Still Waiting for That Pro-Gun-Control Groundswell

White HouseWhite HouseAfter the Senate gun control bill died last week, The New York Times said "Democratic leadership aides promised that the effort could be revived if a public groundswell demanded it." Claiming support from nine out of 10 Americans, President Obama and former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) angrily urged the public to rise up in righteous fury and demand action. The results of a new poll by the Pew Research Center can be summed up as a three-word reply to such hopes: not gonna happen.

According to the survey, the share of Americans who reacted negatively to the Senate vote fell short of a majority, with 15 percent describing themselves as "angry" and 32 percent saying they were "disappointed." Not exactly a groundswell in favor of gun control. On the other side, 20 percent said they were "very happy" about the vote and 19 percent described themselves as "relieved." In short, even immediately after supporters of new gun controls bombarded the public with images of dead children and grieving parents, insisting that anyone who disapproves of mass murder has no choice but to vote for the president's policy proposals, there is only an eight-point difference between supporters and opponents of the legislation, and opponents seem to feel more strongly about the issue. Pew also found, in addition to a predictable partisan divide, that opposition to the bill was especially strong among those who said they were following the issue "very closely," 31 percent of whom said they were very happy the bill failed, compared to 22 percent who were angry.  

That last result is consistent with the hypothesis that the more people knew about the gun control legislation, the more likely they were to oppose it. Which reinforces a point that should be kept in mind whenever anyone cites public approval of a policy as a reason to support it: The public does not necessarily know what the hell it's talking about. That is demonstrably true in the case of "assault weapon" bans, which received majority support in polls taken after the Sandy Hook massacre, probably because most people don't know what an "assault weapon" is. Likewise, Obama is fond of saying that 90 percent of Americans support expanded background checks for gun buyers, which is what a CBS News survey conducted in January found. To be precise, 92 percent of respondents said they favored "a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers." Yet Obama himself says "most Americans think that's already the law." How well-informed can support for requiring private sellers to run background checks be if most people who favor the idea don't even realize it would represent a change in policy? Might these people be less inclined to support this proposal if they were not only familiar with current law but understood the reasons why background checks are not effective at keeping criminals from obtaining guns as well as the burdens and risks that a universal mandate would entail?

In addition to the question of whether poll participants know enough about a particular issue to offer an informed opinion, there is the question of whether the values they are expressing are good or bad. I shudder to think what would happen if we put the Bill or Rights to a vote; the whole point of constitutional rights is to put certain matters beyond the reach of transient majorities. Substantial majorities may well support policies that I view as morally unacceptable even if they are constitutional, such as criminalizing consensual exchanges between adults. That does not mean I am wrong. Conversely, I am glad that most Americans now seem to support marijuana legalization, and I think they are right to do so. Ditto with gay marriage. But I do not see majority support as proof that I was right on these issues all along.

I am sure that Obama and Giffords likewise do not think they are right about gun control because polls indicate most people agree with them. Nor are they about to change their views when the polls shift. Yet they demand that legislators do what the majority (supposedly) wants, regardless of whether the legislators think it's a good idea, and bizarrely claim that to do otherwise shows a lack of integrity.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Sevo||

    Look at that picture; 100% of the people in it favor gun control! How much more evidence do you need?

  • Brett L||

    Who is the former NBA player in the background? Or was he a pro tight end?

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    Who is the former NBA player in the background? Or was he a pro tight end?

    Burress?

  • ||

    That would be too funny.

  • Brett L||

    Just becuase Plaxido couldn't keep it in his pants, I don't see why everyone should suffer.

  • Enough About Palin||

    I think it's Gabby's handler/trainer.

  • John||

    In all seriousness, isn't that Obama's top?

  • Loki||

    Brings new meaning to the phrase "TOP. MEN."

  • Tman||

    Our betters have spoken.

    http://youtu.be/mkaDhq7GazA

    You don't need an assault rifle, just get a shotgun. Never mind the fact that most people would end up knocking their teeth out if they ever actually fired a shotgun, whereas an AR-15 would be much easier to handle in terms of accuracy and recoil, a shotgun is what's best for you. Regardless.

    You're welcome.

  • John||

    Sexist bastards. An AR-15 is a great weapon for women. It is so light, easy to handle and has virtually no recoil.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    When I was enlisted, women routinely got very good to great scores during annual marksmanship qualification. I don't know of any that actually failed to qualify, although you have to be a real screw-up to fail with an M-16.

    Appropriately enough, the one guy in our flight at basic who failed was the one going into security forces.

  • John||

    They are very easy to shoot and qualify with. You have to be pretty good to hit the 300 meter targets. But everything else is just point and click. For all of the shit gun nuts like to give it, the M 16 really is a magnificent weapon.

  • Virginian||

    Gun nuts don't give it shit. Usually the people giving it shit are the ones who don't own one. Usually it's people who play Call of Duty and know for a fact that the Desert Eagle is a great handgun and that anything H and K makes is a Teutonic thunderbolt of pure killing power.

  • ||

    Well, the Desert Eagle is a great handgun. "Great" as in "fucking ginormous."

  • Virginian||

    Size queen huh?

  • ||

    Not to the point where it hurts.

    No, seriously, I like bruised the heel of my hand on one of those, it was sore for weeks.

  • Virginian||

    Yeah whenever I take newbies shooting, especially girls, they want to shoot the .357. Then they don't. I have wood grips on it, because it's blued and putting some Hogues on it would be fucking ugly.

    I wish I could get some real ivory ones. Fucking greens.

  • Paul.||

    I wish I could get some real ivory ones. Fucking greens

    Do bakalite.

  • John||

    You don't know the gun nuts I do. It is a probably a generational thing. But people who grew up in the era of the M1 and M14 can't stand M16s. My father hates them. But he is still angry they don't teach bayonet training anymore and thinks it is insane to have a main battle rifle that can't be used as an effective tool in hand to hand combat. Odl school is an understatement.

  • ||

    My favorite one of my old rifles is my Finnish M39. Fucking thing weighs 14 pounds and would make an even better bludgeon than a rifle. Love that gun, would hate to have to carry it.

  • Virginian||

    That's more of a cartridge thing. That's the one war that will never end. The lamb will lay down with the lion, the NKs and SKs will reunite, and the Palestinians and Israelis will make peace before the 7.62 v 5.56 war dies.

    You can get more terminal performance out of a 7.62 or a 30.06, and that is a legitimate concern.

  • ||

    Trivia: Garand designed his rifle with a 10-round magazine for a new .270 cartridge, but the Army brass had him redesign it to make use of the enormous stockpiles of .30-06 they had. That's why it takes 8 rounds.

  • John||

    When I was in Iraq, I had the pleasure of test firing these HK 417s that the Gurkas had. They were 7.62 and just fucking awesome weapons.

  • db||

    Yeah. Institutional intertia strikes again. I think that was part of the reason why the Garand oprod is so easy to bend--it wasn't necessarily shored up enough for the '06 when the design was updated. When using milspec ammo, not so.much of a problem, but get too much hotter, and you're replacing an increasingly rare part.

  • John||

    Yes, it is totally about the cartridge. Not having a full on rifle cartridge and having such a small caliber is something that some people will never forgive the M16 for.

  • Virginian||

    There was a 7.62 AR before there was a 5.56 AR.

    The reason they switched is that a nation that is mostly rural comes to boot camp already knowing how to shoot, for the most part. A nation that is mostly urban doesn't come to boot camp knowing how to shoot already.

  • Tejicano||

    Today’s AR is not a bad gun for home defense but I still don’t like the little round.

    My go-to set up is an AR handgun in 6.8mm with an 11.5 inch barrel, two magazines, and a Saiga-12 slung over my shoulder. Also an FNP45 if I have time to throw the holster on.

  • John||

    In short Virginian, I don't know any gun nuts who would even know what Call of Duty is.

  • Loki||

    Didn't the first generation M16s have a reputation for poor reliability in the jungle environment of Vietnam due to dirt getting into the reciever and causing it to jam? Which basically meant you had to keep the gun in practically pristine, like new condition while slogging through a jungle, which was virtually impossible.

    In reality a lot of the issues were teething issues that you might expect from any new weapon that have since been dealt with, but a lot of "old timers" still hate on the M16 because of those initial problems.

  • John||

    Yes they did. The reason was if I am not mistaken was the Army was cheap and wasn't using smokeless powder. The M16 is designed for smokeless powder. So the powder was fouling the weapon badly and very quickly. Once they went to smokeless powder, the jamming problem went away. But the M16 was marked forever.

  • ||

    That, and the soldiers were told that they didn't have to clean the rifles, and the lack of a forward assist.

  • Virginian||

    "Smokeless" powder came into use decades before Nam. The story I've always heard was that they didn't issue cleaning kits or train soldiers in their use. Or that the barrels were supposed to be chromed and weren't. Or it was all a commie conspiracy to make us lose the war. Who knows?

    My favorite M16 story is that there was a rumor going around that the M16 was actually made by Mattel.

  • John||

    Smokeless powder had been around for decades but it was more expensive and the Army wouldn't buy it.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    well everythign i was going to say has been said so I move to an alternate tack...I don't hate the m16 but understand why it has a bad rep (as stated above). I much prefer the "shove mud in the breach","piss on it","kick it down the road", and "still watch the fucker kill shit" SKS. In soviet Russia, rifle fires you.

  • NeonCat||

    Ordnance changed the powder from ball to stick, IIRC, which left lots of residue when it burned. With the original powder it needed little cleaning, which somehow got transmogrified into it never needing cleaning, so no cleaning kits were issued, etc. The M16 uses gas diverted from the barrel to work the action, so the residue built up pretty quickly if you were firing a lot. Add to that that jungles are, you know, dirty, and you got a lot of dead G.I.s because of cost-saving short-sightedness. The problem was fixed through chrome plating the barrel/action, adding the forward assist and issuing cleaning kits.

