Skip to main content

Bill Clinton famously attributed the Democrats losing the House of Representatives in 1994 to the passage of the Assault Weapons Ban. Equally famously, numerous pundits and organizations have "debunked" that assertion:

Indeed, as American Prospect contributing editor (and former Media Matters staffer) Paul Waldman has noted, an analysis of the impact of NRA endorsements during the 1994 election found that Republican challengers to Democratic incumbents received a 2-point boost from the endorsement; no other NRA endorsees received a benefit. Waldman points out that since only 9 NRA-endorsed challengers won by four points or fewer, "even if we were to attribute every last one of those nine victories to the NRA and assume that without the organization each race would have gone Democratic - an extremely generous assumption - the Republicans would still have gained 45 seats and won control of the House."
Link

Now let me tell you why Clinton was probably right.

Much as the NRA would like you to believe otherwise (and to judge by the rhetoric here at DailyKos they have largely succeeded), that organization represents only a relatively small percentage of American gun owners. NRA membership, which has been growing recently (partially because of fears of gun control legislation and partly due to a membership drive) stands at around 4.25 million. According to Gallup about 30% of American adults report owning at least one gun, which would be about 90 million owners.

The NRA membership therefore represents about 5% of those owners, so drawing conclusions about the political effects of anything relating to guns by using the NRA as the measuring stick is bound to be misleading, at best. The NRA should be viewed NOT as representing American gun owners but merely one fringe of that population.

Getting back to where we started, trying to judge the political effects of the late AWB by analyzing a handful of races where the NRA endorsed a candidate inevitably vastly underrates those effects, because 95% of gun owners don't belong to the NRA to start with, but MANY of that 95% did in fact vote, and not just in races with NRA interest.

What I said 4 years ago still applies: Republicans in Charge are More Dangerous Than Guns

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Perhaps non -NRA gun owners will repudiate (23+ / 0-)

    the NRA and support President Obama 's proposed regulations that could reduce gun violence.  Perhaps.

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 08:34:04 PM PST

    •  I own a few sport shooting rifles (17+ / 0-)

      and am a member of the NSSF. I don't hun't because I don't enjoy it, but I do really enjoy target and skeet and the like. Most of the other NSSF members I have met hate the NRA. That said, I am all for a assault weapons ban because I personally don't believe gun owners need to play army with their military look alike guns. Civilians do not need ar-15s or socom IIs or any of the modern day military inspired guns. Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right and needs to be treated as such.

      Disclaimer: I own a  Super X3, a camo rem 870 (I think it's mossey oak, don't judge I won it at a bass pro) and a rem 597 .22lr for long distance target shooting.

      Lo que separa la civilizacion de la anarquia son solo siete comidas.

      by psilocynic on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 08:50:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That 's great! I think more gun owners (14+ / 0-)

        are like you.  There are many decent gun owners who understand the need for some regulation.  Even if background checks add some delay and are a pain in the ass, if they help a litle,  it 's worth it.  Take care.

        Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

        by TomP on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 08:57:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The only gun I own that I never expected to (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BlackSheep1, TomP

          walk out of the store with was the ugly as fuck camo 870 and that's only because I won it AND they wouldn't let me return it for store credit no matter how many times I asked. The 597 was carefully researched and the super X3 was so expensive that I think the guy at the counter thought I was blowing smoke up his ass every time I went in to look at it. I think I bothered the same guy about the gun 8 or 9 times before I bought it and when I did he wasn't even their. That guy probably still thinks I'm an asshole. The super x3 is beautiful (the model I have has a walnut stock and a dark barrel) and heavy and everything you want a sport shooting gun to be. It makes me talk in a Scottish accent when I'm holding it. I didn't need either of the guns I bought the day I bought them. When I won the 870 I was there just to buy some rooster tails and there was some kind of event going on. Every section from fishing to shoes had tables set up and people demoing gear. Walked out without the rooster tails.

          Lo que separa la civilizacion de la anarquia son solo siete comidas.

          by psilocynic on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:12:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Its not background checks... (4+ / 0-)

          I favor requiring safety classes for all prospective gun owners and mandating an instant background check.  I can understand a waiting period on the first gun purchase but not on the 2nd as someone would not buy a 2nd gun to commit a crime when they already own one?

          Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism the roles are reversed.

          by DavidMS on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:14:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, but how would they know you already (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            exlrrp, BachFan

            have a gun if it's a rifle. All they did was put me in a paper logbook. If they enter that later into some kind of national database, I am unaware.

            Lo que separa la civilizacion de la anarquia son solo siete comidas.

            by psilocynic on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:17:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Its not the case yet. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              psilocynic, exlrrp

              Its just a suggestion.  In most states the fact that you purchased a gun goes into a Bound book which is subject to regulatory review.  This is not the case in Maryland with regulated weapons (pistols, AR15 and similar firearms, etc).  There may be a database, but I don't remember.  

              Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism the roles are reversed.

              by DavidMS on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:23:00 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Also, incase anyone cares, (8+ / 0-)

        this is the NSSFs statement in response to Obama's proposals on gun control.

        NSSF Statement in Response to President Obama’s Proposals
        January 16, 2013

        All Americans share the goal of wanting to make our communities and children safer by reducing violence in our society, like the tragic incident that occurred last month in our community of Newtown, Conn. We are reviewing President Obama’s proposals with an open mind in hopes they will offer real means of achieving our shared goal.

        The central issue involved in violence where a firearm is misused is the unauthorized access to the firearm. We believe it is critical to first focus on the unauthorized access to firearms by irresponsible persons and those not legally qualified to possess them.

