“The latest Reason-Rupe national poll finds just 33 percent of Americans feel the ‘Senate should debate and vote on gun control legislation again,’ while 62 percent want the Senate to ‘move on to other issues.'” Surprise! “This data is surprising given earlier polls finding what appeared to be overwhelming support for expanding background check for firearm purchases. For instance, Gallup found that 83 percent of Americans favored a law requiring background checks for all gun purchases. The Washington Post/ABC poll found that 86 percent of Americans support a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online.” Wait. I’m getting a sense of this . . .
Most Americans wanted background check on all gun purchases because, well, why not? Except for those Americans who didn’t want “expanded background checks” because they believe (rightly) that registration lead to confiscations and what the hell does this have to do with the slaughter in Newtown?
When the Americans who wanted to see the Manchin-Toomey bill die a thousand deaths let it be known that they’d vote against anyone who vote for the bill—and how—all the R Senators and a few of the D’s wisely chose to keep their jobs and lose the bill.
When the Americans who wanted the bill passed—but not so much as to actually read it or make a big deal of it—saw the bill fail, they figured OK, that’s that. And whether the gun control folk like it or not, it is. For now. Got it pundits and apparatchiks? Apparently not . . .
Understandably the media punditry expected public outrage when the Senate voted down gun control legislation. However, a Pew Research Center poll found that 39 percent of Americans were relieved/very happy the “Senate vot[ed] down new gun control legislation that included background checks on gun purchases” while 47 percent were disappointed/angry. But then again, Gallup found that 65 percent thought the Senate “should have passed the measure to expand background checks for gun purchases.”
Perhaps this would be a good time to point out that this public opinion stuff is a moot point. America is a Constitutional republic not a democracy. If gun control advocates want to disarm Americans let them repeal the Second Amendment. Meanwhile, the Senate’s moving on to finding new ways to rape taxpayers and desecrate the Constitution. FWIW.
People who support gun rights are arguing from principles, while the gun control freaks go with their feelings. That’s why we win so long as we remain steady and never give ground.
And we make sense because we know what we are talking about.
I have no idea about quantum physics and you will not catch me make any comments about it, neither do most people
If Hollywood was oversimplifying and falsifying what quantum physics were about, most people would walk around with an opinion.
Wait, Hollywood messes up quantum mechanics all the time. No sure what you’re getting at.
“All the time”. Riiiight.
Polls are OK for some things. Constituional legislation is certainly not one of them. Those back-door tactics to political advancement should be relegated to other countries, not ours. If people want to have their Government “swaying to the Symphony of Destruction” then by all means pack your Sh! T up & move!
Megadeth reference FTW! Listening to that album right now.
You take a mortal man, and put him in control…..
Watch him become a god…
\m/
Now I got the song stuck in my head, LOL.
Realistically the politics matter. Even the Heller court would likely find background checks (and worse) constitutional, and even if they are wrong in this assessment its not like James Madison’s avenging ghost would appear and set things aright.
Our rights will be far more secure the more voters support them.
I absolutely want the Senate and Congress to continue working on gun control. Until we have constitutional carry nationwide our gun control laws will be flawed and in need of repair.
“If gun control advocates want to disarm Americans let them repeal the Second Amendment. ”
How do you say it in America?: Don’t call the wolf out of the woods?
I still stick by the interpretation that the Bill of Rights, which is the first 10 amendments that simply enumerate our god given, inalienable rights…rights that we are born with, rights that cannot be taken from us by government. That being said, how can they be amended? 1-10 are off the table.
That is the legal battle I would expect to see should anyone ever try to amend The Bill of Rights. Other amendments have and can be altered, but the Bill of RIGHTS should never be touched.
But 92%…..
/sarc
The procedure for amending the Constitution is clearly outlined in said Constitution, and it does not grant any special protection to any particular right or amendment, like it or not. What you describe may present a moral conundrum for some people, but there certainly is no legal one. If enough people will it, the Constitution can be rewritten to make US an absolute monarchy with a state religion.
Anyway, given that constitutional amendments require support of 3/4 of all states, I don’t realistically see 2A being off the books any time soon.
Bring it on 🙂
http://tinyurl.com/TipgPt
Polls and statistics can be swayed any way you want to swing them: it’s all how you read/collect the numbers.
Another Gallup poll reports that 100% of 75% of polls are wrong 88% of the time, plus or minus 3.4%.
Being a pollster is like being a weatherman. It’s the only job in the world where you can be wrong all the time and not get fired.
And, 5/3 of Americans don’t understand fractions!
Maybe 83% of Americans would support back ground checks for all gun sales; but how many actually called or texted their congress critter to support such a thing versus those completely against the idea?
I know I called repeatedly mine and those involved in passing such legislation to reaffirm that if they passed ANY further gun laws, I would work tirelessly at getting those same people out of office.
I’m sure their phone lines were melting by others that felt the same.
“It doesn’t take a majority to make fundamental changes in a society; just a tireless minority lighting fires in the mind of men” or something to that effect, I think a founding father said this.
3%
99% of (all) Americans* support stricter gun laws.
*Out of a couple hundred surveyed in a liberal anti gun state.
’nuff said
99% of all American support stricter gun laws*
* Poll conducted at the Brady Campaign HQ. The 1% was some poor lost soul who stopped in hoping to get directions without being killed by gang-bangers.
““This data is surprising given earlier polls finding what appeared to be overwhelming support for expanding background check for firearm purchases.”
Is there any statistical value to asking people to answer questions about subjects which they don’t know about? See: American voters on evolution and the origin of the Earth.
this in the aftermath of the utter destruction of 2a rights in the “free state” mind you…uhg. in some places the damage has already been done regardless of people wanting to move on to other topics.
This is just a reminder about deep chasm in the unequal fervor between the two sides of this issue that gun-control folks forgot about. Regular folks say that they want background checks, but people who don’t own firearms are not particularly passionate about it (i.e. gun-control groups cannot guarantee elected officials votes). This is why the NRA and its members can defeat even “common sense” measures like a Manchin-Toomey bill that criminalizes all sorts of perfectly legal conduct like loaning a firearm to a friend or giving one to a family member.
Folks who care about the 2A care about it enough to make a lot of noise AND show up a year later to vote. Everyone here better get off of their butts come next fall and remind politicians not to mess with our civil rights. It is the ONLY way they will learn to respect us. They will never like us, but if we can remind them not to mess with us, it will move them into the last stage of grief – Acceptance.
Polls are just another method for bean counters to push agendas.
If polls actually decided elections Bush Jr. would never have been elected.
The “massive support” for expanded background checks came from a question that went something like “Do you support background checks for all gun sales or no background checks at all?” We all recognize this as a completely bullshit question, but framed that way it’s frankly surprising the number wasn’t even higher, because it made it sound like there are no background checks at all now.
Of course, just the number gets tossed around like it’s the end all be all in the debate. And later support seems to evaporate and people wonder why. It was never there to begin with.
What bothers me are the anti-Flake ads I am bombarded with, being an Arizonan, about Flake supposedly supporting the new background checks bill, when all he said (or wrote) was that he supports background checks… in general!!! (As do I, except that I did not support the new bill).
Seriously, the guy is not up for re-election for 5 1/2 years. He is a conservative mormon from a state where conservative mormons are the #1 driving force at the poll and they will vote for him with a greater proportion than black folks voted for Obama. This guy will serve at least 3 terms as a senator for Arizona.
What is the deal with all the money wasted on that campaign, Mr Bloomberg?
Repealing the Second Amendment would inevitably lead to an armed revolution, because at least 8 million Americans will refuse to surrender their arms.
And their reluctance is based upon timeless common law considerations:
“The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” – U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) 92 U.S. 542
If 86% want expanded background checks, but only 33% want the Senate to pass an expanded background check law, that means there are 53% of the American people who do not trust the Senate to pass a bill that will do what they say it will do.
I find this very encouraging.
Questions as follows:
Do you think the word ‘Conscience’ can be defined in part as — ‘a quality within most all humans with the potential to serve as a restraint upon certain actions in some circumstances, and as a calling to act in others’?
Do you think that the word ‘Morality’ can be defined in part as — ‘a simple code of individual thought and conduct’?
Do you think that the word ‘Rights’ can be defined in part as — ‘the natural status of each person’?
Do you think that in general, the underlying idea of a civilized society is that each person conduct themselves in a manner as to not intentionally violate the actual ‘Rights’ of another person or persons?
While under written law, any person, act or thing may be declared ’illegal’ and / or ’unlawful’:-
Do you think that all just and fair laws should have as part of their primary basis, elements of Conscience, simple Moral codes of thought and conduct, and recognition of the ‘Rights’ of the individual?
Do you think that in many, if not most circumstances, determinations as to whether or not an actual criminal act has been committed may be considered based upon whether or not an actual ‘Right’ or ‘Rights’ of another person or persons were violated?
Do you think that elements of Conscience, simple Moral codes of thought and conduct and recognition of, and evidencing respect for the ‘Rights’ of the individual were integral to the fashioning and establishment of the American Constitutional Republic form of government?
Do you think that active application of elements of Conscience, adherence to simple Moral codes of thought and conduct, recognition of, and evidencing respect for the ‘Rights’ of each individual are critical to maintaining both a Constitutional Republic form of government and the continuance of a civilized society?
Do you think that the primary purpose for institution of government under the terms and conditions of a Constitutional Republic form is to ‘Secure Rights’ of the individual?
Do you think that the purpose for declaring and enumerating specific ’Rights’ of the Citizen in State Constitutions and in the Constitution of the United States is to serve in part as:- limitations on powers afforded to government by consent of the governed, and in part as to establish in writing what ’Rights’ those in government are Morally, Dutifully and Legally bound to secure?
Do you think that enactment of laws by persons in government making it illegal or unlawful for Citizens to keep and bear exactly the same ‘Arms’ — necessarily including ‘Fire-Arms’– that criminals and those in government would use against them to violate their ’Rights’ — is a government adhering to simple codes of Moral conduct and legal restrictions on powers afforded to those within it by consent of the governed?
Do you think that in essence, the ongoing controversy in this Nation becomes identifiable as centered upon ‘Rights’ of the individuals as Citizens vs. powers of those within and acting on behalf of government?
Standard gun control zealot tactic. Wait for a tragedy then whip up public opinion to ram through legislation with a promise that it will make us all safer. In the bad old days pro gun folks just knuckled under, but we’ve learned our lesson well. Challenge their lies and simply point out the truth. We already have background checks for all legitimate dealer sales, something a non gun owner has no knowledge of so is susceptible to the lie that more checks would somehow have prevented Newtown. Didn’t hurt all that much either for the banners to almost literally drool over the massacre and overplay their hand in a most reprehensible fashion.
Comments are closed.