Al queda, the NRA, chicken Senators versus 90% of Americans

The Senate crushed reasonable gun control efforts. At its craziest most insane the Senate saw a rejection of an effort to support a reasonable carefully crafted piece of legislation that would support checks on people buying guns.

Of course the NRA was against this legislation and ravaged, attacked and slandered the proposed legislation.

Meanwhile in consistent polls taken on national and state bases somewhere between 70 and 90% of Americans want more checks on gun buyers. Even alternative interest groups of gun owners supported the Toomey-Manchin legislation.

Clearly the NRA threatened legislators. 90% of GOP senators voted against this compromise bill, added to a couple of Democrats and threatened to filibuster the legislation if it came up.

It died. For the time being.

Meanwhile the NRA and Al queda are completely in accord on this issue: http://theeverlastinggopstoppers.co...s-terrorists-buy-guns-u-s-easy-gun-laws-weak/

The overwhelming majority of Americans want increased checks on gun buyers. Al queda is against that and the NRA are against it.

Currently the polling support on Senators who voted against this piece of common sense legislation is plummeting. Supporters of this legislation have pledged to put big $ against these Senators to counter NRA methodology.

Ultimately this legislation will pass as the common sense of Americans will prevail over the combination of al Queda and the NRA and people who acknowledge that people with guns are part of the problem will get what they want.

 

90% support for the concept of background checks. Too bad only 4% of Americans think new gun legislation is even remotely important. I bet you'll never guess what percent of Americans think the debt/deficit is important.

 

You and the NRA really need this recent gallop poll don't you? I guess you want to distract from the fact that you, the NRA and al quada are in 100% agreement on this issue.

Here is the poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/161813/few-guns-immigration-nation-top-problems.aspx

The economy and jobs are the most important issues. People don't give a rat's @ss about immigration...something the right wing loves. People aren't concerned about family values...another favorite issue from the far right....and people really aren't interested in taxes...still another right wing hot button.

Meanwhile the overwhelming majority of the population want this element of gun legislation. Check for maniacs, dangerous people, and potential terrorists....which al quada you and the NRA want to be free to buy weapons.


More people are concerned about debt than immigration, gun legislation, and "family values. But fewer people are concerned about debt than the state of the economy and about jobs.

Obama has continuously pushed for a variety of job programs that would meet the needs of a lot of people. He has called for higher taxes on people who can afford it. That would satisfy people concerned about debt.

You and the NRA OTOH are in agreement on an issue with al quada.

 

Did you read your own poll? It doesn't seem like it.

Jobs would satisfy people concerned about jobs. "Jobs programs" on the other hand, is just a code word for directing taxpayer funds to the Democratic party. Most people understand that.

 

Fixing crummy roads and fixing broken bridges so more people could get to work more easily is something most people would understand as a benefit to everyone.

Only the extreme right wing is going to characterize fixing roads and bridges as feeding the democratic party. Certainly not the people who drive to work every day, regardless of party.

 

Meanwhile following many polls somewhere between 70 and 90% of Americans feel there should be tighter controls on who buys guns, and more checks on who is buying fire arms. Gun owners support this. Gun groups supported the Manchin-Toomey legislation.

Basically only you the NRA and al quada were against it. 90% of GOP senators voted against it. I suppose they are in the pockets of either the NRA, al quada or you.

 

Now that is funny. Jobs programs = fixing roads and bridges? Really?


Newsflash: Our federal budget for such projects is already in excess of the FDR budgets under the new deal that brought us such marvels as the Hoover Dam. Where are the jobs Mr. President? Simply asking for more money doesn't cut it.

I find it amazing that, immediately following your own post of a gallup poll showing less than 4% of Americans think that gun control is important, you are already back to peddling it's popularity. I'm sure 99% of Americans think we should end hunger and starvation in this country as well, it is simply that nobody in this country feels that it is our most pressing issue. Move on!

 

The NRA and al queda would probably also say that money is nice to have. Are you really trying to convince people that the NRA is even remotely connected to al queda? Maybe more people would actually read your posts if you didn't throw such desperate and wild jabs and pretend you are making an argument.