  • John||

    What NEOCON Cat said. I knew it was something to do with the powder and the Army being cheap. I forget my military trivia these days.

  • ThomasD||

    Yes, the recoil system (direct gas impingement is the technical term) combined with a change in the type of smokeless powder used (they never used anything but smokeless powders) combined with a lack of cleaning and some feeding issues with early magazines led to various jamming problems.

  • db||

    The origonal powder( whichas the same as used in the 7.62x51) had too much calcium in it. The calcium deposited in the gas tube and piston area of the bolt/carrier assembly, choking the gas system and causing short stroking and other failures. When they changed the composition of the powder to reduce the calcium content, the deposit issues largely went away.

  • ||

    You have to be pretty good to hit the 300 meter targets.

    Do you mean offhand? Because prone or sitting, it's a fucking breeze to get a good score.

  • John||

    I mean prone. 300 meters is a long way. And you can get a good score without even hitting the 300 meter targets. Even people who shoot well don't always score perfect.

  • ||

    Well, I've shot at 300m many times at Camp Perry, and I've only ever had a problem with the offhand slowfire course. That shit is hard.

    That reminds me, I need to register for SAFS this year. Everyone who loves guns should go to Camp Perry at least once.

  • John||

    I should do that. That would be a fun few days away from the wife.

  • Virginian||

    It's on the list. Knob Creek, Camp Perry, Browning's workshop, Gunsite.

  • ||

    When I'm shooting there, and they call a cease fire because a bald eagle is soaring majestically overhead, I feel like I'm in the best country song ever.

  • db||

    I go to the Creek twice a year. Lots of fun. I have a friend who goes to Perry at least twice a month, and I need to get up there. The National Matches sound like a great time.

  • Partisan762||

    I'm an AK guy and I fully agree with this statement.
    :)

    But then,my 12 bore doesn't rattle mt teeth a bit.

  • Hyperion||

    I bet a 12 gauge would knock Obamey on his skinny arse.

  • Tman||

    That's the thing about this whole "buy a shotgun" advice. It's actually terrible advice. Novice gun users should absolutely NOT "buy a shotgun" for home protection unless they've been properly trained how to use one. Whereas an AR-15 is an extremely user-friendly weapon that novices could pick up and fire and not knock their teeth out.

    One can argue handguns vs. "assault" rifles and what's best for the novice, but jesus stop telling people who've never fired a gun in their life to "buy a shotgun". This is just idiotic.

    Of course it's Feinstein and Biden, so there you go.

  • John||

    You don't have to buy a 12 gauge. A smaller shotgun is not going to knock your teeth out.

  • Tman||

    Tell that to Joe and Diane. There the ones telling everyone to get a 12 gauge.

  • Virginian||

    I don't know about a 20 gauge for home defense. Might lack the penetration you need.

    But yeah, an AR is the ideal home defense gun, if you have it properly set up.

  • John||

    I think rifles are better for home defense than people think. Yeah, they could be unwieldy but in most cases you are not going to stalking through your house looking to confront someone. So chances are you really are not going to be doing anything that the size of the weapon is going to be an issue.

    I keep a 8mm rifle for home defense. God help the person I ever have to shoot with it, although I would love to see the shocked look on their face if they are wearing a kevlar vest thinking they would only be confronting someone with a handgun.

  • Tman||

    I went to the range with a lady friend recently who had never fired a gun before. We brought an AR, a Glock 40 and a 38. She could shoot ok with the handguns but was not what I would call "accurate". She was making quarter sized groupings with the AR.

    It's the height of irresponsibility to give people bad advice about gun ownership, and this whole "buy a shotgun" stuff is just fucking insane.

  • John||

    Tman,

    I have gotten in long arguments with gun people over the value of the .22. My view is that a .22 pistol with high velocity is a perfectly acceptable home defense weapon and a very good one for someone who is not used to firing guns or very slight in stature. I always here all of the crap about how it doesn't have any stopping power and such. And my view is that at close range in the torso or head, it has a lot more stopping power than you think and I just don't think there are many people out there who are big enough and bad enough to take two or three bullet wounds and keep coming. Better to have a smaller weapon you are comfortable with and can hit something with than some cannon you are afraid to fire and can't fire accurately when you do.

  • Zeb||

    Seems to me that the reason not to use a rifle for home defense is if you miss it could go through several walls. Not much of a problem where I live, but in higher density areas, that could be a concern. Though with HP frangible bullets, it's probably not much of a problem.
    The gun I keep ready is a small pistol. I figure that for the most part, if you even need to shoot at all, getting shot with anything is going to stop or scare off a burglar.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Welcome to the Box O' Truth!

    In short, anything that is powerful enough to put a man down will go through walls, but of all of the rounds a .223/5.56 is the best (least amount of penetration).

