Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Nothing Divides Voters Like Owning A Gun: Are You Red Or Blue ? Interactive Graphic
Support for universal background checks is itself almost universal, 97 - 2 percent, including 97 - 3 percent among gun owners. Support for gun control on other questions is at its highest level since the Quinnipiac University Poll began focusing on this issue in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre: 67 - 29 percent for a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons; 83 - 14 percent for a mandatory waiting period for all gun purchases. It is too easy to buy a gun in the U.S. today, American voters say 67 - 3 percent. If more people carried guns, the U.S. would be less safe, voters say 59 - 33 percent. Congress needs to do more to reduce gun violence, voters say 75 - 17 percent.
@Ted Oh, bs, please. The founders never intended a "well regulated militia" to include lone gunmen nuts with AR-15s. And there are now plenty of gun owners who agree that assault rifles need to be regulated or banned altogether. It's not stopping anyone from getting a conventional gun.
"Support for universal background checks is itself almost universal, 97 - 2 percent"
- and -
We can't get anything (including background checks) done because "there are enough people in this country who are fearful of losing this so called 'right'."
Are there really that many people with a first-rate intelligence in the US?
("The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald)
@Ted and @LewisBraham: Thanks. My position exactly. There are plenty of reasons why decent people own guns, for hunting, sporting, marksmanship competition, and even for personal safety. Automatic and semi-automatic assault weapons have absolutely no place in the hands of the average civilian.
I can’t imagine not being able to keep firearms for personal and home safety. People have no right to keep me from protecting my family and property with whatever force necessary. I have 2 handguns, a 9mm and a .45. I don’t mind at all tougher background checks, longer sentences for people who carry guns illegally, and see no reason at all for the AR-15 type weapons. Kids should not be able to buy guns, nor should crazy people. There are plenty of gun laws that are simply not enforced. Cops who don’t do their job, like those in Florida, should be plain out fired, not suspended without pay. I personally would like to see much larger prisons so people are not let back out on the street.
I believe in the 2nd Amendment but I don't believe in stupid. As a country, we're being stupid. I can go to a gun show they have 2 or 3 times a year around here and buy an AR-15 type weapon, banana clips and ammo for $800-900. Better yet, I can go online and order a fully automatic version in two pieces - upper assembly and lower assembly - for about $750 and for another $20 get the tool kit and assembly video. This is stupid.
I'll take it further and simply say that assault rifles and high capacity magazines can and should be banned without gutting the 2nd. Cripes, it's the gov't conspiracy crazies that have to have them to take up arms against the gov't. Cretins. Your M-16 ain't gonna cut it if they want you. I was assigned one for 20 months in Vietnam. They are not for hunting - they are weapons of war for killing humans.
As for the schools, arming the teachers is the wrong idea. It's based upon the premise that gun violence can only be controlled with more guns. If you carry that logic forward, everyone will end up having to have a gun. If you arm teachers, how long before Bubba sues so Bubba Jr. can carry to school because he's being bullied.
No, make the schools as safe as courtrooms and commercial airplanes. Start with the elementary schools and work your way to junior and senior high. Pay for it with an excise tax of 10% on all sales of guns and ammo.
and so it goes,
peace,
Sgt. O CoA, 1stReconBn, 1stMarDiv Vietnam March '68 - Nov '69
@davidrmoran - do you mean designed for hunting? If so they were/are indeed marketed that way but are a horrible choice unless your only intent is to kill. I've never seen a legitimate game hunter with one yet.
Open very Off-topic question, but since the 2nd refers to a "well regulated militia" Why doesn't anyone say you can only possess a gun if you are a member of a "regulated militia" rather than as a random individual. And yes I am aware that this would contradict the most recent Supreme Court ruling on the matter, but it seems an approach that has not been taken.
