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:
Then make Gun Control only applicable to this group of city-dwellers who choose to live so close to each other that anything will set them off, and usually does.
I'd vote for that. Chicago, Detroit, Flint, New Orleans, Atlanta - they can all become "gun free zones." Maybe controlled by their respective Wildlife Resources folks - you know, you can only burglarize this address three times per year with the proper license/stamp? 12 rapes for you, and it's only June? Your tag has been filled! Hey! - only two murders per year, there, Bucky!
Are you gullible enough to believe that if someone calls you on the phone and starts talking to you about guns that people will divulge that information??? Are you gullible enough to think that NBC deals with facts???
Ironic that gun nuts say that city crime is a much bigger problem when it's their own lax gun laws that created that problem.
In Illinois you need a Firearm Owners ID card to buy ammo buy or even touch a gun. In order to get an FOID card, you must fill out paper work that goes to the Illinois State Police for verification and a background check. When you purchase a firearm in Illinois, the paperwork you fill out goes to the State Police and an FBI background check is done. After the mandatory waiting period, you can pick up your firearm. Could you explain how these 'lax' gun laws created the problem in Chicago?
Did you miss out on the Chicago Articles? Toughest Gun Law ordinances, murder City of the US. Maybe they should try your method of creating Law Gun Ordinances since having the Toughest is not working. Give it a few months and the problems will probably fix themselves in Chicago.
No, what genius is trying to say is that because gun laws elsewhere are more lax, that's the reason Chicago has a problem.
They can't or won't control the problem themselves so they have to blame someone or something else. That's one of the latest liberal gun control arguments du jour. And it's getting old.
Start by enforcing the laws we already have.
.
Chicago has a GANG problem.
Nope, it's a gun problem. Period! No question. Caused by the gun that's being legally bought at this moment in Goose Pimple Junction VA.
Jon; As a Virginian born and raised OF, Your attempt at blaming other states for Chicago crime is tenuous, scurrilous and silly. Personally, I have worked in South Chicago and the gangers can put you down without a firearm. S. Chicago is an area with many, many single or no parent children who are self raising, earning a degree in "street-smarts" by criminal activity. Some have no choice, do it or get whacked. Maybe there are other ways to fix Chicago but more gun laws will only up the price and send the gangs back to shivs and brass knuckles.
HINT:
Firearms are inanimate objects.
.
Jon -
I don't know about Goose Pimple Junction, VA, but I used to live within 4 miles of Frog Level and 3 miles of Buck Snort, NC. True.
Woodysr -
Jon was being ironic.
Yes, ironic with a heaping pile of sarcasm.
Is there really any information in here we didn't already know??? The affluent are more likely to own a firearm then those who are not affluent - Really??? How is that a surprise? Firearms are expensive. The affluent have stuff worth stealing - and defending. The poor do not.
Republicans are more likely to own a firearm... I'm not entirely sure that is accurate. Half of all independents do and a large portion of them were Obama supporters.
Whites are more likely then African Americans or Hispanics? That is a byproduct of the majority of the minority population living in urban centers - where firearm ownership in general is lower in general. That's not so much a byproduct of race as it is geography.
Men are more likely then women. Well yea... It's a man's job to protect and provide. It's a woman's job to care and nurture. At least that has been the tradition of society. But I'm seeing an awful lot of women at the range these days. They are damn fine shots too.
Really, is there any news here at all. Oh and I love MSNBC's framing of the conversation as a "gun debate". Listen, unless you're talking about repealing the 2nd amendment there is no debate. The supreme court has upheld the citizens right to keep and bear arms. It is an irrefutable civil right. There is no debate. The government can not restrict or regulate commonly available firearms. This has already been established. To discuss and try such is nothing more than an expense for the taxpayers who will have to foot the court costs to get it thrown out when pro 2nd amendment groups line up to sue.
I am a pretty old guy. I got my first rifle when I was 8 and have had many types and varieties of guns since then. I still do. However, I do not feel that my right to own a gun can contribute to someone else's lack of safety or harm. I believe that they should tighten controls and perhaps look at anyone whose gun is used in a crime bear the same punishment as the user. The strange thing is the people who want to target mental illness do not want their taxes to go up.
And, anyone who thinks the government if going to come after them is in my view a trigger away from mental illness.