    Handguns go through all manner of shit, as do shotguns (though handguns penetrate further unless you use a slug).

  • ThomasD||

    Carbines are very useful for home defense, especially in a suburban or rural setting.

    But over penetration, and ricochet are very real concerns if you are using an intermediate or full rifle caliber round. About the only construction material present in a typical house that will stop that kind of round is the cinder block. Drywall, interior or exterior paneling, and even a 2x4 are easily defeated.

    Yes, you can buy frangible ammo, but it is rather expensive.

    The other option is a carbine in pistol caliber - 9mm, .40 S&W, etc. Which are easily effective out to 50 yards, but less likely to pass through your house and into the neighbor's (or into the neighbor.)

  • Generic Stranger||

    Velocities and pellet sizes for 20 and 12 gauges are the same; you just can't stuff as much lead into a 20 gauge. A 20 gauge with 00 buck would be absolutely suitable for home defense.

  • John||

    For the most part virtually any weapon makes for good home defense. Most people, criminals included, don't want to get shot by anything and don't want to get into a gun fight. Once the owner of a home breaks out a weapon be a .22 pistol or a 12 gauge shotgun, 99% of the time the people there up to no good decide leaving is the better option.

  • ||

    I keep a 8mm rifle for home defense.

    "Aussteigen meinem Rasen!"

  • John||

    It is in keeping with my Teutonic Nature Warty. Defending my home with a Mauser just seems right.

  • db||

    An ideal home defense gun is a short barreled AR. With a 10-12" barrel, that gun is very maneuverable.

  • ||

    Home defense? My wife and I have his-and-her "The Judge." No need to aim, just maim.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    False.

    The 410 shot shells for that gun are about useless against a man at anything beyond 5 feet.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    20 gauge makes an outstanding home defense weapon. A load of #2 buck from a 20 gauge is the equivalent of 3 (yes 3) simultaneous rounds from a 44 mag.

    You are right about bird shot. Terrible penetration, but a 20 with #2 will do the job very well.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    Make that 2 rounds of 44 mag. At any rate, it's a whopper. I don't think anyone loads 00 buck in 20 gauge because it won't stack properly in the shell. End up with mostly empty space.

  • ThomasD||

    At outdoor ranges (20+ yards) birdshot is going to show limited penetration, and the smaller the shot the more true this becomes. Something like a #2 goose load is still going to give several inches, and with good placement can still be incapacitating or lethal. A #7 1/2 quail load? Probably not.

    But inside the house difference in shot size becomes much less relevant. At feet-from-the-muzzle distances the shot column exhibits almost no spread, so your adversary is being struck by 3/4 to 1 oz of lead in a rather tight bunch. Most any decent torso hit, whether it's #2 or #8 will create a substantial wound cavity and be reliably effective.

    Don't believe me? Try it out on some watermelons this summer.

  • LarryA||

    I routinely do Women on Target classes. When properly instructed on stance and grip every healthy woman we've ever had could capably fire a stadard* 12 gauge using skeet loads with no problems. It's the training that makes the difference.

    * Pistol grip shotguns and very lightweight models excepted, and we don't use supermgnumbangalot loads.

  • Deep Lurker||

    They're lying through their teeth. They want to take away shotguns, too. In fact they've already taken away the sorts of shotguns that were designed and sold for and are most useful for self-defense.

  • ||

    The only thing better than the yummy, sweet tears of the BAN BONER crowd is their inchoate rage at how this could happen when nine out of ten people feel exactly the way they do.

    Look at the two choices: they're either dumb enough to have believed a completely fabricated statistic, or they pushed it mendaciously and utterly failed. Rage on, scumfucks. Rage on. I. Fucking. Love. It.

  • Legate Damar||

    Any chance I could get you to sing "I. Fucking. Crashed. My. Car. Into. A. Fucking. Bridge" in a Swedish accent?

  • ||

    How much you willing to pay?

  • Tim||

    Heck, for $20 he'll introduce you to "Dr. Zaius"...

  • Tim||

    It worked for Obamacare.

  • Irish||

    Personally, when I'm worried about the statist direction this country is heading, I take solace in the fact that progressive liberals will be miserable no matter what.

    Let's say they get everything they want. Everything. There won't be enough money to make poor people not be poor. So the progressive goal is doomed to failure, no matter what.

    If they ban guns, the murder rate won't drop at all. Virtually everyone in the Philippines has a gun, most of them procured illegally. Why? Because in the Philippines, there are 15 year olds making handguns in backyard gunsmiths. The same would happen in America if there were a total gun ban. The instant such a gun ban is implemented, every person in this country who is currently making meth will run out to home depot and get everything they need to make handguns. They will start churning cheap handguns out by the bushel and will sell them for $3000 a pop to gang members.

    The progs will therefore always fail at their goals because their goals cannot be realized. It makes me happy to know that even if they get everything they want, they will still spend every day miserably crying at the injustice of the world.

