E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe public heavily favors universal background checks for gun buyers, and a majority of Americans approve of a federal database to track gun sales as well as a ban on "assault style weapons," a new poll from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press shows.
In the survey, 85 percent of respondents said they favor background checks for private and gun show sales, while only 12 percent say they oppose such checks.
Sixty-seven percent of adults surveyed approve of a federal database to track gun sales, the poll indicated. A majority -- 55 percent -- back a ban on assault weapons, with 40 percent saying they don't approve of the ban, a measure for which President Barack Obama again voiced support during a press conference today. (The partisan breakdown, however, is stark, with seven in ten Democrats backing the ban compared to just 44 percent of Republicans.)
A major gender gap also remains on the gun issue; women favor an assault weapons ban by almost 20 percentage points over men. Women are also far less likely to support the idea of encouraging more gun ownership among teachers and other school officials.
Overall, the NRA-backed idea of encouraging more armed guards and police officers at schools garners wide support, with just 32 percent opposing and 64 percent favoring the proposal.
But when it comes to arming more teachers, those numbers are nearly flipped, with 57 percent giving the idea a thumbs down.
The Pew survey was conducted January 9-13, with a sample size of 1,502 adults. The margin of error for the total sample is +/- 2.9 percentage points.
Leave a Comment:
Facts left from story.
1. Almost NO true "assault rifles" are in the hands of civilians.
2. Since the 1994 "Assault Rifle ban" expired in 2004, crime has dropped EVERY year. Crime with so-called "Assault rifles" is less than 5% of all gun related crime.
3. The same mechanical principle that operates an "assault rifle" also operates a hunting rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. It was first developed in the 1880's.
4. An Olympic style rifle has a pistol grip, it is a very ergonomic way to hold a rifle and shoot accurately. The dreaded "pistol grip" does nothing to enhance the firepower of the dreaded "assault rifle".
5. ANY type of detachable magazine on the face of the earth can be extended to any length, therefore ALL guns with detachable magazines are on the "ban list" put forth by any democrat/communist party member.
6. Agreeing to any democrat/communist party proposal to restrict gun rights will turn into a federal gun grab and eventual revocation of Constitutional rights. Simply put, thus far there is no weapon invented that is not subject to some current or proposed gun restriction.
7. Speaking of those dreaded "high capacity" magazines. First they demanded a "10-round" restriction, now they are imposing a "7-round restriction"(New York), then it will be five, then three, then one,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,then ZERO. As always,,,,,,,,,,,,any number of rounds is too many.
First is was "no new magazines", then is was "no selling the old ones" and now (New York) it is no possession of magazines, period. Demand for an outright ban, leading of course to a complete ban on ownership of firearms at some point.
8. As a party, Democrats do not believe you have the right to self defense.
9. As a party, Democrats do not believe you have the right to hunt.
10. As a party, Democrats do not believe you have the right to own any type of firearm for any reason.
11. Nearly all "mass shootings" involve a person with serious mental illness, some form of chronic drug use and a history of violent or threatening behavior. This person was typically ignored by every leftist he met in schools, colleges and medicine and was allowed to spiral out of control.
This persons actions were then blamed on people who did nothing wrong, simply because they own a firearm for their own use.
AT NO TIME, IS THE CRIMINAL BLAMED OR HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS ACTIONS, why is that? What makes democrats think it is a better idea to blame a law abiding person than a criminal?
As they say, it is not about guns,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,it is about Control.
When the President announces he has no interest in following the rule of law and will create his own system of laws by executive order he is no friend of the Constitution and he has ZERO respect for the rights of the average American.
Them's fighting words!
the 2nd A. has limits, SCOTUS have ruled, grow up and become a responsible and rational adult.
@skyparrot
Why don't you people scream for the death penalty for any murderers, rapists, or child molestors??????
Prosecute them to the fullest. The cop killer murdered his own grandmother, and the bleeding hearts and ACLU keep on pressing that these people have civil rights. NO THEY DON'T Why not along with your suggestions about gun control, you require all states to enforce the death penalty for 1st & 2nd degree murder, Rape , and child molestors? No Appeals!!!!!! That gets done and I guarentee that violent crime will go down. I'm beating a dead horse, as the bleeding heart civils rightests will protect their criminals as insanely as the NRA protect gun rights.
Jay, Notice how quiet they get when you pick on a criminal.
They always sympathize with the murderer, never the victim. In the case of "Sandy Hook", they could care less that kids died. What they see is a golden chance to steal a right and take away some Liberty from people who had nothing to do with this terrible act.
The left, always whines when "troops" are killed in war, then they spit on them when they return. In the case of this president, his Homeland Security chief, declared all military veterans potential terrorists. Funny, muslims are terrorists and they get praised by the president, soldier save us from their attacks and get added to the "watch list".
