If you separate the respondents into "mainstream voters" and the more elite group that Rasmussen terms "the political class" (meaning people who "are more comfortable trusting that elite to rule the nation rather than trusting the collective wisdom of the American people"):
Fifty-five percent (55%) of Mainstream voters think the government is likely to try to confiscate all privately held guns, but 59% of the Political Class say that’s unlikely.Confiscate all guns! That's such an extreme position.
पोस्ट्स
९८ टिप्पण्या:
Lying liars and the liars who cover them.
Fifty-five percent (55%) of Mainstream voters think the government is likely to try to confiscate all privately held guns
Why is it only 55%?
We just had a Democratic Senator, whom nobody bothered to question whether or not what she was doing was constitutional, introduce hundredes of pages of legislation banning over 100 firearms.
Believing such a thing is a rational response to said Senator's efforts which were cheerleaded endlessly by the media.
"59% of the Political Class say that’s unlikely."
59% of the Political Class are lying.
"Confiscate all guns! That's such an extreme position."
The people will have to be desensitized, we know the liberals modus operandi. The older people who can remember how our country once was will continue to die and be replaced by younger more impressible young people who are just so innocent and idealistic.
I'd like them to ask if they believe the government will start tracking all automobile traffic.
I think confiscating our guns won't work, for a variety fo reasons, but that people will cave on the car tracking thing.
-XC
"Confiscate all guns! That's such an extreme position."
But it's for the children.
And only 41 per cent of the ruling elite think that they will confiscate all guns.I just guess they weren't at that planning meeting..
" Confiscate all guns! That's such an extreme position." Not to the "progressives", the democrats, i.e. Feinstien et al. Totalitarians always disarm the public first.
You will note that these "safety" promotion programs always exclude the ruling elites from participating in having their rights stripped.
Confiscate all guns! That's such an extreme position.
Why? Much of the Left believes exactly this. The UK and Australia have both recently attempted to do that very thing.
They use our money to confiscate ammunitions already. What is the use of weapons without ammunitions?
XC - it has already happened on the car thing.
Note:
The Obama administration gave their consent to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to mandate that black boxes, similar to airplane flight recorders, be installed in all new cars in the US by September 2014. These devices, known as event data recorders (EDRs), capture information that helps investigators determine the cause of a crash or some other problem
Just think, a good little bureaucrat in DC will soon be able to monitor your speed, fuel usage, and perhaps even slow you down!
Not all guns; not theirs.
Believe they will try? Not right now, and not in the near future.
Believe the President and a significant number of senators and representatives would like to, if they thought they could? Why, yes, I sure do.
By the way, anyone want to guess how much event data recorders (EDRs), add to the price of a new car?
A gun will not stop softer forms of tyranny, including progressive (or differential) taxation, institutional discrimination, etc. A gun is intended for close quarters combat with minority interests who do not respect human life or unalienable Rights.
The government could literally trample the people without lifting a gun, from a distance, perhaps from the sky; but not until they have a comprehensive monopoly.
The issue with proscriptive gun control laws is that they first, do not address criminal minority interests, second, do not address government agents run amuck, third, that mass murderers experience psychotic breaks with reality, perhaps induced by psychotropic drugs, and fourth, that suicide are a self-inflicted act which does not require a gun.
Anyway, gun control laws do not address the cause of violence committed with guns. They also fail to address the single greatest cause of childhood mortality, which is typically committed with a scalpel and vacuum. The advocates for gun control laws have ulterior motives for their demands.
"65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny"
Probably because,
"41% Think Government Should Keep A List of All Gun Owners"
there are certain sections of America I wouldn't advise the left to try to invade.
Political class? Ruling elite?
Ugh.
Why extreme? The Federal government doesn't exactly hide its desire to control every aspect of our lives.
Confiscate all guns! That's such an extreme position.
But not one that is unheard of among the easily-scared and easily-swayed.
"A gun was used to do a bad thing! That's all I ever hear about them! Ban them all, because they only do bad things!" ... is sadly, roughly how it seems to go.
(Of course, even they don't want to confiscate "all guns". Just the ones not in the hands of the police.
