That’s between you and Damuri Ajashi, then, it has nothing to do with what I wrote.
The NRA only has political power to the extent that they can organize voters in support or opposition of a candidate or bill. This power isn’t fixed, it depends on what the NRA is trying to get voters to support or oppose. Clearly, the actual issue at hand matters, which is why the NRA felt the need to deceive people about what Manchin-Toomey contained. If their members are in total lock-step with them, pre-fooled as you put it, then there’s no need for any deception, is there?
Fewer people will support a law that makes their guns and magazines illegal than a law that doesn’t do this, a law that bans nothing and instead primarily overhauls, funds, and improves the NICS system (which is what I think Congress should have focused on: getting the data NICS needs to be effective into the system). High support for background checks indicates that people don’t have much of a problem with efforts to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal and the mentally ill, after all, few people are criminals or mentally ill. A ban, be it of weapons or magazines, is a totally different animal.
I see that as evidence for my position. It indicates that Ayotte thought she had sufficient political cover for voting against Manchin-Toomey, even though her constituents supported it or something like it, because of a perception, aided by the NRA, that the law did far more than it actually did. I don’t think Ayotte is some sort of self-sacrificing idealist to the NRA cause, I think she figured that her vote wouldn’t come back to haunt her because there was enough anti-ban sentiment in the air. Absent that sentiment, her calculation would have been necessarily different.
If you ever meet Marisa Tomei in a bar, and you ham-fistedly tell her that you think her dress would look great on your bedroom floor, Damuri Ajashi will be right there to tell you that you totally screwed up your one chance.
Not everyone is a member, are they? And “comfortable” is different than “totally immune.” Besides, show me an example of an advocacy organization that ever comes out and says, “Hey, we’ve been shading the truth all this time. Here’s the straight dope on our primary agenda.”
Cite, please. Even the AWB had majorities or pluralities supporting it.
Again, this is just the truthiness of your gut talking, and is not consistent with actual polling results regarding what people actually support.
Are you not aware that they actually conduct polls about what people want on this subject?
But your position was that the AWB had some effect on subsequent votes. Are you suggesting that Ayotte had less assurance of her political cover prior to the AWB? Your logic seems to be all over the place on this.
So, does their deception matter, or not? Either their members and fellow-travelers will believe anything they are told, in which case the specific issues don’t matter at all, or they are human beings and support some things more than others.
My personal opinion of what gun-law changes I’d like to see is “truthiness of [my] gut”? Thanks for setting me straight on that.
Let’s see, Washington Post has it as 56% favoring an assault weapons ban, and 86% supporting expanded background checks.
Hmmm…that second number sure looks bigger to me. Almost like there’s a group that favors expanded background checks but not an AWB, and would oppose a bill that they thought included an AWB.
Yes, I am saying that she had less assurance of her political cover in the absence of an AWB proposal.
Why, yes! Solid fact, there. As well as the solid fact that a majority of respondents favor the terrible, awful, no-good AWB. (I will state without fear of contradiction that 56 is more than 50, and the internet is my cite.)
Now, we could say that some of those people are panicking, running scared in the light of recent dreadful events. There is likely some truth to that. Clearly, the motivation level is higher as a result.
So, the strategy then is to hope that level of support dribbles away? Or that the calmly reasoned words of Mr. LaPierre will sway them?
What will they do when it happens again? When the same fearful hysteria returns, perhaps stronger? And again. And again. Maybe the guys at the Alamo should have just screamed “Hell, no, no pasaran” and jutted out their chins in a defiant posture, then Santa Anna would have just give up and gone away.
I have no idea that the NRA’s strategy going forward will be. If I were them, I would hope that I could count on the usual suspects to reach for the AWB again next time gun bills are being introduced, thus appealing to that 56% (which comes with 42% opposed) instead of just that 86% (which comes with a measly 13% opposed), so I could use the same tactics that seemingly worked this time.
But, that all depends on whether any Senators who voted against (or for) Manchin-Toomey lose their seats over it, whether the Senate changes hands again, and other matters that are unknown at this time.
Human Action does not appear to understand that these various gun regulations can be, and were, presented separately. Conflating support and opposition for various elements seems like the kind of effort at confusion he accuses the NRA of employing.
