E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSMore Americans support tougher restrictions on gun ownership, two national surveys released Monday show.
A new Gallup survey finds Americans’ support for tougher gun laws has spiked in the past year to 38 percent, the highest level since 2001.
That's up from 25 percent just one year ago -- before the mass shootings at a Batman screening in Aurora, Colo., and an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.
Despite the increase, a larger percentage of Americans, 43 percent in the Gallup poll, remain content with the current regulations on guns, and 5 percent of respondents said they would like to see gun laws loosened.
Released a month after the Connecticut school shooting that left 26 dead, the surveys have tested American sentiment as debate rages about whether or not there should be more regulations on the purchase and possession of firearms.
A national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found similar trends: 85 percent of those polled support background checks for private gun sales and on sales at gun shows. A large majority of respondents – 80 percent – also support preventing mentally ill people from buying guns.
Prominent politicians, including Conn. Gov. Dan Malloy and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, have urged legislators in their states to pass new or tougher bans on assault weapons.
A day earlier than planned, Vice President Biden is expected to deliver proposals from the White House’s gun control task force to President Obama on Monday.
Gun-rights groups: Our 'backs are against the wall'
Male respondents and Democrats were among the groups that showed the most change in their views in the latest Gallup poll: 35 percent of men nationally now say they are dissatisfied with current gun laws, up from 18 percent a year ago.
Women showed a 10 point increase over the last year in the Gallup poll, with 41 percent now saying they are unhappy with current gun laws and want to see them strengthened.
Support for stricter gun laws spiked among nonwhites, as well, jumping from 32 percent to 49 percent, according to Gallup data.
Gov. Cuomo proposes nation's 'toughest' ban on assault weapons
The surveys showed a widening partisan rift over guns. Democrats are now far more likely than Republicans to favor new gun laws: 64 percent of Democrats surveyed in the Gallup poll said they were dissatisfied with current gun policy, compared to 18 percent of Republicans. Though overall two-thirds of Americans in the Pew survey support a federal database to track gun sales, support is divided between blue and red lines: 84 percent of Democrats support a database, while only 49 percent of Republicans said the same.
The Pew survey also found gun-rights supporters are more politically active than their counterparts: Twenty-three percent of those who prioritize gun rights have given money to an organization that takes a position on gun policy, versus only 5 percent of those who prioritize gun control have done the same. The poll also found gun-rights advocates are about twice as likely to have contacted a public official about gun policy, than gun-control supporters.
When asked about school-safety proposals, the Pew poll found 64 percent favor armed security guards and police in more schools, but only 40 percent support arming more teachers and school officials.
The survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press was conducted between January 9 and 13. The poll sampled 1,502 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 points.
In Gallup’s study, the questions on guns were asked in their "Mood of the Nation" survey conducted between January 7 and 10. This survey sampled 1,011 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus four points.
Leave a Comment:
Fortunately there is still a majority of people who understand the value of the inalienable right to self-determination, self-protection and the personal responsibility for these that is the price of Liberty.
Woop dee doo, a whole whopping 38% want tougher gun laws. Not happening, not now, not ever! Tougher gun laws will do nothing to solve the problem. Liberals will counter "well, if it just saves one more life, its worth it". Lets weigh that against lives that are lost because someone couldn't buy a firearm to defend themselves. Lets use the same logic for everything. That means an immediate ban on all mode of travel but walking. That would save lives because no one would die in auto, buss, airplane, or train accidents again.
And how many more shootings is the NRA going to arrange to demonstrate to the ignorant public how every man woman and child really ought to be packing heat 24/7? The NRA represents nobody but gun manufacturers and antigovernment paranoid loonies.
You're comparing apples and oranges with that phony strawman argument you conservatives are so good at. Cars, buses, planes and trains were designed as modes of transport, to get people and things from one place to another. When people die using those vehicles, it's because of ACCIDENTS!
Guns were designed for one thing and one thing only, the taking of life.
Pagan, If drunk driving deaths were considered "accidents" then why are the offenders prosecuted with murder? The right to bear arms is protected by the constitution, the right to travel is not. Naturally, liberals love to defend things that are not listed in the constitution while bashing the things that are.
38% may want tougher laws, but 48% want them left alone or LESS.....
How can we believe any survey, when statistics keep including 19 year old "gang-bangers" as "children"?
OK Pagan, then let's outlaw baseball bats since that is the weapon of choice for the majority of all non firearm related homicides.
speaking of paranoid loonies.....NRA arranged? ...seek help right away.
Most all the recent shooters had clean records and could buy anything they wanted even with "tougher" gun laws. If someone is hell bent and delusional they will get what they want in the black market. Government cannot change a sick persons mind through legislation.........
ozzieyo1-7277359
As the late great Mollie Ivins once observed, you can outrun a knife but you can't outrun a bullet. Same goes for baseball bats. Same also goes for hammers, which gun nuts are dumber than a bag of.
When Guns are Outlawed, only Right-wing Republican "Gun-Nuts" will have Guns!
Guns don't Kill people, but Right-wing Republican "Gun-Nuts" with Guns Kill people!
You Know it.
I Know it.
And now your "Republican Momma" knows it.
I can't wait till President Obama Re-Instates the "Obama Snitch Line",
so us Law-Abiding Citizens can Report you Republican and Teabagging "Gun-Nuts"
to the proper Authorities!
Does that sound like a "Good Idea"?
Of course it does!
Once a "Gun-Nut", Always a "Gun-Nut".
All Hail Obama!
Ruler, Master and Overlord of all you Republicans and Teabaggers
for the Next Four Very Long years!
Tougher gun control laws will do absolutely nothing but to infringe on the rights of law abiding US Citizens. All those trying to re-enact the assault rifle ban need to realize the majority of gun related homicides in the US are tied to handguns. And since both sides are saying that a ban on handguns is not on the table, I wonder exactly what are the goals of those pushing for a ban on assault weapons.
According to the FBI, in 2011, there were a total of 12664 homicieds in the United States. Of these homicides, 8583 were comitted with firearms (6220 handguns, 323 rifles, 356 shotguns, 97 other guns, 1587 not specified).
Additionally, since 2007, total homicides comitted by firearms has decreased from 10,129 to 8583 (rifles in 2007 453 to 2011 323).
So, in a nation of almost 320 million people, we are looking at restriciting the rights of millions of law abididing US citizens in order to address a problem that affects .000001 of our population.
I'm fine with stricter backround checks, and closing some of the sales loopholes that currently exist. However, an full outright ban will do nothing but pit American vs. American and upset millions of legal gun owners see their rights further restricted.
Jake- The NRA isn't the criminal, the criminal whom misuses guns and violates the law is the criminal. The NRA is just an organization for gun enthusiasts and advocates for the 2nd ammendment. The idea that the NRA has blood on their hands is a farce that was planted in your head by MSNBC and the media.
The idea of taking away a type of guns will solve the problem is a joke at best. The idea of taking away all guns is crazy. You want to make the world safer, try enforcing the existing laws, try putting the insane back in institutions, and enact a few new gun laws that require background checks and the use of FFLs for all gun transactions. That'll work.
Why do you think that there are record gun sales right now? Do you think it's only "loons" getting them? Think again. There are a lot of former non-owners whom realize that their option to choose for themselves may be waining and they are getting them for themselves. When the only option is 911 and that might take 10-15 minutes in your location, you might want to have a plan B option. Just a thought. Too bad the media shys away from all of those self defense stories- where a lady with a gun saved her own life when the burgler tried to break in, etc.
jake2247 --- It is my constitutional right to rebel against a tyrannical government.
Pagan Moon Straw man argument try this on. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This has nothing to do with the Army has nothing to do with hunting. This means that if my government is oppressing me I have the right to rebel against it. I am not advocating it but I can not see why I can not buy grenades or fully automatic weapons. I think the government has gone far enough in grabbing my firearms. When we separated from England and declared our independence the musket was the assault weapon of the day. btw in 1773 the British furious after the Boston Tea party banned gun powder and all weapons aka the coercive acts.
But I am a right wing looney. Which is not true but I can certainly see an issue.
Houston, doesn't matter your just as dead either way Dumb @ss.
ozzieyo1-7277359
Bullets travel at hypersonic speeds. People chasing you with baseball bats can't move that fast and you can outrun them sometimes. Moron.
jukkou: There's no doubt that fewer and fewer people understand the Constitution, history, or human nature. As has often been said, and many times proven, that when people give up their liberties for security they sooner or later end up with neither. Happens every time. Yet, here we are again, soon to lose both.
Pagan Moon: Really? I guess you've missed all those situations where people have intentionally barreled their vehicles into a group of people. Plus, is a person any less dead because it was an accident? Also, just who do you really think are going to be the ones without guns if they are banned? I'll give you a hint, it's not the ones who may show up on your doorstep to rob you or rape you. You'd think that people would learn from the "war on drug" how ineffective and wasteful all that banning has been. Learned the same lesson from the 18th Amendment too. The fact is that taking away my guns isn't going to make you any safer, but it will make me a lot less safe.
Actually, guns weren't designed for only on thing. I realize that it's semantics, but it's semantics that is important in these debates. Guns are designed to have a bullet in them and sit there until someone pulls the trigger. Whether to attack or defend, the gun knows not the difference. The fact is that the vast majority (over 99%) own guns to defend and not attack. Do guns deter crime? Just ask yourself: There are 2 banks that have a lot of money in them and you want to rob one, if one bank advertises that it has armed personnel on site to prevent crime and the other bank advertises that it is a politically correct, people friendly, no arms on site bank, which one would you rob?
One other point in this discussion is that the vast majority haven't a clue what is being sought to be banned. Essentially, the government thugs are seeking to ban ordinary rifles. I realize the media has portrayed an AR-15 as some sort of automatic assault rifle machine gun, but it isn't. It's just an ordinary semi-automatic. You pull the trigger once and one bullet comes out no matter how long you hold your finger down.
The reality is that the odds of getting killed by a bullet are a heck of a lot less than being killed by a vehicle. But, the ignorant will go after what they don't understand. It's the way prejudice has worked through the ages.
Every society has at least 38% of naive and uninformed citizens. Fortunately there still is a majority of Americans who realize that the 2nd amendment was SO important that the founding fathers stated it just after freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
The 2nd amendment was not an "after thought". It was not a "By the way". It was the SECOND most important amendment required for the survival of a nation against enemies both domestic and abroad. The most common "domestic" enemy is a tyrannical government itself. Protection FOR the people and BY the people was, and still is, critical to the survival of this great nation.
So if 38% of the population doesn't understand that importance I cannot help them. But fortunately there still is a majority of people that ARE intelligent enough to understand the importance of the Second Amendment and the "right to keep and bear arms".
marputt,
Just what in hell is it you want to do that our government is preventing you from doing? You sound like that small percentage of our population that simply cannot accept the idea of authority in any form and to any degree. That makes you anti-social and borderline paranoid. In other words, a potential threat with a gun or any other type of weapon. You also need to start dealing with the world of 2013. Some of us have progressed from 1776. If the founding fathers were still alive, they would have too.
