Majority wanted background checks to pass Senate

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Majority wanted background checks to pass Senate

(CNN) Nearly two-thirds of Americans say that the Senate should have passed a bill that would have expanded background checks for gun sales, according to a new national poll.

But the survey, released Monday by Gallup, indicates a partisan divide, with Democrats and independent voters not seeing eye-to-eye with Republicans.

Two weeks ago, the Senate voted on a number of gun control proposals in the wake of last December's Newtown, Conn., elementary school massacre that left 20 children and six adults killed. One of the provisions, the one thought most likely to get passed, was a bipartisan compromise that would expand the background check system to include private sales at gun shows and online.

In a 54-46 vote, the Senate came short of the 60 votes needed to move ahead with the legislation.

According to the poll, 65 percent of Americans say that the Senate should have passed the background checks bill, with just under one in three saying the Senate should not have passed the measure.

A Washington Post/Pew Research Center survey released last week indicated that 47 percent of the public described themselves as "angry" or "disappointed" with the Senate vote, with 39 percent saying they were "relieved" or "happy" about the vote.

Prior to the Senate's failure to pass the proposal, most national polling indicated that nearly nine in 10 Americans supported expanded background checks for gun sales.

The Gallup survey, like the Washington Post/Pew Research Center poll, points to a partisan divide. Eighty-five percent of Democrats and 64 percent of independents questioned said the Senate should have passed the proposal. Republicans were divided, with 45 percent saying the Senate should have advanced the measure and 50 percent disagreeing.

Read more: http://www.kcra.com/news/politics/Poll-Majority-wanted-background-checks-to-pass-Senate

[Penny Lane 8,159]

It doesn't matter what the majority of the population wants.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

More:

Senators Lose Support After Opposing Gun Background Checks

Senators in several states who voted earlier this month against increasing background checks for gun buyers have since seen their approval ratings noticeably drop, according to new polls released Monday by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-Alaska) net approval rating dropped 16 points, as she shed much of her previous cross-party appeal. Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) saw his numbers dive 18 points, from a positive to a negative rating.

Not all of the change can be attributed to the vote. Portman, for instance, saw his approval drop among Republicans when he announced his support for gay marriage in March. But in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada and Ohio, at least 60 percent of voters supported background checks, and many expressed disappointment with politicians who voted otherwise.

Fifty-two percent of Arizona voters said they were less likely to support Sen. Jeff Flake ® for reelection due to his "no" vote, while 46 percent of Nevadans said the same of Sen. Dean Heller ®. More than a third of voters were less likely to back Portman as well as as Alaska Sens. Mark Begich (D) and Murkowski. A previous PPP poll found that Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also saw her ratings tumble 15 points, likely due in part to her vote against background checks.

Much of the lost support comes from independent or moderate voters.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/gun-background-checks-poll_n_3177865.html

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It doesn't matter what the majority of the population wants.

Of course not. Well, it could and would matter if the people were to remember on election day. But Americans don't typically remember. Lobbyists, on the other hand, do.

[Pooky 3,348]

If the background checks had been a standalone bill, and not tied up with extraneous features such as the ban on assault-type weapons, could it have passed the Senate vote?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If the background checks had been a standalone bill, and not tied up with extraneous features such as the ban on assault-type weapons, could it have passed the Senate vote?

All the pieces of the bill were voted on separately and per agreement, each required 60 votes to be included in a final bill. In effect, four bills were presented, and all four failed. One for the background checks, one for the ammunition capacity, one for the military style assault weapons ban, and finally, the NRA backed reciprocity between states for concealed weapons carry. The NRA backed amendment received the most votes.

[Pooky 3,348]

All the pieces of the bill were voted on separately and per agreement, each required 60 votes to be included in a final bill. In effect, four bills were presented, and all four failed. One for the background checks, one for the ammunition capacity, one for the military style assault weapons ban, and finally, the NRA backed reciprocity between states for concealed weapons carry. The NRA backed amendment received the most votes.

That I understand.

But if the only bill on the table had been the background checks, would the incidental controversy have been avoided?

The reason I ask is because the so-called "covert" efforts to resurrect the background checks measure, as made public by the NY Times, are likely going to end up entangled with an anti-trafficking measure proposed by Senator Gillibrand, thus muddying the waters again. If the background checks stood alone, would they have a better chance of passing?

Edited April 30, 2013 by Pooky

[himher 634]

That I understand.

But if the only bill on the table had been the background checks, would the incidental controversy have been avoided?

The reason I ask is because the so-called "covert" efforts to resurrect the background checks measure, as made public by the NY Times, are likely going to end up entangled with an anti-trafficking measure proposed by Senator Gillibrand, thus muddying the waters again. If the background checks stood alone, would they have a better chance of passing?

Yes

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That I understand.

But if the only bill on the table had been the background checks, would the incidental controversy have been avoided?

The reason I ask is because the so-called "covert" efforts to resurrect the background checks measure, as made public by the NY Times, are likely going to end up entangled with an anti-trafficking measure proposed by Senator Gillibrand, thus muddying the waters again. If the background checks stood alone, would they have a better chance of passing?

The NRA doesn't want background checks. The NRA wants criminals and the mentally unstable to buy guns.

[himher 634]

The NRA doesn't want background checks. The NRA wants criminals and the mentally unstable to buy guns.

Actually they want them locked up or dead. Libs want their privacy protected and want them out on the street freely doing whatever they want to do.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The NRA doesn't want background checks. The NRA wants criminals and the mentally unstable to buy guns.

Bingo!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Actually they want them locked up or dead. Libs want their privacy protected and want them out on the street freely doing whatever they want to do.

I guess you did hear Wayne LaPierre in his speech. "Background checks lead to one of two things: Taxation or confiscation."

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I guess you did hear Wayne LaPierre in his speech. "Background checks lead to one of two things: Taxation or confiscation."

More background checks means fewer gun sales. Thus, the NRA hates background checks. It's just that simple.

[himher 634]

I guess you did hear Wayne LaPierre in his speech. "Background checks lead to one of two things: Taxation or confiscation."

Yep. If they want background checks for everyone pass out the 800 number and give everyone access. Otherwise they can suck wind.

It's just another way to collect money from our pockets on a program that does not prosecute ineligible people (who shouldnt be on the street in the first place) for illegally trying to buy a gun.

From the text of the bill:

..........pays a registration fee, in an amount determined by the Attorney General.

That's why the bill failed.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That's why the bill failed.

The bill failed because the NRA threatened to take away their NRA favorable ratings. The NRA is more of a threat to their phony-baloney jobs than a bunch of slaughtered school children.