This Is How the NRA Ends: The bigger, richer, meaner gun-control movement has arrived

[onehandle]

On April 17, the bill to expand background checks on gun buyers failed in the Senate, and the fatalistic shrugs in Washington were so numerous they were nearly audible. The legislation had been a modest bipartisan compromise, supported by 90 percent of the public and lobbied for hard by the president. A group backed by Michael Bloomberg had spent $12 million on ads pressuring senators to vote “yes.” When the bill fell short—by just five votes—it seemed to confirm a Beltway article of faith: There’s no point messing with the National Rifle Association (NRA). And that, many assumed, was the last we’d be hearing about gun reform.

But then something unexpected happened. Some of the senators who’d voted “no” faced furious voters back home. Even before Erica Lafferty, the daughter of murdered Sandy Hook Elementary principal Dawn Hochsprung, confronted New Hampshire Republican Kelly Ayotte at a particularly tense town hall, Ayotte’s disapproval rating in the state had jumped from 35 to 46 percent—half the respondents said her “no” vote made them less likely to support her.1 In Pennsylvania, which has the second-highest concentration of NRA members in the country, the bill’s Republican co-sponsor, Pat Toomey, saw his approval reach a record high. One of the country’s best-known gun-rights advocates, Robert Levy, said the NRA’s “stonewalling of the background-check proposal was a mistake, both politically and substantively.”

In the Senate, the backlash had an effect. Some Republicans who had opposed the bill, such as Johnny Isakson of Georgia and Jeff Flake of Arizona, signaled they might be open to changing their minds. Majority Leader Harry Reid, once a dependable NRA ally, spoke about taking the rare step of bringing the bill back for another vote. Senator Joe Manchin, the bill’s Democratic co-sponsor, is still actively courting support from his colleagues. “It’s not going away,” he told me.

Why did these developments take so many elected officials and pundits by surprise? As New York Times columnist Tom Edsall has pointed out, political science research shows that politicians consistently overestimate the conservatism of their constituents. But in this case, there was something more debilitating at work. The political class often lets old assumptions blind it to shifting realities. And the absolute power of the NRA is one of the oldest and least-tested assumptions in Washington.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113292/nras-end-real-gun-control-movement-has-arrived#

[Thinkingabout]

1. I have great hopes this bill will be passed, why do we need criminals, terrorist and those mentally

incapable of possessing weapons to have open free market. If the NRA members does not like having a national gun register then they should have fought to have this bill passed. It was not smart for the NRA to oppose this bill and as other groups NO was their best answer. I for one will continue to let my Congressional members to know this is something which should be supported. My thoughts are if you claim to be prolife then you can not vote NO on this bill. I do not claim this will stop the bad guys from killing again but it could prevent guns from getting to the streets so easily. I do not think the NRA realized they are not in control of our citizens,.

[rhett o rick]

3. But, but if you let them take our guns, next they will want our microwaves.

[Thinkingabout]

4. Yep, tis true. Just think, a national microwave register.

[kag]

27. and our baseball bats, and our hammers!

[nikto]

102. Shredders and blues-players----They will take our guitars away!!

And we can't have that...

[Unknown Beatle]

109. Man oh man!

Guitar heaven. I see a bunch of Gibsons, mostly Les Pauls and one Flying V that he's holding, some Firebirds, some ES's, no SGs though.

[nikto]

114. OMG, you're right.

There's not an SG in the bunch.

But he does play them, on occasion...






It's a good thing Bonamassa doesn't have one of these...

[PaddyIrishman]

32. Microwaves don't kill people

People with microwaves kill people

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

80. That might be true.

[Dustlawyer]

2. K&R! I don't want to take away anybody's guns, but I do want EVERYONE to have a background

Check for every gun purchase, even person-to-person. Register them like cars and over time all working guns will be registered. I will pay the enevitable fees and taxes government will assess because it is too important. My oldest grandson starts school next year and I want him to live. It is a small price to pay for something so potentially dangerous! It is just common sense so stop your whining and bitching and man up!

[mac56]

5. ^ THIS ^

[metalbot]

8. There are some logistical issues to work out

The devil is really in the details. If you want to allow background checks for face-to-face sales, then you need to give the public the ability to run background checks. How would they do so? Would you give your SSN to a stranger so that they could make a phone call to NICS? There is also a risk of abuse here - if you had a mental illness, your health status could be determined by someone who enters your information into the NICS database for a check. What happens when employers start to do NICS checks as a cheap form of background check?

So if we take that off the table, you're left with registered FFL's doing background checks. Would you force all FFL's to run background checks? How much could they charge? Many FFL's don't want to do transfers, because while they may only take a few minutes, spending a few minutes with someone who is paying you $15 for your time is a time when you can't be working with a customer who might buy a $2000 rifle. What about people who live nowhere near an FFL? Would you force people who live in remote areas to drive 2 hours to the nearest FFL, hope that the NICS system is up when they get there and that the purchaser won't be delayed?

