Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Public Policy Polling)   Senators who voted against the popular expanded background check bill are becoming less popular   (publicpolicypolling.com) divider line 250
    More: Obvious, Pakistan Peoples Party, Mark Begich, Jeff Flake, Dean Heller, Lisa Murkowski, Mitch McConnell  
•       •       •

2186 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Apr 2013 at 11:11 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



250 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-29 11:15:39 AM  
Taken together these results make it pretty clear that this issue could be a serious liability for the Senators who opposed overwhelmingly popular background checks in the Senate vote earlier this month.

Nothing that PAC money can't smooth out come election season.
 
2013-04-29 11:17:33 AM  
Tough choice: listen to the vocal minority or the silent majority.
 
2013-04-29 11:18:19 AM  
Gun thread! Start greasing up your slopes!
 
2013-04-29 11:18:40 AM  

Serious Black: Tough choice: listen to the vocal minority or the silent majority.


Would said majority be considered moral?
 
2013-04-29 11:18:43 AM  

Serious Black: Tough choice: listen to the vocal minority or the silent majority.


The majority was hardly silent in this case.  And the minority was incredibly loud and not particularly large.
 
2013-04-29 11:19:19 AM  
Its nice that the nra is slowly losing the battle on this. Especially since it used to be the nra position to support universal checks.
 
2013-04-29 11:19:19 AM  
As an Ohio Republican, my plan is to vote for whichever batshiat insane Teahadist the Republicans decide to run against Portman in the primary, and then vote for the Democrat in the Senate election regardless of how crazy they are.

It's time to purge the GOP from this ultra-right wing agenda, even if that means having a couple of crazy libby libs in office.
 
2013-04-29 11:19:33 AM  
How long till these guys have to face an election though? You would think people will be on to something else by then.
 
2013-04-29 11:19:58 AM  
Well, the important thing is that their "A" ratings from the NRA remain unblemished.

/Can't wait for those ratings to become an albatross around the necks of our politicians.
 
2013-04-29 11:23:10 AM  

Dog Welder: As an Ohio Republican, my plan is to vote for whichever batshiat insane Teahadist the Republicans decide to run against Portman in the primary, and then vote for the Democrat in the Senate election regardless of how crazy they are.

It's time to purge the GOP from this ultra-right wing agenda, even if that means having a couple of crazy libby libs in office.


The difference is the crazy libby libs are rarely given much in the way of media exposure, so you're pretty safe with them compared to the crazy conservatives who actually get policy passed...  And it might actually tack things back toward the center for a change.
 
2013-04-29 11:24:22 AM  
Remember that while the republicans gerrymandered the house, the senate is not under their absolute control.  I think the founding fathers would be surprised to find the senate being the body that represents the majority better while the house is full of life-long statesmen more-or-less selected by the state governments.

We have got to fix our electoral system.
 
2013-04-29 11:24:48 AM  
I really don't know what else can be said at this point. The ultra-right has dug a hole, thrown themselves in, and continues to pile dirt on themselves well after it's mounded above the tombstone.
 
2013-04-29 11:24:55 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Taken together these results make it pretty clear that this issue could be a serious liability for the Senators who opposed overwhelmingly popular background checks in the Senate vote earlier this month.

Nothing that PAC money can't smooth out come election season.


Sadly, this. But maybe it will be different this time. Maybe.
 
2013-04-29 11:26:11 AM  

Dog Welder: As an Ohio Republican, my plan is to vote for whichever batshiat insane Teahadist the Republicans decide to run against Portman in the primary, and then vote for the Democrat in the Senate election regardless of how crazy they are.

It's time to purge the GOP from this ultra-right wing agenda, even if that means having a couple of crazy libby libs in office.


Fortunately for you the Democratic party does a pretty good job of weeding out the crazy libby libs, unless you define crazy libby lib as anyone slightly left of center.
 
2013-04-29 11:28:01 AM  
This will only matter if any of these folks are up in 2014.  Anything longer and the UBC vote will be completely forgotten.
 
2013-04-29 11:28:20 AM  

Dog Welder: As an Ohio Republican, my plan is to vote for whichever batshiat insane Teahadist the Republicans decide to run against Portman in the primary, and then vote for the Democrat in the Senate election regardless of how crazy they are.

It's time to purge the GOP from this ultra-right wing agenda, even if that means having a couple of crazy libby libs in office.


...and I'm really hoping the crazy libby lib is either Kucinich or Paul Hackett.
 
2013-04-29 11:29:09 AM  

Serious Black: Tough choice: listen to the vocal minority or the silent majority.


No it isn't. The gun ownership is a first principle noisy minority will show up for your primary and your general and flush your ass. Even when it means throwing away safe seats.

The "eh, I would kinda rather my neighbors had fewer guns" crowd will roll their eyes at your backwards position but, hey, at least you aren't a theocrat and you have a sorta sensible tax position and then they send your campaign $5.
 
2013-04-29 11:30:00 AM  
Gee, it's almost like when you side with the gun lobby over your constituents, they take that badly.
 
2013-04-29 11:30:07 AM  
As an Ohio voter, I'm glad to do my part this next (and every) election season to rid ourselves of those who would drag us so far to the right.
 
2013-04-29 11:30:08 AM  
I'm slipping in the polls too.
conservbyte.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com
 
2013-04-29 11:31:33 AM  
Polling website I've never heard of vs. common sense.

Enough internet for me today, thanks.
 
2013-04-29 11:32:29 AM  
If only the average voter didn't have a memory like a goldfish.
 
2013-04-29 11:33:09 AM  

ampoliros: I really don't know what else can be said at this point. The ultra-right has dug a hole, thrown themselves in, and continues to pile dirt on themselves well after it's mounded above the tombstone.


And I'm okay with that.
 
2013-04-29 11:33:23 AM  

doglover: Polling website I've never heard of


Never heard of PPP? And you call yourself a denizen of /politics?
 
2013-04-29 11:33:58 AM  

SamWaters: I'm slipping in the polls too.
[conservbyte.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com image 300x374]


i don't get it.
 
2013-04-29 11:37:41 AM  

The Gentleman Caller: Its nice that the nra is slowly losing the battle on this.


It blows my mind that this, of all things, has gone from a third-rail topic into one of those "old,white, male, and Christian" topics in such a short time.
 
2013-04-29 11:39:09 AM  

doglover: Polling website I've never heard of


Polling website that was the most accurate during the 2012 elections. Also the second most accurate.
 
2013-04-29 11:42:48 AM  

Ned Stark: No it isn't. The gun ownership is a first principle noisy minority will show up for your primary and your general and flush your ass. Even when it means throwing away safe seats.

The "eh, I would kinda rather my neighbors had fewer guns" crowd will roll their eyes at your backwards position but, hey, at least you aren't a theocrat and you have a sorta sensible tax position and then they send your campaign $5.


The Daily Show's bit on Australia's gun control scheme touched on this well.

Politicians in the US consider "success" to be "getting re-elected"
Politicians in Australia consider "success" to be "improving society".

Politicians in conservative areas who vote for gun control commit political suicide in both countries.  The difference is the Aussie ones felt it was their duty to do the right thing and take their lumps where the American ones typically do what it takes to stay in office and screw doing the right thing.
 
2013-04-29 11:45:22 AM  

doglover: Polling website I've never heard of vs. common sense.

Enough internet for me today, thanks.


What do you mean "vs" common sense? Besides the fact that you've never heard of PPP, which is crazy, what is non-sensical about politicians who vote against popular legislation losing support?
 
2013-04-29 11:47:46 AM  

The Gentleman Caller: Its nice that the nra is slowly losing the battle on this. Especially since it used to be the nra position to support universal checks.


The NRA backed off on support after the bill was loaded with so much insanity that it'd make me a felon for letting my dad bring the rifle cases in from the truck. Or going out of town for 8 days with my wife at home turning us both into felons.

Then 'assault weapon' bans were added to the bill and all other kinds of crap.
 
2013-04-29 11:51:53 AM  

BayouOtter: The NRA backed off on support after the bill was loaded with so much insanity that it'd make me a felon


Such as?
 
2013-04-29 11:55:07 AM  

DemonEater: Ned Stark: No it isn't. The gun ownership is a first principle noisy minority will show up for your primary and your general and flush your ass. Even when it means throwing away safe seats.

The "eh, I would kinda rather my neighbors had fewer guns" crowd will roll their eyes at your backwards position but, hey, at least you aren't a theocrat and you have a sorta sensible tax position and then they send your campaign $5.

The Daily Show's bit on Australia's gun control scheme touched on this well.

Politicians in the US consider "success" to be "getting re-elected"
Politicians in Australia consider "success" to be "improving society".

Politicians in conservative areas who vote for gun control commit political suicide in both countries.  The difference is the Aussie ones felt it was their duty to do the right thing and take their lumps where the American ones typically do what it takes to stay in office and screw doing the right thing.


I'm sure that's the sort of narrative that appeals to liberals but it entirely ignores the fact that Australia's system of governance is entirely different.
 
2013-04-29 11:56:04 AM  

Ned Stark: I'm sure that's the sort of narrative that appeals to liberals but it entirely ignores the fact that Australia's system of governance is entirely different.


Yeah. It actually rewards doing the right thing rather than doing what the money tells you to.
 
2013-04-29 11:57:52 AM  
Yeah, but how many of them have been shot?
 
2013-04-29 12:00:02 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: BayouOtter: The NRA backed off on support after the bill was loaded with so much insanity that it'd make me a felon

Such as?


God, I wrote this post at least a hundred times, but basically the bill defined a 'transfer' as any element of possession no matter how brief, and carved out very specific and narrow exceptions under which people are not committing a felony for failure to drive to an FFL and pay for a BG check and transfer

For example, my uncle wants to take a look at my new gun. He comes to my house, and I put it in his hand so he can check it out. No felony. If I drive to his house and put the gun in his hand, we'd both be felons under the proposed law. If I'm at a range target shooting with my uncle and he wants to put some holes in paper with my gun, we'd both be felons unless that range has some very specific language in its articles of incorporation. If I go out of town for 8 days without transferring all my guns to my spouse/partner/roomate, we're all felons.

It goes on.
 
2013-04-29 12:00:53 PM  
Yet the NRA supporters seem to be digging in and doubling down so really it will end up as another polarizing issue at election time where people say; I don't give a shiat about health care, jobs, education and taxes et al. as long as I there are or are not (depending on side they choose) any new gun laws.
 
2013-04-29 12:02:18 PM  

BayouOtter: but basically the bill defined a 'transfer' as any element of possession no matter how brief, and carved out very specific and narrow exceptions under which people are not committing a felony for failure to drive to an FFL and pay for a BG check and transfer


Why is this a problem? It would seem to go after straw purchases and make it much easier to prosecute these.
 
2013-04-29 12:07:12 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: BayouOtter: but basically the bill defined a 'transfer' as any element of possession no matter how brief, and carved out very specific and narrow exceptions under which people are not committing a felony for failure to drive to an FFL and pay for a BG check and transfer

Why is this a problem? It would seem to go after straw purchases and make it much easier to prosecute these.


Did you read the rest of his examples? You don't think that's a problem?
 
2013-04-29 12:08:20 PM  

KellyX: cameroncrazy1984: BayouOtter: but basically the bill defined a 'transfer' as any element of possession no matter how brief, and carved out very specific and narrow exceptions under which people are not committing a felony for failure to drive to an FFL and pay for a BG check and transfer

Why is this a problem? It would seem to go after straw purchases and make it much easier to prosecute these.

Did you read the rest of his examples? You don't think that's a problem?


No, I don't, because it's really hard to prosecute "that guy put a gun in your hand that one time"
 
2013-04-29 12:08:27 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Ned Stark: I'm sure that's the sort of narrative that appeals to liberals but it entirely ignores the fact that Australia's system of governance is entirely different.

Yeah. It actually rewards doing the right thing rather than doing what the money tells you to.


No, it rewards you more for hewing closer to majority/consensus and less for aligning to smaller but more passionate groups. Its value-neutral unless you think the majority is always right.
 
2013-04-29 12:09:06 PM  
Look at it this way:

Speeding is technically illegal everywhere. But does everyone get arrested for speeding all the time? Or for going past a state trooper at 5 mph over the limit?
 
2013-04-29 12:09:07 PM  

doglover: Polling website I've never heard of vs. common sense.

Enough internet for me today, thanks.


How many polling outfits do you know?  PPP is very well known polling organization.
 
2013-04-29 12:09:51 PM  

Ned Stark: No, it rewards you more for hewing closer to majority/consensus and less for aligning to smaller but more passionate groups.


And that is NOT the problem with the American system of governance...how? I mean, isn't that how democracy is supposed to work?
 
2013-04-29 12:10:16 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: BayouOtter: but basically the bill defined a 'transfer' as any element of possession no matter how brief, and carved out very specific and narrow exceptions under which people are not committing a felony for failure to drive to an FFL and pay for a BG check and transfer

Why is this a problem? It would seem to go after straw purchases and make it much easier to prosecute these.


Did you read my previous post? At all? The proposed legislation would make it extremely difficult, expensive and convoluted to lawfully possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes like hunting and sport shooting. It would ensnare people in felonies based on the articles of incorporation of a firing range, which is basically insane.

At the same time, Gary Gangster isn't going to give one flying fark about it, because he bought his gun on the black market after it was smuggled or stolen. He doesn't give even part of a rat's ass about background checks, or magazine restrictions, because he's using the firearm to murder a drug rival.

The legislation does not address the criminal element - its the equivalent of restricting gasoline can size to tackle criminal arson.
 
2013-04-29 12:10:52 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: KellyX: cameroncrazy1984: BayouOtter: but basically the bill defined a 'transfer' as any element of possession no matter how brief, and carved out very specific and narrow exceptions under which people are not committing a felony for failure to drive to an FFL and pay for a BG check and transfer

Why is this a problem? It would seem to go after straw purchases and make it much easier to prosecute these.

Did you read the rest of his examples? You don't think that's a problem?

No, I don't, because it's really hard to prosecute "that guy put a gun in your hand that one time"


Because cops being lazy and stupid is more than enough protection for my rights.
 
2013-04-29 12:11:52 PM  

BayouOtter: The legislation does not address the criminal element


You're making an argument against all laws. Criminals tend to ignore laws. That's why they're criminals.
 
2013-04-29 12:12:14 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: KellyX: cameroncrazy1984: BayouOtter: but basically the bill defined a 'transfer' as any element of possession no matter how brief, and carved out very specific and narrow exceptions under which people are not committing a felony for failure to drive to an FFL and pay for a BG check and transfer

Why is this a problem? It would seem to go after straw purchases and make it much easier to prosecute these.

Did you read the rest of his examples? You don't think that's a problem?

No, I don't, because it's really hard to prosecute "that guy put a gun in your hand that one time"


So the need to transfer all guns into a spouse's' name if you leave town for 8 days is no big deal?
 
2013-04-29 12:13:26 PM  

Ned Stark: cameroncrazy1984: KellyX: cameroncrazy1984: BayouOtter: but basically the bill defined a 'transfer' as any element of possession no matter how brief, and carved out very specific and narrow exceptions under which people are not committing a felony for failure to drive to an FFL and pay for a BG check and transfer

Why is this a problem? It would seem to go after straw purchases and make it much easier to prosecute these.

Did you read the rest of his examples? You don't think that's a problem?

No, I don't, because it's really hard to prosecute "that guy put a gun in your hand that one time"

Because cops being lazy and stupid is more than enough protection for my rights.


It's not laziness or stupidity. It's practicality. What you're suggesting is entirely impractical from a law-enforcement standpoint. You're not gonna have cops at every gun range arresting people for putting their guns in the hand of another person. It's a ridiculous notion on its face.
 
2013-04-29 12:13:33 PM  
Background checks and a national registry could be considered part of "well regulated"
 
2013-04-29 12:14:19 PM  
Toomey-Manchin summary. Link

Toomey-Manchin bill. Link
 
Displayed 50 of 250 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report