In 2014, it will be the NRA against the American people

[ProSense]

In 2014, it will be the NRA against the American people

by kos

Today, a majority of the Senate, supported by over 90 percent of the American people on the issue, failed to pass a watered-down-to-the-point-of-near-ineffectiveness background checks bill.

It didn't fail because of a lack of support, but because 1) Harry Reid was too gutless to pass meaningful filibuster reform, and 2) because the NRA has owned the issue for too long, the sole players on the electoral battlefield. Yet the reality is that even last year, their influence had fallen precipitously—less than one percent of the $11 million spent by the organization in 2012 went to winning candidates. A total of 0.83 percent, to be exact.

Problem for the NRA is that they no longer own the issue, as its bought-and-paid-for candidates are about to find out:

"We'll get through this day, take down the bill, and get Senators prepared for the fact that they are going to be dealing with this issue everyday for the foreseeable future until they resolve it in the way the public wants," [Mayors Against Illegal Guns] director Mark Glaze told BuzzFeed as he waited for the clock to run out on the Senate gun violence bill drafted after Newtown.

"The NRA has passed it's sell-by date," he said.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Gabby Gifford's Americans for Responsible Solutions have already restored some balance in the public gun debate, pushing back against what was once a one-sided NRA attack. Bloomberg's Independence USA SuperPAC has already shown a willingness to counter the NRA's millions with millions of its own.

And perhaps more importantly, the NRA's invincibility facade has been chipped away by president Wayne LePierre's bizarre post-Sandy Hook behavior and the organization's dogmatic opposition to even the most tepid restrictions.

This wasn't a battle that was ever going to be won this year, even if today's legislation had passed. It's abundantly clear that the gun lobby will brook no dissent on its goal of unlimited and restriction-free ownership of weapons of mass death. There isn't a shred of decency among that crowd. Thus, the only way to move forward will be to make the NRA electorally radioactive.

Democrats have served notice that (aside from blood-red redoubts like Arkansas) 2014 will be fought in large part over guns. Too many elected officials and the NRA seem to think that's an automatic win for them. It no longer is.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/17/1202616/-In-2014-it-will-be-the-NRA-against-the-American-people

[Fgiriun]

1. Our only hope is for a more liberal generation

that will abhor organizations like the NRA and the republican party

[davidn3600]

2. 40% of the country owns guns, including 1/4th of registered Democrats

Gun control is about as much of a losing issue for the left as abortion is for the right.

Yeah...90% of Americans support background checks. But that's about where the majority ends. The right to bear arms is a constitutionally-protected right. It is what it is.

And in the end, would background checks have stopped Adam Lanza? Nope. Even if this bill passed today, Lanza's mother would have still been allowed to purchase all those weapons. And Adam would have still had access to them.

[Tender to the Bone]

3. The right to fucking bear arms applies to regulated militia

Are you a regulated militia, gun owner?

That is how I interpret the 2nd Amendment - no gun owners has the right to bear arms unless he is a member of a regulated militia.

Instead of Glocks and Berettas, go buy muskets and iron guns. Use them as how the Founding Fathers intended arms to be.

[davidn3600]

7. It doesnt matter how you interpret it

It's how the founding fathers wrote it, and how the Supreme Court interprets it.

I understand the founders meant muskets and pistols and not MR-15s and grenade launchers. The 2nd amendment is out of date and needs to be updated. But that doesn't mean you can just wave your hand in the air and decree it irrelevant. The constitution doesn't work that way. We have an amendment process to fix out of date things that are in there.

Even based on your interpretation, a state can't have a "well regulated militia" without an armed populace. And even if they did, the federal government would have no power to enforce gun laws. It would be a reserved right of the state under YOUR interpretation. The state could easily declare that it's people should be armed and all are part of the militia. That can easily be passed in any red state.

[Cha]

4. that's just Adam Lanza.. it could still safe one child one adult. And, that's

all these parents of the dead children are asking. Not too fucking much.

[tridim]

5. So? Nobody is taking your guns.

Your Constitutional right is still your Constitutional right.

[davidn3600]

11. No not today...but what about tomorrow?

People are not stupid...they know how the government works. The government provides an illusion of safety. It doesn't work. People are still getting killed. And then they have to pass another law. And then another and another...each a little stricter than the previous.

This is how our civil liberties are disappearing. Just like Ben Franklin wrote, "People who sacrifice liberty for safety will lose both and deserve neither."

We pass this bill today... and several months from now we have another massacre. Then what? Another gun bill. And then another. And soon we start talking about gun bans. And then eventually confiscation. Because every single time there is a tragedy there is a knee-jerk reaction that takes place that the government must do something to prevent it in the future. The problem with this thinking is the futility in it. The reality is that bad things happen in this world and bad people in it. No government in history of the planet has ever eliminated crime. No country has ever existed violence-free. We will never achieve such a thing. And to give up our liberties for that utopian dream that isn't possible? No...I won't.

Do I think the 2nd amendment needs to be updated? Yes. Do I think we need some gun control? Yes. Absolutely. I agree with you. But...we need to sit back and draw the line of how far this goes in advance. I would support a constitutional amendment that allows the government certain regulations and restrictions IF it also states without question that the people have an individual right to keep and bear arms. As long as it has, without question, a guarantee that the government cannot ban firearms....i would favor restrictions.
Would you be in favor of that?