So lets assume that we work out the whole background check thing. What happens when firearms are loaned? Are those transfers that would need to be regulated? Could a rancher loan a neighbor a rifle for a few weeks to handle a hog problem? Seems reasonable. Could someone loan a pistol to a woman who has been receiving threatening phone calls from an ex? Seems reasonable. I can loan my car to someone without having to transfer a title. Is there some threshold we'd put in place that would say "If I loan you my pistol for 14 days, everything's ok, but if you keep it for 15 days, we're suddenly both felons facing 5 years in jail?"

Background checks aren't by themselves a bad idea, but laws ultimately have to be written down and codified in a way that helps citizens, police, and juries figure out who is now a felon for an unauthorized transfer, and who isn't.

I would argue that rather than introducing new background checks, why not enforce the ones that we already have in place?

According to http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/trace/nics.shtml, NICS checks stop roughly 80,000 illegal purchases per year. Why then are we not prosecuting the 80k people who in order to be denied on a background check, have already committed a federal crime for lying on the application form? How many people have been prosecuted for this? Almost none. But it seems strange that the federal government would claim that they don't have the resources to pursue charges with 5+ year prison sentences that seem like almost slam dunk cases given that gun stores generally have video evidence of the person filling out the form, and they have to present a valid state ID to the gun store. Enforcement of these laws, which would involve the removal of violent people from society, seems like a better way to reduce violence than additional background checks (which we wouldn't enforce either? or are there somehow resources to enforce the new checks, but not the old ones?).

[marions ghost]

10. Addressing these concerns

1. New codes
2. Slight delays--no problem.
3. Smart people don't loan guns--make it illegal
4. Comprehensive database

[kag]

29. Thank you.

You took the words right off of my keyboard. These issues are not impossible to overcome. Possibly difficult. Maybe even a little complicated. But not impossible.

[LAGC]

61. That sounds awfully authoritarian.

The ACLU is against "comprehensive databases" of any kind due to privacy concerns, and I tend to agree with them.

Whatever solution we may come up with, registration should not be on the table.

[marions ghost]

64. Get real

there are comprehensive databases all over the place. A database of legal gun owners should not bother anybody who legally owns guns.

Registration is the sane and fair way to go. We register everything else in the world. Not registering guns is just stupid. It's the only way to a more civilized nation. It can probably even be done in a way that would satisfy the ACLU.

------------------

[Eleanors38]

65. The ACLU in fact objected to the failed expanded b.g. check bill. nt

[marions ghost]

68. On grounds of registering guns?

If so, I hearby withdraw my support of the ACLU (like they care, but anyway...)

This is good to know but I guess I need some particulars. Seems to me the ACLU is going down a bad road, if they are supporting the NRA.

[hack89]

73. The ACLU opposes gun registration on privacy grounds.

they support the AWB and universal background checks.

[marions ghost]

82. Thanks for the info

The ACLU does some good stuff but they're wrong on this IMO.

There should be nothing especially private about gun ownership, which means registration. We need to know who owns what. And who should be held accountable for misuse--including parents of children who get their hands on their parents guns. Not talking about limiting gun ownership, but registering them. This should not be a problem for anyone who cares about the death they cause on a daily basis.

[hack89]

88. I fail to see how registration will reduce gun violence.

1. It is irrelevant to 66% of gun deaths, which are suicides.

2. It is irrelevant to mass shootings - mass shooters want everyone to know they did it.

3. It is irrelevant to felons and other people that cannot legally own guns - due to 5th amendment rights, they cannot be legally required to register their guns.

4. It is irrelevant to criminals - there is a huge pool of unregistered guns that will meet their needs for decades to come. And they can also smuggle more guns in.



Why not register owners instead? Make a Firearms Identity Card mandatory to purchase and own guns/ammo. Make mandatory safety training and a thorough background check requirements for obtaining a Firearms Identity Card.

[marions ghost]

93. Both

Register owners and their guns. Not a huge difference to the responsible gun owner, is there? In the case of a crime or shooting death you have to make the connection to a particular gun. We have to separate the registered from the unregistered. Make owners more responsible for what happens with their guns. If it is relevant to only a third of gun incidents, as you argue--it would atill be worth doing (but I say it could be relevant in all forms of death or injury by gun).

I don't understand why responsible gun owners--non-criminals--would be against this.

[hack89]

96. It is not relevent to the vast majority of gun deaths

or did you miss my points about criminals and registration?

Take away suicide and crime and there is not much left that registration could possibly impact.

[marions ghost]

100. Nobody misses your points

they are the stock party line.