  • ||

    Yeah, and they will pull us down with them. It would be nice if them failing were comforting, but for me it's not.

  • John||

    They are always going to be angry and miserable about something because the world is never going to be the Utopia they think it should be. And they are always going to be blaming everyone else for their anger and misery.

  • Paul.||

    As the esteemed RC sez, "I seem to be getting the government other people deserve".

  • Zeb||

    Where is he anyway?

  • NeonCat||

    "Gun Ban stimulates economy, encourages development of marketable skills"

  • Hyperion||

    It makes me happy to know that if, I should say when, they get everything they want, that the country will collapse into a 3rd world craphole, and they will get to suffer right along with the rest of us, and it will be 100% on their hands.

    Would I stop it if I could. Hell yes, but I can't, and neither can anyone else. Collapse and start over is the only way out now.

  • Irish||

    Personally, I might just move to Chile, New Zealand or Canada.

    It would be tough to leave, but our country is so clearly fucked that the only hope might be jumping ship.

  • Hyperion||

    Looks like socialist Brazil for me.

    Chili might be a really good idea, Irish. NZ or CN? No way for me.

  • Paul.||

    Personally, when I'm worried about the statist direction this country is heading

    Heading? Heading?!!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    "9 out of 10." That bullshit poll by that bullshit pollster Frank Luntz, bought and paid for by Nanny Bloomberg, both of whom were too chickenshit to release the data or methodology.

    And our helpful, thorough state media never questions these "statistics." Not once.

    Fuck'em all.

  • LarryA||

    One of my undergrad statistics profs was fond of saying, "Don't quote numbers that make children giggle."

  • John||

    I had the pleasure of responding to one of my especially liberal friends on Facebook by posting the following in response to a rant on gun control

    You lost the vote, deal with it. Just conservatives have to deal with Obama being President for four more years, you need to learn to deal with the fact we are not getting any federal gun control in this Congress. It is how politics works.

    Much hilarity and rage ensued.

  • ||

    "elections have consequences"

  • tarran||

    In response to a rightwing acquaintance's posting about ending immigration because of the bombing, I replied that banning immigration would be about as effective at solving the blocking - a - nutjob - whose - first - crime - is - a - horrific - massacre problem as the gun control legislation whose demise he had been crowing about last week.

    Mild hilarity ensued as both the proggies and the conservotards united to attack their common enemy (me).

  • John||

    It is still funny to see emotional blackmail used against liberals for once. They have built their political lives around the idea that this or that anecdote means we must do something.

  • tarran||

    I don't think it's funny.

    I am tired. I think the moment that really hit home was that business when Mayor "Mumbles" Menino went all McCarthy on Chick-Fil-A and all these people I went to high school with were all a-flutter with approval.

    I couldn't believe that these people were being so stupid that they didn't see where this was going. I knew *rationally* that people were this stupid, but I hadn't known really known it in my gut.

    I am optimistic about the future, because freedom is the smart way to go, but the stupid people are legion.

  • John||

    They only way they will ever stop is for the tactics they use to be used on them. Liberals have been getting a free ride for decades. No one on the right will ever fight dirty or do to them what they do to everyone else.

  • ||

    I knew *rationally* that people were this stupid, but I hadn't known really known it in my gut.

    It's pretty rough how often this seems to happen to me.

  • juris imprudent||

    Every fresh round of it makes me want to go live on an island in the Alaska panhandle. I hate hating so many people - even if they fucking deserve it.

  • ||

    There's no way I would join up with those guys to attack you, tarran, no matter how much we all hate you. No, I'll attack you in my own way.

    (slaps tarran)

  • ||

    (slaps tarran)

    Save it for the lady libertarians Epi, there's a market for that.

  • ||

    GET AHOLD OF YOURSELF, TARRAN!!

    (slaps tarran)

    Oh, sorry. Thought we were lining up like they did in Airplane, are we not?

  • Muzzle of Bees||

    I'll bring the wrench.

  • tarran||

    I didn't even feel the breeze.

  • Hyperion||

    Why didn't you just say, 'We won, you lost! Now sit in the backseat and shutup!'.

    Really, liberals can't understand anything deeper than that level of communication, so you were just wasting your time with all the trying to explain how things work.

  • Hyperion||

    I really want them to take it up again, and have it fail again, just so I get the pleasure of watching Obama cry like a little girl on national TV, again.

  • Mainer2||

    "Nor are they about to change their views when the polls shift."

    Stop right there.

  • LarryA||

    The polls they buy never shift.

  • Nazdrakke||

    Still Waiting for That Pro-Gun-Control Groundswell

    I'm sure it'll be alone right after the massive anti-muslim backlash.

  • Nazdrakke||

    *along

    EDIT BUTTON!

  • ||

    Lone wolf groundswell?

  • ||

    1) Hoplophobic assholes coalesce to exploit mass-murder.

    2) When their prohibitionistic horseshit fails completely, aforementioned assholes bitch and moan like hormonal thirteen-year-olds.

