New Anti Assault Weapons Poll Results

[ma96782]

To me......
The use of the words "AW".
Already added bias to the poll (and/or any news reports on the subject).

Aloha, Mark

 

[titsonritz]

825 people surveyed in a state of 7.5 million. For those that do math, that is 0.00011% of the population.

Edited to include:
Washington state has 39 counties, which means if they covered all of them evenly they surveyed only 21 people in each county. If they go by legislative districts (there are 49) that number drops to 17.

Gee, that sure sounds like an authoritative poll to me!

Also, in spite of the majority of Washington being composed of rural areas where firearms ownership and usage is commonplace, they still magically managed to find support "in virtually every corner" of the state.

There are 3 possibilities:
A. They are the laziest pollsters known to man who somehow through luck of the draw got a bunch of anti-gun folks in their poll (unlikely).
B. They cherry-picked the poll recipients to be predominantly of one political pursuasion.
C. They discarded results that didn't align with the message they were trying to promote.

It would sure be nice if we could hold propagandists - *ahem*, I mean "journalists" - accountable for what they print.

View attachment 1240736

Maph is hard.

 

[RobMa]

 

[P7M13]

Cincinnatus comes to mind here...if the story / legend is true...

All that said...
Ain't no way I trust folks who want to take away Rights from others.....no matter how nicely they put it.
Andy

They're just trying to be sensible, Andy....

 

[Cavedweller]

Whether you read the Bible or remember old fables from childhood. Human nature is pretty well covered. I'd be more comfortable if there was one example where a benevolent leader gave up his power.

George Washington, our first President, said he would leave office at the end of his second term. He kept his promise. When asked about Washington's intention, King George III said something to the effect of, "If he does, he will be the greatest man on earth." Perhaps he was.

Sri Lanka President Resigns, Protesters Abandon Seized Buildings With Country In Limbo

Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa resigned by email Thursday, as protesters retreated from government buildings they had seized in the embattled country.

www.huffpost.com

I believe he said "benevolent leader." This guy is the WEF shill who unilaterally banned chemical fertilizers and enforced the green agenda causing plummeting crop yields, food shortages, and runaway inflation, and then skedaddled on a navy ship before the angry mob could string him up. I don't think he qualifies.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

They're just trying to be sensible, Andy....

Hmmm...well that kind of sensible..can incense me...and I ain't talkn' the good smelly smokey kind of incense...
Andy

 

[dplev4]

Never mind that the Columbian is shamelessly slanted left…so this means I wont be able to goose hunt anymore? After all my waterfowl shotgun is a semi-automatic…

 

[slimmer13]

I believe that it's likely that more people do back an AW ban than not. People can be twitchy herd animals that act out of fear and emotion. I also don't care. Tyranny of the majority and all that.

 

[arakboss]

I believe that it's likely that more people do back an AW ban than not. People can be twitchy herd animals that act out of fear and emotion. I also don't care. Tyranny of the majority and all that.

But it's easier to deny all these polls as having no merit. I suspect these polls are reflecting a change in peoples opinions. It doesn't really matter what we think about the polls but It matters if the lawmakers believe in them.

 

[RX-79G]

I don't think it should be so shocking that AR15s (what people think of when they hear AW now days) don't have a lot of popular support. It isn't like anyone actually believes that Americans with 10 round semiautos are de-fanged, so even the people that are pro-AW ban might not see themselves as creating an environment that would lead to tyranny. A populace with nothing but Garands and Mini-14s with 10 round mags would still be incredibly dangerous to any power.


With 2 months left to buy 10+ round before the WA ban went in, my wife asked me if I wanted any gun affected by the ban. I bid on a MAB PA-15, considered some plastic pistols, then gave up. Nothing really appealed. I bought some surplus M9 magazines. I have 20+ mags for my HK and six AR mags if I ever bother with a STANAG rifle again.

I don't support the ban on AWs, but I already lived through the 1994 ban, and it didn't affect me, and the AW ban won't affect the ability to resist the government in a meaningful way. So I'm having a hard time worrying about it. I think it is more important to be able to CC than C-Mag.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Its all well and good if you have yours...especially if you have been in the "gun world" for awhile.
It ain't so well and good for those who by choice * or birth date are new to the "gun world".

*Choice is important...because a sign of freedom , is having a choice.
You can choose to own firearms...or choose not to own them., at any time...Just don't make that choice for me or others.

In any event...
Bans , restrictions and the like infringe upon the Right to keep and bear Arms....something that is specifically spelled out as to not happen...yet it does...frequently.
I am not in favor of those who espouse the idea and actions of infringement.