Sometimes "suicide" is a crime, sometimes guns get away from lawful owners and crimes happen. The reality is gray, y'know? We need to have registration to make people more aware of what they are doing when they buy a gun and to give LE greater ability to trace them. Huge impact.

A lawful gun owner should not fear registration, but be happy to do something to make the country safer by supporting this:

1. No one should be able to obtain a firearm, whether by purchase or gift, without a background check.
2. All firearms should be registered in a national database.
3. All owners shall be responsible for the location of ALL of their firearms at all times, and liable for how they are used, unless/until reported to the authorities as missing.
4. Possession or transfer of an unregistered firearm, and/or failure to obtain clearance from a background check should be a felony.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/20/1195499/-thoughts-on-gun-registration

[hack89]

101. Registration is not going to happen

you can't even get the ACLU to agree with you on that one.

I support universal background checks.

Good talking to you - I doubt we will agree so perhaps this is a good point to end this discussion.

[Pelican]

108. For what purpose?

Why should you know what your neighbor has in their home or on their person?

[marions ghost]

115. For the purpose

of preventing deaths and injury by gun. Public health and safety.

If my neighbor has a gun on their person or in their house, I would like it to be registered.

[Pelican]

118. Again...

How does writing down some numbers putting them in a database improve public health and safety?

You might like it to be registered but so what? How does that make it more or less likely that that gun will be used in an act of illegal violence?

Is it so that you can try and go down the public shame route?

[marions ghost]

119. So that's the paranoia?

Public shaming?

Well it's about the only thing I've heard that rings true. Believable that there would be irrational paranoia at the bottom of fear of registration--because all the other objections don't make much sense. So
thanks for making the point.

What is a shame is that even "responsible" gun owners side with the NRA and adopt the paranoia. That's where the shame is--that all gun owners care about is themselves, and not what is best for community. That they don't even support reasonable precautions such as registration.

Gun owners are hostages to a negative, paranoid and backward way of living--they just don't realize it. But they want the rest of us to live in that world. If we're going to be forced to live in their sad and depressing world where fear rules, we want registration.

[Pelican]

120. Third time is the charm...

What benefit is gained by having the serial number of my weapon in a database, public or otherwise?

[marions ghost]

121. You know the benefits

I'm sure.

[Pelican]

124. I can't think of any...

... hence the reason I asked.

I guess you can't either.

[marions ghost]

125. You know the arguments

and your stock rebuttals would be boring.

[Pelican]

126. I really haven't...

I've only heard that it would be useful as a means to reduce gun ownership via taxes, attempted social stigma, criminal targetting etc...

I have not heard a reason why registration would decrease or help to solve crime. The closest I've gotten to an answer is "I deserve to know, because I want to know because I'm scared"

Anything I missed?

[Robb]

78. It's a bit of right-wing horse manure, slung by the usual suspects. Fear not the ACLU.

In an "exclusive" (read: out of context) interview for right-wing rag The Daily Caller, a legislative counsel for the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office (one of them, not even the lead counsel) said the following:

“If you’re going to require a background check, we think it should be effective,” Calabrese explained.

“However, we also believe those checks have to be conducted in a way that protects privacy and civil liberties. So, in that regard, we think the current legislation, the current proposal on universal background checks raises two significant concerns,” he went on.

“The first is that it treats the records for private purchases very differently than purchases made through licensed sellers. Under existing law, most information regarding an approved purchase is destroyed within 24 hours when a licensed seller does a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check now,” Calabrese said, “and almost all of it is destroyed within 90 days.”

Calabrese wouldn’t characterize the current legislation’s record-keeping provision as a “national gun registry” — which the White House has denied pursuing — but he did say that such a registry could be “a second step.”

“Unfortunately, we have seen in the past that the creation of these types of records leads sometimes to the creation of government databases and collections of personal information on all of us,” Calabrese warned. “That’s not an inevitable result, but we have seen that happen in the past, certainly.”

“As we’ve seen with many large government databases, if you build it, they will come.”

The Gundamentalists clung to this as "evidence" the ACLU was on their side. It has been repeated and aggrandized far and wide.

[hack89]

83. ACLU: Toomey-Manchin bill would make national gun registry less likely

Fortunately Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin listened to the ACLU

But in an interview with me today, the same ACLU privacy lobbyist tells me those concerns have been resolved in the new compromise proposal put forth by Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin. Not only that, he said the language in the compromise proposal creates stronger prohibitions against any national gun registry than exist under current law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/15/aclu-toomey-manchin-bill-would-make-national-gun-registry-less-likely/

[marions ghost]

87. thanks

OK I see how they used it to mean the ACLU was on their side. Out of context & not an official statement.

The ACLU objects to databases, but isn't that horse sort of out of the barn? Seems to me that no legal gun owner should fear registration.

[hack89]

91. They changed the legislation to make registration even less likely

in order to gain ACLU support. The ACLU thinks there are privacy issues - I agree.

[Eleanors38]

89. I doubt they support the NRA, but that group seems the stigma de jour...

if someone wants to play culture war with tens of millions of Americans.

The debate was over treating NON-FFL b.g.-checked individuals who purchased from individuals (current law already requires b.g. checks for purchases from FFLs). The difference from what I read was that the data for the "new" persons who bought guns from NON-FFL persons would have their NICS data stored for considerably longer than those who are checked now. This "two-tiered" system was what the ACLU objected to. The organization, I believe, considered it a violation of equal protection, and a threat for establishing an enduring data base from which a registration system could be established.

Personally, I would like to know who proposed this extended time period for holding data, as it suggests either a poison-pill, or a backdoor effort to establish a registry-in-waiting -- what the ACLU feared. But I haven't seen any "insider" reporting on the politics of this bill and the personalities involved. One of the troubles with MSM is it has for so long been virtual agit-prop for gun-control/bans that it can't be trusted to reveal the shenanigans in something like this, no matter what side one is on.

You should be able to Google up ACLU concerns about the expanded b.g. bill. It was extensively discussed in D.U. in at least one of the now-three gun groups/fora.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/15/aclu-toomey-manchin-bill-would-make-national-gun-registry-less-likely/

I found this link to WaPo which discussed the ACLU objections and remedies to those problems. By the time changes were made in the Schumer version, all momentum for any legislation was lost. IMO, little momentum was established for the start as the first calls for legislation called for bans and more bans, thus mobilizing the gun-rights base, instead of for expanded b.g. checks. All credibility was lost.

[marions ghost]

95. OK thanks

I understand how the ACLU supported the bill on privacy grounds. Thanks for info.

But I don't think "privacy" or fear of databases is really the issue with gun defenders. Do you?

[Eleanors38]

113. The fear is gun registration & subsequent bans.

[marions ghost]

116. agree

I think it's about irrational fears of bans. Rightwingers and the NRA have spread the lie that gun registration
will lead to bans. I think it has the potential to do the opposite.

[Eleanors38]

122. I'm not sure where the threshold of "irrationality" lies,

but there are numerous figures and organizations which have called for bans; I think it unnecessary to trot out these yet again.

The problem really centers on blanket b.g. Check viability (leaving family exchange, temporary loans out if the mix) without the data from the checks being used by government for a registry of guns. I am open to discussion for approaches like FOIDs (firearms owner identification) and an opening of NICS.

There has been discussion about NGOs providing a "closed loop" b.g. Check and keeping data "there" for a time, and which could be accessed only by strict 4th Amendment warrant. This is a tech question as well as a constitutional one.

I'm not sure how some registration system "has the potential to do the opposite" regarding bans. I know the failed b.g. Legislation outlawed gun registration, but distrust is quite high. I think the ACLU's initial reservations were an eye-opener to many (including myself), and underscore some fears are not so irrational.

[marions ghost]

123. You can put some strings on it

but it gets down to a working system of registration in the end. The only practical solution.

If there is more control of guns, the less a total ban is necessary.

[Mojorabbit]

104. I agree. There seems to be a trend in this country

of giving up personal privacy and little concern to the number of databases compiled on it's citizens.

[premium]

105. Sad, but true. nt.

[Straw Man]

92. Smart people?

3. Smart people don't loan guns--make it illegal

So I have a friend I have known for 15 years. I know for a fact that he has passed three background checks in the past year for in-store purchases of firearms because I was there with him when he made those purchases. He holds a CCW, which in my state involves a comprehensive background check and requires five character references; I was one of those character references when he made his application.

I have a shotgun he would like to try out because he is considering buying one like it. Tell me why lending it to him wouldn't be "smart."

[marions ghost]

94. Not impressed

--look at the gun handling stupidity all around you & our rates of accidental and intentional gun death in general.

I think it would be really stupid to lend anyone a gun & I'm sure many gun owners agree. It should be illegal, and that wouldn't stop anyone from doing it, but it would make people think twice about what might happen if your friend fucks up with your gun.

Like I said, not smart.

[Straw Man]

103. I couldn't care less ...

... whether you're impressed or not. I trust my own judgement, and I trust my friend's judgement. Has it ever dawned on you that I wouldn't shoot with him if I didn't?

--look at the gun handling stupidity all around you & our rates of accidental and intentional gun death in general.

I'm looking. I don't see it "all around me." I see only the odd anecdote in the media and some statistics. I choose not to associate with idiots and lowlifes. That way I'm much less likely to become the subject of those anecdotes and statistics. It's working pretty well so far.

I think it would be really stupid to lend anyone a gun & I'm sure many gun owners agree. It should be illegal, and that wouldn't stop anyone from doing it, but it would make people think twice about what might happen if your friend fucks up with your gun.

I'd like to hear from some of these gun owners. I would suggest that if they can't trust their friends, perhaps they need some different friends.

How do you feel about lending a friend your car or serving a friend alcohol? Both of those activities sound pretty risky to me. Perhaps they should be illegal too.

[maindawg]

63. its about 'gun shows'

that is where criminals get guns. We need to end the 'gun show ' business.

[Eleanors38]

66. Do you have data on the % of criminal purchases from "gun shows?" Thanks. nt

[hack89]

77. Just mandate background checks at gun shows

it is not that hard.

[hack89]

11. There will always be a huge pool of unregistered guns

there are 300 million unregistered guns in America right now. How many of those do you think would ever get registered?

You would merely create a lucrative market for unregistered guns.

[Hoyt]

81. Yeah, let's do nothing for another decade and there will be another 100 million to deal with.

[Dustlawyer]

110. You have to start somewhere. It would take decades before they become a small percentage of the

overall total i agree. Make it a crime to possess an unregistered gun. Make people bring them in to be registered. Register them at the same place you take your car title when you sell your car to someone else. Look, I have lost a son, not to gun violence but to medical negligence. I cannot imagine, short of losing another child, anything else being that bad. I am not an exprt on gun laws or even this discussion, but I do know that if it becomes your loved one killed your opinions might change. Applying a balancing test, the inconvenience of gun registration, smaller clips and the like pales in comparison to needless loss of innocent life (a whole lot of them every year)! Would any of this solve all gun crimes and accidents, hell no, could reasonable gun restrictions save lives, hell yes! Reality, this will always be a political issue, I just wish people would imagine if they were in the shoes of the Sandy Hook parents, I bet most of them would decide to sit down and try to work out something safer for us all without going overboard either way.

[hack89]

111. I just don't see gun registration significantly impacting gun deaths

Last edited Wed May 29, 2013, 09:08 AM - Edit history (1)

1. It is irrelevant to 66% of gun deaths, which are suicides.

2. It is irrelevant to mass shootings - mass shooters want everyone to know they did it.

3. It is irrelevant to felons and other people that cannot legally own guns - due to 5th amendment rights, they cannot be legally required to register their guns. That makes making it illegal to own an unregistered gun moot - you can't force them to register their guns in the first place.

The AR15 used at Sandy Hook was registered - registration is part of the CT assault weapon ban.

[hack89]

12. Why not register owners instead of guns?

Make a Firearms Identity Card mandatory to purchase and own guns/ammo. Make mandatory safety training and a thorough background check requirements for obtaining a Firearms Identity Card.

That way, instead of setting up an expensive system for private citizens to do background checks on private sales, you merely pass a law saying it is illegal to sell a gun to someone without a valid Firearms Identity Card.

[loli phabay]

17. best idea going, marry it with a ccw and you would have a winner

I can already purchase guns with no hassles and as many as i want why shouldn't you have the same ability if you pass the check.

[premium]

36. I've been saying this for awhile now,

don't register guns, register owners, much like IL's FOID card.

[Eleanors38]

67. This is a better approach, and nothing is stopping such at the state level, either.

If the gun-controllers have a bigger, "meaner" organization, then they can set up shop at the (various) state levels and get busy on a "FOID" plan instead of having some mythical national organization do the work for them.

[derby378]

99. In other words, a permit to own even a .22 squirrel rifle

This will generate more resistance than you may realize, and not just from the NRA's ranks.

[aikoaiko]

33. Of course, the bill that came forward did not achieve that.

But it would improve the situation.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

97. I want to take away the guns of criminals and separate them from future gun ownership by

increasing sentences for those convicted of gun-related crimes.

I do not accept "background checks" (which we already have in Illinois) as a substitute for meaningful reform. The call for background checks, instead of increased sentences and economic reform, has not reduced gun-related crimes in Chicago. No one can legitimately claim that all, most, or even a larger percentage of guns owned by criminals in Illinois were purchased in other states.

I do not accept the denigration (by others and not particularly you) of the NRA, the ACLU, or anyone else who does not accept group-think as a substitute for meaningful reform. I strongly support the Fifth Amendment and the ACLU and will not accept goal displacement, and a call for a national registry, as a substitute for economic reform and increased sentences for gun-related criminal activities.

[CanonRay]

6. Hate to be negative, but we still don't have even a watered down bill

Wake me up when something actually passes, and I'll believe the NRA doesn't own Congress. Until then, it's all smoke and more kabuki theater for the peasants. I'll bet the NRA is telling people like Flake to just ride it out, memories are short, and money is still green. I know, I know, I'm a cynic, but sixty years of this bullshit does that.

