There is life

Status
Not open for further replies.

SharpDog

Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Messages
3,203
Location
Tennessee
Poll: Republican Voters Support Gun Rights over Gun Control Nearly 3 to 1
82
second-amendment-gun-holster-we-the-people-getty-images-640x480.jpg
Karen Ducey/Getty Images
AWR HAWKINS15 Aug 2019303
1:33
While Republican leaders such as Sen. Majority Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are giving ground on more gun laws, Republican voters support gun rights over gun control by a margin of nearly 3 to 1.

A Morning Consult/Politico survey shows that 71 percent of Republicans support protecting the right of Americans to own guns while 22 percent support passage of more gun control.

Among voters who supported Donald Trump in 2016 the gap is slightly larger, with 73 percent supporting protection of the right to own guns while only 21 percent support more gun control.

This survey comes just days after McConnell made clear universal background checks “will probably lead the discussion” when the Senate reconvenes in September. He also said an “assault weapons” ban would be “front and center.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...rt-gun-rights-over-gun-control-nearly-3-to-1/
 
I'm not writing off McConnell I'm sure he understands that w/o pro-gun and pro-life voters his party could not possibly win. I admit I have hard time imagining who else these people could vote for. It's about the same as with pro-gun liberals. I don't think they could ever vote for a Republican.
 
A Morning Consult/Politico survey shows that 71 percent of Republicans support protecting the right of Americans to own guns while 22 percent support passage of more gun control.
You're cherry-picking polls.

Perhaps in the abstract, a majority of Republicans favor the right to own guns. But when you narrow it down to specifics, the results are quite different.

According to a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll (the same company cited above), 90% of Republicans said they would favor universal background checks, and 55% were in favor of an assault weapons ban.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/poll-most-voters-support-assault-weapons-ban-1452586
 
I would LOVE to see the poll results for the following:

"Do you support gun confiscations/gun ban?" to Republican/Democrat/Independent gun owners.

Followed by the question, "Do you plan to vote in 2020?" :rofl:


And polls ... Didn't they accurately predict the election win in 2016?

Oh wait ...

"Pollsters did not get this right ... No one saw this coming ... My crystal ball has been shattered to atoms here because I predicted the exact opposite to what happened ... Most 'credible' polls were off ... exit polls were off ... ":rofl::rofl::rofl:

 
Last edited:
I have lots of friends who support the second amendment and the right to own guns. But that means something very different to them than it does to us. “Why do you need an assault rifle?” “Why do you need more than ten rounds in a clip?” “Why would you need a silencer?” “But, sure, I support the right to bear arms.”



Before I’m flamed....the use of those words were intentional.
 
“Why do you need an assault rifle?” “Why do you need more than ten rounds in a clip?” “Why would you need a silencer?”
Why does OSHA require hearing protection when loud noise is present?

To protect hearing.



I have worked with many liberal/feminist/LGBTQ coworkers for the past 24 years working for CA state government.

During those decades, as one by one became victims of burglary/robbery/home invasion or knew someone who were victimized, especially as gangs/MS-13 proliferated and when federal judge released thousands of inmates from prisons due to overcrowding, they began to become gun owners and asked me to teach them how to shoot as they knew I shot USPSA pistol matches.

From another thread discussion - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...n-control-debates.843681/page-2#post-10969148

"In recent years, things changed. When the federal judge released thousands of inmates from prison, violent crime increased 37% in one year for my city and home invasion robberies increased where gang members staked out streets and posted gang members with radios and kicked in the door armed. Often, even when home owners cooperated, if it was gang initiation, home owners were raped/killed regardless. It got to the point where there was no longer "safe" part of town.

One day when I arrived at the office, I was confronted with a group of Anti-gun crowd who demanded that I teach them how to shoot. While pleasantly surprised, I asked why the sudden change. They told me they all either personally been victims of burglary/robbery or knew family/friends/neighbors who were and wanted to protect themselves because 911 did not work when the doors were kicked in. I gladly took them to the range and taught them to shoot. They bought guns and many of them obtained conceal carry permits. In exchange, I asked them to approach Second Amendment as a "rights issue" of self defense and to vote accordingly (To my shock, some of them actually voted for Trump in 2016)"

Pistols are not effective against a group of gang members with multiple pistols/AKs during home invasions. We used to keep pistol and shotgun by night stands but when family lived in high crime areas, that changed to ARs with 30 round magazines with multiple pistols and 15/17 round magazines mounted on tactical vests ready to don. What good is 10 round magazines when you are dead and your wife/family raped and killed?

