I find these sorts of rationalizations genuinely bewildering. The ability of the NRA and smaller gun-rights groups to mobilize their members to lobby elected officials has been an established fact for years—this is the “intensity gap” that gun-control advocates have long bemoaned, whereby an ardent minority has been able to make its presence felt more strongly on the issue than a silent majority that may support sensible gun control but doesn’t necessarily lobby on the issue or prioritize it on Election Day.
The title of the article is indicative that the author is a bit out of touch, but the above paragraph confirms it.
There are a couple of recurring and inaccurate themes going on here. The first is the notion that those who oppose sweeping gun legislation are a small but fervent minority. They may not use the words “crazy” and “fringe” but they are most definitely trying to imply it. This is, of course, an easy assumption to make when one is surrounded solely by the real fervent minority: the coastal elitists who would prefer that none of the common folk avail themselves of their Second Amendment rights.
The second is the horrible misuse of the word “sensible,” which in this case means “agrees with a whack job overreach precursor to a total gun grab.” Most of the rhetoric from the anti-gun fringe in the past few months is coming from babbling idiots who don’t know the difference between a rifle stock and a penny stock. It is impossible to craft “sensible” legislation regarding a topic about which one has no knowledge whatsoever. Those of you who have been following the false narrative identification guidelines here the past few months will recognize that the implication that one’s opponents are not sensible also reinforces the “crazy fringe” garbage.
The senators who are paying attention to their pro-gun constituents are from all over America, just like sensible (see what I did there?) gun owners. And that doesn’t fit the narrative.
So they’re making things up.