Love that MSNBC spin. The chart shows much more than the biased title implies. Hysterical. Notice how they don't talk about the incredible increase in membership in the NRA in recent months..........
Face it, the majority of Americans are not buying the emotional rhetoric. I have seen countless examples of the facts that show this Liberal tactic is not working. If the Liberals would start looking at facts and real causes of the problem, then they could get on board with the rest of this and we could fix the REAL problem.
Well put, dk. Marputt is off his meds again.
Abortions are murder 1.2 mil a year and counting,how many of those unwanted pregnancies are from rape,incest or life and death of the mother or baby,and why should tax payers have to pay for them?And they are supported by the same big mouth idiots screaming to save the children from the VERY RARE mentally ill mass murders.Instead those same people want to take away or restrict with worthless laws The Rights of law abiding Americans who choose to exercise their 2nd Amendment.Hypocrites....
DKSouthern/Jake: Nonsense. Your comments have no logic.
The founding fathers were VERY clear that the most danger to a country is by its own government. Always has been and always will be. Just look at history and virtually EVERY issue in the world historically and within the last few decades have been from tyrannical governments. The founding fathers WARNED us about that.
James Madison said "the ultimate authority resides in the people alone".
Noah Webster said "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed".
Alexander Hamilton said "...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..."
George Mason said "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials."
And of course my favorite founding father Thomas Jefferson who said:
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
and
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
and
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
and
"Most bad government has grown out of too much government."
The point is do you trust government? Just look at the nimrods in D.C. I don't trust them any farther than I can throw them (EITHER PARTY!!). So do you want people in D.C. controlling you? I would hope not. Is our government tyrannical? No. COULD they be tyrannical if given the power? Absolutely.
So the Second Amendment IS important to KEEP government from becoming tyrannical. Only the naive would think government "would never do anything to hurt the people". Don't take my word for it. Read just a few history books. Nazi Germany. Italy. North Korea. Syria. Iraq (Hussein). Venezuela.
History tells us that IF a government is allowed to accumulate power many will do so at the expense of the people. THAT is what our constitution protects us from if anything else - tyranny.
Keep up the
irrational
belligerent
arrogant
posts from the willfully stubborn gun owners.
Eventually, more folks
will tire of that "rationale"
and
GUN CONTROL REFORM
will get more supporters.
.
.
.
References to Nazis, and "Obama is taking away our guns" and conspiracy theories are recognized as paranoid, delusional posters who are immediately discredited as those who have NO CONCERN for solving the problem.
That makes me question their mental stability.
ProBusiness: Good post... refresher on the 2nd amendment. Thank you!
excellent post (1.22 ) pro business.
I refuse to believe that the intent of second amendment to the constitution is to enable the likes of John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jared Loghner, etc to subvert the will of the majority by deciding that the country's democratically-elected government is, in their own deluded mind, "oppressing" them. It seems apparent to me from the wording is that the Founding Fathers assumed that there would not be a standing army, but rather a well-trained and well-prepared citizen militia would be called up to defend the country in the event that it was invaded by some foreign power. Clearly that is not the case today.
F Y I
Gallup lost significant credibility in this year's election. They consistently were outliers in regards to this race, giving Romney much higher numbers that other polls.
You are so right. Our founding fathers were not old men with no vision for the future as so many people think. It took them long lengths of time (years) to get the wording exactly right. They thought about future generations and had lived through a tyranny. They knew up front that government could take control and ruin what they ahd fought so hard to create. We have the right to fight back and should do so. Our Constitution and God given rights (stated in the Constitution---although all founding fathers were not religious some were atheist) as well as the fact that at least for many years (almost 200) God was a prevalent part of our culture................which is why we remained great and were feared by other countries and respected. Now as God goes by the way side, we have let God be taken from so many aspects of our lives, and now we want to tinker with our Constitution as well..............we are no longer feared or respected.
Those who decide that the government is "tyrannical" are likely to be tried and found guilty of treason.
Lots of people seem to think the current government is "tyrannical" and I do not agree that those people should have more firepower at their disposal.
The Constitution gives us some general rights such as free speech and the right to bear arms. It is up to us, in a democratic process, to specify the range of those rights. Free speech has some limits, such as the famous yelling fire in a crowded theatre example. The right to bear arms also has limits, such as prohibitions against personal ownership of machine guns and surface to air artillery. The current proposals such as limits on military style automatic weapons, large capacity clips and universal background checks make sense to me. I think the government should buy back all current assault weapons and ban ownership entirely.
...
R I Mom.......................you can most certianly count on us Lawfull Gun Owners to keep up the fight against even 1 more Gun Law or regulation, I promise you! we will not stand for it................continue trying to get something new passed at your own peril. I suggest you take this promise seriously!
The real reason that this nation has seen such an increase of violent crime is that we have chosen to close our eyes and ears to living rightly. We have chosen to worship other gods than the One who made us. We have set ourselves against Him in our educational system, saying that that we have merely evolved from animals. We have been created by God, but truly, we are acting like animals. We endorse violence by paying millions of dollars each week at the movie box office to soak in perverse and violent entertainment. We see nothing wrong with that. Amazingly, as our entertainment industry continues to flush their "entertainment" garbage upon us, our liberal media points the finger at Christians as those who are causing our problems and societal break down. We even see one of our once God-reverencing political party's wanting to throw the mention of God completely out of their platform. We are redefining how we should live our lives according to what seems good to our own selfish desires, forgetting the One who created us to begin with. We ignore the makings of strong families as we seek to gratify our selfish pursuits and then wonder why there is such an escalation of deviant behavior in our midst.
Perhaps it is true that the Church has much responsibility for what is now occurring in our land. A large portion of Christians have become entangled by the same false way of life. We have failed to be the people we have been called to be. As a nation, we have forgotten the two greatest commandments - to love the Lord with all of our heart and to love our neighbor as our self. If we return to the reverence and love of God, we will be amazed at how things begin to turn around for us as a people.
Oh gee...what a surprise. A liberal slanted article tapping into the weak-minded emotional response to tragedy and then portraying it as if Americans actually support losing their rights.
Since you are so emotional on guns, why not take a poll to see if people want more jobs and ask why Obama (who in theory was focused like a laser) is not pushing jobs bills and has not for 4 years, but is going insane over gun control.
Banning "assault rifles" and large capacity magazines would do as much to stop these horrible killings as banning tequila and 24 can cases of beer would do to prevent drunk driving accidents.
It is either an irrational knee jerk response meant to make a certain self deluded group feel better, or part of a long campaign designed to ban private ownership of firearms altogether.
shinelight
You begin with an erroneous statement that there has been an increase in violent crime. That is wrong. You continue with a religious message that you should keep to yourself. There is no evidence that violent movies or games increase crime. There is no evidence that God created us. Your comment about liberal media "pointing a finger at Christians" is paranoid and erroneous.
dksouthern...the founding fathers understood that times will change and left the idea that the citizens of a country can rebel against a tyrannical governemnt. The constitution doesn't limit this to 1776 or any period of time afterwards. Even today in 2013 the citizens of our country can rebel against a tyrannical government. What's to say the government won't ever become tyrannical? Because the gubmit says it won't? Expect the unexpected; history is deemed to repeat itself at somet point. And when that point returns we citizens will heed to call to rise up and protect ourselves. Call me paranoid or a lunatic but i'm standing firm with the beliefs and notions of our founding fathers regarding this issue.
Assault rifles, grenades, armor piercing ammo, machine guns, C-4, TNT, rocket launchers, missiles, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons shouldn't be in civilian hands. Play with your shotguns, rifles and handguns, all with regular ammo.
Don: You say our freedom of speech AND right to keep and bear arms should have limits. They do.
When EITHER are used to injure or cause damage you are breaking the law. Notice there is NEVER a restriction on free speech UNTIL it creates injury or damage. That is not a "limit" on free speech. Free speech is NEVER limited as long as you do not harm another. We do not take freedom of speech away because someone MIGHT yell fire in a theater. No, doesn't work that way. WHEN you yell fire in a theater you have abused your right to free speech and suffer the consequences.
Same with the 2nd Amendment. The limits of the 2nd Amendment are if you use it to injure or damage another. THAT is the limit. The limit is not across the board.
So we DO have limits on the 2nd Amendment. You have the right to keep and bear arms UNTIL you put others in danger of injury or damage. THEN your right is taken away. We do not take freedom of speech away because someone MIGHT yell fire in a theater and we don't take right to keep and bear arms away because someone MIGHT use a gun to cause injury or damage.
Law-abiding citizens have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms UNTIL they abuse that right by putting others in danger. But until then this is a Right and cannot be taken away.
clflan2-1
Please take your threat to each State:
Marylanders
strongly
support
gun control
proposals,
poll finds
January 13, 2013|By Michael Dresser, The Baltimore Sun
A new poll shows Marylanders strongly support two gun control measures that Gov. Martin O'Malley has suggested he might ask the General Assembly to pass in the wake of last month's elementary school massacre in Connecticut.
The Baltimore Sun, shows overwhelming majorities favor banning the sale of assault weapons in Maryland and limiting the number of bullets a gun's magazine can hold.
Voters favor the assault weapons ban 62 percent to 35 percent, and they endorse 71 percent to 24 percent limiting gun magazines to 10 bullets, the poll found. The margin of error for the survey, which was conducted by telephone Dec. 28-30 and Jan. 2, is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
Ed Hatcher, a spokesman for the newly formed advocacy group Smart Gun Laws Maryland, welcomed the findings.
"This is an overwhelming sign of public support for stronger gun laws in the state," he said. "These are the kind of numbers the legislature cannot ignore."
I am waiting for any one (or more) of these people screaming that they need to protect themselves from a tyrannical gov't head over to the nearest military base and brandish their weapon(s) crying "down with tyranny!" How long do you think they will last against the real well regulated militia, should the NRA member start shooting? Also, at that point they can be charged with treason, or at the very least sedition. Why people think that they could stand up to either the police or the US military makes me laugh. This isn't the late Eighteenth or early Nineteenth Century where everyone was armed with muskets. An AR-15, even fired using the "bump" method cannot compete with a real military weapon. Face it, your guns are not going to do more than kill a handful of police and service people while you all will get wiped out.