And need for larger than 10 round magazines was eloquently expressed by federal judge Benitez - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/happy-days-in-ca.849757/page-2

"'California's law prohibiting acquisition and possession of magazines able to hold any more than 10 rounds places a severe restriction on the core right of self-defense of the home such that it amounts to a destruction of the right and is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny.'

... In 2008, Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to arms in common use for lawful purposes. Benitez notes thathighly popular firearms owned by millions of Americans, such as the Glock 17 pistol, the Ruger 10/22 rifle, and the AR-15 rifle, come equipped with magazines that exceed California's arbitrary limit ... 'Millions of ammunition magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds are in common use by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense ... This is enough to decide that a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds passes the Heller test and is protected by the Second Amendment.'"

"he also concludes that California's ban on 'large capacity magazines' (LCMs) fails 'strict scrutiny,' which requires the government to prove that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest, and even 'intermediate scrutiny,' which requires that the law be substantially related to an important state interest. The LCM ban 'burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home ... It also fails the strict scrutiny test because the statute is not narrowly tailored—it is not tailored at all. Even under the more forgiving test of intermediate scrutiny, the statute fails because it is not a reasonable fit.'"

"Benitez emphasizes that the avowed aim of the LCM ban—reducing the lethality of mass shootings—is related to a small subset of 'extremely rare' crimes: cases where the need to switch magazines creates a 'critical pause' during which the perpetrator might be overpowered or his victims might escape. Defensive uses of guns are far more common, and at the beginning of his ruling Benitez describes several cases in which having more than 10 rounds could have made a critical difference. 'From the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a 'lethal pause,' as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack. In other words, the re-loading 'pause' the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine.

'When thousands of people are rioting, as happened in Los Angeles in 1992, or more recently with Antifa members in Berkeley in 2017, a 10-round limit for self-defense is a severe burden. When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen's home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe. When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe. When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today's litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero. California's ban covers the entire state at all times.'

Proposition 63, which required heretofore legal owners of pre-2000 LCMs to surrender them, remove them from the state, or sell them to licensed gun dealers, passed in 2016 with support from 63 percent of voters. But constitutional rights are not subject to majority approval. 'Constitutional rights stand through time holding fast through the ebb and flow of current controversy. Bad political ideas cannot be stopped by criminalizing bad political speech. Crime waves cannot be broken with warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures. Neither can the government response to a few mad men with guns and ammunition be a law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves into criminals. Yet this is the effect of California's large-capacity magazine law.'"
 
Last edited:
I think Cocaine Mitch knows he won’t be able to show his head back in Kentucky if he facilitates any sort of AWB or UBC. I’m not sure how people really feel about red flag laws here, but the average Kentuckian that voted McConnell into office for 24 years will just stay home or will stand up a primary challenger against him for AWB or UBC. I’m hopeful he’s just playing the game in public but working to kill any legislation in the background.

A gun ban or magazine ban would be the end of his political career.
 
"Polls" are the biggest load of crap to ever have come about.

Its beyond me why anyone pays any mind to them.

Sheep running with the herd or folks following trends are the folks that pay attention.

The “rub” is how the information is gathered, exactly, and from who. Then the “spin” on the results.

It’s easy to roll dice and gather a statistical analysis of the results, that over time will be very close to one another.

However ask, “If it eliminated the chance of your child being killed at school would you get rid of all firearms, would you support the measure?”

The respondents would be very high in number and percentage but that’s fantasy land, you could harness the power of unicorn horn dust before that is going to happen.

If they asked, “Should law abiding citizens be stripped of their rights to own firearms owned only by LEO and criminals?” You might get a different answer/percentage.

Or even better, “Would you ever own a firearm, if it could save your child’s life?”, you get opposite results and both would be a “poll”.

Statistics can be used in many ways, to misconstrue what is real.

You want a child to be killed? Of course not....just understand that every murderer/evil person is also a child of someone.