Something like you must be part of a "militia group that does regular safety, educational or related (organizational?) activities"
Oyez does a very good job of summarizing cases in plain English. From its page on Heller
The Court held that the first clause of the Second Amendment that references a “militia” is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment. Additionally, the term “militia” should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service. To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people. Because the text of the Amendment should be read in the manner that gives greatest effect to the plain meaning it would have had at the time it was written, the operative clause should be read to “guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
: Agree or disagree, there you go. You can read Oyez' encapsulation of the case facts and the dissent on the cited page. (The page also has links to the text of the ruling.)
When citizens’ support for a candidate stems primarily from their strong dislike for the opposing candidate, they are less subject to the logic of accountability. Their psychic satisfaction comes more from defeating and humiliating the out-group, and less from any performance or policy benefits that might accrue from the victory of the in-party. For this group of voters, candidates have every incentive to inflame partisan negativity, further entrenching affective polarization.
It's a lost cause, at least for some time, to rail against the mistaken Heller decision and insist on reading the nominative absolute that opens 2A in strict-constructionist fashion, as it was intended and written. But for those who are interested:
It is hard to get reasonable discussion going when the NRA'a LaPierre recently inflamed his supporters, claiming the right to bear arms is a "God-given right." How is it possible to reason with someone spouting that sort of nonsense?
Comments
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521 So why can't we get anything done?
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=kCaYWpzuFcS-jwTZvrSoDQ&q=amendment+2&oq=amendment+2&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i131k1j0i20i264k1j0l5j0i20i264k1j0l2.2155.13432.0.14129.12.8.0.3.3.0.150.787.6j2.8.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.11.803.0..35i39k1j0i131i20i264k1.0.jKCmJ2zOYGs
Regards,
Ted
- and -
We can't get anything (including background checks) done because "there are enough people in this country who are fearful of losing this so called 'right'."
Are there really that many people with a first-rate intelligence in the US?
("The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald)
you do know the difference between inside and outside the house, of course, protection vs social endangerment
I believe in the 2nd Amendment but I don't believe in stupid. As a country, we're being stupid. I can go to a gun show they have 2 or 3 times a year around here and buy an AR-15 type weapon, banana clips and ammo for $800-900. Better yet, I can go online and order a fully automatic version in two pieces - upper assembly and lower assembly - for about $750 and for another $20 get the tool kit and assembly video. This is stupid.
I'll take it further and simply say that assault rifles and high capacity magazines can and should be banned without gutting the 2nd. Cripes, it's the gov't conspiracy crazies that have to have them to take up arms against the gov't. Cretins. Your M-16 ain't gonna cut it if they want you. I was assigned one for 20 months in Vietnam. They are not for hunting - they are weapons of war for killing humans.
As for the schools, arming the teachers is the wrong idea. It's based upon the premise that gun violence can only be controlled with more guns. If you carry that logic forward, everyone will end up having to have a gun. If you arm teachers, how long before Bubba sues so Bubba Jr. can carry to school because he's being bullied.
No, make the schools as safe as courtrooms and commercial airplanes. Start with the elementary schools and work your way to junior and senior high. Pay for it with an excise tax of 10% on all sales of guns and ammo.
and so it goes,
peace,
Sgt. O
CoA, 1stReconBn, 1stMarDiv
Vietnam March '68 - Nov '69
Something like you must be part of a "militia group that does regular safety, educational or related (organizational?) activities"
>> that assault rifles and high capacity magazines can and should be banned without gutting the 2nd
and I was pointing it out that that was how it used to be, long upheld by courts etc.
Agree or disagree, there you go. You can read Oyez' encapsulation of the case facts and the dissent on the cited page. (The page also has links to the text of the ruling.)
https://nytimes.com/2018/03/01/opinion/negative-partisanship-democrats-republicans.html?rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Multimedia
People hate the opposition party so much they would rather oppose the other party even when they agree with it on an issue. This really is an excellent article. An excerpt:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-second-amendment-is-a-gun-control-amendment