B707320C..that is the problem we make these laws and then don't enforce them...all a big political game and Americans lose every time
B707 -
Or you can do the research and see that Bloomburg, Cuomo, Feinstein, Obama have all, at one time or another, advocated for the total ban on private ownership of firearms.
A trigger away from mental illness, indeed.
B707 - you missed the Feinstein train didn't you? She and several states have enacted or are in the process of enacting laws that require legal gun owners to ship their firearms out of state, turn them into the cops, or destroy them. What part of those requirements does not ban private ownership?
And while we're at it how about the fact that ABC "conveniently" editted out a portion of an interview with Michelle Obama where she erroneously called the weapon used in a recent shooting in Chicago and "automatic weapon" despite the cops saying it was a revolver since no shell casings were found. The bias of the major media outlets is revealing itself to be the mouthpiece of the anti-gun movement and this administration's agendas. Biden and the Obama houshold have repeatedly shown that they know nothing about current gun laws and certainly nothing about constitues an automatic firearm. Any legislation supported by this administration should be feared by people who fully support all sections of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Anything less than that is to court civil unrest when those rights and freedoms are arbitrarily denied.
This is because you're ill-informed:
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!
I rest my case! Paranoia is an illness!
Yep. Those facts are a sure sign of parnoia alright.
Hilarious.
Meteja running for President? Is he an elected official? Is he on the Supreme Court? Perhaps you have given him power beyond is position. Are you paranoid?
Perhaps you're having reading comprehension issues?
You said: "Anyone who thinks the government if going to come after them (guns) is in my view a trigger away from mental illness."
I provided factual information to the contrary. That information was a US Attorney arguing on behalf of the Federal Government that guns should not be allowed by citizens.
Now, you tell me where you're having difficulty and I will help you.
.
Steve B
I don't know what facts of the case you have left out. We don't know within what context these few quotes were stated. If I were paranoid, I would agree that these handful of lines from some nobody would make my case. But, unlike you, I am not paranoid. However, I would agree with Meteja because in my view the Founding Fathers backed the Constitution to build a stronger federal government rather than the weaker form of government that was governed by the Articles of the Confederation. Some STATES wanted to make sure that a more centralized government would not revert to a monarchial role that might round up guns. The 2nd Amendment was intended to give STATES the right to protect themselves against an over reaching central power. Those STATES, unable to afford standing armies, wanted their citizens to have access to their own arms that they could bring with them if called into battle.
The Founding Fathers expected each STATE tp regulate a militia wherein each citizen soldier would bring his own weapon. It is a STATE right, not an INDIVIDUAL right to ARM against the federal government. That is my interpretation of what I have read as a non-constitutional lawyer.
I find the "statistics" interesting. Only one in five African Americans admits to owning a "weapon" but why then are more African Americans killed with guns in the "cities" than else where. To me it says that registration and back ground checks aren't working. PLEASE do not make this a "racist" thing as that is not the point. More laws and other things that don;t work NOW are not going to work in the future. It is the unlawfully purchased guns that are the "vice" that we won't be able to correct. As long as you have the "money" you will be able to purchase about anything you want, legal or illegal.
Due to chronic racism, they are mostly poor, and poorly educated. All factors that contribute to crime. I am a liberal white boomer and can't recall ever hiring one black guy in 30 years of work. So, it's up to the next generation to fix problems I helped create.
Ah, white liberal guilt. So make the citizens who obey the law suffer from your racism?
Quit trying to empathize with this group when the reason you say it doesn't work is because of how the guns are acquired. Just like Cars, if you steal them then no amount of registration or background checks are going to prevent them from being used in a crime by a group that continues to commit the majority of offenses in an area.
B707 etc. I am a white Virginian. I worked for more than forty five years in computers. I hired, or recommended the hiring of more than two dozen black people. I even reported to a director who was black. An excellent man. I also fired two black employees. (Not easy) Constantly playing the "poor me" sympathy card is old and I wish it was passe. Blaming every black gang banger's status on racism misses the mark. as does blaming me for the sins of my great grandfather. Besides, he owned no slaves, not even a mule because he was very poor.
Woodysr,
My parents immigrated here after WW2. Don't blame me.