    3) Not a single fuck is given by anybody with any moral integrity.

    Try harder, President Teleprompter.

  • ||

    The next time someone brings up Newtown ask them if we should defer to the judgment of any of the Boston bombing victims and their families if they decide that torturing the bomber and denying him due process is warranted.

    You know, because being the victim of a crime completely exonerates you from having to be reasonable in your demands.

  • John||

    That is a great point. If a victim of the Boston bombing wants every Muslim to register with the federal government and undergo a full background check, do they have special standing to advocate such?

  • WLC||

    Mr. President,

    Fuck you, that's why.

  • I Dug It||

    I feel outrage. But prolly not the kind El Presidente is looking for.

  • Tim||

    Think of all the safe people in Boston, trapped in their homes while outside the police shot it out with terrorists and , each other. Who needs a gun?

  • WomSom||

    OK wow these guys know what time it is. Wow.

    www.GotzPrivacy.tk

  • Enough About Palin||

    Does anybody really know what time it is?

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I think anon bot took a sabbatical and came back a Buddhist monk.

  • Chaucer||

    Does anybody really care?

  • sarcasmic||

    If only there were more gun laws, then the marathon bombers would not have had a gun.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    They would have had 1% fewer victims!

  • Pro Libertate||

    If I were Giffords, I'd want to be surrounded by armed guards, and I'd likely want the extended family of the guy who shot me kept five hundred miles away. Completely understandable.

    But that's my reaction to being a victim of a pointless and evil crime. Not policy.

  • Tim||

    People who "favor" gun control generally aren't one issue voters, absent a more compelling issue they can't be depended on to show up and even vote.
    Gun owners on the other hand, vote and will vote to punish anyone who crosses them. That's why politicians should fear them.

  • John||

    That is exactly it. Gun controlers are not single issue voters. And worse still, they are not swing voters. They are all going to vote Democrat anyway. So voting for gun control doesn't get a Congressman a single vote he wouldn't have had anyway.

  • LarryA||

    I keep arguing against this.

    To the MSM it's "Are the senators afraid o the NRA or the pro-gun voters."

    It could just be that pro-gun voters in pro-gun states (which are the majority, BTW) elect pro-gun senators. Since the pro-gun senators actually listen to their pro-gun constituents they actually know things like, "Connecticut had an "assault weapon" ban and universal background check, and they didn't protect the kids at Sandy Hook."

    So the pro-gun senators voted against the stupid laws that weren't going to work.

  • Killazontherun||

    GE Capital announced today they will no longer finance gun makers. Hard to think of a more statist agenda driven company than GE.

  • ||

    The interesting thing about this whole mess is it's both exposing who has the hardest BAN BONERS and it's exposing them loud and clear. I have a feeling a lot of the BAN BONER crowd is going to be surprised at what happens when people all around them find out how very badly they want to curtail their liberties.

  • John||

    You think they are raging now. Wait until they lose the Senate and make no progress in the House in 2014 and gun control is one of the biggest reasons why. They are going to have some kind of collective meltdown.

  • ||

    Well considering they think 90% of people agree with them, I think they are going to be quite surprised. And it will continue to be awesome.

  • ||

    90% of people agree that you're the worst and you should just shut up. I have the poll right here.

  • ||

    Why are you stating the obvious? It's not like she's going to listen to you, you didn't take ownership of her when you could. You had all your excuses about "oh, yeah, I want to be free to rape anyone I want". Well, this is what happens.

  • ||

    ABOLITION NEVER
    NICOLE SLAVERY FOREVER

    VOTE WARTY 2016

  • Lord Humungus||

    Is there a newsletter for this political movement?

  • ||

    Yes, but you'd go insane after reading it.

  • ||

    For some reason I am going to assume that SugarFree will not fight to protect me.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Warty would just win the fight by hitting him with a Snickers.

  • ||

    My Snickers Mini-gun is specifically intended to deal with the diabetic threat.

  • ||

    And doubles as a convenient way to feed me...

    This is not sounding so bad.

  • ||

    Warty, I'm confused. Are you claiming ownership of nicole, or just advocating for nicole slavery in the abstract?

  • ||

    Yes.

  • SugarFree||

    I will fight for you, but I fight dirty. Like time-travelling back to your childhood and molesting you dirty.

    I made Warty what he is today... grope by grope, fingerbang by fingerbang. As soon as he swing at me, I'll make him smell the glove. Total mental breakdown.

  • ||

    Okay. But can you also give my child self a pony?

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Wart / STEVE SMITH 2016!!!

    Anonbot lost my support after the 2012 incident, and Lucy is gooooone....(still my favorite though)

  • Hyperion||

    90% of people agree that you're the worst and you should just shut up. I have the poll right here

    Whey, there won't be any surprise at all, everyone will know the reason, Rethuglicans!

    I mean, who do you think has caused all of this sequestration chaos with those massive and draconian budget cuts?