Hentor the Barbarian does not appear to read my posts before replying.
Never made that assertion.
Never said the AWB didn’t have a majority or plurality support, I said it had less support than an assault weapon ban. Which is true.
Hey, turns out I was right: fewer people, by far, supported background checks than an assault-weapon ban. If a 30% swing doesn’t represent “a different animal”, I don’t know what would.
And then this gem:
I’ve no idea what you’re on about. That multiple bills allows for that “effort at confusion” is exactly what I was saying, not that they are not separate:
Its dead until the next tragedy that elicits the same sort of response that Newtown did, most mass shootings don’t do this.
It will happen again some day and an AWB won’t prevent it.
I’m on record as saying that I think the NRA is too uncompromising. I’m on record as saying that I support more gun regulation. I’m saying that efforts to pass stupid gun laws undermines your ability to pass smart gun laws. If you can’t admit this to yourself, your side is going to keep proposing an AWB and blaming the NRA for failing to make any progress. IRC, there was talk that they wouldn’t score the cloture vote on the Manchin Toomey bill, then they realized how badly the gun grabbers had fucked up and decided to dig in their heels.
Plus I think the NRA is putting together their own gun control bill. You probably won’t like the tradeoffs they offer tho.
What makes you think that you aren’t starting from scratch when the next tragedy occurs? You don’t think the folks at the Brady Campaign didn’t think that their political capital would build over time? Has it worked out that way?
Its not just the number of voters, its a matter of where those voters vote. California senators have no fear of the NRA (which is why one of them feels comfortable proposing stupid gun laws) but the majority of states are populated by a high percentage of gun owners.
Wait, it sounds like you also think that the push for an AWB hurt the chances of getting background checks at gun shows.
But the You in this case is Jonathan Daniel Hamm.
Do you have any evidence that the majority of people supported it in 30 states?
In this case, Ussain Bolt had just shot himself in the foot (with a retarded speech blaming gun violence on movies and video games and calling for teachers to pack heat while in school).
If that 56% is coming mostly from places like California, New England and is about 40% everywhere else, then what good does it do you in the senate?
You can bet on it. It seems like there is almost no self reflection from the gun grabbers. They seem to think there are no lessons to be learned, they couldn’t have improved on their tactics at all, they were simply doomed from the start, they never had a chance despite how everyone seemed to feel in January.
The only senators I see being hurt by this are Jeff Flake and Kelly Ayotte. I don’t know if this will affect Ayotte in 2016, I don’t think this will affect Jeff Flake in 2018. The Democratic senators are from gun states as far as I can tell and they seem to think it will help them.
If they had gum licensing and registration, it would’ve solved all their problems (as much as they could be solved) without banning any gums.
Can we agree that neither side wants dead kids? This is the sort of vilification that turns off gun owners.
Yeah, thats what was making them irrelevant until the proposed AWB. Then people saw the gun grabbers as vilifying guns and gun owners.
The John Birch society is full of irrational people too but they don’t seem to have the same influence as the NRA. The NRA is not powerful because it is the NRA. The NRA is powerful because it represents the interests of a lot of voters. If you want to keep convincing yourself that your side did everything right but the irresistable political force of teh NRA made any sort of legilsation doomed from the start then you might as well throw up your hands and give up because the NRA is much more powerful today than it was in November of last year. And the reason it is more powerful is because of the perceived attack on gun rights, particularly in the form of the proposed AWB.
I would like to, but we’ve had posters on the SDMB respond to incidents of children being killed by firearms by literally saying “Shit happens.” Another poster stated flatly that if surrendering his firearm literally meant no more deaths, he would not do so.
So, neither side may want dead kids, but one side is much more callous and indifferent to dead kids than the other.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Look it up.
Who is funding the John Birch society? Is the John Birch Society in the position of scaring low-information citizens into purchasing a product from which the John Birch Society will in turn receive funds? Money is power.
Based on what? This is more truthiness from your gut. The NRA is having to pay for advertising to defend suddenly vulnerable politicians. “A” ratings from the NRA have lost people campaigns. Politicians are starting to have to distance themselves from NRA positions. The NRA’s political spending last fall was influential in only a very, very small percentage of the races it invested in.
You might as well say that the other side is eager to exploit dead kids for political purposes. Its just not helpful to the debate to vilify the other side like this when you basically need their cooperation to get anything done.
/sigh, are you seriously still claiming that you never had a chance, that things weren’t different in January? :rolleyes: Whatever, keep believing taht your side did nothing wrong, that your side made no tactical or strategic mistakes and just keep repeating those mistakes over and over again and comfort yourself at each loss with the belief that you didn’t do it to yourself because it can’t be PROVEN that you did it to yourself. But you did do it to yourselves.
The largest source of NRA funding is the NRA membership.
Wilful blindness is not going to lead to different results the next time around. If you can’t learn from your mistakes or even admit that you made any, then you are doomed to repeat those mistakes.
You could say that. I’ve given you examples. You give back speculation.
Yes. Your simple repetition to the contrary does not change anything. Putting PROVEN in all caps does not change anything. If you want to be convincing you need to back up your claims. Show me someone who said they would vote for universal background checks in Jan and changed their mind because of AWB. Show me someone who wasn’t going to filibuster until AWB.
You claimed their power came from representing voters, suggesting that was the difference between them and John Birch. Less than half their total revenue comes from members. They receive significant financial benefit from gun manufacturers. I asked you to demonstrate in what way John Birch is similar. It’s simply silly for you to claim that the NRA does not benefit from gun sales, including significant direct contributions from manufacturers.
Blindness to what? What mistakes? You think that because AWB preceded the failure of background checks, it caused it. You keep saying this over and over, and failing to show any single other piece of evidence.
So how many deaths do you think you are preventing with an AWB or background checks at gun shows?
The filibuster doesn’t matter. You are asking for evidence that senators who were on the fence made a declarative statement that they were not on the fence?
So why the fuck did your side even bother if it was so pointless??
If it was so pointless then either you didn’t think it was pointless in January or you were engaging in a pointless exercise that only served to gain the NRA a million more members.
Face it you overplayed your hand, just don’t do it again.
Without the voters, they would be about as effective as Sheldon Adelson, but without as much money.
Yeah about 100 million out of 225 million.
Yeah, how much? Seriously, do you have any idea?
I never said they didn’t benefit from gun sales but I think I’ve made a case that they are not the instrumentality of the gun manufacturers.
Read just about any news story in January about the prospects for gun legislation. Read news stories right before the Manchin-Toomey. I guess I can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my version of events would have come to pass if your side hadn’t pursued retarded AWB but it is common wisdom inside the beltway among the gun folks. They thank their lucky stars that Feinstein biffed it as hard as she did and Obama jumped on her bandwagon.
I think the media hyped the “this is a watershed moment” angle more than it actually was a watershed moment, and the politicians caught on to that fact. However, if Obama had come out the week after and said, “look, this was really bad, and we don’t want to take away anyone’s guns, but let’s just … (insert something like Manchin-Toomey, maybe something that actually would have prevented Newtown)” and I think it might have passed at the time.
They waited too long, they were too ignorant of basic facts about guns, and they pushed too hard for more extreme measures.
Sure, and when they do something about it, I’ll believe they’re serious. I just find it odd that Oak decides to come in and the only thing that seems to worry him are the poor, alive, unshot gun owners
We’re at an impasse then. I feel that the NRA was just as relevant before this as they were after, you feel the AWB made them relevant. I’m not really going to agree with you over that
Lots of groups are irrational and don’t have the same influence, it says nothing about the NRA itself. Its a single organization that, even when they were in their irrelevant, pre-Newtown phase, got protections for the gun industry and won more than their share of court cases. Their influence is felt in the sense that there had been no serious support of comprehensive gun control for years. I just don’t see them as having faded into the background, only to be rejuvenated by the AWB. We’re a lot more polarized now than we’ve been in decades, and they simply wallowed in that win for a while until something serious came along to challenge that.
And I’m not going to throw my hands up and give up. Congressmen voting against the bill are getting pushback for the first time in decades. There’s a sense that Newtown is different, that it could have been stopped with an AWB in place, with background checks, with shared databases on mental illness. We’ll see in 2014