        We support immediate improvements to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that will bring all appropriate mental health and other records, such as restraining orders, into the NICS system. Fixing NICS must be among the highest priorities in order to help further prevent illegal purchases of firearms from federally licensed retailers.

        In order to help prevent unauthorized access to firearms in the home, we have long supported and are initiating an expanded safety campaign to promote the secure and responsible storage of all firearms and ammunition when not in use. We believe the personal responsibility of gun owners, especially if there are children or at-risk individuals in the home, is central to any meaningful discussion of the issues.

        The NSSF will continue to lend its expertise to this important national conversation and the accompanying legislative and policy making processes. We do so respecting the various points of views represented in these discussions.

        Lo que separa la civilizacion de la anarquia son solo siete comidas.

        by psilocynic on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:23:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Gun ownership is a right, not a privilege (0+ / 0-)

        Gun ownership is not a privilege bestowed upon you by the government.  Sorry, the Bill of Rights does not declare privileges that the govt may bestow upon  you.  Your statement is incorrect.

        However, just because something is a right does not meant that it comes without responsibilities.  The problem with most gun control is that it affects only those who are responsible, while trying to affect those who aren't and won't be.

    •  ...some of us are. We are and have been doing (12+ / 0-)

      that very thing dating back to the days of the original body-armor-piercing and Black Talon bullets. Unfortunately we tend to do this as individuals and lack an organization that can amass the wealth - or, alternatively, the focused, collective voice - to make a difference on the political stage the way the NRA does.  While TBK is right about the actual percentage of the population that belongs to the NRA, the money is currently the thing...

      "In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile..." - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

      by Jack K on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 08:58:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I have never not passed a chance to denigrate (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, Mark Mywurtz, TomP, BachFan

      and distance myself from the NRA.  I know that I'm not the only one, and I'm not talking about the kos inclined, but full out libertarians and conservatives.

      check my comment history re: NRA.

      I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

      by wretchedhive on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:07:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  how many times must we? (13+ / 0-)

      I'm a firearms owner. I think Wayne LaPierre is a dangerous nutjob.
      I don't belong to the NRA.

      I used to, once, a very long time ago, when they still sponsored safety classes and put out a magazine called American Rifleman.

      LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

      by BlackSheep1 on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:19:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't belong to the NRA (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlackSheep1

        until there was such a dramatic push to impose additional restrictions on my rights.  The NRA is a political lobby organization and the fact is this is how things get done in Washington.  My congress critters don't give a damn about my opinion and most likely don't represent my interests, but they will take notice of collective resources of organizations like the NRA.  As a citizen who only stands to lose by the silly legislation that has been proposed, I don't see where I have much recourse other than to hold my nose and support organizations like the NRA.

        •  The rhetoric here is as heated as LaPierre's (0+ / 0-)

          in many cases. The Feinstein Bill announces its intent to limit 2nd Amendment rights in its introductory paragraphs.

          I oppose the Feinstein Bill. It won't fix the issue.

          LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

          by BlackSheep1 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 08:36:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Would voting for Obama count as repudiation? (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annecros, TomP, mrblifil, FrankRose, ancblu

      YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

      by raincrow on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 01:02:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  We do. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mrblifil, FrankRose, ancblu

      The problem around here though, is that the absolutists, proudly wrapped up in their defiant, willful ignorance refuse to hear anything from outside their little echo chamber.  Perhaps if they'd stop preening long enough to actually listen, they could understand that.

  •  aren't you conflating the NRA and gun owners? (13+ / 0-)

    I mean, it seems that you're saying that the non-NRA 95% of gun owners are gonna vote single issue along with the NRA if there's a proposed assault weapons ban.

    Well, I give Dem gun owners more credit than that, I don't think that all Dem gun owners are just gonna give up on progressive ideas and join their votes in lock-step with the NRA and republicans.

    Difference of opinion I guess.

    Cheers.

  •  I know a heck of a lot more gun owners (25+ / 0-)

    than I do NRA members.  Most gun owners I know think Wayne LaPierre is as batshit crazy as Michelle Bachmann.  I was a life member but gave that up back in the late 1970s when the extremists took over the organization.  Meteor Blades commented a day or so ago that he did the same thing, but I think he waited a few years longer than I did.

    Don't get me wrong. I still see dozens of NRA stickers in car and pickup truck windows.  The other day, I was behind a car that did NOT have an NRA sticker in the window.  However, it had a bumper sticker that said:

    I am a Christian
    I own a gun
    I am a Democrat
    Those are the folks we do not want to alienate by calling them 'nuts" and that they are compensating for having "small penises.'  My daughter wants a .38 revolver.  I would have gotten her one for Christmas, but every gun store in the area was sold out.  Nobody sells out of .38 revolvers, but there you have it.  Parking spaces around every firearms dealer in town was at a premium.  And if she wants a .38, exactly how is she compensating for having a small penis?  She has, as one woman joked, "An innie."

    The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

    by Otteray Scribe on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 08:41:44 PM PST

  •  And For AaronInSanDiego (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Otteray Scribe, BlackSheep1

    That's 1 ;)

    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

    by The Baculum King on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 08:43:27 PM PST

  •  no he wasn't (9+ / 0-)

    and waldman's analysis went beyond the nra.

    Other studies looked not at the NRA but at the effect of a vote in favor of the crime bill on incumbents’ chances of re-election, and found that if the crime bill had any effect on the 1994 election results, it was a relatively small one, only as one of many controversial votes. What happened in 1994, according to most of the political scientists who examined that election, was that the highly partisan politics of the 1992-1994 period left Democrats in Republican-leaning districts vulnerable. Congressional scholar Gary Jacobson examined roll-call votes and electoral outcomes and found that all the controversial bills together reduced Democratic incumbents’ vote share where they represented large number of Republicans. “Republicans won the House in 1994,” Jacobson wrote, “because an unusually large number of districts voted locally as they had been voting nationally,” which is to say they voted for Congress as they had for president. As another study put it, “The results are quite clear. Where Clinton ran poorly in 1992, Democratic incumbents with a pro-Clinton voting record in Congress were much more likely to be defeated [in 1994] than those with lower levels of presidential support.”

