Poor Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham. What a dilemma. They can please the gun lobby and buck the 90% who will vote for them next time around. Or they can go with the voters and lose the gun lobby monetary support.White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer doesn't understand why Congressional support for universal background checks for gun purchases is waning."I've been in politics a long time," he said at Politico's Playbook Breakfast Wednesday. "I very rarely run into a 90-percent issue. … Universal background checks are a 90-percent issue."Ninety percent of Americans supported background checks for all gun buyers in a February 2013 Quinnipiac University poll. A poll released Thursday by the same group showed that 91 percent of registered American voters support background checks.
When asked why congressional support for the initiatives has wavered, Pfeiffer told Politico's Mike Allen, "There may be people in Washington who certainly might be getting cold feet here, [who] are looking for a way out of making progress here."But Pfeiffer predicted the current situation would ultimately hurt lawmakers.
"People feel very strongly about this," Pfeiffer said. "There aren't a lot of cardinal rules in politics, and one is, You don't want to get on the wrong side of a 90-percent issue."
I'ts rough out there.
What do you think ? Please leave a comment.
You just can't conceive of the idea that perhaps those polls don't reflect the true will of the people. For one, the term "background checks," presented without all the details, sounds not too bad, but when the full implications of the bill are made clear, I see support plummeting.
ReplyDeleteBut here's another point to consider: The politicians who oppose gun control are likely listening to their voters. Gun control is supported in the leftist enclaves, but out here in the rest of America, we don't want it.
So, you think you speak for "the rest of America," but these polls don't? Is that it?
DeleteMike,
DeleteMost people in the rest of America are good people. Therefore, when they are shown what is in the bill in Congress, they turn and oppose the law.
Most people don't admit that a law is unjust and oppressive, yet keep pushing it because they want it anyway. You do, but that's because you are not a good person.
Mikeb, that ninety percent number has become an article of faith in your religion, much like the "forty percent of sales happen without a background check" notion. The latter comes from a study done in the 90s. Regarding this poll that your side keeps going on about, I know enough about polling to realize that without seeing the questions, the sample size, the date and location of the poll, and so forth, the data from it are meaningless.
DeleteWhat I can tell you for a certainty is that in most states, gun laws are being loosened. That's the report of NPR yesterday, as well as many other news sources. This all is happening after the incident in Newtown. Your side is all over Twitter and probably calling your elected representatives about more gun control. We're calling and tweeting and writing articles for a better acknowledgement of gun rights.
Now you can blame the NRA for that, if that makes you feel better, but the truth is that our voices are being heard. We don't want gun control. When you get that, you'll understand why in Congress and most states, your dreams are not being fulfilled.
You keep harping on Background checks and not any of your other favorite causes like magazine capacity.
ReplyDeleteIn the capacity debate, we have now received a gift equal to Carolyn McCarthy's Shoulder Thing that Goes Up!
http://cnsnews.com/blog/stephen-gutowski/co-sponsor-bill-banning-magazines-mistakes-them-bullets
DeGette first doubled down, and a staffer tried to clarify and stand by her remarks. Now she's complaining that she's being targeted for intimidation and misrepresentation. Watch her words so that nobody can distort what she said...
Done? If she's going to try to ban these magazines, she should at least learn enough about them that she doesn't make an argument that seems to imply that the magazines are single use. Either she has, or at least had, no understanding of what she's trying to legislate, or she slipped up and mixed up this bill and some secret desire of hers to pass some type of ammo control or ban.
The dubious polls notwithstanding, it's of course always vastly better to be on the side of the morally and intellectually superior ten percent, than the flat-out wrong ninety percent.
ReplyDeleteKeep whistling in the dark. Kurt, your fear will pass.
DeleteWhat "fear" is that, herbivore? And by "pass," do you mean it will go away, or do you mean it will "come to pass"?
DeleteOnce again, they make it seem as if this law is only for sales, and not the incredibly onerous criminalization of common types of temporary transfers. But if we assume 90% of gun owners want the sales part as written (requiring a FFL visit), then why is there a problem at all? There is nothing stopping a private seller from requiring a NICS check at a FFL a condition of sale. You wouldn't have 40% of guns being sold without a background check- it would be more like 4%. You guys are saying that 90% of sellers WANT to run a check, but 0% of them actually do it, and what they really want is to be forced to do it by making it a crime to not do it. Do you ever stop and listen to yourself?
ReplyDeletePerhaps the reality is what I have been saying all along. That what the people want is NOT AT ALL what you are trying to force on them. Perhaps they want a way to easily verify non-prohibited status privately without a FFL, and without all the crimes attached (especially when the buyers isn't even prohibited).
Perhaps another contributing factor is that these polls come from Frank Lunz, who advertises that he will phrase a poll to get the results that the client wants, and the client is Michael Bloomberg. Again, this points to my point above: what they want is not what they are getting.