Skip to main content

NRA member cuts up membership card last December.
A Quinnipiac Poll released Thursday showed what polls have been showing for the past six weeks: the majority of Americans support more restrictions on guns. Specifically, in this poll, 92 percent support background checks for anyone buying a gun from any source, 56 percent support a ban on assault weapons and 56 percent support a limit on the capacity of magazines that feed semi-automatic firearms.

All of those new restrictions are on President Barack Obama's list of proposals for legislation in the wake of the 12/14 massacre of first-graders and educators in Newtown, Connecticut. And all of them are ferociously opposed by the National Rifle Association, the gun industry's mouthpiece.

So one might expect "President Obama" to be the obvious answer of the majority to Quinnipiac's question: "Who do you think better reflects your views on guns, President Obama or the National Rifle Association?"

But 46 percent of respondents answered the NRA and only 43 percent said Obama. True, that difference is just barely more than the margin of error, but it still indicates a major disconnect between what the majority of Americans believe should be done to restrict guns and how they perceive the views of the nation's premiere gun lobby.

Which means that gun-control activists need to turn up the juice to ensure that the majority of Americans actually know where the NRA stands and what it has done over the years to defeat sensible new restrictions as well as undermine existing laws while simultaneously bellyaching about how existing laws aren't being enforced.

There is some encouraging news, too. A survey by Public Policy Polling showed this week. A plurality of respondents—39 percent—said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by the NRA vs. 26 percent who said they would be more likely to do so. “Politicians really don’t have to be scared of the NRA,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “Voters consider its support to be a negative thing.”

That good to hear. But, there's a caveat. National polling papers over the fact that congressional elections are by districts, and in some suburban districts Democratic politicians may still have reason to be scared of the NRA if they—and we who support more gun restrictions—don't repeatedly make clear exactly how extremist and out of step with the majority the gun lobby is.

Not least in that effort to inform Americans should be pointing out how the NRA has worked diligently to weaken gun laws and opposed any attempt to boost the ability of the Bureau of the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to enforce existing laws. While NRA million-dollar-a-year executive vice president Wayne LaPierre and others have insisted gun laws don't work, they fail to point out that many problems with enforcement of such laws stem from NRA lobbying and funding of its puppets in Congress.  

That's a message that needs to be hammered into public consciousness daily until polls show no disconnect between what Americans think the NRA is about and what is really on its agenda.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:55 AM PST.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA), Shut Down the NRA, and Daily Kos.

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

  •  this disconnect happens on issues a lot it seems (13+ / 0-)

    thanks for posting. fb and tweeted to help spread word!

    "It is in the shelter of each other that people live." Irish Proverb

    by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:00:49 AM PST

    •  People might support some gun laws but fear Obama (5+ / 0-)

      The position might not wholly be due to ignorance.  They may support many of Obama's positions but mistrust him or his motives for a variety of reasons, and feel the NRA will better hold the line against measures they don't want.  This may explain the somewhat inexplicable opposition to an assault weapons ban.  I'm not saying it is a wholly rational position.  

      The best tack is to stress that the NRA really represents manufacturers and its main interest is in facilitating the trade in guns, not promoting the interests of gun owners.  After all if they supported gun owners, they would push for more safety measures, given the high toll that gun accidents take.

      The scientific uncertainty doesn't mean that climate change isn't actually happening.

      by Mimikatz on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:30:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We Need To Turn "NRA" Into A Dirty Word (17+ / 0-)

    Plain and simple.

    This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

    by Beetwasher on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:07:24 AM PST

  •  It's the ACA... (6+ / 0-)

    All over again.

    'Guns don't kill people, video games do - paraphrased from Lamar Alexander (Sen-R-TN)'

    by RichM on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:09:55 AM PST

  •  well, I'm sure that FOX reports the NRA (7+ / 0-)

    believes puppies are good, evil muslim communists are bad
    in other news...
    Obama is still black

  •  it's the same problem we always have (8+ / 0-)

    Poll after poll after poll shows that the American public is with us on virtually every issue, but it never translates to political results. Partly because the other side is very good at propaganda and we're not, and partly because we surrender and cave in so often that nobody knows what we really stand for, or if we actually stand for anything at all.