    In other words, the best way to understand 1994 is in terms of partisanship, not in terms of the specifics of the gun issue, or any other one issue. To the extent a vote in favor of the crime bill made a difference to a Democratic incumbent’s election prospects, it was as one of a group of indicators – on issues like health care, gays in the military, and taxes – of whether the candidate was with or against his party in a year when that party did poorly in Republican areas. All these factors combined to create a wave election in which issues could not be separated from party. And if there was any single issue that did the most damage to Democrats that year, it was more likely the failed attempt at health care reform, according to post-election polling conducted by Stanley Greenberg, Clinton’s pollster at the time.

    The 1994 election was a Republican wave, and as 2006 and 2010 demonstrated, wave elections can happen in a variety of contexts. In 2010, for instance, Republicans won even more seats than they did in 1994 – without any significant debate about guns. In fact, the only new laws about guns that took effect during Obama’s first two years expanded gun rights, allowing people to bring guns to national parks and on Amtrak.

    http://thinkprogress.org/...

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 08:43:56 PM PST

    •  Another thing to consider is that in the last 4 (4+ / 0-)

      years, the religious right has been driving the gun rights/intimidation meme.
      This has been the case for at least the last 20 years, to some degree, but there has been an increased sense of desperation, of urgency, within the anti-abortion religious right.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:24:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  they're republicans anyway (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW, a2nite, mrblifil

        they will have zero net impact.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:29:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  My point was getting to an understanding of what (0+ / 0-)

          is different this time 'round, and I think the sense of desperation after the Bush fail and the idea that Pres. Obama would be defining the courts for the next 20 years was responsible for a lot of the hysteria, including over guns.

          I think there will be lots of gun owners who won't follow the religious right into "the hills".

          You can't make this stuff up.

          by David54 on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 10:00:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Zero net impact? (8+ / 0-)

          You can't be serious.

          There are 55 current members of the Senate Democratic Caucus.  A substantial number will not support a new AWB precisely because it will have a substantial net impact with their constituents and reelection efforts:

          Jon Tester (D-MT)

          Mark Begich (D-AK)

          Harry Reid (D-NV)

          Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)

          And the list goes on ... Kay Hagen (D-NC), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Max Baucus (D-MT), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Tom Udall (D-NM), Mark Udall (D-CO), Mary Landrieu (D-LA).

          Show us your vote count.

          •  manchin, warner and the udalls (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            raincrow, luckydog

            have nothing to worry about. they're popular. the udalls and reid are also from states that went well for obama, and where demographics are working very much in their favor. tester and heitkamp just got elected, so they have plenty of time, and no one is going to beat baucus. it's also not clear that guns would cost hagen, in a very split state, where the single issue gun voters aren't going her way anyway.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 12:31:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You keep saying it ... but their statements and (6+ / 0-)

              positions refute your premise.

              They clearly are worried about the real impact with their consitituencies and reelection efforts -- whether you can admit to that or not.

              Why, for example, would recently elected Senator Heitkamp come out with such a forceful rejection of any proposed ban?  Under your reasoning, she would be one of the least motivated to take a strong anti-ban position ... and yet she has ... as has Begich who stands again in 2014.

              If I am right, the Senate shifts ... if you are right, we simply have another feel-good TSA-type assault on our constitutional rights that will have little to no impact on our security -- in this case reduced gun violence because "assault weapons" are not the firearm typically employed, even in the more rare mass or spree  killings.

              You're proposing a poorly designed high risk bet for low return relative to that risk.  I ain't buy'n and neither will a core group of red/purple state Senators in the Democratic Caucus.

              •  their statements refute nothing (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MBNYC, luckydog

                they are no more proof than was clinton's since debunked feeling about 1994.

                the constitutional rights argument is meaningless to me. it's the law, for now, because an extremist court so ruled, but that won't always be the case. the living constitution and the demographic shifts make it inevitable.

                and plenty of lives will be saved, even if it's not the weapon "typically employed." that's an incredibly weak argument. assault weapons are employed, and people are killed by them. saving lives matters.

                The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 02:03:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Columbine happened during the last assault weapons (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ancblu, FrankRose, The Baculum King

                  ban.  They bought their guns illegally.

                  40% of gun owners are Democrat....and that number represents only those who are willing to answer the Census or a poll about gun ownership, it may be higher.

                   I don't think there is another single issue that our side defines so much as a "right" issue and yet truly is as close to a split among real voters, as this one.

                  This is the one and only issue in which I align off of the hard left side, and everything that has happened so far and so quickly has made me nervous that this is just the beginning of a who knows what, in regards to gun ownership and the 2A in general.

                  Would I vote for a Republican over it?  No, hardly.  Would I not vote for someone who I considered to have extreme gun control intentions...even if I agreed with them on every other issue?  I honestly don't know....I might stay home if that were the case.  I'm still not sure, as it hasn't happened yet.

                   The point is that for the first time in my life, I am actually thinking about it.  That fact is not only heartbreaking for me but scary because I wonder if I'm the only one.

                  •  sure (0+ / 0-)

                    unskew the polls. and just because people own guns doesn't at all mean they oppose the assault weapons ban. i know a hunter who has disdain for people who own ar-15s.

                    real voters support gun control. the numbers right now are very solid, and demographics are going to make it even more solid, over time. and for the first time in two decades, the nra doesn't control the narrative. history moves forward. we will catch up to the rest of the developed democratic world.

