New Anti Assault Weapons Poll Results

[eldbillbo]

It really depends on who voted. If we were to hold that vote here I bet it would be really different. I remember when Obama quoted a poll the poll that was in favor of gun control it was taken at a liberal college. About that time another poll was taken by Gallop which is a poll that has been around for a very long time and it said the total opposite. If you take a poll where you know the poll taker will get the results they want then you are not getting an accurate count.,

Now my question is if my AR15 prevents an assault doesn't that make it an Anti-Assault Weapon?

 

[RX-79G]

In my opinion, the 1989 and 1994 ban lead directly to the popularity of the modified AR15 mix and match, low cost US assembled surplus parts guns and (most importantly) concealed carry passage. If the new ban passes the Senate (it won't), it will be interesting to see what firearms trends emerge.

 

[Yarome]

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?

Just because a number of people believe something that lacks any foundation does not in any way give them any right to impose their beliefs on others or strip away inalienable rights of those that don't agree with them. Nor does it give them any right to openly defy the constitution by any means possible.

I seem to recall a time when the general belief was that blacks where inferior... and Jews where a plague to the human race.

What's proven? The statement just previous, of course. "...there are NO gun control laws that will effectively impact the criminal elements in our society."

 

[RX-79G]

Just because a number of people believe something that lacks any foundation does not in any way give them any right to impose their beliefs on others or strip away inalienable rights of those that don't agree with them.

I didn't say it did.

I seem to recall a time when the general belief was that blacks where inferior... and Jews where a plague to the human race.

Not relevant. You said that passing gun control indicates an attempt to enact a tyranny. I pointed out that someone who believes they are acting for other reasons disproves your assertion. It doesn't matter if they are mistaken in their belief, as I said. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

What's proven? The statement just previous, of course.

Ah - gotcha. I misunderstood the way you had the paragraphs separated.

 

[Yarome]

Not relevant. You said that passing gun control indicates an attempt to enact a tyranny. I pointed out that someone who believes they are acting for other reasons disproves your assertion. It doesn't matter if they are mistaken in their belief, as I said. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

It's relevant in the respect that a prevalent belief doesn't make it true or correct to impose on others.

In my book, stripping, limiting, infringing on inalieable rights or freedoms IS a form a tyranny. History tells us that. Doing it slowly in bite size portions doesn't change the fact that they are acts to increase power over the population and force conformity to their version of political will. I didn't mean it to sound as if I was referring to some future potential and readily evident event. Ie., Freedom ends today!!

The erosion of the power of the people is currently in progress. That should be evident when many politicians feel it perfectly acceptable to defy the currently standing law of the land.

 

[RX-79G]

The erosion of the power of the people is currently in progress. That should be evident when many politicians feel it perfectly acceptable to defy the currently standing law of the land.

I guess it depends which standing laws you like and which ones you're happy to have SCOTUS or Congress discard. Personally, I'm not to keen on the erosion of liberty imposed by the right or the left.

 

[Yarome]

I guess it depends which standing laws you like and which ones you're happy to have SCOTUS or Congress discard. Personally, I'm not to keen on the erosion of liberty imposed by the right or the left.

Changing the laws of the land is always an option of the people. Ignoring them is not. Government's power is bestowed by the people, which is what they have seemed to have forgotten.. and by definition... tyranny.

The fact that many don't recognize that tyranny is currently in progress just goes to show... their plan is working!

Beyond just the most obvious, like openly defying SCOTUS, in some cases we see governement bodies throwing out the principles of innocent until proven guilty in the form of red flag laws. We see private and lawful industries and enterprises being attacked by the government, not based on law, but by abuse of executive power. We see criminal activities of the "elite" protected. We see politicians being influenced by hostile governments for personal gain. We see taxpayer $'s and vital U.S. resources being routed to those same nations while the crisis in our own country expands.

And... of course... the abuse of taxpayer $'s to erode our rights for political gain.

Not cool!

 

[RX-79G]

Changing the laws of the land is always an option of the people. Ignoring them is not. Government's power is bestowed by the people, which is what they have seemed to have forgotten.. and by definition... tyranny.

The fact that many don't recognize that tyranny is currently in progress just goes to show... their plan is working!

Beyond just the most obvious, like openly defying SCOTUS, in some cases we see governement bodies throwing out the principles of innocent until proven guilty in the form of red flag laws. We see private and lawful industries and enterprises being attacked by the government, not based on law, but by abuse of executive power. We see criminal activities of the "elite" protected. We see politicians being influenced by hostile governments for personal gain. We see taxpayer $'s and vital U.S. resources being routed to those same nations while the crisis in our own country expands.

