E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSMore Americans say they are now in favor of stricter gun laws than at any time since 2000, after the Columbine shooting, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Sixty-one percent said so, a nine-point jump from before the December 2012 Newtown shootings. The last time the question was asked before the shooting was in January 2011. Then, 52 percent said guns laws should be "more strict."
What’s responsible?
The shift is largely due to the Obama coalition of city-dwellers, African Americans, Hispanics, and Democrats, groups that also said they do not own as many guns as rural and white respondents. But there are shifts with most other groups as well. And even though only a minority of Republicans -- 37 percent -- support stricter gun laws, that's a 13-point jump from 2011.
In the latest poll, 86 percent of African Americans, 82 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of Hispanics, and 71 percent of urban respondents said they were in favor of stricter gun laws, all up double-digits from 2011.
Urban: 71% (Feb. 2013) - 55% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +16
African Americans: 86% (Feb. 2013) - 71% (Jan. 2011) Net change: +15
Republicans: 37% (Feb. 2013) - 24% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +13
Hispanics: 72% (Feb. 2013) - 60% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +12
Democrats: 82% (Feb. 2013) - 71% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +11
Men: 51% (Feb. 2013) - 42% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +9
Women: 69% (Feb. 2013) - 61% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +8
Suburban: 59% (Feb. 2013) - 51% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +8
Whites: 55% (Feb. 2013) - 48% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +7
Rural: 48% (Feb. 2013) - 41% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +7
Independents: 49% (Feb. 2013) - 48% (Jan. 2011). Net change: +1SOURCE: NBC/WSJ poll
There has been virtually no change with independents. In the current poll, 49 percent say gun laws should be stricter, just a one-point increase from January 2011.
Whether or not someone owns a gun in the household is the biggest factor in supporting or opposing stricter gun laws.
Among those who do not own a gun in the household, 75 percent support stricter laws. Among those who do, just 45 percent support stricter laws.
Overall, 42 percent said someone in their household owns a gun.
So who are they?
There’s a gender split, with more men saying they own one (48 percent) than women (36 percent).
It also varies, of course, by region. There are more gun owners in the South (50 percent) than anywhere else. The Northeast has the fewest (28 percent).
There’s also an urban-rural split. Just 34 percent of those who live in cities said they own a gun, but six-in-10 rural respondents do (59 percent). (Just 41 percent of those who live in the suburbs do.)
And there’s a Democratic-Republican split as well – just 30 percent of Democrats say they own a gun, while 55 percent of Republicans do. Forty-nine percent of independents said so.
Reflecting that divide, just 34 percent of Obama voters said someone in their home owns one versus 57 percent of Romney voters.
By race, whites own more guns than minorities. Nearly half of whites (47 percent) said they own a gun. Just one-in-five African Americans said so (20 percent) and just 28 percent of Hispanics.
Gun ownership does not vary much by age, but younger voters (18 to 34) are the least likely to own a gun (39 percent).
And gun owners are more affluent. Those making more than $75,000 a year are the most likely to own a gun (50 percent) – even though professionals (40 percent) and white-collar workers (40 percent) are among the least likely to own one.
This story was originally published on Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:44 AM EST
Leave a Comment:
Sure outlaw semi-auto rifles. Then the next shooter will use semi-auto pistols. Outlaw them and the next shooter with use a couple of revolvers and some moon clips. Outlaw those and the next shooter will use a shotgun. If the sandy shook shooter just had a 12 gauge, do you really believe it would have made a difference? Of course it wouldn't have made a difference but you anti-gunners refuse to admit it.
Jay, no one is pushing to outlaw semi-auto rifles.
If you have information to the contrary please post it.
As a resident of Oklahoma City, I can tell you no one thought to ban Ryder moving vans after 1995.
Straight from the Mouth of a U.S. Government Attorney
The U.S. government argues in federal court (U.S. v. Emerson information page) that there is absolutely no right of an individual to own firearms!
Chip - that's a bald face lie and you know it. An AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon and Feinstein is pushing to ban it right up at the top of her list. She is trying to get legislation that requires them to be forfeited to the government upon the death of the owner. That's a violation of my rights against illegal search and seizure. She would effectively requiring the confiscation of my assets, i.e. the firearm, and depriving my estate of valued assets which could be distributed by bequeath in my will.
