, 2021 @ 14:03:43
“The problem with the GVP crowd is that they have painted themselves into a corner right now,”
So very true. The antigunners have lavished praise on Australia for decades. More recently, they have praised New Zealand for doing the same thing as well. This is why I call BS whenever an antigunner says “nobody wants to take your guns!” The sad thing is that there are some gun control measures that many gun owners WOULD broadly support. But only if the gun control folks weren’t obviously trying to confiscate many of their guns. And yes, “buy back” = confiscation so long as the buyback is mandatory.
“So, the likelihood of such a thing happening in the US is next to non-existent.”
However unlikely it is, it is still too likely.
Jun 08, 2021 @ 08:14:38
I began to question the NRA when they failed to work on conservation, which is good for keeping the open spaces necessary for shooting sports. The rest is pretty much history.
Jun 08, 2021 @ 09:38:00
Why did the NRA NEED to turn it’s membership into an “Organized Political Force”????
“politicians who would like to see gun ‘rights’ disappear.”