Because, after all, cops are super well trained and aren't problems, no matter what experience [LA earlier this year?] shows us, right?)
How'd you like to be a cop when the govt orders you to go and confiscate every gun in your town?
Obama should propose a revolutionary "green guns" program. Green guns will create green guns jobs. A cash for clunker guns program will remove rusty muskets from collector's cases. A high speed green guns corridor between Berkeley and Cambridge will cost $1B and bog down just West of Walnut Creek. The green guns program is guaranteed to produce no actual guns. Everyone wins.
Well they know that if went to my buddy's house to confiscate his guns, they would not find them because he's prepared for that and that its unlikely that enough people would want to get into that business anyway. But they will work around the edges, consistently and constantly and if you raise a concern you'll be labeled a crazy nut.
Don't expect the media or the education system not to go along. And if you have a gun now, you might want to get some ammo.
elh1 said: They use our money to confiscate ammunitions already. What is the use of weapons without ammunitions?
The current shortage of ammunition is due to panic buying, not the government "confiscating" it.
(Even in the most charitable interpretation, the notional "giant government ammunition buys" are not confiscation, but the action of the market with the government as a consumer.
But those aren't nearly as giant as people wanted to think, because people are bad at reading procurement contracts, and overestimated the amounts by three orders of magnitude, as well as conflating maximum options with guaranteed amounts.
Turns out the military and the Border Patrol and the FBI and the like have always bought lots of ammunition.)
It doesn't have to be physical confiscation. Just make legal firearm ownership impossible. Tax ammunition to make it's purchase prohibitively expensive. Define "high capacity" magazines to be the magazines that people actually need and then ban them. Make the background checks impossible to pass for most Americans. There are lots of ways to "confiscate" the use of firearms without coming to our homes and taking them away.
they just won't stop. I guess we're going to have to put some teeth in the 2nd Amendment and starting handing out long prison sentences to those who violate it or attempt to or conspire with others to do so. common sense gun controller control.
The rumor is the armed forces used to sell their spent casings to the gun/bullet manufacturers and they don't anymore.
They grind them up and sell the scrap to China.
That's such an extreme position.
Only if you love liberty. Your boy Barry hates liberty. All statists hate liberty. The hatred of liberty is an extreme position. But only in an exceptional country. Your boy Barry the statist LOATHES American exceptionalism and is killing it step by step. But he can't kill it dead while the benighted are armed. Ergo the passion to disarm us.
Paging Alex Jones.
They're going to get the guns the same way they do everything else. For example, in Connecticut they are going to outlaw guns that are already in the hands of the citizenry. The citizens will have a certain length of time to turn those guns in. If citizens keep them after that, those citizens become criminals. Any encounter that reveals those guns will result in confiscation of all guns in the household. Over time, more and more guns become illegal until there aren't any legal guns.
I don't own guns and never have. I joined the NRA last month because it's clear where this stuff is heading.
I think that sort of thing - outright confiscation - is highly unlikely. However, other options - such as outright bans rather than confiscations - are not outside the realm of possibility. While I don't think the government would lift a finger beyond those public "buy backs" to actually obtain guns, I do think a social climate could arise where they'd feel emboldened enough to ban them.
At the same time, though, we're talking extreme, unlikely possibilities here. It's more likely that it won't happen, that the talking heads and their acolytes will simply remain content to just jabber on about their stances. The reality is that the political class gets a lot of energy and enthusiasm from their respective constituencies by just blowing wind about the topics. It would actually be a subtraction from their public visibility if they actually took the step of getting something concrete done; they'd no longer have something to campaign over. It behooves them to just toe a line and pretend they're thinking by God, I'd go over this line if I weren't being restrained by that opposition.
So no, some form of government action ending private ownership of firearms is not conceptually impossible. But it's not all that likely either.
Confiscate all guns! That's such an extreme position.
Thirty years ago, I'll bet cigarette smokers said similar things about banning smoking. We've seen how these things are accomplished. They encroach a step at a time in a rachet-like fashion. Will they try to do the same things for guns that they did for smoking? I suspect they'll try.