As for Well hammer, knives, sword, baseball bat, etc... can kill people, it is a specious argument. Yes they can kill, but not in the number a military style semi-automatic handgun or rifle can, and that is what this is about. Getting those better regulated. No one is coming to take them away, unless, of course you are a criminal or a mentally ill person who should never have had a gun in the first place. Going straight to the "they are banning guns" idiocy is simply stupid as no one in authority is seeking to do that, regardless of what Faux News and the NRA says. They are talking about a national database and making every sale subject to a background check - no more off the books private and gun show sales. Any sale, even at a gun show will need a background check to ensure the person buying the gun isn't unstable or likely to use it in a crime. Very reasonable, and does not affect any law abiding person as they would pass such a check. Second Amendment is secure and reasonable checks are done to keep people who shouldn't have access to guns from getting them before they can harm themselves or others. Why does that frighten so many people???
The answer to gun violence is not more laws and regulations, criminals do not abide by the laws and regulations. The solution is to enforce the laws that exist and have strict penalties for those that violate the law. There needs to be mandatory, meaningful sentences for anyone caught illegally possessing a gun and severe penalties for anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime whether they fire it or not. Anyone caught with an illegal weapon should face at least two years in prison and anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime should face at least ten years. If you fire a weapon in the commission of a crime it should be a minimum sentence of 15 years as this is willfully endangering people's lives - no plea bargains for lower sentences allowed. There need to be programs that address reducing crime in general and a stop to this absurd focus on the gun as the problem. The gun is not the problem, the criminal holding the gun is the problem!!!
ProBusiness
You are wrong. Owning a machine gun is illegal. Period. No waiting until you "hurt" someone. It is illegal to own surface to air artillery. Period. No waiting until you shoot down a plane.
Almost everyone believes in gun control at some level. Very few believe in personal ownership of machine guns and surface to air artillery. It appears that the national consensus is that military type assault weapons also do not belong in the hands of the general population. I agree.
The right to bear arms DOES NOT mean any firearm anytime anywhere. We are a democracy. We get to decide.
What a collection of hoopla! Nobody is planning to take your guns away. Only those types you do not NEED for hunting and target shooting! And, for those who thump the Second Amendment, how about going back to the same guns they used in those days? I would have no problem with that whatsoever! Lastly, do any of you realize that the Constitution did not authorize the formation of a standing army? That is why the Second Amendment covers the "...well regulated militia..." It does not give you the right to fight tynanny, but it covers membership of the militia to defend the State. Whatever we have made the Second Amendment into, this day, the intent of the authors was much different - just read the articles that bonafied historians have written about this one subject!
Again, another anti-gun advocate speaking from ignorance of firearms.
@Houston,
Educate yourself.
Bullets are do not travel at "hypersonic" speeds (sic).
The word is "supersonic" and for that matter, many handgun bullets are "subsonic."
Sound too high or low for humans to hear is "ultrasonic" or "infrasonic," respectively.
100% of Americans want the economy fixed....why aren't our public servants concentrating on THAT issue?
jw
Why do we have to do just one thing at a time? Lots of important things to do .... let's get to work.
@Don 97...
It is possible to legally own a fully-automatic, select-fire rifle or a "sub-machine" gun. The legal process is both extensive and expensive.
Regarding other arguments on tanks, aircraft carriers, helicopter gunships, etc, no one can win a war without "boots on the ground." Aside from annihilating an opponent, you can't win a war against a population with small arms. If the day ever comes when our nation's government falls, just like nearly every major nation's government in history has fallen in some way, small arms will be instrumental in protection from tyranny.
Look at the Texas revolution: a small, untrained and poorly-armed militia WITH RIFLES and few cannon defeated a much larger, fully equipped and trained army.
A war is won by strategic decisions, and not so much by might.
Beyond that, do you really expect all of the military personnel to side with a tyrannical government? Our military is loyal to the constitution, not the elected officials.
I agree with JS in SD. I'll say all of the posters on here in favor of more laws and regulations don't have a clue what's on the books right now. It's all emotion with them.
Looking at the problem that resulted in the massacre at the school we should really be focusing our attention on the mentally unstable. This would be the best route to take if we really want more bang for our buck. No pun intended.
inMYday
I have no interest in having a conversation with people interested in taking up arms against the government. I have even less interest in ensuring those people have lots of firepower at their disposal. Fear of tyranny was the reason that the Constitution defined our democratic processes with checks and balances. It is democracy, not a bunch of boneheads with AK47s, that prevents tyranny.
ozzieyo1-7277359
Bullets travel at hypersonic speeds. People chasing you with baseball bats can't move that fast and you can outrun them sometimes. Moron.
This is just a proof of how much influence the media and government have when they set thier minds to it.
The Five Rules of Propaganda:
The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a simple confrontation between ‘Good and Bad’, ‘Friend and Foe’.
The rule of disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.
The rule of transfusion: manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one’s own ends.
The rule of unanimity: presenting one’s viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: draining the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, by social pressure, and by ‘psychological contagion’.
The rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.
Example: NRA = Sociopathic Terrorists. Guns = Evil.
"I sympathize with people who want to ban guns, but I can't agree with them. We have to be careful in our zeal to abolish guns that we don't wind up with counter-productive legislation that will leave armed only the people most likely to do harm with them."
To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with "hunting" it has to do with the right to defend yourself. When it was written it was written to address the British Colonial Monarchy which had a single King ruling over his subjects. It's intent was to acknowledge that individuals not just kings had an already existing right to defend themselves.
The founders wrote the 2nd amendment to secure that right, and to ensure that no king could ever “rule” over subjects in America. That’s made clear by this quote:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
@JS in SD That's a reasonable response, and as a gun owner I agree, I have no problem with better background checks. I have no problem with requiring them for ALL purchases, even though that'll be an inconvenience, I'll cope. I also can't for the life of me understand why it's not law that I have to immediately report a lost or stolen firearm. Talk about common sense law! Although few mention them, waiting periods don't bother me either.
Where I think many of us have a real concern is, of course, bans, which I'm totally against in any form because they are provably ineffective... but also, registration. Registration has, historically, been a stepping stone to Very Bad Things(tm) in many countries, and while I'd agree our system of government makes it far less likely, it's not a risk I'm willing to take. That's also why there's some hesitation even with the background checks: very few people think it's a bad idea basically, but there's nothing to guarantee it doesn't serve as a de facto registration database at the same time.
Don't get me wrong, I'd be in support of better background checks as you say, even though I have some discomfort about it. But it's helpful to understand why I have that discomfort: a back-door registration is something we need to avoid as much as bans. Anything that DOESN'T lead to bans or registrations, from one firearm owner at least, is fair game... I either would support it or at worst wouldn't fight it.
@don97524 Owning a machine gun is in fact NOT illegal in many places, and definitely not at the federal level. Some states do make it illegal, but most actually don't. It's true those types of weapons are highly regulated (look up what a class III firearm is and the procedures required to get one) but you CAN own them, shoot them, etc. There's also no specific laws with regard to even bigger weapons that I'm aware of- many private citizens actually own tanks! And yes, before you say it, a few of them ARE weapons-capable. I actually don't know how they are regulated, I'd assume they fall under class III's "other weapons" provisions... but the point is, they ARE NOT illegal, ditto machine guns. They are simply expensive and somewhat difficult to get.
The core problem here, and I've seen it time and again, is a fundamental misunderstanding about what guns are and what they can do. My theory is if you've never shot a gun you shouldn't be allowed in the conversation. I mean, I'm not arguing with my doctor about how he performs open-heart surgery! Not until I go to medical school and have done a few operations myself at least. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to "assault weapons" because it seems like WAY too many people have this vision in their head about how they work and what they can do that clearly comes from movies and video games.
Newtown is in no way an indication of the deadliness of an AR-15 because, hard as it is to say, that nutjob was shooting fish in a barrel. Virtually ANY firearm would have resulted in as many deaths. He had plenty of time to aim and fire... he didn't just hold the trigger and sweep the weapon across a line of children because (a) that's not the way a (civilian) AR-15 works and (b) even if it was he would have been off-target after the first kid or two due to muzzle rise. Full-auto weapons, which his AR-15 was not, are called "spray and pray" weapons for a good reason, and it's also why a machine gun nest is a deadly thing but why it has to be a static "nest"- it doesn't work like Rambo running around hip-firing an M-60, it's not the reality.
@ Don,
If you wish to exclude yourself from the opinions of other people, no matter how strongly you feel about the issue or disagree, you will become or remain narrow minded.
Part of the condition of a narrow mind is the absence of ability to apply history to current events and issues.
Should the Germans have resisted the rise and empowerment of Hitler--aside from the fact that he first took citizens' guns away?
@IamFrank,
Excellent post.
You gun rights advocates are painting a picture of why we need more limitiations on who can have a military assualt weapon, there are so many crazies it is flat worrisome. Just keep flapping your 1776 lips and us normal gun owners are going to lose too much in this battle, just sthfu. If you can talk sensibly then people might be willing to understand but this threatening craziness is really stupid.
Why are you perpetuating this lie? Please read the provisions of the 1938 German Weapons Law.
summary:
- Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition.
- The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.
- The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.
- The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.
- Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.
Why do you say that?
History is littered with literally HUNDREDS of incidences where organized bands of ragtag civilian rebels kicked the mighty a$$es of the militarys of various superpowers, having a HUNDRED times the firing power of the civilians. Surely, you've heard of Vietnam, Mogadishu, AFGHANISTAN, and IRAQ, no??????????????
Keep yapping. I can go on and on with the list, honey.
Ol Doc, you left out:
"...1938...Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons"
and
"the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit"
Now, how many German or Austrian civilians by 1940 do you remained who could demonstrate successfully to the government, "trustworthiness...not in question" and "...a need for a (gun) permit"?
And this is why mental health should be part of the background check process. Seriously, I'm glad you're anti-gun, then I don't have to worry that your loony a$$ doesn't own one!
Hotticket,
Add Texas to the list. A small, poorly-armed and under-trained army of settlers kicked Santa Anna and his large, trained and armed campaign out of Texas and won freedom in 1836.
They were going to hang Santa Anna for his "war crimes," so he bargained and offered to free Texas in exchange for his own neck.
Yep. Excellent example. But I guess some here have never heard of the term guerrilla warfare. Lol!
The same left wing, nanny state teat suckers that rant for "government" control that prevents citizen ownership of firearms as guaranteed by the US Constitution will drive at 70 MPH while texting.
Liberals always want to take away from others but want to have their way with what they want, regardless of the consequences.---Rule of Self Government No. 22
The law was changed to include ownership but then what percentage of the German population was Jewish at the time. Probably not a significant impact in numbers of gun owners.
The gun permit was for a hand gun, not a rifle or shotgun. If I were to "rise up against the government, it wouldn't be with a pistol"...but that's just me. As you read I'm sure, the 1938 law loosened restrictions that were previously in place with the 1928 law. So even though the NAZIs enacted the law, it was actually less restrictive.