[kag]

30. I can understand your cynicism, but I'm a little more hopeful.

When a gazillionaire like Bloomberg starts putting money behind the effort to fight the NRA, then I think (hope?) we're seeing the beginnings of real change.

[Eleanors38]

69. Don't have much good to say about the NRA. Look at that organization and you'll see...

millions of due-paying members who are highly motivated, hundreds of lobbyists who know the law and how to approach legislators & Congresspersons, and deeply embedded local "grass roots" organizations. The only special interest/pressure group which can match that is the amalgamation of GLBT organizations.

The former GOPer Bloomberg doesn't have that. Besides, his national-scale "efforts" are prohibitionist-oriented.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. "Why did these developments take so many [...] pundits by surprise?

Because they are fucking lazy corporate tools. The chattering class ARE the ones who have chosen to define what they think the narrative should be. And if they say what a thing is, then that is what it is because they said so. It's a twisted version of "I think, therefore I am" manifested as "I say, therefore it is", no matter how trivial, outlandish, or completely false.

The so-called "news" media don't report the news. They spend every waking hour creating fake narratives that have little or no relationship to actual events - all for enhancing shareholder profits. And when they did this in the past, they used to hold panel discussions months later that bemoaned this strategy and they berated themselves, promising to "do better". And then one day, they stopped holding those self-flagellating sessions. And now, time after time after time, they express shock and dismay at how they missed the reality that ultimately intrudes on their little fake bubble worlds.

[Eleanors38]

70. Curious, since the the "The so-called 'news' media..." have been gun-controls' leading advocates...

for many, many years. If it weren't for MSM's rather blatant efforts on behalf of control/prohibition, gun-control wouldn't even rate outlook status, let alone being a "movement."

[BumRushDaShow]

98. The M$M's goal is to ensure consumption of their flawed product

and thus they stoke all sides of an issue to keep a narrative going and gain eyeballs and listeners.

[Eleanors38]

112. MSM's "trend" (spread like a virus) has been to show

women at the range, as if it is something new and different, invariably sending a female reporter to do a little shooting. This "trend" has been going on for years; but MSM's bias kept it from discovering the phenomenon for years.

[PatSeg]

9. The NRA wants this argument to be dragged out

for as long as possible. The more "gun control" is in the news, the more people run out and stock up on more guns and ammunition. I don't think they ever cared about background checks. They were doing their masters' bidding, scaring gun owners so they'll buy more guns.

They've been doing this ever since Obama was elected and the extremists are willing to buy into anything the NRA dishes out.

[BumRushDaShow]

13. Eventually the market will be saturated

like the PC desktop market. Even the gun nuts will run out of room to store their hoards and then some wily teevee executive will take advantage of this bizarre turn of events and will take the opportunity to create a reality show - "Gun Hoarders"... proceeding themselves, to make money off of showcasing the result of the underlying obsessive-compulsive nature of the NRA's manipulation.

I.e., they may end up blowing their wad on this all-or-nothing strategy of whipping up the buyers to front-load the purchases now, but then down the road, the whole market collapses from the saturation of existing owners and lack of new buyers.

[Nimajneb Nilknarf]

14. If that is true, the eventual consequence will be a flood of inexpensive, lightly used weapons

for sale at low prices.

[BumRushDaShow]

24. And then the government buy-backs will ratchet up

because those who really wanted them would have gotten them already and the buy-back prices could easily surpass the fire-sale price when trying to shed the excessive number that were sold out of maniacal fear and need to hoard.

The Nasty Radical Armers know this and have started pushing states to ban buy-backs or forbid the destruction of the bounty that gets hauled in. So in their foolish scheme to make money from fear tactics, they will end up spending more money trying to somehow fix the consequences of what they caused.

[PatSeg]

16. Oh, I hadn't thought about reality TV

This would be perfect. They find the most extreme gun owners who probably are in need of cash now that they've spent all their money on guns!

I agree about the market being saturated and this is all so typical of American business. Everything is about short-term, quick profits. Tomorrow be damned.

[BumRushDaShow]

25. The focus on short-term profits

has definitely been the whole problem, across the entire spectrum of goods and services, as a post-Raygun business practice. Eventually the pendulum will swing the other way. It may take time but it usually does go through these cycles...

[PatSeg]

37. And the CEOs will exit the stage

with obscene sums of money, taking no responsibility or blame for their part in the mess. The greed is beyond belief.

[BumRushDaShow]

40. Yup. Laughing all the way to the bank. n/t

[Pragdem]

15. People like me will come to the table...

And demand the requirement for purchasing a gun be a game of Russian Roulette.

Then the new moderates will step in and offer an assault weapon ban, ammo limits, and extensive background checks instead.

Win/Win.

[loli phabay]

18. wondering what you mean by ammo limits, it only takes ten rounds to kill ten people

I fire thousands of rounds a month practicing my skills, so how does it work.

