Literally as soon as last night's second segment aired, people were asking after the chart Rachel showed comparing legislator NRA ratings with constituent polling on background checks for gun purchases. Last night was actually a bit of a scoop for TRMS on that item and I couldn't find any public links to share after the show. Now that it has appeared in several newspapers, I also find the direct links.
Just to recap: Mayors Against Illegal Guns did a heap of local polling --21 statewide polls, 41 congressional districts -- to gauge attitudes about gun issues like background checks. Then they looked up the NRA ratings for senators and representatives in the congressional districts they polled. (It takes a membership to see the NRA grades but the New York Times recently published them in a map.) The poll results show overwhelming support for background checks for gun purchases, but the NRA opposes background checks. So the idea is that if a member of Congress has a good NRA grade, their stance is more aligned with the NRA than their own constituents.
The full set of results is available as a pdf and was meant for use as a full-page newspaper ad. If you were hoping for a more shareable image file, they have this tiny-but-still-readable jpg version. They've also got all of the results broken down by the states and districts they polled.
Leave a Comment:
Money.
I won't say more, because we all know what words come next.
(And, for the dubious, Mayor Bloomburg proved it, when he poured $$$ into the Chicago primary.)
It's always the money.....
thank you mayor bloomberg! if he puts up a donation site for campaign subsidies, we will be there.
**** you, Mayor Bloomberg.
RedXIV, love?
i'm sure it's love.
Wait a minute, are you suggesting that our elected government representatives listen more to their campaign contributors than their actual constituents? Say it ain't so!
Not a very complete chart, where's RI,MA? Too small to matter I guess.
Twenty-one states were polled. Less than half, but waaay more than anything I would have tried!
Surprised that for Indiana, the repuke Coates has only a C+ rating. Not surprised that the DLC/DINO/Repuke-Lite type Donnelly has an A rating. Donnelly's campaign platform called for NO increases in income tax rates. Any differences between him and a repuke are only marginal. He would have been creamed by Lugar who used to be farther to the 'left' than Donnelly is.
donnelly sounds like a primo pimped out who promises the nra that they can gi ahead and get other americans killed off so long as he remains protected from gunfire and promotes their prolifferation and doesnt complain about the dead people that litter the country.
Yes its the money,And the people in office don't care about there constitutes !
but the people in office do care about their pimps for whom they do anything for money. even if it means killing a few americans or a few thousand americans. and the nra prays to the weapons gods and offers human sacrifices - just so's its not any of their board members or pimped outs.
The reason the NRA is against the proposed background checks, rather than just background checks in general, is because the proposed background checks were analyzed by Obama's own people who stated that bans and background checks would not work without registration and confiscation of guns.
Go read the Ridgeway memo if you do not believe it.
"The nine-page document says the success of universal background checks would depend in part on "requiring gun registration," and says gun buybacks would not be effective "unless massive and coupled with a ban.""
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/23/nra-uses-justice-memo-accuse-obama-admin-wanting-c/
Time to face facts and wake up. This administration is trying to backdoor it's way into gun confiscation. They have since poo-pooed the Ridgeway memo, but the fact that it even exists in the first place is reprehensible. If you cannot see that with your own eyes, you are part of the problem.
Show us the legislation that alks about gun "confiscation". And the back ground checks they refer to are the loop holes in the "gun shows" not requiring them. Some don't even ask for ID. And everything proposed is talking about NEW buys.
the NRA is against BG checks bc it would reveal the amount of WEAPONS STOCKPILING going on now
WOW !! A fake news report, from a fake (so called) source, Or (a Justice Department official) said. No name, of course. Put your tin-foil hat back on, an turn the cartoons back on....
@larry74
What that 'reporter' is referencing is not entirely accurate. Local laws that are already on the books that local police forces want to reactivate are doing background checks on those with a proven history of mental illness or criminal activilty at which point their weapons can legally be confiscated. The blogger is trying to spread misinformation and fear by telling people that the "Obama People" are conspriring to take away our guns therefore our 'rights' yet neglecting to mention that the rights of 20 babies were violated when they were murdered on December 14 of 2012. The NRA has lost this one. Blaming Obama will not get the 'desired' result this time.
What gun regulation would have prevented newtown exactly? Other than perhaps an armed guard or two?
We will never know. And there were armed guards at columbine so a 'good guy with a gun' doesn't work either. Face it NRA troll you're done.
RE: 5.1
Larry, here's some proposed legislation introduced into the Missouri state legislature by some Dems.
Missouri House bill 545 states:
related link: http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0545I.HTM
Ban semi-auto assault weapons, clips with more than 10 rounds. They're made for one purpose. Killing a lot of people fast. No civilian needs one.
