Where do the American people really stand on gun control?

The reason I don't believe in background checks is because those enforce the Gun Control Act of 1968 which I don't believe in. Also I don't believe that American citizens should have to pay fees to enjoy rights under the Bill of Rights. I don't believe one innocent life was ever saved on account of a single background check. I believe many American citizens are wrongfully denied under NICS
 
Perhaps the most important variable in measuring attitudes toward restriction or protection of the right is when the measurement is taken. Like asking the value of a stock, the question is unanswerable without knowing when the stock had a specific value. In November of 2008 or March of 2020, you might find the low values for that stock.

Before the Vegas shooting, the public conversation had calmed to the point that a friendlier policy toward suppressors seemed within reach. After the Vegas shooting, the emotional tumult on which suppressor restrictions depend for policy support were quite high. Similarly, in the immediate wake of Sandy Hook and MSD school murders, you'd find the low values for public support of the right.

Nothing is "braver" than a legislator with the wind at his back, and part of the management if this issue is seeing the wind blow the right way. Even your favorite officeholder can fold if he sees a big enough storm coming.

Public support shouldn't have any influence on whether we can exercise a right, but keeping it out of the legislative process when its support is low can minimize the damage the political process can inflict on the right. McConnell's victory in 2012 was in keeping anything on this subject from coming to the floor of the senate. He couldn't have done that if he were in the minority.
 
Politicians are all about throwing out distractions. There are few true believers. Gun Control, Abortion, Red -vs- Blue...etc...are all distractions that smoke screen while they line their own pockets. Yeah, call me cynical.
 
Ammo shortage shows no sign of improving: Smith & Wesson

Gun sales skyrocket as crime surges in cities across US

CRIME SURGES Across AMERICA. Ammunition inventories that were depleted during the pandemic are showing no sign of improving, according to Smith & Wesson Brands CEO Mark Smith.

Look at the crime surge numbers in the video. You can blame it on the Virus, but people are STILL buying protection. Domestic Terrorism and de funding Police have hit America Hard. And Americans know it. And Rightly so.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/ammo-shortage-shows-no-sign-improving-smith-wesson
 
Last edited:
We always have and always will have a stupid people problem but unfortunately the laws have been changed to protect the stupid. We were better off as a society when when the stupid were allowed to self eliminate...

Tony
 
We typically allow for some topic drift, but this thread is in General Discussion, not Law & Civil Rights. The topic is gun control, so please keep comments on topic.
 
We typically allow for some topic drift, but this thread is in General Discussion, not Law & Civil Rights. The topic is gun control, so please keep comments on topic.
Click to expand...

Out of respect for this, I will not correct several glaring inaccuracies in a previous post (even though I agree with much of the post... but you don’t have to play loose and fast with facts to drive the point home).

As many have said, where Americans stand on gun control is not the firm bedrock of principle which should be afforded all constitutional rights. It’s the shifting sands of the current news cycle and politicians who demand that the nation “do something” to stop murder (even though murder is already illegal nationwide). I think during times of quiet news cycles the majority of America generally supports no new gun control. Poll everyone after a high school is shot up by a monster (****whom in most cases is well known by law enforcement, up to and including the FBI, oftentimes having failed to take action even though numerous reports demonstrated a concern the suspect would eventually do... well exactly what they did ****), and about half or sometimes slightly over believe we should “do something.” It’s compassion based, or the desire to appear compassionate. To display feelings of empathy, dread, horror, and to display compassion after a terrible mass shooting are actually quite desirable traits and demonstrates that one is kind and human. The cold hard truth, though, is that decision making based on “feelings” is a usually a giant mistake.
 
Gun Control? Who? My gosh, is simple to look at the leaders of this Country, from Governors to Congressmen to Senators to the President of the United States and see very clearly where they stand as far as gun control and the 2A rights.
Laws of gun control are easy to see who is against the rights of the America Citizen. Not hard to figure out who votes for these people and supports them. Anti gun groups all across the US.
Power! Power to control those that legally support the 2A and the power to destroy with Domestic Terrorism with no consequences. A man or family now in some areas cannot even protect his own business from being burned to the ground, looted etc. And the majority of those states have leaders that are doing everything in that power to control the legal gun owners.
Domestic Terrorism is real and you cannot hide from it. The word "Terrorism" means TERROR/FEAR and citizens of the law abiding feel it. Law and order are diminishing rapidly.

They want to destroy the US Constitution 2nd amendment which is part of the bill of Rights. Why? because they may not really be anti gun, but they want the power that goes with the destruction of that right.

"The FBI defines Domestic terrorism as follows.
The definition for terrorism remains the same under the U.S. Code. It involves an act that is violent or dangerous to human life, where the act appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence government policy through intimidation or coercion".
Law and order, support for the Constitution vs Lawlessness and destruction of the Constitution. It is clearly defined.
 