AJ Lynch said...
How'd you like to be a cop when the govt orders you to go and confiscate every gun in your town?
It won't be the cops. It will be Homeland Security.
Rumpletweezer said:
...
I don't own guns and never have. I joined the NRA last month because it's clear where this stuff is heading.
Same here. My initial thought was to give a small boost to the NRA lobbying budget, but I soon plan to shop for a concealed carry weapon and get a permit in my state (which has issued about 280,000 permits to date, revoked less than 50.)
Well, they'll confiscate them from the people, but with liberal exceptions for the political elite.
In 1775 and at Lexington and Concord such efforts by a royally living tyrant's (Do we have such today?) led to our FIRST Revolutionary War.
"It won't be the cops. It will be Homeland Security."
Imagine TSA screeners in new uniforms and SWAT gear.
I appreciate that this post immediately follows the one where Obama talks about Constraints placed on him by the Founding Fathers.
There is a 100% chance that the executive branch and a large minority of the legislative branch would like to confiscate all guns not held by government employees right now. (An analysis of the support in government for the arming of every government employee no matter how unrelated to security their job is would look very similar.)
There is a smaller but not insignificant chance that they will screw up their courage and their fake outrage and make a go of it in the time frame given in the poll.
It's always important in these moments to look not so much at what the government is likely to do as what they would do if they thought they could get away with it (see, for instance, support for claims that Obama is not a socialist).
Many Dem politicians [Obama, Feinstein, Emanuel,Biden, etc] have proclaimed their desire to disarm the proles. this would leave guns in the hands of the Party organs and criminals, who are mostly supporters of the Dems. You can be certain that Party leaders will be surrounded by armed guards.
"Confiscate all guns! That's such an extreme position."
Prof, you take a lot of grief for this line, but I don't understand what you mean to say by it.
Sure, it is an extreme position, but it is also widely held among urban liberals, who are extremely over-represented in government. And being a resident of Madison, I have no doubt that you know this extreme position is mainstream among our decision makers.
Way to go Fantasy land!
Arm the children! The gubmints a comin!
It may be extreme, but it seems to be happening. It's not a new idea. A lot of things that seemed extreme a few years ago have already happened.
I wish I could honestly say it could never happen here.
"Arm the children! The gubmints a comin!"
Adult males will suffice.
Well, the mindless automaton proves he's out of ammo.
And the whole "somewhat likely" thing makes it sound like a restaurant survey.
Ann Althouse said...
Confiscate all guns! That's such an extreme position.
So is the imposition of same sex marriage.
But DHS only has 2 billion rounds of ammo and 2700 MRAP vehcles, so what's to worry?
"Confiscate all guns! That's such an extreme position."
For some people extremism is the appeal. What good is power if you can't use it to punish people who you don't like?
But don't worry, Political Class, they won't take your guns. They like you.
Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et al would take them all right now if they could figure out a way to get away with it.
Seeing Red said...
The rumor is the armed forces used to sell their spent casings to the gun/bullet manufacturers and they don't anymore.
They grind them up and sell the scrap to China.
This was a policy that was attempted back in 2009, but was rescinded within a week due to the uproar.
And, for funsies, consider this:
After all the talk about what happens to the Norks if they try something cute, Barry, Hagel, and Lurch have ordered a stand down in Korea.
I guess they're conserving the troops and ammo for something else.
It won't be the cops. It will be Homeland Security.
It will be the Department Of Education's SWAT team, under the guise of protecting The Children(tm).
In case anyone thinks they actually know something about what they're doing down in DC, Barry's telling people it was a weapon on full auto used at Newtown.
PS Just to let us all know how smart the Lefties really are, turns out more than half the people the Demos thought would want ObamaTax, don't.
"If citizens keep them after that, those citizens become criminals."
That's an even better than just taking away their guns. You can only require them to show fealty by ritual firearms sacrifice once.
But effortlessly turning discontented citizens into meekly compliant criminals? That's a gift that keeps on giving. Your unruly, outspoken rabble essentially become modern day serfs. Forever. They probably won't even be allowed to vote.