Gun Owners across the nation had nothing to do with any of these criminal acts, yet they are blamed and their rights curbed.
Criminals and the mentally ill? Are simply given DNC membership cards and sent off to rob our homes while we work.
It's the angry posts of those like paidmyfee's that make me fear gun owners and their guns.
If they seemed sane and logical, I wouldn't
I'm angry? You have a really limited ability to judge emotions.
I do understand, you cannot follow a logical argument, nor can you defend your leftist ideas intelligently.
When you are faced with a fact or five, namely your party is anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-self defense, pro-criminal, pro-drug and crime dropped after the "assault weapon ban" of 2004 lifted. You have nothing.
Thus you call names, attempt to mis-direct or some other form of silliness to distract from the truth of the matter.
Or, you can post a link to anything from the NRA supporting criminal mis-use of firearms, demanding criminals and the mentally ill be allowed access to firearms or any other stupid thing, you believe to be true.
As always, you are pathetic.
Gun owners scare you??? really???
Do motor cycle owners scare you?
Truck drivers?
Ski boats?
Jet ski jockeys?
How about those kids on skate boards?
Rappers?
But, you apparently live in fear of people you never met simply because they may or may not own something that you do not own?
Irrational is a word you might want to look up.
The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that the Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right.
Cowardly girlymen need lots and lots of guns to make themselves feel safe.
would that be the same cowardly girlymen who post dumb pictures of someone who ran for office? or post in bold to get more attention? or the same cowardly girlymen who want to deprive others of their rights because it makes them feel safe? just asking...
Poll, what poll? No one called and asked my opinion. Anyone else here been called?
3D Printing Firearms - The Drug Dealers New Best Friend
1,502 individuals who are looking to take away your gun ownership rights. First it starts with assault weapon style firearms that can include semi-automatic firearms that can be fired that as fast as a fully automatic weapon can be. This would include semi-automatic shotguns as well.
Such individuals wanting to limit Americans gun rights are in fact in support of criminals and drug dealers who can obtain automatic firearms illegally from many sources so they can be used to control an area of the population who has been convinced to give up their firearms.
Hell, the criminals and drug dealers won't have to worry about going to Mexico or other places to purchase their firearms they can make them at home with a 3D Printer.
I'm suprised that the black market dealers dealing in illegal firearms have not up a cause to make illegal the use of 3D Printing to create a firearm. After all if a person is able to create a working firearm with a 3D Printer then any and ALL traces and knowledge of the firearm would not be possible.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/12/21/click-print-shoot-guns-made-on-3-d-printers-not-as-farfetched-idea-as-it-sounds/
Yup, so far only good for a one time use, but one time maybe enough for whatever slaughter on agenda.
So, Fiesty Red Head is the first paid blogger they turned loose on this. Open your eyes people. MSNBC and the feds WANT you to think the majority of the public supports more gun laws that deprive us of our rights. DO NOT BELIEVE THEM!! Listen to what your neighbors are saying. Look at the gun sales. No one WANTS MORE GUN LAWS!! What we WANT is for criminals and the mentally insane to be LOCKED UP!!
After some research; I have found that the number of AR-15 and Ruger Mini 14's in the country is about 4,550,000. Piers Morgan the other day sited at least 4 mass shootings in the US that used assault weapons. This makes it a 1 in 1,113,750 chance that this will happen again. For these odds the feds want to deprive 300,000,000 Americans of their rights. Just something to think about.
Cowardly girlymen need lots and lots of guns to make themselves feel safe.
They become panicky at the thought of sleeping without them, just like a child without his blankie.
So, on the over-all body count is low for combat style weaponry? However, truly believe that 20 shredded children along with 6 adults, trumps your over-all, who really gives a sh!t. No body wants to take away "Rights," however, the 2nd A has limits alredy ruled by SCOTUS. Be a proud advocate for mass killing machine and their accessories.
Coward? I am the one standing up for my right while you are all too happy to surrender them, clown. MY weapons have never been fired in anger. I'll bet that the Korean shop owners in Los Angeles thought they would never need AR 15s when they had to defend their shops against rioters in the 90's after the Rodney King verdict. Nor did the people defending their property after Hurricane Katrina or after Hurricane Sandy think they would need weapons with standard magazines.