Young voters don't own guns (or as many cars, for that matter). They are pro same-sex marriage. Poor, old timers, we better pass away while we can still recognize the world. Until then, watch plenty of Brady Bunch reruns!
Wrong...I know several young voters who own guns legally. If you really must categorize people how about those who defend the current rights and freedoms defined by the Constitution and Bill of Rights and those who want to re-write the Constitution to fit their idea of utopia and eliminate the Bill of Rights as being outdated and unneeded?
The first group being pro-democracy and the second group being pro-socialist. I'll take democracy over socialism any day.
Firstly, I am only stating what the article states....younger voters don't own as many guns. It did not say that no young voters own guns. Obviously, if that is what the article had said, then you would be right.
Secondly, democracy is a form of government and socialism is a form of economic system. You can democratically agree and vote to be socialists. The Scandinavians do this all the time....use a democratic system to promote socialist policies. Finally, keep this in mind: The words "socialism", "capitalism" and "communism" only entered the English vocabulary 30-50 years after the Constitution as adopted. Our founding fathers never heard of these terms.
"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
-- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Thursday night fought back against the claim that gun laws were pointless because criminals would simply ignore them.
He admitted on CNN that it was "probably true" the proposals advocated by President Barack Obama on Wednesday wouldn't have prevented the tragic elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
Bloomberg noted that the gunman had taken the firearms from his mother, bypassing any type of background check.
"But that doesn't mean that having fewer guns around isn't a better idea," he continued. "It is like, there are people who go through traffic lights, they just run a red light. Does that mean we should get rid of all traffic lights? No. In a macro sense, these laws do work."
Bloomberg has been a vocal advocate of gun control.
so it is about trying to ban all guns.......
Hopeless
It is not about trying to ban all guns. You are illogical and willfully ignorant. Apparently you cannot read and you are certainly unable to put together a rational argument.
@don...be honest with yourself!! ....this IS about trying to ban all guns!! .....idiot!
Contradiction, please:
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!
Don9 - it's about eroding rights gradually enough that it doesn't look like the rights have been violated. feinstein's legislation proposes such a generally wide description of the firearms to be banned that revolvers would be the next thing to be banned.
And speaking of revolvers, how many people have noticed that the cops say that the firearm used to kill the young girl in Chicago was probably a revolver since no shell casings were found. If Obama is correct that banning firearms that kill children should be banned then revolvers should be banned. But wait a minute, that's one weapon not mentioned by Feinstein. Oh well, she'll catch that error the next time she brings legislation before Congress.
just 30 percent of Democrats say they own a gun, while 55 percent of Republicans do.
that means more republicans are dying from gun violence than democrats on any given day correct?
including suicides, accidental self shootings, accidental family member shootings, mistaken identity shooting of family members, impulsive second degree murder, i didn't know it was loaded shootings, inebriated showoff shootings, children playing with unsecured guns shooting themselves or siblings or playmates. (more likely to grow up to be republicans)
all these actions reduce the number of republicans available to go to the polls. you'd think it'd give them pause wouldn't it?
most gun deaths happen among the democrat criminals shooting each other up in the inner city ghettos that all voted 98% for Obama......
Hopeless
How many gang members do you believe cast a vote? Your arguments are irrational.
@don....at the inner-city polls where the black panthers were stationed, or at the one's where metal detectors were required at the door?? ...be specific.......dope!
Ironic.
I feel the same way about liberals and abortion.
.
Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged that new gun laws would not "fundamentally alter" the likelihood of another mass shooting, though he insisted there has been a "sea change" in American views on guns in the wake of Newtown.
"Nothing we're going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now," Biden told reporters Thursday afternoon after he spent over an hour lunching with Democratic senators at the Capitol.
"But there are things that we can do, demonstrably can do, that have virtually zero impact on your Second Amendment right to own a weapon for both self defense and recreation that can save some lives," he said.
Biden was on the Hill to help sell a package of changes to the nation's gun laws that President Barack Obama is pushing in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings that killed 20 elementary school children and six adults. The president wants an assault weapons ban, limits on the size of gun magazines, universal background checks and a federal gun trafficking statute.
The 1994 assault-weapons ban was allowed to expire in 2004, and there had been little appetite to reenact it.
