Skip to comments.Here's Why the NRA Won and Gabby Giffords and Mike Bloomberg Lost
Posted on 04/21/2013 1:35:55 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
On NBC's Meet the Press last month, National Rifle Association honcho Wayne LaPierre, the face of the American gun lobby, delivered this message to New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg: "He's going to find out that this is a country of the people, by the people, and for the people, and he can't spend enough of his $27 billion to try to impose his will on the American public. He can't buy America." The day before, Bloomberg had announced that he would spend $12 million of his own money on an ad blitz pressing members of Congress to pass new legislation expanding background checks for gun purchases. LaPierre went on national television to tell the mayor that all those millions wouldn't make the difference in the fight in Congress over new gun laws.
Guess what? LaPierre was right.
The Manchin-Toomey background check legislation that died in the Senate on Wednesday had everything going for it. Bipartisan sponsorship by two centrist senators. The support of 90 percent of Americans. President Obama's full-throated backing. The momentum for reform created by tragedy and sympathetic advocates with gripping storiesex-Rep. Gabby Giffords, the Newtown families. All the pieces were there.
Yet it failed. The bill won a 54-vote majority but fell short of the Senate's 60-vote threshold to pass new laws, a high hurdle that progressives decry as undemocratic. But the main reason it failedand this is the key point for gun control advocatesis because the NRA has unrivaled political power, the kind of influence and muscle that Bloomberg, the Brady Campaign, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Organizing for Action, Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly, and the rest of the gun-control lobby can only dream of.....
(Excerpt) Read more at motherjones.com ...
“Bloomberg published a business newsletter.”
I doubt his newsletter subscribers were doing it to promote gun control - i.e., it was Bloomberg’s fortune.
Krauthammer—”intensity” of gun rights supporters.
I wonder how many people in Boston wished they had a gun against bad guys with bombs and grenades to lob at police.
LOL! Such a load of socialist propaganda BS.
Does anyone seriously believe if 90% of the people supported this that it would be an issue at all? It would have been law the same day it was introduced.
It failed because congress knew the price they would pay for an unConstitutional infringement of the 2nd amendment.
Also, because more and more Americans realizes, you can either have gun control or you can have a Constitution and all of it's protections, but not both.
Further infringement of the 2nd amendment translates simply as the end of our freedoms. Nothing will restrain the socialists once the population is disarmed.
Washington Post-ABC News Poll April 11-14, 2013: "Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?" Support: 86 percent. Oppose: 13 percent.
Even if this figure is close to accurate, it doesn't really matter if the intensity isn't there. As many have pointed out, people who support gun rights care very strongly about this issue 24/7/365 while the majority of those who support more gun laws don't care much about the issue at all and usually only immediately following a major tragedy. Gun rights supporters are a powerful block and they'll easily vote against any politician who threatens these rights even if they agree with them on everything else.
the left-leaning Daily Beast summed it up pretty well in a recent article, Why the President Lost on Gun Control
Someone needs to explain to these idiots, that if 90% of the public was for this legislation, the red state democrats wouldn’t be in fear of losing their power if they voted for it. It’s that simple, it’s not that the NRA has $$$, as long as they believe that, they will continue to bring it up and continue to lose.
The NRA was successful because it reflected the popular opinion in the country.
A LOT of Dems from swing states were running for cover.
Obama learned you could buy a POTUS election with entitlements but not gun control.
As for Bloomberg, if he’s so proud of his campaign, why doesn’t he show HIS name in all those commercials?
The New Republic article mentioned in Daily Beast.
We should not oversell the poll that said that gun control is the most important issue for only 4% of the people. What the poll found is true, but the poll does NOT say that only 4% care about gun control, only that MANY more issues are more important.
The Dem/libs have been engaging in a steady push to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms for decades. And this is how it has been working out for them in the last two decades...
And in the last two months... (Nov. 2012 and Dec. 2012)
MOLON LAVE! AMERICA LOVES THE 2ND AMENDMENT. ;-)
The danger is that they believe their own hype, and will move to do illegal things to get the guns.
“Their quotes are either just outright false, but repeated over and over until popularly legitimized”
I’m still schooling the occasional ignoramus that Sarah Palin did NOT (!!!!!) say she could see Russia from her house, and that was almost five friggin’ YEARS ago!! It’s an uphill battle...;)
I had wondered about that 90% stat. Seems it was 86% in a poll that over sampled Dems by 10% and under sampled gun owners by maybe 20%. Over half of the house holds polled had no firearm. Here in Texas I don’t know of a single house hold in my area that does not have firearms.
My guess is the poll sample was all NE states...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.