Gun control either has everything to do with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution or nothing at all. There is very little common ground on the issue and it may be the most politically divisive issue other than abortion rights and capital punishment in American politics. Like one's stand on abortion, one's beliefs on gun control are seen as a litmus test for an entire constellation of other political issues for both those people running for office and for private citizens. And while this view is in some ways simplistic, it is also fairly accurate, for the more tightly a person wants guns controlled, the more progressive she or he is likely to be in all other political matters, while those favoring liberality in terms of gun control tend to be politically conservative.
This idea that a person's philosophy on gun control can serve as a political litmus test has been seen repeatedly. Hundreds of elections from the local to the national level have been run on the issue of gun control, with other (arguably more important in terms of the number of people affected) issues almost entirely forgotten (Vellinga, 1998; Dionne, 1999). Until the past several years, the pro-gun National Rifle Association had a nearly unblemished record in defeating candidates at all levels who did went on the record for even mild forms of gun control. Thus candidates would do nearly anything they felt was ethically possible not to arouse the ire of the NRA. In recent years, however, the NRA has not been as successful either in defeating candidates that it has targeted for reversal or in electing candidates that it supports, which has allowed candidates to be more honest about their personal views on the issue without worrying that this one issue will overshadow everything else (Dionne, 1999). Why this shift has come about is not entirely clear; it may simply reflect a growing distance between the NRA and mainstream American viewpoint pro...