Gun Control

InTheTrees

Black Swan wrote: »

Although there may be some changes (flipping back and forth) at the state level, I seriously doubt that gun control legislation will occur in the US Congress for the next 2 years, given that the GOP will maintain control of the House, and probably gain a simple majority in the Senate 7 November (effective late January).

And even in the presidential campaign for 2016 I can see Gun Control being a big issue.

Even some new atrocity probably wouldnt shake the entrenched attitudes much.

Here in Washington State there's an item on the ballot for this novembers election that has to do with closing the gun show loophole so we can see how that goes for a gauge on public opinion.

Black Swan

InTheTrees wrote: »

And even in the presidential campaign for 2016 I can see Gun Control being a big issue.

The Democrats may advocate gun control, while the Republicans defend the right to bear arms.

InTheTrees wrote: »

Here in Washington State there's an item on the ballot for this novembers election that has to do with closing the gun show loophole so we can see how that goes for a gauge on public opinion.

Yes, at the state level there will be pro and anti gun legislation, depending upon the respective state political agendas and special interest groups.

eire4

Black Swan wrote: »

Although there may be some changes (flipping back and forth) at the state level, I seriously doubt that gun control legislation will occur in the US Congress for the next 2 years, given that the GOP will maintain control of the House, and probably gain a simple majority in the Senate 7 November (effective late January).

Sadly you are no doubt correct on this count. If the Republicans win the senate next week that will pretty much kill any meaningful legislation dead in the water between January and the 2016 general election as the president will have veto power and the 2 houses will say no to anything he wants.

Manic Moran

"Meaningful legislation"* wouldn't be likely between today and 2016 even if the Senate was retained by the democrats. There are a few pro-gun Democrats, and a good number more who won't take a position on the matter regardless of their personal opinions as they would like to get re-elected some day. And the house isn't likely to change anyway. Not much has changed since the attempt nearly two years ago in terms of make-up.

Generally, the people who approve of gun control aren't about to change their vote depending on how the politician stands on the issue, it's just not that high on their radar, it's more of a 'nice to have'. The people who object to gun control, however, -do- tend to vote on the issue as they consider it fairly important. After all, it usually affects them as they have/want the guns being controlled!

*One also has to beg the question of how "Meaningful legislation" is defined, as I suspect it implies meaningful restrictions in excess of the curreny.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Generally, the people who approve of gun control aren't about to change their vote depending on how the politician stands on the issue, it's just not that high on their radar, it's more of a 'nice to have'. The people who object to gun control, however, -do- tend to vote on the issue as they consider it fairly important. After all, it usually affects them as they have/want the guns being controlled!

Gun control appears to be mostly driven by highly visible incidents that receive national news media attention (e.g., school shootings, etc.). Then both sides of the issue get active for awhile, only to forget after media attention saturates their audiences and moves to something different.

Manic Moran

Two races to look at today on this matter are the Colorado Gubernatorial and Washington State propositions. Colorado is where the incumbent's pushing for and signing of significant restrictions is front and center of the discussion, the immediate effect in this firearm-friendly State (which is also, of course, home to Colombine and Aurora) was the recall of the Senate President, another Senator, and the resignation of a third. Voters were not happy.

Washington State has two competing propositions on the ballot. One to increase background checks, one to limit them.

eire4

Manic Moran wrote: »

Two races to look at today on this matter are the Colorado Gubernatorial and Washington State propositions. Colorado is where the incumbent's pushing for and signing of significant restrictions is front and center of the discussion, the immediate effect in this firearm-friendly State (which is also, of course, home to Colombine and Aurora) was the recall of the Senate President, another Senator, and the resignation of a third. Voters were not happy.

Washington State has two competing propositions on the ballot. One to increase background checks, one to limit them.

With about 60% in favour Washington passed the background checks measure. The counter measure failed.




The initiative would require criminal background checks for those purchasing firearms at gun shows or over the Internet. Background checks are already required for those buying guns at federally licensed firearms dealers.

Manic Moran

On that note, the Colorado governor was re-elected

Black Swan

Just noticed that the NRA (National Rifle Association) has a "grades and endorsements" page along with their Political Victory Fund. Of course you have to be an NRA member to view, which discouraged me from going any further. I'm sure they will issue media releases as the 2016 general elections get closer, and in-so-far as presidential candidates endorsed, I would bet they will endorse Republicans and not Democrat Hilliary Clinton.

Manic Moran

Black Swan wrote: »

Just noticed that the NRA (National Rifle Association) has a "grades and endorsements" page along with their Political Victory Fund. Of course you have to be an NRA member to view, which discouraged me from going any further. I'm sure they will issue media releases as the 2016 general elections get closer, and in-so-far as presidential candidates endorsed, I would bet they will endorse Republicans and not Democrat Hilliary Clinton.

I doubt it's anything to do with the letter after the name, and more to do with past positions, votes and statements on the matter.

The NRA is not averse to supporting Ds over Rs in cases where the D is considered more favourable (or at least, as favourable) to the NRA's position. It is just a rare case that this happens. When it does happen, it comes as a shock to Republicans who think that the NRA is 'their' organisation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/06/AR2010100606329.html

Hillary Clinton is not known for being a friend to the NRA's causes. It is likely that whoever goes up against her is more likely to be aligned (or at least, less destructive) to the NRA's position, so an NRA Republican endorsement shouldn't be surprising.

Black Swan

Black Swan wrote: »

I would bet they will endorse Republicans and not Democrat Hilliary Clinton.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Hillary Clinton is not known for being a friend to the NRA's causes. It is likely that whoever goes up against her is more likely to be aligned (or at least, less destructive) to the NRA's position, so an NRA Republican endorsement shouldn't be surprising.

That's my 2016 presidential point. Whomever the Republicans nominate for 2016 president the NRA will endorse (against Democrat Hilliary Clinton). If necessary, the Republican nominee with do a "King Fish" flip of position to look favourable to the NRA.

Manic Moran

He won't need to. There are very few Republicans, and, frankly, not too many Democrats less favorable to firearms than Clinton. Now, it would be far more interesting to see how the NRA would vote on a Schweitzer vs Christie ticket, for example.

davwain

Brian? wrote: »

Go on.

I'm not anti gun by the way. I'm pro gun control.

I'm also pro-gun control.