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

Originally posted by JrDavis
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?

To be honest, they probably allowed Gun ownership back then as the US was a wilderness with Natives running around.

It seems the romantic notion of it being to protect yourselves from Tyrants was added later....

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.

I have a post high school education, made all As, and I support the right to bear arms. It's due to my education that I am wise enough to see that without the second amendent and a fair distribution of power, the people are subject to oppression. Therefore, the second amendment must not be infringed upon, and moreover, the people should have access to the same weapons as their government, lest the government be given an unfair tactical advantage to carry out an oppressive regime.

reply to post by TauCetixeta


If eye where you I wouldn't trust any US national poll published by any US national news outlet...anymore.

"They" are after your privately owned guns...I have a strong sense there is a disarm campain going on, it is a "Things To Do Today" item on the NWO agenda.

thehill.com... seems john mcain is the one behind expanding background checks perhaps its time to give his office a ring and voice our displeasure at the concept of more background checks

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by OptimusSubprime

 

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

Ummm.......Where the body armor isn't...right between the eyes...

YouSir

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
thehill.com... seems john mcain is the one behind expanding background checks perhaps its time to give his office a ring and voice our displeasure at the concept of more background checks

I know It's amazing at what level these people will go. Especially John McCain, coming from a guy who was a POW for 5 1/2 years. The background checks already go through the FBI for crying out loud, what the hell do these people want??

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by JrDavis
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?

To be honest, they probably allowed Gun ownership back then as the US was a wilderness with Natives running around.

It seems the romantic notion of it being to protect yourselves from Tyrants was added later....

edit on 27/3/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)

Ummm....I just love when you Ainglish have to voice your opinion on American Constitutional matters. It really proves what a thoroughly emasculated race you are...Your William Wallaces are only vague historical figures while your Knights are effeminate Elton Johns...These are your heroes...limp wristed, coiffed, transvestites in funny glasses...Oh, I know, I know...you live in that evolved...polite...society, that enlightened utopia that left on the ash heap...murder, theft, rape, racism, etc., et al. We're actually glad to have you there...across the pond, so that we can have someone to look up the nose at. There is a rather smallish yet infiltrative segment that loves to emulate emasculation in our society as well...and it isn't even the feminists...we call them "progressives"...but they...like you...are neither progressive...nor enlightened. These busybodies simply...like you...hearken back to a fuedalistic time of serf and Lord...of knights protector and wage slave...nothing more. These are in fact "regressives", longing for control of voice and vice...of...position and power.

I state this...as a direct descendant of your Royals...My lineage hails from the Stewerts, the Tudors...From Mary, Queen of Scotts...I however, will NEVER hand over the right to defend family and champion the just, good, ability of a common man to stand and be counted equal amongst his fellows. And I gladly stand with them as they and I are armed to the teeth to ensure that we remain so. I would not confuse that responsible proud ownership of inheritance and destiny that infuses those who choose to bear arms...with vague claims of fear and or low intelligence. You see my friend...If you look with an unprejudiced eye, then what is taking place in this country becomes evident. We prepare for war to counter the preparations of an overbearing and tyrannical regime that has infiltrated our government and daily usurpes our constitutionally recognized rights...

YouSir

reply to post by redtic


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

If reducing the number of anti-government comments means a minor inconvenience for anti-government lovin commentators, then so be it.

It also means stepping on the 1st Amendment. Do you see how other freedoms came be subject to "inconvenience" with that logic?

We both agree though, that something needs to be done. Congress and state governments need to cause the US and state DOJ's to enforce whats already on the books. The borders need to be secured so that drugs find it hard to get in. State and local police need to be empowered and equipped to do their jobs against the drug trade.

And, imo, marijuana needs to be at least de-criminalized at the federal level. Use the money saved from the war on marijuana to fight the hard stuff.

Some sort of control system needs to be erected for the mental health field. Perhaps, if a person is on any kind of mind/mood altering drug, their name goes into a database, assessable for gun purchase background checks. But only a specific list of drugs. No comments, evaluations, or diagnosis. Just the very specific list of prescribed drugs.