Tell me something clown, do you always just throw out insults or can you think of a logical argument to my point. You CANNOT! That is why you resulted to insults. When you do that you conceed the floor and grant victory to your opponent. Thanks for the win, you did not even TRY!!
nope, he's just a little boy on the internet who demonstrates his "bravery" by calling people names in cyberspace
@skyparrot
You won't have a problem if I take my stock .22 cal rifle and replace the standard stock with an adjustable one, along with a black rubber grip? It will remain stock, except that I'm going to make it more comfortable to shoot. BTW it will look just like the so called "assault weapons" you want to get rid of
Jay, under the previous assault weapon ban, it would be classified as an assault weapon. same as changing out the wood stock and grip on my hunting remington 870 shotgun to make it more "tactical". i'm all in favor of common sense control, but it needs to involve common sense not placating fears.
20 dead children is tragic. 1 dead child is tragic. However, there are approximately 1.5 so-called assault weapons in the US. ONE, just one was used in this instance. Columbine? Not assault weapons. Va Tech? Not assault weapons. ONE. And yet you want to old the owners of the 1.5 accountable for this crime. You want to hold the owners of over 250 million guns accountable for the gun violence in this country. So, no I do not think that 20 dead children trump the rights of millions of law abiding Americans.
The funniest part is that a lot of the assault weapon ban pertains to cosmetic features like whether a handgun has a barrel shroud that can be used as a handhold or a rifle that has a folding stock. I mean seriously? We're wanting to ban certain guns because they look scary and nobody seems to notice the total lack of common sense here? Oh and let us also look at how much gun violence decreased during the prior assault weapons ban of 1994 to 2004. Nope, never mind, looks like gun violence decreased after the ban expired. Oh well, let's continue the stupidity.
I have the answer to the question why Americans "need" assault rifles. First, let’s examine United State’s Constitution. The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. These Amendments were put there so the states would ratify the Constitution. They guarantee that the rights God grants us as humans are protected from government usurpation. All 10 of these amendments are guarantees of individual rights.
Knowing this is fact we now move to the 2nd Amendment. It states "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In legal terms the word “shall” is considered an absolute. There is no grey area with this word it is meant to mean a command or what is mandatory. There is no “grey area” when the word “shall” is used for legal terms.
From this we now know that the 2nd Amendment applies to all the people and that no branch of the government has the power to restrict the people from owning guns. It does not state anything about type of weapons, ammunition, or anything of the sort. Therefore we now know that the government is powerless to restrict gun ownership by law abiding citizens.
That renders your agreement of “need” mute. The government simply does not have the power legally nor the right morally, to determine need, want or right in this matter. Anyone preaching that citizens don’t need these weapons is simply pushing an opinion and an agenda. Their intent is to make law abiding citizens feel guilty about owning a class of weapon that they deem more dangerous and offensive than others. It is but a personal opinion and nothing more because under the Constitution the government does not have the power to limit these weapons.
That my liberal associates is your answer. Your determination of need is not the same as mine and neither you or the government can force what is effect nothing more than your opinion on American citizens.
I agree, you can have all the muskets you want.
You don't NEED a RPG launcer either. Do you have a right to have one anyway? How about some heavy artillery? How about an F-15?
Obviously, you don't have a right to bear just any kind of "arms", do you? If we can restrict machine guns, why can't we restrict sem-auto?
...or do you think you have a right to a machine gun too? I'm sure the NRA would fight any ban of fully automatic weapons if they weren't already banned.
The NRA fought against even registering guns, didn't they?
Machine guns are not banned. It is quite easy to buy one if your state allows it. There are over 250000 machine guns in private citizen's hands and never has one been used in a crime.
"You don't NEED a RPG launcer either. Do you have a right to have one anyway? How about some heavy artillery? How about an F-15?"
This is such a typical uneducated Liberal thing to say. The 2nd amendment grants us the right to bear arms. Arms means firearms and firearms have a specific definition. An RPG is not a fire arm, it is shoulder propelled grenade launcher. An F-15 is a jet fighter. But here is the thing...
RPG's and F-15's are actually legal to own in the US. In fact you can go out and buy a main battle tank. There are Russian surpluss T-72 Tanks available for sale right now and they are completely legal. right now. If you had the money you could buy an F-15. The government would not sell it to you but Russia would gladly sell you an older MIG Jet fighter.
So to answer sam-298381 Teh government doesn't want you to own a semi-assault rifle with a 15 shot magazine. But they dont mind if you own a grenade launcher, or jet fighter, or tank. Those are okay.
that's the only argument some of these folks can make. stupid statements about muskets being the only firearm when the right was given, meanwhile they are typing on a computer in cyberspace exercising their free speech rights. or ridiculous counterarguments involving heavy military armament like tanks, RPGs or nukes. the exercise in stupidity masks their inability to make an intelligent and rational counterargument that someone might actually debate on it's merits.
