Skip to comments.Americans Clearly Divided on Gun Control
Posted on 12/26/2007 10:10:53 AM PST by neverdem
People in the United States are almost evenly split between those who want tighter firearm legislation and those who believe this is unnecessary, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 42 per cent of respondents believe their country needs stricter gun control laws, while 44 per cent disagree.
The U.S. Constitutions Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right "to keep and bear arms." Some American states have enacted their own gun control regulations, independent of existing federal legislation.
Earlier this month, eight people died inside a Nebraska shopping mall when 19-year-old Robert Hawkins fired over 30 rounds of ammunition. Hawkins later killed himself.
In April, Cho Seung-hui killed 32 peoplefellow students and teachersat the Virginia Tech University campus in two separate incidents, before turning his gun on himself. The shooting is the deadliest of its kind in American history and revived a debate on whether the country should introduce new legislation on gun control. In December 2005, Virginia judge Paul Barnett stated that Cho presented "an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."
On Dec. 20, the U.S. Congress approved legislation aimed at keeping guns away from mentally ill persons. The bill, which has yet to be signed into law by U.S. president George W. Bush, would demand background checks for gun buyers in order to determine whether their mental health status is clear. Democratic New York congresswoman Carolyn McCarthya chief sponsor of the billsaluted the successful vote, saying, "Together, we have crafted a bill that will prevent gun violence, but maintain the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens."
Notice how Angus Reid ignored Jeanne Assam in Colorado.
No armed government with unarmed populace. Live free or die. I am keeping my gun.
I think only the mentally fit should be able to enjoy First Amendment rights (sarc). I wonder how the American people would respond to a pollster who asked that kind of question.
I'm sure that was just an inadvertent oversight. </sarcasm>
The author of this article failed to note the complete prohibition of guns on the VT campus, which is the end-popint of “stricter laws” and the fact the massacre still happened. Furthermore, the article places the two positions between “more laws are needed” and “more laws aren’t needed” without allowing the possibility that “too many laws are present and should be repealed.” For example, the prohibition at VT that allowed the shooter to rack up such a high death toll without opposition or resistance.
It isn't up for debate or compromise. The right to keep and bear arms is not a right because the government grants it - instead, the government is only legitimate because it recognizes the right. Push enough gun control and the effort will spawn a civil war.
The first question is a setup:
1. How closely have you followed recent news stories about shootings in Colorado?
42 to 44 percent, but which way is it moving?
I did notice that. Every year hundreds of home invasions, robberies, etc. are foiled when the intended victim is able to defend himself with a firearm.
This is never mentioned in these gun control pieces.
I'll be keeping my guns. And if Hillary gets elected, we'll be needing them more than ever.
Where I live they don’t have any like free gun zones; I know because i’ve had to go to the gun store and pay for one, well I’d have to pay if they would acutallyy wiiat on me; the basturds always through me out. I dunno, it’s like they won’t sell you a gun if you had a few drinks, you know. I evne volonteered to do the wait thing till they todl me it was three days which I pointed out was why i’d come in with the bottle in a bag, I mean, you don’t expect I gotta sit at hte store for 3 damned days with nothing to dow fro crise sake, and then what, they throwed me out.
So where are those free gun zones anyway?
There aren’t a whole lot of things I view as political absolutes or imperatives; the second amendment is one of them. My message to the libs on this one is simple: I’m willing to die trying to defend the amendment; are you willing to die trying to take it away from me?
Out of curiously I asked the men how come they are not concealing their guns per our state laws.
The man came right out and said would you rather me have it handy or have to take the time to reach down and have to retrieve it if some nut case decides to go on a rampage.
Mmmm rather you had it handy.
So I guess in my dream I didnt realize the law changed.
Have no clue where that was in my mind that I had to dream about it...btw could not find one thing I needed to buy and I left in an RX 7 (have no clue about that either as I have driven a van for the last 25yrs).
dimocRATS also have pollsters and they know how to read the results, thus they have dropped their "gun control" mantra in all but the most liberal cities/states. If the 'RATS thought they'd win on that issue, then they would surely run on it.
Just like raising taxes, and other socialist agenda items, they are pretty much silent on those issues UNTIL they get elected.
“We have no clear mental health data on Applicant Y, therefore we must deny his/her request for a gun permit.”
It will go there, and it will go much farther.
RIGHT to keep and bear arms...
I’m not divided about it.
And I don’t give a rats ass what the other half thinks.
It should NOT be up for debate or compromise, but unfortunately, it is. The SC has cut into the 1st Amendment in the area of political speech while extending pornographic speech, etc., and it has taken a big chunk of our property rights, without much fuss from the citizens on either. I fear that the 2nd Amendment is going to receive worse treatment when the case from D.C. is ruled on.
Whoops—meant HR 1022—that’s the bill that reimposes an even stricter version of the so-called “assault weapons ban”.
Cold. Dead. Hands.
“How is a sincere criminal, trying hard, going to get ahead in his profession if his victim fails to cooperate?
Almost all crime depends on the cooperation of the victim. If the victim refuses his assigned role, the criminal is placed at a disadvantage, one so severe that it usually takes an understanding and compassionate judge to set right.”
I find this hard to believe. It’s another stupid article to make things appear fair and balanced and to make you mad and to distract you. Wonder what the powers that be are up to in their late night meetings?
I don’t believe most Americans are going to want to give up their guns.
Mr. Journalist who wants to abolish the Second Amendment,
Before publishing your column calling for the eradication of gun rights did you do all of the following?
a) Undergo a Federal background check to see if you should be allowed to exercise your First Amendment rights.
b) Fill out and sign an affidavit to testify that you should be allowed to exercise your First Amendment rights.
c) Wait for five days to cool down before you exercised your First Amendment rights.
d) Have your column writings tested by local authorities with a copy of your writing style on file. (Otherwise known as a ballistic fingerprinting)
e) Have the serial number of your column recorded with your name and address by local, state, and federal authorities.
f) Get fingerprinted by your local police.
g) Take a mandatory 16-hour Journalism Safety course.
h) Have your name and address published in the local newspaper stating that you had applied for a permit to carry your column around with you.
j) Are you required to keep your columns locked in a cabinet when not in use.
k) are you allowed to write only one column every 30 days?
Americans Clearly Divided on Gun Control
However, note this tidbit at the bottom of the original: This telephone survey of 800 Likely Voters
So based on that the headline SHOULD read:
800 Americans Clearly Divided on Gun Control
But this gem is from their original Dec 18th release of the same poll:
There is a strong partisan difference on the issue of gun control. A majority (62%) of Democrats say that the country needs stricter gun control laws.
Only 25% of Republicans feel the same way.
Sooooooo, if only 25% (200 of 800) of Republicans 'want' stricter laws (which I think is BS), how many MORE democrats made up the poll to get up to this 42% (336 of 800)????
My conclusion is that this poll is utter Brady Bunch propaganda bullcarp.
oh and BIG surprise that RATS want more GC laws - not.
Former Governor, Mike Huckabees Book Quit Digging your Grave with a Knife and Fork Now Available... Novo Nordisk, a major embryonic stem cell researcher, offered 35,000 Spanish translations of Huckabee's book in Puerto Rico last May. Huckabee's funding includes $35,000 from Novo Nordisk.
From time to time, Ill ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Isn’t it amazing how the MSN just ignores all those people the half ass cop blew away.
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
Period! End of story!
I thought there were already restrictions on mentally ill people owning guns. They've worked really well I see.
I wish that just for once, some of these people would see that passing laws doesn't affect the behavior of criminals. If they cared about obeying the laws, they wouldn't be criminals. Anyone who's bound and determined to shoot up place will get the gun to do it, no matter what laws and restrictions are in place. It's called the black market.
Why would anyone be interested in a poll?
Technically speaking, inalienable/unalienable rights that pre-exist the very formation of the country, and constitution, are not subject to public opinion. They left that part out, conveniently.
oh the 42% half to me dimwits (dems)
I’m with you. Molon Labe!
Second, American voters vote against anti-gun, ie anti-self defense, candidates. When the Republicans won the majority in Congress in '94 for the first time in 40 years, President Bill Clinton, no mean political analyst, blamed the Democrats push for gun control for the loss of about 26 seats. If "gun control" were a 50-50 proposition and gun control has 100% backing in the MSM and the elites, why have the Democrats given up on "gun control"? Why have over 35 States passed Concealed Carry Weapon laws, since Florida started the trend in '87? Why would Democrat Presidential Candidate John Effin' Kerry see the need to dress up in camo, carry a shotgun and go bird hunting?
The political reality is that "gun control" is a political loser. Why has there been zero, ZERO, public demand and push for more "gun control" after Virginia Tech, the Omaha Mall and the Colorado church attacks? And Angus-Reid, whoever the h*** he is, can bloviate all he wants about the polls, but the professional politicians, who actually need to get votes, ignore ol' Angus-Reid.
that lloks like my parole officer; is that a confederate flag in the background?
Their intent is to enslave or kill you. Disarming you by any means makes it safer for them to try.
Nationally, that's true.
Why has there been zero, ZERO, public demand and push for more "gun control" after Virginia Tech, the Omaha Mall and the Colorado church attacks?
There are efforts around the country for true believers, e.g. Bloomberg's "illegal gun" initiatives, controls on the sale of ammo, "assault gun" bans, etc. They can't completely stifle themselves.
(0.25*432) + (0.62 * 368) = 336 = 0.42 * 800
This might represent an over-polling of Republicans over Demoncrats of 432 to 368, an admittedly unlikely occurrence.
If equal numbers of Republicans and Demoncrats were surveyed, then we might expect:
(0.25 * 400) + (0.62 * 400) = 348 = (0.44 * 800)
In either case, it should be obvious that, despite having a majority of Demoncrats, that is 62%, in favor of stricter gun controls, there is no way that such mis-guidedness should result in actually permitting any further gun control to be enacted.
The only reason to expect such further infringements is if the Republicans continue to elect RINOs like Arnold in Kalifornia or Mitt Romney. Guns are only useful for many important applications BECAUSE they are "unusually lethal". I wouldn't be interested in owning one which was somehow rendered "unusually NON-lethal".
This right is not a result of government.
Don’t forget - they are also pushing in Canada and some American jusisdictions for Knife Control, too - just like in the UK. As they made up the term “Saturday Night Special” for inexpensive handguns, “Assault Weapon” for sporting semiautomatic rifles, and “Sniper Rifle” for a scoped bolt-action rifle, they NOW have the term “Rambo Knives” to describe any large sport-utility knife, typically ones a foot or longer and including a blade guard and saw teeth on the back spine of the knife. REALLY! They are coming to take them away.
To paraphrase: All it takes to stop a crazy man with a gun is a sane man with a gun.
just because I choose to lieve blitzed doesn’t mean I’m a wolf or that I feed adult bverages to dogs or something. Although I had a Scottish terreier who liked Guiness; he’s dead now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.