Confiscate all guns! That's such an extreme position.
Not a leftist it isn't.
I get the sense that the opinion of many Democrats on 2nd Amendment issues is "evolving"....The abortion debate was settled by judicial fiat. There's a good chance that gay marriage will be settled likewise. The Democrats believe in the will of the people or the rulings of the judges--whichever serves their interests........The abortion and gay marriage debates have been conducted in such a way as to increase the cynicism of the electorate. The majority are not always right, but they have a better track record than our enlightened, educated class.
Asked of Obama in 2010: "What is your position on same-sex marriage?"
Obama in 2010: "I think that -- I am a strong supporter of civil unions. As you say, I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage."
How long did it take the President to evolve from "same-sex marriage is extreme" to "same-sex marriage should be allowed"? How long will it take him to evolve from "I am constrained" to "all guns must be banned"?
An NRA Life Membership is usually $1000. They're running a deal now for $300.
...if you're interested in supporting such a thing.
I remember a movie where only the police and military had guns. Won some awards, I think it was called Schindler's List...
Since 1959 Gallup has been asking:
Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?
The percentage has been dropping from 60% in 1959 to 24% today, which I find pleasantly surprsing.
Of course this is handguns, not all firearms, but from what I read about 20% of Americans are opposed to just about everything except the fig leaf of single-shot hunting rifles.
The gun control laws being enacted today are because the ones enacted yesterday were ineffective.
The gun control laws that will be enacted tomorrow, will be because the ones enacted today will be ineffective.
At some point, the only control gun control measures left to enact will be the confiscation of privately owned firearms.
By then, the masses will likely be tired of the issue or will tire of fighting all of the existing gun control measures and will roll over.
Except the criminals and the exempted class. It's not hard to figure out, it's part of the plan.
4/4/13, 2:07 PM
Blogger Lauderdale Vet said...
" An NRA Life Membership is usually $1000. They're running a deal now for $300.
...if you're interested in supporting such a thing."
Too late ! I'm already an endowed Life Member.
I suspect they have already acquired the budget for years to come and now are adding members to help lobby.
It's like public employee and college pension funds selling gun related stocks. The only good investment these days.
The gun control laws being enacted today are because the ones enacted yesterday were ineffective....
That's one part of the dynamic. Another is that today's reasonable compromise is never between what control fans want and gun owners want; it's always between what control fans want and yesterday's reasonable compromise.
Choom now says the Sandy Hook gunman had a "fully automatic weapon". Unless there's been a dramatic update to the story, I think that falls into the "YOU LIE" category.
Combine that with a Dem fem rep thinking "magazines" are not reusable, only to have her office put out a clarification that the rep meant "clips" (which are also reusable), I'm becoming less and less worried these idiots can find their ass with their own hands.
Joe Klein has seen the light. Look for more in the near future.
Encouragingly, the younger members of the hipster/liberal/douchegeois set seem more likely to own, or be open to owning, semi-automatic firearms than the their elder co-religionists. Just my observation but, shit, it is Olympia after all.
To X ("there are certain sections of America I wouldn't advise the left to try to invade.")
and
AJL ("How'd you like to be a cop when the govt orders you to go and confiscate every gun in your town?"):
I've never heard of this guy before, but he had a succinct take on the matter:
“There are 300 million guns in this country. The only way to get rid of them is to go door to door to door.
And you aren’t even going to do that. You’re just going to go to door.”
And also I incorporate herein that wonderful quote of Solzhenitsyn by reference.
I'm currently engaged in an online discussion with several other highly(over?)-educated people about gun control.
Everyone in the discussion, apart from one, is citing facts and evidence in support of their arguments or refutation of someone else's arguments.
The odd one out is repeatedly using the dead Newtown children to support her argument, including mentioning birthday parties that won't happen now, and accusing the other participants of not wanting ANY restrictions on guns, when no one has said any such thing. You can almost hear the shrillness.
Guess who is the most liberal person in the discussion?
The important thing is to prevent any kind of registry from being created.
So long as the government has no idea who *has* guns, they can't confiscate them even if they want to.