    The Rethuglicans will not be happy until childins are dying in the streets.

  • wingnutx||

    Because Kochtopus!

  • ||

    Well that's really it, isn't it. I've nuked some Facebook accounts from my friend list over this stuff and have nearly torn into a few people over it, and I'm not going to forget who exactly it was that so very badly wanted to curtail my rights. I will remember.

  • John||

    And you are surprised by this Episiarch? You didn't believe that bullshit they put out in the 00s about giving up on gun control did you? I never believed them for a moment. I always knew they would come back to gun control. They always will no matter what they say.

  • ||

    No. But what has surprised me, and I know it shouldn't have, is the disgusting child-body-climbing bloody-shirt-waving depths they have sunk. It shows how utterly desperately they want to control others, and that they really thought they could do it this time, and so exposed how incredibly vile they truly are.

    And now I know.

  • ||

    Yep. The only problem for me is that I actually will remember that at least 90% of people I know (aside from here) were those people.

  • John||

    They missed the memo that you are only supposed to repeat the spin and the lies like they are true. You are not supposed to actually believe them.

  • Killazontherun||

    Obama names Biden, a man who nurtured the drug war into existence, as his VP pick, and the dumbasses still think he is on their side just because he smoked pot and snorted cocaine in high school and college. He did so with very little legal risk to himself at the most elite schools in the nation. He comes at it from a perspective of 'okay for me, but not you, little person.' He is your enemy, you chumps. Almost everything you despise is inprinted on his snubby little face.

  • db||

    One of their buddies in the Obama admin must have warned them that there's a push to make financiers of gun manufacturers liable for damage caused using firearms?

  • SweatingGin||

    Probably just someone looking to get a nice advisor no-show job in the administration. Maybe a seat on the next presidential jobs council.

    Suppose I should close out my account with them early. It's no interest, so it's not like it really matters...

  • db||

    Yeah, I'm closing my account too. No balance and I don't need it anyway.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    No, this is something more along the lines of sponsers dumping Limbaugh when he stokes a particular bit of leftist outrage--it's something the board has probably wanted to do for a while, they just needed a plausible excuse to do so. The fact that GE is completely in bed with the Obama administration is more incidental.

  • Killazontherun||

    It's a money loosing position to take, therefore ideological

  • sarcasmic||

    The same GE that makes the Vulcan cannon?

  • NeonCat||

    "We bring great things to death."

  • Pro Libertate||

    I believe GE also has a hand in nukes and the electric chair.

    I own a decent chunk of GE stock (decent for me, not GE, of course). It's my hedge against freedom.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    That's a pretty smart hedge.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's the best investment you can make in absolute statism and still make money.

  • Libertymike||

    OT:

    Pleading guilty to an obstruction of justice charge does not mean that Ray Lewis said that he covered up a murder.

  • Libertymike||

    My post was directed at AD, not you PL unless you, too, think that.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Yeah, keep reminding everyone of the thread where you claimed contracts and free association is socialist.

  • Libertymike||

    No, using government to enforce collectively bargained contracts with crony capitalists is not fit for free peoples.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Yeah, people aren't free to agree to contracts together.

  • Libertymike||

    Collective bargaining is for collectivists.

    Do you think every single NFL player approved of the CBA?

    Oh, I see, you like majority rules!

    At any rate, you elide: do you have a linky on Ray Lewis admitting that he covered up a murder?

    Not saying this applies to you personally AD, but there is a strident streak of Ray Lewis hate out there, particularly in the New England area.

    Honest to allah, I just don't get it. Don't you have respect for a guy who not only accepts the apologies of a father who abandoned him, but also makes the father a part of his life the way Ray has?

  • db||

    That's funny. I know a guy who used to work for GE capital who owns several machineguns. I bet he bought them with his GE salary.

    Also, the term "GE Minigun" seems oddly familiar.

    Yes, yes, I know, GE != GE Capital...

  • Killazontherun||

    Yeah, I'm pretty much commenting on the origin point. Rothbard wrote about the company being instramental in both the disasterous Hoover policies, and those of the New Deal ( arguing that the latter was an extension of the former). They truly are gruesome.

  • Hyperion||

    I already won't buy any of their shitty products. They would need to depend on cronyism for all their profits, if it were up to me.

  • Loki||

    *Checks 401k, makes sure no money invested with GE Capital*

  • Adam330||

    " I shudder to think what would happen if we put the Bill or Rights to a vote..."

    This would actually be an interesting Reason/Rupe poll. Put a number of constitutional rights, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, into the form of questions and see what percentages you get supporting/opposing them as the law.

  • ||

    You'll have to pry my Third Amendment rights from my cold, dead hands!

  • Libertymike||

    Says the Watertown resident!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You know who else was involved with guns and groundswells?

  • ||

    Samuel Colt?

  • Almanian!||

    Annie Oakley? "Buffalo" Bill Cody?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Jed Clampett?