Still, that was before Newtown -- and the vice president insisted Thursday that the tragedy there changed the public's attitudes toward gun-safety legislation, a reality that would make new firearms regulations possible.
"I'm not saying there's an absolute consensus on all these things," Biden said, "but there is a sea change, a sea change in the attitudes of the American people. I believe the American people will not understand -- and I know that everyone in that caucus understands -- they won't understand if we don't act.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The National Rifle Association is using a Justice Department memo it obtained to argue in ads that the Obama administration believes its gun control plans won't work unless the government seizes firearms and requires national gun registration — ideas the White House has not proposed and does not support.
The NRA's assertion and its obtaining of the memo in the first place underscore the no-holds-barred battle under way as Washington's fight over gun restrictions heats up.
The memo, under the name of one of the Justice Department's leading crime researchers, critiques the effectiveness of gun control proposals, including some of President Barack Obama's. A Justice Department official called the memo an unfinished review of gun violence research and said it does not represent administration policy.
The memo says requiring background checks for more gun purchases could help, but also could lead to more illicit weapons sales. It says banning assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines produced in the future but exempting those already owned by the public, as Obama has proposed, would have limited impact because people now own so many of those items.
It also says that even total elimination of assault weapons would have little overall effect on gun killings because assault weapons account for a limited proportion of those crimes.
The nine-page document says the success of universal background checks would depend in part on "requiring gun registration," and says gun buybacks would not be effective "unless massive and coupled with a ban."
The administration has not proposed gun registration, buybacks or banning all firearms. But gun registration and ownership curbs are hot-button issues for the NRA and other gun-rights groups, which strenuously oppose the ideas.
Whether to require record-keeping for private gun sales is holding up a congressional compromise on legislation to expand background checks, now required only for transactions by federally licensed dealers, according to people familiar with bipartisan Senate talks who spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks are private.
Justice Department and White House officials declined to provide much information about the memo or answer questions about it on the record.
The memo has the look of a preliminary document and calls itself "a cursory summary" and assessment of gun curb initiatives. The administration has not release it officially.
But the NRA has posted the memo on one of its websites and cites it in advertising aimed at whipping up opposition to Obama's efforts to contain gun violence. The ad says the paper shows that the administration "believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation" and thinks universal background checks "won't work without requiring national gun registration" — ideas the president has not proposed or expressed support for.
"Still think President Obama's proposals sound reasonable?" Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief Washington lobbyist, says in the ad.
Last month, White House spokesman Jay Carney said none of Obama's proposals "would take away a gun from a single law-abiding American." Other administration officials have said their plans would not result in gun seizures or a national gun registry.
A Justice Department official who would only discuss the issue on condition of anonymity said the NRA ad misrepresents Obama's gun proposals and that the administration has never backed a gun registry or gun confiscation.
While the memo's analysis of gun curb proposals presents no new findings, it is unusual for a federal agency document to surface that raises questions about a president's plans during debate on a high-profile issue such as restricting firearms.
Obama wants to ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines exceeding 10 rounds that are produced in the future. He wants universal background checks for nearly all gun purchases. Today, checks are only mandatory on sales by federally licensed gun dealers, not transactions at gun shows or other private sales.
His plan also includes tougher federal laws against gun trafficking and straw purchases, which occur when a person legally buys a firearm but sells it to a criminal or someone else barred from owning a weapon.
Interest in the gun issue has intensified since the December shootings in Newtown, Conn., that killed 20 first-graders and six staffers at an elementary school. The Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee plans to write legislation addressing some of Obama's proposals in the next week or two.
The NRA's Cox declined to say how his organization obtained the memo.
He said the commercial is running online in 15 states, including many Republican-leaning states where Democrats will defend Senate seats next year, such as Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia. There are also ads in papers in five states.
The memo was written under the name of Greg Ridgeway, acting director of the National Institute of Justice, the Justice Department's research arm. It is dated Jan. 4, nearly two weeks before Obama announced his plan for restricting guns, and Ridgeway's first day as acting chief.
Justice Department officials said Ridgeway was not granting interviews. He came to the institute last July from the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research institution where he studied criminal justice issues, and has a Ph.D. in statistics.