No matter how many gun laws and passed and what they are, they will do no good! They will not stop the people who will not obey laws in the first place from obtaining and using guns. The only way to do that is to stop making and selling guns, than take ALL guns out of the hands of gun owners! Sooner or later the criminals will use their gun have them confiscated and destroyed and than no guns. Ya not going to happen, NOT a good idea. A gun owner who understands what that weapon is for is no danger to you or me, but than again I don't want him or her running to my assistance if there is trouble unless they are properly trained to handle that type of situation either. I don't see any reason for the average Joe to be caring a gun, you want to protect your home, your gun should be in your home. You fire that out on the street, I could get killed, you are not trained properly to fire that weapon in a public place. You want to carry you should have to go through Murphy's Alley, I think that's what the FBI use to call it and pass with a 100% grade.
Bubba - a co-worker was almost robbed at a gas station while pumping gas in his car. There were two perps involved. One tried to distract him while the other tried to sneak up behind him. When he became aware of what was happening he pulled his legally carried CHL handgun out where it could be seen by the second perp. The perps fled the scene but were caught a short distacne away due to an alert attendant who saw what was happening and who called the cops. Without the firearm he might have been injured or killed, but at least we'll never know due to him being able to carry a concealed firearm legally.
I can personally attest to that last little tidbit of information in the statistics -- the affluent do indeed own firearms with relatively high frequency.
I live in an affluent community, very high gun ownership rates, and very low crime. Are the ownership rates and crime linked? Not likely -- what the link is, is cultural and economic. When people are well-off, they tend to commit less violent crime, probably, and correct me if I'm wrong, due to the fact they aren't "struggling" and their firearms are more for hobby or hunting. I own a few firearms, and I make a decent living. I enjoy hobby shooting, hunting, and have no intention of ever leveling a firearm against another human being. That's not saying that I won't do it if necessity dictates, but for the ~80 million firearm owners nationwide, I've got a feeling we all pretty much feel similarly.
Are you in favor of background checks and restrictions on the types of firearms that can be owned?
What good would a back ground check have done on Lee Harvey Oswald, or Alex Hidell?
If your good enough with a weapon it only takes ONE SHOT to kill a man.
What does stricter mean? That's a loaded question. I think opion has swayed for universal background checks but not any further. You are so MSNBC.
You may be right but the bottom line is that people think guns are too easily available, as opposed to the NRA who thinks no changes at all are appropriate.
What it also says is the NRA is on the wrong side of public opinion.
Is there a sudden increase of gun violence in the US that merits a radical change in policy? Or is it just another assault on the Bill of Rights by the liberals (following on the conservative assault on the Bill of Rights by the Bush administration)
Why does public opinion matter in a Republic governed by a Constitution? It doesn't.
Besides, public opinion is engineered by the mass media, for the most part. Most people in this society only receive enough education in our public system to understand the drivel being fed to them.
Probably the reason why a Constitutional Republic was setup to protect rights and not a Direct Democracy, because the Founding Fathers saw the disadvantages in a tyranny of the majority.
Pagan -
All the data show that firearm violence and firearm deaths have been decreasing for a number of years - even as the number of guns and gun owners has increased. But to the grabbers, that makes no difference.
Reality is what you can mold perception/opinion to . . .
I support gun control laws that make sense and that actually will keep guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed and of those who would use them to commit crimes. Problem is that the great majority of current and proposed gun laws serve only to restrict my ownership and use of them. The crazies and the criminals will not be affected. I own several handguns, shotguns, and rifles. I follow the lw regulating them to the letter. I store them under triple lock and key. I do not hunt. My guns are used strictly for target and competitive shooting; a sport which I enjoy. Please leave me alone and focus on the real threats.
Can you predict when a person is going to become mentally unstable? If so you need to become a doctor. If not then the mental illness point is moot. My cousin was a Gulf war vet. When he took his life he didn't use a gun, he hung himself. It took everyone by suprise. No previous diagnosis of mental issues.
If you’re going to demonstrate that it will actually be done seriously, that any new gun laws will have any effect, then start with Federal Employees, and show that the laws apply to them as well as it does private citizens.
