Gun Control Supporters Launch Frenzied Campaign

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...tivists-launch-frenzied-effort-to-revive-bill

A detailed discussion of strategies being used by gun control supporters as well as a list of politicians they are trying to target. There were a couple of key quotes I thought were worth sharing:

“They (politicians) need to know they have defied the will of the people, and that their cold calculation that there is more intensity on the gun-nut side is wrong,” said Cliff Schecter, a liberal strategist who advocates for tougher gun laws.* "We are in the process of showing them that. And we intend to continue.”
Click to expand...

“Losing a vote on a 90-10 issue has only ****** people off,” Glaze said Thursday, referring to polls that put support for universal background checks around 90 percent. “They’ll go as long as they need to go.”
Click to expand...

They are betting that there are more gun control supporters who can match or exceed the intensity of those who support the Second Amendment. They are counting on gun owners to sit silent and do nothing.
 
“They (politicians) need to know they have defied the will of the people, and that their cold calculation that there is more intensity on the gun-nut side is wrong,”
Click to expand...
I mentioned this elsewhere, but it bears repeating.

One of the biggest mistakes the gun-control lobby made was buying into their own "90%" myth, which was based on a limited, flawed study. They repeated that myth so many times they believed it. They thought the wind was at their back. They were wrong.

However, that's not going to stop them from using the guilt and shame rhetoric. It's the new "if it saves one life" cliche.

Those politicians who sided with us will be getting pounded about how they supposedly bucked the will of the American people, and our best strategy is to thank them and remind them that they did the right thing.
 
They may (or may not) now recognize that the 90 percent statistic is a lie, but they continue to use it anyway. Just as Obama continues to spew the lie that violence in Mexico is caused by guns from the United States.

I must be getting old, but it seems to me that spouting outright, proven lies in public addresses should be grounds for impeachment. If "governing by falsehood" isn't a "high crime or misdemeanor," I don't know what is. It certainly should be a high crime.
 
I like that term frenzy. I do think 'gun control', which is a false concept to begin with, is based on a frenzy. A witch hunt, that goes after the broom, rather than the witch.
dc
 
The media and the anti-gun idiots (um, same thing) keep throwing out that ridiculous claim the polls show 90% of people want more gun control.

Just exactly when was the last time 90% of Americans agreed on ANYTHING????!!!

Keep contacting your Senators and thanking them for their NO vote. Or condemn them for voting YES, as the case may be.
 
When was the last time ANY political position garnered 90% support? If nothing else, that's a key reason to disbelieve it.

--Wag--
 
I just sent an email thanking Sen. Kelly Ayotte for standing up for civil rights against the Powerful Anti-gun lobby, from whom she is currently, you should pardon the expression, taking fire.

Per reports on more than one of the msm, She's the target of the gun-control lobby and they're giving her a hard time for voting against the UBC bill.

My letter was short and to the point that I appreciated her standing up for my civil rights against the gun-control lobby and, although I can't vote for her, I'll happily send her a contribution when she runs for re-election in '16.

I asked her to put me on her list as a potential (small though it might be) donor/supporter.

When the '14 election rolls around (and, later, '16) we can look at Bloomberg's list as well as the NRA's to see to whom to lend support.

(I posted the above on another venue and received this response from another member which I beleive he wouldn't mind me passing on):

"I have been thinking about this. Those of us with "safe" gun-friendly legislators should send not only a thank you letter but a small campaign donation to those who are under siege like Sen Ayotte. A number of $10.00 donations goes a long way, and also helps to counter the idea that its just "industry" who wanted the bill defeated. They might not want "out of state contributions" but money does talk in politics. It buys air time, and newspaper ads and mailers. Put a $10.00 check in with your thank you notes. Please."

Good idea, methinks. Perhaps someone who knows better than I how to do such things could start something like a 'fire-mission' to send msgs of support to those legislators being targeted by the gun-control lobby.

Best,

Will
 
Last edited:
Good idea, methinks. Perhaps someone who knows better than I how to do such things could start something like a 'fire-mission' to send msgs of support to those legislators being targeted by the gun-control lobby.
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea at all. I was challenging people back in January to take the money they'd spend on one "high capacity" magazine and put it to the NRA-ILA to help fight the battle. Contacting legislators is a great thing to do, but if you approve of their work, a few bucks to pad the war chest is a great way to back up your words with deeds. We don't have the billions of dollars that Bloomberg is happy to throw behind the effort, but a few dollars here and there can be even more effective than a million dollar astroturfed ad campaign.
 
Technosavant, you are a person after my own heart.

Ever since I was working with the NYSRPA back in NY and now here in CO., I try my best to remind folks that for the price of a magazine or box of ammo, they can help fund those entities standing up for their right to own such things.

I know times are tough but, nothing talks like money in politics.;)
 
Only the media and politicos are in a frenzy. The general liberal public is not all that worked up about gun control. It is a losing proposition for any politician in a conservative district. Vote for it and they will anger the conservatives, and the liberal base will yawn.