[Pragdem]

35. Don't really care how it works. Pass the laws and then people like you can adjust accordingly. nt

[loli phabay]

45. adjust accordingly, no thanks.

[premium]

46. Uh, no thanks,

that's how NY screwed up with the SAFE Act. They passed it so fast, they forgot to exclude LE from it.

[Straw Man]

107. People like you?

People like me will come to the table...

And demand the requirement for purchasing a gun be a game of Russian Roulette.

You mean control freaks with violent fantasies?

[louis-t]

19. Some Dems in conservative areas are facing recalls

over their 'yes' votes. Hopefully, not many will succeed.

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-control-supporters-facing-recall-bids-colo-074824246.html

[Zoeisright]

44. Just because gun humpers are initiating recalls

doesn't mean they will succeed. The vast majority of Americans support gun control.

[louis-t]

51. Their attitude seems to be "We don't like you

so we'll recall you." Majority of the people be damned.

[AndyA]

20. America is changing, as are its attitudes toward gun ownership

Until sensible legislation is passed, every murder, suicide, or mass shooting with a gun will reflect poorly on those who have refused to address this situation. For every victim, there are friends, families, co-workers, etc., who survive and will likely rethink their attitudes on gun rights in America.

The motivation is to not maintain the status quo, as it has harmed society. Many gun rights activists refuse to see this. Change is coming, whether they like it or not.

[Adam-Bomb]

21. I hate to be a party pooper here, but...

The bill did nothing that was not already being done. Background checks
are ALREADY the law.

Every single firearm I have bought at a gunshow was done with a background
check just like it would have been done at the dealer's store. Every FTF buy
I have done with an individual required either a permit to buy (I'm in NC)
or showing my CCW card, both of which prove I have had a background check.
I received my Dad's firearms when he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's....they
were handed to me by my Mom, which would be legal according to the failed
Bill.

This bill targeted the people that are NOT the problem, i.e., the law-abiding.
Produce a Bill that WILL have results and it WILL be passed.

A lot of folks are evidently ignorant of existing gun laws. Had they been properly
informed they would not have been surprised and/or dismayed by the Bill's failure.

Properly enforce the existing laws first.

I am NOT, repeat NOT in the NRA, by the way.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

26. Law abiding like James Holmes, Sueng Hui Cho and Jared Loughner?

Those types of "law abiding citizens"?

[rrneck]

22. It isn't even close to over.

The show has just begun.

[Hoyt]

28. That's true. With all the problems in our country, the gun yahoos only care about their friggin gun.

Well, except all the right wing NRA types who are willing to ride along with agendas other than guns promoted by the NRA leadership like: Grover Norquist, Ollie North, Teddy Nugent, John Bolton, Larry Craig, and a bunch of other right wing gun worshipers.

[rrneck]

41. Not to mention

all the self involved partisan fundies who are so busy marinaiding in their own sanctimony they have come to see guns an evil totem and the source from which springs every social faux paux and spoiled crease in their carefully constructed erzatz high culture.

[Eleanors38]

71. Seems there are some antis here who "only care" about guns, too. nt

[Hoyt]

74. Laughable from one with reference to guns in their user name.

Eleanor Roosevelt's 38.

[Eleanors38]

76. I've heard Franklin had only a .32; less glamorous as far as calibers go.

[sarisataka]

23. How many who rec'ed actually read the article?

After all, they now knew which senators to target in 2014. “The mayor has a long view,” says Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson, Bloomberg’s political point person on the issue.
*********
And he plans to spend very heavily against the Democrats up for reelection who voted against the bill—Alaska’s Mark Begich and Arkansas’s Mark Pryor.
*********
I asked Wolfson if he was worried that going after Pryor—whom they regard as especially vulnerable—would simply lead to his replacement with a pro-NRA Republican. “The fact that a Republican would get elected is irrelevant to our cause,” says Wolfson. “On this issue, a Republican would not be worse.”
*********
{Brady Campaign Director}Gross stressed that the question of whether his group’s activities might jeopardize Democratic seats is “not our primary concern.”
*********
One complication is that no vulnerable Republicans who opposed the legislation are up for reelection in 2014, leaving Bloomberg with fewer short-term targets.

The problem with single issue advocacy groups is that they are single issue. Depending on the issue they may favor one party or the other but in the long term they have no loyalty.

[bobclark86]

43. I <3 single-issue groups...not

“On this issue, a Republican would not be worse.”

Bullshit. Way to go from somebody who might actually compromise to a giant whore who would rather shoot you than talk to you.

"{Brady Campaign Director}Gross stressed that the question of whether his group’s activities might jeopardize Democratic seats is “not our primary concern.”

It should be. Get enough teabagger GOPers in office because you voted out the moderate Democrats, and you WILL have a loosening of gun laws. It will happen. THEN where the fuck will you be?

[sarisataka]

48. If history is any indication

Republican would make stricter gun laws (ala Nixon, Regan and Romney), but we know what they will do in other areas...

[bobclark86]

49. I see the problem...

You think the Republican Party is the same Republican Party of 30 years ago. It's not. Nixon and even Regan were liberals by comparison (talking to Commies?!? Negotiating with Iran?!?)

Romeny was a special case. He had 87 percent of his legislature Democratic and he didn't want to be seen as easy on crime. That's why he flip-flopped (on that and a lot of other things).

[sarisataka]

50. I am just pointing out

that Republicans have generally supported gun control historically.

I have no objection to 100% background checks but I will not cheer on groups who will support Repubs over Dems based on one single issue.
It is the typical corporate mistake, exchange short term success for long term failure.

[bobclark86]

52. I get you.

I do . No worries.

But then again, back then, more gun control was about stopping not-white drug dealers from not getting them. Since that was racist, we now just want white people to Buy ALL the Gunz!

Got to love marketing...

I'm a gun owner (walnut and steel fully un-automatic), and I support background checks. I've sold two guns before, and both were to people I knew for years -- and I had to turn down sales to others I got funny feelings about. A background check would have quelled those feelings, and I would have made more from the sales, too.

Groups like MAIG really bug me, especially in light of Bloomburg's other positions (like the Occupy crackdown, etc.).

[premium]

47. This is exactly why no progressive Dem.

should be supporting MAIG, Bloomberg, or the Brady Campaign.

[Eleanors38]

72. Started by GOPers or former GOPers. No wonder they "aren't concerned" about primaried Democrats.

[toby jo]

31. Gun ownership laws have made this country weak.

We're the junkie who can't get enough anymore and can't see our way out.

I like the op's take of 'the bigger, meaner, richer gun-control crowd has arrived. Like to think so.

[madville]

34. All this over a bill that doesn't actually do anything

And would have to be watered down further to pass the House. The ironic thing is parts of this bill actually make it easier to buy a firearm. I doubt anyone reporting on this bill or hoping for it to pass has actually read it, if they had they would wonder what the hell it actually does to make any difference.

[patrice]

38. If I were a gun-owner, I'd be eager to express my "professional" standards, because just one of

the benefits of doing something like that is that, when I would have a fundamental objection to something that "government" is doing, my case against that issue would not be interpreted just as some nobody who really just wants to overthrow the government and to put something else, another de-facto power, in its place.

[hack89]

39. “The fact that a Republican would get elected is irrelevant to our cause,”

Ok. I happen to think that electing Republicans is a bad thing.

[Robb]

53. Which is why you send money to the NRA?

How is your willingness to support an organization that works to elect Republicans based on their positions on guns any different, exactly?

[hack89]

54. Which is why I am active in Democratic politics

and all my elected officials are Dems. I am not a single issue voter like you - I don't want repukes in power.

[Robb]

56. But you send money to people who work to elect Republicans.

...because of a single issue. Are you "active" enough to counteract those contributions?

[hack89]

58. I actually make all my political donations to Democrats

a years membership to the NRA is $35..

So tell me - do you send money to groups that are willing to primary Democrats even if it puts a Repuke in office?

[Eleanors38]

75. Do you send money to anti-gun groups who "don't care" if Democrats lose? nt

[hack89]

55. No surprise you would agree with Wolfson

all about guns - right?

[Robb]

57. No surprise you agree with the NRA.

All about guns, right?

[hack89]

59. I have never given a political donation to the NRA. nt

[Robb]

60. Why should we believe you?

You lied about being an NRA member at least once. Why?

[hack89]

62. Believe what you want

it keeps the conversation interesting.

So tell me - do you give money to groups that are willing to put repukes in office over gun control?

[Hoyt]

84. If you support NRA, you've helped them advance a right wing agenda often unrelated to guns.

[hack89]

85. Do you support gun control groups opposing pro-gun Democrats

even if it means putting repukes in office?

[Hoyt]

86. Nope.

[hack89]

90. So you do not support Bloomberg and MAIG?

we have something in common after all.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. “We’ve always been too polite, by appealing to politicians to do the right thing,"

[Mr.Bill]

79. How about this strategy for Harry Reid

Don't allow a re-vote before the 2014 elections. Why give the republicans in the Senate a chance to redeem themselves, when it won't pass the house anyway? After 2014, after we hopefully have control of both houses, and some Republican Senators have lost their seats over this, then we pass a much stronger bill.

[Paladin]

127. Harry Reid will find a way to cave in, even in those circumstances. (nt)

[Kurovski]

117. I'm not so sure that there isn't anything meaner than a million pissed-off parents.

But more like, enraged and "done with your nonsense".