    •  That's where looks have been deceiving (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shoeless, Glen The Plumber, koNko, annieli

      in the past. As far back as the 80s polling has been strongly in favor of stricter gun laws, but come election time there was such heavy saturation of pro-gun propaganda  that democrats vocally supporting gun control got spanked. I sense the climate is different right now, but who knows if today's sentiment will carry over to the 2014 midterms. The GOP is good with the politics of fear and I get the feeling democrats are beginning to take it for granted that they can put gun control front and center in their campaigns which may be a tenuous strategy at best...

      There are two types of republicans, the rich and the stupid. The rich ones strive to keep the stupid ones stupid and the stupid ones strive to keep the rich ones rich.

      by frankzappatista on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:36:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Little known is the way the NRA supports (12+ / 0-)

    the virtual elimination of wilderness and strongly supports Republicans who support increased logging/mining  access in wilderness areas. Basically the NRA feels that wilderness areas affectively make hunting off-limits for the majority of NRA members. This despite the fact that horse packing is popular in these areas. Anyway, it was the NRA's lobbying against wilderness that helped democrat Cecil Andrus win the Idaho governorship in the 70s and 80s -- the majority of hunters in Idaho abhored the idea of tearing up the wilderness with new road networks (especially considering that roughly 85% of the "backcountry" is already acessable via farm and logging roads).

    There are two types of republicans, the rich and the stupid. The rich ones strive to keep the stupid ones stupid and the stupid ones strive to keep the rich ones rich.

    by frankzappatista on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:20:16 AM PST

    •  And now they're pro-smoking to boot: (7+ / 0-)
      The National Rifle Association is worried that Kansas might try to discourage gun ownership. So it is throwing its weight behind a bill that would prevent the state from spending money lobbying against "any legal consumer product"—a category that includes, among other things, tobacco and junk food.
      That's from MoJo.  

      A KDHE program to educate parents on proper gun safety practices — such as making sure that guns are unloaded, locked and out of the reach of children — would also be banned under Senate Bill 45.
      That's from the Raw Story piece.

      Basically the NRA wants to ban the state from lobbying, advocating or marketing against a "legal" product -- like guns. That this same law would also include things like junk food and smokes is apparently irrelevant.

      Here's Kansas' Senate Bill 45 in all it's PDF glory.

      __

      Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank.
      Give a man a bank and he can rob the world.

      by here4tehbeer on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:45:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Damn. You're right (4+ / 0-)

      You made me curious, so I did some looking. This was perhaps the last attempt to eliminate wilderness areas that the NRA supported, a bill from 2011 that apparently died in committee. I read a scathing review of it here.

      Imagine what will happen to these roadless or less-accessible lands, now relatively pristine, with great hunting and fishing, as US population climbs to 450 million, an urbanized nation with no time, fitness or patience for horsepacking or hiking in. Say goodbye to the public lands trophy muley or bull elk or antelope, the fool hens, the gullible native cutthroats, the quiet camp in the coulee. Say hello to an America where the middle class hunter disappears because it’s too expensive to get access, and the public lands where access has been “guaranteed” by bills like H.R. 1581, are no more worth hunting than the old Soft Rock Creek section of state land behind my house in the Bitterroot Valley, which went from a piece of good grazing land, with long hikes through sagebrush and bitterroots, a few muleys, and enough Huns to keep a dog running, to an ATV playground, complete with beer cans, shot up computers and cars and washing machines. Eventually, one sad day in the late 90’s, some folks on the tail end of a long binge drove up there and dumped out the body of a worn-out meth head. The state gave up not long after that, and sold the section off. We lost our place to shoot, our place to walk, our place to hunt, our place to take our children. It only took a very few years, and a moderate uptick in the valley’s population.

      “Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: 'More guns,' you’ll claim, 'are the NRA’s answer to everything!'" -- Wayne LaPierre

      by tytalus on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:10:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  4.7% of U.S. land is designated wilderness... (6+ / 0-)

        ...which is 4.7% too much for some people.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:20:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The NRA were huge supporters of (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tytalus, annieli, anana

        Larry "Wide Stance" Craig back in the day. In fact Craig was caught in a mini-scandal where he had a photo taken for his campaign literature which featured him posing with a bunch of birds (quail as I recall) he had bagged even though he had never had an Idaho hunting license. Anyway, he needed some kind of photo like that to legitimize his support from the NRA. Because mostly the NRA supported him for his rabid anti-wilderness stance, like the time he stated "We need to run a 4-lane highway through the Frank Church wilderness." Craig was instrumental in acquiring the funding for hundreds of miles of logging roads in yet-to-be-designated wilderness areas, which effectively took those areas off the table for future wilderness consideration. And, of course, he had the NRA blessing in doing this.

        There are two types of republicans, the rich and the stupid. The rich ones strive to keep the stupid ones stupid and the stupid ones strive to keep the rich ones rich.

        by frankzappatista on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:16:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  not going to change until (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyvwyr101, a2nite, leftreborn

    our side does better job of getting message out, like in easy to understand 30 second ads.

    When you say it is "common sense" what you are really saying is "I don't have any evidence to back up my argument", because it is quite often neither common nor sense.

    by kaminpdx on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:22:15 AM PST

  •  Bring on the new groups (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyvwyr101, kaminpdx, tytalus, Eric Nelson

    and let's get to work. An educational campaign would make the difference on so many areas and topics. We have to get better to fight the opposition's talking points network of talk radio, Fox News and actual distribution of talking points.

    •  That's exactly what we need- (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tytalus, Eric Nelson

      a nationwide initiative.

      People do need to know a lot of elected officials are solid A's with the NRA---and that translates into gun-friendly legislation---written by NRA friendly politicians.

      Mayan Word For 'Apocalypse' Actually Translates More Accurately As "Time Of Pale Obese Gun Monsters."......the Onion

      by lyvwyr101 on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:40:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  In some areas that would solidify their base (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lyvwyr101, Eric Nelson

        and get them reelected. The messaging needs to be about the real agenda of the NRA. Who they really represent and who they don't. IMO, most gun owners would be appalled if they had that info.

        "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

        by high uintas on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:11:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Good point about vulnerable Democrats (5+ / 0-)

    The NRA's influence is not so grand as advertised, but it doesn't take as much to push people around at the House rep. or state level. We need to be ready to defend some folks from the NRA, in addition to breaking down the mythology protecting the NRA.

    “Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: 'More guns,' you’ll claim, 'are the NRA’s answer to everything!'" -- Wayne LaPierre

    by tytalus on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:24:53 AM PST

  •  In the DC area there's a gunshow this (5+ / 0-)

    weekend. I keep hearing the advertisements where if you join the NRA, you get in free.

    Sad.

    You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife, and you may ask yourself, "How did I get here?"

    by FrankCornish on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:36:45 AM PST

  •  Donnelly of Indiana is not swayed. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    He is now the "head" of the Indiana Democratic party.

    A+ NRA and sanctimoniously pro-life.

    I am devastated with myself for voting for him.  It will never happen again.  The Republicans have an opening in 2018!  If the Republicans would run a reasonable person who is FOR an assault weapons ban, then they will get my vote.  Either way, I will never vote for Donnelly again.

    I appeal to Indiana democratic women to band together to find someone to primary Donnelly in 2018!

  •  Yes, the NRA needs a re-branding from the outside (3+ / 0-)

    but how are we going to do that when even here at DKos, there is a sizable, vocal group dedicated to reinforcing the NRA message? They call themselves pro-gun liberals, but their rhetoric, their agenda is pure NRA.
    How do we reach to outer world when we can't get unanimity here?

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:51:00 AM PST

    •  No (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dogs are fuzzy

      Being a supporter of the 2nd doesn't mean you support the NRA. I'm sick of seeing this lie over and over. I've made the point many times that I despise the NRA and their tactics and others in RKBA have said the same.

      You won't get unanimity here because not everyone here has a lock step same position. There are good things we can agree on, but if we continue to demonize and lie about others it does zero good.

      Real background checks with muscle? I've wanted this for a long time.

      "Magazine" limits? Go ahead. I'm good with it.

      If we agree on background checks alone it would do a world of good.

      "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

      by high uintas on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:04:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well then you must not be who I was talking about. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber

        There are several people here that poo poo any kind of limits on hardware, who claim that universal background checks will do no good, et cetera, mouthing the exact same positions of the NRA while claiming, as you do here, to despise the NRA. Pardon me if it's a bit confusing.

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 12:51:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  NRA (0+ / 0-)

    I think most people are skeptics. When you have a fed program that sells drugs to inner city communities to purchase weaponry, when you have a program called fast and furious and these guns are used to kill tens of thousands of mexican citizenry and at least one federal agent and countless others in this country. When you have the SS admin purchasing tons of ammunition and the Dept of Education purchasing street sweepers and ammunition, when you have homeland security buying truck loads of ammuntion, it makes one wonder. If the government wants to be honest and forthcoming, maybe then will there be some sort of decent dialogue. Until then, people will remain somewhat reticent. They may want change, but if the change is not beneficial for all then there is that natural fear.

    •   . . . when you have a Republican congressman who (3+ / 0-)

      sponsors a bill to keep multiple gun buyer information from the FBI, ATF, and DOJ while he sits on the House Oversight Committee conducting an investigation of the alleged gun-walking episode.  When the same congressman sits on the committee conducting a witch hunt over guns that went missing issues a public relations statement for legislation he introduced that says "The federal government has no business tracking guns."  

      "Democracy is a life; and involves continual struggle." ---'Fighting Bob' LaFollette

      by leftreborn on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:08:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  NRA. (0+ / 0-)

        Witch hunt or not, the fact remains the admin announced the program in 2009. So it is not alleged. These guns somehow flew under the radar and the guns were used to kill MANY people. What does the DOE need riot guns for. Why does the SS need tons of ammunition. Why is HS purchasing truck loads of ammunition. Are they loading up for something or are they purchasing all this stuff as a supply monopoly in hopes that plebes won't be able to purchase this stuff. That is our tax money at work which in my view would be better suited to fixing some of our bridges etc.

        •  If you have concerns about those issues, maybe you (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          koNko, CatFelyne, Joe Bob, Eric Nelson

          should do some research to see if the tales you're telling are even true.

          "Democracy is a life; and involves continual struggle." ---'Fighting Bob' LaFollette

          by leftreborn on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:49:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  NRA. (0+ / 0-)

            https://www.fbo.gov/...                                                                        http://www.snopes.com/...           http://www.theblaze.com/...                                                                             why-is-homeland-security-buying-450-million-rounds-of-hollow-point-bullets                                                                               Hopefully these links will work, if not, then you can check out these stories. Just seems a waste of money and human lives when we could use the money to rebuild our infrastructure. I will finish of this with an anecdotal story. A couple of years ago my family and I went on vacation to New Jersey and had the occaision to canoe a wildlife sanctuary within the confines of the wetlands. This was in South Jersey near the southern most tip. We canoed under the Garden State Parkway and what we saw was a bridge that was just a complete mess. I was fortunate to have an engineer with us who explained that was perhaps our countries greatest secret, that our infrastructure was in sore need of updating. There are some projects going on right now, but I would say we could do more.                                                                      

            •  FYI (3+ / 0-)

              Peddling conspiracy theories about the government is highly frowned upon here.

              Meanwhile, do you even read your own links? Your link to Snopes provides the answer to “Why is the SSA buying ammunition?” and the answer is perfectly innocuous.

              Also, a link to The Blaze? Seriously? Nothing related to the ravings of Glenn Beck count as news, information, or proof of anything. Are you sure you’re at the right website?

              Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

              by Joe Bob on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 12:05:49 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  nra (0+ / 0-)

                Yes I did read the article regarding the ssa. I will also add that at one point in time the campus at Baltimore although large, one could walk into the building. It had a large grass area where the people who worked there could picnic etc. Now it is surrounded by fencing. Still is a lot of rounds to be purchased at roughly the same time frame. Just sayin. There are guards posted in Baltimore, with fire arms, but not an army of them.  Wouldn't the money be better spent to help the disabled and retired with their benefits. Maybe some new hires to help with the work load. The point is I believe the money would be better spent elsewhere. The DOE still has purchased weaponry as well. Wouldn't you rather have that money go to a school that is in shambles, i.e. pipes still covered with asbestoes and paint peeling, as well as infestations of pests as per Baltimore area schools.

    •  That would make a great diary topic. (0+ / 0-)

      Why don't you elaborate on this subject with citations and statistics to support your viewpoint and make it your first diary?

      Comments alone, won't get you much traction.

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:54:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  A few Points... (3+ / 0-)

    1.  Why should it surprise anybody that 46% of respondents identify with the NRA more than Obama?  Lest we forget, Romney got about 49% of the vote.  And,...this same poll shows only 56% support for some of Obama's measures - that leaves at least 44% who oppose.

    2.  The NRA works locally.  They always have.  The state reps in my area of western PA are scared to death of the NRA.  They recently cost a 20-year state rep from my distric his seat in 2010 (and gun control wasn't even a front and center issue nationally in 2010).  Gun control is a loser issue because it's not a national issue, and never will be.  A lot of that 56% who support those bans are probably from urban blue areas in blue states.  The Dem coalition is broad.  My guess is that a lot of the gun control supporters in these national polls are coastal urban elites who have never owned or shot a gun, and look down with secret disdain on the lunch pale Dems in "flyover" states.  This poll doesn't reflect the shear number of red districts that oppose gun control.

    This is all a waste of electrons anyway.  Have you been following the recent rhetoric?  It looks like Harry Reid won't even try to bring these things to a vote in the Senate (other than background checks, and even that looks like it won't pass now).  And, that is because there aren't 50 Dems, not because of republicans filibuster threats.  If Reid is too scared to make Dems take a stand on gun control this close to Sandy Hook, what chance does it have,...ever?

    I'll be surprised if anything comes to a vote at all.  And, of course, if by a miracle something does pass the Senate, it will be DOA in the House, anyway.

    I can't believe we are debating gun control in 2013.  The GOP won that debate, at least for the forseeable future, and reopening this wound will hurt bad in 2014.  This is as dumb as the GOP debating birth control 2012.

    •  Dude, I'm really sorry (4+ / 0-)
      Lest we forget, Romney got about 49% of the vote.
      I think most people here already know that Romney scored an ironic 47% of the vote.
      And,...this same poll shows only 56% support for some of Obama's measures - that leaves at least 44% who oppose.
      No, actually, those numbers have to add up to 100, that's how percentages work. And if you're starting with 56% support, you're not going to get more than 44% in opposition.
      The NRA works locally.  They always have.
      And that's what we're doing right now. There are places where the NRA endorsement is a liability, and we can find them and make change.
      It looks like Harry Reid won't even try to bring these things to a vote in the Senate (other than background checks, and even that looks like it won't pass now).
      I've been following Harry Reid's activities; they don't seem to match up with anything you said.

      Anyway, nice FUD comment. Shame it's so obvious.

      “Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow morning: 'More guns,' you’ll claim, 'are the NRA’s answer to everything!'" -- Wayne LaPierre

      by tytalus on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:28:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  1. "This same polls shows only 56%... (8+ / 0-)

      ...support for some of Obama's measures - that leaves at least 44% who oppose."

      If you read the poll, you'll see that only 39% and 40% oppose these measures, not "at least" 44%.

      Did you notice that I wrote:

      But, there's a caveat. National polling papers over the fact that congressional elections are by districts, and in some suburban districts Democratic politicians may still have reason to be scared of the NRA if they—and we who support more gun restrictions—don't repeatedly make clear exactly how extremist and out of step with the majority the gun lobby is.
      What loses us the gun "debate" is conceding the field to the propagandists of the NRA and other groups.

      As for the background check not having a chance of passing the Senate? Based on what evidence? Even conservative Democrat Joe Manchin backs it, and he's an NRA member.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:30:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  um (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tytalus
      My guess is that a lot of the gun control supporters in these national polls are coastal urban elites who have never owned or shot a gun, and look down with secret disdain on the lunch pale Dems in "flyover" states.  This poll doesn't reflect the shear number of red districts that oppose gun control.
      No, I look down on people who put their right to firearms above the right to life of others.

      I think such people have serious moral defects and an inability to reason.

      Doesn't matter where they live, how they live or what they are smoking, that's what I think about them.

      Just my opinion and a reflection of my own values, of course.

      And obviously,  I could be totally wrong; maybe guns are more important than children and other living things.

      What about my Daughter's future?

      by koNko on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:05:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Harry Reid (0+ / 0-)

        Isn't Harry Reid a gun enthtusiast?

        •  I don't know (0+ / 0-)

          But regardless, isn't he for strengthening regulations? If I'm wrong, please correct me.

          I'm talking about the people who put the "right" to posses firearms on equal footing with the right to life.

          Who justify the murders of kids like Noah as acceptable collateral damage to living in a "free society", or claim it's the people who are dangerous, not the guns.

          Such beliefs are morally deficient, delusional and completely fucked-up.

          Those people need help, and society needs protection against them because they value guns more than humans.

          There is a reasonable argument to lock such people up because they love the weapons more than the kids.

          What about my Daughter's future?

          by koNko on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:53:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  The 2nd Amendment is right: (0+ / 0-)

    The better "regulated" and stricter the control on guns the better the society will be.  But the NRA hates the real 2nd Amendment.  That organization wants a gun anarchy that will attack and violently overthrow the Constitutional  government which they  call a 'tyranny' and replace it with a kangaroo court of angry white men.

  •  The 8% who oppose background checks (7+ / 0-)

    are the people who need to have their background's checked.

    Just when you thought there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, the Republicans go and prove you're wrong.

    by shoeless on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:13:09 AM PST

  •  The NRA lobbies for gun traffickers. The NRA (4+ / 0-)

    lobbies for the Sinaloa Cartel.  The NRA lobbies for the next  Jared Loughner.  It lobbies for the next James Holmes and  the next Wade Michael Page and the next Adam Lanza.   That's who and what the NRA is.  

    The Gun Owners of America, too.  They advocate a new form of government that relies of bullets, not ballot boxes.
    They believe in democracy . . . at the point of a gun.

    "Democracy is a life; and involves continual struggle." ---'Fighting Bob' LaFollette

    by leftreborn on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:19:26 AM PST

  •  I keep asking self-identified NRA members (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus, Joe Bob, Eric Nelson

    That propose to advocate reasonable regulations why they are still members and pay the salary of wealthy men arguing against any regulations.

    Difficult to answer, it seems.

    What about my Daughter's future?

    by koNko on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:46:08 AM PST

    •  This has been answered, but you keep ignoring (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mildly Unsuccessful Lurker

      the reply.

      The answer is simple, to lobby, or even outright bribe politicians to stay away from non reasonable regulation.

      Just because you claim something is reasonable doesn't make it so for everyone else.

      •  Are you feeling OK? (0+ / 0-)
        Just because you claim something is reasonable doesn't make it so for everyone else.
        Right, same goes for anyone expressing an opinion here, including you. Now we are equal, happy?

        Perhaps you misunderstood, so allow me to clarify:

        Some self-identified NRA members here and on other blogs have stated their support of what they consider to be reasonable regulations which includes, for example, rigorous universal background checks and limits on magazine capacity.

        Since this conflicts with the NRA positions, I've asked them why they are still members.

        And they can answer for themselves.

        What about my Daughter's future?

        by koNko on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:14:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I still have the domain name QUITTHENRA.COM if (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson

    anyone wants to set up a website.  See here.

    Send me a dkos message if interested.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:13:51 AM PST

  •  Percentages are encouraging but just a beginning (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson

    The next question to ask is how committed they are. Single-issue voters have a tactical advantage, since multiple-issue voters can be split. Fanatics have an advantage because they always show up to vote.

    The point of the diary is absolutely right, though. The disconnect between the NRA leadership and the people who think the NRA represents them is wide and deep and insufficiently well known.

    •  I don't think the NRA represents me (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mildly Unsuccessful Lurker

      I don't want them to represent me.  I don't want them to be a PR firm.  I want them to put a stop to politicians who wish to do something that I, and millions of other Americans disagree with.

      If there were a better organization for this purpose, I would support it.  Currently, I don't see one.

      Gun restrictions are a loser of elections.  If the left keeps rubbing this lamp, eventually the genie will come out and nobody will like the result.

  •  Anyone know where Rep. DeFazio (D-OR) stands (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson, leftreborn

    on this stuff? I've heard he no likey the gun control (owing to his Springfield constituency, and despite being a fantastic Congressman), but I haven't heard anything about him on this.

    Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
    Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
    Code Monkey like you!

    Formerly known as Jyrinx.

    by Code Monkey on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 12:35:02 PM PST

  •  Same thing from PEW. On the individual issues.. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, Meteor Blades, anana

    .. gun control measures have the advantage in nearly all groups;
    Pew Poll
    But on the broader political landscape without specific proposals in question, the divide falls to personalities/groups on either side it seems - preconceived (GOP/NRA) notions and that is where the disconnect hides

    We should make sure that it's the solutions to fight violence & crime that are the focus, and then brand those who are against solving crime and violence (LaPierre) with that label. - Lapierre and others (GOA) protect the criminal with their agenda

    I'm sort of just repeating what has already been said here, so just wanted to include Pew which confirms this disconnect from what people actually want and who they've been con(ned)vinced to trust

    Break that trust of NRA iow's with facts

    Also too: Pew polled that gun rights proponents (although that whole "gun rights" wording is slanted imo. It assumes gun safety = anti-gun rights) are more politically active

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site