Most gun owners far more reasonable than the NRA
Judging from the results of a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, a wide spectrum of Americans of both parties has reached consensus on the need for specific, common-sense actions to reduce the death toll taken by guns without intruding on Second Amendment rights granted under the Constitution.
The question is, how much power does an angry, paranoid and politically aggressive minority still wield over gun policy in this country? I suspect that we’re going to find that it’s an awful lot. The NRA’s grip on Washington is so strong that we can’t even get a director confirmed to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the agency tasked with enforcing federal gun laws. The ATF has gone leaderless since 2006, because under President Bush and now President Obama, Senate Republicans have refused to even allow a vote on the nomination.
You want another example? The ATF is forbidden by federal law to create a computer database allowing its agents to trace ownership of guns used in a crime. The search has to be done manually, in a time-eating process of phone call after phone call, and sifting through boxes of paper records. That’s because in its infinite paranoia, the NRA insists that a computerized system would violate the Second Amendment by making it easier for the government to go door to door, confiscating the 180 million weapons estimated to be in private hands.
Seriously, they think that’s going to happen.
According to the ABC/WaPo poll, most Americans don’t put much credence in that fantasy. It found that 71 percent of Americans support creation of a national gun database. That includes 61 percent of Republicans.
In addition, 65 percent of Americans — including 59 percent of Republicans — say they support a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Seventy-six percent would require a background check before a person is allowed to purchase ammunition, a figure that includes 69 percent of Republicans.
That strong bipartisan consensus breaks down only on the issue of a ban on assault weapons. Overall, 58 percent of Americans and 54 percent of independents would support such a ban, but only 45 percent of Republicans would do so.
But the most telling data in the poll involves the 44 percent of those surveyed who live in a home where guns are kept. Of that subset, 86 percent would support closing the “gun-show” loophole on background checks. Seventy-six percent of gun owners endorse a background check for ammo sales; 62 percent would back a national firearms database, and 55 percent support a ban on large-capacity magazines.
Such numbers confirm that gun owners, as a rule, are far more reasonable about common-sense approaches to gun safety than is the extremist organization that purports to represent their interests. But in the end, I’m not confident that will matter much.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1,281 comments Add your comment
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
2:01 pm
Someone wants to ban guns! Really! Wow! No wonder the conned are so conned.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:01 pm
“Yes I did, for everyone to see. You may not like the ANSWER, but it was an ANSWER, nonetheless.
No you didn’t. You deflected to a wiki article about fake assault weapons. Nothing about Illinois law and what it says.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:02 pm
Christian Conservative: Private sellers are not required to do background checks. How is it possible for any law to prevent this. Do you honestly think someone will be willing to go to all the trouble of filling out tax papers and all the other ridiculous regulations that would go along with this?
Hence: gun registration upon non-private seller purchase.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
2:02 pm
R. W. Extreme — “ok..i’ll play….where am i bereft of historical knowledge on this point?”
Many Americans at the time *wanted* the AJAs locked up or deported, and were suspicious of the loyalties of AJAs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans#Non-military_advocates_for_exclusion.2C_removal.2C_and_detention
Given that kind of sentiment against the AJAs, what do you HONESTLY think would have happened if they had engaged in some sort of organized, armed resistance?
IMO, it would have been the AJAs against the US military and every other American with a firearm.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:02 pm
“We don’t have editors for these blogs, which can bite you on the rear at times.”
You have a degree in Journalism which requires you to know how to edit your own papers. Not sure why you’d have to have an editor for “THAT and THAN.”
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
2:03 pm
ADAM,
Being the smartest guy in the room stirs up jealousies..I know exactly how you feel. Commoners think its easy being us…we both know that is a montrous fallacy..:-)
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
2:03 pm
YOU are the one who wants to ban guns and trample upon a long standing right of “the people”.
Hysterical pro-gun people are half the reason gun control is looking like a good idea.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:03 pm
Poor Jay…. Even his most ardent supporters are no longer engaged…. I remember back before the election he would have pages of comments. Of course only from the handful of libs here in Georgia though….
td
January 15th, 2013
2:03 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
1:57 pm
The quote below is from the actual founder that wrote the 2nd Amendment. Do you think he knew what his intent was?
[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…
—George Mason
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:04 pm
Handguns kill far more people than assault rifles. Why not ban them????