Start with cleaning up the Government first by prosecuting an ATFE agent that committed Fraud on his background checks. When are you going to prosecute the ATF agents and their leaders for allowing 2,000 guns to "Walk" into the hands of Mexican Drug cartels?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57560107-10391739/pistol-purchased-by-atf-agent-found-at-alleged-cartel-crime-scene-in-mexico/
David
Please quit posting the same drivel all over this thread.
Dispute it if you can otherwise who is the one with drool coming out of their mouth...
Brilliant comeback, David. Clever, witty, ....... best retort ever!
don, the post has nothing to do with this string. He's just trolling.
If he were serious he'd be chastising one of his own (Issa) for not going after the government bad guys. Instead, he does a spinning top impersonation.
Some people think that guns used in Chicago crimes come from outside the state, but actually most were originally sold right there in Cook County.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/14715658-418/chicago-gangs-dont-have-to-go-far-to-buy-guns.html
Several things to remember people: GUN CONTROL is hitting what you are aiming at, NOT spraying rounds all over the place.
Another thing that needs to be done: BEFORE ANY NEW LAWS, ENFORCE THE EXISTING ONES! That right there would solve a lot of the problems. And these so called gun show loopholes, care to explain what they are? People have the right to sell their property to whom ever they want.
If I offer a weapon for sale, how do I know you aren't mentally ill? I'm not a medical Dr or connected to the medical field. You want people, which maynot be a bad idea, to have to have a note from a certified shrink that you are not mentally ill?
Like I said, it maynot be a bad idea, we could possibly get rid of a bunch of rightwing and leftwing nut jobs. But in a way Bubba is correct, pass all the laws you want, it won't do any good. Most homeowners with weapons keep their weapons in their homes.
Some people, like myself, have gotten CCL's, that gives us permission to carry concealed weapons. It also means who have a lot of responsibility when you are carrying that weapon. But one armed person could have stopped that shooting of those children in the school.
Also Bubba is incorrect in a way, some people with the CCL's are trained in the use of weapons. Many hours of range training and shooting, using the best of GUN CONTROL will make sure no innocent bystander is hurt.
But if it makes the anti-gun nuts happy, pass some more FEEL GOOD laws that people will just ignore because they won't be enforced like the other laws we have. Honest, law abiding citizens are not shooting up the place, it's the mentally ill and the losers. Get them off the streets. Pass a law stating no mental rejects are allowed in here. See how that works for you.
The system itself is broken so how is burdoning the sytem with new laws going to work when they can't even enforce the ones we have now?
Ice is releaseing thousands of criminal Illegal Immigrants claiming its because of "Budget Cuts" and were supposed to believe they can protect us and will have the money to enforce new laws?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/29/gun-debate-lawmakers-eye-troubled-background-check-system/
The NRA is always trying to do is gin up their base of “gun bubbas” with fear.
Owning and using a gun should be like owning and driving a car. Regulate training, register and license. Had these steps been in place 25 to 50 years ago, we most likely would not be having this debate.
Guess what, the second amendment would have still been in place, and the Nations People would be seeing a lot less gun deaths.
My folks regularly told me "Driving is a privilege not a right"
Gun ownership is a right.
A right, like every other right, that is not absolute.
55 million abortions have been performed in the last 40 years, 1.37 million a year, 114,000 a month, 3800 a day.
How many Children would be alive today if there were greater restrictions on Abortion and demanding that people be responsible for their actions?
Oh thats right the Left doesn't believe there should be any restrictions on Abortion. Want to Kill your baby two days before its born? Hey were good with that.
"Abortion on Demand and without Appology."
Try to stick to the topic at hand.
David
Abortions will take place whether or not they are legal. If legal, they will be done in a medical facility. If illegal they will be done somewhere else less safely. You don't believe in abortions ..... don't have one. You believe you should be able to decide for others ..... maybe we should impose our view about guns on you. Turnabout is fair .... right?
"If it saves just one life its worth it." Joe Biden
Isn't this whole gun control push about saving childrens lives? Thats the entire basis of the Lefts campaign for gun control Isn't it?
How is it off topic when the left claims they care so much about childrens lives while supporting a procedure that ends the life of over a million children every year...
Its any different for guns don?
You have obviously decided that human life begins at conception. I disagree. The it is a matter of difference of opinion. You want your opinion to rule the law. I disagree. The Supreme Court issued an opinion on that matter. Your opinion lost.
