It's Over: CBS News Poll 50% of Americans want Gun Control Laws Less Strict or Kept As They Are

reply to post by TauCetixeta


CBS fair and balanced? That's like saying Fox news is fair and balanced.

50% actually means 80%+

Democrats attack the second amendment and republicans attack the first amendment. The mainstream liberal channels rail against the second amendment and the mainstream conservative channels play the "jew hater", "personal responsibility", "rise of government dependence" cards.

They probably don't even use scripts anymore. The reporters have been pre-screened to fit the channel's bias in advance. If they go off script they get fired for a variety of make believe reasons.

There isn't much integrity today, I mean if there ever was any to begin with.

Strangely enough you can't pick and choose a custom package. Lets say I want "limited abortions, against gay marriage, lax gun laws, pro welfare system, pro unions, medium sized military, pro public healthcare, pro ufos&aliens, pro 9-11 inside job" meal. WHY CAN'T I GET IT? Why am I refused service?

Why do I have to pick one of two happy meals in this PLASTIC america? Is their some kind of illegal trust here or is this just my wild imagination working overtime? Maybe I spend too much time in my moms basement and need to get out in the "real world". The "real world" of A or B! What about libertarian, constitution, green, socialist, communist, muslim or jew fanatic?

/sarcasm

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by SpaDe_

 

It's not about murder...it's about our antiquated gun culture and some Americans lack of societal progress.

Americans need to move forward...education is key in this...it is not a coincidence that the highest prevalance of gun ownership is in the least educated areas of the country.

Higher education leads many into socialism. It doesn't take a higher education to understand what liberty and freedom is.

Therefore, the least educated have their guns to protect themselves from the socialists who wish to take that liberty and freedom from them.

Oh, and ... it's spelled prevalence.

reply to post by 2ndthought


I bet there are plenty of conservative professors in higher education. It depends primarily on what kind of higher education one is looking for by selecting their college/university carefully. Private or religious schools tend to be right and state sponsored schools tend to be left.

And the people who use the antiquated arguement are known to make false arguements aka straw men. Normally the older something is, the more pure it is, since society tends to regress rather than progress.

And being a CBS poll it had to be overly weighted for liberal participation, as always.

Originally posted by redtic

Originally posted by TauCetixeta
Sorry but the bad guys ignore ALL GUN LAWS.

The progressives already know this but do not care.

The progressives have their eye on the prize........-confiscation-.

Riiight - so we just throw our hands up and say "oh well"?? I'm pretty sure the "prize" in this case is less people getting killed. It just so happens that people have different opinions on how to go about achieving that "prize". But to say "well, the bad guys ignore the laws, so even though 1000s of kids are dying every year, we can't do anything about it" is irresponsible at best.

I'm going to make a rather poor analogy which still should be understood.

Every year, across the country, houses and buildings are built and/or repaired, but many are cited for code violations. So ... Do we blame the hammer? Do we make it harder for every other contractor to buy a hammer?

A gun is a tool, like that hammer. Because a very few 'contractors' misuse that tool, should we punish the millions of other contractors?

There are hundreds of laws already on the books designed to keep guns out of the hands that they shouldn't be in. Those laws need to be enforced. A good example ... Mark Kelly, Gabby Giffords husband, was refused ownership of an AR, because he planned a straw purchase. Against the law. Will he be prosecuted? Course not. Just as thousands aren't. That's what needs to change.

reply to post by TauCetixeta


I would say that it is far from over... in fact it is only beginning. I also want to point out that having a scope like that on an AR is POINTLESS, because an AR is really only good for about 400 - 500 yards as far as accuracy is concerned, unless you are literally a world class shooter, then you may get up to 650-700, but those people are very few and far between. A good holographic scope is really all you need.

reply to post by TauCetixeta


What's over? People buying guns without background checks?
I know. Background checks are happening.

Even with that said, am thinking a single news poll isn't going to determine anything.

Originally posted by 2ndthought

Originally posted by redtic
Riiight - so we just throw our hands up and say "oh well"?? I'm pretty sure the "prize" in this case is less people getting killed. It just so happens that people have different opinions on how to go about achieving that "prize". But to say "well, the bad guys ignore the laws, so even though 1000s of kids are dying every year, we can't do anything about it" is irresponsible at best.

I'm going to make a rather poor analogy which still should be understood.