Inmyday,
OK - I'll bite. In 1938, how many people in Germany could prove trustworthy to retain their guns? Never ask a question you don't have the answer to. It can end up making you look awfully silly.
inMYday
You are just another guy who foolishly believes that guns are the solution to lots of problems, including a tyrannical government. I am just a guy who wisely believes that guns in our country cause more problems than they solve. I am willing to compromise and will support gun rights that are reasonable and support gun responsibility restrictions in the interest of overall public safety.
I don't believe that you should be able to legally own military weapons and your rants about tyrannical government do not impress me even a little bit. People like you are far more of a problem, in my opinion, than the government. The demand by people like you for firearms designed only to kill people, coupled with the weak regulations regarding responsibility for those weapons has resulted in lots of weapons in the hands of people who should not have those weapons. Too many people are too quick to shoot first and ask questions later. Too many people lack the skill and good judgement to be trusted with the lives of other people. Too many people with guns are far too eager to use those guns for the wrong reasons.
Since no one on the left is ranting for "government" control to prevent citizens from firearms ownership, you are the one who appears to be the poster child for keeping guns out of the hands of mental patients. It must be the voices in your head.
@ don,
you must have me confused with someone else. i never said guns were the solution to anything.
and where exactly was I ranting?
and why do you think I am part of the problem? you don't know anything about me, and you've misquoted me more than once, yet you feel free to make personal attacks.
@ Ol Doc,
Seriously, do you think any significant number of German civilians were allowed to have firearms (of any kind) by 1940?
If you actually believe this then I'm wasting my time discussing this with you.
Judging from the number of "collapsed comments" above (from all zealots), I can see that 'freedom of expression' is alive and well on MSNBC. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it..." is the age-old warning. We the people--don't even vote out the rabble on Capitol Hill that causes all of the atrocities in society......why should we whine when we find out that the same old congressional villains are at it again??!
@dksouthern,
It is a valid question. Do you know the answer?
in MY day
You think that guns are the solution to a "tyrannical" government. That is the "anything" I was talking about. If you have guns you obviously believe the guns are the solution to something ..... right?
You rant about Nazi Germany and Hitler taking away guns, obviously failing to realize that the US Constitution is quite different from the German Constitution in the 1920's and 30's.
I think your gun culture justified by a C-level middle school grasp of world history really is a problem.
@haggisbingo-2225582
NO YOUR NOT!
I just love it when people self proclaim things with absolutely no statistics, sources, or any evidence whatsoever....cause then all I have to do is say the opposite. LOL
Don, you are inferring things for yourself.
It was probably a waste of time, but this is my last post addressed to you.
inMYday
I agree. The solution to tyranny is freedom. That freedom comes from our Constitution. I do not need a gun to protect myself from this government. I do not want to live next door to anyone who thinks they need to protect themselves from the government with an assault weapon. I think that such people are irrational.
The Second Amendment does not say anything about tyranny, but it does mention a militia. I do not need a firearm to feel free and I really don't understand those who equate firearms with freedom. That said, I do support your right to bear arms. I just don't think that the 2nd Amendment implies any gun any time any place.
I think that most people have the right to hunting rifles and guns, which can also be used for self defense.
I think that those who own hand guns should have additional restrictions and regulations because of the ease of concealment and non-hunting purposes of those guns.
I think that no civilian should own military-type assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines and I think not only the sale of those guns should be stopped, but that the government should buy back all such weapons.
Our Constitution does not allow for such a "despot" as ruled Germany in the last century exist. If you do not understand the difference between our Constitution and government and that of 1930's Germany you are hopeless.
Over 4,000 people died in one year from texting-related traffic accidents. I know it's not as emotional of an issue, but since the 1st Amendment doesnt specifically address the use of cell phones, and the founding fathers meant verbal and written speech only...
Can we please ban all cell phone use?
For all of you spouting about mental health issues, please enlighten everyone about how that will work. Who decides who is unbalanced? From what I have been reading, many of the pro-gun people are coming across as unbalanced and irrational to most of the rational, thinking people posting here. Some of you have tunnel vision.
Here is an idea, anyone that wants to own a gun needs to take a test and pass it. If you can't read the test, then you don't get a gun permit/license. Psychological testing also, let the experts decide who is sane. Also, you need to have at least a triple digit IQ or it's a no go. When I was in school an IQ of 100 was considered average. If you have below average intelligence , then you shouldn't be permitted to have a gun. How is that for a solution?
RepublicansForObama-6186389 - When Guns are Outlawed, only Right-wing Republican "Gun-Nuts" will have Guns!
That is one of the most crazy thing that you have ever said, and that is saying something. If guns were ever outlawed it would only take about five minutes before the law would be set aside as a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution or the individual liberties commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights. That is as likely to occur as taking away our rights of speech, the press, assembly, free practice of religion, etc. if it ever did occur, the only people that would have guns are those that would use them to commit real crimes like murder, assault, robbery. You know the ones that misuse them now. The ones that violate current law to get them in the first place and not the law abiding citizens that you would take them away from and leave them to the mercy of those who do not now have any respect for our laws.
Well, four months later and in an effort to beat the last whimper out of the dead story, support is over ninety percent and will no doubt reach one hundred fifty percent by July 4 - even after the idea was shot down.
We have good gun laws in place in most cities and states. What is dissatisfying about them is how they are not properly enforced by the government. So even if we pass more gun laws, is the government going to actually enforce them? The odds are not good.
Which laws are you talking about that "the government" is not enforcing? And which "governments" are you citing - state, local, or federal? You guys keep making exactly the same shallow-minded arguments, no matter what happens in our society that should cause you pause to re-look and re-think your old cold-war era conspiratorial thought processes.
The one area of gun regulations that both sides seem to agree with is in keeping weapons from mentally disturbed people. That approach should probably be expanded to include virtually ANY weapon, whether it be a gun, or knife, or baseball bat or whatever. But given that point of agreement, then probably half the members of the NRA should turn in their weapons, because reading many posts on this and other sites make them sound severely paranoid, which is, in fact, a mental disorder, is it not?
dksouthern,
That's just it, we have laws in place by local, state and Federal that are not enforced. Criminals still have guns in Chicago and New york, despite their being banned. I support looking at ways to keep mentally disturbed people from having guns or any weapons...but then that could open a can of worms over what constitutes "mentally disturbed" and what to do with them. That rationale could also be applied to almost many of the rights we have and letting government monitor our rights is a recipe for civil disaster...
This tragedy in CT was a tragic fluke and we have to be careful not to overreact as a society and end up inflicting more harm on America than we already have.
We learned recently as part of the flap on all this, that the gun lobby secured laws not allowing ATF to inspect any dealer more than once a year, ATF is not allowed to use computer tracking of weapons being transferred, even between dealers. These laws are bogus and need to be tossed out. ATF should inspect whatever dealer they need to inspect, whenever they need to and that includes surprise inspections. No end user private citizen will have their rights impinged by such inspection activity. The background checks need to expanded to include mentally incompetent people. This may mean a national db for mental health, or state db's with ATF access to the states bases. People may need to be included on the "no gun" list that are not otherwise affected in daily life. So they can still fly, drive, own property etc - but just cannot have a gun. Gonna need Doctors to sign some forms. Most all of the mass shootings in the last 10 years are mentally unstable people getting their hands on guns (sometimes legally) and they gave warnings many times prior to their attacks that they were dangerous. Conceal carry licensees have a very, very responsible history. Because their background checks are much more thorough and apparently not a violation of the 2nd amendment, those type checks ought to be made on persons buying guns in general. This may take time, so that is an inconvenience that they will just have to bear. We can make it safer without totally denying guns from responsible people.
You're right you know. Unfortunately, as the "gun rights" folks are absolutely unwilling to discuss such things as banning the non military manufacture and sales of 100 round drum magazines and the like, it looks as though we are stuck with our children paying for our right to bear arms with their lives.
As to the NRA's suggestion we have armed guards in all our schools, that's about 75,000 to 80,000 schools. Are their manufacturer and retail members willing to tack on a hefty sales tax to support the suggestion or is the American Taxpayer on the hook for safeguarding their business? Also what qualification do the "armed guards" meet? Are we talking about minimum wage guards with M-4s in the hallways of our schools? ...good luck with that.
We already have gun laws that are enforced. There is no way to predict when some person who seems normal might snap. Banning and restricting guns is not the answer. Taking an interest in the people around you and being aware of someone in distress is an answer. You need to take responsibility rather than relying on the government to do that for you.
"Banning and restricting guns is not the answer."
It was sure the answer in the UK and Japan, which now have virtually no gun crime thanks to bans. I can take all the responsibility I want, but my responsibility won't stop the next f*cked up Rambo-minded psycho from using weapons designed for no other reason than to kill a maximum number of people in a minimum of time from terrorizing innocent people.
the one and only
Government is the way we do together what is impossible or unreasonably difficult to do as individuals. Turning the society into a free-for-all which ignores community and operates without adequate rules is foolish. Should we do away with our traffic laws and have everyone just look out for themselves? Should we give up on food and drug safety rules and say that everyone is responsible for their own well-being?
Cooperation in matters involving public safety is rational and far, far more effective than relying only on individual action. The basic rules and regulations we have in our country regarding a wide range of safety and health issues are excellent ..... not perfect, but far better than your alternative. Those rules that improve the safety and well-being of citizens of this country are a substantial ingredient of my personal quality of life.
There is a balance in this country between personal responsibility and cooperative responsibility and I like it.
Seems like GANGS are what need to be controlled and outlawed. 80% of ALL crime......
No harm in trying. Right?
TracyS, One big difference....UK and Japan are not America, don't embellish the freedoms we have, and they don't have a Constitution that specifically states gun rights! Until then you have nothing to stand on other than you would like America to be less it's design and more like someone else.
not sure about Japan.. but the UK actually got worse. More assaults and rapes by 40% and 20%. Why? because people can't defend themselves and criminals now look at everyone as a target.
Us and Them
We're not talking about gangs. We're not talking about career criminals. We're talking about lone, wackos with rapid-fire weapons and a stupid amount of ammunition walking into a school or mall and killing our kids.
In my opinion the right wing needs to calm down a little...the 2nd Amendment is safe. We need to have an adult conversation regarding safety of our kids in school. Clearly banning ownership of firearms is not going to happen so let's pull that from the table right away.
Also I believe the NRA proposal of hiring armed security at all 75,000-85,000 schools is also probably not in the cards unless the NRA manufacture and retail members are willing to tack on a sales tax to support the idea. I seriously doubt the NRA will go for that one and I doubt most American Taxpayers are interested in subsidizing the firearms industry to safeguard their profits with tax money.
So what do we have left? Let's look at the issue. There are several things the perpetrators of these crimes have in common. Two of those things are access to firearms and mental health issues. Also most of these shooters are white males between the ages of 14 and 30. Since rounding up white males between the ages of 14 and 30 probably wouldn't be helpful, what's left is access to weapons and mental illness.