All the laws democrats have come up with in response to the mass shootings are far from common sense. Common sense would say that these gun laws should target a large part of the problem. Most of the legislation focused on < 3% of gun deaths each year. Why go through all the trouble if the maximum effect you can have on gun violence is barely measurable statistically? Rifles are the cause of a tiny portion of gun deaths each year, yet they were the democrats top priority. You call that common sense?

Common sense would tell us that mental health should be the top concern for gun violence. When 2 out of every 3 gun deaths is a suicide, wouldn't you think laws related to mental health would be on the table?

Instead, the liberals tried to use a tragedy to push their anti-gun agenda on the american people. Well, it failed. Anti-gun liberals don't care about saving lives or reducing violence. They care about getting legal guns out of law abiding citizens' hands. They don't like guns, because they are guns.

The recent anti-gun push by liberals has done nothing but strengthen the gun industry, the NRA, and interest in maintaining the 2nd amendment. Better luck next time.

Obama is the biggest and most effective marketing tool that gun manufacturers have ever had. He has sold more firearms than any human being ever. If his goal was to reduce the amount of guns in america, he should stop talking. Liberals have focused so much attention on guns that sales are through the roof, more people are getting into guns, and naturally more people are supporting the NRA and donating money to advance gun freedom.

 

As it deals with preventing enhanced checks on people buying guns, al quada and the NRA are completely in agreement.

The bi partisan bill was carefully crafted by a Republican and a Democrat both given top ratings by the NRA. It met every stated objection of other members of congress.

Ultimately when it came up for a vote the members who voted against it and the NRA misrepresented the issues.

The 90% of the population don't buy into the voices of the extreme right who upon delivery of a piece of legislation which was carefully crafted by a Republican and a Democrat then are faced with a rejection of it that see further comments from the extemists with this language:

How can anyone with even a small level of a brain buy into that type of comment. It ignores reality:

two members of congress with a A-1 ratings by the NRA crafted the legislation. It was bi-partisan.

The legislation will reappear. The quivering GOP senators that bowed down to the special interests of the NRA will see that they are about to be voted out of office and will change their votes.

Statements like the above just further isolate the extreme right wing into a tiny fantasy party unable to deal with reality.

 

I'm scratching my head here. If they are both A-1 rated by the NRA, how can voting for this bill be against the NRA? If voting for the bill IS against the NRA, wouldn't voting for it cost them their A-1 rating?

Honestly, who gives a crap what the NRA wants. I think most Americans saw president Obama climb on top of a stack of dead children's corpses to give a speech and were disgusted by it. It reminds me of when he claimed that the health care bill was required to fix the economy.

The sheen is really running thin on the shiny brand of stupid being sold by this president. Glad to see the dummies in the Senate didn't roll over. They may indeed not survive their next election nearly 5 years from now, but if that happens, it won't be because angry Americans voted them out for their position on this ineffective gun legislation. It will be because the Tea Party votes them out of their primary for proposing it in the first place.

 

The universal background check system wouldn't enhance the background checks, it simply creates another barrier for law abiding citizens to own weapons. Criminals will continue to steal weapons or buy them off the black market like they have for decades.

Oh really? Misrepresented the issues? Isn't that what Obama and other gun control democrats have been doing for 4 months? I'll remind you that besides the universal background check portion, every gun control effort has been focused on semi-automatic rifles. Like I said before, thats less than 3% of all gun deaths each year in the US. You want to talk about misrepresenting the issues, well maybe you should look at the entire effort by liberals this year. It's all been a misrepresentation of the facts in order to push their anti-gun agenda.

The GOP didn't stop these gun laws. Democrats pulled the plug. Democrats were afraid to upset members of the NRA and the millions of other americans who support the 2nd amendment. Democrats were thinking about 2014 when their votes would be under the microscope. Democrats didn't want to vote on these bills. If you want to blame somebody, quit blaming the GOP and the NRA, and blame your own party that couldn't get enough of their own support to even bring these laws for a vote.

