Is Gun Rights Group ‘Best Friend’ to Colorado Democrats?

What does compromise get us when it comes to gun rights?

At best, we lose a little less than we might otherwise have, but since the anti-gunners will never let that sit and will be back for the rest later, it’s not really much of a win, now is it?

At worst, what we get is still more encroachment on our right to keep and bear arms that increases over time until there’s nothing left.

That’s why so many gun rights groups describe themselves as “no compromise.”

But it seems that the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners are in the crosshairs for just that reason.

We have covered for many years in this space the machinations of a group that has, while pushing their single issue with single-minded ferocity, become both political legend and cautionary tale. The Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, founded by “no compromise” Second Amendment purist Dudley Brown, have earned a reputation for strictly enforcing their blanket opposition to even the most rudimentary gun safety measures that have been on the books for decades like background checks on retail store gun purchases. The perennial battles at the Colorado Capitol over gun safety laws are an excellent example of what’s known as the “intensity gap,” where the minority side of an issue is disproportionately vocal due to their intensely passionate views. Despite this, polls show that the voting public broadly supports gun safety laws that Colorado has led on for over a decade.

Herein lies the essential contradiction that has made Rocky Mountain Gun Owners an unlikely but valuable asset to Colorado Democrats. RMGO wields much of their influence among activist conservative voters, which means they play an outsize role in Republican primary elections–usually in support of the rightmost candidate in the race, who is (key point here) often not the most electable choice in the general election. And when they do get elected, RMGO-backed candidates have a reputation for becoming ideological outliers who embarrass Republicans beyond the confines of their office. The hollowed-out GOP Colorado House minority caucus is what the Republican Party looks like after RMGO has purged their ranks of the impure.

So, basically, what the unidentified author is upset about is that RMGO thinks that, in order to garner the support of a pro-gun group, they should actually be pro-gun, and that’s bad because…why?

There’s literally no reason for a pro-gun organization to support a candidate who isn’t pro-gun. It would be like GOA having backed Tony Gonzales in the TX-23 race–you know, before his campaign went up in flames (Yes, I went there). It’s ridiculous.

“But because they back very pro-gun candidates, they get pro-gun candidates elected,” is a hell of a shot to take at the group. They’re ideological outliers, though? Maybe the problem isn’t in their ideology, but that they’re uncommon enough to be outliers.

Standing for what you believe doesn’t make you the best buddies of the party that believes the opposite. Even the anonymous author–I can’t find an identity for this tool, at least, but I don’t want to do a deep dive to find out–concedes that the voting public wants these laws. Why is it that this gun rights group can back candidates who win their primaries? Because the only Republicans that would get elected by an electorate like that barely qualify as Republicans.

I find it rather disgusting to attack an organization simply because it does what it says it’ll do, actually stands for what it says it stands for, and doesn’t bow down to the opposite side of the aisle in order to appear nice.

Then again, based on what I can tell about the site that published this anonymous take, the author’s opinion is less valuable than dog doo. At least that can fertilize the lawn.