                    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                    by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 10:22:36 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What exactly do you mean by "real voters"? (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FrankRose, ancblu, The Baculum King

                      Why do you assume that every "real voter" supports any kind of gun control restrictions?

                        I'm am certainly a "real voter".  I am a "real voter" who is also a black woman and a hard core progressive and who has boot marks up and down my streets from campaigning to get other "real votes" on our side. My vote counts as much as the next "real vote".

                      I am also a concerned "real voter" who owns firearms and believes that the 2A is my Constitutional right.  No gun owners can say with 100% certainty that they will support whatever ends up happening in regards to gun control until we see some proposed bills.  Thus far, I have heard anything from nothing more than the 23 exe orders already signed to a full of attempt to repeal, and everything in between.  No one really knows what will be attempted.  New York has successfully passed a monstrosity of a bill and if that is a blueprint for anything Washington will ultimately do, then I would definitely be against it.

                       I will decide when I see gun control bills come down the pike...until then, I can only hope we are talking about reasonable bills that are used only to curb violence and prosecute criminals....and that the bills contain nothing that would diminish the 2A or disarm law abiding gun owners, in any way.

                      •  I really think the hysteria being generated by the (0+ / 0-)

                        NRA over 2a rights vastly, and I emphasize vastly exceeds any actual threat to 2a rights.

                        Politically, common sense regulations, the very idea of regulation, is supported by a majority.
                        Total chaos, which is what a total ban on guns would entail, is definitely not supported politically.

                        From there we go to the actual near impossibility and the extreme cost of a total ban.

                        It's not realistic.

                        The grownups in the room are going to have a discussion about guns and gun regulations, and we'll get some basic, not-outrageous regulations out of it, and we'll also realize we can talk about this and act on it without the world coming to an end as Wayne LaPierrre prophesies.

                        I think L. Lewis' reading of polls is probably correct, that there is more support for regulation than has been hyped in the media. Certainly, I think it's a fluid situation, and things have definitely changed since Newtown.

                        You can't make this stuff up.

                        by David54 on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 01:05:54 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm curious why you think the "hysteria" (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          The Baculum King, Bailey2001

                          over 2A rights is solely generated by the NRA.

                          L. Lewis and upthread and a significant number here on DK vehemently argue for different forms of absolute prohibitory or confiscatory bans -- including even the repeal of the 2A itself.  

                          The merits of that extreme approach as a political agenda would seem to fully validate rather than undermine the NRA argument -- does it not?

                          The middle ground is where reform and reasonable regulatory initiatives will be achieved, but it is a mistake to ascribe extremism on this issue to only one side of the debate.

                          •  I just used them as a punching bag. Yes, others (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ancblu

                            not directly motivated by the NRA propaganda, do also.
                            Most of it comes from the religious right.

                            There are a few who are for total bans, but there aren't that many. There are some who argue for a proper reading of the 2nd A , including the part about well-regulated militia, but that doesn't mean they see a total confiscation of weapons.

                            Most are for reasonable controls. Background checks, etc.
                            The extremism is most definitely mostly among the pro-gun side.

                            You can't make this stuff up.

                            by David54 on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 02:57:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                •  My fact-based arguments are "weak" only (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FrankRose, The Baculum King

                  to those who care nothing for constructing effective policy solutions appropriately tailored to an identified problem.  The data do not support your position -- and that appears to be no concern or impediment to you.

                  Likewise, you dismiss clear and unequivocal policy statements with nothing more than a fairy wand and pixie dust -- in the reality based world where political calculus matters, the majority of Senators I identified will not support a new AWB -- even if such a measure could come to the floor for a vote.

                  I don't know what to say about your rejection of the constitutional basis for the Heller and McDonald decisions -- you clearly disagree with the outcome but to cloak yourself in the belief they will not serve as precedential 2A jurisprudence is pretty delusional.

                  •  people have used ar-15s (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    David54

                    in mass killings. banning them and guns like them would have prevented those mass killings. that matters.

                    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                    by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 11:24:37 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Unconstitutionally over-broad regulation (0+ / 0-)

                      and based on a factual supposition unsupported by the data, which makes your argument analogous, ironically enough, to a poorly aimed select-fire fully automatic burst ... or "spray and pray" as it is sometimes described by those who prefer precise targeting over directionless and uncontrolled shooting.

                      But yes ... sadly I do recognize your proposed regulatory response to a single guy with a bomb in his underwear approach.  

                      •  unconstitutional according to an extremist court (0+ / 0-)

                        and even that hasn't been tested. the court did open the door to some regulation. i care about saving lives. ar-15s have been used in mass shootings.

                        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                        by Laurence Lewis on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 08:09:38 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  That is about the weakest bit of logic I have seen (0+ / 0-)

                      The idea that if crazy person uses a particular device to commit murder that if you had prohibited their access to that device you would have prevented the murder is bogus.  They would have simply used something else.

                      You can't legislate away crazy or crime.  If it worked, society wouldn't have a problem with either.

              •  I don't think we've really seen this thing shake (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ancblu

                out yet, in the voting public.

                The women's vote is increasing in power, and I'm fairly sure they care less about a "strict definition" of the 2nd amendment. (I know women own guns, etc. )

                Newtown changed things.

                Bloomberg is just getting started.

                We are just now beginning a serious debate over the stfu noise of the NRA. Just that is a victory.

                We may not get an assault weapons ban right away. I do think we will get some substantive common sense regulations, and we will overcome the extreme propaganda to the effect that any controls are meaningless, etc. We will start a debate about what responsible adult gun ownership looks like.