Larry, under some of the gun control proposals, THIS would be considered an assault weapon.
http://www.imagecoast.com/images/alvagoldbook/mahgun.jpg
You are aware, aren't you, that a semi-auto AR-15 won't shoot any faster than a pistol or a revolver.
If guns like a Glock 17 (a 9mm semi-auto pistol that holds 17+1 rounds) is only made to kill a lot of people fast, then why is it the choice sidearm for the vast majority of our nation's police forces? Is the purpose of police to kill a lot of people fast?
Alva,
Again, if you want to claim equivalence between police use of a firearm and private ownership of the same firearm, then you must accept regulation of the private owner in a manner equivalent to that of police officers.
So, you must favor registration of all firearms, requirements for training and periodic range qualification of all firearm owners, mandatory presentation of any firearm to law enforcement upon request (no probable cause required), and securing all firearms when not being carried, correct?
And if you want to step into even stricter restrictions, try stating that weapons held by soldiers justify those held by private citizens.
Alva. Those are state proposals not Federal. And I'm more than aware of the assault weapon. We used them in Nam. Ever been hit with one. You might have a different attitude if you had. No civilian needs these murdering tools. And that's all they're made for. I'mnot against gun ownership. I would like to know the person buying a gun has a clean record. As stated, nobody needs one of these killing tools or the high capacity clips.
wow ... what was that? Oh no a black helicopter just flew over ... that's it they now know. Run for the hiiiiiiiills (if you are in the hills already ... un ... i dunno ... Expect a lot of people)
Confiscation from people who should not own guns, like they do in California: from felons and the mentally ill and those guilty of about 40 misdemeanors. Even the NRA does not fight against that program (though, of course, they fight to cut funding)
The slippery slope is not a valid argument. We have many regulations that do not lead to banning of the things regulated. And the 2nd amendment itself says we should be "well-regulated", not "unregulated"
Germany, Austria, Sweden all have high rates of gun ownership but at the same time heavy regulation and training, and they even have assault weapons there. But the NRA is against all mandatory training or any regulations at all, that is not a sensible policy- but a paranoid one.
RE: 5.11
larry, if you knew how an M16 worked, then surely you would know that a civilian AR-15 does not work the same. That it's not capable of selective fire. Are you telling me the danger here is any rifle will chamber the next round after firing a round? Tell me, which rifle is more dangerous?
http://www.imagecoast.com/images/alvagoldbook/gundumb.jpg
Nobody needs an AR-15?
http://www.inquisitr.com/477139/gun-control-15-year-old-defends-sister-from-burglars-with-ar-15-rifle/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-q2zHIovOE
RE: 5:13
The words "well-regulated" does not mean as in "government regulations". Here the words mean "well regimented" or "well trained".
Chris, many gun owners have been using firearms since they were children. They know how to operate them just as well as most people know how to work a screwdriver. Do you have any idea of how infuriating it is for a bunch of people who wouldn't know how to clear a gun without shooting their faces off to tell people who do know how to use guns that they must get mandatory training before they can practice their inalienable right of gun ownership?
many of the pimped-outs-for-the-nra offenders senators dont really care who lives or dies and are quite content that people you may know should die from gunfire. these pimped outs are devoid of the ssacredness of life and engage in promoting weapons and war and they insist that you pay their salaries so they can keep stealing from you by holding you hostage to their evil ways.
I'm sure if it were white kids getting killed while sitting on their porch the politicians would take notice.
I totally love Nascar. But I will not be watching their NRA sponsored race this year. Sorry Danica and Dale, but not even I can go that far.
I was amazed when I heard Rand Paul talking in his fillabuster. He said that he wanted to know if the president had the right to send drones to kill americans in public places. I find this mind boggling when we have so many innocent lives being lost by guns. He hasn't said anything that would this country fluorish. Why isn't he up talking about this or something worth listening to. He has got to go.
It was a funny contraction of ideals wasn’t it ? Money, money, must be funny in the rich mans world.
you mean ron paul the storm trooper guy who hires people to step on peoples' heads?
nad, you seem to be forgetting who is pointing the weapon and pulling the trigger here. I don't see private citizens killing other private citizens with drones.
Before government officials can kill you, you first have the inalienable right of due process of law.
The only legal instance when a private citizen can kill other is when it's in self-defense. This means that a private citizen is only allowed to use deadly force when they fear for their lives, and they have a legitimate reason to fear for their life. As in, you can only use deadly force if you think you will die, and can demonstrate that you could die at someone's hand.
