In fact, there are numerous pro-life groups who directly benefit from moving the ball around but never actually winning the game.
The same is true of race relations organizations, animal cruelty activists, the NRA, etc. With all of these, the spoken platform may or may not be a good thing, but the largest stakeholders would lose tremendous money and influence if they ever actually won.
This is exactly how you win elections. If you gain enough single-issue voters you never need to debate the complex issues that might split your base.
It's important to portray the situation as if they are losing. Pro-Choice is a great example. Abortion-right are frequently portrayed as "under attack and imminently about to be destroyed" despite almost every SCOTUS judge publicly saying it's "settled law".
It is a political form of George Orwell's endless war, and the ultimate distraction.
Corporations don't need to fund them directly as politicians are happy to play this game so that corporations can fund THEM directly since the political attention is placed elsewhere.
I read some “gun people” discussing this. An argument was that they were not single issue voters, but rather they were a foundational issue voters.
That all rights (to him/them) are supported by the idea the public is a counter force to the government. Fundamental before all other issues because is the prevention of the gov backtracking or infringing on anything “down stream”. So...
That if a politician supported the disarming of civilians that was indeed a full stop to other thoughts on abortion or the foreign trade or etc.
It was a good read really, because calling them a single issue voter may give the wrong impression, which is good for no one coming to the table on other issues.
I’m pretty sure you dismissing the conversation I reported as “identity politics” is exactly what the argument was warning against; people misreading opponents of gun control as some surface level thing that can be hand waved away.
Also, “identity politics” isn’t right. No one is born a gun owner, nor can you identify one in a line up or nod to one walking down the street unless they want you to know they are “one of us”. Nor does owning a gun preclude you from another group like being white or black might, although there is a long running AK vs AR debate, but I think that’s pretty much been settled!
But I agree there is a foundational element to the 2nd amendment (which is why they passed it 2nd), and it is not (only) identity politics.
Black's Law Dictionary defines the word arms as "anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon."
The word "arms" in the right to keep and bear arms explicitly meant weapons that could be carried by a single infantryman. It was never about (and still isn't about) tanks, or cannon, or warships, or nukes. So no, you don't have to be committed to allowing tanks to be fully keen on the right to keep and bear arms.
(if you still doubt this, focus on the word "bear". You can't "bear" a tank, if anything a tank bears you.)
( https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/iii-what-arms-meant-circa-17... )
That said, it actually happens to be totally legal for private citizens to own a tank in most countries, including the US. They're expensive, get terrible gas mileage, probably not street-legal to drive on the freeway, unlikely to fit in your garage and the neighbors are bound to complain if you fire the main gun...but you totally could own one (and drive it around your own private property) if so inclined.
I'm also curious about the constitutional ramifications of the ban on civilian ownership of machine guns manufactured after 1986. Could any class of small arms be gradually banned by specifying a date of manufacture cutoff for legality in a similar way? Seems contrary to a plain reading of the 2a to phase out weapons this way but I know that my layman's plain reading is worth very little here.
Case in point: A few years ago I had a company outing to go play tank paintball. This was in the UK.
https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/operational-tank-for-sale-a...
(Making, say, a 50 caliber gun legal under the NFA is indeed somewhat more onerous than owning a shotgun. And a gun rights advocate certainly could care about trying to make it less so but they're not required to care about it because - as I said above - a tank doesn't count as "arms".)
If you expand the definition of “tanks” to the commonly used one of “armored vehicles”... then there are a lot more than you’d likely expect.
The photos/videos of people milling about after members and staffers narrowly escaped those in the crowd clearly intending violence combined with a rather intense propaganda effort aimed at minimizing the autocoup attempt have effectively spread a false narrative of the attack, though.
For the cynics and BLM activists and more, this is seen as obvious (no rubber bullets, no real resistance). The police forces will tear gas (illegal in warfare), rubber bullet, etc. black lives matter protestors, but won't dare go against white protestors / insurrectionists. We still have a 'uge race issue here. We just cover it up with policies. In reality (aka both insurrection and protests) we clearly see the two groups treated completely different.
(they weren't yokels, they weren't particularly armed, they were aligned with officials, etc.)
That said, the no-compromise issues really do have the effect of shoving all the important stuff into the background...