The memo says straw purchases and gun thefts are the largest sources of firearms used in crimes, and that such transactions "would most likely become larger if background checks at gun shows and private sellers were addressed."
Gun control supporters said the NRA ad and the Justice memo don't mention that the current federal background check system blocked gun sales to 2.1 million criminals and others barred from owning guns between 1994, when the checks began, and 2010. Also ignored is that Obama has proposed cracking down on straw purchases to prevent a growth in illegal transactions, they said.
Advocates of restricting guns also said the memo omitted mention of several studies that affirm the effectiveness of firearms curbs. These include a 2010 police group analysis showing more than one-third of police departments found increased criminal use of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines since the 2004 expiration of the ban on those items.
"It doesn't appear to be a serious discussion of gun violence prevention policy, never mind an expression of administration policy," said Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
The memo says that out of 11,000 annual gun homicides, an average of 35 deaths yearly are from mass shootings, defined as those with four or more victims.
"Policies that address the larger firearm homicide issue will have a far greater impact even if they do not address the particular issues of mass shootings," it says.
It says there were an estimated 1.5 million assault weapons before the 10-year ban on those firearms began in 1994, so their sheer number would weaken a new ban exempting existing weapons. Such guns accounted for just 2 percent to 8 percent of crimes before the 1994 ban, so eliminating assault weapons "would not have a large impact on gun homicides," the memo said.
Recent data on the assault weapons ban impact is scarce because since the 1990s, Congress has blocked most federal research on the effect that firearms have on public health. As part of the gun restrictions Obama proposed last month, he ordered federal scientific agencies to research gun violence.
"Last month, White House spokesman Jay Carney said none of Obama's proposals "would take away a gun from a single law-abiding American." Other administration officials have said their plans would not result in gun seizures or a national gun registry."
And the ACA will not cost one dime. And you can keep your present policy . . .
Jay Carney obviously hasn't read Feinstein's proposed legislation or heard the news that New York has passed legislation requiring its citizens to ship their firearms out of state or that Missouri is considering similiar action that deprives citizens of legal ownership of firearms.
Just more lies being spread to cover up an inept leadership and administration with an anti-gun agenda.
I own several guns some of which have been in a closet and not fired in 30 yrs. I do go to the range on occasion. I have always felt we needed stricter gun laws. I am so tired of the paranoid crowd who thinks the government is always plotting against them. The government is inept to say the least but plotting? I don't think they plan ahead longer than the next poll. The NRA is a great example of bribery of public officials. Excuse me I'm sorry it used to be called bribery and was illegal but now it's called lobbying and so it's OK now. Just like torture use to be against the law but now we call it Enhanced Interrogation so that's OK now to. Do all of you paranoid people out there really believe that American soldiers would obey an order to confiscate every ones guns? Come on people use your heads this isn't the 1700s or 1930s Germany.
When gun owners are squeezed like they are in California, and a mayor in NY can tell the citizens that they can only have five bullets, what is stopping them from taking the next step, hmmm? Liberals like you are already proposing to levy such high taxes on ammo that only the very rich can afford it.
You just can't get rid of your paranoia. A 747 might crash into your home. Why don't you go outside and watch the sky for the rest of your life. Get some professional help for your paranoia problem. You will sleep better.
@Dave.....Oh, I sleep fine. I have access to a gun in every corner of my house. I never leave the house without a gun. I also wear seat belts, wear a hard hat and safety glasses at work, have a fire alarm and health insurance. Not that I will ever need them, but it is nice to know I have them when the occasion arrives.
Dave apparently is one of those people who has round the clock secret Service protection. Not all American soldiers would obey an order to confiscate firearms but the ones who would are the ones we need to worry about. Soldiers are taught to obey orders, but not necessarily what is a lawful or unlawful order. It wasn't until I made Sergeant that I was given access to training that informed me to what I could and couldn't obey. So if you truly believe that soldiers won't obey unlawful orders that's your right. However, you might want to ask Lt. Callie about obeying unlawful orders.
Get a grip man The Egyptians overthrew their Government with no guns at all. So you think that the Supreme Court would just let it happen.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Dave -
Do you have a fire extinguisher?
Do you know what the function of the Supreme Court is? Do you think that 9 judges could stop either a revolt or a government takeover?
Get a grip, man!
Moving on.