Rachel once mentioned in regards to marriage equality, that rights shouldn't be decided by popular vote. Especially when it concerns the rights of a minority.
Alva,
One does not have a right to a particular weapon. One has the right to bear arms, which until recently meant local law enforcement and national guard units could own weapons and train people in their use.
Even under this Supreme Court, even from the mouth of Justice Scalia, no one has the right to any and every weapon possible.
To imply that any of the measures currently in the Congress, or any measure short of a outright ban on all guns, is a violation of anyone's rights is simply incorrect.
Otherwise, I want my tactical nuke and I want it now. For home defense, of course.
Oh, and anyone needing more than three shots to drop an intruder should not be allowed to hold a gun.
RE: 9.1
That's like saying you have a right of free speech, but you don't have a right to use any particular word.
Sure. But I never advocated for private citizens to own nuclear weapons. No one has. But you don't get to decide by what means I protect and defend my life. If a particular weapon can reasonably be used to protect and defend an individual against other individual(s), then it is my right to own said weapon.
Nonsense. Read the Heller decision. It states:
In other words, you don't get to enact any gun regulation you want short of a total ban. You can bar felons from owning guns, you can prevent guns from going into government buildings or on airplanes, but you don't get to enact laws that violate the 2nd amendment. The test is not whether it's a total ban or not. You have to have some reason for barring guns.
Alva,
The DC gun regulation in question was overturned in Heller because it was the effective equivalent to a gun ban.
Again, the Second Amendment says 'arms', not 'guns'. If we are to restrict arms, then the Congress gets to place reasonable restrictions on which arms one can own. The Heller case says that banning all guns is unreasonable, and Justice Scalia says that banning all hand guns is unreasonable.
And, since you own post speaks of using weapons against another individual, it would be reasonable to ban any gun with a magazine of more than a handful of shells.
John, suppose you're being attacked by more than 2 people. How many rounds am I allowed to own? Can I pretty please have a gun that will be effective in protecting me? Pretty please?
When more than 10 rounds are needed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_rz2wBYin4
The word "arms" is more inclusive, not less inclusive. Guns are a kind of arm.
Again, quoting from the Heller decision:
Alva,
Look at your own quotation from the Heller decision. One has a right to own 'a firearm', not any firearm. For example, the machine gun ban was not overturned.
Revolvers, semi-automatic hand guns, bolt-action rifles, semi-automatic hunting rifles, semi-automatic medium velocity rifles, assault rifles, and machine guns are all firearms, and some of these have been banned for decades.
Congress can place reasonable restrictions on the ownership of firearms and arms in general. They have banned machine guns and other fully automatic firearms, chemical arms, and nuclear arms. They can add other arms to the list, such as medium velocity high capacity firearms like the AR-15, for such a restriction would be reasonable.
And if you are confronted by 2 intruders a 5 or 6 shot revolver should suffice. Again, if you need 30 shots to hit something 6 feet tall and 18 inches wide, you should not be allowed to hold a gun.
John, If you were confronted by more than 2 intruders, then would your weapon of choice to keep yourself alive would be a simple .38 special revolver? Or would it be a pistol that can hold the normal capacity of 17 rounds? Which weapon would you choose? Perhaps, instead of banning my right to defend myself with an effective tool, how about instead when an intruder tries to break into my window, I get to keep my pistol, but I have to invite the intruders into my house and offer him tea and biscuits? Should I be required to beg them not to rape my wife or strangle my (hypothetical) children?
I'm not asking the world here. I'm asking for you to leave my rights alone. I'm asking that you not take away my inalienable right to keep myself alive. Why is that asking too much? Why do you want to help criminals kill and hurt people?
No, it would not be reasonable. Declaring something reasonable does not make it so.
Gunwise: The Great and Immaterial Arbiter of Morality as Capitulated. (Alice in Oz)
How is helpful to give so much attention to what has not happened get and little what happens hour after hour?
We have had this happen before; the senseless of hypothetical possibility vs. the senseless of numbing proportion?
We can take cosmic view, an international view, or national view or take entirely view from the inhabitants on the planet?
We can place the discussion in current time, previous times, historical times or future time or altogether?
What do have that could guide this discussion, is a constitution, a body of historic law of civil or criminal?
Where should be pay attention to issues as insignificance as the angel count on a head of pin as broad preserving life?
It could the first human discover of fire or of the club, the knife or bow and arrow, gun power and rifle barrel?
We don't even have to look and anything further than what one person considers significant and what another considers is vastly significant?
Now the issue of the day?
Does the President of the US have the right to use some undefined technical means to kill a citizen of the US at home or another place in the world?
The answer to that question is so basic as to answer itself by the simplest reference to Constitutional Law.
