Two Years After Newtown, Support For Gun Control Down
[su_center_ad]
[su_csky_ad]
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.
Real news. With snark, invective, and lots of links. Guaranteed behaving badly.
tiredoftea December 13th, 2014 at 8:08 am
It’s amazing how lies told often can sway public opinion.
OldLefty December 13th, 2014 at 8:32 am
Also, if you look at the internals of the poll, it looks like the most likely victims of irresponsible gun owners favor more control while the most likely perpetrators of gun calamities oppose it.
But it’s good for those who want to see us become more like the libertarian utopia of the The North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan.
amongoose December 13th, 2014 at 9:07 am
So what is the remedy that will allow citizens to still protect themselves while making sure those illegal carry proponents who don’t obey gun laws to begin with are kept from obtaining weapons?
OldLefty December 13th, 2014 at 9:15 am
I think it is the same common sense background checks we used to have….especially the gun show loophole.
Meanwhile, as Mike Weisser, aka Mike the Gun Guy said;
Gun Responsibility Should Be Led By Gun Owners;
“I was in my shop on December 14. The news from Sandy Hook made me sick. But what as soon as the requisite “silence” ended, the children buried and everyone voiced
their concern, as a gun guy I had no one with whom I could share my shame, no one who was willing to stand with me and say ‘enough is enough.’
Why did the parents of these murdered children have to wait for the president to invite them to Washington to plead their case? Why didn’t a bunch of gun owners chip in and send a plane up to Connecticut to bring those shattered parents down to DC?
I’ll tell you why we didn’t.
Because after the massacre Wayne LaPierre and all the pro-gun organizations rallied around the flag saying the problem wasn’t guns. The problem was lack of school security, or lack of mental health facilities.
It wasn’t “us,” it was “them.” “We” didn’t have to
take responsibility because gun owners are responsible.
But let’s be honest. The truth is that what murdered those kids and their teachers was an emotionally-disturbed young man whose mother should never have given him access to her guns.
I also think that gun owners should have to carry insurance to cover damage caused by their guns.
Let the market sort it out.
amongoose December 13th, 2014 at 9:40 am
All licensed vendors at gunshows must run background checks now.
The problem with universal checks is that it could also limit (as the Oregon law did) loans of guns to friends, and even loaning guns to museums.
Mentally ill people, like Adam Lanza should not be allowed guns. But he didn’t own any, he murdered his mom and took them. How would that be stopped other than prohibiting anyone who a mentally disturbed person lives with, or has access through visiting from owning them? How would their rights be protected? So long as there is real judicial review in which the one being accused can defend their rights I have no problem with that.
School security, now that’s a tricky one. which is workable, armed school guards, or teachers/administrators trained and licensed to carry?
OldLefty December 13th, 2014 at 9:48 am
The problem with universal checks is that it could also limit (as the Oregon law did) loans of guns to friends, and even loaning guns to museums.
_________
Sorry, but my reaction is, “So?”
So a wacko who can’t pass a background check can borrow the gun?
As for gunshows; A National Institute of Justice study released in December 1997 reported that two percent of criminal guns came from gun shows. Similarly, a report by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics in 1997 on federal firearms offenders reported 1.7 percent of crime guns are acquired at gun shows.
Adam Lanza’s mom bought him the guns, and SHE should not have passed a background check with a mentally ill person in the house.
Again, imagine if his mom was required to carry ‘gun owner’s’ insurance. How would the insurer access the risk?
amongoose December 13th, 2014 at 10:03 am
The Oregon law as written said “transfer” this includes loaning a weapon to a friend or family member at a range, or on a hunting trip. You might not even be able buy a weapon for your son or daughter who are under age to purchase one on their own.
An insurance policy with a million dollar payout could cost from a hundred to a thousand dollars a month, that is an awful big burden, and like a poll tax would be a restriction by cost on a right.
The policy I had to carry when we owned and operated a daycare was three hundred a month.
