What the heck just happened?

          Again.

          In the wake of the Orlando massacre June 12, there were multiple polls taken with fairly consistent results.

          A CNN/ORC International poll taken June 16-19, with a margin of error of ± 3 percent, came up with the following numbers:

          55 percent of the poll respondents favored stricter gun control laws, versus 42 percent opposed, and 3 percent undecided.

          92 percent, versus 8 percent, were in favor of a background check on anyone attempting to purchase a gun in order to determine if the prospective buyer has been convicted of a felony.

          87 percent, versus 12 percent, said they were in favor of “preventing certain people, such as convicted felons or people with mental health problems from owning guns.” 1 percent responded that they were unsure.

          85 percent of respondents approved of the following proposal: “Preventing people who are on the U.S. government’s Terrorist Watch List or no-fly list from owning guns.” 14 percent of the respondents disagreed with the proposal, with another 1 percent undecided.

          Two other proposals resulted in closer, but nevertheless definitive, results:

          54 percent favored a “ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of semi-automatic guns, such as the AK-47.” 44 percent opposed the proposal, with 2 percent unsure.

          54 percent favored “a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of equipment known as high-capacity or extended ammunition clips, with allow some guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before they need to be reloaded. 45 percent of respondents opposed the proposal, with 1 percent unsure.

          A Monmouth University poll, with a margin of error of ± 3.5 percent, came in with 52 percent of respondents supporting banning the sale of assault weapons “like the kind used in the Orlando shooting.” 43 percent opposed the ban, 3 percent said it “depends”, and 3 percent were unsure.

          A CBS News Poll taken June 13-14, with a margin of error of ± 4 percent, had 57 percent in favor of stricter gun control regulation, as opposed to 11 percent in favor of less regulation, 29 percent who preferred the status quo and 4 percent unsure or no answer.

          In the same poll, 89 percent, including 92 percent of Republicans polled, favored a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers.

          In a closer result, 57 percent were in favor of a nationwide ban on assault weapons, with 38 percent opposed, and 6 percent unsure or no answer.

          While these numbers are undoubtedly affected by what happened in Orlando, surprisingly perhaps, not by much. Especially with respect to background checks and restrictions on suspected terrorists, convicted felons, and those on the no-fly list, the numbers have been consistent over a significant period of time, and across a wide number of polls.

          So what the heck just happened? Again.

          After a 15-hour Democrat-led filibuster, Senate leadership condescended to bring four proposals to a vote:

·        A Democrat proposal that would authorize the attorney general to deny firearms and explosives to any suspected terrorists. The measure was defeated 53-47.

·        A Republican proposal that would allow authorities to deny a gun sale for three days or longer if a judge ruled during that time that there was probable cause to deny the firearm outright. The measure was defeated 57-43.

·        A Democrat proposal that would expand background checks for anyone trying to purchase a firearm—including at gun shows or online. The proposal lost 56-44.

·        A Republican proposal to increase funding for background checks without expanding them. The measure lost 53-47.

          Who are these representatives representing?

           It isn’t the 92 percent of Americans in favor of expanded background checks, or the 87 percent in favor of restricting sales to convicted felons or individuals with mental health issues, or the 85 percent in favor of banning sales to people on the terrorist watch list or no-fly list.

          Each of these proposals has its flaws, but not one of them called for banning a specific type of weapon or ammunition. They were bare minimums, but they were a beginning.

          Which, of course, is a problem as far as the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby are concerned.  Any beginning could lead to an outbreak of common sense.

          There is a reason why the CEO and executive vice president of the NRA gets paid an estimated $972,000 a year and the head of the NRA political action effort gets an estimated $764,000.

          They are very good at what they do, which is to assure that the people’s representatives are more attentive to them than they are to the people who elected the representatives in the first place.

          They depend on the public’s short memory. They tell their supporters: In the wake of an Orlando, hunker down and ride it out. Public attention will soon turn to the next bright shiny thing that comes down the pike.

          Until the next time – and there will be a next time – when the sad spectacle of congressional inaction will play out again.

          Unless there are wholesale changes in congressional membership made come November.

          But don’t hold your breath.