We need to consider something else also, the question of whether this has to be an all or nothing proposition. In other words, can this be a partial solution and can we examine a partial solution based on likely outcome versus potential rights infringements? Now calm down gun-rights folks, I'm not singling you out. I'm also talking about civil rights infringements for people with mental illness. All of this is of course an extremely slippery slope. Gun owners have a right to own guns and the mentally ill have a right to privacy. To add to the dilemma, I have not seen a universal objective definition as to how mentally ill a person has to be to curtail their right to bear arms. Is this done state by state or at the federal level? Which state or federal agency makes the call, ATF, DHS or Department of Health, Education and Welfare?
I haven't even gotten into the question of what conditions constitute potential armed danger to the public. Look, I don't have the answers, I don't claim to. We do need rational people on both sides of the issue to sit down and be willing to speak to each other. If this turns into more partisan crap we'll accomplish nothing but to enable the next mass murder of our kids. I don't think that's something either side can take pride in.
It's true that deaths at the hands of guns went down in the UK and Japan after the bans... that's only half the story though. Crime rates went UP... violent crimes went UP... and not just a little bit... you are now just as likely to be stabbed to death in the UK as you ever were to be shot.
IAmFrank
I'm curious Frank. This is the second time I've seen the mentioned recently. So the violent crime rate went up...a lot, correct? How about the murder rate?
Is that an established objective fact or is it your conclusion?
The user "OBAMA Bootlicks Mexicans" is a multiple rereg who has been banned many times in the last month. Moderator, please remove him once again.
Only when it comes to you...have a nice day.
It's funny one and only. I was a Paramedic for eight years and I learned NEVER to turn my back on an agitated patient. Fairly easy to get yourself killed that way (kind of an important safety tip). The second lesson was, the calmest person in the room can suddenly go off with the right provocation. Perhaps you are a psychologist, in which case pardon my questioning your professional judgement, but for the rest of us who aren't, you can do a hell of a lot of damage acting out your suspicions about people you don't know. I've seen quite a few reputations and careers destroyed by unfounded accusations.
I want to be in the 13% who can't be reached (don't give a crap) for nothin'.
What happened to the days when if women wanted their way, they just stopped putting out. Nothing has progressed since the days of Liz Estrada.
How about the belief that all guns should be banned, even for the Militia! When I say militia I mean the National Guard which is the only militia I know of!
Implementing just a few gun laws makes no sense. Won't prevent crime. Totally banning all guns and all ammo WOULD reduce the number of crimes committed with firearms. Unfortunately, itd also be against the 2nd amendment, and non-firearm crime rates would probably be higher than the previous crime rates ever were (happened in england)
clwyd-2621393
No it wouldn't. It would increase the profits of gun-runners. By the way, the US Government is a gun-runner. Iran-Contra affair. Operation Fast and Furious. Look them up. The guns are coming up through Mexico and finding their way into the hands of criminals through-out the nation. You would just be disarming people who are not the problem.
As a retired marine I have seen the destruction assult weapons do. The american public does not need these guns on the street. If anyone wants to have these weapons they need to join the active military and use them to protect their country. The army and marines have many of them to issue for official use. Use them to fight the enemy and not kill babies.
The NBC media keeps marching the gun agenda via COMCAST cables ownership of them and insane media reporting sensational crap...
All the while the fiscal cliff bullshlt was in the news 10 times a day (brainwashed malarkey to keep you distracted) congress voted to remove more of your privacy rights but no one even printed news about that...
America..admit it...most Americans are CLUELESS when it comes to NATIONAL politics...
Once your privacy is gone, no one will need any guns because we all will be under surveillance 24/7 by big brother... or in most cases BIG BULLY FOR YOUR MONEY AND PRIVACY THERE OF...
Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither ...look around, you have ALLOT less freedom and ALLOT less security in America...I guess all truths are self evident huh???
NBC, and Comcast as it's owners, are the most pathetic tabloid news pile of crap America has ever witnessed.
Change is necessary
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/15/graphic-31-days-later-u-s-gun-deaths-since-newtown/
So in other words the headline should read: Almost 2/3 of America against gun control".
You live in a strange world where 48% (the 43% who like the law as-is and the 5% who want less regulation) = "almost 2/3."
So yes, if you want the headline to lie, it could read your way.
Or it could say "Less Than ½ Want Gun Laws to be Loosened or Left Alone" -- but that would be misleading in the other direction (though at least it would at least be based in reality), as it would conveniently leave out that less than half also want gun laws strengthened.
Sorry, averon1, but the 14% who couldn't make up their mind or declined to answer don't get to count for either side, no matter how much you want them to.
38% is pretty close to 1/3.
Either way, a MAJORITY of people do not agree with increasing gun laws.
KennyVee
If someone has a great big gun that shoots lots of bullets real fast, nobody will dare point out to him that he's a math moron.
It is sad that with 48 likes, Jukkou's comment, which was the first of the day, was censored by the community. Even if you don't agree, he has a right to speak his mind. It seems that this taking away of freedoms and silencing of contrary opinions is a growing trend, even in the commentary section of important national news issues. That said, I would like to re-post my assessment of what is behind what we see taking place in this nation:
The real reason that this nation has seen such an increase of violent crime is that we have chosen to close our eyes and ears to living rightly. We have chosen to worship other gods than the One who made us. We have set ourselves against Him in our educational system, saying that that we have merely evolved from animals. We have been created by God, but truly, we are acting like animals. We endorse violence by paying millions of dollars each week at the movie box office to soak in perverse and violent entertainment. We see nothing wrong with that. Amazingly, as our entertainment industry continues to flush their "entertainment" garbage upon us, our liberal media points the finger at Christians as those who are causing our problems and societal break down. We even see one of our once God-reverencing political party's wanting to throw the mention of God completely out of their platform. We are redefining how we should live our lives according to what seems good to our own selfish desires, forgetting the One who created us to begin with. We ignore the makings of strong families as we seek to gratify our selfish pursuits and then wonder why there is such an escalation of deviant behavior in our midst.
Perhaps it is true that the Church has much responsibility for what is now occurring in our land. A large portion of Christians have become entangled by the same false way of life. We have failed to be the people we have been called to be. As a nation, we have forgotten the two greatest commandments - to love the Lord with all of our heart and to love our neighbor as our self. If we return to the reverence and love of God, we will be amazed at how things begin to turn around for us as a people.
I guess all the anti-gunners here on the vine talking about how a majority of people want tougher gun laws were wrong..... Again. Amazingly the numbers wanting stricter gun control were pretty damn low last year - It's a short duration spike.
Now you see why the administration is no adamant about enacting tougher gun controls NOW. They have to do it now before the spike falls back down to more normal levels and they lose their opportunity. I wish I could say it's shocking they are politicizing the recent tragedies but it's just par for their course.
not only that, anti gunners dont know what they are asking for as they have no concept of the current laws in place as proven by a study by duke university and linked on another thread here last night. the most interesting and telling aspect of the post were the responses of the anti gunners. all they could come up with were comments like "you suck", "loser", "blah, blah, blah", and assorted comparisons to male genital parts. not one single intelligent response.
http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm
All this proves is that Obama and the Progressives are so Unamerican they don't even understand the majority of us.
When did 48% become a majority?
You obviously don't have a grasp of simple mathematics.
As an example, if you have 48% approve of something, 30% disapprove, and 22% undecided out of 100% of respondents to a survey, then 48% IS the majority.
Do you understand now?
When did 38% become the voice for everyone else?
good job Pagan Moon......you may have a cookie.
Out of 100% of respondents, 48% want no change or less laws.
That leaves 52%.
Majority means more than half. Math doesn't get much simpler.
And Chris, 38% do not speak for everyone else. Nobody is claiming that. But to claim a majority when there is none is ridiculous.
Fraid not Kenny see websters definition below:
ma·jor·i·ty
noun \mÉ™-ˈjȯr-É™-tÄ“, -ˈjär-\
pluralma·jor·i·ties
Definition of MAJORITY
1
obsolete: the quality or state of being greater
2
a: the age at which full civil rights are accorded
b: the status of one who has attained this age
3
a: a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total <a majority of voters> <a two-thirds majority>
b: the excess of a majority over the remainder of the total : margin <won by a majority of 10 votes>
c: the greater quantity or share <the majority of the time>
4
: the group or political party having the greater number of votes (as in a legislature)
Let's see...a number or PERCENTAGE (which is what we're dealing with here) equaling more than half of total. Nope, 48% still isn't a majority.
Come on, people, didn't any of you actually pay attention when they taught this in 2nd grade?
This is why there's no reasoning with the "everything is just fine, your child's death is the price you pay for my freedom" crowd. If simple concepts like this are too much for you, there's no hope in actually discussing the issue with you.
Kenny, of the total that had an opinion they do.
Obama isn't as unAmerican as the gun manufacturers lobby is which is the NRA that doesn't care about how many innocents are murdered every day by their gun that they provide the killers with.
The raw numbers on an issue like this are not nearly as important as the trends. And just as the trend lines prior to the November elections were totally lost on the right wing, they'll be lost here as well. Most 'wingers just cannot accept the remote possibility that they 1)might be on the wrong side of an issue, and 2) that the rest of the world is moving a lot faster than they are. So, once again, it shows clearly that the problem with 'wingers isn't what they believe, it's how they get to what they end up believing. They're one-dimensional in their thinking, and they're uncomfortable thinking in any time period except the past.
That would be true, if your concept of mathematics fit the poll. Your first mistake is the assumption that the number of respondents equals the number polled. 43+38+5 = 86, which means that 14% of the people polled either had no opinion or didn't want to voice it. As much as you would like those 14% to have your opinion, it ain't gonna happen. Of the respondents, half (43/86) are happy with current gun laws, 5% (5/86, truncated rather than rounded) want less strict gun laws, leaving 45% (38/86) wanting more strict gun laws.
I'm sorry but you are not the majority no matter what you say. Your a man I presume so your in the minority right away. Your probably white which puts you in the minority again. Gee finally you white men aren't going to get to rule everything, since you've made such a mess already.
According to the US Census Bureau, men outnumber women in the world population by about 50 million.
Agreed
Putting aside your obvious misandry, the article is about people's opinion on gun control measures. Nowhere in the article does it state how respondents were grouped by race or gender.
Republicans weren't the ones busing in non English speaking, no photo I.D. foreigners to the polls by the thousands in swing states. The election was hardly a snapshot of the true American mindset. Those against the Democratic parties new agenda were too divided to come together, that is all. A lot of people wouldn't vote for a Mormon as well, and we ended up with a damn pro Muslim, pro illegal immigration communist scumbag instead. I hope people wise up soon, and kick his type out of government next time.
When did the NRA start making guns ?
Go ahead, take away the guns. Lets make our military, and our police, and the Secret Service disarm too and see how all that goes. Will less people really get shot, or will it cause more violence and death ? I say the latter would be our fate.