They sample (cherry-pick) 1,000 people and that's supposed to be the "national opinion".
Pure horse-squeeze.
.
Only the willfully ignorant cherry pick the news and agree with that which supports their beliefs and accuses any news organization that puts out contrary information of bad journalism.
Steven B ..... you are willfully ignorant.
don, it's pretty typical and consistent behavior.
When a poll doesn't roll in your favor, baselessly attack the poll. It's the easiest thing to do!
This is a poll I like.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156698/americans-continue-give-obama-low-marks-economy.aspx
JobSeeker
Compare the poll numbers for Obama vs the Republicans in Congress.
They all suck, but Obama is the President. His low numbers carry more weight, don't you think?
I agree.
Let's take a look, shall we?
There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/video-indiana-sheriffs-completely-debunk-effectiveness-of-magazine-bans-in-amazing-video/
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video/video-tx-homeowner-interrupts-burglary-captures-three-burglars-holds-them-at-gunpoint-until-police-arrive/
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/armed-citizen-in-tx-stops-shooting-spree-and-saves-cop-by-making-150-yard-shot-with-a-pistol/
.
No ..... because the President is not a king ...... Congress is the body who passes or fails to pass legislation. Both are equally responsible and the President is willing to compromise .... Boehner is not. The Republican Tea Party is not.
Leaderhip, Don, leadership.
JobSeeker, yeah the right should should try it.
Try checking out the polls done for NRA membership opinion.
If the prsident is not King, why does he keep giving executive orders that over-ride legislative actions that he doesn't like? How about he enforce the federal pot laws in all states? How about enforcing illegal immigration laws, instead of fighting states that are doing something about it? The list can go on and on. He cherry picks his stance based on his agendas not federal laws.
Obama leads from behind.
.
Job/Steven
The Republicans met immediately after the election of President Obama in the first term and agreed to oppose him on everything. These people were elected, largely with Tea Party influence, by saying that they would not compromise. Anyone who believes that failure to lead people who refuse to do their job is a "leadership failure" is a bonehead.
AveJoe
When Obama's number of Executive Orders approaches the number of Bush's Executive Orders you have room to talk. President Obama has more border security that ever before, deports more than ever before ..... and conservatives fail to notice or acknowledge more than ever before. Another case of willful ignorance.
Everybody has a gun. The only ones who don't are the weak, wimpy, skittish sissies who have never held a gun and are afraid of them. They are both conservatives and liberals. My brother and his wife are ultra-liberals from Boston. She is a radical environmentalist and he is touchy-feely lib. But they own guns, guns and more guns. Both have concealed carry permits. And she can shoot an eye off a fly from a hundred yards. Another brother is a bleeding-heart lib teaching at a college. He too has tons of guns. Many libs are NRA members. Sorry wimps, you are in the minority on this issue and that is why all this hype about gun control is just that, hype.
With intellect like yours it's easy to see why you are a Job Seeker.
@Dave....Why that is the most clever post I have seen. Nobody has come up with that line before. You're the first. LOL
I am an very insecure
I believe that guns are the answer to most, if not all of my fears.
I am afraid of home invasions
I am afraid to go out at night
I am afraid of raping, ravaging, pillaging armed gangs
I think that anyone who is not as afraid of life as I am and does not own a gun is a "wimpy, skittish sissy"
Actually, JobSeeker ..... Most Americans do not have guns but most believe in your right to own a gun. In other words, most care about your right to bear arms even though they do not feel the need to have a gun themselves. They care about your rights.
Most people believe there should be limits on the right to bear arms ....universal background checks and limits on the types of weapons you can purchase. Unfortunately you don't care about those people who want to protect your rights as much as you care about your own selfishness.
Watch out the Feds are outside of your house and have you surrounded. Run Forest run.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx
What is your point?????? You never answered the question in the first post you responded to. Do you really believe that American soldiers would obey an order to force-ably confiscate everyone guns?
Dave... I was addressing Don. You can leave now.
Exisiting gun owners have purchased more guns. Individual gun ownership is going down.
@Chip.......Individual gun ownership going down? What are they doing, selling them at gun shows and suddenly saying I don't want guns anymore? LOL
Hey JobSeeker Do you believe they would or not?