This one (in case not everyone has it memorized--in paraphrase at least):
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
Why do you feel it's an "extreme" position? It's perfectly mainstream among liberals. Go to the NYT Opinion pages and read the comments to any gun control piece. There are lots of seemingly educated people advocating the confiscation of all guns. Among pundits, you hear a lot of "I'd like to confiscate all guns, but that's not politically realistic so . . . "
Alfred Lansing - Among pundits, you hear a lot of "I'd like to confiscate all guns, but that's not politically realistic so .
And many wrap that up with:
" Among pundits, you hear a lot of "I'd like to confiscate all guns, but that's not politically realistic so at this time, as long as the NRA and gun manufacturers have the uneducated people in flyover country blind to the danger of owning guns. Hopefully, we can educate those people and soon join the other civilized countries that realized guns were killing children..
What liberals and progressive Jews like Feinstein and Bloomberg fail to realize is - that gun making is low tech. Easy.
My wife's uncle made a full auto 9mm grease gun with plans and his home shop tools a few years back from scrap metal. Took him a week of puttering in his spare time, mainly for debugging. He had it for a few days, fired it until all 20 rounds in his homemade clip cycled through, took photos, then slagged the whole receiver with his welder because he didn't want the legal jeopardy of somehow, law enforcement hearing he had a machine gun and no Fed license for it.
It is something that can be created readily in "the black market economy" if a urgent and lucrative need for the product manifests. Laws or no laws.
@Petunia./
You ask such hard questions my head hurts...no mas...it takes the brainpower of Einstein to figure such things out. Have mercy..
Place your bets, what are they coming for first, your gun or your IRA or bank account?
Via ZeroHedge:
...the CEO of Italy's largest bank appears to have missed the memo. As Bloomberg reports, according to the chief executive Federico Ghizzoni, "uninsured deposits could be used in future bank failures provided global rulemakers agree on a common approach." ....
@Petunia./
You ask such hard questions my head hurts...no mas...it takes the brainpower of Einstein to figure such things out. Have mercy..
Guns make the power balance between the good and the evil stable.
The "government" wants to unbalance that in order to use the evil as their threat in a protection racquet.
It's a Mafia concept from Italy/Roman days. Everybody gets bled dry. If they say no, they are destroyed by the accidental evil that happens to those who do not pay the protection money.
The only hindrance to the Obama Mafia's smooth operation is those pesky private guns and ammo.
Where are guns and ammo outlawed today? Surprise, surprise, it's in In the Mafia run cities such as Chicago, New York and Philadelphia.
I'd like to see how much of the 44% that believe it is somewhat likely that guns will be confiscated, are against said confiscation. I bet the ones who believe that guns will be confiscated are mainly strong gun rights supporters. And that would likely make the converse mostly true as well.
In California, registered owner data bases are cross reference3d with hospital"mental illness" data bases.If ANYONE in the household has been committed for 2 days, that household must turn in their guns.
On the horizon, checking prescription data bases for anti depressant meds? Add boys? Angry ,old, white men?
With such people as Obama and the DHS, well they DO have 1200 armored cars and BILLIONS of bullets.
So what ARE they going to do with all that stuff if not try to do some very massive raiding.
No doubt they will use all the TSA goons to help. Deputize them and give them list of gun owners who registered their guns (see there really is a reason to register them!)
Truth to power!
What liberals and progressive Jews like Feinstein and Bloomberg fail to realize is - that gun making is low tech.
Hate when I respond to Cederford's antisemitism, but the interesting thing to me is that to some extent, it is high tech, and to some extent, low tech. The original greasegun that he mentions was designed as a mass produced cheap replacement for the much more expensive Thompson. So, what we are talking about is fairly low tech WWII era technology.
What is interesting to me is the allure of the AR-15 type weapons. On the one hand, they are modern - using modern materials, utilizing modern ergonomics and engineering, and, indeed, as I have pointed out repeatedly here, the big constant in the guns that the left keeps trying to ban as "assault weapons" are offensive primarily because they incorporate technology that is less than 50 years old (the grease gun design is probably 60 years old now). These newer weapons are highly modular, reliable, rugged, with lower recoil and greater accuracy. Through this modularity, they can easily be fitted to different sized shooters, as well as changing caliber for different purposes. And, esp. with the addition of rail systems, are infinitely accessorizable.