                Electorally, right now, I think it's still up in the air and it will be until the trajectory of this issue has had time to stabilize.
                The NRA realizes this, is desperate, and is pushing back hard, but they're not doing themselves any favor. They're self-marginalizing. At any rate, they're not going to get new converts to their side, all they can do is gin up the hysteria from those who have already drunk the koolaid.

                I'm hoping there will be a new gun rights/responsible gun owner group that starts up to compete with the NRA that doesn't oppose some gun regulations. I think that would be a game-changer.

                You can't make this stuff up.

                by David54 on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 06:08:07 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  This is more balanced (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FrankRose

                  and realistic point of view than that to which I was first responded and it does serve as the more fertile soil for constructive debate and discussion.

                  I agree that "some regulations" will follow -- but the devil, as always, is in the details.  What is one person's "reasonable" is another's "unreasonable."  

                  The best illustration of this bad policy outcome I can think of is how we responded after 9/11 under both the Bush and Obama administrations with the litany of intrusions and assaults -- some overt but most covert -- on our constitutional rights mostly under the 4th Amendment.  We as a country are much poorer because in my opinion we crossed the line but the political consensus accepts it under the rationale of better security.

                  Laurence Lewis upthread "doesn't care about the Constitutional arguments."  That is a far more dangerous concept to American liberty than any multi-million AR-15s ever could be.  And it is an opinion that will generate nothing but pure contempt and hatred by those who believe it is a Liberty issue.

        •  Uhhhhhhhhh..... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ancblu

          Not exactly.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 06:15:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I have noticed it too... (0+ / 0-)

        Most gun owners I have met who aren't Christian Taliban are fairly reasonable.  The Falange have the crazy.  They like guns not because they are target shooters, hunters, or worried about home defense.  Its that they want to use the guns to impose their will on people like us.  Preppers are in the same mental space as they think the world is going to end.  

        Its the end of them, not the end of the world ... unless they try pulling a Rwandan Genocide here and don't think they haven't though about it.  

        Not related directly related, but an interesting read:  http://www.counterpunch.org/...

        Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism the roles are reversed.

        by DavidMS on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:35:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The issue is that ALL gun owners allow the NRA... (8+ / 0-)

    ... to speak for them.  If it's not the NRA, it's an even fringier group with an stricter pro-gun "scorecard", or a pro-gunny like that nutcase in Kentucky or Tennessee who was "ready to start killing people".

    The numbers don't mean anything, the voice is what matters (and here we see that money = speech (the voice) when it comes to fire-arms).  Everyone has seen polls that say that America is ready for gun reform, but THE ONLY VOICE that's heard on the other side is the NRA's.

    You can post until you're fingers fall off; but, until you can form a group which can raise their voices to drown out the NRA's you're going to have to live with the arguments they put forth.

    I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

    by Hey338Too on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 08:47:23 PM PST

    •  That is the problem with Democrats. (8+ / 0-)

      As Will Rogers once said, "I don't belong to any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

      There are bloc votes among Democrats.  We all have our single issue voters. It is fact of political life, as any political science major will tell you.  For example, the FAA is not my favorite government agency, but I will usually vote for issues they promote, simply because I either see no alternative, or it is a matter of self preservation on issues I care about .

      There used to be a big sign in the airport pilot's lounge that was labeled,

      THE BIGGEST LIE IN THE WORLD:

      "I"m from the FAA and I am here to help you."

      The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

      by Otteray Scribe on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 08:55:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I reject that stereotype (12+ / 0-)

      the NRA does not speak for me.

      A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

      by notrouble on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:03:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Tell that to CNN. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hey338Too, Lost and Found, a2nite

        You can't make this stuff up.

        by David54 on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:25:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If he can give CNN as much revenue as gun makers (3+ / 0-)

          do with ads, then CNN might listen.

          Until then, we need to be aware why for-profit news is showing us the stories they're showing us and feeding us the staged fights they're feeding us.

          "I have often seen people uncivil by too much civility, and tiresome in their courtesy." Michel de Montaigne

          by JesseCW on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 10:22:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not stereotyping you... (4+ / 0-)

        ... but there just simply isn't another gun owner's group given the time of day by the media.  Everyone knows Wayne La Pierre, but there isn't another gun advocate known in the country (other than the crazy types who make the news for bragging about freedom from tyranny).  So while you may not agree with what they say, you are simply caught in the middle between what is becoming a more organized anti-gun population on one side and the NRA on the other.

        Here's your other problem.  If your side DID find a valid spokesperson, the NRA would simply co-opt your message and conflate it with their own.

        I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

        by Hey338Too on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:38:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  horseshit (8+ / 0-)

      utter unadulterated horseshit that all gun owners allow the NRA to speak for them.

      I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

      by wretchedhive on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:17:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not necessarily... I don't like what the NRA (9+ / 0-)

      says on "my behalf" but there are no other firearms rights organizations out there that can make as much noise on command as they do.

      Face it, I doubt there's a gun owner in the United States that has not heard of the NRA. If 95% of gun owners have decided not to join them, it is by conscious choice-- they feel the organization is too "out there" for their tastes.

      Or there are people like myself* --and Michael Moore, remember-- who are technically members but disagree with where the leadership is. Recent polls suggest most NRA rank-and-file members would be cool with things like universal background checks and other controls.

      *signed up years ago before I realized how batshit they were.

      •  I've seen the polls too... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MaikeH

        ... and it is true:

        Recent polls suggest most NRA rank-and-file members would be cool with things like universal background checks and other controls.
        But if the NRA isn't saying it, those people are spitting into the wind.

        I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

        by Hey338Too on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:41:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's the same argument Fox makes about Muslims. (7+ / 0-)

      'They allow the terrorists to speak for them'.

