Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Thursday, September 29, 2016

Almost two-thirds of those polled — 65 percent — think the Senate should have passed the Manchin-Toomey amendment to expand background checks to gun shows and online sales, which was blocked when it didn’t receive 60 votes in the upper house of Congress earlier this month, according to a new poll from Gallup.

6kxfi3u07eggsqldez_ctq

 

The legislation is supported overwhelmingly by Democrats and Independents, which helps explain why Pat Toomey (R-PA), who supported the bill, has seen his approval rating skyrocket in recent weeks while Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) has seen hers dive.

Even a vast majority of Republicans — 73 percent — would vote yes on a ballot initiative that would “require background checks for all gun purchases.” That would go even further than the Manchin-Toomey amendment, which would leave a loophole for private sales.

pnkwcovgtkao-ysklsyrsw

  • Lynda Groom

    More bad news for those cowards who voted NO. Of course they are hoping the passage of time will give them a pass. The memories of the voting public does seen short, but we will see come 2014 if the American people have had enough inaction.

  • tdm3624

    How many of the people who supported the amendment (myself included) will actually vote on election day though?

    Did any of them tell their Senators how they felt?

    • Lynda Groom

      I e-mailed each and everyone of the NO voters. I actually got a reply from one of them…besides the auto-computer replies. Other than the one none had the guts to provide a reply. No surprise of course.

      • tdm3624

        Wow. You did more than I did. 🙂 I just emailed my two Senators. I was planning on emailing my Rep. but the bills never got that far.

    • Robert Rawson

      I will be voting, and walking precincts and donating! While I normally vote for a Democrat, I will have to change party if my party fails to support my Second Amendment rights. While I am not normally a single issue voter, and usually a Green, environmentally oriented voter at that; I place a high priority on the liberties that are traditionally granted to Americans in the Bill of Rights to our Constitution. No more Orwellian “Animal Farm” for me folks! Republicans and Democrats which are both dominated by Multinational Corporate financing have trashed those precious liberties over the last 16 years. The Libertarians are looking better and better each day, as Democrats and Republicans join hands to dis-empower individuals and make the USA a part of the international slave economy.

  • The most important thing to remember is that the Senate did pass the legislation designed to expand the existing law governing background checks by 54 votes. The reason it was not sent to the President for signature is because 60 votes are needed to avoid a filibuster that was all but certain.

    As for the fact that two thirds of Americans still believe an expansion of the existing law is needed to minimize the probability of criminals, people with prison records, and the mentally ill, have access to lethal weapons suggest public opinion on this issue is already weakening. A couple of weeks ago support for the expansion was 90%. When people go to the polls next year this issue will not be on the radar screen of most voters, who are likely to be influenced by whatever the issue of the day happens to be.

  • itsfun

    Lets see, the New York Times poll said 90% favored, and Obama ran with that. Now the Gallup poll says 65% favor the background checks. Why don’t we get to read about the polls that say the opposite? Lets face it folks, polls can be made to reflect whatever the poll taker wants it to reflect. If I take a poll of 90% liberals, I will get the results liberals want. If I take of poll of 90% conservatives, I will get the results conservatives want. I read where 5 senators have lower ratings since the bill failed. I also read where 11 senators have higher ratings since the bill failed. We all need to read both liberal and conservations publications, then realize the truth is somewhere in-between.

    • Well halfway between the two polls would be 77% favoring background checks. What is your point?

      • itsfun

        You can’t believe the polls. My point is listen to both sides then figure the truth is somewhere in between what the sides say.

    • RobertCHastings

      And all the gun control movement needs to do is replace the five whose ratings went down with five reasonable senators who believe in serious gun control. Oh, and the poll numbers that will tell you the opposite? They are included in the overall polls that show Americans, overall, agree with universal background checks. The polls, the better ones like Quinnipicac and Harris, do NOT exclude any one group, although they may include only those who voted in the most recent presidential election (regardless of who they voted for) or some other qualifier. They will all admit that there is a margin of error (less than 4%)which is to be expected since polls question only a limited number of subjects. However, even if the error is 4%, taking the 65% figure you quote above, that still leaves 6 in 10 polled as favoring universal backgroound checks. (the key word being “polled”).

      • itsfun

        Who get to decide which polls are the better ones? The 5 Senators that voted against the bill, did that to get re-elected in their states. That is one of the best things about our type of government. Just because New York and California have more population than others, they cannot just force their beliefs on the States with less population. Every state gets equal representation in the Senate. The House goes for population and you know gun bills are not going to pass their.

        • RobertCHastings

          IF (the biggest word in the English language) voters see the strength they really do wield, especially IF things get turned around in the Senate because of voter backlash, voters may begin to realize they actually are the ones who run the government. All it takes is the taste of blood, getting one senator out because the voters see they voted against him because he (she) refused to do 1) what was promised, 2)what the voters asked. Kelly Ayotte is such a case. IF she is voted out of the Senate in 2014 (IF she is up for reelection in 2014) and it is clearly demonstrated that the VOTERS did it and not the special interests, then imagine what that would do for this democracy. Voters would actually once again feel empowered, one man would actually equal one vote and money would not be perceived as being more powerful than the vote.
          My solution? The NRA annual convention is in full swing, and we are having issues with Syria. The NRA represents a “well armed militia”, so draft them and send them to Syria. I am sure they would be more than willing to support their Second Amendment rights by making that kind of sacrifice.

          • itsfun

            My bet would be that many if not most member of the NRA have already served our country in places like Vietnam and the gulf and WW II

          • RobertCHastings

            Those that have already know the cost of protecting their freedoms. However, that really isn’t the issue, is it? All too many gunowners have been terrified by the gun lobby into believing gun control means gun confiscation. There is no wording in the bill proposed by Sen. Manchin that even implies or hints at gun confiscation. In fact, the wording in the original that COULD have been so construed has been dropped. In the most recent version, even the restraints on sales between individuals was relaxed. So, based upon sound reasoning, there is no basis for the unwarranted fear of confiscation.

          • itsfun

            Protecting our freedoms is the issue here. We have a socialist administration that ignores the constitution every chance it gets. Our current administration armed Mexican drug gangs, and wants to disarm American citizens. Now Obama is in Mexico kissing their hind-ends and blaming America for the Mexican drug gangs. How can anyone believe that gun laws will be followed by criminals, gangs, terrorist groups. Citizens have the right to keep their arms without being harassed by government. Our freedoms are exactly the issue here.

          • RobertCHastings

            Dear itsfun, please give me your definition of socialist. In HS history, over 45 years ago, I was led to belive that socialism referred to the government ownership of of resources and the means of production and distribution. I fear that I have missed something, or that the definition may have changed in the intervening years. Please enlighten me.
            As for the issue about citizens being allowed to keep their weapons, what is the issue? The Manchin bill said nothing, either dierctly or implied, about the confiscation of guns or the abrogation of the Second Amendment. It had only to do with requiring background checks on all sale of firearms. It even dropped the issue about checks of interpersonal sales. Where do you guys come up with your stories of doom and destruction?

  • DEFENDER88

    Can anyone in here (who actually knows) tell me why DHS ordered 2.6 Billion with a *B* rounds of small arms ammunition not long ago?

    • metrognome3830

      BS just keeps expanding, doesn’t it. There are several sources you can check for someone who actually knows. Try them instead of the unfounded BS sources you got your information from. Even the worst of those put the number at 1.6 billion rounds. How did you get to 2.6 billion rounds. Actually, why waste your time. If you actually found a source that gave you the actual number and the reason for the order, you would still go with the BS source most likely.

    • Independent1

      The DHS explained that about a month ago: It was to save money by ordering for about 5 years ahead. Just like WalMart saves money by ordering in large quantities, DHS decided to place a large order to get a good discount on the per/bullet cost. DHS supports well over 100,000 law enforcement personnel, pretty much all of which use bullets not only in their law enforcement activities but also in lots of practice during the year to keep their shooting eye sharp; not only for current lawmen but for new recruits as well; it takes a lot of bullets. And especially if you’re ordering for years in advance to save money over the long term.

      • DEFENDER88

        Thanks for the input.
        I saw a couple of news?? reports that they(DHS) had ordered 2.5 Billion rounds and was wondering why.

        I guess if they have 100,000 to be trained and keep sharp for 5 yr it could make sense.

        But still does not quite add up for me.

        I thought they depended more on local Police and Sheriff Swat people if a confrontation is imminent.

        I shoot some with local sheriff (some 200 officers) and think they are fairly typical and in qualifying and practice they each shoot (on average *maybe* 1,000 rds/yr).

        If you extend that to 100,000 people at 5 yrs it comes out 0.5 Billion

        Of course if you assume 2,000 rds/yr it is 1.0 Billon.
        But still a long way from the (reported??) 2.5 Billion

        Of course if they have 200,000 armed shooting 2,000/yr – that would be about 2.0 Billion in 5yr.

        Does that sound logical/reasonable?

        But I am skeptical they have 200,000 armed, and that they shoot 2,000 rds/yr.

        Some are saying the Govt is doing this on purpose to jack up the price of ammo and create a shortage – I dont believe that but some do.
        Some are going to blame Obama if it rains:)

        I *do* think they *could* be stock-piling for a future anticipated period of large scale civil unrest.

        I also know some ammo mfgrs and they say some other Fed agencies are stocking-up also like Social Security – hmm – ??? Noone wants to talk much about it though.

        Just seems/feels like the Feds are gearing-up for something??

        Not to mention every morning there is actually a line at the Walmart Sports counter and all the ammo avail that day is sold in 5-10min and that is nation wide I hear. Although I think that problem was created by all the gun ban talk.

        • RobertCHastings

          Go to Snopes.com to find out whether or not this “rumor” is true. Hint: NO

  • If the government gets one step into the second amendment it will never stop. fact.. look at gov chisties newest rant.. his laws are the second strictist but second in high crime.. so he wants to take even more civil rights away to tighten the laws more yet..the awswil not work, places where gun ownership is highest has the least crime rate.. fact..our own government is corrupt, breaking the law anytime they choose, and most informed people do not trust them and will never give up their guns without a civil war. we are going to be fighting for our lives and poperty before all is done. there are 6 muslims on our own presidents payroll. not good ones either. beware of our government and keep our country armed. no new gun laws to allow them to enforce a registration.. that will be the end gate before confiscation. strenghten the laws and penalties to criminals, not law abiding people. we deserve to be able to protect ourselves and even you non beleivers who should really get informed a bit better on what is going on behind the scenes in the whitehouse with Obama and his muslim friends.

    • RobertCHastings

      Just how stupid are you? Is there any sense or reason or FACT behind what you just posted? Quote a genuinely reliable and honest source from which you can actually quote your rant without the danger of being ridiculed for quoting Glen Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Ted Cruz, Wayne LaPierre, etc. You can’t, can you? I didn’t think so.

      • itsfun

        Thats not stupid. Take a look at the law passed in California. It gives law enforcement the power to take guns from citizens!

        • RobertCHastings

          Have you even read the California law? No? I didn’t think so. It provides for the confiscation of firearms in the possession of the criminally and mentally disqualified, NOT the confiscation of ALL firearms. If you have read the bill and still have a problem with it, then it is apparent that you think EVERYONE, including criminals and the mentally incompetent, have the right to have firearms. That puts us right back to square one, with folks like Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, etc. deserving to own guns. I have to disagree with you on that issue. I just don’t feel that criminals who have been convicted of felonies or the insane should be allowed the right and privilege to own guns.

  • RobertCHastings

    The NRA, with 75,000 members, is holding their annual get together, offering a perfect solution to at least two of Obama’s more perplexing domestic issues. My solution is to draft NRA members, and send them to Syria. As they are already better armed than their Syrian opponents will be, victory is almost a certainty, and it will help them get some of that machismo steam out of their systems.