search
top

Why Does This Say Anything?

MAIG has commissioned polls:

The Mayors Against Illegal Guns survey of voters in Virginia, North Carolina and Colorado indicated 45 percent of voters trusted Obama on gun issues, while 40 percent trusted Romney, results released Thursday indicated.

Really? This is supposed to mean something? Do you have any idea how many staunch supporters of gun rights did not trust Romney on guns? I had more than a few people on here arguing with me that Obama was objectively better, because he at least signed two bills that contained two improvements to gun laws.

Obama won re-election by largely ignoring the gun issue. If NRA’s power really is waning, it’s because the gun voters are getting complacent and going back to sleep. Bloomberg’s theory is that the gun vote doesn’t really exist. If Bloomberg wants to team up with Obama, and wake the gun voter back up, I’m game.

3 Responses to “Why Does This Say Anything?”

  1. And if more Tar Heels trusted Obama on guns, then why did Mitt win the state by approximately 100,000 votes?

  2. Andy B. says:

    “If NRA’s power really is waning, it’s because the gun voters are getting complacent and going back to sleep.”

    But wasn’t that always the NRA’s ideal? For gun owners to be complacent, accept whatever the NRA told them to do, vote as directed, don’t ask hard questions, and “trust us?” To take initiatives only withing narrowly defined boundaries?

    Of course some blame could go to other organizations that have used hysteria (e.g., over anti-gun bills with no cosponsors, that weren’t going anywhere) as a fund-raising, address-harvesting tool. Given enough boys crying “Wolf!”, even in wolf country the villagers tend to become complacent about alleged threats to their flocks.

    • Harold says:

      Doesn’t membership tend to track anti-gun activity? Although at this point you’d have to seriously adjust for increased ownership.

top