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
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:11 pm
Good ofr New York
It usually takes the liberal states to lead the way.
Lord know the backwoods hillbilly southern states aren’t going to do anything.
One thing you can count on. The poorer a state, the lower the education level, the more people on welfare and moochers.
The more likely its a red Romney state.
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
5:11 pm
You are doing the reaching and you had better be real lucky . go ahead & make my day.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 15th, 2013
5:12 pm
Stevie Ray:
What is almost guaranteed to make the problem WORSE is if Barack Obama combines executive-order abridgement of gun rights while simultaneously pursuing economic policies of austerity, as he is doing.
That is a recipe for more carnage.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:12 pm
Marihuana laws on the Fed books. Just one example.
So he should ignore the states and impose federal law concerning pot ?
Didn’t know you were such a BIG GOVERNMENT guy
Not my real name
January 15th, 2013
5:13 pm
For all that’s Whole Foods Jay, end this madness.
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
5:15 pm
So he should ignore the states and impose federal law concerning pot ?
A shootout between the Feds and local cops…man, that would rock the gun nuts’ world.
pogo
January 15th, 2013
5:16 pm
What exactly IS an assault weapon Adam? The most prominent definition favored by liberals is a weapon showing characteristics of a military weapon. That doesn’t cut it because ALL weapons demonstrate characteristics of military weapons of one era or another. Mindless liberals like yourself want to think that just because a weapon has an extendable stock and a pistol grip then it is an assault weapon. That simply is not so. As for clip sizes? A clip can be changed out in about three seconds by someone who knows what they are doing. And that goes for a 3 round clip or a 7 round clip or any other clip. That means one hell of a lot of shooting doesn’t it?
The government cannot protect this nation from those who are truly insane and who want to inflict severe damage on our people. They (the psychos) will find a way to kill and some of the other methods at their disposal are much worse than an “assault weapon” with a 30 round clip. They haven’t used them yet but I am afraid it is coming. The government could not protect this nation from the psychos who did 9/11 (and a host of earlier terrorist attacks) and it cannot protect this nation from every home grown psycho we have now. Useless violence is born into the DNA of mankind and mental illness just accelerates their desire to kill. It cannot be overcome government. Many have fooled themselves into thinking that if just another law is passed that will solve everything. I think this country has demonstrated that that tactic is a total failure and it will again with this current false campaign by the Whitehouse.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
5:18 pm
For all that’s Whole Foods Jay, end this madness.
Don’t be a spoil sport,I just made more popcorn!
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:19 pm
The government cannot protect this nation from those who are truly insane and who want to inflict severe damage on our people
Easy access to guns sure makes it easier
Tough DUI laws cut DUI deaths in half
Why cant tough gun laws do the same ?
josef
January 15th, 2013
5:19 pm
“Can anyone explain, in their own words, what an assault weapon is?”
A drone?
JamVet
January 15th, 2013
5:19 pm
Everybody knows how law averse the Nixon administration was.
And the Reagan administration was absolutely riddled with criminals. I believe to this day there is still nobody in their league for the sheer number of indictments and prosecutions of federal officials.
And of the course the W administration never found a law they couldn’t circumvent or ignore via signing statement or otherwise.
So, it’s no wonder the cons here are such big law and order types, huh?
LOL!
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 15th, 2013
5:25 pm
The American Revolution did not start over taxes. It started when the British snuck over to Lexington and Concord in the darkness of night to seize the guns and ammo of the Colonists.
I believe history will show (and I pray it’s not in my lifetime) that Obama has awakened a sleeping giant on this and many other issues.
He has truly become the “El Jefe” many of us feared he would try to be.
There are more than enough federal laws on the books. Leave it to the states (as New York has done) and let American citizens decide which state’s gun laws they most approve of by voting with their feet.
saywhat?
January 15th, 2013
5:26 pm
“Can anyone explain, in their own words, what an assault weapon is?”
