Antis' Biggest Lies

[Mike1951]

Widespead misinformation has allowed the antis to claim support of large segments of the populace.

What was the source of the 90% claim that has been quoted by all? And why hasn't it been specifically discredited?

We could conduct a poll at the NRA Annual Meeting and I suspect it would be as valid.

The impression purposely conveyed has been that no internet sales require background checks. Only in rare articles, has it been clarified that only intrastate sales do not require background checks.
Further, I would have made the point that most intrastate sales that might have occurred are prevented by defacto restrictions on shipping. You can't mail handguns so USPS will only accept long guns. You can explain to UPS and Fedex till your blue in the face, but they will only ship to dealers, intrastate or not. Other carriers that might deliver intrastate are either too costly or have similar prohibitions. You've pretty much got to lie about the contents to ship intrastate. If seller and buyer are not reasonably close, intrastate sales are difficult to prosecute.

I know non-dealer sales occur at gun shows, but once again, if you only listen to antis, you would believe that no gun show sales require background checks.

I would love to see full page newspaper ads correcting these misrepresentations or at least get more articles/interviews in the MSM.

[Mx217]

[SF18C]

Just to put numbers to the 90% claim

US Population 314,000,000?
90% that agree equals 282,600,000
10% of those that disagree = 31,400,000

[jmra]

Just to put numbers to the 90% claim

US Population 314,000,000?
90% that agree equals 282,600,000
10% of those that disagree = 31,400,000

If I would have been standing there when he said that I would have been carried away because I would have been ROTFL!

[The Annoyed Man]

Just to put numbers to the 90% claim

US Population 314,000,000?
90% that agree equals 282,600,000
10% of those that disagree = 31,400,000

If I would have been standing there when he said that I would have been carried away because I would have been ROTFL!

Yeah, I was just reading this Washington Times article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ful-liars/, and there were some very subtle inaccuracies, and Washington Times is more of a conservative publication than some others.........

The vote was a huge blow to the president’s efforts since the Newtown, Conn., school massacre last December to enact a broad package of new gun laws. Mr. Obama and his team had considered background checks the most likely gun restriction to be approved by Congress, with polls showing as much as 90 percent of the public in favor of the measure immediately after the Newtown shootings.

Here's a true fact: EVEN IF it were true (it's not) that 90% of Americans were in favor of some kind of added background check requirements, that doesn't mean that they all wanted THIS bill. When you include all the people who think that perhaps it would be desirable to do a better job of catching people with certain psychiatric disorders during NICS processing, then yes, probably something close to 90% of Americans would like to see something like that. When you include all the people who would like to see the federal government actually arrest, try, convict, and punish violent felons who attempt to get through the NICS process, then yes, you probably would get something close to 90% of Americans who would agree with that. When you include all the people who would REALLY like to see people like Eric Holder go to prison for [in his case] ordering known straw purchases to proceed so that the guns could walk into Mexico and be used to kill school kids, shop keepers, and mayors, then yes, you would probably get a pretty high percentage of people......although certainly not nearly 90% (because the number necessarily includes democrats who think that Eric Holder is a genius, after all). But when you start adding in measures that further curtail the freedoms of people who are not a danger to society, NOW that percentage drops to levels so low that the senate understood that to pass them would be to guarantee their reelection losses for the next 15-20 years. There are currently 53 democrats, 45 republicans, and 2 independents in the senate......and the 2 independents (Bernie Sanders & Angus King) caucus with the democrats. Five democrats voted against the Manchin bill, and four republicans voted for it (source), including McCain, who announced just before the vote that he would support the bill. Per the Politico article:

The Democrats who voted against the amendment:
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)
Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska)
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.)
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) voted against it for procedural reasons as Senate rules will allow him to bring up the measure again.

Republicans who voted for the amendment:
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.)
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)

Makes me wonder what McCain thinks about Arizona's Constitutional Carry........and if he thinks its OK for Arizona, why doesn't he think it's OK for Texas or California.....

Anyway, the point is that there were even more democrats who wouldn't vote for the bill than there republicans who would. There's a reason why....they understand that elections have consequences, as Obama is fond of saying. The last time democrats pulled this kind of crap, they got creamed for a decade. The more reasonable (read that as "less crazy") members of their party understand that if they pass any more bills like this again, they'll be creamed for another decade. That would be FIVE democrat seats that could conceivably turn republican if those bills passed. If that happens, all of a sudden the senate is maybe 50 republicans, 48 democrats, and 2 independents, changing the senate's dynamics considerably.

The bills didn't pass, not only because of the NRA, although the NRA helped senators to focus on the issue. The bills didn't pass because THE PEOPLE DIDN'T WANT THEM.

End of story.

[SF18C]

Small point of correction.

Reid did not vote against it the bill, as the leader, he declared the bill a NO vote, i.e. it didn't happen. So he can have a vote taken again at another time.

[Mike1951]

Small point of correction.

Reid did not vote against it the bill, as the leader, he declared the bill a NO vote, i.e. it didn't happen. So he can have a vote taken again at another time.

I believe this was done after the fact. The CSPAN2 announcer mentioned after voting on all 7 had concluded, that Reid had changed his vote so it could be brought up again.

[JALLEN]

Small point of correction.

Reid did not vote against it the bill, as the leader, he declared the bill a NO vote, i.e. it didn't happen. So he can have a vote taken again at another time.

I don't think so.

Senate Rule XIII.

1. When a question has been decided by the Senate, any Senator voting with the prevailing side or who has not voted may, on the same day or on either of the next two days of actual session thereafter, move a reconsideration; and if the Senate shall refuse to reconsider such a motion entered, or if such a motion is withdrawn by leave of the Senate, or if upon reconsideration the Senate shall affirm its first decision, no further motion to reconsider shall be in order unless by unanimous consent. Every motion to reconsider shall be decided by a majority vote, and may be laid on the table without affecting the question in reference to which the same is made, which shall be a final disposition of the motion. [emphasis added]

2. When a bill, resolution, report, amendment, order, or message, upon which a vote has been taken, shall have gone out of the possession of the Senate and been communicated to the House of Representatives, the motion to reconsider shall be accompanied by a motion to request the House to return the same; which last motion shall be acted upon immediately, and without debate, and if determined in the negative shall be a final disposition of the motion to reconsider.

Usually the Majority Leader insures that his vote is on the prevailing side so he can call a matter for reconsideration. As a practical matter, there is no point unless you are pretty sure of a different outcome. Otherwise it just wastes time, not that there is anything wrong with wasting time.