 

Unlike you these two guys maintain a level of responsibility to the American public. They also have human hearts, common sense, and ultimately are not hate filled tools. The simple fact is that while the NRA and gun supporters have continuously claimed that people kill others, not guns, this was the legislation that addressed that concern.

But we learned that the NRA and its most extreme supporters don't actually believe what they claimed. They simply will do anything to support gun manufacturers at any extreme. Its nothing less than extremism existent in America.

On the one hand this article in Forbes not only gave great credit to Obama's speech in Newtown but in parsing it noted how entirely personal it was while significantly avoiding politics. http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/12/17/president-obamas-speech-in-newtown-leadership-at-its-best/

From the article reviewing the speech by Obama:

Meanwhile there were commentators similar to you o-nation:

Obama's speech was on a Sunday. It took place during football games on TV.

Here are some of the comments that reflect your comments, O-nation:

​

​

You keep good company, o-nation.​

​

There is no debating with hate filled people. They are a lot like the living terrorist who killed 4 in Boston, injured well over 100 and caused a good many of the injured to lose limbs. His reasoning for the attack. ​

They hate American policy in the middle east.​

Every day, Islamics slaughter Islamics. Syria is a killing field which has evolved into a virulent war between shiites and sunnis, slaughtering one another. ​

​

But hate filled Islamics can't see that. Similarly hate filled American right wingers, have such a hatred for Obama, they can't listen to a father painfully speaking about the death of 20 children, or extolling the courage of teachers that tried to save those children.​

​

The rest of the world sees it. People around the world are scared about the future of America. Its politics are screwed up by a hate filled world of right wing extremists whose perspectives are far more like murdering Islamic terrorists than their American neighbors.​

 

Really? How so? You and all other gun control advocates have failed to explain how any of the proposed laws will help curb gun violence, while not infringing on gun ownership.

For example, the assault weapons ban: Bans rifles because of cosmetic features. This was the main part of the gun control package. Even though < 3% of all gun deaths each year in the US are by rifles of any kind.

And let me remind you. 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides. Mental health and poverty issues are the cause of gun violence. The people in congress have focused their efforts on areas that will not effect gun violence. Please tell me how any of the laws are common sense?

 

Earlpearl, did you really just rebut the idea that the president played politics with the bodies of dead children, by calling those who were disgusted by it racists and America hating terrorists? Really? And the racism claim from some random tweet from some moron from San Francisco?

This is why nobody takes the left seriously. I used to find such claims funny in their absurdity, but it has simply gotten sad.

It isn't that the president is on during a football game. Its that he is on during the news, morning and evening. Its that he is on during the morning stock reports, and daytime tv, and evening tv. Hes on the radio, hes on youtube. Hes on the articles, hes in my email. I'm growing concerned he may turn up in my bed.

Seriously, I am sick of this guy, and I love politics. If the idiot didn't make such a practice of "getting his message out" by bombarding the airwaves with spam and solicitations for money, one might be able to sit through one of his speeches, but like most Americans, I have tuned this guy out. He has only himself to blame. I swear he loves the sound of his own voice.

I'm sure watching him climb a stack of dead children to sell the American people something they didn't want was as much of a sight to behold as watching Snookie get drunk(again) and start a fight, but I have a limited tolerance for losers.

 

Ummm... if the entire right can automatically be assumed to share the racist opinions of some random pro-gun guy... does that mean we can attribute all idiotic opinions of any anti-gunner to all anti-gunners?

If so I'd like to ask why David is so concerned that Guam might capsize if we inadvertently put too much weight on one side of the island. That's not the concern of a random guy on twitter, it's a Democrat in DC. Care to explain why you guys jointly share that pressing concern?

Seriously... unless you're speaking to someone who has said something racist... for God's sake please keep the race card in your pocket. It's no more appropriate to indiscriminately wave that thing around in public than it is your wiener. It doesn't have a damned thing to do with the topic and it's a sign a guy on the left has lost an argument when they plop down the race card without cause and pretend it trumps all other arguments.

