Survey: America wants stronger gun laws by huge margin

[Vox]

Huge numbers in favor of stronger gun laws.

These polls really mean nothing.

Of course we all want stronger gun laws.......but stronger gun laws means different things to different people.

We may want stop and frisk laws with mandatory 20-year prison sentences for thugs caught carrying guns illegally.

That's a stronger gun law........but doesn't show up in the deceptive poll results.

As for universal background checks, they sound good, but the polls don't explain to people that such requirements would put an unfair burden on elderly gun owners bequeathing guns to their children and other friends and relatives and they don't address our rights to dispose of our property in person to person sales, gifts or trades.

If people participating in the polls were informed of all the details.......the results would be FAR different.

 

[haymarket]

"Tried and tested position" is code for $$$.

And yes, haymarket, is correct.

The NRA will win in the end. They OWN the current rulers steering the ship.

Our politicians are owned by the NRA. The politician needs their "grade" to stay high on the NRA report card as well as NRA money. Especially on the right side of the political spectrum.

If you look for any sensible gun regulation, you will NOT see it coming from the right.

You know, I am pro gun rights. I have my own guns. But I am sensible about it. I acknowledge the many factors involved in our society's current level of gun violence. It's not just the guns. But I don't want to get in to that redundant debate.

But I know enough kids have died.

I see it like this. There are all kinds of nutters.

For example, the debate on abortion. The pro-abortion nutter is adamant about protecting any and all abortion rights. They would protect the right to kill a birthed baby still attached to the umbilical cord if there was one. Their position is if you give the pro-life crowd an inch, they will want to take a mile.

By comparison, the debate on gun-control. The gun-nutter would argue they should have the right to mount .50 cals in their back seat and should be allowed any weapon the future "tyrannical" government might have up to and including shoulder fired missiles or tanks, etc. (depending the level of nutter-ism.) They fight diligently against ANY new or restrictive regulation regarding gun control. Their position is if you give the anti-NRA crowd an inch, they will take a mile. "The gubbermint is coming for your guns!"

But at the end of the day. A nutter is a nutter is a nutter. And it is concerning that the more extreme nutters are usually the one's with the most weaponry. Let that sink in.

Well said - an excellent post.

 

[cuban smokes]

Then you have as much business owning an AR-15 as you do a missile launcher.

that is your opinion ............ which means nothing ..........

 

[haymarket]

Did anybody define "stronger gun laws"?

Can anybody, including the OP, define "stronger gun laws?"

In this case of the survey it means stronger back ground checks, a ban on assault weapons and making it harder to obtain a gun.

All those were supported by those in the survey in the majority.

***Ninety-seven percent of voters back universal background checks, versus only 2 percent who do not, according to the Quinnipiac poll. The percentage of voters supporting the policy rose from 95 percent in December.

***Sixty-seven percent of voters support a nationwide ban on assault weapons, versus 29 percent who oppose it, the survey found. In November, 65 percent of voters backed an assault weapons ban. Multiple mass shooters in recent years have used semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15.

***In addition, 67 percent of respondents said it was too easy to buy a gun in the U.S., the poll said. Three percent responded that it was too difficult, while 25 percent said the difficulty of getting a gun is about right.

 

[SirGareth]

More and more, you are becoming a fringe minority. If you think that's what the 2nd amendment is about, you have misunderstood it.

This problem will not be solved until our Democrat politicians and candidates take a firm stand on it and campaign on a promise to repeal the 2nd Amendment, prohibit the sale of ammunition, and then trace all guns from manufacturer to end user by serial number and confiscate them. They can all be removed from citizen possession and melted down.

Afterwards all other citizen possession of firearms must be a felony and anyone found possessing a firearm should then face life-imprisonment.

We can get this done Democrats; demand your candidates run on this common sense platform.


On to victory...let's get this done.

 

[haymarket]

The right to keep and bear for one.

There's others, but you need go no further than that.

Nobody I have seen in that survey wants to deny you that right.

 

[Chillfolks]

Everything you say here sounds pretty good to me, except maybe the licensing and registration bit. If people distrust the federal government so much, it can be done through the state or even county/city government, much like drivers' licenses.

Assault weapons would require special licenses to carry, with demonstrated need only.

But hey, it's a place to start discussions/negotiations. This paranoia that ANY regulation means Obama is coming personally to confiscate your handguns and hunting rifles is just fearmongering by the NRA. It's like an insecure teenager thinking that getting a driver's license is the first step to the government taking his driving license away.

The registration is a strong NO and would be the line in the sand. I don't trust feds state local government to properly maintain the security needed for such a thing. Every few months we hear this agency or that agency got hacked. Or some dumbass employee leaving a laptop with sensitive information in an unlocked car.

I am fine if you need a special "Black Scary Looking Gun" permit. Again as long as that permit is not used to price ownership of peoples budgets. I'm against the need only requirement. That turns a right into a privilege.

 

[haymarket]

I reside in Minnesota. If I want to legally purchase a hand gun, or an AR-15 type weapon I have to
(1) pass a back ground check
(2) apply for a permit to purchase
(3) once I receive the permit I am limited to the amount of purchases over a time period
(4) I have to reapply for the permit annually
(5) if I want to CC I have to pass a CC class

So, in that context, WHY the **** do I need more ****ing gun laws? Wake the **** up folks ............

Those sound like good laws that we need in every state.

 

[Vox]

One needs to go thru several hoops to get a drivers licence, why not a gun?

Simple answer.

There is no Constitutional Right to drive a car.

 

[Vox]

This problem will not be solved until our Democrat politicians and candidates take a firm stand on it and campaign on a promise to repeal the 2nd Amendment, prohibit the sale of ammunition, and then trace all guns from manufacturer to end user by serial number and confiscate them. They can all be removed from citizen possession and melted down.

