Why is support for gun control at record lows?

[belcffub]

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/26/why-is-support-for-gun-control-at-record-lows/">Why is support for gun control at record lows?

Only 26% of Americans - a record low - now favor a handgun ban; that's down from 60% when Gallup first asked the question in 1959.

Also, the poll shows that for the first time, there's more opposition than support for a ban on semiautomatic handguns or rifles - 53% to 43%.

In 1996, these numbers were nearly reversed. Congress passed a ban on assault rifles in 1994, but the law expired in 2004.

Overall, support for making gun laws "more strict" is at its lowest ever, 43%. As recently as 2007, a majority of Americans favored stricter laws.

perhaps because people figured out gun laws don't seem to be followed by criminals...

[Ter]

1. 26% of Americans hate freedom and the Constitution

Sad.

[TheWraith]

14. The scary part is, you could probably find 26% against any given item of the bill of rights. nt

[Katya Mullethov]

23. Freedom means responsibility

Fuck that

[ileus]

2. I suppose owning firearms and having them in public isn't as rude as people let on.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

3. Because with modern communitcation/technolgy, the ability to be informed is at an all time high.

Supply and demand... there is no demand for a worthless supply.

With the internet to disseminate REAL information and statistics (and allowing individual activists' voices heard worldwide) the american public is no longer ingorant enough to be lied to by people with racist, nanny, or authoritarian agendas. This is also the reason behind the OWS movement - people are now informed enough to see the truth and decide for themselves what is just/fair.

Gun control is ineffective - why waste money on programs/initiataves that don't work?
Gun control ultimately equates to loss/limitation of personal freedom - people like being free.

Gun control effectively reduces freedom in return for nothing.
Why give up personal freedom for the sake of something that doesn't provide a benefit?

[Simo 1939_1940]

50. Very well said.

With the internet to disseminate REAL information and statistics (and allowing individual activists' voices heard worldwide) the american public is no longer ingorant enough to be lied to by people with racist, nanny, or authoritarian agendas. This is also the reason behind the OWS movement - people are now informed enough to see the truth and decide for themselves what is just/fair

I too believe that the internet has much to do with changing hearts and minds - and there is no better evidence of this than the fact that Rachel Maddow attempted to steer her viewers away from doing their own research with her ridiculous "the information is all biased" lie on 1/11/11. After all, the last thing Rachel would want her viewers to read is "Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment" on a liberal website:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

[Simo 1939_1940]

51. Any serious research into gun restriction will yield links to Democratic Underground

Should have mentioned this in my previous post.

Discussion on the subject is so rigorous, and has been going on for so long, that you can't get 10 yards into research without bumping into a discussion on DU.

[Hoyt]

4. Too bad they didn't listen to the 60% back in 1959. Besides . . . . . .

Democrats still favor stricter controls. Since Republicans are far more likely to own/carry guns, it may well be Obama and the "take our country back" BS prompting the small change from a similar poll in 2008.

Look forward to folks keeping the pressure on so that 50 years from now we don't have several hundred million more friggin guns in public and 4.5% who can't leave home without a gun or two strapped to their bodies.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

5. Why does the idea of a law abiding person...

...being armed bother you so much Hoyt?

What harm does it do to you? How are your rights affected by someone having a pistol in their purse or pocket?

I am not asking rhetorically - i want to know specifically how you personally are harmed by someone carrying a firearm.

[oneshooter]

6. Don't expect much of an answer, if any.

THE HOYT don't do "answers"

THE HOYT don't care

THE HOYT really don't care

THE HOYT will tell you what THE HOYT want you to know.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas


Besides he is out looking for possible gunners with two guns. So he can lasso them and demand "Ver ar your PAPERS!!!"

[jimlup]

7. It isn't the "law abiding Americans" who he is worried about ...

And I have to say that I'm worried about those people too. I can't imagine why we think the 2nd Amendment applies to our society today. It just doesn't.

[pipoman]

15. Most of society disagrees with you,

including DU GD..

[Callisto32]

25. A bold statement.

Care to back it up?

[jimlup]

42. Well I don't really debate it because it isn't that important to me but basically...

I'm not allowed to own an anti-tank weapon. It would take a weapon of at least that caliber to start to form a "well regulated militia" in a conflict of today.

I don't see the point of hand guns. They are used for killing people and committing crimes. I do see the point of a shotgun. And if I needed to defend myself from "zombies" or the post apocalyptic equivalent which may well come to my door in search of food in the coming years - I would get one. I don't think any gun regulation laws proposed would suggest getting rid of all "hunting" weapons. If so I would oppose these. If I needed it to hunt deer because I was hungry - sure I should be allowed to assuming that the State allows me to take a deer without pooching. Thus I can see why I might need a shot gun or even a rifle but not a handgun or an assault rife.

