Looks like Rachel Maddow read the same data that I did, and then did her Rachel thing and posed all the right questions:
What we knew before this survey is that the idea of expanding background checks for buying guns is something that is supported by Democrats, by very large margin.
It's also supported by independents by a big margin.
Expanding background checks also supported by Republicans by a large margin.
Self-described tea partiers also support expanded background checks.
Expanded background checks are supported by members of the NRA. People who pay to belong to the National Rifle Association want expanded background checks.
Gun owners broadly also support expanded background checks by a big margin.
And now, we can add the data from this brand new stuff that's just being published by the researchers from UC Davis. It also turns out that gun dealers support expanded background checks.
The people who are actually conceivably burdened by this the most! Democrats are in favor, independents are in favor. Republicans are in favor. Tea partiers, NRA members, gun owners and now we know gun dealers all in favor.
And on the other side, not in favor: the leadership of the NRA. Not even the members of the NRA, just the leadership. They're the only ones against. Which means -- they win?
Nothing could ever outweigh them? They get whatever they want, no matter if everyone in the country including their own constituency disagrees with them? How long does this last for?