Support For New Gun Control Laws Plummets, Especially Among Women

I'm given to understand that a considerable amount of "foreign" (meaning out of state) money has been funneled into the campaign to get 594 passed in WA. $3 million I have heard, and the reported source is the Bloomberg type folks.

"can't say its true, and I won't say it's not, but there's been talk..."
 
I think that's total horsecrap... Out of state/district/city/etc. funding for politics should be illegal. It's a blatent run around of the people represented there. For someone or some company etc to give $ to get a person elected in an area that has no political impact on the donor is just plain wrong on sooooo many levels... An if you ask me goes against the very grain of democracy to let the people choose who they want...
 
Isn't the shooter's dad a Tribal cop and reserve county cop? Thanks to Cuomo he would be exempt from much of NY gun laws.

As far as women, if you look at Pew Research on the whopping numbers of Americans who think gun murder is either up or constant, when in fact it has plummeted, the demographics are even more interesting. Most American women believe gun murder is up.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
That has been the reason why Bloomberg used womens' groups AstroTurf.

Yes support for gun control has fallen, less than 1/3 of Americans support additional laws. But the gender imbalance is profound.

Given the striking gender imbalance in misperceptions on the central and core trend, I do think the gender imbalance in that perception is causal to the gender imbalance in gun control support.
 
Out of state/district/city/etc. funding for politics should be illegal.
Click to expand...

It is, and it isn't. Generally, "foreign" money cannot legally go directly to a candidate. It can, however, legally go to the local party, and they can give it to the candidate (specifics vary), and the money can go to anyone supporting any issue, that does not involve a specific candidate. (as far as I know, no law against it).

I agree its not ethical, it does try to get around the will of the local electorate. But there's no law stopping it, that I know of.

The TV commercials for 594 are hitting HARD on closing the "loophole" that allows "convicted domestic abusers" to buy guns. Hitting hard on how 594 will protect women. One commercial even names a specific murder, and how her ex, a convicted domestic abuser used the Internet to get a gun, "no questions asked".

It sickens me...
 
they just voted to empower those who wish them harm.
Click to expand...

But, but, the commercial said this would keep guns from the hands of domestic abusers!!!!

The Commercial said we would be safer! That less women would die!

Why is false advertising a crime when its about something you buy, but ok when its about something you VOTE FOR?????????
 
44 AMP said:
Why is false advertising a crime when its about something you buy, but ok when its about something you VOTE FOR?????????
Click to expand...

Because then politicians would actually be held accountable???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top