Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:59 AM Apr 2013

More backlash against Senators on gun vote; Americans Wanted Gun Background Checks to Pass Senate

New PPP polls in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio find serious backlash against the 5 Senators who voted against background checks in those states. Each of them has seen their approval numbers decline, and voters say they're less likely to support them the next time they're up for reelection. That's no surprise given that we continue to find overwhelming, bipartisan support for background checks in these states.


More

After just 3 months in office Jeff Flake has already become one of the most unpopular Senators in the country. Just 32% of voters approve of him to 51% who disapprove and that -19 net approval rating makes him the most unpopular sitting Senator we've polled on, taking that label from Mitch McConnell.

70% of Arizona voters support background checks to only 26% who are opposed to them. That includes 92/6 favor from Democrats, 71/24 from independents, and 50/44 from Republicans. 52% of voters say they're less likely to support Flake in a future election because of this vote, compared to only 19% who say they're more likely to. Additionally voters say by a 21 point margin, 45/24, that they trust senior colleague John McCain more than Flake when it comes to gun issues.



http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/more-backlash-against-senators-on-gun-vote.html

PRINCETON, NJ -- Sixty-five percent of Americans say the U.S. Senate should have passed the measure that would have expanded background checks for gun purchases, while 29% agree with the Senate's failure to pass the measure.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/162083/americans-wanted-gun-background-checks-pass-senate.aspx

Refreshingly, the decision to act as a puppet of the NRA seems to be unpopular.



23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
More backlash against Senators on gun vote; Americans Wanted Gun Background Checks to Pass Senate (Original Post) geek tragedy Apr 2013 OP
Best news all day! Thanks Vietnameravet Apr 2013 #1
"Refreshingly, the decision to act as a puppet of the NRA seems to be unpopular" KatyMan Apr 2013 #2
No, they're just scared shitless of crossing the NRA. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #3
I hope to see a day when an endorsement from the NRA is kiss of death to a candidate. denverbill Apr 2013 #4
I'd settle for people not bragging about their A+ scorecard from the NRA, as if that's something geek tragedy Apr 2013 #6
I must admit it was nice to see Flake with such an awful rating. denverbill Apr 2013 #7
Perhaps the fear of losing their seat will override the fear of not doing what the NRA says to do AndyA Apr 2013 #5
Polls are all over the place ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #8
"Clean bill." geek tragedy Apr 2013 #9
The *amendment* was tied to an anti gun bill that would have never gotten through on its own ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #10
Toomey-Manchin itself was filibustered by the Republicans. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #11
The anti gun bill it was riding on had not yet been filibustered but easily could have. Reid pulled ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #12
The vote was on Toomey-Manchin. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #14
You need to bone up on parliamentary procedure as used in the House and Senate ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #15
You're denying that the Republican filibuster was motivated by geek tragedy Apr 2013 #16
Even Harry Reid called the underlying bill an anti gun bill ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #17
Oh, "Harry Reid called it an anti-gun bill" geek tragedy Apr 2013 #19
I saw it in several places, even here IIRC. Not sure if you are right about that or not ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #20
Do you really think the Republicans are willing to vote for something Obama geek tragedy Apr 2013 #21
I don't think they will have a choice ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #22
They certainly seemed to have a choice during the vote. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #23
Every one of the turncoats needs primaryed. 99Forever Apr 2013 #13
The best part is them paying a price for opposing a do-nothing law madville Apr 2013 #18

KatyMan

(4,147 posts)
2. "Refreshingly, the decision to act as a puppet of the NRA seems to be unpopular"
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:04 AM
Apr 2013

But alas, still profitable. And that's what it's all about for Senators, isn't it?

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
3. No, they're just scared shitless of crossing the NRA.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:05 AM
Apr 2013

It's a lot more of an intimidation/cowardice dynamic than it is a bribe/greed dynamic.

In the case of Democrats, anyways. In the case of Republicans like Flake, they're just gun humpers.

denverbill

(11,489 posts)
4. I hope to see a day when an endorsement from the NRA is kiss of death to a candidate.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:10 AM
Apr 2013

Probably won't ever happen though.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
6. I'd settle for people not bragging about their A+ scorecard from the NRA, as if that's something
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:23 AM
Apr 2013

to be proud of.

denverbill

(11,489 posts)
7. I must admit it was nice to see Flake with such an awful rating.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:27 AM
Apr 2013

I had assumed he would be fairly popular in AZ.

AndyA

(16,993 posts)
5. Perhaps the fear of losing their seat will override the fear of not doing what the NRA says to do
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:20 AM
Apr 2013

What a bunch of chickensh!t senators. Every one of them who voted against this (except Reid, his was a procedural vote), should be voted out at the next opportunity.

That will send a message to the rest to listen to the American people, and represent them for a change, instead of ignoring their wishes and representing the gun manufacturing industry.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
9. "Clean bill."
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 03:03 PM
Apr 2013

The bill died because of the demagoguery of the gun-humpers of the political right.

Pure and simple.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
10. The *amendment* was tied to an anti gun bill that would have never gotten through on its own
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 03:38 PM
Apr 2013

Only two amendments passed and then Reid pulled it, which is why it died. Just like with guns, procedural details matter.

A UBC bill, standalone, would have been an easy win and still could be. Have to wait until after recess at this point if at all.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
11. Toomey-Manchin itself was filibustered by the Republicans.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 03:51 PM
Apr 2013

With a few cowardly Dems joining in once it was clear the Republicans had enough to kill it.

The 'anti-gun' bill that you refer to wasn't filibustered.

So, other than being fact-free apologism for the NRA, the RNC, and fanatical gun fetishists, your analysis is spot on.




ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
12. The anti gun bill it was riding on had not yet been filibustered but easily could have. Reid pulled
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 03:57 PM
Apr 2013

it before that happened.

You critique is fact free.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
14. The vote was on Toomey-Manchin.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 04:05 PM
Apr 2013

Not on the larger bill. The vote was on the standalone merits of Toomey-Manchin.

And it was filibustered by Senate Republicans.

It was filibustered for two reasons:

1) Partisan bad faith on the part of Republicans;

2) appeasing the fanatical gun worshippers in the NRA.

So spare us your pro-RNC and pro-NRA propaganda. It would be a refreshing change to see you, I dunno, disagree with the bad guys (McConnell, LaPierre) on guns for a change.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
15. You need to bone up on parliamentary procedure as used in the House and Senate
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 04:17 PM
Apr 2013

You are also ignoring the rules for that bill (open for amendments) and other items of parliamentary posturing that were key. Geeks tend to be very good at details, because they understand they matter.

I also disagree with the NRA on a number issues. Here area a few of them:

NICS checks or equivalent on all transactions, even private party transaction and gifts. My approach would be a Federal FOID that you would automatically get at 18yo so they are not a "firearms ownership licenses", a common objection to that approach. The check is then if the FOID is still valid for the sale to proceed. This is easy from the IT perspective. Note the NRA rejects the FOID approach.

Limitation of pistol magazines to what fits inside the grip of the gun. Require that new designs not support magazines that extend beneath the handle (BATF already has authority to force design changes). This is readily demonstrated by the Ruger line of .22LR handguns and the Astra 400/600. Grandfather or buy back at retail price non-conforming magazines. This approach also slows down magazine changes. Note that the NRA has rejected magazine limitations

All firearms must be secured when not in use, being cleaned, transported, etc. While California got stupid on parts of this, its the right thing to do. Some will miss their old time glass front display cases or wall rack, but proper security is a must. Would consider an exemption for non-functional devices. I believe the NRA has fought mandatory safes.

Mandatory owner training. It is not required to exercise any other enumerated right, but I have seen some very scary stuff over the years. Not sure what the standards should be, but I come down on the side of some training being required. The NRA has fought this.

Mandatory safety training for children. Enough for them to overcome their natural curiosity and get an adult should they find an unsecured firearm. While some would find that more offensive than the fundies find sex ed, until things change, its basic safety and needs to be done. Not sure the best way, but it is clearly called for. NRA has not taken a stand on this but does offer such classes. I still don't see it as a talking point.

Waiting periods. For someone who already has firearms, not sure what purpose they serve. For first time owners I support them. Overall I think they are a good idea. Not sure what the right time length should be. 1 weeks seems good. There are reports that Lanza tried to buy a rifle but was stopped by the mandated waiting period (if the media reports are to be believed). NRA opposes waiting periods

Better mental health reporting and supervision. Seen a number of posts on that here. Clearly something is called for, but how to do it is not clear. Loughner never should have been allowed to have a gun. The NRA has fought additional reporting of some types of problems.



While not all inclusive, its a broad list. Please show where they are pro NRA propaganda

I am one of the good guys.



 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
16. You're denying that the Republican filibuster was motivated by
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 04:32 PM
Apr 2013

partisanship and claiming it was all about protecting the Bill of Rights?

The NRA's statement of opposition didn't mention the underlying bill--the NRA campaigned against Toomey-Manchin because they opppose background checks.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2013/4/statement-from-the-national-rifle-association-regarding-toomey-manchin-background-check-proposal.aspx

The only one mentioning the "it was the underlying bill" theory is you.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
17. Even Harry Reid called the underlying bill an anti gun bill
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 04:42 PM
Apr 2013

The bill was dead anyway, which is why Reid pulled it. It did not have enough in it to make it worth fighting over and both sides were likely to vote against it. It would never even have been taken up in the other house.

I also don't get that shook up about the things that have you hot and bothered, probably because I have been around it for many years and understand how the system works. I am primarily concerned about how to get stuff that I think should be there, like UBCs, made law.

IIRC the NRA is currently concerned that UBCs will be brought forward in a clean bill. Reid will have the good sense to force a straight up/down vote. That would pass. The NRA could not get enough votes to filibuster it either. It could also pass in the other house.

So....do you want progress or do you just want to call people names?

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
19. Oh, "Harry Reid called it an anti-gun bill"
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 05:07 PM
Apr 2013

That talking point was pushed from the same sources who pushed the crackpot "DHS is buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammo" myth. You get one guess as to who was pushing both storylines.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
20. I saw it in several places, even here IIRC. Not sure if you are right about that or not
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 05:20 PM
Apr 2013

It pretty clearly it was one, even with the approved amendments.

If you want progress, start one step at a time with the easy things, like UBCs

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
21. Do you really think the Republicans are willing to vote for something Obama
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 05:22 PM
Apr 2013

has made a great effort to get passed?

Partisan politics explains 95% of what Republicans do.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
22. I don't think they will have a choice
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 05:25 PM
Apr 2013

While some polls are showing different numbers, UBCs have broad support even in the shooting community. It would have a high probability of getting through. Nothing else is going to.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
23. They certainly seemed to have a choice during the vote.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 05:26 PM
Apr 2013

It was a poor choice, but they were more than capable of making it.

madville

(7,397 posts)
18. The best part is them paying a price for opposing a do-nothing law
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 04:44 PM
Apr 2013

The amendment didn't ban private sales or require universal background checks. Most Internet sales already have to go through background checks. About the only thing it really changed is private sales at gun shows would require background checks at gun shows only, most of the sellers at shows here are dealers and already do background checks.

They just paid a price for opposing a crappy do-nothing bill, gotta live it.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»More backlash against Sen...