[This is the first in a planned series of follow-up observations to "Questions and Answers"]
On the surface, the claim that the gun issue is a unifier seems demonstrably absurd. After all, any "reputable" poll on gun ownership will show most Americans support some form of "gun control," with some demographics overwhelmingly backing increased restrictions and outright bans, and even "pro-gun" voters demanding enforcement of "existing gun laws."
Then you have the infighting between "gun rights activists"--with the self-styled "pragmatists" far outnumbering those they deride as "absolutists," at least if being effective at organizing is any indicator.
The unifier is we "gun rights activists" agree that peaceable individuals ought to have the choice to own guns, and acknowledge that they can play a key role in maintaining freedom. True, there are varying degrees of tolerance for infringements within our ranks, such as those endorsing CCW permitting schemes, but that still leaves us in agreement on the core issue of gun ownership being an individual right.
So you can be an anarcho-capitalist, a libertarian, a Christian conservative, and find common ground on guns.
We need to focus on that unifying commonality and how best to exploit it.
I don't think we'll find that focus through politics. Aside from way too many races being a "lesser of two evils" proposition, this is where our divisiveness really hurts our effectiveness. This candidate may be right on guns, but he's wrong on the border issue, or abortion, or drugs, and besides, voting's a (pick one) [right/duty/joke/exercise in majority tyranny] anyway. I will, however, look at how we can have a greater effect on the political process in a later post (Hint: it involves hijacking a race and extorting the candidate).
I believe we need to focus efforts on expanding the "market demand" for the right to own a gun, that is, on education and outreach. And our biggest obstacle to doing this is ourselves, as demonstrated by...
Next time: "Profiles in Apathy"