Every year, across the country, houses and buildings are built and/or repaired, but many are cited for code violations. So ... Do we blame the hammer? Do we make it harder for every other contractor to buy a hammer?

A gun is a tool, like that hammer. Because a very few 'contractors' misuse that tool, should we punish the millions of other contractors?

There are hundreds of laws already on the books designed to keep guns out of the hands that they shouldn't be in. Those laws need to be enforced. A good example ... Mark Kelly, Gabby Giffords husband, was refused ownership of an AR, because he planned a straw purchase. Against the law. Will he be prosecuted? Course not. Just as thousands aren't. That's what needs to change.

Yeah, a gun is a tool, that just happens to be used to kill a lot of people. I find it hard to form an argument where the general conclusion is that guns are, in general, a good thing - but that's just me... But the reality is that guns aren't going anywhere, so we have to deal in that reality. My main point, as I originally stated, is that something needs to change - if the laws are there that should be preventing school tragedies and daily gang shootings, and they just aren't being enforced - how do go about ensuring they are enforced? What needs to change?

And BTW - if reducing the number of gun killings means a minor inconvenience for the "hammer"-lovin "contractor", then so be it..

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


Not if you insist on head shots.It isn't.

reply to post by 2ndthought


Sick people shouldn't even have access to a fork or butter knife, let alone any gun. They need help and should be locked up in a padded room where they can't hurt themselves and others. The state should start taking laws seriously, otherwise what is the point in passing them??

reply to post by OptimusSubprime

I don't know about you, but my old eyes strain just a bit at making out the 10 ring at 100 yards these days. If I don't have a scope, it's a spotting scope to see impact point on standard paper.



I think I can see the need for a scope out at 400-500 yards. Err... I hate to admit it, but at 500 yards? I'd have a hell of a time being sure I was seeing a person if they were't moving ...let along hit them?

The mindless herd have a very short attention span. Their handlers will turn to something else and when another liberal celebrity wannabe, whacked out on pharmaceuticals because his hippie parents were irresponsible, decides to shoot some more people up, they will go back to gun control and again blame it on responsible gun owners. It aint over.

reply to post by xedocodex


Yeah.. that's realistic.
Hopefully by the time that happens people (like you) will realize what is actually at fault. What is the variable that has changed over the last 60 or so years? Well we've had guns.. so not that. Violent t.v. and news? Check. People? Same as always.

Perhaps it's the antidepressants (SSRI'S) which cause violent tendencies and suicidal thoughts as a side effect that almost every (maybe even all) of these shooters have been on? The ones that are being passed out like candy with the percentage of new patients being treated with them taking giant leaps every year, even doubling in a few short years.

When will people like you get a clue?

Hopefully the price of a new AR and ammo will drop quick. Don't get me wrong, I love the ARs that I own, but I really really want a LWRC 6.8 ...but refuse to pay 3,000 for it.

reply to post by becomingaware


I just miss my $20 bricks of .22lr. I can't even shoot lately because I don't want to further deplete my stores.

Originally posted by TauCetixeta

CBS News Poll : 50% now say .....never mind

Two Thirds of Americans Polled opposed entering a War with Iraq.
I'm glad that War Never Happened, it could have been Bad.

Here is a question that anyone supporting a gun ban can not answer:.


Our founding fathers created the second amendment to protect us from a tyranical government. This can not be disputed. That being said, did our founding fathers, our FIRST government representatives, believe that they (themselves) would be tyrants to the people?

I will assume you said no (since it was a pretty common sense question). Now here is my real question: Our founding fathers were so deteremined to protect our nation from a tyranical government that they wrote the second amendment. Why are we less at risk today than we were under their administrations?

Originally posted by butcherguy
The NRA has spent a lot of money. Some of it was mine, from when I became a life member 25 years ago.
They could have spent it on free gun locks to distribute if it wasn't for these people trying to nullify the 2nd Amendment with unconstitutional legislation.

Now, I am not going to wade in on either side of the debate as a Johnny foreigner, but I do have a question..

Surely using the argument that it is "unconstitutional" is a fallacy? By it's own description, the constitution was changed, ie;, the 2nd Amendment.

There has been another Amendment that have since been repealed, so evidently the Constitution can be changed. In 1932, Americans like yourself would have argued "It is unconstitutional to drink Alcohol"....

So surely you have to come up with a better argument than that?