Dave.......I don't know about the crowd you hang around with, but where I work, more and more are becoming first-time gun owners, more women than men. When I go to concealed carry classes, men and women are in equal numbers. That was not the case in the past. Women are becoming more engaged and taking self-defense personally.
Can't you answer a simple question?
No, I can't. I am planning to run for President.
Jobseeker - you've got my vote. It about time that we get a person with a brain in the White House.
Good luck. What will your platform be Manditory gun carry?
365 national holidays for all government employees. Oops, they already have that. LOL
What does 'LOL' mean" "Lie on top of Lie"?
As we can't seem to enforce the laws already on the books (re: chicago mess), then Universal background checks will do the most good. However, I would prefer that the courts lean heavily on those caught illegally with guns, or buying them for someone else. We need to stop the shipment of guns to felons, gang-bangers and the mentally ill.
@Dave, weather he is seeking a job or not doesn't mean he didn't speak the truth. That's one problem the right wing nut jobs have trouble believing is that a lot of libs, and % wise, Independents own guns, and know how to use them. They think (incorrectly) that if a civil war broke out, they could kill off all the libs.
Like I said, that low informed base has a lot of surprises coming there way in the future. Then watch them, if you think their teeth gnashing and wailings are bad now, you ain't seen anything yet. And yes, the anti-gun people are from all walks of life and from all political persuasions.
Also, don't believe the blantant lie the low informed base makes when they accuse Obama of trying to take your guns. It's a BIG FAT LIE, that's all. But yet you still see some of the low informed keep mentioning that. Typical brain diease of the low informed GOP base.
SallyAnn -
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and
possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory
waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.”
Implausible Deniability?
BTW - Who is low-informed?
PARTY DRONES are soooo boring.
SallyAnn - if no one is proposing taking guns away how do you expalin the new York legislation, or the Missouri legislation, or Feinstein's legislation? Requiring a citizen who legally owns a legal firearm to ship them out of state, or turn them over to the cops, or forfeit them to the government upon death is banning legal ownership of said firearms. The failure to read and understand the implications of these pieces of legislation is a failure to understand the threat to rights and freedoms. The elimination of rights and freedoms is gradual process to avoid civil unrest. People get used to losses and forget what they had.
A political cartoon recently said it all: "Grandpa, tell me what freedom was like". Is that our future? It might be if we don't defend what we have.
I wish they would stop this gun control nonsense already....the price of ammunition is still through the roof as people keep buying it up. Obama is the best thing ever to happen to gun dealers!!
GRABBERS -
The Supreme Court has decided that the police do not have the resposibility to protect you as an individual citizen, and that you are responsible for your own protection.
If you have no desire to protect yourself or your family due to your personal convictions, good for you. The lawless also applaud your decision.
How dare you decide for the rest of us how we best defend ourselves and our loved ones and neighbors?
mpa, no one is doing that...
And you fail to mention that Scalia (one of the more conservative SC Justices) stated that a Constitutional right is not unfettered.
Chip -
No one is doing that? Have you not been reading these posts? Have you not been following the Bloomburg, Cuomo, Feinstein, Obama screed?
Didn't say it should be unfettered, I questioned how the grabbers (hoplophobes) dared to decide for the rest of us.
Lets start by enforcing the existing laws first before passing more restrictions.
When you have a system that has a 44% reporting percentage somethings broken.
How about prosecuting those that lie or try to buy a gun illegally?
Out of over 4 thousand acts recommended to be prosecuted why were less than 45 prosecuted, and 13 given any real punishment?
When your background system checks the background of the purchaser for less than half of the gun sales the background system needs fixing. Nice that we have legislation proposed that makes background checks necessary for every gun purchase ..... right? Are you with us?
Unsubstantiated speculation.
.
From Fact-Checker at that bastion of right-wing journalism known as "The Washington Post:"
"In other words, rather than being 30 to 40 percent (the original estimate of the range) or “up to 40 percent” (Obama’s words), gun purchases without background checks amounted to 14 to 22 percent. And since the survey sample is so small, that means the results have a survey caveat: plus or minus six percentage points.
Moreover, as we noted before, the survey was taken in late 1994, eight months after the Brady law went into effect, and the questions were asked about gun purchases in the previous two years. So some of the answers concerned gun purchases that took place in a pre-Brady environment."