      We're not responsible if you choose to ignore us and listen to the NRA instead.  That's a choice you're making.

      The NRA is not a gun-owners group - it's a gun manufacturers lobby organization.  It gets most of its money directly from Corporations trying to push product.

      Because it has money and power, it's representatives get air time.  That's how America works.

      Stop blaming us for being no more able to beat the corporate beast than anyone else in America.

      "I have often seen people uncivil by too much civility, and tiresome in their courtesy." Michel de Montaigne

      by JesseCW on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 10:21:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You seem fairly smart. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Baculum King, Oh Mary Oh

      You have any brilliant ideas how we can bring Wall Street around while we kneecap the NRA as well?

      The numbers don't mean anything, the voice is what matters (and here we see that money = speech (the voice) when it comes to money).  Everyone has seen polls that say that America is ready for Wall Street reform, but THE ONLY VOICE that's heard comes from Wall Street.

      You can post until you're fingers fall off; but, until you can form a group which can raise their voices to drown out the Wall Street interests you're going to have to live with the arguments they put forth.

      Capisce?

      ...someday - the armies of bitterness will all be going the same way. And they'll all walk together, and there'll be a dead terror from it. --Steinbeck

      by Seldom Seen on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 10:32:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  As much as we ALL let corporatist Democrats (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Oh Mary Oh, Robobagpiper, ancblu

      speak for us.

      YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

      by raincrow on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 01:06:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It isn't 1994 anymore. (5+ / 0-)

    Rachel Maddow had a show on a couple weeks ago that showed that of the races the NRA assisted with money for the 2012 elecdtion, only about .15% actually won.   In other words, the NRA was basically impotent.

    Also, we don't necessarily have to choose between guns and winning races.  After Newton, Americans are anxious for a toughing of gun laws. Furthermore, a majority of those in the NRA support certain gun restrictions.

    The term "Christian Conservative" is an even greater oxymoron than "Colosseum Lion Trainer for Christ".

    by StevenJoseph on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 08:51:34 PM PST

  •  The thought can be continued (4+ / 0-)

    The NRA, as best I can tell, does not even represent its own membership. Can they, for example, replace its leadership?

    •  That happend once. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BlackSheep1, raincrow

      1977 in Cincinnati.  I posted about it up thread.

      Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism the roles are reversed.

      by DavidMS on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:09:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Since When Do People Mean Anything About (3+ / 0-)

      national organizations?

      Since in 1981 we blew away compressive individual taxation, allowing the rich to take home most of what they could gain regardless of how extreme, most people haven't meant jack shit in how policy in this country is made.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:13:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The board includes at least a couple of (0+ / 0-)

      manufacturers of high capacity magazines and at least one who makes AR-15 type assault rifles.
      That's who the leadership represents.
      Most of the membership are sheep.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:28:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Most of the membership got a lifetime card (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite, FrankRose

        from Grandpa in 1965 and never sent in a resignation letter.

        I have negative things to say about Micheal Moore from time to time, but I wouldn't call him a sheep.

        "I have often seen people uncivil by too much civility, and tiresome in their courtesy." Michel de Montaigne

        by JesseCW on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 10:25:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I was in the NRA when I was in Scouts in (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW

          the 60's. It was a totally different thing then.
          I'm talking about the membership that buys into their propaganda now. I agree with you about a lot of the membership, that's why I've been hollering about a new organization to replace the NRA for responsible gun owners that wouldn't oppose some common sense regulations.
          With the proper backing, I think it could take off and really make a difference.

          You can't make this stuff up.

          by David54 on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 05:51:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They have nearly five million members. Maybe (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose

            half are in any way active.

            I'm not a member of any organization dedicated to shooting or firearms.  I hunt half a dozen times a year and go target shooting just about as often.

            We don't need advocacy or lobbying groups.  We don't have anything to push back against politically (that anyone else doesn't).

            If we want to support reasonable restrictions we don't have to ghettoize ourselves in some "Hunters for trigger locks" or something.  We can (and I do) just support the Brady Campaign.

            "I have often seen people uncivil by too much civility, and tiresome in their courtesy." Michel de Montaigne

            by JesseCW on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 12:01:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That makes sense, except how do you get the media (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JesseCW

              to stop letting the NRA "speak for all gun-owners".

              You can't make this stuff up.

              by David54 on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 01:20:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You can't. If you formed a Hunters and Shooters (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                David54

                Allied for Gun Safety organization and got 10 million members, then maybe NPR or Rachel Maddow would have your spokesman on a few times.

                'Cause you don't come with hundreds of millions in gun manufacturer revenue.

                I think it's more productive that we not allow ourselves to be "othered", shoved over there in that Gun Owners category when it comes to public policy.

                Obviously, I have no problem with duck hunters getting together to protect wet-lands.  I don't even exactly have "a problem" with someone who wants to create a pro-regulation gun owners group.

                I just think it's better that we see ourselves as just another citizen concerned about gun violence, and that we work with others to achieve positive aims even if some of those others have irrational fears and hatreds regarding firearms.

                Our real duty, from my PoV, is to be the people who see a Gun as a Gun.  Not a talisman of right wing violence and terror, not as a great fun toy, not as a mystical shield of defense from "the criminals".

                We're familiar with firearms and we don't fetishize them - and we need to be a part of the mainstream conversation because we're part of the mainstream of the country.

                "I have often seen people uncivil by too much civility, and tiresome in their courtesy." Michel de Montaigne

                by JesseCW on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 01:49:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Exactly why you need a national organization (0+ / 0-)

                  to get the word out: :^)

                  Our real duty, from my PoV, is to be the people who see a Gun as a Gun.  Not a talisman of right wing violence and terror, not as a great fun toy, not as a mystical shield of defense from "the criminals".

