[knucklesandwich]

I just don't subscribe to that kind of realpolitik. There's nothing infeasible about presenting these kinds of solutions, there's only people unwilling to present them or those who do a bad job of it. Plus what's the proof that this is even the case?

Even aside from the ethical coherency of viewing civil rights as a comprehensive struggle for ordinary people, there are political advantages as well given you can widely expand your coalition across racial and income barriers. People of color own guns and enjoy using them, but will back a candidate supporting background checks, assault weapon bans, etc. if their alternative is pro-gun law & order racist.

[bmelton]

Sure. There are plenty of white gun owners who do the same. The NRA doesn't have a lock on any particular demographic other than the obvious one, which is anyone who is willing to prioritize gun rights as their #1 issue. This includes people of all political and ethical stripe, and including minorities, though they aren't terribly well represented by the NRA.

That said, if the goal is to just get the NRA to do more outreach to minorities, they're making inroads (though slowly). They've got minority presenters, such as Colion Noir, who echoes many of your sentiments.

> "It's not a gun problem, it's not even a violence problem. It's a culture problem, it's a poverty problem, it's a history problem"

I don't disagree that they've been painfully bad at it, but as they get savvier with their shifting demographics and older, whiter board members get replaced with others, I have little doubt that they'll become more effective at representing a broader swath of the American populace.

That still doesn't make fixing socio-economic disparity fall particularly well under their single-issue umbrella (IMO).