——————————————————————–
Its what you usually find next to the apepper weapon.
getalife
January 15th, 2013
5:28 pm
New York passed new gun laws.
Debate is over.
cons lost again.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
January 15th, 2013
5:28 pm
Well, you don’t need a gun sign or a burglar alarm to keep people from breaking in to your place.
What you do is go find a pair of size 18 boots, muddy them up good, and leave them on the front porch near the door. Then you write a note and tape it to the front door: “Vern, I needed to go find a lawyer. Don’t go inside till I get back. The four pit bulls got hold of the mailman this morning and tore him up pretty bad. They think he’ll live but they’re not sure.”
You won’t have no unwelcome visitors.
keith
January 15th, 2013
5:29 pm
For Bookman and the other less intelligent posters on here. Please explain how the so-called assault weapons ban prevented the shootings at Columbine. If Bookman and his brain dead followers had any integrity they would admit their ultimate goal IS a complete ban on all guns in this country. But we all know integrity is not in their DNA.
TaxPayer
January 15th, 2013
5:30 pm
Poor Scout. He must have had too much Welsh Rarebit.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:31 pm
For Bookman and the other less intelligent posters on here. Please explain how the so-called assault weapons ban prevented the shootings at Columbine.
Please explain how an armed guard on site stopped the shootings.
It didnt
josef
January 15th, 2013
5:31 pm
SCOUT
The American Revolution began in February 8, 1690 with the Schenectady Massacre.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 15th, 2013
5:31 pm
If it weren’t so sad, it would be funny!
“So how can over 873,000 people come off the unemployment line when there were only a little over 114,000 jobs created?
Luckily I found a transcript of a conversation between two eminent economists discussing this very question!
Here we go, the recent unemployment report explained:
COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America .
ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It’s 7.8%.
COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
ABBOTT: No, that’s 14.7%.
COSTELLO: You just said 7.8%.
ABBOTT: 7.8% Unemployed.
COSTELLO: Right 7.8% out of work.
ABBOTT: No, that’s 14.7%.
COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 14.7% unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, that’s 7.8%.
COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 7.8% or 14.7%?
ABBOTT: 7.8% are unemployed. 14.7% are out of work.
COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, Obama said you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.
COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!
ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.
COSTELLO: What point?
ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.
COSTELLO: To whom?
ABBOTT: The unemployed.
COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.
ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles that would count as less unemployment?
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work?
ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how the current administration gets it to 7.8%. Otherwise it would be 14.7%. Our govt. doesn’t want you to read about 14.7% unemployment.
COSTELLO: That would be tough on those running for reelection.
ABBOTT: Absolutely.
COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct.
COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
ABBOTT: Bingo.
COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have administration supporters stop looking for work.
ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like the Economy Czar.
COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the h— I just said!
ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like our current President”
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
5:32 pm
Adam – Well let’s see : – #1 just eliminate the murderers #2 lock up the thieves and #3 fine the speeders. No need to eliminate laws already on the books – just ENFORCE them
keith
January 15th, 2013
5:32 pm
Every gun maker in NY, MA, CA, and any other states supporting gun control to move to friendlier states. Start employing people that support the company. Start paying taxes to states that will not try destroying your industry. And stop supplying firearms to those states, stop selling bullets to those states. Complete guns and ammo boycott of those anti-American states.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
5:32 pm
pogo: The most prominent definition favored by liberals is a weapon showing characteristics of a military weapon.
Cite please
kayaker 71
January 15th, 2013
5:32 pm
Most of this comes down to trust. Gun owners don’t trust Bozo and the gang to do the right thing. Most of this posturing and anti-gun rhetoric is centered on getting politicians elected rather than to stop the slaughter of school children. The Democrats play this scenario like a fine tuned fiddle. Bozo is in over his head again. The gun owning public will not put up with this crap from a bunch of do-gooder politicians like that NY governor who is posturing for a 2016 run. We’re smarter than that.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:33 pm
If Bookman and his brain dead followers had any integrity they would admit their ultimate goal IS a complete ban on all guns in this country.
