New Poll: support for gun control is not waning

[legaleagle_45]

Whose rights are violated if the law requires you to prove you are qualified to buy a gun before you're allowed to buy a gun?

Whose rights are violated if the law requires you to prove you are qualified to buy a book before you're allowed to buy a book?

Nobody's. Stop reminding us how retarded you are and answer the question.

Then I suppose you would have no objections if a full background NICS backgroundcheck was done at the polling place before allowing someone to vote--- that, of course requires a person to have a valid photo ID such as a drivers license?

 

[FA_Q2]

And?

Polls have no real bearing on what laws should and should not be passed. For one, it does not ask what, specifically, they want to see passed. More stringent gun laws can mean anything. The popular support for one measure or another can vary wildly even though they both fall under ‘more stringent.’ Case in point would be the popularity of a national registry, very low, and the elimination of the fabled ‘gun show loophole’ that enjoys wide support even though people do not understand it at all.

IOW, the polls questions are meaningless as they are the wrong questions. Further, as eflatminor pointed out, rights are not there for you to vote on or subject to popular opinion. It seems that you would be absolutely unhappy if the courts decide that the right to marry should be subject to popularity (essentially upholding DOMA and other laws like that). Likely because rights should not be denied to a minority group because the majority doesn’t like it. Likewise, the right to own a firearm exists and should not be subject to popularity contests. Period.

 

[FA_Q2]

Whose rights are violated if the law requires you to prove you are qualified to buy a book before you're allowed to buy a book?

Nobody's. Stop reminding us how retarded you are and answer the question.

Then I suppose you would have no objections if a full background NICS backgroundcheck was done at the polling place before allowing someone to vote--- that, of course requires a person to have a valid photo ID such as a drivers license?

Sure, but not at the polling place. You had that check when you were issued your ID. Why not put a moniker on the ID itself that would declare if you can legally purchase a weapon, similar to the one that is placed on ID’s currently to denote the ability to purchase alcohol.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Whose rights are violated if the law requires you to prove you are qualified to buy a book before you're allowed to buy a book?

Nobody's. Stop reminding us how retarded you are and answer the question.

Then I suppose you would have no objections if a full background NICS backgroundcheck was done at the polling place before allowing someone to vote--- that, of course requires a person to have a valid photo ID such as a drivers license?

A person's eligibility to vote should be determined when they register to vote.

If you think that's an apt analogy then I assume you have no objection to keeping a registry of who has purchased a firearm, just as we keep a registry of who has voted.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you honestly think our rights wouldnt be violated if the government said that certain people couldnt buy books and you had to submit to a background check before you could buy one?

Last time I checked, the First amendment protected our rights just as much as the Second. Why should a background check be alright for either of them?

So it's unconstitutional to deny children the right to buy porn?

Way to move the goalposts. Pathetic.

Children can't vote either. That's not unconstitutional. We're talking about adults here. Now go ahead and explain how it okay to require government approval before buying a book. You didn't qualify your previous statement with 'children', so don't do it now. Defend your statement or admit your idiocy.

Books are not guns. I'm sure that appeal to possible presence of an iota of common sense in your brain will turn out to be another dry hole.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you honestly think our rights wouldnt be violated if the government said that certain people couldnt buy books and you had to submit to a background check before you could buy one?

Last time I checked, the First amendment protected our rights just as much as the Second. Why should a background check be alright for either of them?

The Court reaffirmed the already established right to deny guns to felons and the mentally ill in DC v. Heller.

In both cases a court has to determine you are a felon, or mentally ill. Thus due process must be followed before your rights are restricted, just as only a court can determine you can go to prision.

Everything progressives are proposing is prior restraint, restricting your rights not based on YOUR actions, but on someone else's criminal behavior, or POTENTIAL criminal behavior by someone else or yourself.

Determining your right to buy a gun only restricts you if the determination is that you are not qualified to buy the gun,

in which case the government has the right to restrict you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you want to deny that opponents of Obamacare used the polls to argue against it then do so directly,

and briefly.

I was an am an opponent of Obamacare. I NEVER used polls to argue against it because unlike you, I understand the will of majority does not override the rights of the minority.

Since background checks are not a rights violation, your point, such as it is, is immaterial.

 

[eflatminor]

If you want to deny that opponents of Obamacare used the polls to argue against it then do so directly,

and briefly.

I was an am an opponent of Obamacare. I NEVER used polls to argue against it because unlike you, I understand the will of majority does not override the rights of the minority.

Since background checks are not a rights violation, your point, such as it is, is immaterial.

Move the goalposts much. You are REALLY bad at this. Looser.

 

[eflatminor]

Books are not guns.

But owning either is a right. And neither can constitutionally require government approval.

Fail. Again.

 

[martybegan]

The Court reaffirmed the already established right to deny guns to felons and the mentally ill in DC v. Heller.

In both cases a court has to determine you are a felon, or mentally ill. Thus due process must be followed before your rights are restricted, just as only a court can determine you can go to prision.