  • Lord Humungus||

    +1 muted snort

  • Almanian!||

    But all my libtard friends are positively frothing at the mouth that 90% of the population supports more "common sense" gun control (they don't know anyone - except me - who opposes it, doncha know).

    Kind of like Karl Rove KNEW Romniac was going to win because "yard sign poll!!!"

    Fuck Gabby Giffords, fuck those "Newtown families" who participated in the halls-of-Congress troll and Ombama radio message, and fuck everyone else who wants my guns. I. Didn't. Kill. Those. Kids. Sorry it happened - but it doesn't translate to preventing me from picking up 4 more 17 round mags for my Glock.

    Fuck. You.

  • ||

    When you say "common sense," of course you're going to get 90% support because everyone has their own idea on it. 10% of people must be a bunch of self-loathing Eeyore's who don't think they can do anything right.

    Of course, once you morph "common sense" into a bonified policy you shouldn't expect the same level of support.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I got to hear to a foot-stamping diatribe from a pompous, annoying, local windbag about how Max Baucus has betrayed the sacred trust placed in him the by the people of Montana, last night.

    Those poor, outraged Progressives; they know so very much more than we, yet we refuse to recognize that obvious truth. It grieves them.

  • Loki||

    I got to hear to a foot-stamping diatribe...

    I'm hoping there was actual, literal foot stomping involved. Most of these assholes have the mental acuity of a toddler, so it would appropriate if they acted like toddlers too.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Yeah. Montanans want to have to drive hours to the nearest background check facility in order to transfer their deer rifle over to their neighbor. It pains them to not have to jump through bureaucratic hoops in order to do the things they've always done sans government interference.

  • juris imprudent||

    It grieves them.

    Ah, now that brightened my day.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Pew also found, in addition to a predictable partisan divide, that opposition to the bill was especially strong among those who said they were following the issue "very closely," 31 percent of whom said they were very happy the bill failed, compared to 22 percent who were angry.

    This morning, on Morning Joke, I was assured that there was 95% support for the Manchin amendment, but an incredibly vocal gun crazy 5% hijacked the Will of the People.

  • Paul.||

    I am the 5%.

    *pumps fist in the air!*

  • Paul.||

    Bill Clinton was spot on when he said that the Democrats' constant harping on gun control hurt them. You ignore Bill Clinton's statements about political demographics at your peril.

    Say what you want about Clinton, he's widely considered to be a near genius when it comes to political demographics and voting patterns.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Clinton is, and remains, a Southern Democrat. He understands just how far he can push Big Government before his constituents would turn against him.

    Barry travels in those peculiar Yankee/Progressive circles as the insulated idiots who push for gun-free zones and then stand back in genuine, slack-jawed surprise when the gun-free zones turn into free-fire zones.

  • Paul.||

    slack-jawed surprise when the gun-free zones turn into free-fire zones.

    No surprise, not even self-awareness. Just the desire to make them gun-free-er. Because when you pass a law...

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Legislation is written in magical, reality-altering ink.

    This is known.

  • An0nB0t||

    Clinton and Reagan remain the definitive political geniuses of the past couple of generations. Some people have an intuition for what's needed to succeed in that arena, and some don't.

    After his extraordinary speech at the DMC last year, Slick Willie cemented his place as the Democrat's Willie Mays. We can despise everything he stands for and every half-truth he told in said speech, but his political genius is unquestionable.

    In comparison, Obama is Andruw Jones: an amazing start with excellent defense, a generally successful, if strategically flawed, middle that results in significant payout, and an utter and complete political disaster due solely to personal idiocy on the back end.

  • LarryA||

    Barry travels in those peculiar Yankee/Progressive circles

    Pilosophically President Obama has never left Chicago.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: John,

    Yes they did. The reason was if I am not mistaken was the Army was cheap and wasn't using smokeless powder. The M16 is designed for smokeless powder.


    You're mistaken. Smokeless powder had been invented and introduced as a cartridge propelant around the late 1880's, the first military rifle using smokeless powder cartridges being the French MAS1886 Lebel 8mm, turning practically every other military rifle obsolete overnight. Almost every other military of impotance started to upgrade their own rifles to use new smokeless powder cartridges, leading to some of the most well-known and beloved rifles in history, like the German Mauser 98 and the British SMLE.

    What happened with the M16 was that the propelant used for testing was so-called "stick" powder which burned much cleanly than the normal (and less expensive) ball powder. The U.S. Army brass thought that the weapon was, somehow, impervious to fouling and decided to supply the new rifle without cleaning kits but still supplied cartridges that used the dirtier ball powder, with the consequences that became well-known. There were other problems reported with the weapon that prompted numerous changes and improvements, but the first weapons were crap.

  • wingnutx||

    This.

  • Partisan762||

    Wait just a second here.

    That 90% support background checks number was from a CBS poll?

    That explains everything,the only people that pay any attention to CBS are not likely inclined to be anything but those who think obama is the Second Coming.

    Here I was thinking that number had some relevance to reality.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement