Support for, and opposition to, gun control is closely associated with several demographic characteristics, including race, level of education and whether one lives in a city. Nearly all are trending forcefully against the NRA.
The intellectual base stealing is obvious to those of us accustomed to discussing such things. But let me call attention to just a few small facts that negate the entire premise of arguing that demographics has anything to do with a single issue like invalidating the second amendment.
Even the most wildly optimistic "everybody is really gay underneath" partisans of the gay rights movement don't claim that more than 11% of the US population is gay. Really it's somewhere between 3% and 5%. Yet, gay marriage was passed.
Blacks make up no more than 11% of the total US population, but since the 60's we've seen nothing but more and more legislation to give blacks unequal advantage in the marketplace, politics, and the law.
As the author states, Latinos make up just 17% of the US population yet we see an entire generation of latin American illegal immigrants flaunt US law with impunity simply because they don't like the outcome of being treated equally under it.
Now here's the salient issue that the author misses with regard to the NRA. A shrinking population of gun owners does mean reduced political influence when it comes to voting, but this is not a population that is prepared to allow votes to be the final word. In order to disarm the US civilian population you are going to have to go out there and take away their guns. This effort will be met, at least in small part, by organized, violent resistance, and there will be large scale bloodshed before it's all over. And as much as the Obama's and Clinton's of the world would love to seize that last bit of power from US civilians, THAT is something that no liberal of the current stripe has the courage to attempt.
No Army, not even ours, will be able to disarm even a tiny portion of the 100 million gun owners in the United States if they don't want to be disarmed. All the tanks, air support, and drone surveillance in the world won't change that. And that's forgetting the fact that the US Army is not exactly an organization which leans as far to the left as members of academia and the press. It's not entirely outside the realm of possibility that when president Chelsea Clinton-Ramirez III (the nations future first transsexual president) issues the order to forcibly disarm all Americans, the Army won't simply turn the gun on her instead.
So write all the laws you like Washington. But at the end of the day, if you want the guns, you're going to have to come on out to backwards, stupid, rural America, and take the guns. And I'll be honest, after coping with the age of Obama, there's a part of me hoping that one of you actually summons up the courage to try it.