I would prefer to legally be at least on equal grounds as someone that intended harm to me.


In short a “Poll” is useless without the exact question asked and to whom. Yes, demographic, geographic, etc.
 
Last edited:
Sheep running with the herd or folks following trends are the folks that pay attention.

The “rub” is how the information is gathered, exactly, and from who. Then the “spin” on the results.

It’s easy to roll dice and gather a statistical analysis of the results, that over time will be very close to one another.

However ask, “If it eliminated the chance of your child being killed at school would you get rid of all firearms, would you support the measure?”

The respondents would be very high in number and percentage but that’s fantasy land, you could harness the power of unicorn horn dust before that is going to happen.

If they asked, “Should law abiding citizens be stripped of their rights to own firearms owned only by LEO and criminals?” You might get a different answer/percentage.

Statistics can be used in many ways, to misconstrue what is real.

You want a child to be killed? Of course not....just understand that every murderer/evil person is also a child of someone.

I would prefer to legally be at least on equal grounds as someone that intended harm to me.




As much as folks would have you believe it, modern day political polls are not statistics.
 
No, not at all. Not even close, purposely misconceiving in fact. That’s why they give the % of respondents without any information on what questions were asked.

They seem to want to pat themselves on the back and tell folks to “hop on”...
 
I think Cocaine Mitch knows he won’t be able to show his head back in Kentucky if he facilitates any sort of AWB or UBC. I’m not sure how people really feel about red flag laws here, but the average Kentuckian that voted McConnell into office for 24 years will just stay home or will stand up a primary challenger against him for AWB or UBC. I’m hopeful he’s just playing the game in public but working to kill any legislation in the background.

A gun ban or magazine ban would be the end of his political career.

"Turtle" has his staff analyze polls and trends to see what gun controls can be undertaken w/o loosing power or hurting chance of "Tweetmaister" being re-elected. While there is little chance Republican will vote Democrat they may not show up to vote. Perhaps passing some "sensible" gun regulations can help expand the Republican base?
 
Why does OSHA require hearing protection when loud noise is present?

To protect hearing.



I have worked with many liberal/feminist/LGBTQ coworkers for the past 24 years working for CA state government.

During those decades, as one by one became victims of burglary/robbery/home invasion or knew someone who were victimized, especially as gangs/MS-13 proliferated and when federal judge released thousands of inmates from prisons due to overcrowding, they began to become gun owners and asked me to teach them how to shoot as they knew I shot USPSA pistol matches.

From another thread discussion - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...n-control-debates.843681/page-2#post-10969148

"In recent years, things changed. When the federal judge released thousands of inmates from prison, violent crime increased 37% in one year for my city and home invasion robberies increased where gang members staked out streets and posted gang members with radios and kicked in the door armed. Often, even when home owners cooperated, if it was gang initiation, home owners were raped/killed regardless. It got to the point where there was no longer "safe" part of town.

One day when I arrived at the office, I was confronted with a group of Anti-gun crowd who demanded that I teach them how to shoot. While pleasantly surprised, I asked why the sudden change. They told me they all either personally been victims of burglary/robbery or knew family/friends/neighbors who were and wanted to protect themselves because 911 did not work when the doors were kicked in. I gladly took them to the range and taught them to shoot. They bought guns and many of them obtained conceal carry permits. In exchange, I asked them to approach Second Amendment as a "rights issue" of self defense and to vote accordingly (To my shock, some of them actually voted for Trump in 2016)"

Pistols are not effective against a group of gang members with multiple pistols/AKs during home invasions. We used to keep pistol and shotgun by night stands but when family lived in high crime areas, that changed to ARs with 30 round magazines with multiple pistols and 15/17 round magazines mounted on tactical vests ready to don. What good is 10 round magazines when you are dead and your wife/family raped and killed?

And need for larger than 10 round magazines was eloquently expressed by federal judge Benitez - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/happy-days-in-ca.849757/page-2

"'California's law prohibiting acquisition and possession of magazines able to hold any more than 10 rounds places a severe restriction on the core right of self-defense of the home such that it amounts to a destruction of the right and is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny.'

... In 2008, Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to arms in common use for lawful purposes. Benitez notes thathighly popular firearms owned by millions of Americans, such as the Glock 17 pistol, the Ruger 10/22 rifle, and the AR-15 rifle, come equipped with magazines that exceed California's arbitrary limit ... 'Millions of ammunition magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds are in common use by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense ... This is enough to decide that a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds passes the Heller test and is protected by the Second Amendment.'"

"he also concludes that California's ban on 'large capacity magazines' (LCMs) fails 'strict scrutiny,' which requires the government to prove that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest, and even 'intermediate scrutiny,' which requires that the law be substantially related to an important state interest. The LCM ban 'burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home ... It also fails the strict scrutiny test because the statute is not narrowly tailored—it is not tailored at all. Even under the more forgiving test of intermediate scrutiny, the statute fails because it is not a reasonable fit.'"

"Benitez emphasizes that the avowed aim of the LCM ban—reducing the lethality of mass shootings—is related to a small subset of 'extremely rare' crimes: cases where the need to switch magazines creates a 'critical pause' during which the perpetrator might be overpowered or his victims might escape. Defensive uses of guns are far more common, and at the beginning of his ruling Benitez describes several cases in which having more than 10 rounds could have made a critical difference. 'From the perspective of a victim trying to defend her home and family, the time required to re-load a pistol after the tenth shot might be called a 'lethal pause,' as it typically takes a victim much longer to re-load (if they can do it at all) than a perpetrator planning an attack. In other words, the re-loading 'pause' the State seeks in hopes of stopping a mass shooter also tends to create an even more dangerous time for every victim who must try to defend herself with a small-capacity magazine.

'When thousands of people are rioting, as happened in Los Angeles in 1992, or more recently with Antifa members in Berkeley in 2017, a 10-round limit for self-defense is a severe burden. When a group of armed burglars break into a citizen's home at night, and the homeowner in pajamas must choose between using their left hand to grab either a telephone, a flashlight, or an extra 10-round magazine, the burden is severe. When one is far from help in a sparsely populated part of the state, and law enforcement may not be able to respond in a timely manner, the burden of a 10-round limit is severe. When a major earthquake causes power outages, gas and water line ruptures, collapsed bridges and buildings, and chaos, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. When food distribution channels are disrupted and sustenance becomes scarce while criminals run rampant, the burden of a 10-round magazine limit is severe. Surely, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not to be trimmed away as unnecessary because today's litigation happens during the best of times. It may be the best of times in Sunnyvale; it may be the worst of times in Bombay Beach or Potrero. California's ban covers the entire state at all times.'

Proposition 63, which required heretofore legal owners of pre-2000 LCMs to surrender them, remove them from the state, or sell them to licensed gun dealers, passed in 2016 with support from 63 percent of voters. But constitutional rights are not subject to majority approval. 'Constitutional rights stand through time holding fast through the ebb and flow of current controversy. Bad political ideas cannot be stopped by criminalizing bad political speech. Crime waves cannot be broken with warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures. Neither can the government response to a few mad men with guns and ammunition be a law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves into criminals. Yet this is the effect of California's large-capacity magazine law.'"

This!!! Bravo! This needs to be blasted/mailed/phoned in to every politician out there, now!
 
"Turtle" has his staff analyze polls and trends to see what gun controls can be undertaken w/o loosing power or hurting chance of "Tweetmaister" being re-elected. While there is little chance Republican will vote Democrat they may not show up to vote. Perhaps passing some "sensible" gun regulations can help expand the Republican base?
Kentucky is an odd duck. Most local offices are held by Democrats but all but one of our Representatives and both Senators are Republicans. Kentuckians have no problem voting for Democrats, although being pro-choice costs some of them a lot of votes. Kentucky would be happy to Ditch Mitch if he strays very far.
 
For context:

By ASSOCIATED PRESS
AUG. 15, 2019

SAN DIEGO —

A gun rights group sued Thursday to block California from enforcing its assault weapons ban, contending it violates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

The lawsuit was the latest among gun advocacy and lobbying groups to challenge California’s firearms laws, which are among the strictest in the country, and comes after a recent series of deadly mass shootings nationwide involving military-style rifles.

The lawsuit was filed in the same San Diego federal court district where a judge in April tossed out a nearly two-decade-old California ban on sales and purchases of ammunition magazines holding more than 10 bullets.

