Exactly, and given that the poll was conducted right after the Orlando attack and in the wake of wide spread vitriol from the media about gun owners it would be surprising if many gun owners didn't answer to imply they did not have guns.
Brian
As I always point out in these kind of threads, this data is all voluntary (and of course, subject to how the pollsters have designed their questions and picked who to poll.)
Gun owners don't HAVE to truthfully answer yes. Some might simply not respond, or lie.
Shall not be infringed doesn't mean not regulated....
I own some firearms so don't come at me with the usual uninformed fearful of firearms line of attack...
___________
This is overall good news though. As gun owners continue to decline their outsized influence will eventually diminish. Then we can implement common sense gun restrictions that have been blocked for years.
It's only a matter of time until we win on this matter, it's just a shame that so many people will die needlessly before it happens.
This is overall good news though. As gun owners continue to decline their outsized influence will eventually diminish. Then we can implement common sense gun restrictions that have been blocked for years.
It's only a matter of time until we win on this matter, it's just a shame that so many people will die needlessly before it happens.
And what would those restrictions be? I would SERIOUSLY love to see a list of plausible changes that would be in the spirit of the second amendment (and the various precedents set) and would also prevent a good number of these attacks (as well as details on how it would NOT diminish the positive effects of regular lawful citizens using guns for defense.)
Meanwhile, I'll be seriously thinking about an NRA membership finally...
Then we can implement common sense gun restrictions that have been blocked for years.
What do you think are some "sense gun restrictions"?
.
Universal background checks, mental health screening, mandatory safety training, limits on clip/magazine sizes to name a few.
What do you think the spirit of the second amendment is and are you claiming that gun ownership is a net positive for the average citizen in terms of defense/safety?
I am concerned with gun violence generally, not mass shootings.
As long as it is not used as a backdoor registration and no LEO or FFL license involvement. If it a private sale it should be private. No fees and the seller can run the background check himself. No information about the firearm required it is a background check on the buyer not the firearm.Universal background checks,
mental health screening,
mandatory safety training,
limits on clip/magazine sizes to name a few.
There you go again making shit up! You can't argue on the merits so you make up your own argument.
Congrats, you've now buckshatted this thread!
I'm not making things up, the clear implication of your earlier statements is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is primarily or solely to allow states to keep militias. If that's not what you meant I'll gladly revise in light of clarification from you. Either way, so as to not "put words in your mouth" let me just ask you some simple questions to illustrate your POV a bit more.
1. Is the 2nd Amendment intended to provide an individual or collective right to bear arms?
2. If collective, was the intent to allow prohibitions on bearing arms unless the person was serving in capacity of a militia? (Y/N)
3. If yes to 2, was the restriction intended to only cover members of the militia when acting to defend the state and no other times? (Y/N)
4. If yes to #2 and 3, doesn't this conflict with the near universal ownership of firearms that was the reality of life when the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified?
I'm not sure why you think the right of states to have an armed militia means that no one else is allowed to own guns. The constitution also says Congress has the right to levy taxes, by your logic that means states aren't allowed to levy taxes. The difference, of course, is that the ability of states to tax isn't guaranteed just like the ability of individuals who are not apart of state militias aren't guaranteed the right right to own a gun.
And you reconcile the 14th Amendment problem with that interpretation how exactly since requiring militia membership as a prerequisite to own guns inherently denies equal treatment? Maybe we should start requiring militia membership to exercise other rights, like to vote.
Finally, some ideas to to chew on.
As long as it is not used as a backdoor registration and no LEO or FFL license involvement. If it a private sale it should be private. No fees and the seller can run the background check himself. No information about the firearm required it is a background check on the buyer not the firearm.
The way CA is using its registration list in order to remove or cause to be removed previously approved registered firearms is wrong.
This would require a set of guidelines I am not qualified to speak too. But, I would not oppose and would most likely support depending on the details.
Training not testing. No issue with me.
I don't like this one.
Other Notes:
Also, It would have to be a "fixed" law. No committee no law or congressional bill would be allowed to modify it at a later date.
CA has committee'd the "Safe Gun Law" into a de-facto ban on new semi-auto pistols.
CA to me is a prime example on how to "boil a frog".
.
for the pro gunners: Whats the solution to ending gun violence in america?
There is no such thing as a fixed law, that would be constitutionally impossible.
Don't try. The loss of rights to the law-abiding doesn't outweigh the theoretical gain of lowered violence. Gang members will kill each other no matter what gun control laws you pass, and mass casualty events like Orlando will continue to happen no matter what gun control laws you pass.
The overwhelming majority of gun control laws now being considered are either (A) pointless security theater akin to TSA checkpoints (restrictions on AR-15 like weapons), (B) unconstitutional violations of due process and other rights ("no fly no buy" list) or (C) sound good in theory but do little to solve the supposed issue (e.g. "universal" background checks).
If you want to do something that would actually be helpful WRT gun violence, then the stuff that I listed in my post 21 would be a good start but thats premised on taking measures that are focused on the actual sources of gun violence. But I doubt theyll be taken up because we need to keep up the charade that everyone is equally capable of gun violence so that its not self-evident that were admitting that urban poor are the overwhelming majority of gun violence perpetrators. But we cant do that because it would seem racist so we gotta keep passing laws that do more to prevent the infinitesimal risk that some neurosurgeon from Kansas will purchase a 30 round magazine to shoot up a disco somewhere, rather than focus on the .25 pistol with low capacity magazine that drug dealers actually prefer for cost and size reasons to kill their rivals.
Hell, I'm largely OK with a license to own a firearm...but then there's stuff like i594 in my state - if I'm going out of town and want my father in law to hold my gun for me safely, can't do it without a background check. Even if it's for 3 weeks. If I want to show him my gun in my own home, can't do it. If I want my friend to try fixing an issue I can't figure out, can't do it. Etc.
New FBI figures show June 2016 is the 14th consecutive month of record background checks for gun sales.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/05/fbi-june-14th-month-record-bg-checks/
In the case of leaving your firearm with your father for safe keeping I'd suggest that the law should be changed so that if you leave it in a small safe that meets a minimum standard (in terms of materials, difficulty in bypassing the lock and such) in his possession it would be fine as long as you leave no keys or the combination with him.
If he actually has taken gun safety classes and has his own firearms and safe then he should be allowed to hold it for you without you providing a safe or method of locking it.
Depending on the firearm. You should be able to leave most of it with him while keeping a piece that it cannot function without in your car trunk or in checked baggage for your trip
As for you not being able to show him a firearm (where you as a knowledgeable responsible owner) under proper supervision (assuming he is untrained) in a private residence is weird and unexpected.
___________________