And please tell me you do not REALLY believe 90% of the nation was really in favor of that ridiculous gun control legislation that just got shot down. The senators that voted against it did not do it because they had evil political motives. The more probable cause is that they and the people they represent are tired of the creeping fascism that keeps driving the left to assault various parts of the bill of rights. That doesnt make us un-American... since the best way to escape the bill of rights would be to leave America.

Incidentally I strongly recommend that if you dont like the 2nd amendment, try following the provision in the constitution for changing that... cause ignoring it isn't going to work. Let me know when you have the votes to remove ten percent of the bill of rights. I dont think you do.

 

Someone really needs to point me in the direction of this "study" indicating that there is "90%" of anything remotely supporting asinine legislation like this.

Thus far, the only supporting evidence for 90% of anything has come from the lips of the POTUS, and no other valid source.

 

http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2013/04/senate-defeats-background-check-measure.html

What is curious is that only a week after it's defeat, another poll by the same company showed only 65% support for the bill.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162083/americans-wanted-gun-background-checks-pass-senate.aspx

Unfortunately for that poll, it did not address any specific provisions of the bill, but rather relied on the poll taker's knowledge of what he/she thought was in the bill. I think the poll Earlpearl linked is much more telling. It puts any gun legislation whatsoever down near the bottom of the priorities list of what people care about.

 

A lot of Americans were deeply horrified by what occurred in Newtown, CT. On top of the good number of other mass murders that had occurred in the US of recent years they wanted to reverse the trends of the last 10, 20, 30 years in which gun ownership had taken on a sacred position above all other interests in the US to the point wherein the gun interests would reject the most common sense efforts to cut back on wanton gun violence.

On the right wing the extreme positions have wrapped gun ownership around dubious claims concerning the 2nd amendment, a perspective of hysteria around government involvement, and a hardened position against even the most common sense perspectives.

When Toomey Manchine proposed increased regulations on the sale of guns, while simultaneously making it a serious crime against using government records in an illegal way to restrict the rights of individuals it was a bill carefully crafted to simply increase the restrictions on the purchase of guns by people who shouldn't have access to them...while simultaneously ensuring the protections of individual rights against government intrusions:

From the proposed legislation:

The public at large widely supports increased checks on people buying guns. The support is so widespread as to be astonishing. It is also a reflection of common sense reacting to extreme hardened positions. Not recognizing this widespread belief of the American public is simply a reflection of a hardened extreme political stance that typically tends to move one to fantasy:

There are similar results from polls by CNN, Quinniapac University, Morning Joe/Marist polls and others.

The overwhelming evidence is that the public at large wants more controls and more checks on people purchasing guns.

Americans are not as overwhelmingly supportive of other elements of possible gun control measures, but on background checks the overwhelming majority of Americans are strongly in favor.

Its a simple common sense measure. For years the NRA and similar supporters of gun rights have claimed people kill people, not guns. This simple measure would work to reduce the number of people who could purchase guns by eliminating the most obvious potential problem cases.

Its representative of this forum that the loud voices on the pro gun side who rail against even this most common sense proposal represent a teeny portion of the population and one whose interests entirely coincide with Al Queda.

 

The left always accuses the right of being challenged by science, but apparently the left is challenged by basic math. Use of firearms in violent crime over the period of time you mentioned, where the "right wing extremists" have put the 2nd amendment in a "sacred position" above all other interests, has decreased from 1.2million incidents to ~400k incidents, in spite of the fact we have added nearly 100 million people to our population.

Educate yourself.
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/

If those are the results of prioritizing the 2nd amendment, it seems clear we should keep doing what we are doing.

 

I found this interesting:

"Every day in the U.S., an average of 289 people are shot. Eighty-six of them die: 30 are murdered, 53 kill themselves, two die accidentally, and one is shot in a police intervention, the Brady Campaign reports."

So more than 1/2 of the gun deaths are suicides...

Really only about 32 a day.

Compare that to over 117 deaths from automobiles every day, none of which are suicides.

Seems that the automobile might be a bit more dangerous.