Some of the parts for these guns are easily made in a home workshop, while others require fairly high tech manufacturing, at least to do it right. But, surprisingly, there is a huge amount of low volume customization being offered, utilizing small machine shops and the like.
But, the most interesting thing to me right now is that the part that has the serial number on AR-15 type weapons is the lowere receiver. It needs a serial number, unless the maker of the lower receiver keeps it, and doesn't sell or transfer it. So, there is a booming market right now for 80% or so completed lower receivers, which can apprently be completed with the tools in a small machine shop (and, verging on home workshops), along with good publically available jigs and instructions.
Making things even more interesting, a working AR-15 lower receiver has been constructed utilizing 3D printing technology, and the plans for such are publically available on the Internet. And, again, if the gun constructed with such a receiver is not sold or transferred, it doesn't require a serial numbeower r.
So, what you can do today, is either buy a completed receiver or make one (which, of course, hals none of the banned parts), buy the rest of the parts individually, maybe one from here, and another from there, and easily assemble a working AR-15.
Ever wonder why the gun grabbers are so hot to restrict these guns? One reason may just be that they see the reality that this may be their last chance. AR-15 type semiautomatic weapons are the most popular long gun sold these days, and their popularity is just going to continue to grow, to become ubiquitous, unless stopped before their window of opportunity is missed.
And that would likely make the converse mostly true as well.
I respectfully disagree with this. Big logical fallacy with your theory. I am in the group who believes that the 2nd Amdt. guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that confiscation would be both immoral and unconstitutional. BUT, I don't think that confiscation, at least at a national level, is all that likely. Not that Obama, DiFi, et al. wouldn't happily do so, but rather, that it would be both highly impractical and highly unpopular in this country. Feds don't have near the manpower that would be required, and a lot of the LEOs in federal, state, and local governments are unlikly to sympathize with such an attempt. And, yes, ditto for much of the military and National Guard.
Bruce. Logistically it would be a nightmare.
Over 200 million firearms in the hands of over 80 million people.
Far better just to outlaw them and institute some draconian penalties. The vast majority of the population will be cowed.
Confiscation? If just 1/2 of one percent decide it isn't going to happen, it isn't going to happen.
What percentage of people feel obliged to answer polls honestly?
P.S. There is some heresay (take it for what it's worth) that Obama would support such a program:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/07/John-Lott-Obama-said-I-Don-t-Believe-People-Should-Be-Able-To-Own-Guns
P.P.S. The logic of the Progressive state, as Obama highlighted in his comments suggesting that it is unreasonable not to trust the government, leads in this direction. It might not be unreasonable to view the question that way.
I am in the group who believes that the 2nd Amdt. guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that confiscation would be both immoral and unconstitutional.
Bruce H.: Me too, but if Obama nets one more pet Supreme Court justice on his side, what happens if the Supremes decide that gun rights are only for militias?
At least some states might make all adults part of the state militia, and require them to have guns at home.
That might make for interesting litigation. In what cases may the President deputize a state militia, and may he forcibly overrule state regulations of this sort?
Oh, Rasmussen! What could go wrong with his polling?
Confiscate all guns! That's such an extreme position.
Well, it's hard to be as paranoid as your average conservatude without making up extreme situations to fear.
I was raped by a man who broke into my apartment in the middle of the night when I was 25. The police took a report and advised me not to post notices or warnings in the neighborhood. The manager of my building went to the detectives and laid out a convincing case against a man who lived in the building next door. No follow-up. Nothing.
My brother was beaten and suffered a head wound, not noticed by neighbors or reported to the authorities for three days, and many years later still suffers from aphasia, though his employer recognizes that he is valuable and keeps him on. No one was ever found and prosecuted.
I was mugged at gunpoint in Boston ( guy threatened three times to shoot me), and after the police established exactly who the robber was, the DA and judge agreed on a sentence of one year of probation.