No. Deer hunting rifles and shotguns generally aren’t the problem
I would ban handguns and assault weapons.
Those are the real killers.
Countries where those weapons are illegal have a lot less gun violence
Gee isn’t that nice.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 15th, 2013
5:34 pm
pogo: “A clip can be changed out in about three seconds by someone who knows what they are doing.”
That’s an eternity.
pogo
January 15th, 2013
5:34 pm
Exactly josef. A drone is a true assault weapon. It is mindless (except for the 20 year old with the joy stick in hand some 6000 thousand miles away) and it doesn’t care who it takes out in the process of getting the “bad guy”. AND, the 20 year old doesn’t have to smell the stench and see the gore or the human cost of his/her actions up close. Think of it as “Clinical Killing”; nice, easy and clean and no remorse. The Obama administration has become quite good at using these weapons, hasn’t it? It seems quite strange that we never hear about the “collateral” damage these weapons inflict anymore do we? I guess the American news media only applied that standard to Bush.
keith
January 15th, 2013
5:34 pm
For Bookman and the other less intelligent posters on here. Please explain how the so-called assault weapons ban prevented the shootings at Columbine.
Please explain how an armed guard on site stopped the shootings.
It didnt
Is this an admission that the last assault weapons ban was a failure????
Bob
January 15th, 2013
5:34 pm
Most gun owners are more reasonable than Obama. While he was in the IL state senate he voted against the right to use a gun to protect yourself in your own home. Lefites whine about the NRA but I don’t see any of them defend Obama’s position with that vote. Obama says he is for allowing hunters to have guns but he is a liar. How can any reasonable person think someone should not be allowed to defend yourself with a gun if someone breaks into your home. Obama says he wants to make things more fair in America so I guess he wants to make things fair for someone to break into your home. Maybe that is why Obama’s home town Chicago already had had 22 murders this year and we are only halfway through January.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
5:34 pm
Doggone: My original question is whether any other weapon can efficiently kill (lethal) from a distance (basically not arm’s reach, if you must know), and is also legal and not a gun?
Frankly, a bow and arrow doesn’t really meet that test. Even a hit from a distance doesn’t efficiently kill, certainly not up to the efficiency of a gun.
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
5:34 pm
Why cant tough gun laws do the same ?
I’m not so sure it will help Cheesy.(I know you asked pogo but I thought I would answer anyway)
DUI laws made punishment much more severe and it helped a lot but severe punishment for mass murders will not deter a crazy person.IMHO
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:36 pm
Most of this comes down to trust. Gun owners don’t trust Bozo and the gang to do the right thing
Your right. Most of that group are Southern Rednecks who
1. Dont like the fact that a black man is President
2. Have a very very low education level ( Probably no HS Diploma )
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 15th, 2013
5:36 pm
josef:
El Jefe has bitten off more than he can chew this time.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
5:36 pm
keith: Is this an admission that the last assault weapons ban was a failure????
Yes, the LAST assault weapons ban was a failure because it had too many loopholes, and didn’t address several other root causes of gun violence.
And anyone who thinks just coming up wiht a new assault weapons ban with a few closed loopholes and leaving it at that will fix the problem or significantly reduce the problem is out of their ever-lovin minds. It’s not enough, but it can work as part of a comprehensive package.
keith
January 15th, 2013
5:37 pm
I would ban handguns and assault weapons.
Those are the real killers.
Really? I defy you to show me one, JUST ONE example of where a handgun or assault weapon has killed without some for of human manipulation. You just stated THEY are the real killers. So prove it!!
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
5:37 pm
0311 – you would be funny if you weren’t telling the tragic truth. Good work – uh good unemployment?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 15th, 2013
5:38 pm
We can blame this on “low information voters” who in large part put El Jefe in office.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
5:38 pm
“Frankly, a bow and arrow doesn’t really meet that test. Even a hit from a distance doesn’t efficiently kill, certainly not up to the efficiency of a gun”
And you’re wrong. Just as with a gun, the better the shooter the more “efficient” the weapon is. Personally, I wouldn’t face a shooter with EITHER a handgun or a long bow and depend on the “inefficiency” of the weapon to save me. Maybe you don’t know, but a long bow was a very effective weapon against armed Knights – as it was powerful enough to pierce steel armor.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 15th, 2013
5:38 pm
Pogo: “A clip can be changed out in about three seconds by someone who knows what they are doing”
At Tucson, witnesses reported that the gunman Loughner stopped to reload, allowing bystanders to interfere, which may well have prevented the casualties from being far higher than they were in that shooting.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:40 pm
Is this an admission that the last assault weapons ban was a failure????
Is that an admission that having an armed guard on site wont help at all ?????
josef
January 15th, 2013
5:40 pm
POGO
Ssshhhh…we ain’t supposed to talk about drones, ya know…
kayaker 71
January 15th, 2013
5:40 pm
cheesy grits, 5:37,
What an stupid statement. Not all gun owners lack a HS diploma nor do most of them hate black people. Your depiction of gun owners being red-neck knuckle dragging cretins lacks any intelligent thought. But what could you expect from liberal.
keith
January 15th, 2013
5:41 pm
Your right. Most of that group are Southern Rednecks who
1. Dont like the fact that a black man is President
2. Have a very very low education level ( Probably no HS Diploma )
1. Obama is bi-racial. His mother was white. YOUR FIRST ERROR
2. We are intelligent enough to understand it takes human manipulation to operate a weapon for good or bad purposes. Something you havent realized yet. YOUR SECOND ERROR.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:41 pm
We can blame this on “low information voters” who in large part put El Jefe in office.
Dead wrong.
The lower the education level. The more likely they were a Romney voter.
Look at the South were education levels are terrible.
All red states.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
5:42 pm
Scout: El Jefe has bitten off more than he can chew this time.
Yep, I mean, you guys certainly haven’t said this before about any other issue… oh wait….
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
5:43 pm
Insane people don’t usually concern themselves with the law….. that’s a fact.
TM
January 15th, 2013
5:44 pm
the questions that needs to be asked as these new laws are passed are
Would it have prevented the shooting in Fort Hood/
Would it have prevented the shooting in Colorado?
Would it have prevented the shooting in CT
Would it have prevented the shooting in NY
Under that standard I think you would find that these proposed laws are worthless for what they claim. NY wants to reduce the size of a legal clip in that State from 10 to 7. Big deal?? I think not.
pogo
January 15th, 2013
5:44 pm
Feinstein in a recent interview recently stated that weapons showing certain characteristics such as those I pointed to above (extendable stock, etc, etc,) should be outlawed. Find the interview yourself. So she was basically stating that weapons that LOOK a certain way are the culprits. You liberals are nothing reactionary simpletons who never really solve problems, you only react, react and react. And the problems just get worse because of it.
So Adam, since you agree with an assault weapons ban why don’t you tell us what you think that particular animal is? The real answer? An assault weapon is anything (a rock, a knife, a car, a piece of pipe? that kill somebody. That is what an assault weapon is.
Morality?
January 15th, 2013
5:44 pm
If you don’t like RED states feel free to move to a BLUE one.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:44 pm
What an stupid statement. Not all gun owners lack a HS diploma nor do most of them hate black people. Your depiction of gun owners being red-neck knuckle dragging cretins lacks any intelligent thought
Not all.
But hey I live in the South.
I know the gun nut type.
They typically are
1. White
2. Very Very Racist.
3. Almost no education
4. Very scared of anything that isn’t just like them.
TBS
January 15th, 2013
5:45 pm
“We can blame this on “low information voters” who in large part put El Jefe in office.”
This from the same blogger who was touting a Romney win on the lines of Reagan and Carter
Just saying. Speaking of “low information”……….. what sources lead you to remotely believe that bs? world net daily
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:45 pm
If you don’t like RED states feel free to move to a BLUE one.
Eventually I will.
Have personal reasons to stay a bit longer.
It will be nice to leave Hillbillyland for the real world.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
5:46 pm
Doggone: Just as with a gun, the better the shooter the more “efficient” the weapon is.
And a bow and arrow takes more skill to be efficient than a modern handgun does.
Would you dispute that? I know from personal experience it’s a lot easier to fire a handgun and hit a target consistently within a few tries than it is to do the same with a bow and arrow. AND efficiency ALSO has to do with number of projectiles in a short time fram and accuracy with said projectiles.
josef
January 15th, 2013
5:46 pm
DOGGONE
“When the last H-bomb has done its stuff,
and stilled for good the Geiger counter’s voice,.
When all that’s left is but just a few of us
will come the moment of my dreadful choice.
Invent the peaceful wheel? Oh, dear me, no!
Let those who would assuage the general woe.
I plan to freeze my neighbors to the marrow
by reinventing the bow and arrow!”
Jay
January 15th, 2013
5:47 pm
We can do it your way, Keith. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” So let’s regulate people. People without a certificate proving they’ve passed a gun safety course can’t buy ammo. People can’t buy assault weapons. People can’t buy large-capacity magazines.
We’re just regulating people, you know. Not the devices they use, which as you say are inanimate and can’t be regulated anyway.
kayaker 71
January 15th, 2013
5:47 pm
There is not a single thing, not one, that Bozo has introduced in his proposals that would eliminate another Sandy Hook incident. He and other politicians are so fearful of the gun owning public that they will not tread on that territory. Bozo wants your gun but he doesn’t have the balls to introduce legislation that would get it. No politician does.
JohnnyReb
January 15th, 2013
5:47 pm
If guns kill people, how does anyone get out of a gun show alive?
If you don’t have to give up your car because others drive drunk with theirs, why do you have to give up your gun because others commit crimes with theirs?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. – Wayne LaPierrre
25 states allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street without a permit of any kind. Some say that’s crazy. However, four of five US Murders are committed in the other half of the states. Who’s crazy?
You may not like guns and choose not to own one. That is your right. You may not believe in God. That is your choice. However, if someone breaks into your home the first two things you will do are: 1) call someone with a gun, and 2) pray they get there in time to save you.
You could save more innocent lives taking pens from politicians than by taking guns from law abiding citizens.
You actually think that criminals will obey gun control laws? Your’e a special kind of stupid, aren’t you?
The 2nd amendment does not exist so we can go hunting, but so that we can defend our Freedom from Tyrants!
Your’e welcome.
TBS
January 15th, 2013
5:47 pm
Scout
You guys need something new. The “low information voter” meme that can be heard on any given right leaning talk radio program show or read on any given right leaning website just shows how easy it is to get you guys to act like macaws.
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
5:47 pm
JHM et alia – an interesting and thoughtful analysis of the 2nd Amendment by a qualified individual:
http://www.virginiainstitute.org/publications/primer_on_const.php
josef
January 15th, 2013
5:48 pm
Cheesy
Don’t let the door hit you where the G-od L-rd split you. You’re the kind that give Yankees a bad name. You don’t speak well for your people. Bless your heat…
Adam
January 15th, 2013
5:48 pm
We’re just regulating people, you know. Not the devices they use, which as you say are inanimate and can’t be regulated anyway.
KABOOOOOM!
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
5:48 pm
“Would you dispute that?”
No, I wouldn’t…but you asked about effective weapons as the same distance as a handgun. I named several.
keith
January 15th, 2013
5:49 pm
Its pretty funny watching a liberal insulting themselves like that. Calling people in the south dumb while THEY LIVE IN THE SOUTH. Priceless.
Adam
January 15th, 2013
5:49 pm
TBS: Both sides use “low information voter” To be honest, I’m not sure which side came up wit it first.
TBS
January 15th, 2013
5:49 pm
kayaker
Does it really matter what any politician wants if they do not have the means to make it happen?
Anyone can use that same exact thing for politicians of every stripe if they wanted to play that game. In the end it will mean……. nothing
Bob
January 15th, 2013
5:49 pm
Cheesy, are those southern rednecks that are killing each other in Chicago ? 500 murders last year and 22 already this year, how many of them were by southern rednecks ? You can make bigoted comments but the rednecks are not killing each other at the rate blacks are killing each other, southern or not. The truth may hurt but you are much more likely to be killed by a young black man than a southern redneck. Why is it that the media and liberals jump to action when the white kids in CT got shot but ignore Chicago ? Could it be that people might ask why the home of Mr. hope and change is such a bad place to raise a child ?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 15th, 2013
5:49 pm
Morality?
Not my work. It was in quotes.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
5:50 pm
“I plan to freeze my neighbors to the marrow by reinventing the bow and arrow!””
Kind of like the bit about horses:
My greatgrandfather was a great horseman, but he was afraid to ride on a train
My grandfather was a train engineer, but he was afraid to ride in a car
My father loves to drive, but he’s afraid to fly
Me? I love to fly. But I’m afraid of horses
josef
January 15th, 2013
5:51 pm
CHEESY
How dumb are you? The South is anything BUT white…just for starters it’s 30% Black…it’s 40% mestizo…no education? Well, you certainly ought to fit in in that category…
TBS
January 15th, 2013
5:52 pm
Adam
Either way, it is so overused. There are those who believe and repeat anything Maddow, Limbaugh, Hanitty, Shultz and the like tell them.
I get embarrassed for those people, especially when you know that most are much more intelligent than the recited “talking points” they are conveying
JohnnyReb
January 15th, 2013
5:52 pm
Low information voter does not mean a stupid person. A mom who spends all day with work, kids, etc and only listens to the local news at night when falling asleep is an example of a low information voter. No one is saying they are dumb, they just need political education that their life does not take in.
Now, those who have time to actually educate themselves but choose to get their news from entertainment shows are a special kind of stupid voter.
josef
January 15th, 2013
5:52 pm
DOGGONE
Love that!
TM
January 15th, 2013
5:53 pm
“People without a certificate proving they’ve passed a gun safety course can’t buy ammo. People can’t buy assault weapons. People can’t buy large-capacity magazines.
And people without certificates proving they’ve passes a safety course can’t exercise their right to free speech or Assembly, And don;t try to say that the exercise of those rights have resulted in deaths
keith
January 15th, 2013
5:54 pm
Why should we have to pass an exam to enjoy our CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS? Liberals favorite words are ban and regulate, always when its other people rights they are wanting to regulate. Never their own. GOD has given us our rights. And you and your forms of govt hope to deny them. GOD given rights are non-negotiable.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
5:55 pm
“Love that!”
Yeah, me too!
JohnnyReb
January 15th, 2013
5:55 pm
So Jay wants to regulate people.
Please see #7 in my 5:47.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
January 15th, 2013
5:55 pm
Well, I see our Representatives in Congress spent most of the day taking turns reading the Constitution aloud. I think it’s great they dealt with all our problems and have time left over for Patriotic things like that.
Have a good night everybody.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
5:55 pm
“And don;t try to say that the exercise of those rights have resulted in deaths”
No need to. You just did it for us.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
January 15th, 2013
5:56 pm
Cheesy, are those southern rednecks that are killing each other in Chicago ?
Nope.
Ever been to Chicago.
Its a great town. More culture in its pinky than the entire South has.
Wanna know what culture is to a Southern Redneck.
Jeff Foxworthy.
Its pretty funny watching a liberal insulting themselves like that. Calling people in the south dumb while THEY LIVE IN THE SOUTH. Priceless.
Its not by choice I can assure you.
There is a reason the South is the butt of every joke.
The rest of the country thinks the South is a joke.
Frankly having lived here its hard to argue with them.
JohnnyReb
January 15th, 2013
5:56 pm
I omitted a favorite.
Why carry a gun? Because a whole cop would be too heavy!
TM
January 15th, 2013
5:57 pm
Maybe we can require a test or certificate to show you are qualified to vote
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
5:57 pm
And this legal brief for Emerson:
http://www.saf.org/emersonacadsecd.htm
I find this especially compelling as to the INTENDED meaning of 2A:
C. The debates over ratifying the Constitution set the stage for the Second Amendment.
Although the ensuing ratification debates included some heated political rhetoric, there was little disagreement about the meaning of the relevant provisions in the proposed Constitution. All sides agreed that Congress would have almost plenary authority as a legal matter over both the military and militia. The real controversy turned on the benefits and costs of this arrangement. Anti-Federalists focused on the threat of tyranny, especially the danger that the states would lose their ability to mount a meaningful resistance to usurpations by the federal government. Federalists argued that these fears were overblown because there were numerous checks on the new federal government, including the fact that the American populace (unlike its European counterparts) consisted of an armed citizenry: whatever the federal government might do or neglect to do with the militia,the people themselves were armed and would therefore be anything but helpless in the face of an oppressive federal government.
The essence of the Anti-Federalist position is captured in Attorney General Luther Martin’s famous Genuine Information, which bitterly denounced:
this extraordinary provision, by which the militia, the only defence and protection which the State can have for the security of their rights against arbitrary encroachments of the general government, is taken entirely out of the power of their respective states, and placed under the power of Congress. (15)
Similarly, the Federal Farmer wrote:
Should one fifth, or one eighth part of the men capable of bearing arms, be made a select militia, as has been proposed, and those the young and ardent part of the community, possessed of but little or no property, and all the others put upon a plan that will render them of no importance, the former will answer all the purposes of an army, while the latter will be defenceless. (16)
The Federalists could not deny that the new Constitution would take control of the militia away from the states as alegal matter, or that the federal government would have the legal authority to create a select militia. But they did deny that there was cause for serious alarm. In the Federalist Papers, for example, Madison wrote at length about the improbability that the federal government would ever become animated by a spirit of oppression. Assuming for the sake of argument that this could happen, however, Madison contended that America’s armed citizenry could not be subdued by such a government:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. (17)
Thus the Federalists and Anti-Federalistsshared the assumption that the new federal government should lack the power to disarm the citizenry. Without that assumption, Madison’s argument would collapse because the American people would then be as easy to subdue as the Europeans. This was not enough for the Anti-Federalists, who wanted additional safeguards in the form of restrictions on the federal government’s military resources. (18) But the Federalists prevailed, and the Constitution was ratified as proposed.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
5:58 pm
“Why should we have to pass an exam to enjoy our CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS?”
To show that you can operate said right safely. If the only danger was you killing yourself, no such test would be needed. But YOUR Constitutionally protected right to own a gun ends where MY Constitutionally protected right to be SAFE from you begins.
JohnnyReb
January 15th, 2013
5:58 pm
For Cheesy – know the difference between a yankee and a damn yankee? A damn yankee won’t leave.
josef
January 15th, 2013
5:58 pm
They read the Constitution, eh….did they skip over the 3/5 compromise again?
TBS
January 15th, 2013
5:59 pm
JohnnyReb
Hope all is well with you and yours.
The “low information voter” mantra is mostly used when someone doesn’t agree with the political positions of others.
Just because someone disagrees on any given issue, doesn’t mean the other person is a “low information voter”. Any any given issue that “low information voter” may have more knowledge than the one who thinks they are a “high information voter”.
IMO it is a politically correct term to say someone isn’t as smart or informed, but in many cases that isn’t the truth.
Doggone/GA
January 15th, 2013
6:00 pm
“They read the Constitution, eh….did they skip over the 3/5 compromise again?”
I wondered about that too!
keith
January 15th, 2013
6:00 pm
To show that you can operate said right safely. If the only danger was you killing yourself, no such test would be needed. But YOUR Constitutionally protected right to own a gun ends where MY Constitutionally protected right to be SAFE from you begins.
Such paranoia. How do you go outside with all that fear?
Real Scootter
January 15th, 2013
6:02 pm
But hey I live in the South.
I know the gun nut type.
They typically are
1. White
2. Very Very Racist.
3. Almost no education
4. Very scared of anything that isn’t just like them.
I live in the south too(all my life) Cheesy.
I know only one gun nut like you are talking about.Very few of us fit your description. Jus sayin…….
Bob
January 15th, 2013
6:03 pm
Jay, it’s estimated that America has 300 million guns, if most can’t handle them safely wouldn’t we have thousands of accidental deaths ? Maybe we should make voters prove they have a handle of the issues or they lose the right to vote. We let just about anyone drive a car, shouldn’t we have a real drivers test so people can prove they can handle driving a car on a highway ? The drivers test is a trip around the block at 35MPH yet auto deaths far outpace accidental gun deaths and driving is not a right. And look at how many people drink alcohol and kill people in a drunken rage or DUI, shouldn’t people prove they can handle their liquor before we sell it to them ? Should we make smokers prove that their second hand smoke will not harm someone else ?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 15th, 2013
6:05 pm
SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS!
Towncrier
January 15th, 2013
6:05 pm
“To show that you can operate said right safely. If the only danger was you killing yourself, no such test would be needed. But YOUR Constitutionally protected right to own a gun ends where MY Constitutionally protected right to be SAFE from you begins.”
I agree with your sentiment but not necessarily the requirement. There can be no doubt that mass killers like Lanza and Holmes knew how to operate a gun and could pass a gun safety test. So I am not sure what benefit there is to the law except in limited cases (where people buying a gun aren’t wise or smart enough to use it correctly). I am thinking there are bigger fish to fry.
Bob
January 15th, 2013
6:06 pm
Doggone, you are not one of those that say the 3/5ths compromise counted blacks as 3/5ths of a person are you ?
TBS
January 15th, 2013
6:07 pm
Cheesy
Delta is ready when you are………….
And take those broad brushes with you or better yet throw them away. They seem to leave more of a mess then anything when you start with your painting.
keith
January 15th, 2013
6:07 pm
The last election proves we need a test for people to prove they are educated on the issues. I saw obamabots in the 2008 election asked how they felt about Palin as his running mate. They LOVED her. Yep,they are truly that stupid.
josef
January 15th, 2013
6:08 pm
CHEESY
“Look at the South were education levels are terrible.”
Were, eh? I guess you’re saying they are not any longer?
F. Sinkwich
January 15th, 2013
6:09 pm
“A day before President Barack Obama is scheduled to release Vice President Joe Biden´s recommendations to curb gun violence in the United States, the National Rifle Association told U.S. News and World Report that they have seen membership grow by 250,000 in the month since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.” –USN&WP
Bummer…
Aquagirl
January 15th, 2013
6:09 pm
you are not one of those that say the 3/5ths compromise counted blacks as 3/5ths of a person are you ?
Oh, go ahead, recite your “I iz so smart about this” speech. We know you’re just dying to bust it out.
keith
January 15th, 2013
6:10 pm
Gun control was first implemented in the south as a way to prevent slaves from rising up against their masters. The masters are at it again wanting to hang on to their ever increasing power. Anything that they preceive as a threat to their dominance over us must be eliminated.
indigo
January 15th, 2013
6:10 pm
Either this whole sentence is false or we need to outlaw private gun ownership.