House Judicary will hold an emergency markup on 8 gun bills on Thursday

[WV222]

https://twitter.com/heatherscope/status/1531604268482011141?t=IxDIBcfsgdxPQEYD6e...

[Joe Republic]

Good.  Get these GOP f-ckers' votes on record.  Even when the bills inevitably die in the Senate, do the same thing there and then run ads on it.

[Aurelius]

Crossing my fingers that Manchin will stop this from going anywhere.

Edit: even if he personally supports it, he won't nuke the fill filibuster over it. And no way will 10 Republicans support a gun bill. This ain't going anywhere.

[Schiff for Senate]

Crossing my fingers that Manchin will stop this from going anywhere.

Hopefully Manchin will realize stopping more mass shootings and saving kids' lives is more important than appeasing gun-loving West Virginians and the NRA. If Manchin is the reason this fails, I hope he loses sleep over it for the rest of his life.

Hopefully he'll have the sense to get in line to stop mass shootings. This legislation is absolutely necessary and anything is better than just idling around, changing absolutely nothing (and proposing only the most unworkable and insane solutions), and then hoping for the best and acting surprised when there's another shooting again.

[Joe Republic]

If Manchin is the reason this fails, I hope he loses sleep over it for the rest of his life.

LOL!  I hear the comfiest beds are ones in which the the pillows and duvet are stuffed full of $100 bills.  They help you sleep through every imaginable moral shortcoming.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

They don't need Manchin to make this fail, they just need a Senator who's not prepared to nuke the filibuster over it.

These piecemeal measures are unlikely to do much; I don't believe every Senate Dem will be prepared to sacrifice much political capital for them.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Good.  Get these GOP f-ckers' votes on record.  Even when the bills inevitably die in the Senate, do the same thing there and then run ads on it.

Gun control just isn't a popular issue. The midterms will be about inflation, and Dems trying to deflect from that and go after some side issue will look very obvious.

[Joe Republic]

Gun control just isn't a popular issue.

Demonstrably untrue:

Do you think there should or should not be a ban on the manufacture, possession and sale of semi-automatic guns, known as assault rifles? [2019 Aug 15-30]
Should be 61%
Should not be 38%
No opinion 1%

The midterms will be about inflation, and Dems trying to deflect from that and go after some side issue will look very obvious.

It's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.  And referring to gun violence as "some side issue" is extremely crass.

[Ferguson97]

Gun control just isn't a popular issue.

Demonstrably untrue:

Do you think there should or should not be a ban on the manufacture, possession and sale of semi-automatic guns, known as assault rifles? [2019 Aug 15-30]
Should be 61%
Should not be 38%
No opinion 1%

The midterms will be about inflation, and Dems trying to deflect from that and go after some side issue will look very obvious.

It's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.  And referring to gun violence as "some side issue" is extremely crass.

I think my "not a popular issue" he means that it isn't a huge priority for most voters, which is unfortunately true. Obviously pro-gun control policies are popular with voters, but it's just unlikely to be on most people's minds when they're casting a ballot.

Still, taking action on this issue can't hurt the Democrats, so I would still urge them to pass whatever they can/

[Schiff for Senate]

Gun control just isn't a popular issue.

Demonstrably untrue:

Do you think there should or should not be a ban on the manufacture, possession and sale of semi-automatic guns, known as assault rifles? [2019 Aug 15-30]
Should be 61%
Should not be 38%
No opinion 1%

The midterms will be about inflation, and Dems trying to deflect from that and go after some side issue will look very obvious.

It's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.  And referring to gun violence as "some side issue" is extremely crass.

I think my "not a popular issue" he means that it isn't a huge priority for most voters, which is unfortunately true. Obviously pro-gun control policies are popular with voters, but it's just unlikely to be on most people's minds when they're casting a ballot.

Still, taking action on this issue can't hurt the Democrats, so I would still urge them to pass whatever they can/

I don't care even if it hurts them in elections. If they truly want to reduce mass shootings and make our schools safer and save kids' lives, they'll pursue this with all their might. The gun-crazed GOP will push back. Let them. Democrats must utilize their trifecta to do something good, no matter any electoral consequences (and as you said, it's unlikely this would hurt them politically even if it doesn't help them).