BD, you are absolutely right!!!!! Can you believe some nut bag actually tried to assert that normal firearms could prevent a foreign invasion? LMFAO!!!!!
salsa, i do understand your weak attempt to use my words against me, and the feeling that you get because you were so "clever". now go back to my previous post, and re-read it. i said 300 million normal fireams serves as a disincentive, nothing said prevention. our military may or may not prevent an invasion with heavy armament, just gives a method to fight back. reading comprehension is a lost skill, especially when you your only goal is to be a troll...
BD, I am so sorry if I misquoted you. Now let's talk about you stating that normal firearms are a DISINCENTIVE for foreign invasion. HMMMM...........that would still be classified as a remarkably stupid and unintelligent statement. Just an observation.
"Knowing this is fact we now move to the 2nd Amendment. It states "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.""
Umm.... you seem to forget that whole "well-regulated" stipulation that destroys your otherwise BS "argument".
Nice try, monkeyboy.
You just made up your own definition of "arms". Ever heard of the "nulcear arms race"?
"arms" does not specifically refer to firearms. Clearly "arms" can be limited by government. You may be able to buy a fighter jet, but you cannot "arm" it with sidewinder missles.
We know there's a line. We're just arguing over where it is.
I say you have a right to "bear arms", but not "monkey arms."
Since we live in a Republic and not a Democracy, it does not matter if 99.9% of the people support banning guns so your poll is meaningless. The 2nd Amendment is still law. Even if the Amendment was removed from the Constitution, it was only stating rights which pre-existed the Constitution. For those people who have no concept of this, please reference James Madison's Federalist letter #10 to understand how our government should work.
Based on the 2nd Amendment, the government has no legal authority over military weapons in the hands of citizens, so all existing federal laws against guns are illegal and unConstitutional. It isn't about hunting, it is about stopping tyranny and defending our country.
People today are nothing more than sheep that hate liberty and want someone to round them up. Americans will do well under a "Hitler", "Stalin", or "Obama". The majority hate freedom and are scared to death of liberty.
Keep that in mind the next time you want to ban gay marriage because the "majority" voted against it.
Joe, I think Antonin Scalia has more SWAG than you and he believes there are limits to the 2nd Amendment. True story.
sam, thats the difference between democracy and a republic. our form of goverment was intended to prevent the many from trampling the rights of the few. unfortunately, we have too many that believe in that majority rules crap...
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday the Second Amendment leaves open the possibility of gun-control legislation, adding to what has become a slow-boiling debate on the issue since the Colorado movie theater massacre earlier this month.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/#ixzz2I4Q6iDEH
Here is the one great flaw with this poll and a reason why you cant rely on it. The pertinent question is a policy question related to a ban on assault weapons. But policy questions were not asked to all respondents. In fact according to the Pew Poll website policy questions were only asked to about half of the respondents.
"Note that the individual gun policy questions on this survey (Q42) were each asked only of about half of respondents"
But more importantly is the wording of the poll, and the wording used by Liberals. Semi-Automatic sounds bad. But in reality that just means one bullet per one pull of the trigger as opposed to a fully automatic machine gun or a single shot rifle or shotgun) The AR-15 is no different from a hunting rifle beyond its appearance and the larger magazine capacity. In fact you can take a standard Remington hunting rifle, and modify it slightly to become a sniper rifle. How do I know this? Because that is the standard Sniper Rifle for the US Marine Corps. And even Magazine capacity is irrelevant. It takes only a couple of seconds to replace a gun magazine. So owning 1 15 shot magazine or three 5 shot magazines will accomplish the same thing which means that in a shooting, out of 100 bullets fired, smaller magazines would only reduce by maybe 10 or 15 bullets. Not enough to make a real difference.
When people are presented with facts, including statistics about areas with strong gun control and higher crime, like Chicago, Detroit, DC, etc, and when they are asked about gun control without the term semi-automatic assault rifle attached to it then people overwhelming oppose gun control.
This has been proven time and time again.
Why? Because it doesn't work.
Conservatives are like frogs in a pot of water that is gradually getting hotter and hotter. They are too dumb to get out of the water before their ass is cooked.
I hope you all realize that none of the below are valid reasons to support an assault weapons ban.
-gun owners have small genitalia or suffer from ED
-gun owners fear the government
-gun owners need their guns to "feel like a man"
-nobody "needs" an assault weapon
Joe, I hope you realize that the most conservative member of the Supreme Court believes there are limits to the 2nd Amendment. True story.
salsa, i think people got it the several other times you posted. now grow up, be a big boy instead of a troll...
BD apparently people don't get it because ultimately it may be Antonin Scalia that has the final word on this matter. Are you intelligent enough to understand that?
salsa, i've understood you point the umpteenth time you've posted it. people got it, nobody debated it because it is valid. continuing to repeat it doesn't make it more of a point, it makes you a troll...
BD, perhaps you have been IGNORING the posts that indicate there are no limits to the 2nd Amendment? People don't get it and I am glad to REMIND them that one of their icons thinks a bit differently. Comprendez?
salsa, no, you are being a troll because you like to be a troll. makes you feel good about yourself. scalia has indicated he is open minded on the issue, ginsberg through all previous rulings is totally anti-gun, so there are still 7 other justices to debate the issue...
So the Supreme court rules bans are Constitutional but a huge number of Americans don't agree. Sounds like bad times in America to me.
BD you seem to know so much about me..........but of course you took it as personal affront that I could make any assertions about you. Sounds a bit.....bipolar to me.
yawn, you and your trolling bore me...
Yes Joe, the majority of Americans could never get it wrong now could they? Was there a time when the majority of Americans were against the abolition of slavery? Just asking the question.
Salsa. You are right. There was another time like this when Americans were bitterly divided about an issue. Was a terrible time in American history because it led to war. This country is more divided today then it was then. This won't be good for our country no matter how it all falls out.
So salsa, if the majority of Americans can get it wrong does that mean it can be wrong to allow abortions, it can be wrong to increase taxes on the wealthy, and it can be wrong to allow homosexuals to marry? Who is the final arbiter to say whether what the majority of Americans want is wrong or right? If all of those items listed above are right because the majority of Americans think that they are right, then the fact that the majority of Americans are ok with existing gun control laws would also be right.
Anilof, please Google Supreme Court. Then Google the views of Antonin Scalia on the limits of the 2nd Amendment. You really should know these things.
Joe, you are right about the last time America was so divided. But with this issue only one side will be armed, so the conflict would be quite short.
Salsa, all you have done is demonstrate that Conservatives are more open minded than the NeoLibs. Not such a flattering realization for those on your side of the issue.
If the language used to demonize gun owners were used to describe any of the LGBT crowd, or in reference to gender, age, race etc... you can be sure there would be a great outcry of injustice. Tolerance is the watch words the NeoLibs, but only if they approve of your life choice. If they do not agree, they will attempt to intimidate, insult and bully you till you give in to their constant diatribe. My life choice of having and using guns simply makes me a target for all the abuse the NeoLibs can muster. I accept that. But I know they won’t admit their own lack of tolerance for my lifestyle choice. In fact I know full well that they will continue to make a maximum effort to take away my rights, while attempting to claim the moral high ground by fighting for other more ambiguous rights. I have come to expect such duplicity from the NeoLibs so it is no big surprise, just a slight lingering sadness as they prove once again how disingenuous they are.
So, 55% support banning assault weapons...so what? 55% thought slavery was OK back in the day too, but that didn't matter either. Only thing that matters is what the Supremes say the 2nd Amendment protects. Ban on assault weapons? Not a chance. Database tracking, background checks....probably OK. Would not have prevented Newtown, though, so don't let's start fooling ourselves about that. Want to 'go through the motions so we can all feel good,' fine, we're on that path. Want to actually do something to prevent the next Newtown....change the 2nd Amendment. Otherwise, as they say in NY, "Forget about it"
Antonin Scalia believes there are limits to the 2nd Amendment. True story.
And we are discussing HOW MUCH limiting should be allowed.
slodon, that's what WE are discussing, or at least trying to. hard to do when THEY are just name calling and making ridiculous arguments about tanks, muskets, nukes, etc...
BD, normal firearms preventing foreign invasion? Ridiculous argument? Perhaps some introspection on your part is warranted?
How long did the Viet Cong fight in 'Nam? How long has the Taliban been fighting the US? What kind or HEAVY weapons do they use?
salsa, i never said prevent. i said 300 million firearms serves as a disincentive. learn how to read and comprehend, as opposed to attempting to twist and being a troll...no matter how much you get off on it...
BD, normal firearms as a DISINCENTIVE for foreign invasion is just as stupid. Your attempts to spray cologne on your turd are fruitless.
slodon, thats the point they fail to grasp. all of these guerilla conflicts involve smaller and less armed forces resisting another. vietnam, iraq, afghanistan, egypt, libya, syria, cuban revolution, so on and so forth. and smaller weaponry gives you an ability to capture larger weaponry and fight back. add that to our armed forces, and no nation would consider invading us. 80 million firearms owners also serve as a check and balances to our own government, as intended to do so. we only have about 3 million on active and reserve duty. we are by far the most secure nation on earth, externally and internally.
So BD, you must have a point of view on which state is a likely candidate for foreign invasion? We really do need to ensure that states that are vulnerable targets are at DEFCON 1 or 2. I am waiting with anticipation for your response. LMFAO!!!!!!!
salsa, my point of view is that you are a childish troll. do i really need to elaborate?
now, where was the rest of the class who wants to actually talk about the issues again?