If they own already, perhaps confiscation, BUT, by responsible family members. ONLY if a family member can't or won't do that, can law enforcement take the guns. But... only to be held for x amount of time, in years. I DO believe that people go through hard times, some need help getting through those times by a professional. Many, if not most, do get through, and go on to live a safe and productive life. Any previously owned firearms, or the ability to purchase firearms, should be restored once the 'danger' is past.

All that's just off the top of my head. I need a shower and coffee to try for more depth.

Originally posted by stumason
To be honest, they probably allowed Gun ownership back then as the US was a wilderness with Natives running around.

It seems the romantic notion of it being to protect yourselves from Tyrants was added later....

edit on 27/3/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)

Actually, the arguments for the inclusion of the 2nd amendment can be found in the Federalist Papers. Protection against tyranny was high on the list, as can be expected, given that they'd just fought a war of independence against a tyrannical government.

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by JrDavis
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?

To be honest, they probably allowed Gun ownership back then as the US was a wilderness with Natives running around.

It seems the romantic notion of it being to protect yourselves from Tyrants was added later....

edit on 27/3/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)

Thomas Jefferson said it this way on November 13,1787 (just two months after the US Constitution was signed):

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Source:

November 13, 1787, letter to William S. Smith, quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy, ed., 1939
books.google.com...=onepage&q=&f=false

Source

He was instrumental in the writing of the US Constitution. I think if you read about the US Constitution, you will find that the Second Amendment was added in 1791, well after Mr. Jefferson wrote the blurb above.

Originally posted by stumason

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?

No . . . No need to come up with a better arguement. It is unconstitutional plain and simple.

Can the Constitution be changed? Sure it can. If they want to change the Constitution the rules on amending the document are laid out pretty clearly within it. So, if they would like to amend to remove the 2nd from the Bill of Rights, all they have to do is follow those procedures and remove the 2nd. If it has the votes and 2/3 of the states ratify . . . it will no longer be "unconstitutional"; however, until that time there is no other argument.

The Bill of Rights does not "grant our rights". It is a restriction on what the central gov can legislate against, including our right to defense and arms ownership. Restrictions on gov . . . not a granting of rights. I can understand why a "foreigner" wouldn't be well versed in this concept or what it actually means, as your country has only had "privilages" bestowed by the crown.

To be honest, they probably allowed Gun ownership back then as the US was a wilderness with Natives running around.

It seems the romantic notion of it being to protect yourselves from Tyrants was added later....

Again . . . wrong, but as a Brit to be expected. There are plenty of documents that state the original intent of the amendments, including the 2nd, from the time of the drafting. It only takes a few minutes, thanks to the glorious world of internet search, to find and read exactly why the 2nd was added to the Bill of Rights. Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, as well as the many quotes from the founders that actually fought for their independence from the very tyranny that still sits atop your country today. Furthermore, history is replete with examples of this thought in practice. From every totalitarian regime in modern times to the long history of colonialism, even the UK today. Several quotes from those dictators and those that suffered outlining this concept, including Ghandi in reference to British Imperialism.

You seem as though you are an educated person . . . I shouldn't have to do your homework for you. I'm sure if you read up a bit on the Constitution and the Bill or Rights . . . you will be able to find the answers for yourself. However, I will lead you down the path . . . as a kick start.

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

scholarship.law.wm.edu... ext=wmborj

Originally posted by stumason

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?

It sure would seem that you did wade into it.

I am not sure where the legality of sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol (it was legal to own, possess and consume alcohol during Prohibition) was ever mentioned in the Constitution until the 18th Amendment was added.
The 18th Amendment was hugely unpopular and a joke. Consumption of alcohol increased, and many people died from consuming poisonous bootleg liquor.
If an Amendment was added to nullify the Second Amendment, the results would be a civil war.

Originally posted by stumason

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?