I believe guns other than hunting weapons should be owned only by those in an established militia, with rules governing the possession, use and storage of those weapons. The Supreme Court issued an opinion on that matter. I lost.
Want to see a lot less gun deaths? Execute a few hundred thousand gang members, drug dealers and other felons.
Job1 - I'll support a 10 round mag regulation if you support a media regulation that require news article be reviewed for national security leaks.
We are not here today fighting to protect the Second Amendment.
We are not here today fighting to protect the right to own certain kinds of Weapons or Magazines.
We are here today Fighting for our Lives!
If the Rights of law abiding citizens to own firearms is lost the only ones that will have Firearms will be criminals because they will not obey the laws and they will not give up their illegal firearms.
Criminals would love to know that law abiding citizens are limited to .22’s with 7 rounds of ammo while their carrying 9mm’s with 20 round magazines.
How can we defend ourselves and our families against criminals when they will have high powered weapons, whatever magazine capacities they desire, etc., while we are reduced to knives and baseball bats and other things the government hasn’t gotten around to banning yet, and calling 911?
The left would have you believe that taking guns away from Law abiding citizens and dictating what kinds of weapons they have would reduce crime and gun Violence. If that is true then why does the U.S.A. still have an enormous stockpile of Nuclear weapons?
Wouldn’t the U.S.A giving up its nuclear weapons mean the rest of the world would give up there Nuclear weapons and the Proliferation of Nuclear weapons would stop? Wouldn’t North Korea, China, Russia, Pakistan, etc. gladly give up its Nuclear Weapons if we gave up ours?
The reason we keep our Nuclear weapons is because it is a deterrent preventing other countries from attacking us with nuclear weapons. The premise is known as “Mutually Assured Destruction”. If you attack us we will attack you and you will be destroyed.
Legal Gun ownership is the only deterrent law abiding citizens have against criminals. It is the only thing that makes them think twice, “Will I get shot if I break into that house?”, “Is that woman I’m thinking about raping carrying a gun and I will get my head blown off?”.
They would remove the only deterrent law abiding citizens have against criminals.
The left would have you believe that law abiding citizens don’t need guns because we have laws and law enforcement agencies to protect you and enforce our laws.
We are supposed to depend on the Same Law enforcement agencies that allowed 2,000 guns to walk into Mexico, into the hands of Drug Cartels?
We are supposed to believe that the law enforcement agencies that have not been able to enforce our immigration law, which is the reason we have 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., can protect us?
Now ICE is releasing criminal Illigal Immigrants back into our communities claiming its because of "Budget Cuts".
We are supposed to believe that the same law Enforcement Agencies that are suing the U.S. government because they have been ordered not to enforce our laws are going to enforce our laws?
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/01/29/judge-immigration-agents-suing-obama-can-move-forward/
We are supposed to believe that law enforcement agencies that are supposed to enforce the laws, and yet turn around and break the laws themselves committing Felonies, can be trusted to protect us?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57560107-10391739/pistol-purchased-by-atf-agent-found-at-alleged-cartel-crime-scene-in-mexico/
Make no Mistake; If Dianne Feinstein and the rest of her Like Minded Comrades could get their way they would take away every gun and leave us defenseless and at the mercy of criminals and the Government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dianne_Feinstein
Let me be Clear; don’t make the Mistake of believing “No one is trying to take away your guns”. Remember what happened with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?
“We have to pass it to find out what’s in it”. Nancy Pelosi
They did there back room deals and subterfuge and passed it in the dead of the night without anyone having time to read it and analyze it to really understanding its impact and how it would affect law abiding citizens.
This is not a fight about the Second Amendment. It is not a Fight about what kind of guns and Magazines we can have; it is a fight for our Lives against those that would like us to be defenseless and at the Mercy of Criminals and at the Mercy of a Corrupt and Incompetent Government for protection against those criminals.
If your life means nothing to you then by all means support Feinstein and Her Far left Gun Confiscation Agenda.
If you care about your life, your family’s life, and the life of others then stop them before they are able to take away our best means of self defense and the only deterrent to criminals Law Abiding Citizens have.
If you care about your life, your family’s life, and the life of others then stop them before they are able to take away our best means of self defense and the only deterrent to criminals Law Abiding Citizens have.
A false argument. You are arguing against something that no one is proposing.