The Post gave "2 Pinnochios" to Biden and Obama for use of this bogus stat.
To all of you Paranoid folks out there who think the government will take away your guns. Just what do you think you would do about it? Go ask Karisich and his followers from Waco Tx. and the people from Ruby Ridge how well they fared against the FBI and ATF oh that's right you can't as they are all dead or in prison.
Yes, the murder of innocent women and children in Waco was a proud day for liberal Democrats.
Wrong your GOP Bush Sr. was President in 2007 Besides I thought law and order was a right wing thing.
The Waco siege began on Sunday, February 28, 1993, and ended violently 50 days later on April 19.
Fatalities of April 19
In all, 76 Branch Davidians died[8] and nine survived the fire on April 19 (five others had been killed in the initial ATF raid and buried on the grounds, one had been killed by ATF after the raid, and 35 had left during the FBI standoff).[64] Fatalities included:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege#Fatalities_of_April_19
Dave -what you fail to realize is the Waco event started out over a child abuse charge. why was the ATF even involved? Oh that's right, someone claimed they had a machine gun. A firearm that can be owned legally with the right permits. Wanna bet they didn't wait to see if they had one? As for the ATF and FBI comment, that's right up there with the trigger happy LA cops who shot 2 innocent women just like the Ruby Ridge agent. Shoot first and ask questions later, a fine police motto to have.
AVG....I witnessed the worst law enforcement abuse in my lifetime in Columbia, SC. I came home one day from work and the place was swarming with ATF agents with flap jackets and automatic weapons. I thought Al Qaeda was being confronted. No, it was my next door neighbor, a single black lady, and she was crying. Someone apparently didn't like her and lied to the feds that she was involved with drug dealing. They tore her apartment up, flipping over every piece of furniture and found nothing. They finally left without even an apology.
There is no part of the 2nd Amendment, or any other that I can think of, that makes claims that your rights must be justified by needs. Do you NEED to have the right to vote? Do you NEED the free press? The only time you NEED such rigths is when there is an infringement on you. In the case of the 2nd Amendment, that could be in the form of home invasion protection, protection from a thug perpetrating violence, or, God forbid, our government turning on its own people (can anyone explain why Homeland Security uses practice targets of women and children?)
I think this is interesting that there is such a split between urban and rural as well as gun owners and non owners.
In urban settings, how often are firearms used in a peaceful way? I don't think anyone is hunting squirrels in Central Park. City dwellers don't know how to use firearms because they've never used them. They, therefore, don't understand the value.
Likewise, if you never drove a car or used a cell phone, would you think you should need one? or understand their value? How many of us thought texting was stupid until we started doing it. Firearms are the same thing. "Never used one. Don't need one. "
Just because you city dwelling liberals don't want a firearm or can't handle them or won't control your own violence is no reason to infringe on MY Constiutional rights.
XD......Good point. I don't hear too many liberals why anyone would need a car to go over 100 MPH or have 400 horsepowers. But 93 people die everyday on our roads. I agree with the libs. We NEED to put limitations on engines to restrict every car to 30 MPH. Just think how many lives that will save. You can get to anywhere at 30 MPH.
If it saves just one child, it would be so worth it, JobSeeker!
Then it's a done deal. 30 MPH max on all highways. And all drivers will be required to carry $1 million liability insurance.
Ah yes, the gun nuts are out in force today!!! They want muh guns, they are gone take muh guns! That damned gubment won't git muh guns, till they pry em from muh cold dead finners!
Damned gubment, anywho!!!
JobSeeker yes, individual gun ownership IS going down.
Facts are hard...
Taking a line from the libs, source please??
Individual gun ownership may go down. It will take a Constitutional Amendment to make that happen. Unless the Urban hoplophobia spreads to the rural sector, it isn't going to happen anytime real soon.
Keep up the Progressive dream, though.
The FBI is reporting a record 2.8 million background checks for gun purchases in December – following the deadly Connecticut school shootings that prompted lawmakers to call for tighter gun control.
The December number exceeds the record 2 million checks in November, according to the agency's National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
The December number also marks a 49 percent increase over December 2011, when the record was set at 1.9 million checks, according to the agency, which started the programs in 1998 as part of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.