I have a hard time conceiving of how anyone could truthfully think of guns differently. I mean if you are honest I don't see how you can come to a different conclusion. I'd be happy to be shown wrong. I really don't have a big stake in this debate.

Look - no matter how we slice it - we are no longer able to avoid the responsibility of living in a society with others. We just are not out on the frontier fending for ourselves against the bears. And even if we were - we just don't need handguns.

[oneshooter]

43. As a matter of fact you CAN own a anti-tank gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvncpT4EVzQ

I never said it was cheap.
You can load solid shot only, unless you want to pay a $200 tax per round, plus the coast of the ammo!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[We_Have_A_Problem]

28. The 2nd applies as much today as it ever has.

The intention of it may bother people, but like it or not, the founders wanted to be sure the people would always be able to control government - by force if necessary.

If you do not think it applies, by all means, feel free to attempt to have it repealed. If you want to just pretend it isn't there though, well.....sucks for you but it is, and like it or not, it is the supreme law of the land.

[SteveM]

31. Some liberal jurists have a take you might find interesting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz

"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."<52>

Alan Dershowitz doesn't like the Second, but he recognizes it. He recommends that if you don't like it, repeal it. You have your work cut out for you, considering the polling data about the Second, and considering the smashing defeats of many Democrats who adhere to this rather contrived "liberal" issue; contrived in that the "issue" of gun-control/prohibition didn't even raise its counter-productive head until 1968 (Democratic Party Platform), some 3 years after the Mommas and the Poppas first charted.

[gravity556]

9. He's not harmed by anyone carrying.

He's a "guns for me but not for thee" hypocrite as well. How about you disarm first, Hoyt. Then put a sign up in your yard declaring your disdain for firearms and refusal to harbor such instruments of destruction... Come on, put your money where your gun or two are.

[Hoyt]

10. I don't carry. And, I haven't shot in decades. Guns were left to me and I will sell or dispose

of them someday. If they ban them, I'll gladly take the loss.

Don't care what gun goofballs do at home with their precious weapons, but there are very few situations where folks should carry guns in public. I bet it says so right in the Bible or something.


If you are in a well regulated militia, carry on.

[oneshooter]

11. Please describe for us what a" well regulated militia" consists of. n/t

[Hoyt]

12. Let's put it this way OShooter, you be "UNregulated". Clear enough for you?

[gejohnston]

13. I disagree

I am sure he is very well equipped. Me on the other hand, I don't think I am well equipped yet.

[oneshooter]

18. So you are unable to articulate what a "well regulated militia " is?

So you reply with a childish, immature snark.
This tell people a lot about you, non of it good.

Care to try again?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoyt]

26. WRM is pretty clear to me, and you aren't in one.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

27. OK - what does it mean to you?

If it is that clear to you, surely you can explain it....


Doesn't matter anyway though because it has never been a requirement.

[Hoyt]

32. Depends which legal scholar you ask. Besides, S Court has always ruled restrictions are permissible.

Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

NRA and gun lovers: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[We_Have_A_Problem]

35. I don't much care what a self-appointed scholar has to say

I care what the law has to say.

The Supreme Court has stated very clearly that it is an individual right. They also said some restrictions, such as age related or with regards to felons and the insane are permissible, but they have never tolerated blanket prohibitions or widespread restrictions.

They have also clearly stated that militia membership is not a requirement.

You'd look like less of an ideologue if you bothered to learn the facts Hoyt.


Still waiting on your answer for what "well regulated militia" means to you.

[Hoyt]

39. I believe in the ACLU's position -- and it is that of many legal scholars.

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

[DonP]

40. I'll go with SCOTUS, President Obama and every serious constitutional legal scholar

That have determined that it is an individual right and should be treated as such.

So have several regional ACLU offices.

I choose to agree with President Obama and all 9 Supreme Court justices. You can have the national ACLU office.

Guess who's opinion really matters?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

41. Then you're as wrong as they are.

You're also wrong on Miller, but I dont have the patience to explain to you why.

[gejohnston]

47. or this one

Oddly, Second Amendment scholars have largely ignored
Miller. While individual and collective right theorists alike claim
Miller supports their position, most provide only a perfunctory account of the case. The few exceptions focus on the text of the opinion, rather than the history of the case, and the context in which it
was decided.
6
All conclude Miller is an impenetrable mess.

http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__journal_of_law_and_liberty/documents/documents/ecm_pro_060964.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?65+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+113+(Spring+2002)

[oneshooter]

37. You STILL have not answered the question.

I am beginning to believe that don't really know, or that you are terrified of it.

Once again, please answer that simple question.

Unless.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Kennah]

45. If you believe WRM means the National Guard or the Army, the SCOTUS disagrees.

And I'm not referring to Heller, I'm referring to the unanimous Perpich decision.