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:04 pm
Use spellcheck please: You deflected to a wiki article about fake assault weapons. Nothing about Illinois law and what it says.
Here is your question:
1: WHAT IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON?
Note the suspicious LACK of anything related to Illinois law in the question.
And no, the article isn’t about “fake” weapons. It’s a definition. Just like you asked for. You don’t have to LIKE it, but it’s an answer to your question. Which, as I just pointed out, has nothing to do with what any state or other law says. Your question was pretty open ended. Better luck next time.
Check mate again, buddy.
DownInAlbany
January 15th, 2013
2:04 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
1:56 pm
Adam, remove the pistol grip, bi-fold and bayonnet mount (the actual bayonnet is already illegal, I think) and you still have the gun! Grips, rests and mounts don’t kill people. Just because it looks “intimidating” doesn’t make it more or less dangerous. I’ve never looked down the barrel of an AR or any other weapon, but, I’m pretty damn sure I’d be intimidated regardless of whether it had a scope, laser sight or any other accessory.
rightwingextreme
January 15th, 2013
2:05 pm
Seriously Folks
January 15th, 2013
1:42 pm
Sooo…the Second Amendment is sacred and canNOT be infringed upon…because our fore-fathers were worried about government tyranny… I have said this before…CONTEXT…yes, our Constitution is an amazing document, but it was written in a time when we were under constant threat of being a very short lived experiment and imminent threat from abroad and at home.
I could make that argument that we are still under constant threat from abroad and especially at home……
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:05 pm
Stevie Ray: Being the smartest guy in the room stirs up jealousies..I know exactly how you feel. Commoners think its easy being us…we both know that is a montrous fallacy..:-)
Hehe I got a kick out of that, thanks Stevie.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
January 15th, 2013
2:07 pm
really wish UGA would start suing these people for misrepresentation of having a brain.
Well, sort of reminds me of the story about the genius that went to see a head doctor about being so lonely. He explained to the doc that his IQ was so high most people wouldn’t talk to him. He was lonely all the time. The doc says, “I have great news for you. I’ve just invented a machine that will lower IQ. But I have to warn you that you can’t reverse the effects.”
So the genius thinks about it awhile and tells the doc he wants to be hooked up to get his IQ lowered so that he can be normal.
The doc hooks him up and turns on the machine. The needle starts at 190 and starts going down real slow. Just then a fight breaks out in the waiting room and the doc rushes out to break it up. Then he realizes he’s plumb forgot about the patient hooked to the machine. He rushes back in and the needle is hovering around 2.
He slaps the patient and says “For God’s sake, speak to me!”
The patient says, “Go You Hairy Dawgs!”
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:08 pm
Adam:
Christian Conservative: Private sellers are not required to do background checks. How is it possible for any law to prevent this. Do you honestly think someone will be willing to go to all the trouble of filling out tax papers and all the other ridiculous regulations that would go along with this?
Hence: gun registration upon non-private seller purchase.
Hence: Would this have stopped the Sandy Hook Massacre?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:08 pm
“Note the suspicious LACK of anything related to Illinois law in the question.”
Poor Adam, he deflects once again.
td
January 15th, 2013
2:08 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:00 pm
Go ahead guys, keep asking question after question after I answer your first questions, as though you are actually accomplishing something. Spin your wheels
So in other words you can not tell us why my Semi auto 30.06 is not as assault weapon but the AR-15 is then my 30-06 has the same capacity and is more lethal.
Seriously Folks
January 15th, 2013
2:08 pm
CC…”So I, as an individual should have to get a background check for a friend I’ve known my whole life so you libs will sleep better at night.”….
So, I, as an individual who knows to “dudes” who love each other should have to have your blessing so they can have a life together, so you cons can sleep better at night knowing the “radical gay agenda” wont come and “change” you or your kids??
see how this “individualism” crap you Cons spew kinda goes both ways (sorry to all those bisexual people out there that may have just been offended!!!)
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:08 pm
DownInAlbany: I’ve never looked down the barrel of an AR or any other weapon, but, I’m pretty damn sure I’d be intimidated regardless of whether it had a scope, laser sight or any other accessory.
And that’s because you’re a sane person who lives within the bounds of most law and has a sense of self preservation.