And it is answerable, by anybody with an education sufficient to read the document, and understand what due process right of for.
Yet we have all of the congress and a considerable proportion of the government, and nearly all of the alleged media who cannot see that succinctly?
Exploding the head of pin discussion, as if the answer had to found by the direct descendants of ancient Greek scholars, from core beliefs?
As I understand democracy, government, republics and even commercial businesses there is not department of philosophy, no officers, no secretaries, no attendants or even the an Ozian Wizard in duty behind the curtain, who can interrupt the foolish on their determined errand?
No the President does not have the right to use some undefined technical means to kill a citizen of the US at home or another place in the world.
Normally that would be the end of an elementary school yard brickbat, except if he happened to be a Senator with 5th grade understanding, and we cannot sent him to be early.
The question taken as the most important ever, would have to used reconstruct, all the history of laws, crime and punishment, case law and at the end of the day at most write a new a constitution not that much unlike the one we have or the glorified version of the human rights accord.
Suppose this question was answered, now and for all time, and coded in law, written in accords and carved into stone monuments, for every public square and every school building.
Then apply that question again not just to the President elected to carry out those laws, let's even rewrite question to the greater good?
Do the Citizens of the US have the right to use some undefined technical means to kill a citizen of the US at home or another place in the world?
Compare all the possibilities, if we have, as we nearly do, totally an unabridged freedom of arms, then by what means pray tell are we to prevent this from happening, in good measure so that we do not kill someone every hour on the hour. We can have all the high minded discussions of the limits on the Presidential powers or one person, but not spare a few regulations to register for criminal preceding the instruments of those weapons?
Can we remotely balance the case of 'no killing' by a President, versus the wanton blood lust that takes place every day. Where is the due process right of the constitution, in the interest tiny children, who when they play with disrespected guns, kill themselves and others?
If there ever were clearer place of displaced priorities it would have to be in the Senate or House of Congress, assuming they could ever have enough substance to be on the head of a pin.
Next I suppose the question might be if someone armed were to break into the White House, could the President defend himself, with his unused veto pen.
Are you under the delusion that anyone is actually going to read your reply? It's longer than the original article, and wanders all over the universe. I have no idea what you are trying to say, outside of a desperate plea for a life.....OMG.
This heat shield segment is ridiculous(comparing the NRA to some smoking alliance)
How many people ever fought off an attacker or home invader with a cigarette?
How many lives did cigarettes ever save or crimes prevented?
How many people ever went to a range to chain smoke targets
How many times did you ever kill your dinner with marlboros?
Yes, it was an asinine analogy. The issue with the cigarette companies was that their product will kill anyone who uses it. Guns are a product that can be used to kill, by the people who possess them. And the cigarette companies tried to conceal the fact that their product is lethal. Gun makers most certainly do not deny that guns can be used to kill.
Your right. My grand father smoke all his life. Died at a very young 104 years old. Smoking must have done him in. My brother-in-law never smoked a day in his life and died at age 39. Must have been those cigarette ads.
How many children accidentally maim or kill themselves or others with a cigarette?
How much does the presence of cigarettes in the house increase the odds of an abused wife being murdered?
How often do criminals break into a house to steal a stockpile of cigarettes, which are untraceable once stolen?
How many people suffering from depression buy a pack of cigarettes for the express purpose of killing themselves the same evening?
John. We all know they like comparing apples and oranges.
Superior job on explaining the NRA's deceit,,,,,,,,,,WOW..........Keep at it!!!
Where was the deceit? Ok you don't use guns in playing "mortal kombat"
LOLOLOLOL. I would love to know where they get their so called statistics... ARIZONA 80% support.. LOLOLOLOLOL
Found in less than 15 seconds by clicking on the links...
"Surveys of a cross-section of key states and districts conducted from January 25, 2013 to February 22, 2013 by Douglas E. Schoen, LLC, and sponsored by Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Mayors Against Illegal Guns, co-founded by Mayors Mike Bloomberg and Thomas Menino, has grown to more than 900 mayors across the country and more than 1.4 million grassroots supporters."
In the words of the Mad Hatter "Start at the beginning, and when you get to the end, STOP."
Note, you get to the end and then stop.
Speaking of Bloomberg, I certainly don't see him insisting that the NYPD be disarmed. If guns are so inherently dangerous, then why do we let the police carry guns? If the only purpose of a gun is to kill, then are people in uniform police officers or death squads?
Alva,
Police are trained, they have to routinely qualify on a gun range, their guns are registered, they have to present their guns for inspection when asked (no probable cause required), police have to safely store their weapons when not carrying them.