OldLefty December 13th, 2014 at 10:13 am
The Oregon law as written said “transfer” this includes loaning a weapon to a friend or family member at a range, or on a hunting ……
_________
I think that’s a good thing.
As for; An insurance policy with a million dollar payout could cost from a…
________
Considering how much damage is done by risky gun owners, I think that’s a good thing.
Look at just the story last year;
“Man using his rifle as a crutch accidentally kills upstairs neighbor”
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/man-rifle-crutch-accidentally-kills-upstairs-neighbor-article-1.1397602
I think this should be treated as a car accident, where the family deserves compensation, that most of these irresponsible gun owners can not pay, hence insurance.
The insurers would rightfully consider him a higher risk, and he SHOULD have to pay more to own a gun.
amongoose December 13th, 2014 at 10:25 am
Problem is that most responsible gun owners could not afford to pay it either.
And even that would not do anything to effect the shooting gallery that is the south side of Chicago.
That is a far bigger problem as far as numbers of murders go, criminals, many time career criminals with guns. How do we stop that?
OldLefty December 13th, 2014 at 10:48 am
Problem is that most responsible gun owners could not afford to pay it either.
________
I don’t agree.
I think it is the same as car insurance.
Chicago is not as bad as some places, and they get their guns from Indiana.
6 cities, (Flint Michigan being #1) have higher murder rates than Chicago.
Other countries make it harder for criminals to get guns, but I think the gun manufacturers have too strong a hold on our politics.
amongoose December 13th, 2014 at 11:15 am
But driving is not a right. How could a lower income individual, say a single mother wanting to keep a gun at home for personal protection afford the extra cost of gun owners insurance when most are struggling now?
Could keeping career criminals off the street help the problem?
How many conviction for violent felonies should it take before someone is judged a danger to be let back into society?
Which opens up a new can of worms, permanent incarceration.
OldLefty December 13th, 2014 at 11:48 am
But driving is not a right.
________
No?
1) Traveling freely about the country is, and driving, (which of course was not there then) is often the only viable means to do that.
What happens when the single mother can not afford car insurance and her bus route was cut, and can no longer get to her job?
Who compensates HER when an uninsured, gun owner causes expensive damage to HER family?
2) Many, including former SCOTUSs claim that owning a gun is ONLY a right if one is part of a well regulated militia.
amongoose December 13th, 2014 at 12:10 pm
So then is a car a right which must be given to all, or a means of transportation guaranteed?
Who compensates her when that uninsured gun owner was someone who could not legally own a gun, as in a career criminal?
Well regulated according to the writings of those who wrote the constitution was trained, and organized.
All men ages 18-50 were considered part of the standing militia. Most states had laws which required a man to keep a serviceable weapon and a specified number of rounds for it.
But again I ask, does a cost to exercise a right that the citizen cannot afford constitute an infringement of rights?
OldLefty December 13th, 2014 at 6:46 pm
~ “So then is a car a right which must be given to all, or a means of transportation guaranteed?”
______
No more than a gun.
~ “uninsured gun owner was someone who could not legally own a gun, as in a career criminal?”
________
That’s the same as an uninsured driver.
~ “Well regulated according to the writings of those who wrote the constitution was trained, and organized.”
~”But again I ask, does a cost to exercise a right that the citizen cannot afford constitute an infringement of rights?”
No more than buying the gun, or paying for voter id.
According to the last SCOTUS, money is speech.
So does the cost to exercise the right of free speech that the citizen cannot afford constitute an infringement of rights?”
Exactly. Not every yahoo who can shoot his neighbor through the wall.
According to the Chap. ⅩⅩⅩⅢ.—An Act more effectually to provide
for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the
United States. Approved, May 8, 1792…
They had to muster, had ranks, a chain of command and even a drummer and a doctor.
amongoose December 13th, 2014 at 8:46 pm
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is specifically guaranteed, a mode of transportation is not.
There is so far as I know no cost to speaking your mind.
Voter ID is opposed because having to obtain it to exercise that right is argued to be suppressing that right, even if that ID is free of charge, how then can requiring insurance for owning a gun be any different?
that would cause quite an uproar today, citizen militias, formed by the states, complete with artillery companies.