Afterwards all other citizen possession of firearms must be a felony and anyone found possessing a firearm should then face life-imprisonment.

We can get this done Democrats; demand your candidates run on this common sense platform.


On to victory...let's get this done.

LOL.

Putting it in large red letters does not make it any less a fantasy.

 

[ataraxia]

As for universal background checks, they sound good, but the polls don't explain to people that such requirements would put an unfair burden on elderly gun owners bequeathing guns to their children and other friends and relatives and they don't address our rights to dispose of our property in person to person sales, gifts or trades.

I don't know how things work in other states, but in our state if someone is transferring the title of their car to anyone else, including friends or relatives, they have to report it to the DMV. It's not a huge burden. Not sure why this is any different.

 

[ataraxia]

Simple answer.

There is no Constitutional Right to drive a car.

Requiring licensing and registration is not taking away anyone's right to anything.

 

[ataraxia]

The registration is a strong NO and would be the line in the sand. I don't trust feds state local government to properly maintain the security needed for such a thing. Every few months we hear this agency or that agency got hacked. Or some dumbass employee leaving a laptop with sensitive information in an unlocked car.

So then what? What are you afraid is going to happen? If the list of people with drivers' licenses gets hacked, what's gonna happen? How is this different?

I am fine if you need a special "Black Scary Looking Gun" permit. Again as long as that permit is not used to price ownership of peoples budgets. I'm against the need only requirement. That turns a right into a privilege.

OK. But you already don't have a right to drive a tank with live ammo and functioning weapons on it. AR-15s are the same. They have no business being on the free market for unscreened, unregulated civilian purchase. It's ridiculous.

 

[SirGareth]

Requiring licensing and registration is not taking away anyone's right to anything.

I agree, we need to begin testing and licensing of voters with background checks and annually renewable permits. A $100 dollar annual voting fee seems reasonable compared with a a car licence.

 

[jimbo]

Nobody I have seen in that survey wants to deny you that right.

If I recall, you have stated that if even just one arm is available, the requirements of the right is fulfilled.

New Jersey has a similar law on the books.

But yes, banners are not called sorta banners for a reason.

Did you participate in the survey?

 

[Vox]

Then you have as much business owning an AR-15 as you do a missile launcher.

Actually, no........that sounds like we could have ICBMs. The Second Amendment is clearly about hand-held weapons, so that would be true only for anti-tank weapons that can be easily carried, nothing larger.

Unfortunately, the Oligarchs, their courts and their brainwashed gun-haters have already cut deeply into those rights.

We are just trying to hang onto the few gun rights that remain........and the Oligarchs are still determined to eliminate all the guns that might threaten the Oligarchy.

They want the peasants marching with pitchforks and torches as in the good old days of tyranny.

So the fight goes on. I believe the PEOPLE will win.

 

[Vox]

OK. But you already don't have a right to drive a tank with live ammo and functioning weapons on it. AR-15s are the same. They have no business being on the free market for unscreened, unregulated civilian purchase. It's ridiculous.

Wrong.

There's quite a difference.

The Second Amendment says "Keep and BEAR arms," not drive them around.

That means hand held weapons.

 

[Vox]

Requiring licensing and registration is not taking away anyone's right to anything.

Wrong. It's an unconstitutional burden and tax when imposed on a GUN owner.

Period.

Cars are entirely different.

 

[Ikari]

Putting the burden on Govt. to prove they are not is backwards.

It's actually one of the fundamental aspects of our Republic. If the government wants to infringe upon the rights and liberties of the individual, they must prove that the individual has done something warranting the use of force against their exercise of rights. Innocent until proven guilty, yes. The rights of the individual are assumed valid until such point that the government can demonstrate a just cause to infringe upon them.

 

[haymarket]

If I recall, you have stated that if even just one arm is available, the requirements of the right is fulfilled.

New Jersey has a similar law on the books.

But yes, banners are not called sorta banners for a reason.

Did you participate in the survey?

Where and when did I say that about one gun because that is NOT what I believe at all?

I was not part of any survey.

 

[haymarket]

If I recall, you have stated that if even just one arm is available, the requirements of the right is fulfilled.

New Jersey has a similar law on the books.

But yes, banners are not called sorta banners for a reason.

Did you participate in the survey?

By your standard , Ronald Reagan was a gun banner also.

 

[apdst]

So then what? What are you afraid is going to happen? If the list of people with drivers' licenses gets hacked, what's gonna happen? How is this different?



OK. But you already don't have a right to drive a tank with live ammo and functioning weapons on it. AR-15s are the same. They have no business being on the free market for unscreened, unregulated civilian purchase. It's ridiculous.

A tank isn't a firearm.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So then what? What are you afraid is going to happen? If the list of people with drivers' licenses gets hacked, what's gonna happen? How is this different?



OK. But you already don't have a right to drive a tank with live ammo and functioning weapons on it. AR-15s are the same. They have no business being on the free market for unscreened, unregulated civilian purchase. It's ridiculous.

AR-15s are not the same as tanks and you darn well know that. You may wish that certain "scary looking" semi-auto guns or those with "high capacity" magazines are not covered by the 2A but if they are currently sold by FFL dealers then that is pure BS.

 

[ttwtt78640]

A tank isn't a firearm.

But he claimed that an AR-15 is the same as a tank so it must not be a firearm either.

 

[SirGareth]

I don't know how things work in other states, but in our state if someone is transferring the title of their car to anyone else, including friends or relatives, they have to report it to the DMV. It's not a huge burden. Not sure why this is any different.

Right, and they should require testing and licensing too just like we do before we allow people the dangerous weapon of the vote - correct?

Untested and unlicensed voters once elected Hitler and it caused 50 million murders.