                  We're familiar with firearms and we don't fetishize them - and we need to be a part of the mainstream conversation because we're part of the mainstream of the country.

                  You can't make this stuff up.

                  by David54 on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 02:48:24 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  As much as I'm a Bill Clinton fan let me assure (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW, mrblifil

    you he is/was wrong to assert that. By the way please show where Clinton actually said this.

    We lost the midterms in '94 due to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. It had NOTHING to do with the assault weapons ban.

  •  Yes, there are easily 100 MILLION gun owners (9+ / 0-)

    .... who are NOT members of the NRA.

    You know, the law abiding citizens who own guns. Around 30 MILLION own "assault" weapons.

    It is not politically wise to just assume gun owners are all redneck right wing doodle heads, many are perhaps your democratic neighbors.

    This one time, perhaps we can stick to purely facts and rational reality based strategies to put policies in effect to help eliminate gun violence.

    When "our" side starts acting and sounding like the other side does when it freaks out on the subject of abortion or the gay, it does no one any good, and nothing will ever get solved.

    Let us be very grown up about this subject matter.

  •  Like "Christian's" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miss Blue, Canis Aureus, 88kathy

    The non-NRA people who own guns and have issues with the NRA should step up and speak up.  Otherwise, there is no difference and it doesn't matter.

    Democracy, if done properly, is rude, messy, and loud

    by allensl on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:10:36 PM PST

  •  I'll tell you what is misleading (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DerAmi, Cartoon Peril, raincrow

    when you said,

    so drawing conclusions about the political effects of anything relating to guns by using the NRA as the measuring stick is bound to be misleading, at best.
    you wrongly assume that the ability to exact political influence is based on membership numbers as opposed to lobby dollars.

    In my book, NRA stands for "The United States Gun Manufacturer's Association".

    They are basically a trade association and lobby solely for their client's interests, and are paid very well to put their client's positions into legislation.

  •  Thank you, I have been trying to point out (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    high uintas, ancblu, theatre goon, a2nite

    this for some time. Myself and others, in fact.

    Meaningful political legislation will come when gun owners are also on board.

  •  I am a gun owner. (3+ / 0-)

    And as long as the NRA has any political influence I am for repeal and replace of the 2nd Amendement.

    This better be good. Because it is not going away.

    by DerAmi on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 10:26:45 PM PST

  •  As far as I'm concerned, if you are against an AWB (3+ / 0-)

    or large capacity clip ban or universal background checks, you may as well belong to the NRA because your politics and mine don't meld. There are plenty of gun owners that have no problem with sensible gun control.

    •  Any proposed or actual regulation is not sensible (8+ / 0-)

      if it poorly correlates to the solution of an identified problem.

      When you accurately demonstrate that an "assault weapon" can be appropriately differentiated from other semi-automatic firearms on a principled technical basis and in a manner that will have a statistically significant impact on various forms of gun violence relative to its breadth of application ... then I and most other oppponents of a ban would possibly be more persuaded to your pov.

      In the meanwhile, it is quite evident as both a legislative and constitutional matter that a new AWB is not achievable and equally evident that the political damage of such an effort to the advancement of the progressive agenda would be substantial.

      Expansion of background checks -- even to include the thorny issue of mental health screens -- would be a direction where compromise can probably be found.   There are other fronts as well, including my particular support for control of illegal trafficking with better auditing and control of dealer inventories as proposed by Senator Gillibrand.

      •  But the current situation (0+ / 0-)

        of domestic tranquility punctuated by mentally disturbed individuals engaging in spree shootings with incredibly lethal firepower is somehow...sensible?

        If you're opposed to doing something because you allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good, you are effectively fighting the NRA's battle for them.

        •  You are substituting (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          The Baculum King

          a slogan for data supported analysis.

          Tactical carbines, black guns, assault rifles, or killing machines -- whatever your preferred terminology -- account for less than 1/3 of the rarest form of gun violence ... mass or spree killings.  The Virgina Tech massacre is a useful example, in which the perpetrator used a 9mm semi-automatic pistol not a rifle.

          If spree or mass killings by "assault weapons" account for a minute fraction of one percent of all firearm related homicides each year ... who is actually being the enemy of effective and responsible regulation by fixating on that bogey-man as a feel-good but ultimately ineffective solution to our national problem?

    •  AWB accomplishes very little in and of itself (5+ / 0-)

      but it will make some people happy just because, and I guess happy is really, really important.

      YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

      by raincrow on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 01:48:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What with the 45 or so homicides per year (4+ / 0-)

        committed with them, on average, a tenth the number committed with hammers or fists.

        But banning them would make mean thoughts go away, or so the proponents of the ban imagine.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 07:15:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  AWB was imperfect (0+ / 0-)

        and had huge avoidance loopholes, yet since it's repeal formerly proscribed weapons are appearing a crime scenes in much greater profusion than while the ban was active.

        And if you look at a truly comprehensive ban like the Australian model, you see even more stark indicators of efficacy.

        •  Hard to judge Australia because their (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose, ancblu, Robobagpiper

          population is so small by comparison. The incidence per year of killing rampages here has veered between 1 in 31 million and 1 in 249 million since the Great Depression. If Australia is at all comparable to us in annual wacko outbreaks (their domestic violence stats are comparable iirc), it will take 2+ decades more of data to judge the comparative efficacy of their law (effective 1996 ?).

          The problem weapon continues to be handguns -- 73% of all gun crime fatalities in 2011.

          btw, where did you get your post-AWB assault rifle stat? It didn't leap out of the FBI numbers at me; the 2011 data I saw didn't differentiate rifle types. Maybe I didn't look closely enough...?

          YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

          by raincrow on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 10:53:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It was not repealed. It expired. (0+ / 0-)

          The AWB was passed with a 10 year sunset, because those that proposed it (DiFi) knew it would make no difference in crime, but wanted a culture-war issue to keep eternally fighting over.

          "Assault weapons" have been used in 0.6% of homicides since the ban's repeal, a number sufficiently tiny as to be consistent with no change at all. "Much greater profusion" is a claim you need to back up or retract.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:46:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'm in complete support of background checks... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose, ancblu

      including mental health checks, as is done now.

       I am not sure I would be okay with a AWB until I see the proposed bill.  If it was a clean bill and grandfather clause, no ban on semi automatics in anyway, etc....I think I would be okay with it, even though the last one was a failure.  I would just have to see the bill.

      I am not okay with clip regulations and bans. It does nothing to stop criminals from getting them or having them and would stop nothing in the way of mass murders.  Many, many ways to get around it.

  •  Can't recc this diary because I don't believe NRA (0+ / 0-)

    is representative of gun owners in general, and I don't believe NRA management is even representative of the NRA membership.

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 11:46:04 PM PST

  •  Fewer murders by rifle than shotgun in 2011 (5+ / 0-)

    Great lot of good an AWB will do, beyond making people who don't read FBI crime statistics happy -- unless a robust buy-back program is written into the law.

    Stopping the importation, manufacture, and sale of magazines >10 rounds is sensible, but again it will only make a difference if we demand the law include a robust buy-back program.

    If we're actually serious about this, the law must also include

    (1) California-style restrictions on private gun transfers, GANGED WITH:

    (2) A requirement that states enact laws requiring gun owners to report gun theft within 2-4 weeks, enforced if a gun is used in a crime by other than the owner, on penalty of an increasing gradient of fines then criminal misdemeanor penalties for repeat offenses. Otherwise when a crime gun is traced to a strawman seller, they'll just say, "Gosh, that gun was stolen from me last year."

    (3) Funding to put all ATF data on crime, suicide, and accident guns in a searchable online database. Until every citizen with internet access can see where the flow of crime guns comes from, we'll have no idea if gun laws are doing squat. The NRA and their minions in Congress, and probably the military, have not seemed keen on us seeing the dealers, military armories, etc., that leak the most guns into criminal hands.

    YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

    by raincrow on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 01:47:03 AM PST

  •  Your analysis is flawed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, luckydog, mrblifil

    on several levels.

    One, the electorate in 2012 or 2014 is not the same electorate we had in 1994. It is younger, more urban, more female and less white. The 1994 electorate would have given us President Romney in November.

    Second, 1994 ratified at the Congressional level what we saw much earlier at the Presidential level; the loss of the Old South for the Democrats. That would have happened sooner or later with or without an AWB.

    Third, the defining issue in 1994 was healthcare, or Hillarycare, as it was then framed. Which the Clinton White House botched. It's that awkward historical fact that Bill Clinton is "famously" spinning away, not actual fact.

    So if you're going to threaten dire electoral consequences to Democrats over guns, and make no mistake, that's exactly what this diary is, you need to make up some better facts.

    Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

    by MBNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 03:19:52 AM PST

  •  Non-NRA gun owners and NRA get around to (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, PsychoSavannah, mrblifil

    gun control at the same time - never.

    They both fight every step of the way.  Neither have any proposals.  NRA - arm everybody.  Non-NRA - arm me.

    Both are responsible for their arms right up to the time they say they aren't, oopsie. Then it is left up to me to pick up the pieces.

    If you are so not NRA, then tell me what proposals you are pushing.  I will join you.  Something tells me, I'm going to have a lot of free time.

    My gun control petition was shot down.

    by 88kathy on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 03:47:07 AM PST

  •  Compared to the American gun owning population... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose, Oh Mary Oh, Wayward Son

    ...NRA membership is small.  However, 71 percent of Americans with guns in the household have a favorable opinion of the NRA, and only 19 percent of the same group (compared to 38 percent people with no access to firearms) say the NRA never represents their views.

  •  The NRA isn't about gun owners (5+ / 0-)

    It's about gun manufacturers. The NRA exists to help gun and gun accessories get sold - as many as possible. It may have represented actual gun owners once, but it's long since become a mere ad agency - peddling fear and paranoia to get people to run out and buy more guns, magazines, tactical harnesses, etc.
    Everything LaPierre does has to be seen through that prism - he's not trying to sound reasonable. He's trying to scare the people that react to being scared by paying more money to LaPierre's masters.

    “If you are irritated by every rub, how will your mirror be polished?” - Rumi

    by Jaxpagan on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 06:15:44 AM PST

  •  that doesn't hold water (0+ / 0-)

    the 2% boost is in votes overall.  It doesn't distinguish between NRA members, gun owners or accordion players.

    Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

    by Mindful Nature on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 08:13:42 AM PST

  •  I think it's too simplistic... (0+ / 0-)

    I think it's too simplistic to say that the Democrats lost the House in 1994 because of the AWB (or for any one specific reason); major national elections are won or lost for more than one reason.  I think some Dem incumbent losses (like that of Dick Swett in New Hampshire) were attributable to votes for the AWB, but I think that more Dems lost because of their vote for the Clinton budget, or simply because they had a D next to their name.  For example, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, Herb Klein, and George Hochbruckner all lost even though they ran in Northeast suburban districts where being pro-gun control wasn't a liability.  Also, lots of Democrats lost who were anti-gun control, like Jolene Unsoeld and Jack Brooks.  

    Don't crash the gate--take back the keys.

    by lungfish on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 09:00:25 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site