No need to 'come up with a better argument'. To infringe on a persons right to keep and bear arms IS unconstitutional.

TODAY. As we speak.

Also, the Constitution, as far as the first ten amendments go, wasn't changed. They were added to specify and clarify the rights and freedoms that American citizens are allowed by the Constitution.

But yes, there is a process in place to change those rights. It's a process that has to go through Congress, and then be ratified by at least two thirds of the fifty states.

I don't see that happening any time soon. However, today, the laws that are being discussed WILL infringe on our rights as American citizens, and ARE unconstitutional.

And to answer a question further up. Yes, our forefathers, the authors of the Constitution, did fear that they themselves could become to tyrannical. They also KNEW that, in the future, the threat could become even more pronounced.

Today, their fears are being realized.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by TauCetixeta

 

Gun Ban was never possible. It is something people been exaggerating.

The poll will change again after next massacre, and Political parties will play ball again to see how many balls can go thru the hoops before the craze is over.

Partisans hold different views on gun control laws: 52 percent of Republicans want the laws kept as they are, while 66 percent of Democrats want stricter laws (down from 78 percent in February).

Half of gun owners themselves want gun laws overall kept as they are, but a quarter call for stricter laws.

edit on 3/26/2013 by luciddream because: (no reason given)

_____________________________________________

Quote"The poll will change again after next massacre,"

_____________________________________________

Or until it is found out that one or more of these massacre's were staged and it is exposed in the media
HOPEFULLY.

Originally posted by Liquesence
reply to post by TauCetixeta

 

But what the American people want doesn't really matter.

The government will do what it wants, regardless of what the people want.

Don't you know that?

IF....you let them. If You do something as has just happened with the voice of the People shouting Loud and Clear "We will Not have our Rights Violated"
Then and only then can you effect your rights. VIGILANCE is what will protect us. That and Americans willing to take a stand against a government bent on a takeover and negating our Constitutional Rights.

50%???
I think they are lying through their dentures.....
Id be willin to bet that those numbers are fudged, and a similar non partisan poll, would reveal more to the sixty percent or better range.........
Just look at rocketting gun and ammo sales....!
When people vote with their actions and their hard won cash.....thats your answer.....
This is a transparent attempt to SOFT PEDDLE their own position into representing 50% of us....which they very clearly do NOT
They want to hold the power of life and death over everyone.....by removing the means to self defense....
And as they want a lot of us dead this century,once we are disarmed well be weeded out.
Face it,The jobs, the prosperity, thats not comming back in your or your kids lifetimes.....
A lot of people have to die.....to make way for the robots they are building.
Robots dont eat
robots dont sleep
robots dont vote.....

Originally posted by smithjustinb

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.

I have a post high school education, made all As, and I support the right to bear arms. It's due to my education that I am wise enough to see that without the second amendent and a fair distribution of power, the people are subject to oppression. Therefore, the second amendment must not be infringed upon, and moreover, the people should have access to the same weapons as their government, lest the government be given an unfair tactical advantage to carry out an oppressive regime.

I never said education is 100% effective.

And since you think people should be able to own nukes...well...I think you pretty much just showed how uneducated you are.

Count me as one of those who do not support increased laws, also count me as one of them who want to make gun laws less strict.

No American should be forced to get a background check( Legally required to ask government for permission to own a firearm).

There is a law already against murder any more laws are useless the only thing gun control laws are is "feel good legislation" .

anyone who believes a poll by a news organization is foolish at best

Even in so cal I rarely meet people who are anti gun

The gun laws are pretty off the wall as it is already... My state allows me to have a hunting license at no cost due to my disabled veteran status but I can neither purchase or carry a concealed firearm yet I can have a firearm in my car as it is an extension of my home... Laws concerning firearms are subject to interpretation by law enforcement and the local judges.... There are people that I know of that are convicted felons found guilty of theft and violent crimes and paroled that carry in their cars.... They never get hassled due to family and fraternal connections... It's weird down here behind the Pine Curtain.