Question, do you think the American citizen has a right to own firearms?
OldLefty December 14th, 2014 at 7:29 am
~” The right of the people to keep and bear arms is specifically guaranteed, a mode of transportation is not.”
_______
The “well trained militia” is.
Just as the kind of arms have changed, (to those that can kill great numbers of people in a very short time), the means to move about the country (and thus engage in commerce have changed).
~”There is so far as I know no cost to speaking your mind.”
_________
There is when the ‘speaking’ is in the form of money for political donations.
Voter ID?
Because the obtaining the vote does not result in the uncompensated loss of life and limb to others.
~”that would cause quite an uproar today, citizen militias…”
__________
Yes, but that was what the Founders intended, (instead of a standing army), as well as what many historians believe was a compromise to slave states who wanted militias to put down slave rebellions.
~Question, do you think the American citizen has a right to own firearms, or certain types should be prohibited?
_______
I think certain types SHOULD be prohibited.
As Conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger said, on the Second Amendment in
1991;
“The Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that “the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all.” In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was “to ensure that the ‘state armies’—’the militia’—would be
maintained for the defense of the state.”
Insurance is the only thing that I can think of that would provide a direct proportionality between the difficulty in obtaining a firearm and the demonstrated, provable irresponsibility of the owner, AND be able to compensate the victims for that irresponsibility.
amongoose December 14th, 2014 at 9:05 am
The supreme court has held that owning a weapon “is an individual right”. So it is the law of the land. Like some of their decisions I don’t like it has to be respected and accepted.
Like I’ve said I feel that requiring a cost for a right, just like a poll tax is an infringement of rights.
I’m afraid we will just have to agree to disagree on that one. Was an interesting and informative discussion with you.
I enjoy bouncing opposing ideas in civility, thank you.
Hope to do it again.
Goose
OldLefty December 14th, 2014 at 12:17 pm
The supreme court has held that owning a weapon ”
_______
Other Supreme Courts have ruled differently.
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939);
Like I’ve said I feel that requiring a cost for a right, just like a poll tax is an infringement of rights.
_______
I think that the right to life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness of the victims trumps the 2nd amendment rights.
We don’t provide the guns, nor does the 2nd amendment say that you are free to have this deadly weapon with no accountability or responsibility and that your right to have a gun supersedes the rights of others not to be killed by it.
As for; “I’m afraid we will just have to agree to disagree on that one. Was an interesting and informative discussion with you.
I enjoy bouncing opposing ideas in civility, thank you.
Hope to do it again.”
Thank you, it’s mutual.
rg9rts December 13th, 2014 at 8:55 am
The attention span is about 1 year…
crc3 December 13th, 2014 at 10:28 am
If that long…
rg9rts December 13th, 2014 at 11:53 am
Benefit of the doubt…only morons like me remember
eyelashviper December 13th, 2014 at 11:13 am
two weeks, seems about the maximum memory of most.
edmeyer_able December 13th, 2014 at 9:01 am
To me the survey shows that ignorance is more prevalent today if people really believe the 2A is under attack and citizens aren’t.
crc3 December 13th, 2014 at 10:34 am
This is indeed tragic. Most people have incredibly short memories because tragedies like the Newtown massacre did not involve them directly. The NRA is also working to sweep everything under a rug and buy (pay off) politicians not to work on legislation for the betterment of the nation. Until the NRA is brought to it’s knees nothing will change…
eyelashviper December 13th, 2014 at 11:14 am
If more shootings happen at the mall, maybe folks will pay attention.
The NRA has poisoned the minds of those with weak minds, which sure seem to be a whole lot of people these days.
Foundryman December 13th, 2014 at 12:01 pm
I knew the day those babies were shot to pieces that it wouldn’t take long for people to forget about it. And the NRA counted on that.
If that incident wasn’t enough to demand change, nothing is.
Jones December 13th, 2014 at 2:41 pm
10,000+ gun deaths a year is just the price of freedumb.