Part of me would like to shoot a few people dead. I don't think of the police as protectors.
I went to a gun range (my family lives in a county where concealed carry is unlawful except by ex cops and important people) and shot a pistol at targets. I realized that I would need police or military training to feel confident shooting a gun.
I have never committed violence of any kind, and yet
I don't believe there is anybody to protect me.
MCD,
Move to Texas. Not only are police more responsive, men more likely to come to your aid, but most importantly, you can get a CHL and pack heat as well as get excellent training.
@Ritmo, admit it. You want our guns. Obama wants our guns. Joe Biden wants our guns. The two c-words from San Francisco want our guns.
When you say otherwise, you are lying through your teeth. Which, of course, is your normal state of existence.
@MCD, I'm very sorry for what happened to you. No, don't count on the legal system in a blue state to look after you unless you are rich and/or have political clout. Paul is giving you good advice. Stay out of blue states, move to red states.
The NRA provides training courses with certified trainers. The courses aren't cheap, but a good course is really worthwhile.
Also consider getting a carbine like the Hi Point 9mm, which is basically a handgun with a plastic shoulder stock and lengthened barrel. Negligible recoil and the extra barrel length gives it a lot of punch when you're trying to convince a rapist that he really doesn't want to mess with you.
"@Ritmo, admit it. You want our guns. Obama wants our guns. Joe Biden wants our guns. The two c-words from San Francisco want our guns."
Only a fool would believe otherwise.
Petunia said...
I'm currently engaged in an online discussion with several other highly(over?)-educated people about gun control.
Everyone in the discussion, apart from one, is citing facts and evidence in support of their arguments or refutation of someone else's arguments.
The odd one out is repeatedly using the dead Newtown children to support her argument, including mentioning birthday parties that won't happen now, and accusing the other participants of not wanting ANY restrictions on guns, when no one has said any such thing. You can almost hear the shrillness.
Guess who is the most liberal person in the discussion?
There is irrefutable evidence that lawful gun owners by in large are safer then your friends who shun them. There are many long term studies that show that cities and towns with a large gun ownership population that have lower crime rates than the ones that are not and with strict gun controls. Aberrations like Aurora, Newtown, et. al are just that. Statistical anomalies that are used as a means to pain the entire statistical portrait as being false. Well, your leftist friends are emotionally stunted morons. Why, because they are leftists. Ask any of them if they've ever owned a gun, seen a gun, held a gun, much less fired one. They will almost invariably tell you no.
Go ask them to even walk into a gun store with a firing range and just hang out for half an hour and come back and tell you what they saw and felt. You are speaking with utter fools.
It is encouraging that so many voters realize that lefties will grab as many private guns as they can.
It is amusing that lefties are so afraid of conservatives with guns (I might have been redundant there). That is probably a good thing.
Technology improves rapidly, making it cheaper and easier to make ever more dangerous weapons and delivery systems. Conservatives will punish any GOP pol who tries to restrict our access to this technology so this will make it difficult for lefties to disarm the public.
No - it is not at all an extreme position.
No - it is not at all an extreme position.
What the State can do, sooner or later the State will do.
What power statists can grab, statists sooner or later will grab.
That's not paranoia--that's the result of reading a history book every once in a while. You should try it, Ritmo.
What the State can do, sooner or later the State will do.
What power statists can grab, statists sooner or later will grab.
That's not paranoia--that's the result of reading a history book every once in a while. You should try it, Ritmo.
Interesting question someone asked above on militia. I'm retired Navy, 21 years. As such, I am the very definition of militia- especially in NY, where I live. Check NY laws on militia for that.
I cannot now own weapons that are useful to militia or have useful sized magazines for a militia- because I live in NY.
In fact, the NY Guard and Naval Militia members cannot keep useful arms at home, or bear them in public. Nor can the NY National Guard or federal armed forces reservists. The very definition of militia.
The armories can have them- in a central location- locked up and unavailable- until the GOVERNMENT feels it is appropriate to hand them out, but the people, you know, as in "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", cannot have them.
Nor can the militia.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा