Following up on Laura's piece, the National Rifle Association isn't just sending creepy fundraising appeals; it's also alienating more and more of the American mainstream. A new survey from Public Policy Polling offers some bad news for the conservative group.
PPP found that the organization now has a negative favorability rating, which is a reversal from a poll conducted the week before Wayne LaPierre's bizarre press conference on the massacre in Newtown, Conn.
Maddow Blog chart based on PPP data
The NRA's agenda isn't exactly winning people over, either -- 41% of poll respondents support the effort to deploy armed guards to schools nationwide, while 50% oppose the idea. (Most Democrats and independents reject the proposal, while most Republicans endorse it.) The notion of arming school teachers is backed by only 27% of the public, and even most gun owners do not favor the idea.
As for Congress, the legislative branch's approval rating has dropped to new depths, reaching just 7%. But one party fares far worse than the other -- congressional Democrats have a 38% approval rating, while congressional Republicans' support stands at just 15%.
Leave a Comment:
The Crazification Factor strikes again.
Arming school teachers is not the answer, better care for our mentally ill would be a great start!
Starting with people who want to arm school teachers.
And we could start with Wayne LaPierre.....
Did he pull a Heston\Columbine gaff? I haven't seen the press conf. yet.
I think NRA members should post their addresses publicly. That will make it much easier for us to pry their guns from their cold dead hands.
And will you kill them with, kindness? People with guns always win against those without them. Read a history book.
Sorry, I don't advocate disarming, while these scum are around. The day is going to come when accounts are going to have to be settled.
@thatoneguy9: Maybe you should read some history books to learn about people winning against huge odds, without resorting to violence. Ever heard of a guy named Gandhi? I know... It's hard to spell...
Glad to see this. I hope this means that people who claimed they didn't support what the NRA stands for realized that by being members, they DO support the insanity and revoked their membership.
The poll was taken a week before the press conference... but was it before or after the shooting itself? The event may hyave also influenced the poll.
Wow, that means Republicans are less popular than Gonorrhea (28%), telemarketers (32%) and cockroaches (34%) according to the PPP poll from yesterday. Democrats on the other hand are more popular than all three.
Sounds about right to me.
As to the NRA popularity, I hope Piers Morgan keeps bringing these morons on his show, like the fatboy yesterday ranting about "another 1776" - let the public see these brainless whackjobs in action.
That guy was the best argument I've seen for keeping guns out of the hands of crazies. I mean would you want that bat$hit lunatic living next to you?
I didn't think so
That guy on Piers Morgan was pathological! Piers really does need to bring on more nuts like him, just for embarrassment sake.
Sportsmen need high capacilty magazine Bushmaster rifles??? For shooting what? Zombies? They've been watching too much Dawn of the Living Dead!
Perhaps would-be gun owners should be required to watch the first twenty minutes of "Saving Private Ryan."
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity. " Dwight D. Eisenhower.
The more unhinged would tell you that they need bushmasters and large-capacity magazines just in case of government overreach and tyranny, C. This is the slow and steady work of the today's NRA - what used to be a credible organization focused on gun safety is now chock full of nuts.
ZOMBIES??!! Dude, you almost made me wet my pants. That's golden.
But as Pedestrian pointed out, they want to have them to avoid tyranny. They need those ar-15s to fight off tanks, bombers, aircraft carriers, and nuclear bombs. All while unwittingly showing how little they trust the soldiers they normally venerate.
Sad. Just, sad.
We all know zombies can be easily killed without resorting to assault weapons. I have yet to see them used on The Walking Dead! Seriously, I'd like to know the last time a Bushmaster took down a Predator drone or M1A1 tank. If the government seriously wanted to take the militia losers down, they wouldn't waste their time on sending in the Marines. Napalm and bombs do the job more quickly, cheaply and thoroughly than taking on the weenies with assault weapons. What next...fighting for the right to keep fishing boats to fight off aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines in case the government gets too oppressive?
Huh. Those wimps on Dawn of the Living Dead might have needed a bushmaster, but my boy Bruce Campbell did just fine with his "boom stick" in Army of Darkness!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Williams
It would appear that the old adage "you only reap what you sew" really does work. ;-)
I am a gun owner and a year ago I harvested a deer for my family. I have a venison stew on the stove right now while the snow falls. I do not support the NRA nor does it speak for many of us. I personally, believe it endorses anything that will sell more guns for the gun manufacturers. We don't need semi automatic weapons of any kind in the public's hands and that includes teachers. I have a right to not be represented by the NRA and I would like the GOP leaders in the house to be aware that they also represent me as well as the entire country. Greg Walden is in Fossil this morning...but few of us had any advance warning of his "town hall meeting" so can't inform him personally that I wish he and other leaders would start articulating specific actions that they will take...not only on gun control but detailed spending cuts. So far they have treated us with disdain and spoke down to us like we are ignorant. Go back to Washington DC and actually accomplish something instead of just playing it safe so you get re elected year after year due to not "offending" any one....particularly those with deep pockets.
You "harvested" a deer? You shot it, right? I think that's what you meant to say. I think we are all adults here and can get our ideas across without using euphemisms.
When I "harvest" carrots, I don't have to use a projectile weapon, nor chase after a terrorized vegetable because I only wounded it.
Yep. You can't "harvest" something you didn't grow.
Although, I guess technically if I ever lost it, bought a gun and offed one of the adorable little doe-eyed giant locusts with hooves who fattened themselves on all my damn tomatoes and melons this summer, I might be able to accurately say I was "harvesting" it.
From the dictionary:
Definition of HARVEST
transitive verb
a : to gather in (a crop) : reap
b : to gather, catch, hunt, or kill (as salmon, oysters, or deer) for human use, sport, or population control
I think it is reasonable to use the word "harvest" in this sense. It is in common usage in my area (Rural VT), and important, in some way, to differentiate between mere sport (Despite the definition above) and putting food on the table.
I would encourage my fellow progressives to be less aggressive in parsing out this kind of thing. Hunters are, in my experience, our natural ally on environmental issues, and can be a valuable ally on this topic, gun control.
She shot it, she gutted it, she dismembered it, she put part of it into the freezer and some of it into a big pot. FOR EATING.
Crimony, are you people all vegans? She's just got the stones to kill what she eats herself; unlike you burger and mcnugget eating so-and-so's.
I freely admit that I don't want to be the one who kills the animal that ends up on my table... but I'm not so hypocritical as to think SOMEONE doesn't have to do it.
Oh, ordure, I feel the total fice now.
I'm betting she didn't need an assault weapon with a 100-round magazine to take the deer down either. Real hunters would be embarrassed and insulted if that's what it took to bag their prey. Frankly, I have even more respect for those who are able to be successful using a bow. Even so, no one is looking to take guns away from hunters. If you can't bag your deer with a regular rifle, I'm not sure you should even be out there in the first place...you poor marksmanship puts every other hunter at risk.
You needn't leap to the defense of the hunter, we were leaping to the defense of an innocuous verb.
I think we have a responsible, thoughtful gun owner here in EOF, and you guys making fun of the word she chooses is the reason why the right hates us Liberals so much.
Here in semi-rural PA there are many families who would not have any meat at all if it were not for 'thinning the herd' the first Monday after Thanksgiving. ( A school holiday, by the way!)
And the hills resound with the bang of the rifle and the occasional boom of the shotgun. What we do NOT hear is the rat-tat-tat of a semi automatic ManKillingDevice.
(By law, hunting guns are limited to three rounds in the magazine.)
Yeah, totally, kricka.
And here in Michigan the Big 3 gives everyone the day off for the start of deer hunting season. Seriously. It's in the UAW contracts.
I don't think that Oregon was incorrect in her use of "harvest"; it's just not a common usage among non-hunters. Kind of like people who aren't in the military tend to call it "the military", while people who are in the military say they are "in the service". Both are correct, but you don't generally see much overlap.
Also, I thought her substantive point was a good one. And I have much respect for someone who hunts responsibly and actually eats her kill. I couldn't do it. And that's even though I understand that thinning the herd actually helps keep deer from starving to death.
Yes, "Lightenen up Francis," as Bill Murray would say. I am also a hunter and I favor gun control. Harvest is a newer use in the lexicon of hunting, but we shouldn't denigrate what words people use to indicate they have provided for their families. Here in Maine, it's a simple "got mine". The biggest rack in town this year was harvested by a young hunter out with his family on "youth day", just prior to open season for adults! I hope the use of the word rack isn't confusing anyone. Hunters can be our allies in this fight against insanely murderous weapons of mass human destruction. They know the old saying, "one shot, one deer; two shots maybe one deer; three shots, no deer." They understand that the large clips are just meant to kill humans.
I say blame the French. Ouch Wayne LaPierre!
This chart only measures popularity before and after the LaPierre interview. I'd love to see a follow-up chart taking into account the Alex Jones interview.