The new lawsuit says that decision by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez undercuts California’s ban on certain weapons defined as “assault weapons” because they can use large-capacity magazines. Benitez’s decision triggered a weeklong buying frenzy before he stopped sales while the state appeals his ruling.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-15/california-assault-weapons-lawsuit
 
I believe in common sense gun laws.
Thing is, I seem to have a difference of opinion with a lot of people on what is common sensical (as opposed to non-sensical).
I like fast, accurate background checks.There is no valid reason on this beautiful planet that it should take longer to get an approval or disapproval on a firearms purchase than it does to type up the sale. We have computers that can tell me in seconds who won the first world series, when Colt started making double action handguns and the box office receipts of the latest Star Wars movie. There is no reason why correct information can't be entered into that computer system. Used to be NCIC, now it's NICS. Whatever alphabet nomenclature applies, this is the system that police use to get information during a traffic stop, prior to serving a warrant, whatever. When we live in a time when Google collects every email sent as well as every draft of any email typed but not sent, there is no reason our governmental law folk can't keep track, accurately, of who has been arrested, the disposition of their case, and whether they are now a prohibited person.

I'm a non prohibited person and if I want a particular gun, if someone asks why I need it, answering "Because I can have it." is a perfectly reasonable answer.

The same answer applies to why I have the amount of ammo on hand that I do, the calibers I shoot, or anything else. Frankly, it's no one's business at all.

The only thing I have intentions of shooting up is a stack of misc targets I also have on hand. (Those splatter zombie targets are super fun!)

The non shooting public is sadly uninformed about a lot of these feel-good sounding proposals. As we all know, the devil is, indeed, in the details. Americans, by and large, are trained now that they hear the headlines and move on to the next story. Their attentions spans are so attenuated that after a commercial on television show the show has to give a quick recap of what happened all of 5 minutes ago.

As I said above, I support F&A background checks because as a seller of firearms, I don't want to sell a gun to someone we would all agree should have no right to even look at one much less own one. Not so much most of the plans for UBC's.

Red flag laws sound nice but when you get into the potential for abuse they're frightening.

The general public doesn't know or care about that, they're too busy catching up on what happened before the last commercial.
 
There is life
Sure there is life.

CRPA just filed a lawsuit against CA AW ban - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...a-nra-lawsuit-filed-against-ca-aw-ban.854994/

Join the fight. Time to stand up push back. This is WAR.

You want to "Do something" for gun rights/2A? Support CRPA in their latest fight so we can "ban" the arbitrary use of "assault weapon" and free all semi-auto rifles - https://californiariflepistol.z2systems.com/np/clients/californiariflepistol/membershipJoin.jsp
 
Sure there is life.

CRPA just filed a lawsuit against CA AW ban - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...a-nra-lawsuit-filed-against-ca-aw-ban.854994/

Join the fight. Time to stand up push back. This is WAR.

You want to "Do something" for gun rights/2A? Support CRPA in their latest fight so we can "ban" the arbitrary use of "assault weapon" and free all semi-auto rifles - https://californiariflepistol.z2systems.com/np/clients/californiariflepistol/membershipJoin.jsp


If this is war then is my phone an "assault weapon" (it's black and has a screen that holds 30 app, I also have added a case with an enhanced grip) ?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

These threads always need a little levity.

Annnd, I know, that was VERY LITTLE levity :)
 
I am tired of being a "girly man" and sitting down to watch my gun rights erode away.

I believe it's time to "man up" and stand up to fight for my gun rights/2A.

With the new CRPA lawsuit, I want to help the "push back" sustained by hardwork of CRPA. Federal judge wrote very clearly and eloquently the nonsensical ban on larger than 10 round magazines and looking forward to hear his views on the "arbitrary" use of the term "assault weapon" to keep semi-auto rifles out of law abiding citizens.

Yes, anti-gun/2A laws CAN BE overturned.

Join the fight, cause and the movement.

"Do something" now for our gun right/2A future for our children and our grandchildren.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...a-nra-lawsuit-filed-against-ca-aw-ban.854994/
 
+1. Don't just sit there.

"Do something" - Write, email, call, send money, talk to people, spread the word.

If you got time to post on gun forum, you got time to "Do something".
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top