Gallup poll: Americans Back Obama's Proposals to Address Gun Violence

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2013 5:23 PM GMT
    xih4azwyiu-8ea8zcvrlbw.gif

    gbzvay5a-ekzzwg9uureyw.gif
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Jan 24, 2013 8:27 PM GMT
    Looks like large areas of agreement, and a majority for - and no guns taken away!

    As a former shooter (eyes now too bad to shoot) and a third (at least!) generation gun-owner, these all seems like very reasonable proposals. Given time, they will make a difference.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2013 9:18 PM GMT
    I don't think I want a civil right taken away by "popular demand". We have a process for amending the constitution.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2013 10:13 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidI don't think I want a civil right taken away by "popular demand". We have a process for amending the constitution.


    The first 6 items on the list have nothing to do with any civil rights being taken away. And I hate to quote Scalia again on how the 2nd Amendment doesn't preclude regulations on weapons (which applies to the last 3 proposals).

    Are you saying you disagree with the first 6 (and most popular) proposals?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2013 11:46 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    Blakes7 saidI don't think I want a civil right taken away by "popular demand". We have a process for amending the constitution.


    The first 6 items on the list have nothing to do with any civil rights being taken away. And I hate to quote Scalia again on how the 2nd Amendment doesn't preclude regulations on weapons (which applies to the last 3 proposals).

    Are you saying you disagree with the first 6 (and most popular) proposals?



    You missed my point. I believe, as do many others, that the current bills and ultimate goal of the left are steps in an incremental process to regulate the 2nd amendment virtually impossible to enjoy. We have many laws on the books now, which probably can and do need changes and improvements, as do all laws and procedures. The problem is politicians on the left speak in a code. Calling a proposal "common sense" immediately assigns credibility whether it actually is what regular people know as common sense or not. It's a trick. Again, remember my premise, the incremental usurping of rights. When someone commits a crime with an allowed gun, with an allowed magazine, then it'll be time to ban those, too. Soon very little or nothing is left. Then they'll ban swords. Soon you'll need ID to buy a length of pipe and two caps at Home Depot, because you might be making a bomb.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2013 11:49 PM GMT
    yourname2000 saidIt's great to see America finally changing, seeing the pendulum swing back from the corpocracy the GOP has been creating for the last 30 years back to the America I grew up with. Watching all these geriatric fools who think gay marriage will have people marrying their pets, or that the 2nd ammendment would actually help them defend themselves against their own government (laughable!!! icon_lol.gif ) --watching these uneducated bitter old men die off, their ideas fading to a whimper....it's just a beautiful thing. icon_biggrin.gif

    In 20 years most of these people will be dead. Their hopes and dreams for a rightwing, gun-toting, Christian theocracy dead with them. You can almost smell the desperation, lol.



    Why do you HATE America so much? If I'm right about this, you ARE free to leave. Although I don't think you would be safer anywhere else in the world as a gay man.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2013 11:50 PM GMT
    I'd rather see the govt spend $4billion of govt money to keep BAD police OFF the streets.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2013 11:52 PM GMT
    I'd also like to see a bill that allows otherwise-law-abiding citizens to use deadly force against rogue police officers.

    It really sucks that you can't legally defend yourself against a cop gone bad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2013 11:53 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    Blakes7 saidI don't think I want a civil right taken away by "popular demand". We have a process for amending the constitution.




    Are you saying you disagree with the first 6 (and most popular) proposals?


    Many of these already exist, and many are lofty generalities. The devil will be in the details when/if bills and regulations are introduced. You could write on that list "world peace", and everyone would want that, but how it is defined and attempted is another matter entirely.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 24, 2013 11:56 PM GMT
    paulflexes saidI'd also like to see a bill that allows otherwise-law-abiding citizens to use deadly force against rogue police officers.

    It really sucks that you can't legally defend yourself against a cop gone bad.


    You make it sound like there's a modern day nationwide Holocaust by police departments.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2013 12:11 AM GMT
    So now I'm dying and a canadian? You're a pompous, arrogant fool. And don't forget President Clinton and President Obama (12 of those years ), as well as democrats controlling one or both houses of congress for decades, interspersed with republicans every once in a while.
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Jan 25, 2013 1:28 AM GMT
    Blakes7 said
    q1w2e3 said
    Blakes7 saidI don't think I want a civil right taken away by "popular demand". We have a process for amending the constitution.


    The first 6 items on the list have nothing to do with any civil rights being taken away. And I hate to quote Scalia again on how the 2nd Amendment doesn't preclude regulations on weapons (which applies to the last 3 proposals).

    Are you saying you disagree with the first 6 (and most popular) proposals?



    You missed my point. I believe, as do many others, that the current bills and ultimate goal of the left are steps in an incremental process to regulate the 2nd amendment virtually impossible to enjoy. We have many laws on the books now, which probably can and do need changes and improvements, as do all laws and procedures. The problem is politicians on the left speak in a code. Calling a proposal "common sense" immediately assigns credibility whether it actually is what regular people know as common sense or not. It's a trick. Again, remember my premise, the incremental usurping of rights. When someone commits a crime with an allowed gun, with an allowed magazine, then it'll be time to ban those, too. Soon very little or nothing is left. Then they'll ban swords. Soon you'll need ID to buy a length of pipe and two caps at Home Depot, because you might be making a bomb.


    All of us talk in "codes". But when most of us speak of "common sense" we mean just that: that there is no need for certain kinds of weapons, that certain classes of people should not have guns, that there are too many loopholes, etc

    No trick, though I think Feingold's proposed law is too broad. No trick - we evolve, change laws, add new ones - in short, meet needs creatively and sensibly (one hopes) as the arise. And gun violence is a real problem - what do you propose?

    Politicians on the right don't speak in code words? "Family values"? "Traditional marriage"? etc.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2013 2:05 AM GMT
    Blakes7 said
    q1w2e3 said
    Blakes7 saidI don't think I want a civil right taken away by "popular demand". We have a process for amending the constitution.




    Are you saying you disagree with the first 6 (and most popular) proposals?


    Many of these already exist, and many are lofty generalities. The devil will be in the details when/if bills and regulations are introduced. You could write on that list "world peace", and everyone would want that, but how it is defined and attempted is another matter entirely.

    Correct. And the NRA is working hard to revoke background checks in Michigan and stop introduction of them in Virginia.

    And there's the little loophole called gunshows.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2013 2:08 AM GMT
    tazzari said
    Blakes7 said
    q1w2e3 said
    Blakes7 saidI don't think I want a civil right taken away by "popular demand". We have a process for amending the constitution.


    The first 6 items on the list have nothing to do with any civil rights being taken away. And I hate to quote Scalia again on how the 2nd Amendment doesn't preclude regulations on weapons (which applies to the last 3 proposals).

    Are you saying you disagree with the first 6 (and most popular) proposals?



    You missed my point. I believe, as do many others, that the current bills and ultimate goal of the left are steps in an incremental process to regulate the 2nd amendment virtually impossible to enjoy. We have many laws on the books now, which probably can and do need changes and improvements, as do all laws and procedures. The problem is politicians on the left speak in a code. Calling a proposal "common sense" immediately assigns credibility whether it actually is what regular people know as common sense or not. It's a trick. Again, remember my premise, the incremental usurping of rights. When someone commits a crime with an allowed gun, with an allowed magazine, then it'll be time to ban those, too. Soon very little or nothing is left. Then they'll ban swords. Soon you'll need ID to buy a length of pipe and two caps at Home Depot, because you might be making a bomb.


    All of us talk in "codes". But when most of us speak of "common sense" we mean just that: that there is no need for certain kinds of weapons, that certain classes of people should not have guns, that there are too many loopholes, etc

    No trick, though I think Feingold's proposed law is too broad. No trick - we evolve, change laws, add new ones - in short, meet needs creatively and sensibly (one hopes) as the arise. And gun violence is a real problem - what do you propose?

    Politicians on the right don't speak in code words? "Family values"? "Traditional marriage"? etc.


    And speaking of usurping of rights on code words--abortion as a right guaranteed by Roe vs Wade has been so overregulated so that it no longer becomes feasible in certain parts of the country. "Safety" of abortion clinics is translated into expensive unnecessary regulations introduced to eliminate abortion clinics.

    Background checks for guns != hospital-grade elevators for abortion clinics
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2013 3:35 AM GMT
    You obviously believe in a civil right to abortion. I've never seen it in the constitution. I have seen a right to bear arms, though. We must agree to disagree. I respect you for having a civil and intelligent conversation.

    You are icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2013 4:44 AM GMT
    Blakes7 said
    You are icon_cool.gif


    Well, I would say the same for you, if you refrain from using the formula "liberal [perjorative noun]" in most of your posts. Just say something else. icon_lol.gif