Last edited:
Carl the Floor Walker said:
Gun Control? Who? My gosh, is simple to look at the leaders of this Country, from Governors to Congressmen to Senators to the President of the United States and see very clearly where they stand as far as gun control and the 2A rights.
Laws of gun control are easy to see who is against the rights of the America Citizen. Not hard to figure out who votes for these people and supports them. Anti gun groups all across the US.
Power! Power to control those that legally support the 2A and the power to destroy with Domestic Terrorism with no consequences. A man or family now in some areas cannot even protect his own business from being burned to the ground, looted etc. And the majority of those states have leaders that are doing everything in that power to control the legal gun owners.
Domestic Terrorism is real and you cannot hide from it. The word "Terrorism" means TERROR/FEAR and citizens of the law abiding feel it. Law and order are diminishing rapidly.

They want to destroy the US Constitution 2nd amendment which is part of the bill of Rights. Why? because they may not really be anti gun, but they want the power that goes with the destruction of that right.

"The FBI defines Domestic terrorism as follows.
The definition for terrorism remains the same under the U.S. Code. It involves an act that is violent or dangerous to human life, where the act appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence government policy through intimidation or coercion".
Law and order, support for the Constitution vs Lawlessness and destruction of the Constitution. It is clearly defined.
Click to expand...

I am guilty of drifting off topic, I apologize.

As the topic asks a question about where American people stand on gun control, I have to say that most people I meet are not fully aware of the content and the meaning of 2A. And they do not reflect much upon it.

Most who opine against 2A base their argument on a cost vs benefit rationale that involves perceived notions of "public safety", but they overlook the fact that safety is not contemplated anywhere in 2A. As we know 2A is not put in the Constitution to enhance "safety" or public harmony. It is not there to protect the right to hunt or to enjoy firearms for sport either.

2A is there to guarantee freedom: "... necessary for the security of a free State".
The freedom to self defense.

And 2A does not contemplate nor does it care about a possible tradeoff between more freedom and "public safety". It is very possible that the framers understood that more gun violence could be a price to pay for that freedom.

I don't think that most private citizens who hold views in favor of tighter gun control want to "control us" or to gain more power. Politicians maybe, but not because they want to control us in a 1984 fashion, they just want to get re-elected to stay on the gravy train and so they go the direction that the political winds blows them onto.

But most of the American public are not savvy to this. They just make a connection: "gun crime is not desirable so tighten access to guns".

Maybe those who are well intentioned and against 2A would trade off freedom for "more safety", in that case, that would take a Constitutional change and repeal of 2A. But until that day comes, 2A says what it says: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
 
Last edited:
I don't think that most private citizens who hold views in favor of tighter gun control want to "control us" or to gain more power. Politicians maybe, but not because they want to control us in a 1984 fashion, they just want to get re-elected to stay on the gravy train and so they go the direction that the political winds blows them onto.
Click to expand...

I do mostly agree with this. I actually do believe there is a grand conspiracy to disarm the American public by anti gun organizations. It is evident in their demonstrated incrementalism. They play the long game, and the ultimate goal is for the average Joe to own nothing short of maybe a shotgun. There are politicians who truly believe in these efforts and have downed the kool-aid, and there are some who embrace it for little more than the majority of the votes in their district. For most involved, I do believe it is based on sincere beliefs that this will save lives and prevent crime. In other words, for most it is not about a 1984 type government control scheme.

With that being said, when the AWB in Virginia was being discussed and thousands of protesters descended on Richmond with semi-automatic rifles... well we all know that there were some politicians and people in power who wrung their hands at the fact that American people would stand up like that. It worked, and a few people in power despised that it worked. Those are the ones who would like to see America disarmed for the sake of control, ala 1984.
 
5Whiskey said:
There are politicians who truly believe in these efforts and have downed the kool-aid, and there are some who embrace it for little more than the majority of the votes in their district. For most involved, I do believe it is based on sincere beliefs that this will save lives and prevent crime. In other words, for most it is not about a 1984 type government control scheme.
Click to expand...

Most large phenomena are more than one thing. I am sure that there have been significant numbers of people who genuinely believe that we need to address the dangers of

1. cheap Saturday night specials
2. assault weapons
3. 50BMG sniper rifles
4. angry people who might hurt someone
5. people who drink under any circumstance
6. "hate speech"
7. bullet proof vests/body armor
8. bump stocks
9. arm braces
10. going outside without a mask on

That someone with ambition can make a career out of manipulating those concerns into growing state power gets you to a very large state even if that weren't the goal anyone had in mind.
 
It is evident in their demonstrated incrementalism. They play the long game, and the ultimate goal is for the average Joe to own nothing short of maybe a shotgun.
Click to expand...

You're more right than you might know. This is from Nelson "Pete" Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc, which later became the Brady Campaign:

The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition–except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors–totally illegal. (Richard Harris, “A Reporter at Large: Handguns,” New Yorker, July 26, 1976, p. 58.)
Click to expand...

Notice the year: 1976.

For the longest time, their goal was to ban handguns. The public never warmed to their agenda, so in 1989, they invented the concept of assault weapons. From the horse's mouth:

Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.
Click to expand...

They are absolutely playing a long game.
 
For law abiding, American citizens, with no felony criminal record……there should be no restrictions whatsoever for gun ownership.
 
On the good side, as of today it doesn't appear Biden is ready to take on the gun lobby. He's apparently going to nibble around the edges hoping to thread the needle with voters with "makes sense" decrees that will do absolutely nothing to curb "gun violence" yet seem that he is doing something.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top