BD, it is a bit LAZY of you not to extend your fear mongering to its logical conclusion. If we are in danger of foreign invasion and need our citizens to take up arms then you at a minimum should have a point of view as to which states are soft targets. Cmon BD, that's defense preparedness 101.
BTW BD, your posts are apt for a poorly prepared substitute teacher instead of a qualified teacher prepared to lead informed discussion. Just an observation.
I hear they're targeting Lubbock, Texas. I have no idea why.
salsa....can you do better than the childish troll taunts? come on, give it a shot.
I remember not long ago, an overwhelming majority of people polled also favored increasing taxes -- just not on themselves.
It's pretty easy to support legislation that has no effect on oneself, so long as the intended results are "common good," regardless of whether or not such legislation has merit.
it's the american way, take from everyone else but you...
May I ask just where they took this pole? None of the police officers I know were ever asked, none of the military people I've questions were asked, as a matter of fact I can find no-one that was directly asked on this pole!
So, I am now asking that anyone that was asked to please respond. simply, where, when and who asked would be nice.
only .00000000033% of our population was polled, so it would be like finding a needle in a haystack.
seems to me, based on media reports, that a lot of law enforcement would favor strict gun controls. potentially makes their job safer. and a lot of them and prosecutors would happily get rid of miranda rights and search and siezure laws too in order to convict more criminals. and arguments can be made for and against that.
I love these polls. What majority of Americans did they talk to? States should decide what they want to ban. Wyoming has a population of over 500,000 and has an average of seven guns per household. Do you think they are going to support a ban? Let the states decide.
I love these polls............kind of like the ones that said Obama was winning the election........and conservatives refused to listen to. Priceless!!!!
Yes...I just took a poll around the office.
Is Obama an a-hole? Results: 98% yes, 2% No
Must be a huge trailer park?
What do you have against trailer parks? You should love trailer parks because I feel they probably voted for your Messiah. Not saying all.
nah, the ghetto votes blue, the trailers vote red. everyone knows that...
They polled folks with the Free Obama Phone.
I noticed there was no mention about the demographics of the 1502 polled. How many Democrats and how many Republicans? How many female and how many males? How many intercity, rural, suburban? There is no way polls such as this can not be taken seriously with out information such as this.
Will -
click on the "new poll" link in the story then go to the upper right side of the page for support material. 61% percent of the respondents reported household with no firearms vs the nationally reported 51% reporting households with no firearms in a 2011 Gallup poll
http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-questionnaires/01-14-13%20Topline%20for%20Release.pdf
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx
agenda reporting. when you tell people the majority support something, many will join the majority just to fit in, particuarly the undecided...the need to fit in is basic human nature.
Yes, agenda reporting has been the FOX NEWS business model but of course they screwed the pooch in the Presidential election didn't they?
salsa, more trolling. nobody here is on FOX news, nor do we care about FOX news. and the issue isn't the presidential election. we are on MSN discussing gun control. please keep up...
salsa---we get it. You do not like Fox News. Now try to stay on subject. Your earlier comments about the election polls only proves that this poll may be tainted as well.
It appears that BD and WILL are sorely lacking in the art of abstraction. It also appears that BD and WILL were also hall monitors in college,
BD and Will, you do realize that in the art of debate people use ANALOGIES to make a point? You do realize that Fox News is an analogous organization to MSNBC as it pertains to an article concerning polling and polling data? Please keep up boys.
salsa, no, you are using childish trolling and stupidity, no intelligence or analogy involved.
If I were rich, I would want the best weapons available also.
"80 million firearms owners also serve as a check and balances to our own government, as intended to do so."
Correct -- as long as "firearms" means muskets and "our own government" means King George III.
Otherwise, you're talking about armed revolution against the United States government. Secession has been a topic of discussion recently. And now some NRA leaders are openly discussing their real motives -- defense against Obama's imposition of martial law, at which time all guns will be confiscated.
Anyone who doubts it should watch "Don't Tread On Me," a documentary that's available free on the internet. Alex Jones actually advocates arming ourselves against the knock on the door that's coming, which he perceives as the true purpose behind the Second Amendment.
Fifty years ago the NRA was a respectable organization promoting causes like safety in gun storage and use, mainly for hunters and collectors. Recently it's acquired a political agenda that leads nowhere except to another Civil War -- even in the absence of any "big" issues like slavery, a Great Depression, or an immediate threat from an organized and uniformed external source.
The antagonism to any form of central government -- taxes, firearms, safety nets, police, green energy, and anything else -- seems to have a second amendment tinge to it now.
Well, according to your logic, would freedom of speech only apply to the words coming out of your mouth, or in print, the only options that existed when the Constitution was written? Yet here you are, posting on the internet with a computer. Kind of blows that whole musket point out of the water, doesn't it?
And our Bill of Rights was written and ratified after our successful revolution from King George and English rule. It most assuredly is intended as a framework for the future of our own and newly found government in which our Founders were developing a Constitution for.
Now, I'm still trying to figure out the point of the rest of your post, other than some sort of counter argument for the anti-obama and/or pro-NRA people? Sure, there are extremist nuts on all sides of the issue. Regardless of perceived "antagonism" to central government, it's more like debate as to the size and power/authority. Our Founders were very intelligent in crafting a Consitution that prevents government abuse, whether it's the checks and balances of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, or the granting of all our Bill of Rights freedoms to prevent government overreach into people's lives, which does include the right to bear arms. Of course you are going to see antagonism when you try to modify or regulate people's rights. These arguments take a second amendment tinge because that seems to be the right that is most "targeted".
I get the feeling that some changes are on the way. Background checks is a good thing.
The NRA PR game has been awful. A gun app for kids one month after Newtown, really! They really look out of touch.
Background checks are defintiely a good thing and should be mandatory, but that's a really small step. But how far do these checks go? None of these incidents have involved criminals, and the guns were legally purchased. They involved nut cases, so how do we ensure psychos don't get weapons? National mental health database? Doesn't that violate privacy laws? Or do we start taking certain types of guns? Where does that stop? Some want all, some want none...
The NRA is actually the small minority of gun owners, just the loudest voice.
Federal law trumps State law. States may not take away from Federal law but may add to it. The question will be does New York's new law infringe on the Federal Constitution in any way? If it does then the State law will be overturned in Federal court or ordered rewritten to comply with the Constitution. Forcing citizens to sell, or dispose of under duress, or surrender personal property to state officials, legally acquired before the new law went into effect, would certainly appear to be unconstitutional.
A gun grabbing Nazi, like Cuomo or Obama doesn't give a damn about citizen's rights.
The 2nd Amendment Is not about hunting, it IS about having access to firearms to use to defend our rights from evil vile scum that would trample on our freedoms.
Unarmed German Jews [ disbarred from owning firearms by Hitler] were pushed into cattle cars, gassed and incinerated, by their freely elected government.
It's damned hard to force a armed man and his family into that cattle car.
Yes Boozer, your Nazi reference pretty much renders anything you say irrelevant. Just an observation.
The people who voted in this poll were selected from those who received their Free Obama Phone.
sure some of them are gun owners too. 80 million gun owners, only 30 million republicans/conservatives, so if every single one of them owned a gun, that still leaves the majority as independents or dems.
Sounds about right. They have upgraded the free phones with internet now so people like Salsa can get on the internet to spew their BS.
LOL what a doof.
That free phone program, was started by Bush, by the way.
Military Intelligence
Minor Disaster
Common Sense Gun Control
my favorite oxymorons
One facet of the assault weapon debate that I haven't seen discussed is, why do the mass murderers migrate toward assault rifles? The NRA and their supporters tell us that they are no different than normal hunting weapons (semi-automatics) except in physical appearance. The whole gun debate has centered around video games, registration, mental illness, and assault rifles. I haven't seen any discussion about why the killers are attracted to assault rifles. I believe an element of this may be that mentally imbalanced kids who sit and watch violent video games by the hour begin to imagine themselves as Rambo types and believe with that kind of equipment they are more powerful than the law or common sense. Why do they wear body armor knowing that they are not going to walk away from the situation. Anyway I think this is a point that should be considered.
I totally agree that the choice of an AR-15 style weapon is a psychogical choice that makes them feel more powerful, more military. Maybe limiting magazine size would do something for that mental issue regarding weapon selection, although reloading is not a big obstacle to overcome, only takes seconds. Me personally, I'd rather have my trusty 12 gauge shotgun and a pocket full of buckshot...
If I am a bank robber and need a getaway car, I don't roll up to the bank in a Yugo. If you want to kill a lot of people in a short period of time and you can legally get a weapon that is ONLY intended to kill a lot of people in a short period, then you get an AR-15. This isn't that difficult.
if someone was going to rob a bank, wouldn't they want to use a firearm that they can conceal when they walk in, pull it out when they are ready to commit the crime? all weapons are intended to kill, whether human or animal. a 12 gauge full of buckshot will kill a large amount of people in a short period of time too. each shell of 4/0 contains 12 bullet sized pellets. so will a 9mm with a 10 round magazine, the magazine size many states limit to. all sizes of guns are capable of killing, particularly the larger sizes/calibers. so you either reduce the 30 round magazines of the AR-15 variants, or outlaw them all together. personally, i don't own one, nor want one. so which guns are next?