The public is finally beginning to see that the NRA represents gun manufacturers, and not gun owners. I predict that, in the future, today's favorability rating will be looked at longingly as a high point by the NRA.
I own a handful of guns I've inherited from family members. I enjoy going to the range with friends with some paper targets and a few rounds. For me, shooting is a social activity and one I don't need an assault rifle for. A 70 year old bolt action is fine for that. Neither most of my friends or myself are supporters of the NRA. Not a chance in a million years!
the NRA represents gun manufacturers, and not gun owners.
Yep, the NRA is in it only for the money. If scare tactics like "Obama wants to take your guns away" motivates sales, so much the better for them. Their propaganda leads nowhere but the bank. The next questions are, what is the link between the NRA and the Republican Party? and, What is the link between the Republican Party and guns? Especially their assertion that the Second Amendment permits the violent overthrow of the federal government.
The link is money. They would buy Hinkley a bigger clip so he could have more than 6 if there was a buck in it for them.
The link is money, the link between Republicans and guns is money? Please think about this a little more. The Republican goal has nothing to do with money.
The 2008 Supreme Court ruling in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Precedent has been set, and the door is wide open for responsible gun laws.
Automatic weapons ("Machine Guns") have been prohibited by law since 1938. I have not heard a great hue and cry from the 2nd Amendment folks about the constitutionality of that law.
Thank you, Kane. I am amazed at how few people are aware of that decision. Yes, we can make law regulating both the sale (commercial market) of firearms, who can legally purchase them, and where the weapon can be carried.
No school teacher I know wants to carry a weapon. They all think it's a bad idea.
Meanwhile, many schools already have at least one police officer on duty during school hours. An increased police presence is no way to get kids to buy into the educational enterprise.
Issue vouchers and give parents a choice! You don't speak for the paents...they want a CHOICE...ASK ANY WOMAN ABOUT CHOICE? The public schools should be a smaller offering to those that want it and your Liberal ideologies. Set the rest of the captive audience free...
Parents aren't forced to send their kids to public schools. Vouchers aren't needed if a parent wants to send their children to private schools or home school their kids. No one forces you to put your kid in public school- that's a choice you personally make. You're confusing "captive" with "a decision I make given my particular circumstances and convenience."
Besides that what the hell do vouchers have to do with gun violence in schools? Private schools aren't exempt from gun violence.
Post #13.1 does not seem related to the topic, perhaps the poster was mistaken about the thread.
The poll was between Jan 3 and Jan 6- so after the bizarre press conference and way after the shootings.
The NRA does not speak for gun owners-it caters to gun sellers.
The T-bagsof shut down govrnment, default on debt, install military state run by theocrats, guns and ammo become the new currency.
Well I'll be dingled,, there is no such word as theocrat. I have a good feeling tho..
It's a lot easier to shout people down when opposing a complicated health care policy than it is opposing resonable gun laws.
Shouting down/lying is all they got.
The filibuster being a form of "shouting down"..?...
According to the graph, opinions about the NRA changed after the LaPierre press conference...
...not after the meaningless slaughter of 20 first graders.
I almost feel sorry for these people. By living in a constant state of fear, they've already lost their freedom.
LaPierre didn't say anything in the post-Sandy-hook press conference that he hasn't been saying for years. But because so many more people were paying attention, many realized that what he says is crazy. Is LaPierre himself crazy? If so, he is laughing maniacally all the way to the bank. He says what his backers want him to say, and what actually resonates with the gun-nut base and causes them to buy more guns. The backers are not interested in looking reasonable, they want to sell guns. Lots of people would do what LaPierre does for what he earns.
I suppose this can't be legislated, but every time I see pictures of violent criminals, as we are seeing the guy from Colorado now, I really want the pictures removed from view.
Anyway, I'm writing to Congress every week. In my opinion, if the NRA wants gun ownership to be legal, it's on them to fix the problems. Spend some capital on helping with solutions.
But we are taking away assault weapons, make no mistake. I want the guns made illegal, and buy-back programs that confiscate existing weapons. There is no reason for my neighbors to have assault-type weapons. Ban and confiscate!
Kid Guns
Everyone will admit it would look pretty much third-world to have a bunch of armed Swat type people in every school, shopping mall and McDonalds. And just way to expensive anyway. That is why we really should just arm the kids. But not with big 45s though, that would look plan stupid. But cute little guns. And we could dress them all up in cool little warrior outfits. Then they would all be safe from being shot by people they do not know.
it's about time
While listening to all the discussions of gun control or how we can't have it in the case of S.E. Cupp, I was trying to think of a compromise that could would. Since there is a definition issue as to what constitutes an assault weapon, high capacity magazine, rapid-fire, etc. I have come up with a simpler solution: if you commit a crime/violence using a weapon have house 15 or more round of ammunition at a time, that your conviction would require a life sentence (without the possibility of parole) in any state that doesn't have the death penalty or a death penalty conviction in those states that retain it on the books. With this option, we're not saying you can't own any specific type of firearm, just if you use it inappropriately it will have an absolute cause/effect.
Your source of your premise has been debunked long ago. PPP Public Ploicy Polling is one of those silly Liberal fronts to fool the public.http://www.redstate.com/wintermute/2012/09/10/public-policy-polling-ppp-should-be-ashamed-of-themselves/
Your source of your premise has been debunked long ago.
Prove it. Your link provides no evidence at all.
Your link doesn't provide evidence. It merely makes assertions about why the author feels the questions were bad and then the author fails to explain why his belief is as such. For instance he states that "number 14 was to give cover for the massive egg he laid at the convention speech" referring to President Obama. The author doesn't explain why this is so, doesn't explain what the "massive egg" is or how that relates to the situation, or why the question is unfair. It then asks about who gets more credit for killing Osama Bin Laden. The author postulates that the juxtaposition of question 14 is giving bias to question 15. But the author doesn't explain how this is so or provide a logical or evidence based argument as to how he is making that conclusion. He then makes the accusation that it's push polling to remind people that Obama killed Osama Bin Laden. He does not provide the context that Romney openly stated in several public appearances that he was partially responsible for the killing of Osama Bin Laden. So without that context yes the question does seem strange, but even though it's strange the author isn't explaining the harm or how he's getting that conclusion. He's just declaring that it is so. On the issue of Akin the author again makes the accusation that PPP was pushing to help McCaskill, but doesn't explain how this is so. He asserts that you don't ask a question about an event the day that the event happened even though the author then sources another poll (Rasmussen) given the next day that the author admits had the same results as PPP (that McCaskill was ahead due to what Akin stated). Again the author doesn't explain how this is/was bias or how this lead to pushing to McCaskill getting further ahead. Nor is evidence provided to support any of these accusations. The author is just saying X is true.
You can't be serious that this is reliable evidence of PPP bias.
I am not at all sure what your link is/was intended to prove. The author of that article makes accusations, but does not logically explain how he is getting to his conclusion. He merely states "this is biased" and then moves on. He also does not provide evidence to support his accusation of that assertion.
For instance he states that question 14 (who gave a better speech) is somehow loading the deck for question 15 (who deserves more credit for killing osama bin laden). He does not explain the context of these questions- that Romney claimed some credit and that sometimes polls ask questions like this to see how astute the person answering the poll is politically (thus providing a gauge as to how sincere that person is as a political meter). He does not explain how 14 is loading the deck for number 15. Nor does he provide evidence that this ends up loading the deck. He simply states that it does so and then moves on.
The Akin poll is the same deal. He states "common sense" says that you don't poll about an incident the same day of the incident. Does he provide precedent such as academic polling standards to make this assertion? No. Does he provide any evidence that suggests polling of the same day as the incident skews the results? No. In fact it's strange because he seems to be operating under the belief that immediate polling will give a biased result in favor of the Democrat as opposed to the Republican. But I don't understand how this is possible because not everyone would have known of the event on the same day.
In fact it would seem, to me, that common sense would dictate that the most honest response (that is to say the response with the least manipulation from public statements within the media and media coverage) would be that of the response people give immediately after hearing something. And I would use as evidence of my assertion there that we poll people as they exit voting booths, while candidates are speaking, during national addresses, during debates, and at other such events precisely to get their immediate reaction. That's considered more politically honest to what it is that person was actually seeing/hearing/thinking at the time. And in fact individuals like Frank Luntz (a popular linguist who helps Republicans with messaging and elections) will only poll people on their immediate reactions because he states that's the best guage to how someone has interpreted a speech. So his assertion seems to not only be counter-intuitive (and thus not common sense), but it seems to go against what evidence we have.
The claim is even more confusing because he then lists another poll, Rasmussen, which was given the next day (thus meeting his own standard), that gives the same result as the PPP poll (that McCaskill shot up ahead by 10 points). Yet he doesn't conclude that the Rasmussen poll was equally biased.
Oh darnit Newsvine was bugging on me. Disregard the first post. Sorry for the double.
I frequently assert that the right-wing mind is unable to connect assertions with evidence and #24 is case in point.