What Really Sank Gun Control: Distrust of Government

[Redfairen]

Think gun control failed in the Senate because of gun-clutching extremists? Or because of fanatical radicals who want to abolish the Second Amendment? Senator Joe Manchin, who's been at the heart of the effort, says it's nothing of the sort. In fact, the central problem really has nothing to do with firearms at all -- it's about trust.

When he speaks to gun owners, "they're scared this is the first step" in a massive government overreach, said Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat. He made the remarks during an interview with Margaret Carlson at the New York Ideas Festival, a daylong conference sponsored by The Atlantic and the Aspen Institute.

"When you say universal background check, the first thing that comes in the mind of a gun owner is that means registration, and registration means confiscation. 'I haven't broken the laws, why do you want to know everything?'" he said. According to Manchin, even in gun-loving West Virginia, constituents he spoke with repeatedly told him that if the bill did only what it said it does, they would wholeheartedly support it. ("There's a lot the NRA likes in this bill," he added.) The problem is, they're skeptical that the bill will in fact go farther than it claims. That means the effort to pass it on a second try will require emphasizing, for example, the harsh penalties associated with keeping records past a certain period.

"I have never seen something that resonated with so many people in so many parts of society because it made so much sense," Manchin said. "When something makes that much sense, you have facts to back you up, and you just have to walk out into your community and explain it."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/what-really-sank-gun-control-distrust-of-government/275609/

[samsingh]

1. well what can you do about stupidity?

[Hoyt]

2. That's it. Let's trust the NRA and people who stockpile lethal weapons before the government.

[geek tragedy]

3. they've swallowed the NRA's slippery slope argument.

they're just parroting back what Wayne LaPierre says in his speeches and mailings.

they're not explaining why they're opposed, they're offering their excuse

[frazzled]

4. Pfeh: it's the gun lobby that wants to take a zero-legislation stance

So they scare the gun fanatics ... so the industry can keep selling assault weapons, which of course have nothing to do with background checks. No one thinks there shouldn't be universal background checks. There's no (sane) reason not to pass it. But the gun nuts didn't think this slippery slope argument up by themselves. And the gun nuts are a small portion of American society. Really.

This is industry and lobby orchestrated bull-poopy.

[pipoman]

6. Yet there is a reason it didn't pass..this time or any other times it's been debated..

there is a reason private intrastate sales were exempted in 1994..it has nothing to do with whether people want it or not. If people want UBC then they need to get it done at the state level and save us all another 10 years of talking about federal (im)possibilities...state movements in the right direction snowball, first only a few require it, as more and more build soon there are 37+ states requiring them and a constitutional amendment could be possible..

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. Yet requiring potential voters to show an ID to vote is just fine and dandy?

[HooptieWagon]

7. I agree with him.

Lets be fair...if the RW anti-abortion crowd proposed a woman's health bill that actually was good, would we trust them on it? Probably not.