For sure, like you I was unaware the NRA was a manufacturer of firearms. Goes to show you how uninformed I am. No wait, I am informed, the other idiots are uninformed. Most don't even know there is a difference between an "assault rifle" and a civilian rifle. That's probably because most anti gun people are too cowardly (like Barry Soetoro) to serve in the military.
Propaganda attempting to push people into believing that additional gun laws are the mainstream belief when in fact most of the new guns being bought the last two months are all new gun owners. We don't need new gun laws. Criminals do not follow the laws, hence the name criminal. How about enforcing laws that do not attempt to steal that natural rights of people? How about asking the question why every mass shooting has had a strong tie to prescription psychotropic drugs? How about asking why the media hasn't asked the tough questions about why so many "facts" in the Newtown shooting are in conflict with eachother?
Very true. Gun shops in my area are sold out of rifles and ammo for the most part. Liberals should ask themselves why so many people would run out and arm themselves? That would be a poll worth taking.
Truth_Hurts-3416308
The answer is obvious: There are a lot of loons out there who think Obama's going to take their Precious away from them.
It's more than a little sad that the gun industry profits from these massacres like in Tuscon, Aurora, and Newtown because morons always rush out to buy more guns before the imaginary gun ban takes place.
though it is ok for the liberal left in this country to use these events to erode more of our constitutional rights.
You want Gun Control to be taken seriously.. Do not wait for events like this to happen to try and push more gun laws ( that in the end will do nothing )
It's very simple...the right to have firearms is a constitutional right. Taking that right away will not prevent crime. And even if it did, it's still a constitutional right. People might not have the foresight to understand why the 2nd amendment was originally added or why its still relevant, but that was never really a requirement for it to be followed.
Woop dee doo, a whole whopping 38% want tougher gun laws. Not happening, not now, not ever! Tougher gun laws will do nothing to solve the problem. Liberals will counter "well, if it just saves one more life, its worth it". Lets weigh that against lives that are lost because someone couldn't buy a firearm to defend themselves. Lets use the same logic for everything. That means an immediate ban on all mode of travel but walking. That would save lives because no one would die in auto, buss, airplane, or train accidents again.
Yea, Romney was ahead in the polls too.
Talk about banning trucks, and see how many run out and buy one.
This is bull. Most Americans do not want anymore gun control. These latest shootings are a jerk reaction to ban weapons, especially assault weapons.
This "so called report" is subject to who, when, why, what part of the population, what race, what gun control rights group did they poll?
Most Americans know that once the socialists get more gun control only the gangs and the government will have guns. To many know what the socialist stood for before WW2.
Too many know what happened in Prohibition. Only the gangs and crooks, thugs had liquor, and if you wanted it, pay or die.
Who is going to protect the public from gangs that will have the assault weapons.
The cops can't protect us now.
The liberals made sure of that by all the liberal rights laws that protect the gangs with so called rights and fancy lawyers.
They are the ones responsible for all the violence today. When you tie the hands of law you take protection away from the public and give it to the gangs. So it is a double mistake on the parts of the liberals.
Steven100
You're lying. No one has proposed banning ALL weapons, or even most weapons. Only assault weapons. You'd think even mouth-breathing gun nuts would be for background checks for all gun sales, but they seem to think people on the terrorist watch list who can't get on airplanes should be able to buy guns.
Just put a big tattoo across the forehead that reads FELONY or MENTAL.... there, issue solved......
Actually they have Houston! Both Diane Feinstine and Bloomberg proposed total bans and Bloomberg is now proposing gun confiscation laws!
Nora-616050
You're either lying or just stupidly repeating someone else's lie. Typical gun nuttery.
Houston,
you obviously do not know what your talking about.. Just do a google search and you can get hit after hit about Mayors wanting to do a "gun grab".. ( for the record I do not own a single gun )
Cuomo and Bloomberg from New York have Publicly talked about gun confiscation.
In Iowa, State Rep. Dan Muhlbauer said... “We cannot have big guns out here as far as the big guns that are out here, the semi-automatics and all of them. We can’t have those running around out here. Those are not hunting weapons.” “We need to get them off the streets – illegally – and even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them. We can’t have those out there … Those guns should not be in the public’s hands. There are just too many guns.”
YES gun grabs have been talked about in many different states now.
Jeremy-960164
They have not called for a "total ban," which was the original lie posted here. They haven't called for a ban on MOST guns. They've only talked about a ban on SOME guns whose only purpose is to kill large numbers of people quickly. You'd think even a moron could understand that. Gun nuts aren't even that bright, apparently.
Why are you lying? Feinstine proposed an assault weapons ban...not a total ban.
Please provide a link to Bloomberg proposing gun confiscation laws. Again it looks like assault weapons ban to me...not confiscation...show me!
Do you actually know what he was talking about? "Officials in New York City announced the indictments of sixteen members of two separate gun trafficking networks for allegedly selling more than 100 illegal firearms, including assault weapons and machine guns. "
Do you have a problem with that? Do you believe criminals have a right to bear arms as well?
As to your comment about "many states" grabbing guns, are you talking about the "buy back" programs?...if so:
Do you have a problem with that? Do you believe criminals have a right to bear arms as well?
you are absolutely right as provenn by a study by duke university.
http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm
feinsteins gun BAN proposal
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
@old_doc. believe it or not you just hit the nail on the head. NO, responsible law abiding gun owners want criminals to have guns of any kind.
that is the entire problem.
unfortunately, the proposed solution "ban assault weapons" do nothing to address that
can anybody answer this question ?
what is the total contribution to gun deaths by assault weapons (as defined by people who have no idea what assault weapons are) in the us annually ?
That was my whole point regarding a reasonable discussion. So far, they only thing coming from the right is "...pry it from my cold dead hand". Or the NRA proposal, "let the taxpayers hire armed guards". You claim responsible gun owners don't want criminals to own guns but every time the someone suggests closing the gun show/private sales loophole to background checks, we're back to prying it from your cold dead hand. I consider myself a responsible gun owner but you know what...I don't need a 100 round drum magazine to protect my home and everyone should go through a background check.
Here ya go ol' Doc... straight from Diane Feinstein's mouth.
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them … Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here."
Diane Feinstein 1995
Liberals live in the moment. They believe the leaders and media, but don't think about 5 or 10 years from now. Liberal leaders would love to see a complete gun ban. There's plenty of quotes out there to support this. They know that people don't respond to change very fast, so it's obviously dumb to go for broke on the laws...they pass as much as they can, let people acclimate, and then do it again. This is why pro-gun people are so adamant about not instituting any more gun control. They won't really make a difference in crime rates, and the next time another tragedy occurs then even more laws will be added. It's not a conspiracy, its human nature.
How does Gallup get these numbers when other polls show a majority of Americans want gun show loopholes closed and high-capacity ammo clips banned? Gallup is the same outfit that also discovered that Mitt Romney would win the presidency, so I guess it's not too surprising that their poll is an outlier that conforms to right wing wishful thinking more than reality.
Gallup gets their poill numbers the correct way of only polling the gun manufacturers employees , the tea party and NRA members and never a member of the Democrat Party and Gallup had Romney as the winner of the election so they have to be correct don't they. I've seen another poll that said 70% was for stricter gun laws with many were NRA members. To help the gun manufactureers we should legalize fully automatic weapons and rocket launcers . Apparently the rocket launchers are on the market since there were two American made turned in on the gun buy back. Gun manufactures wants profits regardless of how many lives it will cost !
You sir are a sore sport. And your whinning is only over whelmed by your closed mind and bad looks.
Even if a majority supported banning guns, the "right to keep and bear" firearms is written into the Constitution. If you want to change that, you have to amend it. That's is very do-able, and the last amendment passed in 1992.
Otherwise, quit your whining and shut up.
And while they're at it, do something about that 1st Amendment..... too much freedom allowed there.... maybe stop anyone from voicing their opinion when it differs from the President's....
Oh wait........ already in place..............
HNL
Even conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia conceded that the 2nd Amendment doesn't give you the right to own any gun and carry it around anywhere. That's why you can't tote a fully-automatic weapon around, and you can't bring your precious pop gun onto an airliner. Even Scalia doesn't want to be on the same airplane as a gun nut.
And which President would that be ... the "you're either with us or against us" Texas Village Idiot, or some other President?
All one has to do is view the behavior of the pro-gun side of the argument to understand why we should have better registration and control of firearm purchases. Anyone who thinks the sale of 10 million firearms in six months is related to "self defense" isn't looking at the big picture. But in reality most of these weapons belong to a specific segment of out society. And that's the segment that will not budge and that insinuates threats to use their weapons at every turn. That's the mess we have created.
Watch this board and see which comments are rational and which are filled with insults and rhetoric. And keep in mind the insult and rhetoric crowd holds the majority of the private firepower in this country.
voxrationis, when lets say God forbid we are invaded by some foreign government do you think they will ask you nicelyto surrender or will they force you too. I know your answer will be this is irrationally we want be attacked remember pearl harbor and tell me again it wont happen.How will you defend yourself then with nice words and great communication skills?
The next attack will be cyber or anotheer terrorist attack. No foreign gov't is going to wasting the effort to invade with troops when they can just distroy our banking system, etc with an internet attack. It is easy and clean for them. Or they could send in drones. Guns will be totally useless with any of these.
Zannie84
True enough. Also, If you have ever been involved in a house-to-house weapons search (or even an exercise), you know first civilian who draws a weapon dies. Any relative in that room probably also dies. Kahana, do you really think some clerk is going to review gun registration records to look for addresses. They would do a block by block...kick in the door and toss the house search. If you resisted, you would die and perhaps you entire family dies. Ammunition is cheaper than mistakes.
Spiked? Wow you guys are good. you claim 38% and spin that into an anti gun B.S. article?
And yet civilian gun manufacturing is at an all time high.
You would have to be a very special kind of stupid to see this as anything other then a referendum backing gun ownership.
We're losing more Americans to domestic violence than we are to foreign wars. And it's mostly good people being killed by bad. The gun manufacturers shouldn't be the ones writing our laws.
We lose more Americans to drunk driving than we do with guns. What is your point?
I am getting very concerned about the
direction and support I am seeing on the subject of “gun control”.
The politicians and leaders of those groups supporting gun control
are not stupid (no matter what we say, we actually know that).
They know that over 20,000 gun laws
have not been effective in reducing violent crimes. They know that
making illegal acts even more illegal by adding increased penalties
will not work. They know that criminals do not believe that they will
be caught and convicted so the severity of the penalty is of limited
consequence. They know that if the severity of the penalty were
actually effective, more countries and states would have the death
penalty and there would be no murders in the world. Yet they continue
to use good sounding but meaningless terms like “tighter gun
control” as if they have found law number 20,001 that will stop
violent crime.
They know that the US Constitution has
a 2nd Amendment that states: “A well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”[Ratified 12/15/1791]
and they know what that Amendment actually means. They know that the
1994 Assault Weapons Ban did not prevent Columbine or 14 other mass
shooting while it was in effect. They know the Connecticut Assault
Weapons Ban did not prevent Sandy Hook. Yet, they propose new bans
with even broader definitions of cosmetic features to define as many
weapons as possible. The few details they have provided about the new weapons
bans they are proposing, are increasingly broad in their criteria
such that they will eventually result in the registration then
banning, and then confiscation of all firearms. They invent
scary-sounding but meaningless terms like “assault weapons” to
describe firearms with magazines. These groups refuse to provide any
detail on their proposals for gun control, which prevents any
meaningful analysis of the possible effectiveness and/or legality of
those proposals until the very last moment. They know all this and
yet they continue to propagate known lies and misleading statements
to garner purely emotional support from voters for their “reasonable”
restrictions on firearms and ammunition without any real rational
justification or understanding. If they know all this, then what is
their true purpose?
We're not talking about criminals. We're talking about terrorists who have no intention of being caught or convicted, they most often take their own life before capture. I don't have the answer...but clearly neither do you. And what is truly sad is that so long as you're gun is safe...you don't appear the think there is a problem.
OMG!!!! After almost 2 straight months of media outlets saying NOTHING BUT "BAN GUNS!! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE", the number of people who SUPPORT gun control is almost HALF the number of people who DON'T support gun control!!!
OH MY FREAKING GOD!!!
... The headline should REALLY be "About 2/3rds of Americans still don't want to see increased gun control despite media's best effort to raise the numbers as high as possible!"
Also, NBC: can we PLEASE get some REAL journalism? I know your bosses don't want you to ACTUALLY be a journalist, but be like Ben Swann and just make your own youtube channel! That way you can actually be a journalist!!
Did you know that VIOLENT CRIME (not just gun deaths, like Piers "Jackass" Morgan spends all his time talking about) is HIGHER in the UK (even adjusting for differing definitions)?
Did you know that MURDERS BY HAMMERS/CLUBS is HIGHER in the US than murders by assault rifles?
These facts show CONCLUSIVELY that this whole gun restriction has NOTHING AT ALL to do with protecting civilians, but EVERYTHING to do with disarming the public. If your government ACTUALLY wanted to restrict deaths, and idiotically thought that a ban of the weapon would be the most effective way of doing so (it's not), then banning hammers would be much more productive.
NBC: Government stooges.
I don't know what planet you live on, but here on Earth, nobody has asked to "BAN GUNS"...
ban them? perhaps not lib....controlling every aspect of firearms, and to what avail however.....
Well the government (fed, state & local) controls all aspects of life - from how much taxes you have to pay, to where you can and can not drink a beer. Why not guns?
Do you think that everyone (including criminals) should be allowed to buy/own guns?
A firearm is an inanimate object, you can pass laws up the yazoo and never change that fact. Nor is it now or ever been the right of the govt, to decide who may or may not own a damn thing. THEY work for US. the controls of which you advocate are simply not relative to the subject any more then the whole "drunk driving" or any other debacle of an argument of comparison for that matter.
What you fail to realise is that laws take effect in the majority of the time, AFTER the fact and as it has been proven time and time again, have little if any redeemable value.
Perhaps no one is saying "ban all guns", however there is a fair number of people calling for the ban on "semiautomatic weapons"
Anyone that knows anything about guns knows that nearly all modern day firearms are in fact "semiautomatic" So in fact, there are many people who are calling for a ban on almost all weapons.
Felons and criminals have their rights also so why take away their constitutional rights . Of course they don't belong to a "well regulated miliary group " the constitution calls for like the NRA seems to be.
Hey Clayton.....did you actually think about what you were typing before you typed it?
A 20th century industrial design concept is form follows function. What is the purpose and function of assault weapons. Why are they called assault weapons and not hunting rifles. What is the function of a 30 round magazine? Is it for bad shots squirrel hunting? And where do you draw the line. If assault weapons are okay and what about a machine gun? Why can't we have fully automated automatic weapons? Is this not also an insult to the Second Amendment? How about a bazooka, an antitank weapon, antiaircraft weapons? How about shoulder fired antiaircraft weapons? What if I want to have a tank to be part of a modern militia to protect the security of the state. What about my Second Amendment rights. Are not bombs, C-4 and other explosives necessary for a modern militia? These are not revolutionary times and flintlocks. I don't think Ben Franklin, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson would have condoned stretching the Second Amendment to absurdity.
When you begin by confusing what is actual assault weapon (fully automatic weapons), and what is a semi-automatic weapon (any firearm that fires only one bullet for ever trigger pull and does all the necessary steps to dispense the previous cartridge and replace it with a new cartridge) then you can take your narrative where ever you want it.
You can't define a weapon based on its shape, but by it's functionality.
If you want to make a clip smaller, fine, it can take as little as roughly one second for someone who wants to change clips. But true assault weapons, those that are fully automatic, are not available to the general public. A semi-automatic weapon that perhaps shares the styling of military firearms, but has only the same functionality of your typical 9mm hand gun, including ammunition capacity, is what many are speaking of banning.
Too often I hear people arguing to "ban all semi automatic weapons" having no clue what semi automatic means! The vast majority, nearly all modern day firearms are in fact semi automatic.
An assault rifle is either a semi-automatic or an automatic weapon. Does that mean that all semi-automatic weapons are assault rifles? Is a mini-14 Ranch an assault rifle because it is semi-automatic or is an assault rifle an assault rifle because of it's ease of concealment, rate of fire and the use of an extended magazine?
Since you seem to be a 2nd Amendment advocate I ask you, do you know the difference between an assault rifle and a semi-automatic? If you tell me they are one and the same, then you clearly don't know as much as I assumed you do. Some people are calling for a ban on assault rifles, not semi-automatic rifles. You are simply adding to the hysteria, and I think you know better.
@ Liberal_Libertarian.
i guess you have never heard heard of senator feinstein. oh, by they way she packs heat too. how hypocritical.
A true assault rifle is NOT specifically a semi-automatic or fully automatic weapon, as you are stating, meaning they are NOT one and the same!
A true assault rifle has either 1 or all 3 settings of firing. 1. fully automatic, 2. burst fire, both of which will fire multiple shots with a single pull of a trigger. and lastly some true assault rifles do have semi-automatic firing capabilities meaning that you will have to pull the trigger each time you want a bullet to fire.
No not all semi-automatic weapons are are assault rifles, in fact none are. They may be "styled" like a true assault rifle, but as stated earlier, styling does not make a weapon, it's functionality does.
Some 6 shooter revolvers can by definition be a semi automatic weapon. Standard issued Police 9mm Glocks are semi automatic weapons. The mini-14 Ruger has two different models, one that is a semi-automatic and one that is an assault rifle(AC-556, which is/was only available to police and military, and from what I understand is no longer in production). The difference between the two, is how it fires.
True assault rifles may have semi automatic capabilities, but weapons that are solely semi automatic are not assault weapons!
Concealment and clip capacity have nothing to do with what makes a weapon either an assault weapon or a semi automatic weapon, that distinction is made solely in the manner to which it fires.
I'm well aware that some people are, perhaps more correctly, calling for a ban on assault weapons and not semi automatics, but I've seen many on this site, as well as some with public influence calling for bans on semi automatic weapons.
I'm not sure who they're polling. I've spoken to OVER 50 people on this subject and it's unanimous; 100% want a BAN on assault weapons and high capacity ammo packs. NONE of us want a TOTAL ban on weapons (THAT would violate the Constitution), just weapons which have the SOLE purpose of KILLING PEOPLE. The ONLY people who should be in possession of these types of weapons are Law Enforcement and the Military.
Also, 100% of us are IN FAVOR of stricter screening to get get weapons of ALL kinds.
WE have a Constitutional right to live without fear of being massacred by these weapons of mass destruction. We don't allow every day citizens to own grenades, missiles, and tanks, make pipe bombs, drive drunk, or throw rocks down on cars from an overpass. Why, then, is it okay to allow LEGAL access to these weapons? Why do we not strictly regulate who can own a gun that can be used against the general population?
Just like letting the fanatical Tea Party hold average America hostage, the minority NRA is attempting to manipulate the legislators into interfering with the will of most Americans. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
You sir, have no constitutional right to live without fear. That is a personal choice and not something that a government can grant you.
As a law enforcement officer I find it funny that you want me to have "assault weapons" to protect your cowardly backside, but you don't think an average Joe citizen should be able to protect themselves with that same weapon.
You are a coward. And as a law enforcement officer, as a democrat, as a liberal, and a man who chooses to take his own protection, into his own hands, I find you to be the most offensive kind of human being out there. Go hide away somewhere and pray that the big bad wolf never knocks on your door.
Oh, and btw, I am #51 and just skewed your perfect %100. I will say that NONE of my brothers and sisters want this gun control legislation to pass either. So chalk up my department as being another 250 against gun control
Your tank argument is flawed for one very obvious reason, although it may not be obvious to those who have a hard-on for banning so-called "assault weapons". That reason is that the 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to own arms, or small arms, which do not include tanks, artillery, pipe bombs, RPGs, or any other war machine you want to include. This is why American citizens can still legally possess fully-automatic weapons (contrary to popular belief). They may be difficult to get, and rightfully so, but with the proper licenses and permits, our constitutional right to own any small arm that we want still exists. And you can bet that if a new assault weapons ban were ever to pass, you could still go buy one, albeit with more hoops to jump through. Good day.
N. Cook: The sheriff of Newtown said that he supports the gun ban and that it is concerning to him that his officers are under-powered. My cousins in law enforcement (5) say the same thing, so not all your law enforcement brothers & sisters are on board with your views. And Glenn said that he did not support a total ban, so your comments are off base and concerning from a law enforcement officer.
Sen. Feinstein's new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of "assault weapon" that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths
of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein's new bill are as follows:
Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms.
Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle.
Expands the definition of "assault weapon" by including:
Requires owners of existing assault weapons" to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA).
photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.
Glenn Weintraub
This is simple, I suspect that you hate guns but more importantly, if you only poll your friends and you are more likely to be friends with like minded people then your Poll will be off. I do not own a gun but support the second amendment,
I have discussed this with 25 people (all smokers) and it breaks down much like this poll suggests, 17 people want things to stay the same, they all agree that we are seeing an emotional reaction and not a reasoned one and that the real problem is one of mental health and that in the haste to ban guns mental health, the real cause of the problem is being ignored.
The other 8 all agree that there needs to be more done, they think those who disagree are ‘stupid’ or ‘nuts’ and would all be o.k. with a gun ban, at least on what the media has told them are ‘assault weapons’
Now the point to this is every A hole has an opinion and Those who are like minded tend to reinforce each other. Now my ‘poll’ was done over the 3 weeks with people who smoke outside of my work… Not science but, no less so then yours…
Yet I'm pretty sure the founding fathers did not intend to restrict our right to keep and bear tanks, jet fighters and nuclear devices ... for self defense
Some common sense reforms are needed. I just listened a talk about this on CSPAN radio and they had some great ideas.
For example, there is no good reason not to strengthen the background check requirements. In the 21st century, you should be able to run a background check from your smart phone and have the results back in a matter of minutes. Background checks should be required in private gun sales as well, what's the logic to exempt 40% of all gun sales?
Also, the President can require all federal agencies to update the relevant databases so more criminals are prevented from buying a gun.
The extended capacity magazines should also be banded. I personally don't think that will do much good, but there is no reason for having 100 round magazines either and it will be an act of good will which will help the debate move forward.
100 round magazine? another uninformed anti gun moron. I woukd love to see someone pick up a weapon with a 100 rounds, kinda of heavy.
Google is your friend : surefire high capacity magazine...
Who's the uninformed moron now?
Yes 100 round .223 magazines are heavy to haul around. Not every practical. Whether they are or not is not really very relevant either. The large magazines don't seem to pose much of a threat in the real world.
There is no real reason to ban them. Good will gestures are meaningless in topics like this except to entice the other side to increase the pressure for more concessions. It works fine for some instances but not one's like this.
BTW, if we were to give you this as a good will gesture, what would your good will gesture be to us?
Also Liberal Libertarian a 100 round magazine or drum is very very prone to jamming. Very few people who know guns would want one due to this very fact. That's one reason why 20-30 round box magazines are so much more prevalent, reliability.
The political games of changing up words to garner support for the liberal/socialist stance of disarming legal citizens is a game of smoke and mirrors. They say tougher gun laws when the real focus should be on tougher laws for criminals who use guns in the commission of crimes.
Politicians and the liberal media use hysteria to Rabble Rouse the ignorant masses. Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the nation and has an avalance of gun deaths every week as we see in the news. The criminals are armed while the legal citizens are not. The law abiding citizens are forced to hide and hope that street thugs do not come after them because if they do, it is too late. The police can only pick up the bodies and mop the blood. Criminals are taking advantage of the fact that citizens are unarmed and the crooked politicians are reaping in the benefits in the form of bribes and graft.
As I read the news stories as with the one posted today where the teens were playing video games in a "Festive Atomsphere" as they had strangled two other kids and dismembered them, I wonder... I am wondering where they kept the ARs and AK47s since they were obviously deranged. The people that focus on weapons here in America and want to disarm the law abiding citizens are not think about the chance that they might encounter some of these fine examples of American Youth in a public place and their own life or the lives of their families are in danger.
I went to the news site for India today to read more about the rash of violent rapes and murders happening in India. There I found a NEWS STORY FROM THE NEW YORK TIME WHERE 3 TEEN AGED BOYS REPEATEDLY RAPED A MENTALLY CHALLENGED GIRL IN A CLASSROOM IN NEW YORK.
The commenters there had some interesting critisisms of America and applied stereo types that the liberals here usually reserve for and non liberal.
MY QUESTION IS WHERE IS THIS NEWS STORY ON OUR INTERNET NEWS SITES?
There is a battle here in America against the constitution that has been going on since the current administration has been in office and they are supported by a liberal, paid for media.
The reason women are being raped, and children are being preyed upon by predators is that the laws have become too leanient in the punishment of these people. Another news story I read on the Indian site was of a convicted murderer and serial child rapist being released from prison for good behavior. He raped and killed another young girl within a week. The cure for this is simple once guilt is assured and proven beyond a doubt, kill the offender and they will never rape of molest a child again.
Criminal laws need to be strengthened and not the political GRANDSTANDING we see on Capital hill where law abiding citizens and their constitutional rights are attacked for personal agendas. Biden is simply fulfilling his boss's agenda that was in place from the beginning. He did not press it before the election for obvious reasons. I would call that fraudulent intent.
Beware when the Government feels so threatened so as to disarm their citizens because it means there are plans to go against the people's rights and values. The reason we have the right to bear arms is that we revolted against tyranny from Emperial and Religious domination that ruled Europe since the death of Christ. Our founder knew that power begets corruption and the arming of our citizens would keep honest men honest. Revolution is our birthright.
Lazarus
You have so many things wrong I don't know where to begin.
1. NYC has tough gun laws and is the safest large city in the US. Baltimore has gone heavily after gun crimes and the violence has gone down significantly. Just because Chicago is troubled does not mean gun laws do not work.
2. In the last 20 years, violent crime and murders have gone down, so the "unarmed civilians" argument does not hold.
3. Blaming violence on video games is stupid. The US government has tortured hundreds and killed hundreds of thousands in the last decade, many of them civilians, if we use your logic, isn't it more reasonable to assume that's what's causing the problem??
4. India has twice the number of murders (around 32k compared to 16k for the US), but 4 times the population, so arguing that India is worst is wrong.
5. Laws are not lenient. Actually they are probably as strict as they've ever been. Around 1% of the US population is currently in jail/prison, an unheard number in the rest of the world.
I can keep going but I think I prove my point...
Why don't you show us some statistics for that claim. Furthermore, statistically speaking, It's quite obvious that one city has to be the safest. But what are you basing your definition of "safe" on? Less murders? Less thefts? Less accidents? Less cancer cases? And is that per capita or based on total population>
You better think again, my friend.
You haven't proven sh*t.
In the 21st century, we have a thing called Google ...
I don't know if the link will show, but here is what I found in about 15 seconds on Google:
"Bloomberg compared New York’s murder rate — the lowest rate per 100,000 residents amongst the 25 most populated cities — to other famous cities in the country."
Since we are talking about guns violence here, I assumed it's fairly self-evident that I mean murders...
NYC: 414 murders in 2012 in a city of 8 mil. Ranked 10th in Forbes safest cities: "New York City’s relatively low violent-crime rate of 582 per 100,000, 27th-lowest among U.S. cities over 250,000 in population" In another survey NYC ranked 2nd in the large city list.
I just happened to have posted this on another of MSNBC's "posts" on the subject so in keeping with their insistence to take away our freedom:
It will be like the "occupy movement". A bunch of hormone and adrenaline driven people will become "enraged" over an obvious injustice and in the typical idealistic manner all the emotionally motivated radicals will give the media a chance to make a few hundred million dollars on the "cause". The difference with this one is the biggest radical of all happens to have somehow won an election that puts him in a position of limited power and he has yet to realize how limited it is-but he will. In time the flood of hormones and adrenaline will subside and cooler heads will prevail with sound reasoning and we shall reach the eventual conclusion that in the United States of America guns are how we gained, maintain, and preserve the very liberty that gavis us the ability to so indigently cry out for the change that we feel is necessary. In short it is the driving force in this the most free and democratic of all Nations that we do become a more Perfect Union. But we can only do that if we remain strong enough to stand against all enemies foreign and domestic. The only way to do that is to insure are citizens are armed. If we do not we will not become a changed America. We will become something different all together and I for one will die before I see that happen. I made that oath when I was 17 years old and now, at 57, I have not changed my mind. Neither has the majority of America.
CSM USA RET Airborne Infantry 23yrs
Oh by the way, is Gallup another subsidiary of anther Chinese (or muslim) owned company? I would like to know.
Those who would beat their swords into plowshares....will plow for those who didn't.
Gun control isn't about guns...its about control.
I own a gun and a plow....it is the American way. And it IS our culture. I for one, though not alone, am NOT ashamed of that.
Don't worry, we are spending around $600 billion each year on "swords" (and that's not including the war funding) - more than the next 12 countries combined (including China, Britain, Russia and others).
Liberal Lib: All of the above make sense, but the NRA opposes even reasonable restrictions. The president of the NRA, Keene, says that he does not support instituting background checks for purchases at gun shows.
That's the problem. The NRA is extreme on one side, the Brady campaign is extreme on the other and nothing gets done in the middle.
Yes, there is a right to own guns, no that does not mean the government can not regulate them. It's that simple. Yet people can't seem to get it.
The problem is that there are already laws requiring background checks at gun shows, just like everywhere else. But a gun from a dealer at a gun show and it has to go through a NICS check, just like at his store.
And, just like any other piece of personal property, like a car or furniture, an owner is allowed to sell his property on a street corner if he desires.
As the laws stand now it is still illegal for a private seller to sell to a convicted felon or adjudicated mentally ill person.
NO law will keep weapons away from the criminals nor those that are mentally ill till AFTER they can do an criminal act.
Even King obwan says that nothing he's proposing would have stopped what happened at Sandy Hook.
What a bunch of women men have turned into.
some men
The turd's jack-boots aren't going to like this.
1)Looks to me that Boehner should say we are not touching gun legislation until at least 6 months have passed. Writing laws when emotions are running high is never wise. How many people have regreted instantly responding to a quip or email that enraged them?
2) Let's focus on money and jobs seems like those are serious enough issues.
3) Obama may well want to focus on number #1 since he is a populist type of person and #2 well stepping in/on #2 is always yucky.
Guns , Guns, Guns
Now that you are distacted from jobs, economy, and the enviroment, education, also the serious matter of the loss of of our bee population, by the time you go on to very serious issues because of your politics, and not your logic.
Please pay attention to the other issues, that effect not only life itself but the future in the most imperative importance. Lets get things done in these areas, as your emotions do not seem to be concerned to the real issues.
Libtard anti gun nuts----- strictest guns laws on the books in the nation in NJ. No carry, no concelaed weapons, no high capacity magazines, no assault rifles. Minimum 30 days to get handgun permit with background check and local police chiefs written approval. Now having said all that libtard trolls, I dare you to walk into lets say Camden or Newark unarmed.
Robert, I already told you that I go to work in Newark 5-6 times a month without a gun, and that the laws work fine. How many stories are you going to post this dumb-a** comment on. Now I double dog dare you to walk into to Newark w/o a gun. Are you man enough?
Illegal immigration-- wait for it ILLEGAL but yet there are 13 MILLION illegals here
Illegal drugs-wait for it ILLEGAL- yet readily available on the street.
What makes Feinstein, Oblamo, and the rest of the libtards think that if guns were illegal there won;t be any on the street?? Common tards get a clue. Only law abiding citizens wont have any guns. Last time I watched a movie where only police and military had guns it was called Schindlers list.
We had an assult weapon ban in 1994 and the country didn't burn down. Did you die? Nope
Save the doom and gloom for the end of days crowd, the coward rhetoric you spew is enough
No...but we did have Columbine happen, which some would argue meant that having the assault weapons ban didn't do a blessed thing, and that imposing similar legislation STILL wouldn't do anything to curb real violence - just give people the "happy happy joy joy" feelings like the vote did some good, much like having everyone take off their shoes at the airport.
Of course we don't have ban now and the country isn't burning down because we don't either. Your point has no merit.