Sane does not equal being able to make good arguments, however.
The point of the law there was not because those things look more intimidating. It is because they make it easier to kill. They also make it more efficient to kill, and that’s another reason magazines are limited in the same law.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:09 pm
Adam claimed that you can just walk into any store in Illinois, 15 mins outside, and buy a gun. Adam doesn’t know what Illinois law says so he deflects attention away when confronted.
Please tell me what Illinois law says about gun purchases.
moonbat betty
January 15th, 2013
2:09 pm
“Handguns kill far more people than assault rifles. Why not ban them????”
Those will be next.
Isn’t New York going to ban clips over 7 rounds?
How did they come up with “7″?
Is that the threshold of being considered a mass murder?
Hell, why didn’t they just set the limit to single shot if they want to limit fire power…
See where some of these gun control nuts are headed?
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:10 pm
Christian Conservative: Hence: Would this have stopped the Sandy Hook Massacre?
1) Is the Sandy Hook Massacre the only massacre with guns to have ever taken place?
2) Misuse of the word hence
3) Not by itself
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:10 pm
Seriously Folks:
So now your talking a homo’s? Go figure….
lovelyliz
January 15th, 2013
2:10 pm
The NRA are lobbyists for the gun manufacturers for whom they care much more about than the needs and opinions of gun owners
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:11 pm
Use spellcheck please: Adam claimed that you can just walk into any store in Illinois, 15 mins outside, and buy a gun.
That’s not what I said. Go back and learn how to comprehend.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:11 pm
Adam:
You didn’t answer my question…
Hence: gun registration upon non-private seller purchase.
td
January 15th, 2013
2:12 pm
The ATF and the FBI killed more children at Waco then were killed at Sandy Hook.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:12 pm
Adam:
So I’ll answer for you. Hell no it wouldn’t have stopped it…..
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:12 pm
Adam wrote: Yes, Chicago, where you can drive out 15 minutes and buy a gun and bring it back and no one will inspect your belongings on entry or exit.
So Adam, I confronted you over that statement and you have yet to show proof that you can go outside of Chicago in Illinois and just BUY a gun.
check. mate.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:12 pm
“That’s not what I said. Go back and learn how to comprehend.”
“Yes, Chicago, where you can drive out 15 minutes and buy a gun and bring it back and no one will inspect your belongings on entry or exit.”
So what did I miss?
Seriously Folks
January 15th, 2013
2:12 pm
CC – Tell you what, you want government out of your Gun Drawer, then keep them out of peoples drawers!!! simple enough…
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
2:13 pm
td — “The quote below is from the actual founder that wrote the 2nd Amendment. Do you think he knew what his intent was?”
Inapplicable. Pennsylvania was, as I said, one of the *two* colonies/states that *explicitly* enshrined a PERSONAL right to own firearms at the state level. Mason’s opinion clearly informs the Pennsylvania law.
Again, back when I was teaching Con Law, students who caught on fastest were the ones who figured out that arguing that firearm ownership could be incorporated as a right at the *state* level or that it could be argued as an *unenumerated* right were more fruitful lines of argument. Arguing that the 2A says this — no, it doesn’t — yes it does — no it doesn’t — gets us nowhere.
Paul
January 15th, 2013
2:13 pm
well, since the zealots won’t address the points in Jay’s column, how about a direct question?
Anybody here opposed to changing the law that prohibits ATF from compiling a database of ownership of guns used in crimes?
If so, why?
And…. anyone here opposed to limiting or eliminating ammo sales thru the internet? If so, why?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:13 pm
“The ATF and the FBI killed more children at Waco then were killed at Sandy Hook.”
B
O
O
M
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:13 pm
Adam:
Still waiting…..
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:14 pm
Christian Conservative: You didn’t answer my question…
Yes I did, in my point number 3. Which you hastily ignored, as I expected.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:14 pm
“If so, why?”
Because said info can/will be released to the general public and criminals will know whose house to break into and get guns.
Thanks for playing.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:15 pm
“Still waiting….”
As am I.
Robert Lee - Cogito ergo zoom
January 15th, 2013
2:15 pm
Kamcheck I really wish UGA would start suing these people for misrepresentation of having a brain.
Word
Can I get an AMEN Brother!
Paul
January 15th, 2013
2:15 pm
lovelyliz
“The NRA are lobbyists for the gun manufacturers for whom they care much more about than the needs and opinions of gun owners”
Yeah, but many of the zealots we hear from don’t recognize they’re being used as pawns. And a collective cash cow.
indigo
January 15th, 2013
2:15 pm
rightwingextreme – 1:47
What about all the thousands of spontaneous abortions(miscarriages)that occur every week?
Who is responsible for all those murders?
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:15 pm
Seriously Folks:
You have serious problems sport… Now go back to bed with your same sex partner or get on board with what this debate is all about…
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
2:15 pm
Spellcheck — “So what did I miss?”
You said “store.” Adam didn’t.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:15 pm
Use spellcheck please: Yes, Chicago, where you can drive out 15 minutes and buy a gun and bring it back and no one will inspect your belongings on entry or exit.
If you read an comprehend, you will notice I did not say that the person wouldn’t have to wait and didn’t have to have a license and didn’t have to go through a background check.
DownInAlbany
January 15th, 2013
2:16 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:08 pm
The point of the law there was not because those things look more intimidating. It is because they make it easier to kill. They also make it more efficient to kill, and that’s another reason magazines are limited in the same law.
I could maybe see the pistol grip making it more efficient, but, a bayonnet mount or bifold? Maybe the bifold….if you are the shooter on the grassy knoll
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:16 pm
“You said “store.” Adam didn’t.
So what was Adam suggesting? Where “15 mins outside of Chicago” was he talking about?
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:16 pm
Adam:
Poor fellow…. Nothing you mentioned would have stopped what happened at Sandy Hook. So what exactly is the point in passing new laws???
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:17 pm
“If you read an comprehend, you will notice I did not say that the person wouldn’t have to wait and didn’t have to have a license and didn’t have to go through a background check.”
Dude, you can buy guns illegally ANYWHERE in the USA. Geez, be more specific in your comments.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:17 pm
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:11 pm
Adam:
You didn’t answer my question…
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:13 pm
Adam:
Still waiting…..
You sure are impatient. And you seem to have missed that I answered your question:
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:10 pm
3) Not by itself
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
2:18 pm
Kamcheck I really wish UGA would start suing these people for misrepresentation of having a brain.
Credit where credit is due: Aquagirl made the original assertion.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:18 pm
Remember when the federal government tried to outlaw alcohol?
How’d that work out?
td
January 15th, 2013
2:19 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
2:13 pm
“Again, back when I was teaching Con Law, students who caught on fastest were the ones who figured out that arguing that firearm ownership could be incorporated as a right at the *state* level or that it could be argued as an *unenumerated* right were more fruitful lines of argument. Arguing that the 2A says this — no, it doesn’t — yes it does — no it doesn’t — gets us nowhere”
It appears that Heller has made it pretty clear that your (most progressive law school profs) were wrong in interpreting the 2nd Amendment. Since Heller there has been quiet a few lower court opinions that have expanded Heller and made it even clearer that our founders intent was that 2nd Amendment was a clear personal right and not a right of the state.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:19 pm
Every time the federal government “outlaws” something it never works.
Prostitution, guns, drugs, etc….
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:20 pm
Hammers don’t kill people. People kill people.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:20 pm
Adam:
Honestly Adam when will you fruits realize that any supposed new gun laws Oblama will propose does nothing to curtail crime. Do you really think criminals care about any of this? I’m sure they would be on board for a full bore gun ban.. That way we would be all sitting ducks….. new laws will only affect law abiding citizens. Libs really don’t care it seems….
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:21 pm
Conservative Christian: Nothing you mentioned would have stopped what happened at Sandy Hook.
Stricter gun control laws regarding assault weapons (see earlier posts for definitions) and mental health checks, and requiring background checks regardless of purchasee, and having a public awareness campaign and having mental health availability for all and so on, together, would have prevented it.
Along with the mall shooting that happened 2 days prior.
Or the Aurora shooting that happened.
Or the Columbine shooting.
Or the CA school shooting that happened last week.
etc etc. on and on regarding all the ones you seem to forget.
Go ahead and try to parcel out each individual component as though I suggested any one of them working alone would have worked. Spin your wheels
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
2:21 pm
Spellcheck — “So what was Adam suggesting? Where “15 mins outside of Chicago” was he talking about?”
You’re going to have to get with him on that. I’ve only been to Chicago twice; both times for business meetings in swanky hotels. I did not note the presence of any firearms merchants in the areas where I happened to be.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
2:21 pm
td
January 15th, 2013
2:08 pm
I’m struggling to understand why anyone who opines on this topic needs advanced education in what guns can kill multiples of humans or other living creatures all in the frame of a few seconds…
Too bad we can’t get rid of handguns….I must be an anomoly as I don’t see the need for guns or the need to kill anything. My home is adequately protected by perimeter lighting and…well locks on the door. Its the most effective means of prevention….
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:22 pm
Use spellcheck please: Every time the federal government “outlaws” something it never works.
Prostitution, guns, drugs, etc….
Murder, stealing, speeding….
What’s your point?
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
2:22 pm
In related and sickening news: “the gub’mints gonna grab my GUNS” conspiracy theorists are harassing a man who took in children after the Sandy Hook shooting.
Loons.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gene-rosen-sandy-hook-conspiracy-155033813.html
indigo
January 15th, 2013
2:23 pm
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
Drugs don’t kill people. People kill people.
Alchohol doesn’t kill people. People kill people.
Tobacco doesn’t kill people. People kill people.
etc etc etc etc etc etc
For example, the Govt. should stop this war on tobacco! I’ts my RIGHT to keep and smoke as much as I want, anywhere I want. And, it’s my right to have any drugs I want, as much as I want. And, if the Govt. intefers in any way with my drug buying, they are VIOLATING my constitutional rights.
Guns, drugs, tobacco, I have a constitutional RIGHT to buy as much and as many as I can afford.
Of course, if a logical and legal argument can be made against unlimited drug posession, maybe we should have enforced gun laws too.
Seriously Folks
January 15th, 2013
2:23 pm
CC – Cute. Sorry dude, but neither gay nor ignorant. The headline is about how most owners are reasonable..most of your posts are about 2nd amendment not stopping anything..and how its a “slippery slope” leading to government taking all the guns or how none of this would have stopped anything..
judging by your handle, your proclaim to be a “christian conservative” and hence want as little bit of the government in your life, correct??
I find it astounding however, that folks like you have no problems screaming “government take over” and conspiracies about guns…but when it comes to abortion or telling who can marry, then its all about “stopping them.” individuals rights be damned!
so tell me, “Christian” conservative, who has the “serious problem” sport?
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:23 pm
Adam:
3) Not by itself
How about not at all? Since you and people like you are exploiting the Sandy Hook Massacre for passing new gun laws shouldn’t they be specifically designed to prevent such a tragedy? Not just something pulled out of thin air simply because you don’t like it…..
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:23 pm
Christian Conservative: Do you really think criminals care about any of this?
A criminal is, by definition, someone who breaks the law. Saying that we shouldn’t have a law because criminals break laws is therefore a tautological, and therefore useless, argument.
Unless you are against living in a law based society. Then it might be useful to make your point to support that goal.
TBone
January 15th, 2013
2:23 pm
Guns are really bad … when the scumbags have ‘em and you don’t. If you don’t want to take measures of personal protection that is your call but don’t make that call for me and my family.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
2:24 pm
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:21 pm
Sorry, I see none of those tactics a practical or effective. Another thing to bear in mind is that the odds of any school being assualted in any given day is so remote it’s not likely credibly calculated.
Only high probability tactic is to keep the bad guys out or otherwise deter them to other targets…sad but true..
td
January 15th, 2013
2:24 pm
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
2:21 pm
If the 2nd Amendment was only about hunting or protection then maybe you might have a point but you my friend should do a little research as to the original intent of the amendment.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:25 pm
“You’re going to have to get with him on that. ”
And he won’t answer it. Just deflections.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:25 pm
Christian Conservative: How about not at all? Since you and people like you are exploiting the Sandy Hook Massacre for passing new gun laws shouldn’t they be specifically designed to prevent such a tragedy? Not just something pulled out of thin air simply because you don’t like it…..
How many kids would Adam Lanza have killed, and how many bullets would be in each kid, if he didn’t have the Bushmaster? All other things equal.
You don’t have to answer, it’s rhetorical. But it illustrates the point of how that component would have helped, and you add the rest of what I suggested and there is a much greater chance of prevention.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:25 pm
“What’s your point?”
If you don’t know what my point was then you really have reading comprehension problems. My point was in the sentence that I wrote. You really are struggling.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:26 pm
Adam:
Columbine happened during an assault weapons ban…. What about all the handgun murders in Chicago? Shouldn’t we ban handguns to prevent this?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:26 pm
” Every time the federal government “outlaws” something it never works.”
The point is in the point, Adam.
Granny Godzilla
January 15th, 2013
2:26 pm
Chrisitan Conservative…
If cars are as dangerous as guns, what th ehell does one need a gun for?
Run that deer down big fella!
Regnad Kcin
January 15th, 2013
2:26 pm
“Guns are really bad … when the scumbags have ‘em and you don’t. If you don’t want to take measures of personal protection that is your call but don’t make that call for me and my family.’
Fine – just carry liablility insurance so if YOUR gun does damage to MY family, you’re covered. Any problem with that? You do it with your car, which is also likely to do damage.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:27 pm
Laws are great for keep law abiding citizens in check. Not so much for the criminals.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:27 pm
Use spellcheck please: “You’re going to have to get with him on that. ”
And he won’t answer it. Just deflections.
You never asked about what I meant. You just assumed.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:28 pm
Adam:
How many people would Timothy McVeigh have killed, and how many holes would be in each person, if he didn’t have access to explosive material? All other things equal.
“You” don’t have to answer, it’s rhetorical. But it illustrates the point of how that component would have helped, and you add the rest of what I suggested and there is a much greater chance of prevention.
Robert Lee - Cogito ergo zoom
January 15th, 2013
2:28 pm
Sorry Aquagirl, I should have credited you for that but was too lazy to go back and find the original.
td, the difference between your 30-06 and an AR-15. One is for hunting and one is for killing people. Both can be used in areas that they were not intended but then again so can anything else. I get the feeling that you did not need the reinforcement of your manhood when you bought the 30-06 but I am positive that the two people I know personally that own AR-15s are so insecure and lacking in self confidence that they feel much more manly now that they own a “real” assault weapon so they can defend themselves when the Obama led UN troops start arriving.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:28 pm
“You never asked about what I meant.”
So could you please elaborate on what you wrote?
td
January 15th, 2013
2:29 pm
indigo
January 15th, 2013
2:23 pm
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
Drugs don’t kill people. People kill people.
Alchohol doesn’t kill people. People kill people.
Tobacco doesn’t kill people. People kill people.
etc etc etc etc etc etc
For example, the Govt. should stop this war on tobacco! I’ts my RIGHT to keep and smoke as much as I want, anywhere I want. And, it’s my right to have any drugs I want, as much as I want. And, if the Govt. intefers in any way with my drug buying, they are VIOLATING my constitutional rights.
Guns, drugs, tobacco, I have a constitutional RIGHT to buy as much and as many as I can afford.
The right to own guns is the only Constitutional right you have, The others are not protected by the Constitution.
As far as I am concerned, you can smoke as much as you want, drink as much as you want or eat as much as you want as ling as I do not have to pay for the results of your behavior.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:29 pm
Adam:
How many kids would Adam Lanza have killed, and how many bullets would be in each kid, if he didn’t have the Bushmaster? All other things equal.
You don’t have to answer, it’s rhetorical. But it illustrates the point of how that component would have helped, and you add the rest of what I suggested and there is a much greater chance of prevention.
By the way the same argument could be used for alcohol. If we banned it how many lives could we save?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:29 pm
“If cars are as dangerous as guns, what th ehell does one need a gun for?”
Ask the military, policemen, bodyguards etc.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:29 pm
Use spellcheck please: If you don’t know what my point was then you really have reading comprehension problems
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH!
Look at this child’s attempt to turn words back around. What a joke!
Your point is moot. Having laws is about living in a law based society. If you’re really going to make the argument that 100% prevention is the only reason to have a law, then you have basically said no laws should exist.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:30 pm
” If we banned it how many lives could we save?”
Ask Al Capone.
Stevie Ray
January 15th, 2013
2:30 pm
TBone
January 15th, 2013
2:23 pm
Couldn’t disagree with that…you should be allowed to continue the 240 year or so freedom like others. Just seems that some of the reasons for having guns get a bit dramatic. And I will never be of the opinion that any of the laws being contemplated now will be able to remotely prevent any mass shootings we have witnessed..
rightwingextreme
January 15th, 2013
2:30 pm
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:26 pm
Adam:
Columbine happened during an assault weapons ban…. What about all the handgun murders in Chicago? Shouldn’t we ban handguns to prevent this?
If Feinstien, Cuomo and Obama had their way that is exactly what would happen…..except they would retain armed body guards for themselves.
Remember the dimlib mantra: Laws for thee, but not for me!
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
2:30 pm
Sorry Aquagirl, I should have credited you for that but was too lazy to go back and find the original.
Oh, so you’re a UGA grad too?
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:30 pm
I’m personally for an all out gun ban period! What do you libs think about that?
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:31 pm
“Look at this child’s attempt to turn words back around.
Ok, so I’m dealing with pure ignorance here. People who have to resort to saying things like “look at this childs blah blah blah” are not smart people.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:31 pm
Christian Conservative: “You” don’t have to answer, it’s rhetorical. But it illustrates the point of how that component would have helped, and you add the rest of what I suggested and there is a much greater chance of prevention.
Exactly. And you know what? Now people can’t do that anymore because the buying of the materials the way McVeigh did is heavily regulated. Had the law been in place beforehand, he wouldn’t have had the explosives.
So thanks for helping me make my point
Krystal'sBalls
January 15th, 2013
2:31 pm
NRA – great firearms safety and related courses. Does it represent or me though or line up with my philosophy? Absolutely not.
I gladly tossed out a membership application and donation request a couple weeks ago. I do not subscribe to the idea of my President being some tyrant who is attempting to install some sort of dictatorship and deliberately place the country in turmoil for some sinister purpose. We were closer to that in the last administration than this one could ever dream of reaching, though it was not so even in that case. Extreme paranoia and agendas just do not do it for me personally…from any direction.
I believe in what I believe, and that is that I place me and my family’s safety above all things. As such I don’t need anyone who wishes to be upset that I own whatever legal firearm I purchased with MY money to do so. By the same token, I don’t need a crackpot mentality from the other side that refuses to employ any level of logic and reason once the realm of ridiculousness has been entered. I will forever be an individual in that (and many) regards.
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
2:32 pm
Jay – How are NEW gun laws going to keep CRIMINALS from obtaining guns? Criminals don’t buy guns where they have to get a back ground check. That’s just common sense.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 15th, 2013
2:32 pm
td — “It appears that Heller has made it pretty clear that your (most progressive law school profs) were wrong in interpreting the 2nd Amendment.”
One, who said anything about profs?
Two, Heller came some years after I completed my graduate studies.
Three, the aim of the class was to help students *reason out* a coherent, logical argument for their positions, not to take a position favored by any particular political groups. So long as a student’s argument and reasoning held together as a coherent package, then the student received a good grade.
“Since Heller there has been quiet a few lower court opinions that have expanded Heller and made it even clearer that our founders intent was that 2nd Amendment was a clear personal right and not a right of the state.”
IMO, it’s worth pointing out that the majority in Heller had to *ignore* the language of the 2A in order to arrive at its decision. One wonders if some ‘judicial activism’ was taking place on the right side of the bench. At any rate, FWIW, my position is congruent with that of the dissenters in the 5-4 decision:
The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the “militia” preamble and exact phrase “to keep and bear arms” demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts’ later “collective-right” reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, “The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons…. I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Dissenting_opinions
td
January 15th, 2013
2:33 pm
Robert Lee – Cogito ergo zoom
January 15th, 2013
2:28 pm
Sorry Aquagirl, I should have credited you for that but was too lazy to go back and find the original.
td, the difference between your 30-06 and an AR-15. One is for hunting and one is for killing people. Both can be used in areas that they were not intended but then again so can anything else. I get the feeling that you did not need the reinforcement of your manhood when you bought the 30-06 but I am positive that the two people I know personally that own AR-15s are so insecure and lacking in self confidence that they feel much more manly now that they own a “real” assault weapon so they can defend themselves when the Obama led UN troops start arriving.
It is legal to hunt with the AR-15 in at least a dozen states. The 30.06 was originally a military caliber gun prior to the M-16.
Use Spellcheck please
January 15th, 2013
2:33 pm
” McVeigh did is heavily regulated. ”
Libs gotta hold on to McVeigh and Rudolph because well, that’s all they have as examples.
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:33 pm
Adam:
Exactly. And you know what? Now people can’t do that anymore because the buying of the materials the way McVeigh did is heavily regulated. Had the law been in place beforehand, he wouldn’t have had the explosives.
So thanks for helping me make my point
Not true… You may think so but all you need is a chemical applicators license and you can get enough material in a matter of months. Thanks for proving my point that libs who live in their mothers basement have no clue what goes on in the real world……
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
2:34 pm
“All very well, but you appear to be arguing that the American Constitution grants a right to overthrow the *American* government, not the *British* colonial government.”
I am saying that our founding fathers knew full well that they had revolted against what was at the time, THEIR government and would therefore hardly be in the position to condemn any such revolt against their newly formed government should it turn out to be equally oppressive. Otherwise, we can only conclude they were willful hypocrites.
“Not at all. I’m pointing out that the Founders didn’t see any *right* to armed revolution, at least one that they ever addressed as a Constitutional one.”
I believe there is an enumerated right to defense against tyranny, not to armed revolution per se. I have an enumerated right to speak freely – at any time and in almost any manner I wish, prompted or unprompted. I do NOT have a right to defend myself against harm when no harm is being perpetrated. See the difference I am making?
“Again, it seems illogical for us to have a “right” to do something that’s a felony. If we had a right to it, then wouldn’t David Koresh’s followers have a hell of a case against the federal government? How about Tim McVeigh?”
It is illogical. It is a felony to shot someone dead without justifiable cause. It is NOT a felony to shot someone dead in self defense. I don’t think either Koresh or McVeigh can be said to have been “justified” in their actions. That should be very clear from an examination of the evidence.
“I’m saying that the 2A speaks to membership in a duly constituted and regulated *militia.* And as far as personal ownership of firearms is concerned, I don’t believe the 2A was written or intended to support such a right.”
And I believe it is much more reasonable (given all of the supplementary historical evidence we have) to interpret the reference to a militia as but one (perhaps the most important) grounds or reasons for the right of individuals to bear arms. I think my point the other day about the bulk of the Constitution being drafted by ONE man explains, in part, the puzzling ambiguity we find in that document. No man expresses himself perfectly in words and Madison is no exception. What really puzzles me is that, given the number of really fine prose writers of the time, hardly anyone seems to have taken more than a passive role in “revising” Madison’s original text. Often all we find is his original words pared down, but not substantially revised. I find that very odd when people like Thomas Jefferson were right at hand. My suspicion is that this document was kind of Madison’s “baby” and most everyone let him “run” with it (particularly as far as phrasing things goes) – but that is my own thought at this point.
“Such a right appears in at least two *state* constitutions or statements of rights (VA and PA) during the Colonial period, so if the Founders had wanted such a Federal right, then IMO they’d have put it in there.”
Maybe they were satisfied that Madison’s text clearly implied that. It is hard to imagine them thinking it meant nothing of the sort and still ratifying the Constitution.
“FWIW, I think the best one can logically do is to argue that personal ownership of firearms is an *unenumerated* right, and/or that states could explicitly grant it themselves. I don’t have any problem with the right being elaborated upon in either of those ways, and as you know, I’m a gun owner myself.”
Well, that is of course the “end run” I guess everyone banks upon when it comes to rights. It is clearly an unenumerated right (having been practiced before and since the founding of our country).
Adam
January 15th, 2013
2:34 pm
Use spellcheck please: So could you please elaborate on what you wrote?
One can purchase a gun from a source outside of Chicago, while going through a waiting period, requiring both a background check and a permit, if still in the state of Illinois, at a place where guns are sold. Then, once acquired, that person can bring it back into Chicago, which is against the law, but no one will stop him and search him unless he is suspicious on the road for other reasons or breaking other driving laws, and he is seen to be doing so by someone else. In this way, it is pretty easy for someone to simply get a gun into Chicago. In contrast with trying to get one into Japan, a separate nation with border controls, for instance.
Do I need to elaborate further?
Christian Conservative
January 15th, 2013
2:35 pm
Its really sad that dems/libs could care less about the average person and protecting them…