Since you are drawing an equivalency between private ownership and heavily regulated state officials, then for the sake of intellectual integrity and basic honesty you must also support private gun owners being subject to the same restrictions and requirements as police officers, correct?
Otherwise, you would just be a hypocrite.
John,
I was not referring to regulations on state officials, I simply asked a question about what is the sole purpose of a gun. If it is to kill people, then why do we let police have guns? Are the police nothing more than death squads?
Your analogy has no logical basis in fact. Unless, of course, if you're suggesting that the state should pay my salary.
Option 'b' it is.
Police also have phychiatric evaluaions. But again, it's like talking to a tree. Don't want to see anything other than "they're coming to take your guns" right wing talking points.
John, nice dodge. I repeat: I will gladly submit to all those regulations, if you can get the state to pay my salary. Until then, you're just pulling something out of your rear end that has no logical basis in fact. The 2nd amendment puts regulations upon the state, not regulations upon the people. The police have rights I don't have, and I have rights the police don't have. For instance, the police are barred from being prosecuted for stalking. Why? Because they might be investigating someone. However, I have the right to my own property, and a right to own a gun, and the right to use deadly force without warning, if I fear for my life and I have good reason to believe my life is in danger.
Larry, so should we put such caveats on other INALIENABLE RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION?!?
Yes, the 2nd amendment really does exist. It really is "a thing". Should we require psychiatric evaluations before you can practice your right to go to church? Or before a woman can have access to an abortion? Or before you can have a guarantee that the police won't just search your home at random and without a warrant? They are called rights for a reason. Stop pretending that gun ownership is a privilege. It is not. It is a right.
Larry, if these are right wing talking points, then tell me what their source is. Is Hannity using the same arguments as I?
Have you read the SC rulings on the second amendment? And I am well aware of the capabilities of the M-16. We use the first ones in Nam. I also know they can be made full auto very easily. Get on a battle field and you might have a differant point of view.
John seeking enlightenment: The NYPD is notorious for being poorly-trained, especially when it comes to use of their guns.
Here in Montana, John Tester and Max B. were actively opposed by the NRA even though they have an A rating. Both of them have endorsed the gun control changes. So they do NOT listen to the NRA, they just happen to believe in Montanan's being able to hunt and own guns. So I would say that your chart is VERY misleading!
WOW - thanks, Rachel - the way you lined up that comparison between the tabacco & gun industry "shields" was VERY powerful - I am 60, and remember the "tabacco battle" so well, esp living in NC . . . where of course, the whole state was going to fall off into the Atlantic if Reynolds couldn't keep on peddling cancer sticks. My mom died from 40 years of smoking & COPD, so it was personal for me.
I hope the 'youngsters' fighting the battle against gun violence - the slaughter of the innocents - will learn from your good work on this piece. I hope NRA members will learn they are being used as tools by Wayne The Peter.
thanks.
Powerful, yet inaccurate.
I believe there are fifty US states. That chart is ridiculous. It promotes obfuscation and undermines efforts to create a national dialogue about gun reform. It almost looks like something published by the right in order to slander public opinion research as liberally biased. Lets try not to alienate people on the fence please. Get it together...
Why aren't gun manufacturers being held liable like cigarette makers? Smokers can blow smoke in your face, but gun owners can shoot you.
A couple of points spring to mind:
1) Comparing the gun industry to the tobacco industry is not the same as comparing guns to cigarettes as several people have tried to argue. Both industries have used similar tactics to shield themselves from legislation and liability that is the point!
2) Quoting a ruling which stated that a specific gun control law was unconstitutional does not mean that all gun control legislation is unconstitutional. The law in question demanded gun registration prior to ownership then made it virtually impossible to register a firearm. Clearly as insidious and unlawful as the states passing laws to prevent abortion by closing clinics rather than challenging federal law guaranteeing a woman's right to an abortion.
3) There are hundreds of thousands of weapons that are banned under federal law therefore to add another type of weapon to this list is clearly not unconstitutional. As there are no examples (across all 50 states) of an assault weapon being used successfully in preventing a home invasion the argument that they are needed for this purpose doesn't hold much water.
Personally I think that an assault weapon ban and/or a high capacity magazine ban would not be as effective as requiring all gun owners to carry insurance on their weapons. The right wing nutters (Jessie Ventura is lead on this little gem) are forever comparing guns to cars then why not institute legicslation with the same requirement for gun ownsership as required for car ownership. Registered, insured and a licence is required to operate.
Here's a link to take a look at: http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/111976219.html
"Who is your legislator listening to on gun policy?"
One thing's for certain; it damn sure isn't me!