Tell that to the 500 Citizens of Chicago that died last year.
It's a false argument. No one is taking away your means of self-defense.
What reasonable people want are reasonable restrictions.
It's very telling that you can't speak to the argument but rather introduce unrelated issues.
What is considered a "reasonable" restriction is just a moving target that changes from year to year. That is why a compromise is not a compromise if one side keeps giving up stuff incrementally. In another 10 or 20 years, they'll want another so-called "compromise".
The politicians rarely every do something ALL at once. They do it incrementally, like the metaphor of boiling a frog in a pot of water by raising it one degree at a time slowly. For example, I believe the earliest income tax was about 1%.
Obama, Feinstein, Bloomburg - all have advocated for a complete ban on private ownership of firearms at some point. Do the reseach, then come back with "no one is trying to take your guns away."
THEN, go look up "2005 Gang Busters Act." The House passed a bill which would have taken a real chunk out of gun violence by instituting severe penalties for gang-related gun violence. La Raza and several Afro-American lobbying groups killed the bill in the Senate. It is all about the votes, people.
Got to love it when an uneducated, uninformed individual spouts the anti-gun rhetoric. The documented statements, legislation, and sound bites are out there and they refuse to read or listen to them for proof that they are being lied to by their leaders.
NO, i repeat, NO gun laws can stop one disturbed, motivated individual.
Ever heard of gas in a bottle and a torn tshirt? Are we going to outlaw gas, bottles and tshirts?
It will if we prosecute the person who provided that gun.
Please stop with the "we should outlaw toothbrushes because they can be used as a lethal weapon" stupdity.
Mark - Have you forgoteen OK City or 9/11. All the points are valid. Weapons come in all types, including household items. A U.S. published government training manual for Special Ops states that an occupational force should restrict the populace access to items needed to make weapons and muntions. The list contains many items available over the counter at any grocery, drug store, hardware store, or other public source.
If laws are being created to try and save "one" life, then that publication should be used as a basis for legislation. If laws are being created because a particular weapon was used, then ignorance knows no bounds, since methods of mass murder are available without restriction or regulation. The decision to create a police state of regulations should be taken seriously.
Banging head against wall! Doesn't this sound familiar? Let's have a prohibition against another thing. It will cause more control on law abiding citizens because other people are breaking laws. Yes sir, we can have a war on guns to go along with the war on drugs because it always makes sense to pass laws that control law abiding citizens while the criminals will continue to do what they damn well please. Stupid stupid people!
Remarkably stupid argument.
Why have any laws at all, right?
It's not stupid at all. How about the if we prosecute the guns laws already on the books to their fullest extent before we start adding more. You're the one making stupid comments with the no laws thing.
Jon
Most of the Executive Orders issued by President Obama were for the purpose of more effective enforcement of existing guns laws. The gun lobby immediately attacked him, apparently without reading the Orders, charging that he was acting outside of the limits of the Constitution and taking away their 2nd Amendment rights ..... none of which was true.
don,
Why did BO have to enact EO's for laws already on the books? Why didn't he just tell everyone to start enforcing all laws, currently on the books, to the letter of their design?
Don -
Did you read the 23 EO's? Several had absolutely nothing to do with firearms per se, but the NEA got some payback there.
The problem is we have to leave it to incompetent Congressmen to decide what law is going to be represented as Stricter Gun Laws. We have forms to fill out where people admit they don't qualify to buy a weapon. They get a response back that they can't buy this weapon, but nothing is done to prosecute them. So, why even have that law. The police don't want to go after them until they take a gun and use it in a crime. We have the laws only so a Congressman can put in his resume that he supported or created a law to prevent illegal gun sales.
Our system is so flawed, why do we bother.
They should cancel everything they want to do, find every bit of money they are going to spend on this, and give it to the law enforcement agencies around the country to hire more police.
Every ounce of energy and every dollar they spend towards more laws is WASTED.
Not to mention the fact that making a Federal Law that pertains to the view of all people, urban and suburban, alike, is becoming impossible. They both have different points of view.
Maybe the $75K is household income? I live in the D.C. suburbs and own a multitude of guns including assault rifles. But the only think I will be assaulting is coyotes and foxes. I have never been polled.
very true sentiment. None of my friends or relatives have ever been polled either.