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/496/334.html

[Remmah2]

16. I eat bran and I shoot.

Therefore I am a regular militia of one.

[Hoyt]

17. OK, that's funny.

[slackmaster]

36. LMAO!

:rofl:

[ileus]

21. well regulated means only Feds and police can have firearms....guns and ammo in civilian hands

makes me cry.

[Atypical Liberal]

20. As long as the "militia" argument is all you have, you are doomed.

As long as the "militia" argument is all you have, you are doomed.

The "only the militia can have guns" angle has been destroyed from so many angles it is pathetic. If this constitutes the backbone of your argument, you will continue your slow descent into irrelevance.

Firstly, the second amendment specifically said the right to keep and bear arms belongs to The People, not the militias.

Secondly, there are no militias any longer as existed when the founders wrote the second amendment.

Thirdly, most men in this country are part of the Unorganized militia anyway. I suspect most people who favor equal rights would find this provision ageist and sexist, but that's the law as it exists.

Fourthly, all nine justices of the Supreme Court said that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right irrespective of membership in any organization such as a militia. Even President Obama agreed in word.

So keep croaking on about "militia!" Nobody is buying it, as the numbers clearly indicate.

[krispos42]

22. I'm i the well regulated militia

I'm natural-born American male between the ages of 17 and 45. By definition, I am in the militia.

I comply with my militia requirements in every particular.

[Hoyt]

33. Good, glad you posted that. All those over 45 will die when they have to turn in their guns.

And I suspect you might not be that far off from the upper age bracket.

[oneshooter]

38. If that is what YOU believe, then turn them in Hoyt!!! n/t

[krispos42]

44. Ah, but there's no age maximum for gun possession, just age minumum.

Nice try, though.

[jeepnstein]

29. The Bible is silent on firearms.

There is mention of it being permissible to own a sword. I believe the implicit message of that bit of scripture is to prepare for the worst but don't go all overboard on it.

Luke 22:36-38 NIV

36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.

I always picture him rolling his eyes back in his head when saying "That's enough!". And then of course a little while later Peter hacks off Malchus' ear and Jesus has to heal him.

Luke 22:49-51 NIV

49 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.

So we are to be armed but not to use them in matters of faith. Oh, and we're supposed to be nice to those who would put us to death for our beliefs.

[gravity556]

30. Couldn't tell you about guns in the bible, what with my atheism and all.

And "well regulated" in the period meant equiped and capable. Not buried under useless feel good laws. By the way, I do believe that the constitutional defininition of the unorganized militia means every capable man between 17 and 60 or so. Feel free to not carry-but my decision to carry is mine and mine alone. I cause you no harm by being armed (unless you decided that you want to directly redistribute my wealth from me to you via force-then my guns may cause harm to befall you. But that would really be your own fool fault for choosing to be a criminal.

[Hoyt]

34. It's actually closer to age 45 -- so leave your guns at home where they belong.

I love it when gunners start talking about what they would do. It's so friggin funny.

Here's a video to really get you excited: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRt_xBl7dLU&feature=related

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

48. Richard Henry Lee:

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms." (1788)

Okay :)

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. Hypocrite. If you sell them, you'll have no control over where they end up.

Even if you sell them via a licensed dealer, you cannot guarantee any future owner won't misuse them.

And since you'll "gladly take the loss", why don't you set an example and destroy them publicly. A YouTube video would do nicely.

Tell you what: Post a video of you, Hoyt, personally destroying (via chop saw or torch) your guns online anytime before January 1, 2012 and I will donate $100 to the Brady Campaign in your name.

Put your money where your mouth is.

[gejohnston]

8. umm

I suggest you send the memo to Mitt, "America's mayor" Rudy, Herman, Bloomie, Don Trump. They did not get it. We already listed the progressive Dems that did not get the memo, have you sent it?

[Atypical Liberal]

19. Why would that have been a good thing?

Too bad they didn't listen to the 60% back in 1959.

Why? Violent crime is at lower rates today than back then. And gun ownership is higher. Seems to me like things have turned out pretty good.

Besides Democrats still favor stricter controls. Since Republicans are far more likely to own/carry guns, it may well be Obama and the "take our country back" BS prompting the small change from a similar poll in 2008.

This should be a very good reason for Democrats to abandon their anti-gun bias.

Look forward to folks keeping the pressure on so that 50 years from now we don't have several hundred million more friggin guns in public and 4.5% who can't leave home without a gun or two strapped to their bodies.

Since that 4.5% is less likely to commit a crime than you are, why the hate?

[Callisto32]

24. Right, because then we'd be stuck clinging to the apparently antiquated ideas of a bygone era!

PROGRESS!!!

[Kennah]

46. WRM means TEIMM

Tolerable expertness in military movements.

My source? Alexander Hamilton writing in Federalist Paper #29.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm