That's a fair point (the timing of it), though sample size of 1500 is sufficient for a margin of error of 2-3%. What do you think it would be now? I still wouldn't call it fringe, unless you think the support has dwindled below 10% since then. Unpopular, perhaps, but not fringe.
I think true support for banning all semi-automatic weapons is likely closer to 25%. Semi-automatic handguns are by far the most popular weapon in the US, I just don't believe that you'd have that many people in support of banning them even if you somehow thought that kind of thing should be okay under the 2nd amendment. If a candidate for president ran on banning all semi-automatic weapons, their race would be doomed. It's just not something Americans would stand for.
sure but you are allowed to own a gun if you really really want it. My boyfriend wants to own a gun. To my complete disagreement and prohibition. But if he wants to own a gun (which btw can only be a handgun) he must go through real hoops to get one and it really serves no purpose. He must go see a psychiatrist get training and also he can't just go buy bullets online. And the local police station will always know that he owns a gun and his adress. He can't though CARRY the gun outside of the house wihtout going to the judge and give a pretty good reason.(like he has received threats for his life). Women who live in such countries are not allowed to drive. Here if you really have a reason to, or you are a hunter, or you really really want one you are allowed to have one but to get one it's real trouble.
OK. A Rasmussen poll conducted 1 year after Sandy Hook also showed close to 60% in favor of a ban on semi-automatic and automatic weapons: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...r_assault_weapons_ban_18_want_handgun_ban_too However, I suspect the high figure is because the question lumps together semi-automatic and automatic weapons. Some might have voted yes with automatic weapons in mind, even though on more reflection they'd be against a total ban on all semi-automatic weapons.
It's just a different philosophy of government. Some think that the government should have all the power and the people should have to ask permission to do pretty much anything. Some think that more of the power should be with the people and the government should be the one having to ask permission in order to do things. I can understand both perspectives, it makes it a lot easier to provide security when you deny your people civil liberties. Some people value the illusion of security, some people prefer the freedom of having more liberty. There's no right or wrong answer and that's why I suggest those who don't have the same values that the system in America values to seek somewhere that better represents where they stand. I feel quite a few on the left would be happier if they lived in Europe, so I'd support them moving there to find that happiness.
The same poll only had 18% that wanted a handgun ban and I think that's closer to the number that would support banning semi-automatic handguns. Also that shows more of what I have been saying, that despite the rare instances of assault rifles used to commit murder, it still gets the majority of the attention which IMO is foolish.
for the record, i never called for a ban on semiautomatic weapons. its not practical or realistic. but to claim it is only supported by extremists and fringe kooks is pretty delusional and ignorant. clearly, americans are more and more turning in favor of stricter gun laws and people like you, the NRA and their republican puppets are losing ground...its only a matter of time.
Are you even paying attention to what you post? Every poll you just listed was talking about assault rifles, not a handgun ban, the one poll that talks about a handgun ban was 18% which is pretty much a fringe sample.
People here don't see it as a civil liberty because it was never one from the fundation of the modern state. They don't see it as a right to own gun but as priviledge which requires responsibillity and regulation. That's why I didn't vote in the poll because it's not my place to judge. Same as I find ridiculous for a american kid to get in trouble if he drinks alcohol at age 18 same way people from american culture find it ridiculous that I have to go to a judge if I want to carry a gun. Btw just to be clear...criminals who are in organised crime HAVE access to weapons including automatic weapons. Also terrorists. But the next door murderer or burglar doesn't. (the majority of homicides have been found to be commited by someone the victim knows). There is no reason to have security at a school in Europe that checks for weapons but a organised terrorist can just fine come and shoot you all the same. Gun control will not be able to protect you from such threats. But it can protect you much better, I suppose from a couple who radicalised itself on its own without being connected immediately with organised crime/terrorism because they won't have access to many weapons and none of army type automatic weapons and not be able to buy bullets of a large number and if they even try to on their own they will get caught. Gun control is by no means a panacea.
Granted but at one time in this country slavery was legal. At one time there were no laws against driving drunk, child abuse, building homes with lead paint, on and on and on. Laws change, are created or are removed as technology changes or as society's needs change. "You asked the question, sir, now let me answer it. The beauty of the Constitution is that it can always be changed. The beauty of the Constitution is that it makes no set law other than faith in the wisdom of ordinary people to govern." The right to bear arms is an antiquated law that has no place in modern society. In law you must always balance an individual's freedom with society's safety. You have the right to free speech but you cannot start yelling Fire in a crowded theater which might incite a stampede. Part of this balance is assessing the benefit of the current freedom and the detriment of removing it. This is where the car example fails. A car is a necessary freedom as the need and benefit to society is paramount. The need of a gun and the benefit is laughable in comparison. All of these polls you guys keep posting. These are just people's beliefs. The truth is no majority of people could honestly prove their life would be detrimentally effected by not owning a gun. ITS A WANT NOT A NEED. And ultimately that ownership creates more risk for bad FOR OTHERS then potential benefit for good for the owner. Thus it fails what has driven our legal decision making process for centuries. Period.
The difference of course is that things like slavery, driving drunk, child abuse, or building homes with lead paint were never constitutionally guaranteed. You cannot equate things that were tolerated to some extent with things that were actual protected rights. You say "The right to bear arms is an antiquated law that has no place in modern society." but I and the vast majority of the country disagree with your opinion on that. Maybe someone thinks the rights to vote, to not have soldiers quartered in your home, the right to free speech, or the right to a speedy and public trial are nothing but antiquated ideas that have no place in modern society....I'd be against them too.
The right to free speech is constantly put to legal scrutiny as I pointed out. However because that is a fundamental need that removing would cause a greater detriment to the speaker than protection to the public it will never be nor should be eliminated. Again the right to bear arms fails the balancing test miserably. You can't compare it to the rights you mentioned because the benefit of owning a gun cannot compare to the benefit of free speech, trial, etc. And then of course the risk to the general public of speech, trial, etc is in no comparison to a gun. Laws change as they should even the Bill of Rights.
at one time drinking/making alcohol was illegal. if you thinks that's what makes the Constitution beautiful then you don't know what makes the Constitution beautiful. Any document can be changed. The reason it was created was so that a citizen wouldn't need to be dependent on others to protect whats theirs. Being dependent on others is the opposite of independence. This applies just as much today as it did back then.
Your last sentence is true. If you're looking for a "disarm solution", it's far too late. Criminals will have access to guns, and we need the ability to defend ourselves against them.
The US has the most civilian guns per capita in the world, 2x more than Yemen which is in an active civil war. Saying that it's "too late" to do anything at all becomes ridicoulous when anybody looks at the data, especially given the global and American correlation between increased gun ownership and increased violence. Do Americans really need 2x more guns than people who are in constant warfare to "protect themselves"? http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2012/07/2012726141159587596.html
I kept hearing after Sandy Hook that the NRA has no teeth, people are ready for change, that there was a paradigm shift. Turns out none of that was true as I said at the time. Sheriffs are telling people with CCW's to carry, NICS phones are on fire, and the president is doing damage control from the oval office in prime time because he was talking about work place violence and gun control instead of jihadism. The "problem" for you Phillyrocket is that people who share your views are not as committed to them, won't donate for them, won't vote on the basis of those views and won't call, write, fax or visit their reps for them.
Yes and like gun ownership it fails the balancing test. The benefit of alcohol is outweighed by the risk of harm to others. However society voted and that amendment was repealed. As the majority ruled I am content with the manner of the decision though I disagree with the logical basis of the decision. I would feel the same about gun ownership if ever it came to that point. The quote is taken from the movie With Honors and is meant to prove exactly what you said, the Constitution is a living document and was intended to be changed. Being dependent on others is not some weakness or evidence of tyranny. It's necessary for a functioning society to rely on others for a multitude of services that are and should be tightly regulated.
No the problem is fear. Which is an illogical basis for decision making but one much in evidence for Americans unfortunately.