And... of course... the abuse of taxpayer $'s to erode our rights for political gain.

Not cool!

The way I see it, we have fought off every other means of retarding the wave of young men intent on public suicide via mass violence, and the left has gone with the most obvious means to combat it since we won't agree to allow any other less drastic measure - like red flags.

Something was going to give, and the right doesn't compromise in any way. So that's where we are left.

 

[Yarome]

The way I see it, we have fought off every other means of retarding the wave of young men intent on public suicide via mass violence, and the left has gone with the most obvious means to combat it since we won't agree to allow any other less drastic measure - like red flags.

Something was going to give, and the right doesn't compromise in any way. So that's where we are left.

How exactly does an AWB combat it? That's the whole point. It doesn't. It's simply Infringement without merit. The "less drastic" and "most obvious" would be to crack down on crime, harden schools, fund police, strengthen our borders to limit illegal firearms and limit the drug influx (contributing factor to pubic health).

So the way I see it... the left doesn't want to take any reasonable measures and fights the right over and over against meaningful changes that "would" help. Instead, they come up with something that tramples on the constitution for political clout within their own party, but ultimately, makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to address the problem.

Obviously, "guilty until proven innocent" (red flag laws) are going to meet resistance. It goes against the core values of our country. We already have laws and processes that would/could intervene and limit troubled individuals from possessing a firearm, but... we have to USE and expand them. Let's look at those before we start seizing property without due process.

 

[Yarome]

Something was going to give, and the right doesn't compromise in any way. So that's where we are left.

I guess I should add... it seems you are suggesting that inalienables right should be negotiable? Like freedom? The pursuit of happiness? Free speech?

Yeah. That just isn't going to happen and it's foolish to expect the right to make any comprimises... no matter how much the left would prefer the right to shat all over them.

 

[RX-79G]

I guess I should add... it seems you are suggesting that inalienables right should be negotiable? Like freedom? The pursuit of happiness? Free speech?

Yeah. That just isn't going to happen and it's foolish to expect the right to make any comprimises... no matter how much the left would prefer the right to shat all over them.

All the Rights in the BoR are and have always have been regulated. The modern interpretation of the 2nd is that it is about firearms, but the language includes everything from a nightstick to a neutron bomb. We all accept that it would be bad for the public to have access to nerve gas, so we pretend that isn't an "infringement", just as we talk about Free Speech as if there isn't things like perjury, defamation and nondisclosure.

Currently the gun lobby lives in this pretend space where rights are total, looking the other way whenever an armed man is disarmed when arrested. Like so many things, it is the dissonance we choose to live in. It isn't logical. It's all compromise, and your line in the sand is arbitrary.

 

[RX-79G]

How exactly does an AWB combat it? That's the whole point. It doesn't.

I didn't say that it does. But other people believe that it might, and since they can't get support for less straightforward concepts like a total redefinition of mental health because that would constitute another "infringement" that the right would neither condone nor pay for, we have the stupid version which is easier to get public support for - and costs nothing in taxes. It doesn't matter if it won't work, just that someone is doing something about a problem that alarms Americans.

The right has had many, many opportunities to own and steer the narrative over the last 40 years, but has chosen to not participate. (With the odd exception of CC, which is an infringement that gun advocates happily engaged in.)

 

[Yarome]

Currently the gun lobby lives in this pretend space where rights are total, looking the other way whenever an armed man is disarmed when arrested. Like so many things, it is the dissonance we choose to live in. It isn't logical. It's all compromise, and your line in the sand is arbitrary.

IMO, That's not at all accurate. The law of the land is defined by the SCOTUS. It's called the "law of the land" for a reason and is not open to outside interpretations. That's what SCOTUS is for and they have been extremely clear on the matter.

It is in no way arbitrary, clearly defined and upheld multiple times over decades. Thinking that our rights are negotiable and arbitrary is the fallacy and living in a "pretend space".

The laws "may'" be changed, but they can not be arbitrarily negotiated away based on lesser courts or special interest groups "feelings of the moment".

 

[Yarome]

- and costs nothing in taxes. It doesn't matter if it won't work, just that someone is doing something about a problem that alarms Americans.

The right has had many, many opportunities to own and steer the narrative over the last 40 years, but has chosen to not participate. (With the odd exception of CC, which is an infringement that gun advocates happily engaged in.)

You honestly believe that no taxes have been spent on the entire proceedings surrounding the AWB? 10's of 1000's of manhours, salaries, times in debate, travel expenses, court fees, media coverages, etc etc.... well into the multi millions (no doubt) and all for a measure that is utterly meaningless outside of political clout within their own party.

"Someone is doing something about a problem".... that will do absolutely nothing to actually impact the problem. Hmmmm.. that makes such great sense!

The expenditure of taxpayer $'s simply for personal gain in their bids for re-election is utterly disgusting.

I won't get into a left vs. right political debate though. That's too far off topic and against forum rules even for me.

You are welcome to your opinion, but "I" certainly won't abide or excuse 2A infringements.

~I'm out.

 

[daved20319]

At the end of the day, a person who is adequately armed and steadfast in their commitment to the principles of American liberty, can only be reasoned with. They cannot be forced.

There's some people who don't like that obstacle and a lot of other people who are their useful idiots.

This sort of comment puts me in mind of a poster that hung in our shop space back in my Navy days. It showed a rather small mouse flipping off a very large eagle that was just about to crush it in its talons. The caption read "The Last Great Act of Defiance". I don't care how steadfast or well armed you may think you are, if you really believe that's going to prevent that eagle from crushing you, you're either stupid or delusional, or both.

Accept the reality or not, but gun owners make up a rather small minority of the American people, and the majority is getting tired of being bullied and held hostage by that minority. The 2nd Amendment is NOT a "God given right", it was written by men, men that couldn't possibly imagine the world we live in today. bubblegum and moan about it all you want, but eventually that majority will exercise its political will, and your "God given right" will become just another privilege of living in a civilized society, same as owning a car, and with similar limits and requirements. The United States is one of only 3 countries that includes the right to own firearms in its Constitution, and trust me, the other two aren't what most would consider good company. Later.

Dave

 

[Yarome]

Accept the reality or not, but gun owners make up a rather small minority of the American people, and the majority is getting tired of being bullied and held hostage by that minority. The 2nd Amendment is NOT a "God given right",

Conservative estimate.... 30-40% of housefholds with a firearm is not in any way a "small minority".

No one is holding anyone hostage by gunpoint or bullying anyone in any way. Those that comprise those stats are also the law abiding types that have legally purchased fireams (That's how they ended up included in those stats in the first place) They aren't out shooting up schools, robbing banks, or carjacking little old grandma's. Why fear them? They may one day save your life or someone you love.

It's also not any "majority's" right to impose their own set of values on anyone else. If anything, it is our national culture and practice to protect minorities rights to exercise their beliefs and values without fear of reprisal.

You are correct though. The 2A is NOT a "God given right". It simply protects it.

 

[RX-79G]

IMO, That's not at all accurate. The law of the land is defined by the SCOTUS. It's called the "law of the land" for a reason and is not open to outside interpretations. That's what SCOTUS is for and they have been extremely clear on the matter.

It is in no way arbitrary, clearly defined and upheld multiple times over decades. Thinking that our rights are negotiable and arbitrary is the fallacy and living in a "pretend space".

The laws "may'" be changed, but they can not be arbitrarily negotiated away based on lesser courts or special interest groups "feelings of the moment".

This article suggests that SCOTUS is not interested in showing that any law contrary to "uninfringeable" 2A interpretation is illegal:

Supreme Court decides not to hear big gun-rights cases, dealing blow to Second Amendment activists

The Supreme Court said it will not hear appeals of a slew of cases involving gun laws, dealing a loss to Second Amendment activists who want to expand the rights of gun owners.

www.cnbc.com

Probably for the reasons I already stated: Actual judges, even very conservative ones, do not agree with the absolutist interpretation.

 

[ma96782]

*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.

Yup.....


Aloha, Mark

PS....and for me that same LOGIC (about choosing). Also, applies to how I choose to store my guns in my home.

 

[ma96782]

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.

"Tiananmen Square."

An example of.....when only the Govt is allowed to have guns.

WAIT, Wait, wait.......according to THE OFFICIAL NEWS.......

Aloha, Mark

 

[ma96782]

This sort of comment puts me in mind of a poster that hung in our shop space back in my Navy days. It showed a rather small mouse flipping off a very large eagle that was just about to crush it in its talons. The caption read "The Last Great Act of Defiance". I don't care how steadfast or well armed you may think you are, if you really believe that's going to prevent that eagle from crushing you, you're either stupid or delusional, or both.

And then.......I was reminded (of the recent History) of VN and Afghanistan.

Aloha, Mark