Everything progressives are proposing is prior restraint, restricting your rights not based on YOUR actions, but on someone else's criminal behavior, or POTENTIAL criminal behavior by someone else or yourself.

Determining your right to buy a gun only restricts you if the determination is that you are not qualified to buy the gun,

in which case the government has the right to restrict you.

You are missing the point. For felons and mentally committed people due process has been followed, and it is a strict interpretation of what disqualifies you from owning a gun.

What we have in NYC is the police department gets to "decide" who gets a concealed carry permit, and they naturally decide most people dont have the "privlidge" to get one. Unless of course you are a retired cop, a friend of someone high up in the department, rich, or really really need to have one (hint, they dont find that often). So basically this is the government via burecratic flunky deciding who gets to excerise their rights.

The problem with any non due process method of denying firearm rights is the inherent abuse it could allow by people who dont want ANYONE (except themselves) to be armed.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Nobody's. Stop reminding us how retarded you are and answer the question.

Then I suppose you would have no objections if a full background NICS backgroundcheck was done at the polling place before allowing someone to vote--- that, of course requires a person to have a valid photo ID such as a drivers license?

A person's eligibility to vote should be determined when they register to vote.

If you think that's an apt analogy then I assume you have no objection to keeping a registry of who has purchased a firearm, just as we keep a registry of who has voted.

Interesting. If one has previously registered as a firearms owner, does that mean he would no longer need to show ID everytime he wanted to purchase a firearm? I also suppose that this registry for persons wishing to purchase firearms would not list or identify the particular firearms they actually own, just as a voter registry does not reveal how a person votes in each election?

What you are suggesting could be easily accomplished. Everyone over the age of 18 would have an endorsement on their photo ID indicating that they are eligible to purchase a firearm. This would occur automatically and be on every persons ID who does not have a felony conviction or other disqualifying circumstance, regardless of whether they even want to purchase a firearm. We will call it the "good citizenship" endorsement. Then, of course, when they go to the gun store, they need not show this ID at all, but merely assert that they have one by affirming that by signing their name to a log.

That work for you?

 

[Oldstyle]

Remember the Obamacare debate, when opponents argued over and over that the slight majority or plurality of opposition to the bill that showed up in some of the polls proved that the bill should not pass because Americans didn't want it?

That was their BIG argument against Obamacare - that and that it was unconstitutional, lol.


Well, if the 90% support for universal background checks lost a full third of that support,

all the way down to 60%,

that would still be well above the numbers that the opponents of Obamacare insisted were a good argument against the bill.

So shut up. lolol

Ah...the big argument against ObamaCare was that it didn't do what it was supposed to do...lower the cost of healthcare. Liberals like yourself took advantage of a crisis and super majorities to pass legislation that will eventually lead to government controlled healthcare. It's why three years later, ObamaCare is STILL not popular. People with half a brain understand that it won't lower their healthcare costs but will affect the level of service that they receive...and not for the better...while at the same time pushing us one step closer to fiscal insolvency as a nation.

If you want to deny that opponents of Obamacare used the polls to argue against it then do so directly,

and briefly.

To be quite frank with you...I could care less about polls. Does getting a good result from a poll make proposed legislation better? People use "poll results" when they have a hard time arguing the merits of their ideas. In the case of ObamaCare even it's supporters had a hard time defending what was a badly written bill rushed through before Republicans had enough votes to stop it. All the polling in the world wouldn't have changed the fact that it isn't good legislation and doesn't do what the American people really desired it to...namely lower health care costs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then I suppose you would have no objections if a full background NICS backgroundcheck was done at the polling place before allowing someone to vote--- that, of course requires a person to have a valid photo ID such as a drivers license?

A person's eligibility to vote should be determined when they register to vote.

If you think that's an apt analogy then I assume you have no objection to keeping a registry of who has purchased a firearm, just as we keep a registry of who has voted.

Interesting. If one has previously registered as a firearms owner, does that mean he would no longer need to show ID everytime he wanted to purchase a firearm? I also suppose that this registry for persons wishing to purchase firearms would not list or identify the particular firearms they actually own, just as a voter registry does not reveal how a person votes in each election?

What you are suggesting could be easily accomplished. Everyone over the age of 18 would have an endorsement on their photo ID indicating that they are eligible to purchase a firearm. This would occur automatically and be on every persons ID who does not have a felony conviction or other disqualifying circumstance, regardless of whether they even want to purchase a firearm. We will call it the "good citizenship" endorsement. Then, of course, when they go to the gun store, they need not show this ID at all, but merely assert that they have one by affirming that by signing their name to a log.

That work for you?

It doesn't work for you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Books are not guns.

But owning either is a right. And neither can constitutionally require government approval.

Fail. Again.

The Court reaffirmed in DC v. Heller that, yes, in fact, the government can.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In both cases a court has to determine you are a felon, or mentally ill. Thus due process must be followed before your rights are restricted, just as only a court can determine you can go to prision.

Everything progressives are proposing is prior restraint, restricting your rights not based on YOUR actions, but on someone else's criminal behavior, or POTENTIAL criminal behavior by someone else or yourself.

Determining your right to buy a gun only restricts you if the determination is that you are not qualified to buy the gun,

in which case the government has the right to restrict you.

You are missing the point. For felons and mentally committed people due process has been followed, and it is a strict interpretation of what disqualifies you from owning a gun.

What we have in NYC is the police department gets to "decide" who gets a concealed carry permit, and they naturally decide most people dont have the "privlidge" to get one. Unless of course you are a retired cop, a friend of someone high up in the department, rich, or really really need to have one (hint, they dont find that often). So basically this is the government via burecratic flunky deciding who gets to excerise their rights.

The problem with any non due process method of denying firearm rights is the inherent abuse it could allow by people who dont want ANYONE (except themselves) to be armed.

If the government has the right to deny felons and crazy people the right to buy or possess guns, then the government also has the right to the measures needed to enforce those laws,

provided they themselves are constitutional. A background check to determine if you are a felon, or crazy, is a constitutional enforcement measure.

 

[Avatar4321]

Nobody's. Stop reminding us how retarded you are and answer the question.

So you honestly think our rights wouldnt be violated if the government said that certain people couldnt buy books and you had to submit to a background check before you could buy one?

Last time I checked, the First amendment protected our rights just as much as the Second. Why should a background check be alright for either of them?

So it's unconstitutional to deny children the right to buy porn?

We do not become full citizens until we are 18 years of age. That's when we recieve all our rights. If it was unconstitutional to deny children the right to buy porn it would be just as unconstitutional to deny them the right to vote.

Can you find any other examples?

 

[Avatar4321]

Determining your right to buy a gun only restricts you if the determination is that you are not qualified to buy the gun,

in which case the government has the right to restrict you.

You are missing the point. For felons and mentally committed people due process has been followed, and it is a strict interpretation of what disqualifies you from owning a gun.

What we have in NYC is the police department gets to "decide" who gets a concealed carry permit, and they naturally decide most people dont have the "privlidge" to get one. Unless of course you are a retired cop, a friend of someone high up in the department, rich, or really really need to have one (hint, they dont find that often). So basically this is the government via burecratic flunky deciding who gets to excerise their rights.

The problem with any non due process method of denying firearm rights is the inherent abuse it could allow by people who dont want ANYONE (except themselves) to be armed.

If the government has the right to deny felons and crazy people the right to buy or possess guns, then the government also has the right to the measures needed to enforce those laws,

provided they themselves are constitutional. A background check to determine if you are a felon, or crazy, is a constitutional enforcement measure.

Im not sure the Constitution gives them the right to do that to be honest. Though there hasnt been a successful challenge yet. An associate of mine has been working on fighting the gun restrictions against felons. I read his arguments and they are pretty good as pointing that taking away the rights of all felons is overbroad. If someone gets a felony retail theft for foolishly taking 3 dollars worth of merchanise as young man, should the government be able to prevent him from accessing weapons to defend himself with later on in life?

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

I have recently purchased a Remington 870 tactical shotgun (under barrel 500 lumen light) and a Glock 30 .45 caliber which I sometimes carry concealed and sometimes carry openly. I'll add that to the AR-15, the Remington 700 (.308) with the Leopold 10X scope, the Colt Double-Eagle, and the three other shotguns that I have. The issue that I have is that I am paying $45 for 20 .45 ACP rounds. THAT is obscene!!

I have said a thousand times that when Clinton passed the last law against large magazines, small metal shops all over the area went into overdrive either making large capacity magazines or converting the smaller ones. They are now loading ammo as well. The best customers? ATF, FBI, Federal Marshals, state and local law enforcement.

My question is: Was Clinton and now Obama secretly getting donations from gun/ammo manufacturers? Everytime they do this, the amateurs drive the prices through the roof.

By the way, the world's largest gun show is in Tulsa this weekend (Wannamacher's). See you there.

 

[Spoonman]

Support for gun control turns out to be only among a very small percent of the population. and even in that small percent, what they are willing to accept varies greatly. the bottom line is, what the liberal extremists have on the table is accepted by very few at all.

 

[Spoonman]

I have recently purchased a Remington 870 tactical shotgun (under barrel 500 lumen light) and a Glock 30 .45 caliber which I sometimes carry concealed and sometimes carry openly. I'll add that to the AR-15, the Remington 700 (.308) with the Leopold 10X scope, the Colt Double-Eagle, and the three other shotguns that I have. The issue that I have is that I am paying $45 for 20 .45 ACP rounds. THAT is obscene!!

I have said a thousand times that when Clinton passed the last law against large magazines, small metal shops all over the area went into overdrive either making large capacity magazines or converting the smaller ones. They are now loading ammo as well. The best customers? ATF, FBI, Federal Marshals, state and local law enforcement.

My question is: Was Clinton and now Obama secretly getting donations from gun/ammo manufacturers? Everytime they do this, the amateurs drive the prices through the roof.

By the way, the world's largest gun show is in Tulsa this weekend (Wannamacher's). See you there.

you need to start reloading. it will cut your costs greatly