But, vote against gun control and they get enthusiastic gun owner support without much ripple in the liberal constituency.
 
Let's avoid drifting into liberal/conservative politics. There are strong 2A supporters who identify themselves as liberals, and there are self-professed conservatives who don't support it. We do ourselves a great disservice by tying the RKBA to one political pole or the other.
 
I guess I will post this again. This is the seventh or eighth time this topic has come up and seems to be near and dear to the hearts of many.

This is a nationwide poll of registered voters by Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/int...oll-during-manhunt-6-percent-voters-want-gun/

82% in favor of UBCs.

The Fox News Poll is conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). The poll was conducted by telephone with live interviewers April 20-22, 2013, among a random national sample of 1,009 registered voters (RV).
Click to expand...

There have been a number of other polls with remarkably consistent numbers (80%+). Denial is not just a river in Egypt. If you want me to post more I will. Just say when you have had enough.


I would be much more interested in seeing a reliable poll that disputes the numbers at that support level. Even 60% would be impressive.
 
^^^ AS,
I'd like to see a question along the lines of "Which is more important, enforcing the violations of existing background check laws, or enacting new background check laws?"

But that won't happen because it will skew the intended result of the survey.
 
"Which is more important, enforcing the violations of existing background check laws, or enacting new background check laws?"
Click to expand...


FWIW a lot of people who flunk background checks do so due to some error in the system. Some of then post their tale of woe with the ATF on a gun board and eventually the issue gets resolved. If the other side was serious about implementing UBC's they would have to offer ways to improve the system and reduce the defect rate to something better than lost air line luggage.

Due to the lack of data collection though it is really difficult to say whether those who flunked did so in an attempt to defeat the system, honest mistake or an error in the system.
 
Gun control nuts

If it saves just one life! Maybe vote for banning using cell phones while driving! This will save THOUSANDS OF LIVES! Maybe vote for banning all smoking! This will save Tens of thousands of lives! Maybe vote for banning all drinking! Maybe ban anything that is deemed "dangerous" This will save thousands of lives! See how this reasoning sounds reasonable and good then becomes just wrong! If we vote for everything that might save "just one life" we will not be a free society anymore. Taking away the freedom and rights of people that did nothing wrong is not how to save "just one life"! My vote is for better Healthcare. better crime control and better enforcement of the laws we have already on the books. I am sure this will save many more than "just one life"
 
I wouldn't be surprised to discover UBCs have supermajority support as an abstract idea. The problem is when the proposal is actual legislation instead of an abstract idea nobody likes it.

If you don't keep records, then a UBC that attempts to use the current system established by the 1968 GCA is meaningless. If you try to keep records, the potential for registration is extremely high and an obvious avenue of attack for future gun control. Additionally, while many people would support a UBC on SALES, a UBC for every TRANSFER is something else entirely.

Anyone who is beating on that 90% drum is either ignorant to a degree that is shocking or they understand that the poll doesn't support what they are actually proposing and are just trying to browbeat voters into sacrificing their rights with the time honored middle-school tactic of "all the cool kids are doing it... Don't you want to be cool?"

I've got zero respect for either category.
 
The problem is when the proposal is actual legislation instead of an abstract idea nobody likes it.
Click to expand...

That is because the actual legislation is often either really bad, oversteps and/or does not address the issue; but instead tries to jam unrelated or over the top things into it. If it were not for the NRA and a few others we would have already had many of these things pushed upon us.

In politics there is really no such thing as honest dealings. Any expectation of such is the height of naivete.
 
It's been known for a long time that most people support measures to keep the guns out of hands of criminals. That's what a generic question measures.

It also should be asked with a follow-up. Do law abiding citizens have the right to own firearms?

That gets equally high marks in the past.

Generic questions just test emotional responses.
 
I think the issue with the poll results is that many people don't know what transfers currently require background checks and, when asked a simple questions about background checks without being provided any amplifying information are answering without enough information to give an accurate answer.

I have found that nearly every person I have talked to believes that it is legal to purchase a gun from a dealer at a gunshow without a background check. A person with that belief will almost certainly say they're in favor of expanding background checks without realizing that what they want is already existing law. As a result, I've found that nearly everyone who initially says that universal background checks are a good thing change their mind once they have the real facts.

Before I would be willing to put any significant confidence in these poll results, I would want to know exactly what question was asked, what the person's knowledge of current firearm transfer law is and what information was provided to the person being questioned. There is a huge amount of misinformation and ignorance on this topic.
 
It is perfectly legal to purchase a gun from a gun dealer at a gunshow withou a background check....IF the gun being purchased is not on his FFL book and is part of his personal collection.

Either I'm right on this or I witnessed 3 illegal transfers at my last gunshow and I was offered a Sun Devil ar-15 for $2100.00 and when I gave the dealer my drvers license he refused to take it and asked if I had cash.....or I had to pay a credit card fee. I was in a neighboring state at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top