Type to search

Kelly Ayotte’s Approval Rating Plummets After Vote Against Background Checks

Memo Pad Politics

Kelly Ayotte’s Approval Rating Plummets After Vote Against Background Checks


A new poll finds New Hampshire Republican senator Kelly Ayotte’s approval rating has dropped sharply, as she faces a torrent of criticism for voting to block expanded gun sale background checks against the wishes of her constituents.

Although Ayotte raised reformers’ hopes by voting for cloture to allow the background check bill to be debated, she ultimately chose to vote against the measure, guaranteeing its defeat.

“I believe that restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners will not prevent a deranged individual or criminal from obtaining and misusing firearms to commit violence, Ayotte said in a statement at the time. “While steps must be taken to improve the existing background check system, I will not support the Manchin-Toomey legislation, which I believe would place unnecessary burdens on law-abiding gun owners and allow for potential overreach by the federal government into private gun sales.”

The backlash to her decision has been swift and severe. According to a Public Policy Polling poll released Wednesday, the freshman senator’s approval rating has plunged to 44 percent, with 46 percent disapproving. That represents a 15 percent net drop from PPP’s previous poll in October.

It’s clear that Ayotte’s vote on background checks contributed to her decline. The poll finds that 75 percent of New Hampshire voters support requiring background checks on individuals who purchase guns at gun shows, with just 21 percent opposed. When asked what they thought about Ayotte’s vote to block background checks, 50 percent said it makes them less likely to support her for re-election, while just 23 percent said it makes them more likely.

Among self-described moderates, the damage is even worse. Just 30 percent of moderates approve of Ayotte, compared to 61 percent who disapprove, and 66 percent of moderates say that Ayotte’s vote makes them less likely to support her re-election.

The poll also finds that Maggie Hassan, New Hampshire’s Democratic governor, would now lead Ayotte 46 to 44 percent in a hypothetical 2016 Senate election.

“New Hampshire is a good bellwether for fallout from the gun vote,” Public Policy Polling president Dean Debnam said in a statement. “There’s serious backlash from voters toward Kelly Ayotte for how she handled this issue.”

That backlash has also been on display in the local papers. On Wednesday, Concord Monitor editor Felice Belman felt the need to respond to a reader who complained that the paper was publishing an “inordinate” number of letters criticizing Ayotte, by explaining that “the volume of mail has certainly been extraordinary.”

Henry Decker

Henry Decker was formerly the Managing Editor of The National Memo. He is currently an Online Associate at MRCampaigns.

  • 1


  1. Sand_Cat April 24, 2013

    Another moron.

  2. Dominick Vila April 25, 2013

    Unfortunately for Kelly, she does not seem to know how to wink, say y’all, and does not even wear oversize Japanese-made glasses. As a result, instead of making millions off the ignorance or zealotry of a few, she is likely to end up in oblivion.
    I am still hopefull, however, I dream of a race between Palin-Ayotte Vs Clinton-Warren in 2016. Fruitcake Vs apple pie! I’ll take it a la mode.

    1. lana ward April 29, 2013

      She knows this is the first step toward gun confiscation

  3. Eleanore Whitaker April 25, 2013

    Quite frankly, the insularity of the red staters and Republicans has gone as far as most civilized Americans will allow it to go. No one said they can’t have their guns. We don’t want guns shoved in our faces everywhere we go. These “ignernts” do. They love to show their ability to use a gun in public to create fear. They don’t live in overpopulated states where people are out the door on overcrowded trains, buses and subways…they live in remote unregulated militia country where guns are as much an addiction as drugs. Couple that with the so-called “dry states” where booze is white lighnin’ and you end up with DogPath “ignernce” based on the “way it is in DogPatch” and no where else in the country.

    1. InsideEye April 25, 2013

      How much has Harry reids poll numbers plummeted for his cowardly VOTE ? New Hampshire is a fairlyl regulated state and is proud of it position, it sits right above Massachusettes and Connecticut, NY geograpically
      and had low incidents in Mass Acres

      1. Adam Wu April 25, 2013

        Reid’s vote was procedural, so he could retain the option of advancing the legislation again. If his constituents understand that, I doubt anyone would call it “cowardly”, for it is the exact opposite.

      2. Justin Napolitano April 25, 2013

        Zero. The Republican answer to every problem is: do nothing. I hope one of these assho, get a gun shoved uo their ass.

        1. Ron Kadi April 25, 2013

          What would be your solution?

        2. Ben April 29, 2013

          ANOTHER IDIOT!!!!! Where are ALL the BI-PARTISAN bills that The House has passed? Sitting on Reid’s desk. Who is the do nothing? And another thing tough guy, come on over and show how you would shove a gun up someones ass! You booger eating little pussy, get out of your moms house you little wimp!

      3. pbrower2a April 28, 2013

        She voted for something spectacularly unpopular in her State, and she has some huge explaining to do.

        1. InsideEye April 28, 2013

          She voted for the 2nd amendment . What would you want for a perfect working law??

          1. AdamMos April 29, 2013

            She stood up to protect the 2nd amendment for convicted felons and straw purchasers. That is political suicide in a swing state. Wait and see how she and the other idiots will want a do over vote on that bill again after the next Newtown. They should have passed the compromise. Next time there will be no compromise and the assualt weapons ban will pass as well. The American people are outraged by this disgusting display- they do not forget National Security issues. It is not if but when.

          2. Ben April 29, 2013

            You are SO wrong!!! You are so out of touch with The American People! If you get your way, YOU will die at the hands of the Government you so adore. Pick up a History book stupid. Learn something! PLEASE bring up this vote again right before the mid terms, PLEASE!

        2. lana ward April 29, 2013

          She knows it’s the first step toward gun confiscation

    2. LaRae Bailey April 25, 2013

      we are not so ignorant we can not read both sides and figure out if we piece meal out the constitution we will be owned by few rich dictators. or killed like the jews were or that we are no victims waiting to happen. the war on drugs has worked so well in controlling drug sales or use I must ask why in the world are there so many for sale on every street corner or school door step. why dont you people make a sincere effort to become informed on both sides? read the UN TREATY wherit states “all citizens must be disarmed” thats the real reason our govt is trying to do away with the second amendment..O bama wants to sign it but he ust get our guns. do any of you know our govt has lost track of over 15,000 saudi nationals here on student visas? no clue where thy are? do you know the one they had in custody after the Boston bombing has 2 classified 212 3B classifications and our govt turned him loose? the 212 3 B is the highest rating given to terroist threats.. our govt is lying about it, covering their asss to hide it? but the 6 congressmen in the homeland secrity team know it and are asking why?

      1. Tyler April 30, 2013

        Oh God you’re so misinformed… But I love that you’re here so people can see the problem for what it is.

      2. THS_Warrior April 30, 2013

        I see that poster LaRae Bailey continues to prove that ignorance is bliss.

    3. Ben April 29, 2013

      You SICK lying piece of SHIT!!!!! Name ONE EXAMPLE of guns being SHOVED IN YOUR FACE EVERY WHERE YOU GO!!! YOU create fear, you fucking idiot. You are so full of shit! Take that you Blue state faggot. Go lick your girlfriends ass dyke.

      1. Tyler April 30, 2013

        You mad bro?

      2. THS_Warrior April 30, 2013

        Slow down brother Ben. The guys in the white coats are on the way…

    4. jebova2301 May 7, 2013

      Oh, you think it is wrong to go against what the majority of the people want? Did you sing that same tune when the democrats forced through obummercare when over 65% of people said they DIDN’T want it?

  4. docb April 25, 2013

    Send her to the back of the bus to be transferred out..Traitors to the voters like she and Heidkamp and the other 44 are fodder for the trash heap..Cowards and traitors with blood on their hands..Every death and injury to Americans by gun violence is on their heads from here on out!

    1. Ben April 29, 2013

      You are an idiot! You will NEVER take my guns! NEVER. Just because you are a pussy who is afraid of guns, don’t think you can take my RIGHTS away.

      1. THS_Warrior April 30, 2013

        My old grandpa used to say “never say never” to all of us when we were kids and talked tough just like newbie poster Ben still talks… We grew up and now understand why it is stupid to say “never.”

      2. docb April 30, 2013

        Have owned weapons for over 40 years…You are being used by the nra..The legislation did not propose that as a matter of fact it included a ‘National Reciprocity’ clause in it!

        It is obvious that you are scared..if you were more informed that would go away..and you would be angry at those who are using you for their profits through fear mongering!

  5. labrown69 April 25, 2013

    Criminals should not be allowed to perform background checks. At a time when socially engineering politicians would impose
    penalties for smoking in your own home and are already trying all sorts
    of dishonest back door ways to prevent gun owners from exercising their
    rights, there is also the issue of good old-fashioned civil liberties.
    We are innocent until proven guilty.

    I would not want surveillance cameras aimed at my house, and I oppose
    all facets of the Patriot Act and the NDAA which pretty clearly
    circumvent the Fourth Amendment.

    Barak Obama, Tim Geithner and Eric Holder are co-conspirators in the
    greatest rip-off in the history of the world. They are despots and I
    would rather take my chances with the ethical acumen of a well-armed
    anonymous population than trust their judgment.

    When Holder says “prosecuting foreclosure fraud would disrupt the
    economy” he might as well be saying “I can’t fumigate my home because
    the only thing holding it up is termites.”

    These men have caused millions of American families to sleep in their
    automobiles rather than prosecute crimes, and have even caused some who
    lost everything to take their own lives. They are also risking
    poisoning the human race out of existence with GMOs and now they want
    our trust?

    Even George H.W. Bush quit the NRA because of their “over the top”
    antics, but if it was not for the NRA, many would have already lost our
    rights. Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago prove that. The NRA is
    loony but not half as dangerous as the United States government.

    Obama, whom I voted for twice, has destroyed the lives of more Americans
    than guns and bombs put together. He abdicated any possible moral high
    ground five years ago when he became a shill for banks and lobbyists.

    1. charleo1 April 25, 2013

      Well, you didn’t vote for Romney. Which means you’re not totally
      crazy. Unless, you voted for Obama twice, in the same election.
      But, come on! Really? Obama has destroyed more lives than guns,
      or bombs? You know you really should stop listening to Conservative

      talk radio. And get a grip. And, apply some of that innocent, until proven
      guilty, stuff, to the three men you seem to think caused the housing crisis, intentionally. You want to smoke cigarettes in your house? Go ahead.
      It’s not good for you, your wife, and kids, if you have them living with
      you. But, this is still the U.S.A. where people are still allowed to be,
      for the most part, as stupid as they want to be. Heck! Even criminal
      people, people that have always made their living being Predators,
      on law abiding folk, or children, and have the record to back it up.
      Thanks to the NRA, can still exercise freely, their Second Amendment
      Rights, to buy any size gun, or type of ammunition, or ammunition clip,
      and silencers, gun powder, you name it. And seriously, since all kinds
      of people, even terrorists, have Second Amendment Rights in this
      Country. I think we ought to have some cameras around, to at least
      see who’s doing the killing.

      1. THS_Warrior April 30, 2013

        You must live really far out in the country poster charlee1, because every city that I am familiar with now has mounted cameras everywhere, snapping pictures and streaming live video to many local and national LEAs who now spend most of their time looking for the people who are planning the trouble that may be coming. Be sure to smile a lot.

        1. charleo1 April 30, 2013

          We have not quite caught up with Great Britain,
          but we’re getting there. Some don’t like the idea
          of authority always watching. But, with tight budgets
          limiting the number of police. And technology making
          the placement of cameras less expensive all the time.
          What we are seeing today, in terms of public surveillance,
          will be the norm in the future.

          1. THS_Warrior May 1, 2013

            This subject brings up very mixed emotions for me. I am a civil rights trial attorney (angry conservatives will call me a liberal) who is also a very strong supporter of the second amendment and the fifth amendment and the fourteenth amendment. So I hope you will take my educated, very experienced word as being very close to reality when I give my professional opinions about these three amendments: they are bound for a huge stand-up fight in the federal courts very soon. Why?
            Because neither the federal government nor state governments can deny any citizen(s) the right to “bear arms” without FIRST affording all affected citizens adequate “due process of law.” This means that every citizen has an absolute constitutional right to demand formal proof from governments that they (the citizens) are not “entitled to bear arms” because the second amendment says they are. There are way too many sub-arguments for me to continue discussing this here.

          2. charleo1 May 1, 2013

            Sure. First, I am always ready to listen to a person
            that practices law, especially Civil Rights law. Plus,
            I feel Liberals have gotten a bum rap. We are every
            bit as careful, I think, in supporting the Constitutional
            Rights of every citizen, as the Conservatives. Now,
            as you say, the State has to present, formal proof, as
            to why this individual’s Constitutional Rights should be suspended, or revoked permanently. As they are with a
            no parole, life sentence, parole requirements for life, or
            the execution of the individual, by the State. It seems to me,
            and correct me, if I’m wrong. The State retains the power
            to suspend the Rights of the individual for any number of
            violations, upon proper, or formal conviction of a
            predetermined, statute or law. If for example, a person is
            convicted by due process, of a felony, in the State of FL.
            that person’s Right to vote is suspended. Or to obtain, or
            hold a professional license, is prohibited. One may bring
            cause, as to the reinstatement of his Constitutional Rights.
            But that reinstatement is not a protected Right, but one
            granted, or withheld, at the pleasure of the State. And it
            does seem to me, a person untrained in the law, that it
            makes sense on the basis of the State to work for the common good, would supersede the individual’s Right to
            bear arms. If he had shown a propensity to use that weapon
            in the past, in a violent or predatory manner. So, feel free
            to correct me from that assumption, if you wish.

          3. THS_Warrior May 3, 2013

            Under our system of government any state has the inherent power to do almost anything it wants to any of its citizens, so long as the sate does so after affording the citizen with some meaningful opportunity for some sort of formal (or in certain cases informal) “hearing” or other “proceeding” before some sort of “neutral” arbiter, judge or tribunal having jurisdiction over the alleged crime and the citizen. That is the essence of “due process of law.”
            Because there are so many “crimes” in all the statute books of fifty separate states and the federal government, and because there are even more circumstances under which each separate crime is alleged in each separate jurisdiction, it is too difficult to explain this concept in any more detail that I have done above. For example, just because some act is called a crime in Florida does not mean that the same act is a crime in any other state, or under federal law.

    2. Landsende April 25, 2013

      I agree that CEO’s and the board of directors should be prosecuted but I notice you don’t call for GWB being tried for his part in the financial collapse or for his lies about weapons of mass destruction which caused the deaths and injuries of thousands of our troops and also added to the debt because instead of raising taxes to pay for two wars he lowered them. Please give some examples of how “President Obama has destroyed the lives of more Americans than guns and bombs together”.

      1. labrown69 April 25, 2013

        Bush was an idiot and of course he helped cause the collapse which was really caused by Phil Gramm’s 99 and 2000 deregulation legislation however it came down around Bush’s ears as he was on his way out the door and the ONLY ONE who had a chance to do anything about it is Obama. Larry Summers begged him to break up the banks but Obama let the corrupt oligarch Geithner lead him by the nose. Every idiot knows that you don’t put all your eggs in one basket and that the first rule of finance is diversification. Care to take a guess at how many credit unions and competitive small banks have gone under while Obama was siding with the half a dozen huge multinational conglomerates who are now our defacto government. Grow the fuck up, would ya. Jack asses who keep giving Obama a pass and blaming others are the smoke screen behind which this plutocrat hides.

        1. THS_Warrior April 30, 2013

          Have you ever heard this expression: “Politics is nothing but blue smoke and mirrors” ? President Obama has. Stay tuned for tye next 3 years and 8 months, because the fat lady is getting ready to start signing love songs that will sooth your savage breast… and drive the GOP completely over the edge.

      2. labrown69 April 26, 2013

        NOR am I suggesting that “Obama be tried” for anything. I am merely pointing out that he is responsible for his actions and that our priorities are fu**ed up. The fact that guns make a loud noise and go bang should not give them a higher priority than other issues which cause far more harm but are more popular with brain dead leftists, I am many things but I am not a partisan. I was a registered Democrat for more than 40 years from the time I was old enough to vote until 2009 when I resigned and re-registered independent in disgust. Obama had the last clear chance to save the homes of millions of Americans and thus the entire economy and he refuses to do it because he is a plutocratic con man and a huge disappointment. I voted for him twice because I have daughters and I am pro choice and I support my LGBT Brothers and Sisters but that is where my admiration for this con man stops. He is a spineless creep and ragging on Bush who I did NOT vote for does nothing to make me feel better about the fact that our best option still stinks.

        1. THS_Warrior April 30, 2013

          So… you are saying that you are just a tiny bit conflicted; is that it poster labrown69?
          Let me summarize why: Prior to 2009 you say you were a life-long Democrat (a union guy no doubt) who voted for President Obama (twice) because you liked some of his policies (like being pro-choice and being for gay rights); and you also liked Obama because you “have daughters” and thus know that President Obama wants to assist and help you protect your daughters from the GOP’s anti-women crowd before it is too late…

          But now you hate President Obama because you think he is a “con man” who got into bed with the 12 biggest banks and Wall Street thieves because he will not put all of those crooks in jail.

          Is that about the size of it poster labrown69? My only advice to you is to stay tuned for the next 3 years and 8 months.

          1. labrown69 April 30, 2013

            Yes, as a matter of fact that is a fairly accurate summation. The GOP was so retrogressive that I voted for the lesser evil and I would do it again! Dodd Frank is better than no legislation and the alternative would have been worse. Why? Did I overlook some savior in your perception? LMAO

          2. THS_Warrior May 1, 2013

            Heavens no. IMO, President Obama is doing a pretty darn good job trying to fight and control the big banks and Wall Street thieves without any help from the GOP, and without enough help from the Democrats (many of whom are also are beholden to a small number of very greedy people holding very great wealth).
            However, President certainly is not any kind of “savior” at least in the Biblical sense. Nor does Obama claim to be.
            The message I am trying very hard to get though to you is that President Obama has 3 years and 8 months of relative freedom to inflict as much pain as possible on the culprits that you have identified.

    3. Madelaine Ayers Henne April 25, 2013

      I truly feel sorry for you! . We should always be afraid of a government that is ruled and obstructed by private money whether it be this one or ones in the past. It just so happens that this President is black and this is the first time that Corporations were given “people” status! Two things that have never happened before! I truly believe that President Obama could have done some good if not for the “hidden” bigotry of the GOP and private money calling the shots!

    4. Justin Napolitano April 25, 2013

      Take your gun and look down the barrel and pull the trigger to make sure it is not loaded. 6000 children have died of gunshots in the last two years. I guess they are just collateral damage to gun rights asshos.

      1. labrown69 April 25, 2013

        I don’t know where you get your figures from but you are both rude, dishonest and misinformed. In 2010, 10,228 people were killed
        in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in the United States costing Americans $51

        Of those, 1,210 traffic deaths were children under 14. That is
        exponentially more than the number of gun deaths.

        OK, so where are all
        you angry socially conscious gun haters clamoring for tighter controls like
        banning the sale of alcohol to felons and repeat offenders by requiring an ID to
        purchase booze? Waiting periods? Background checks? Written tests?

        Hmmm, I hadn’t considered that?
        B) You’d like to teach the world to sing in
        perfect harmony?
        C) You don’t like guns but you love your fucking Martinis ?

        Guns are used in defense of crime
        three-to-four times more often than they’re used in the commission of a crime.
        Furthermore, we are constantly hearing about our “wild west murder rates” as
        compared with England and other countries in which guns are banned, but we
        rarely are told how other crime rates from Great Britain and the Netherlands
        compare with ours. Although these two nations employ strict gun ownership laws
        the risk of armed robbery is dramatically lower in America. The rate of
        burglaries at occupied homes known as “hot” burglaries” in Great Britain and the
        Netherlands is 45%, compared to a rate of 13% in the U.S. comparing those rates
        to the percentage of hot burglaries in which the homeowner is threatened or
        attacked which is 30%. It is statistically consistent that there would be an
        additional 450,000 burglaries in the U.S. in which homeowners are threatened or
        attacked if the rate of hot burglaries in the U.S. was similar to the rate in
        Great Britain. The lower rate in the U.S. is generally attributed to widespread
        gun ownership.

        three-to-four times more often than they’re used in the commission of a crime

      2. Ben April 29, 2013

        You need an ass kicking! How many kids died in Chicago big mouth? What are their gun laws, pussy? Come on over tough guy and look down the barrel of my gun. asshole.

        1. THS_Warrior April 30, 2013

          Wow! A new record has been set: Newbie poster Ben has lost it completely after posting only 25 times. Judging from Ben’s rude remarks, name-calling and threats of violence it would appear that some moderator might want to modify newbie poster Ben before he starts laying out backpack bombs in public places.

  6. Lovefacts April 25, 2013

    Republican senators and congressmen/women vote their party line, not the will of the people. The only recourse THE PEOPLE have is to vote them out of office–this is as true for Republicans as it is for Democrats.

    At one time, politicians were true public servants. They had political views that they could defend with reasoned arguments, not talking points. Now, it’s just a job. As such, we the voters should view their(re) elections as job interviews.

    1. CPAinNewYork April 25, 2013

      “At one time, politicians were true public servants”? You’e joking, right? Aside from the founding fathers and maybe not even then, politicians have always been what they are now.

    2. itsfun April 25, 2013

      That’s how Obamacare got passed. Don’t pay attention to the taxpayers, just do what the party bosses tell you to do. The Party will take care of you if you lose your job in the next election. After all the Party can spend millions to win a election for a job that pays 80,000. They also can create jobs for politicians that lose for great salaries within the party.

    3. John Pigg April 25, 2013

      Right you are,

      There was a time when statesmen had the time and flexibility to meet with constituents, read bills, and vote with the other party.

      Sadly today all most politicians have time for is raising money, passing the legislation they are told to pass, and taking stands on issues that they know won’t be feasible.

    4. THS_Warrior April 26, 2013

      “At one time, politicians were true public servants. They had political views that they could defend with reasoned arguments, not talking points. Now, it’s just a job.”

      Poster Lovefacts is 100% correct. The reason the founders and framers never mentioned term limits in the Constitution was because all senators and all congressmen were volunteers, not salaried government employees. Members of congress and senators were only entitled to reimbursement for their travel expenses to and from Washington and room & board while in session. Many stayed in private homes, others stayed in boarding houses and some lived in flop houses while they were in Washington every other year. There were no fancy hotels restaurants until the legislators voted to start paying salaries to the leaders, which quickly expanded into what we now have today: highly paid bums who have no other real jobs back home, and who live in DC year-round.

  7. charleo1 April 25, 2013

    You know, for all the hoopla, one might have thought Obama had come on
    T.V. and announced That in keeping with the UN mandate, for the New World
    Order, and the Trilateral Commission, headed up by George Soros, we will be
    sending special UN envoys to your homes, and businesses, where you will
    turn over any weapons, and answer any questions they might have about
    your affiliation with the Republican Party. Thank you Comrades. You’ll be
    hearing from our representatives shortly.

    1. Madelaine Ayers Henne April 25, 2013

      That is another version spewed by the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh and Fox news!! Meaning would be the same! WE WANT YOUR GUNS NOW!!

      1. charleo1 April 25, 2013

        The pro gun lobby could not win the argument aganist
        universal background checks. Not on Constitutional
        grounds, or on the grounds of common sense. They
        gave no reason as to why gun owners, or gun enthusiasts,
        or hunters of wild game of any sort, needs armor piercing
        bullets, that can penetrate the otherwise life saving vests,
        worn by law enforcement . Or gave any examples of when
        a law abiding citizen might need to shoot a policeman, and
        regular ammo is not quite lethal enough. I don’t read any
        comments that admit, that yes, I’m a felon, and I’m damned
        glad I can still pack heat, with an unregistered gun. Because,
        I caught my first stent in the Pen, because I got pulled over,
        and the Cops used the registration on a gun I took in a house
        burglary, to get a search warrant on my storage unit. So we
        live, and learn.

        1. Ben April 29, 2013

          Where do you come up with this bullshit? First off, YOU have no idea what I NEED or not. As far as Felons packing heat, that is against the law!!!! Felons CAN NOT own fire arms legally! Enforce the laws ALREADY on the books. You are so afraid of the truth, that you will lie to yourself and others to avoid the truth.

          1. charleo1 April 30, 2013

            You’re right. I don’t know what you need. I know if
            you’re doing something legal, you won’t need armor
            piercing bullets to do it. And you may not know,
            because of a brain injury, or tumor, or some such
            condition, that limits your ability to realize you’re busting
            your hump to protect, and insure, violent felons, and
            drug gangs, still have easy access to a gun. That’s what
            you’re doing. Tell me you’re not so thick headed, as to
            think there is any excuse at the stupidity of saying,
            “Felons can’t own guns legally, so, enforce the law?”
            Seriously? Then, why leave a loophole open wide
            enough to drive a truck through, to sell felons weapons
            in the first place? So police can enforce current gun law,
            one felon at a time? No, I’m not afraid of the truth.
            I’m afraid to think people with your obviously challenged
            mental capacity, can still buy a gun, and still carry it around,
            amongst civilized people.

      2. InsideEye April 30, 2013

        The Bill is flawed in that Mentally challenged are not on
        the Reportable List to agencies, these unfortunates have caused all of the mayhem thus far. BUT due to politically correct laws, we are not able to share these names. This is a plainly a 2nd Amendment issue but the press plays it up as a political issue. Background checks should be done at every purchase and if you pass, that is it , until the next purchase or exchange. All laws are good if there are consequences for non- Compliance….however….there are too many loop holes, respectfully submitted.

        A True Account : previously stated
        One woman came to me for a position via Australia to Wash DC. looking for a job, from Romania. I asked her why did you not put up a fight for your own country……” Eye openingly” from a somewhat gentle woman scientist she said, “we did not have any weapons” , shortly afterward someone else with the same scenario. I was aghast on how easily this came out of her mouth. We are lucky so far not to be SERIOUSLY intimidated by the the US government. this happened in 1992….this is a true story……ask someone FROM THESE PLACES about the fear of having your country taken and you can do nothing but leave or cry over the fear and massacre around you…..Not in my life

  8. latebloomingrandma April 25, 2013

    So the Senator doesn’t want to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. What does a law abiding citizen have to fear? Does a person walking in the door at a gun show have a scarlet letter on them defing them as law abiding citizen or felon or mental case or gang member? How else do we find out who is at this point law abiding or not? I think that was the whole idea behnd Toomey-Mancion’s “common sense” approach.

    1. CPAinNewYork April 25, 2013

      Granny: Law abiding citizens have a lot to fear from criminals with guns or other lethal weapons.

      1. sigrid28 April 25, 2013

        Here is how the criminals obtain guns: call or mail an order into a catalog, purchase on online, or walk into any gun show with cash and say, “How much?” CNN documented transactions in which the seller did not even know–or ask–the name of the purchaser. It is, however, entirely within the bounds of the world of the gun show that the seller might also have asked, “How much? One gun or six? Ten rounds or thirty?”

        1. CPAinNewYork April 25, 2013

          You’re right. There’s little doubt that because of the money being stuffed into our legislators’ pockets by the gun industry, we’re approaching a return to the ethics of the old “wild west.”

          The “wild west” is gone and good riddance. We don’t need it. Therefore, the gun industry has to be contained and a more responsible system of gun ownership instituted.

          We must also rid our political system of the rampant bribery that we have now. It’s a disgrace. All campaigns must be financed by federal or state funds. Campaign contributions must be outlawed.

          Maybe then we’ll have some semblance of honest government. Maybe, but don’t count on it. Another problem is that many of the people who go into politics are nothing but failed lawyers with no sense of decency.

          1. Michael Kollmorgen April 25, 2013

            Well, they can’t be totally failed lawyers. They not only get elected, but look what they do to us while in office.

            Seems to me, they’re pretty successful after all.

            And, there is no public mandate saying you have to be a decent person to be politician or a lawyer.

            The general public elects people who are basically like themselves. Politics as we know it is nearly a mirror image, a reflection of society.

            Most of us would like to think it isn’t though.

        2. Ben April 29, 2013

          You are a complete LIAR!! Go ahead and try what you claim.

      2. THS_Warrior April 26, 2013

        …which is a REALLY GREAT argument for the states requiring universal background checks; right?

      3. pbrower2a April 28, 2013

        …Law-abiding citizens have much to fear from criminals who overpower them for their guns or other lethal weapons.

        For a deadly weapon that can’t be turned on you, get a Doberman. Indeed get three of them, and your house becomes about as dangerous to an intruder as the Sundarbans where man-eating-tigers lurk. 240 pounds of apex predator describes three Dobermans or one lioness.But you are reasonably safe from the dogs.

        1. Ben April 29, 2013

          You OBVIOUSLY don’t have kids!

    2. Ben April 29, 2013

      Here is an idea dumb ass, how about enforcing CURRENT law? You should be afraid of criminals, NOT law abiding citizens!

  9. itsfun April 25, 2013

    USA today poll has 49% in favor of background checks, 45% against and 6% undecided. Doesn’t sound like a any kind of mandate to me (either for or against).

    1. Michael Kollmorgen April 25, 2013

      I think any sound and sane person who does not, or does own a gun would totally approve of everyone having a background check before purchasing any weapon.

      It’s just plain common sense to me.

      1. plc97477 April 27, 2013

        Maybe they just know they would have trouble passing a background check.

      2. davidrn April 28, 2013

        Lets see how honest you really are. Why can’t we have
        It’s just plain common sense to me.
        rules related to voting? How is voting any different than joining a gym, or buying liquor, why not an ID?
        Or, .how about an abortion, “just plain common sense ” rule that limits abortions to before 20 weeks? (exceptions :3 MDs agree death of mother an issue) also require preg girls see an ultrasound prior to killing a baby? These are all like you say” just plain common sense to me”.

        1. Ben April 29, 2013

          Amen to that!!!

      3. Ben April 29, 2013

        We ALREADY have that!! Try it for yourself for Christ Sake. Go to ANY sporting store that sells fire arms. Pick one to buy( you don’t have to pay). You will find that you will NOT leave with a fire arm. Why? Because of the background check you will have to go through. And don’t tell me what I believe or not, you have NO idea, it’s such an arrogant attitude! Go buy a gun, have your friend film the whole process. Post the vid when done. I think you will have a surprise coming to you. It’s called a background check.

    2. zappa24 April 25, 2013

      No, those numbers are for the background check bill, which is different from saying those are the numbers for background checks. Why is it different? Because a large number of people have been misled on what is in the bill (many think there are parts that will take away or ban certain guns). Others don’t support the bill because it doesn’t go far enough, a fact that the article notes but you do not.

    3. Ben April 29, 2013

      Don’t forget the gallup poll that says only 4% care about gun control at this point. It’s the ECONOMY stupid, as Carville would say.

      1. itsfun April 30, 2013


  10. Rick2101 April 25, 2013

    As Senator Ayotte says “… I believe would place unnecessary burdens on law-abiding gun owners and allow for potential overreach by the federal government into private
    gun sales.”

    “Unnecessary burdens”, what unnecessary burdens? A background check is necessary to keep guns out of the wrong hands. As Senator Kelly Ayotte states…steps must be taken to improve the existing background check system…” Unfortunately, the NRA will not allow those steps to be taken.

    “…potential overreach by the federal government into private gun sales.” Potential overreach? What nonsense.

    Responsible gun owners have nothing to fear and the NRA knows that. The NRA is not motivated by anything as principled as constitutions rights; its only motivation is profit. The NRA is nothing more than a lobbying machine for American munitions industry. “That the gun makers have managed to turn each massacre into a spike in sales of both expensive rapid-fire weapons and ammunition adds to the evidence that the NRA should be viewed as the mass-murder lobby.”


    I believe too many gun owners scream about their rights, but very little on responsibilities. Everyone seems to agree, at some point, that a gun in the wrong hands is the problem. Any politician who votes against background checks is part of the problem of guns getting into the wrong hands. The second amendment does not say anyone who wants a gun has the right to own one.

    The second amendment:

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
    the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
    shall not be infringed.”

    Some argue that “well regulated” does not mean the same today as it did at the time of the founding fathers. For example according to Brian T. Halonen,
    http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm “well regulated” meant something was
    in “proper working order”. If that is the case then today’s’ gun owners must be, according the 2nd Amendment, in “proper working order” to be protected by the constitution. Does anyone believe that gun owners who allow either by direct action or through negligence are “functioning as expected”, when their guns are used to commit crimes? Gun owners are not “well regulated”, “in proper working order”, or “functioning as expected” when their guns are used to commit crimes, unless we “expect” gun owners to somehow lose their guns, either though negligence or theft. The safekeeping of all guns is the direct responsibility of all gun owners.

    I also believe that some gun owners do not take the responsibility to safeguard their guns seriously enough. Regardless of how the gun owner failed to keep his or her guns out of the wrong hands, it is in my opinion they share in the responsibility of any crimes that are committed with their unsecured/lost/stolen guns.

    Perhaps the insurance industry could offer “Gun Insurance”. If a gun owner’s gun were used in a crime, the insurance company would pay all damages. The insurance industry, since they hate claims, would then come up working strategies so gun owners would actually be “functioning as expected” and safeguard their weapons. With rights comes responsibility.

    To simply hold gun owners responsible for their guns would be a good start.

    1. pbrower2a April 28, 2013

      Indeed the most responsible gun owners with whom I am familiar — sport hunters — (1) will tell you that they respect what their guns can do, and (2) fear criminals using guns. They keep their guns under lock and key and scare people into avoiding the guns. Background checks will not stop sport hunters from getting firearms.

      But they might deter criminals, political extremists, and lunatics.

      1. Rick2101 April 28, 2013

        Well said, responsible gun owners have nothing to fear from background checks.

      2. davidrn April 28, 2013

        Homeland recently determined that Catholics and Tea Party members are your ” political extremists”, is that what you had in mind also?

  11. JDavidS April 25, 2013

    Any legislator who votes against the will of the majority of their constituents should be recalled. They are elected to represent the people, not the party.

    1. davidrn April 28, 2013

      So will you agree with me that ObmaCare should be cancelled, “who votes against the will of the majority ” well thats what the polls say.
      Also, we are not a democracy, but a republic of laws, and the second ammendment was as carefully crafted as the others.

    2. Ben April 29, 2013

      That would mean you would have to recall the president! ACA has NEVER been popular and was passed AGAINST the will of the People. It’s even MORE un popular today! Let’s not forget it was a complete partisan vote too.

  12. Jim Lou April 25, 2013

    3 years is a long time. It depends on who will be opposing her, in the primary and the general election.

  13. elw April 25, 2013

    The power of the voter is in their vote and how long their memory is. Let us hope that the people of New Hampshire has a nice long memory when it comes to their vote and the energy to let her know for the next three years through their letters, comments and approval rating, that they feel she broke her promise to follow the will of the people.

  14. Robert Benefiel April 25, 2013

    Americans willl never due anything regarding gun violence. It is a waste of time trying. People love their guns. Although I am a Federalist I believe that gun control needs to be dealt with on a state by state case. There is a vast difference between someone having a gun in Montana and someone having an AK-47 in Chicago or New York. In fact, a good argument can be made that elections and voting represents a divide between Cities and rural America. The people of each do not understand the other so one blocks anything that helps the other.

    1. plc97477 April 27, 2013

      Maybe you could explain how a state is going to enforce a law that is different from the law next door without sending police into all homes whenever someone returns from a different state which even I would object to.

  15. RobertCHastings April 25, 2013

    The Republicans are getting entirely too accustomed to giving lip service, then resort to back-stabbing. Sen. Grassley started this process over two years ago when he joined with a Dem. Senator on co-sponsoring a budget bill, only to refuse to vote for it when it came time. This has become their modus-operandi, apparently in order to demonstrate their reasonableness in cooperating, then get just to the point of no return where they might violate the Norquist pledge, and bail. How many died-in-the-wool Republicans really lend their support to these people? They should be changing to Independents, at least, and in droves. My former father-in-law changed his affiliation from lifelong Republican to Democrat about seven years ago. My wife’s cousin’s husband was a lifelong Rep., and changed to Dem just three years ago. Most of us Dems know at least one person who has done the same thing in the past ten years. No wonder the Republicans are trying to make it difficult for people to vote.

  16. howa4x April 25, 2013

    Shows that party loyalty above constituent leanings doesn’t spell well for incumbent republicans. She can only make this right by changing her vote next time to yes on expanded background checks. Moderates will remember this and if she refuses to close loop holes for billionaires she will did the hole deeper. A republican is a republican no matter how they sell themselves. Christie in NJ is socially moderate but tried to give a millionaires tax cut by trying to rob the transportation trust fund to do it. No matter where they are they follow the same script which is pro big business and anti middle class, pro gun and anti abortion, pro Jesus and anti science. Soon everyone will really see them for who they are

  17. John Shurr April 25, 2013

    Ayotte has assumed Sarah Palin’s role as sidekick to John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Guess we’re starting to see the benefits of joining that club.

    1. brad opusnet March 29, 2016

      But he’s a MAVERICK!!!!!

  18. Fisherman April 26, 2013

    Have Another BEER You Red Neck LaRae Bailey But be sure to Pick up ALL your Trash!!!

    1. Ben April 29, 2013

      After you get back on your trashy boat you uneducated loser.

  19. THS_Warrior April 26, 2013

    By the time November 2014 and November 2016 come around there will be wounded GOP candidates fighting for their political lives in nearly every contested race in the Senate and the House. Crazy is too kind to use when describing incumbents who ignore the wishes of their constituents so blatantly, like New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte just did in voting against better and more-effective gun registration.

    1. Ben April 29, 2013

      I think you are going to be VERY disappointed.

      1. brad opusnet March 29, 2016

        I think you are going to be suicidal, Ben.

        1. Ben March 30, 2016

          What kind of idiot or addict are you? You are responding to a comment from 3 YEARS AGO!? Well, here we are 3 YEARS LATER and I’m STILL NOT “suicidal”. Go smoke another bowl, Brad.

          1. brad opusnet March 30, 2016

            Funny, not only are YOU responding ti my comment that’s three years old, you are blowing an O-ring over it, Sancho. Maybe you should smoke the first bowl you’ve ever had – or better yet, go back on your, meds. Have a day, Ben. :-l

          2. Ben April 10, 2016


            Ben THS_Warrior • 3 years ago

            I think you are going to be VERY disappointed.

            • Edit• Reply•Share ›


            brad opusnet Ben • 11 days ago

            I think you are going to be suicidal, Ben.

          3. Ben April 10, 2016

            Instead of a snarky response, why don’t you go ahead and click on “view in discussion”, take a look at the time lines. YOU responded 11 days ago to a comment I made 3 YEARS ago. Your comment IS NOT from 3 years ago. And I need the meds? Hahaha, okay. Don’t believe your lying eyes.

  20. Elaine April 29, 2013

    Not where I am in NH – her ratings are UP. Thanks Kelly for not passing legislation NO ONE has read or understands.. again. READ the bills these reps are asked to pass, please, before you comment! She is not against checks, just a registry keeping track of all guns and legal gun owners! She is no one’s puppet. Sorry.

    1. brad opusnet March 29, 2016

      Her ratings are UP?! Yeah, right. I take it you only read the Union Leader.

  21. BC2010 April 30, 2013

    Dr. Thomas Sowell offers 3 questions that destroy most liberal arguments:
    1. Compared to what? (i.e., more gun laws which punish law-abiding citizens will make us safer? compared to what?)
    2. At what cost? (i.e., how much personal freedom are you willing to sacrifice? Do you want the IRS, TSA, or FBI to become the “thought police”, invading your home and privacy at the whim of some politician or beauracrat?)
    3. What hard evidence do you have? (i.e., it’s already been clearly estabslihed that Obama’s gun laws would not have stopped ANY of the previous several events.)

  22. brad opusnet March 29, 2016

    Bye Kelly. No amount of sell-out cash can save you from your own “Washington MUST STOP” stupidity.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.