BD, now I am SURE you have no clue what an analogy is. The bank robbery reference is to the vehicle of choice for getting away. Did I mention a weapon for the robbery? Get a cup a coffee. Your post isn't cohesive or coherent.
oh, i know what your analogy was. and you said that you'd get a weapon designed to kill a lot of people in a short time. i just pointed out many other weapons are capable of the same horrific feat, and many are better choices than some POS civilian version AR-15...
Seems that most intelligent gun enthusiasts have no problem with some reasonable assault weapon regulations. Its only the nutjobs who believe what the fox news talking heads are selling them that are having a hissy fit. They are being told that the black socialist dude is coming to get all thier guns and like the dim wits they are they believe it. These are exactly the folks who should not have access to weapons of any kind.
How come all the gun rights advocates, who keep talking about the constitution, aren't also for gay right. minority rights, and women's rights?
Bart, in the case of Gay Rights, many conservatives believe that their form of Christianity trumps the Constitution. Pretty sad.
All is a stretch. I am an advocate for gun rights and some of my closest friends are gay. I'm a minority too. Let's not generalize each other.
Its a faulty generalization that gun owners and gun rights advocates must be right wing christian conservative.
here's some numbers, look them up if you like:
NRA has less than 5 million members
our government estimates 70-80 million gun owners, 300 million guns
per census data, approximately 30 million registered republicans, but almost 45 million registered democrats
so if every single one of those republicans owned a gun, which they don't, that still leaves about 60% of these weapons in the hands of independents, democrats, and smaller parties like libertarian.
MANY is not a stretch.
on your post? agreed. no, many is not a stretch. the original post said all. but either way, poor generalizations.
Boehner always talks about the "Will of the people."
I assume he'll be backing gun restrictions then
Can we please try to keep this civil? No wonder these discussions go nowhere...we become 10 year olds name calling each other.
I am a firearm owner. I own multiple firearms. Some I own to defend my home. Some I own purely for enjoyment and target shooting. I am not crazy, psycho, mentally challenged, violent, or suffering from penis envy. I do not endorse violence, I am not itching to shoot somebody, nor do I think turning our country into the wild west is the solution. I am a happily married man, father, home owner, tax payer, and stable employee. I am a registered democrat and voted for Obama. I am open to discussing new firearm control.
I believe we all have the right to defend ourselves, and one of those ways is with a firearm. I also believe that to debate against firearms, you need to understand firearms. Being completely honest, how many people really know what barrel shrouds are and what the difference is between a mag and clip? I see people thinking that a suppressor makes a gun 100% silent- that a shotgun can launch a man across the room- that full auto weapons are easier to buy than socks. Educate yourselves, and have a real discussion on how to stop violence- not how to ban things that look and sound scary.
If there is new legislation that says I can only have 7 rounds, then I'll use 7 rounds. If new legislation says it can't look anything like a 'military style' firearm then I'll abide by that too. Bottom line is the law abiding citizens will still abide by the law. Criminals and the insane will not.
I'm not against renewed firearm control, but let's not let emotion be the pure driver behind it. When a teen commits suicide because of bullying, we don't rush to ban certain words and phrases. We look for the reason and cause behind it, and try to address it. Firearm violence is the effect, not the cause. Legislation needs to go into the cause.
Jesse, drug abuse is an effect and not the cause but we do limit the availability of deadly drugs don't we?
We do, because we understand them. We limit the availability of alcohol too. We don't demonize them or create generalizations. We have programs and studies to understand alcoholism and drug abuse.
With firearms, it seems like most people who are against them, don't know a lot about them. Firearm violence is a very serious issue. All kinds of violence are serious. But instead of turning the vast majority of attention to the tool used, that attention should be focused on what caused it.
Sorry, posted before I was ready.
On limits, firearms to have limits right now. My state has limits on magazine size. Our country has limits on barrel lengths. To go outside of those boundaries, there are checks in place.
I also understand that there are those who go outside of those boundaries. So let's fix that. Let's address people circumventing laws instead of just adding more laws. I'll follow the law. I always will. But I at least want the law to mean something, and not just be a knee jerk reaction. It's wasted time and effort that does us all a disservice.
Yes, Jesse, we need to do a lot more research to determine if there are any non-military applications for personal consumption of semi-automatic weapons? Perhaps we can use our AR-15 to stir a pot of gumbo? Exactly how much more research is required to figure out that private citizens don't need semi automatic weapons or 30 round magazines? Oh.......I forgot, the gun industry has politicians and gun nuts kissing their asses.
Condescending works well for you, keep it up kiddo.
This isnt a discussion about need. Need is subjective. Why does a car need to go above 55 or 60mph? Why does liquor have to be so strong? We all have things in our lives that we don't need. That doesn't mean you ban them.