[badtoworse]

12. How about this deal?

We give on magazine limits (10 rounds) and we give on background checks (but only if the check just qualifies you to buy guns without recording whether you actually bought anything - in other words, no gun registry. I agree with you about a registry - it is a necessary first step to confiscation or taxation and I don't want either). In exchange, I'd want a federal CCW on a "shall issue" basis.

Seems reasonable to me , but I've suggested it before and have gotten no takers from the gun control side.

[Johonny]

21. and yet states and previous administrations have passed gun laws

the only difference now is the for-profit gun industry is mobilized to keep their profits up selling fear. Reality is in many districts where Dems will run they will be facing 80-90% of ppl on the side of gun checks that are universal and have no back doors to allow gun sale profit to criminals. States are passing tougher laws where they can. Like gay marriage the tide is turning and the big $$ can't trump logic forever.

You do understand no law is a 100 % protection but doing the fucking obvious still makes sense to 100%, Most adults understand nothing is 100% guaranteed so your Adam Lanza take is weak and even you understand that.

[CK_John]

6. You are over-estimating the voters. Off yr elections are low turnout events but

the GOP votes and votes and votes.

The main issue will be jobs and people without jobs/or homeless don't seem to have voting as very important.

[LAGC]

8. Yeah, President Obama wasted A LOT of political capital on this.

He really should have known better.

2014 is going to be brutal considering how many rural seats are up for grabs, just like 2006 was for the Republicans.

[tabbycat31]

9. I agree

The woman on MSNBC was saying that maybe now Obama will not campaign for some of these Red State Democrats who voted no.

If he campaigned for them, it would be a nail in the coffin. What was she thinking?

[geek tragedy]

10. No, it's rural America vs urban America. And rural America has too much power

due to the Senate.

[ProSense]

13. McConnell’s Facebook Page Mocks Reid Moments After Gun Bill Fails

McConnell’s Facebook Page Mocks Reid Moments After Gun Bill Fails
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/mcconnells-facebook-page-mocks-reid-moments-after-gun

Image posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022695075

[Cha]

15. 'Cause that's what f****** assholes do.

[HiPointDem]

14. no it won't

[ProSense]

16. OK.

You're the decider.

[Llewlladdwr]

17. Does anyone *really* believe...

...that if Senators' were receiving calls running 9 to 1 in favor of this legislation that it wouldn't have passed?

That obviously isn't what was happening. If you want this legislation to pass you've got to convince your Senator that a vote in favor isn't a career ender.

[ProSense]

19. The Senate is a broken, dysfunctional mess. Roll calls:

Vote Result: Amendment Rejected

<...>

To protect Second Amendment rights, ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and provide a responsible and consistent background check process.

YEAs 54
NAYs 46

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00097

Vote Result: Amendment Rejected

<...>

To increase public safety by punishing and deterring firearms trafficking.

YEAs 58
NAYs 42

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00099

Vote Result: Amendment Rejected

<...>

To regulate large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

YEAs 46
NAYs 54

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00103

When 60 votes are required to pass bills, the majority becomes a minority.

Still, some Senators don't have a problem defying the public when special interests have their ear.

It would be good if they did something in the best interest of the country using their better judgment.

[Coyotl]

18. Vegas won't give very good odds on predictions of major issue this far out

But hey, have at it everyone.

[Lizzie Poppet]

20. Something needs to break the NRA's stranglehold on the pro-gun-rights side.

If polling can be relied on, millions and millions of American gun owners (myself included) are in favor of extending background check requirements and cracking down on illegal straw purchasers and traffickers. Many of us support mandated firearms security regulations. And so on... The NRA represents* only a small minority of gun owners, and a fringe element in terms of position on gun control, at that. But they have industry millions and the rapt attention of the news media. Other voices are ignored. It's desperately frustrating.


*And let's not kid ourselves: what the NRA's leadership really represents is the firearms industry...

[ProSense]

22. Senators from 13 states split on background check bill

Vote Result: Amendment Rejected

<...>

To protect Second Amendment rights, ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and provide a responsible and consistent background check process.

YEAs 54
NAYs 46

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00097

McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Flake (R-AZ), Nay

Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Rubio (R-FL), Nay

Donnelly (D-IN), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Nay

Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Nay

Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Blunt (R-MO), Nay

Tester (D-MT), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Nay

Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Ayotte (R-NH), Nay

Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Nay

Brown (D-OH), Yea
Portman (R-OH), Nay

Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay

Baldwin (D-WI), Yea
Johnson (R-WI), Nay

The 13th is Reid, who voted nay on procedural grounds.

Reid (D-NV), Nay
Heller (R-NV), Nay


The nays have no excuse. When 60 votes are required to pass bills, the majority becomes a minority.

Still, some Senators don't have a problem defying the public when special interests have their ear.

It would be good if they did something in the best interest of the country using their better judgment.

[spanone]

23. they are a terrorist organization. nothing less.

[Erose999]

24. Every election for the Right is "Guns, Gawd, and teh Gay". Problem is, those will be losers in 2014

I think a lot of people in the Red States are realizing how the wedge issues of the "Southern Strategy" are causing them to vote against their own interests. I think they're finally realizing that they can separate their religion from other peoples freedoms.

It'll be a nasty fight, but think it'll be an overall modest gain for the Dems. We may not get enough to take back the House, but we'll definitely loosen their grasp on it. And we will probably get the 60 votes in the Senate for a fillibuster-proof majority.