Please note that the above is not aimed ( pun intended ) at anyone in particular.
It was just stated as something to consider.
Andy

 

[Yarome]

It's also important to note that, while an AR with a 10rnd mag may still "appear" to be effective in many situations, if it actually came to some type of insurrection or defense of country, it's still far outgunned as a mere semi-auto and a 30rnd mag. Modern day enemeis, of if you will, government agencies and military all pack standard capacity mag select fires.

Also forgetting that there is no guarantee, in a defense situation, that you will be facing off with only 1 attacker and likely no hope whatsoever that their AR style weapon is going to be limited to 10rnds, too.

Infringments aside.... the arguement, "an AR with 10rnds is more than you'll ever need, anyway" BS doesn't wash with me. Just as we saw recently with a man defending his home facing 3 assailants with mere hanguns all firing at him at once.. it's arguable who was outgunning who.. even with an 30rnd equipped AR.

That's simply a "pro-2A-buttttt" argument allowing government to baby step our rights backwards. Unacceptable!

 

[RX-79G]

It's also important to note that, while an AR with a 10rnd mag may still "appear" to be effective in many situations, if it actually came to some type of insurrection or defense of country, it's still far outgunned as a mere semi-auto and a 30rnd mag. Modern day enemeis, of if you will, government agencies and military all pack standard capacity mag select fires.

Also forgetting that there is no guarantee, in a defense situation, that you will be facing off with only 1 attacker and likely no hope whatsoever that their AR style weapon is going to be limited to 10rnds, too.

Infringments aside.... the arguement, "an AR with 10rnds is more than you'll ever need, anyway" BS doesn't wash with me. Just as we saw recently with a man defending his home facing 3 assailants with mere hanguns all firing at him at once.. it's arguable who was outgunning who.. even with an 30rnd equipped AR.

That's simply a "pro-2A-buttttt" argument allowing government to baby step our rights backwards. Unacceptable!

I agree that an individual with a 10 round mag against multiple attackers or a single attacker with a 30 round mag is at a disadvantage. For those rare events, it would be unfortunate to run out of ammo. But people still arm themselves with revolvers, 1911s and shotguns as if capacity isn't ultimately important to their self defense calculus.

I do not agree that the armed US civilian population is at a disadvantage compared to any infantry on earth. We have shear numbers on our side. Arm 100,000,000 people with flintlocks and they still would give any government pause. IMHO.


It will be interesting to see what sort of 'magazine of magazines" mechanisms come out that automatically swaps mags for you. Or if the AR version of the NY reload catches on.

 

[Yarome]

I do not agree that the armed US civilian population is at a disadvantage compared to any infantry on earth. We have shear numbers on our side. Arm 100,000,000 people with flintlocks and they still would give any government pause. IMHO.

That line of thinking though doesn't take into account any logistics or organization requirements for a civilian militia to mobilize in sufficient number and mount such an effort. It would be threadbare at best and not a reasonable argument, IMHO. Also considering the grossly heavy loss of life in a confrontation like that, how many times exactly would it even be possible to do so in a prolong confrontation?

Just as saying that mobilizing 100k people with knives to a slaughter would give any government pause. Would it? Probably/maybe(?) Is it "reasonable" that 100k people could be convinced and organized to confront even a vastly smaller group of government forces equipped with armor and select fire assault rifles? Maybe when donkey's fly....

Completely ignoring the fact that we (civilians) are already at a very distinct disadvantage. Without a reasonable level of risk and some reasonable expectation of "some" success, civilians could never be prompted to attempt resistance. It's therefore, not a reasonable deterrent against tyranny. Giving up even more of our ability to resist is not the answer.

 

[billdeserthills]

I don't think it should be so shocking that AR15s (what people think of when they hear AW now days) don't have a lot of popular support. It isn't like anyone actually believes that Americans with 10 round semiautos are de-fanged, so even the people that are pro-AW ban might not see themselves as creating an environment that would lead to tyranny. A populace with nothing but Garands and Mini-14s with 10 round mags would still be incredibly dangerous to any power.


With 2 months left to buy 10+ round before the WA ban went in, my wife asked me if I wanted any gun affected by the ban. I bid on a MAB PA-15, considered some plastic pistols, then gave up. Nothing really appealed. I bought some surplus M9 magazines. I have 20+ mags for my HK and six AR mags if I ever bother with a STANAG rifle again.

I don't support the ban on AWs, but I already lived through the 1994 ban, and it didn't affect me, and the AW ban won't affect the ability to resist the government in a meaningful way. So I'm having a hard time worrying about it. I think it is more important to be able to CC than C-Mag.

How about the cheapest AR-15 I've seen lately?

BC-15 .223 Wylde Rifle 16” Parkerized M4 Barrel 1:8 Twist Carbine Length Gas System 15” MLOK No Magazine - $349.99

SKU CR613N-223WCM41618P-15M3 Weight 6.600000 Magazine Capacity

gun.deals

 

[RX-79G]

That line of thinking though doesn't take into account any logistics or organization requirements for a civilian militia to mobilize in sufficient number and mount such an effort. It would be threadbare at best and not a reasonable argument, IMHO. Also considering the grossly heavy loss of life in a confrontation like that, how many times exactly would it even be possible to do so in a prolong confrontation?

Just as saying that mobilizing 100k people with knives to a slaughter would give any government pause. Would it? Probably/maybe(?) Is it "reasonable" that 100k people could be convinced and organized to confront even a vastly smaller group of government forces equipped with armor and select fire assault rifles? Maybe when donkey's fly....

Completely ignoring the fact that we (civilians) are already at a very distinct disadvantage. Without a reasonable level of risk and some reasonable expectation of "some" success, civilians could never be prompted to attempt resistance. It's therefore, not a reasonable deterrent against tyranny. Giving up even more of our ability to resist is not the answer.

I don't think that's really how it would work. An armed populace doesn't fight military battles - it prevents an occupying force from assuming power. When they come to arrest a local leader, the secret police are met by a larger group of armed citizens. If they try to close a road, armed citizens re-open the road, guard warehouses, keep the power plants running, etc.

The point of an armed populace is to make them uncontrollable by coercion, not make them unstoppable in an all out battle. If someone wants to kill everyone in a country, there are weapons that will do that. But countries aren't just large plots of (irradiated) real estate; they are the economic output of a culture. Occupiers want that culture largely intact to enact their plans on - otherwise there wasn't much point in taking over.

So while there would be some battles, the armed resistance largely functions as a deterrent to trying to take and hold power from an unwilling populace. There would never be enough loyal police or soldiers to maintain control when they keep getting sprayed or sniped by any farmer, accountant or gang member who sees the way the vast majority of citizens prefer to live. Pretty much the same problem the English had with us, but also with India who did it without arms.

 

[RX-79G]

How about the cheapest AR-15 I've seen lately?

BC-15 .223 Wylde Rifle 16” Parkerized M4 Barrel 1:8 Twist Carbine Length Gas System 15” MLOK No Magazine - $349.99

SKU CR613N-223WCM41618P-15M3 Weight 6.600000 Magazine Capacity

gun.deals

Wow! That is cheap!

You got me thinking...

 

[RX-79G]

I was curious how they were defining things this time around: Unlike in 1994, no pistol grips. And that includes thumbholes and Thordsen grips.

Also, the ban is on mags greater than 15 rounds, rather than 10. That was a shock.

Text - H.R.1808 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Assault Weapons Ban of 2022

Text for H.R.1808 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Assault Weapons Ban of 2022

www.congress.gov

It's like 1994 Bill Ruger wrote it.

 

[Yarome]

The point of an armed populace is to make them uncontrollable by coercion...

....trying to take and hold power from an unwilling populace.

Looking at it from a different perspective. If there is no plan for coercion or attempts to hold power over an unwlling populace then there should be no fear or attempts to control what type of weapon a citizen owns or how many seeds it's able to throw between reloads.

It has nothing to do with public safety. To the contrary, it diminishes the publics ability to defend itself and there are NO gun control laws that will effectively impact the criminal elements in our society.

Proven... pure and simple.

Law abiding citizens giving up rights only impacts the ability of the government to "take and hold power from an unwilling populace." Gradual and more easily digestable errosion of our right or broad sweeping laws makes no difference. We must resist.

 

[RX-79G]

Looking at it from a different perspective. If there is no plan for coercion or attempts to hold power over an unwlling populace then there should be no fear or attempts to control what type of weapon a citizen owns or how many seeds it's able to throw between reloads.

It has nothing to do with public safety. To the contrary, it diminishes the publics ability to defend itself and there are NO gun control laws that will effectively impact the criminal elements in our society.

Proven... pure and simple.

Law abiding citizens giving up rights only impacts the ability of the government to "take and hold power from an unwilling populace." Gradual and more easily digestable errosion of our right or broad sweeping laws makes no difference. We must resist.

Unless there is another factor to account for besides attempting tyranny. It doesn't matter if it will be effective in preventing some mass murders, what matters is if the people passing and supporting the ban believe it will be effective. If they believe it, then it pretty much disproves that their actions are a prelude to tyranny.


What's proven?