We need more of this and less of the hysteria going on. Responsible gun owners pose no threat to any anti-firearms folks. Until you start talking "restrictions" Buzz words for "confiscation" to all that own and enjoy firearms..LEGALLY. Please don't lie to me or yourself, Senator Fienstien, Gov. Cuomo have both said that if they could outlaw and confiscate guns they would.
Let's work together to remove firearms from criminals, keep them from crazy folks.....but at the end of the day nothing (ask the President) will stop all of the killings with firearms.
I am for all crimes involving guns to have a mandatory Federal offense tied to it. Long time sentences, for shooting someone, for knowingly selling to criminals, straw purchases etc..
So how do we know who is responsible and who isn't if we don't know who is buying them?
Yes, watch the news. Gangs should be stopped immediately, more research into mental health issues, we can track firearms back to the gunshops that sold them. There are ways besides making new laws that only infringe on the 80-100million of us that are not breaking laws.
Dblackman -
The grabbers care nothing for your rights, your safety, your family's safety. It is about giving the government the control they think it should have.
I am a gun owner and I oppose all new laws. A gun grabbers motto is "yard by yard is hard, but inch by inch is a cinch" They start slow and eventually we will be a disarmed society. NY and Chicago are prime examples of how gun laws do not work. NY already had a ten round magazine limit, and they have no reduced it to seven.... the inch by inch rule. I won't give up my 2A rights, and neither will many others. Can't wait for the 2014 elections, and of course 2016... when our country can get back on track.
The old slippery slope argument.
or "if you ask that people submit to a background check to make sure they are a mentally deficient sociopath, all guns belonging to everyone will be confiscated"
Kind of a silly argument isn't it.
In the case of NY and CA it has been a slope. You can literally see the progression of restrictions a little at a time. They know if they tried to confiscate them all at once all hell would break loose. First restrictions... then registration... then taxation... then confiscation. I will make Joe and Obummer a deal, give up all their armed guards for themselves and family members, and I will give up my firearms. Effectively they are saying my life isn't worth protecting when they attempt to abolish my civil liberties.
You register your car and pay taxes on it, you register your home and pay taxes on it, why on earth wouldn't you register an assault weapon?
Maybe you don't have young children playing in the yard and wouldn't care but I do and I'd like to know if the idiot living next to me has an assault weapon with a 30 round magazine.
Is that really asking too much?
Big surprise ..... Red Herring alert on Mark Thomas.
The main reason you have to register/pay taxes on your car is to pay for the infrastructure, roads, bridges, etc required to operate it on.
I've owned three houses so far and have not had to "register" any of them. Maybe Mark lives in one of the "registration required" zones for housing i haven't heard about yet.
When voter ID, a fingerprint card, and background check are required to vote; I might just then consider registering my firearms. Until then I won't. You actually have no right to be able to know what a neighbor owns or doesn't own. If its legal, its none of your business.
We know how the know where the guns are worked out don't we? Media outlet posts adress of gun onwers. One house gets broken into but no guns stolen, luckily. They gave the criminals a roadmap to every gun in the state. How many homes were broke into that we haven't heard about? Intelligent inquiring minds want to know.
Paganponderer has made the best comment so far:
Want to end gun violence or violence in general: ban the death penalty for one-off murders and establish a mandatory death sentence for multiple-felonies with no appeals.
Execute a hundred thousand felons a year, and my guess is criminal violence--including gang-related violence--would drop.
It is a shame we don't have the guts to do this because that is what it will take. The revolving door of violent offenders into and out of prisons is a very sad joke. One that costs countless lives taken by violent people that should never have been released from prison on their last sentence. Very sad indeed when the government is partly responsible for thousands of deaths, rapes, assaults every year for assisting the bad guys in getting out for "good behavior."
-
MSNBC
OBAMA'S
BU.L.L.SHYTTE
PROPAGANDA
"NEWS"......
WITHOUT
THE
2ND. AMMENDMENT...NOW
OBAMA
WOULD
HAVE
DESTROYED
MOST
OF YOUR
OTHER
AMMENDMENTS
BY
NOW
The thing that always gets me about these polls is, who are they polling? I personally have NEVER been polled. Are they skewing the results in their favor by polling in areas where their sentiments are prevalent?
They only poll people who are home at 2:00pm on a Wednesday afternoon.....people who are at work never get polled!!
48
48.1
In FIFTY STATES.... CITIZENS have contacted their government leaders and the message is clear...
OVERWHELMING SUPPORT for stricter gun background checks.
You...just whine on the vine.
you cannot silence the U.S. Constitution..........
Nobody said that it would.
Conservatives believe in silencing the Constitution. The Supreme Court rules that access to abortion is a Constitutional right. Every red state has severely limited or eliminated women's access to abortion. Every one of those red states has very liberal gun laws. The only reasonable conclusion is that conservatives are very selective about which Constitutional rights should be protected.
Who's trying to silence the Constitution?
Chip
Here's the partial list
@don.....So, you think there should be universal background checks and a national list of all people who have gotten, or are thinking of getting, an abortion?? If not, why would you feel this way about the 2nd amendment??? ....or are you just not making sense?
don okay, you got me!
@Don...so let me get this straight....you believe that you should "pick and choose" which aspects of our constitution we should keep and which ones we should discontinue??? .....plus, what part of the constitution protects abortion??? ...the 14th amendment??? really????? Read it and please explain to me how?????
Hopeless
The Supreme Court ruled that access to abortion is a Constitutional right. I suggest you research Roe v Wade to educate yourself on the matter.
Your rant about background checks for abortions is moronic. Why not just make an equally ignorant comment about background checks for freedom of speech? Abortion responsibility is ensured by making it a medical matter, and that is between a woman and her doctor. Gun legislation is about gun responsibility .... like background checks.
@don...I'm sorry, but please explain how background checks or gun registration would have prevented ANY of the current gun tragedies???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? I'm pro-choice when it comes to gun ownership....because you are not, please don't feel that it is OK for you to infringe upon my constitutional rights!!
BS don
NBC Hack News at it's best, is anyone so naive to think you are getting a legitimate figure or result from a poll like this from this Organization. Drink the KoolAid !!!
Take your sorry ass back to theblaze.com.
Go ahead sell some gold coins while your at it
Please.
You say that because it's inconsistent with your thinking.
If it said the opposite you'd agree with the methodology entirely.
I'm pretty certain the methodolgy was flawless in this poll.
DOJ/FBI statistics show that 47% - 90% percent of gun violence ("depending on location" - read 90% in large urban areas) is committed by gangs.
Either the sample size was inadequate or some serious lying was going on in the responses.
The questions appear to be too broad on the policy-based content. Specific questions about specific proposals would lend more meaningful data. Polls can be influenced easily by vague or broad wording. For example: "Do you support killing children? Conclusion: In a conducted poll 97% of respondents indicated they were anti-abortion." Now that's an exaggerated example, of course, but it illustrates a common problem with polls.
Wow, I've heard about these people that the Democrats and Anti-gun groups pay to troll these sites to barf their fake data and slobbery of the anti-gun poor boo-hoo stories. If you want to stop the violence in your screwed up cities; then you need to do something about the gangs and the drugs. Nothing is going to happen with gun control; it didn't work for you idiots before in the last 10 year ban and it's not going to work again. They will continue to kill at random; rob and rape uptill their are none of you left. But your to scared to do anything about the real problem cause your afraid you'll be a rascist.
So let's allow anyone to get a gun, no restrictions, no background check, no nothing.
That's what the NRA wants.
Brilliant.
So let's allow anyone to get an abortion...to kill their baby, no restrictions, no background check, no nothing.
That's what Planned Parenthood wants.
Brilliant.
Hope Really is Gone ..... for you
Your ignorance about Planned Parenthood is appalling ....... 3% of their funding is directed to abortions .... the other 97% is directed toward avoiding unwanted pregnancy, assisting desired pregnancy and women'a health issues such as cervical cancer screening. That is what Planned Parenthood wants.
You are far less than brilliant.
@don....you are a fraud......... Planned Parenthood is responsible for 329,445 abortions each and every year. Please explain how your math adds up?????? ...or is this that "fuzzy liberal math" that Obama even uses?????
Planned Parenthood's spending is easy to research ..... try using a reliable source.
Unsubstantiated drivel.
.
So don, how many abortions do my tax dollars fund each year. 329,444? Lets not talk percentages, lets talk total numbers.
You won't though because you know what the numbers are and HopeisGone is right on the money. On the other hand you are full of it and a rude little prick to boot.