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Gun control just isn't a popular issue.

Demonstrably untrue:

Do you think there should or should not be a ban on the manufacture, possession and sale of semi-automatic guns, known as assault rifles? [2019 Aug 15-30]
Should be 61%
Should not be 38%
No opinion 1%

The midterms will be about inflation, and Dems trying to deflect from that and go after some side issue will look very obvious.

It's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.  And referring to gun violence as "some side issue" is extremely crass.

Stuff like background checks barely passed Nevada and failed in Maine in 2016. And those are lean Clinton states. Like OSR has stated before, the polling is one thing but when it comes to votes at the polls it doesn't translate well.

[Joe Republic]

Stuff like background checks barely passed Nevada and failed in Maine in 2016. And those are lean Clinton states. Like OSR has stated before, the polling is one thing but when it comes to votes at the polls it doesn't translate well.

It certainly helps that the NRA is willing to pour millions of dollars (or whatever they can still afford after LaPierre's embezzlement schemes) into disinformation campaigns whenever it comes up on the ballot.

Last year, the National Rifle Association spent more money fighting a push for a universal background check for gun purchases in Nevada than it did on any Senate or House race.

…

The gun group poured more than $6.6 million into opposing Question 1, making it the NRA’s second-largest campaign expenditure of 2016. The only contest that drew more funds from the gun-rights group was the presidential election, in which it invested over $30 million in support of Donald Trump.

[Politician]

Stuff like background checks barely passed Nevada and failed in Maine in 2016. And those are lean Clinton states. Like OSR has stated before, the polling is one thing but when it comes to votes at the polls it doesn't translate well.

It certainly helps that the NRA is willing to pour millions of dollars (or whatever they can still afford after LaPierre's embezzlement schemes) into disinformation campaigns whenever it comes up on the ballot.

Last year, the National Rifle Association spent more money fighting a push for a universal background check for gun purchases in Nevada than it did on any Senate or House race.

…

The gun group poured more than $6.6 million into opposing Question 1, making it the NRA’s second-largest campaign expenditure of 2016. The only contest that drew more funds from the gun-rights group was the presidential election, in which it invested over $30 million in support of Donald Trump.

Whenever your side loses, it's always somebody else's fault, huh?

[Aurelius]

Stuff like background checks barely passed Nevada and failed in Maine in 2016. And those are lean Clinton states. Like OSR has stated before, the polling is one thing but when it comes to votes at the polls it doesn't translate well.

It certainly helps that the NRA is willing to pour millions of dollars (or whatever they can still afford after LaPierre's embezzlement schemes) into disinformation campaigns whenever it comes up on the ballot.

Last year, the National Rifle Association spent more money fighting a push for a universal background check for gun purchases in Nevada than it did on any Senate or House race.

…

The gun group poured more than $6.6 million into opposing Question 1, making it the NRA’s second-largest campaign expenditure of 2016. The only contest that drew more funds from the gun-rights group was the presidential election, in which it invested over $30 million in support of Donald Trump.

When Maine voted to defeat the background check proposal, Bloomberg's orgs outspent the NRA six to one.

[Joe Republic]

Whenever your side loses, it's always somebody else's fault, huh?

… The good guys won that particular ballot question, despite the NRA's best efforts to obfuscate the issue with their mountains of blood money.

What a strange and irrelevant contribution, but thanks anyway.

[Politician]

Whenever your side loses, it's always somebody else's fault, huh?

… The good guys won that particular ballot question, despite the NRA's best efforts to obfuscate the issue with their mountains of blood money.

What a strange and irrelevant contribution, but thanks anyway.

How about the ME proposition? Where gun grabber groups spent more then the NRA?

[Joe Republic]

When Maine voted to defeat the background check proposal, Bloomberg's orgs outspent the NRA six to one.

Indeed, and that's why there was such a backlash against Bloomberg's influence, with the "Don't NYC my Maine gun rights" becoming the rallying cry of the opposition to that particular ballot measure.  Dumping mountains of cash into any campaign - on either side - only serves to skew how people actually feel about an issue… and unfortunately at the exact time that it truly matters.