people are waking up

[serpicostraight]

Most Americans back gun lobby, right to use deadly force - Yahoo! News

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Despite the obligatory homage to the Brady Bunch for "balance", it's good to read what I suspect most of us are aware of.

 

[jbombelli]

Most Americans back gun lobby, right to use deadly force - Yahoo! News

But so many of those people who are "waking up" are going to run out and vote for someone who would take that right away. Like someone who would say:

"I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry." (Barack Obama, Aug. 14, 2007)

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

But so many of those people who are "waking up" are going to run out and vote for someone who would take that right away. Like someone who would say:

"I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry." (Barack Obama, Aug. 14, 2007)

Could say pretty much the same thing about Romney but I can only hope people are starting to think for themselves

 

[jbombelli]

Could say pretty much the same thing about Romney but I can only hope people are starting to think for themselves

I know. But the problem here is simple. Most people don't care as much about the 2nd Amendment and our rights as they do making sure the other guy doesn't win the next election. And when it comes down to it, the 2nd Amendment ranks very far down on the list of things people care about. They may pay it lip service when it comes to the news media, but when it comes to voting they don't care. Their vote goes to the guy that has the (D) or (R) after his name without a single thought as to what that person actually stands for.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I know. But the problem here is simple. Most people don't care as much about the 2nd Amendment and our rights as they do making sure the other guy doesn't win the next election. And when it comes down to it, the 2nd Amendment ranks very far down on the list of things people care about. They may pay it lip service when it comes to the news media, but when it comes to voting they don't care. Their vote goes to the guy that has the (D) or (R) after his name without a single thought as to what that person actually stands for.

Well said. The best promises of bread and circuses will win most every time, which is, of course, why a couple of generations of politicians put so much work into fostering the entitlement mentality.

 

[churchmouse]

I know. But the problem here is simple. Most people don't care as much about the 2nd Amendment and our rights as they do making sure the other guy doesn't win the next election. And when it comes down to it, the 2nd Amendment ranks very far down on the list of things people care about. They may pay it lip service when it comes to the news media, but when it comes to voting they don't care. Their vote goes to the guy that has the (D) or (R) after his name without a single thought as to what that person actually stands for.

It is so sad but you are correct as is the "Bread and circuses" statement.
Can this really be fixed or even nudged back on course when so many rely on so much from big brother. I fear it can not.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It is so sad but you are correct as is the "Bread and circuses" statement.
Can this really be fixed or even nudged back on course when so many rely on so much from big brother. I fear it can not.

This problem is about enough to make me a believer in practical applied Darwinism. The core problem is that we have a society heavily influenced by those who accept Darwinism not so much as a science but a religion who refuse to let it run its course. These people at some point past came to the conclusion that it is incumbent upon the government to make the rest of us responsible for protecting the stupid from themselves manifested in ways ranging from asinine product safety requirements (as in I would hate to be the manufacturer forced to admit under oath that nowhere on my product was there a warning the the consumer should not insert it into his ear canal and ignite it) to providing for those who are not willing to provide for themselves to a level determined by the government which may or may not exceed the resources available to those who work but have not mastered working the system who are paying the bill. In the end, a significant portion of our population has been absolved of responsibility for its own well-being and had been told that it is entitled to have all responsibility removed from it at the expense of others. We are now near, perhaps past, the point at which half or more of the population votes for a living. I would include in this not only recipients of aid, but also those who enjoy unnecessary government employment who in practice create problems rather than solving them. As grandpa used to say, the problem is not enough workers and too many drones.

 

[IrishFiddler]

The headline is still at the link, but the text of the story is gone. Guess I wasn't supposed to know about this...

[EDIT]

Here's a working link - http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/13/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE83C0G420120413

 

[blamecharles]

"I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry." (Barack Obama, Aug. 14, 2007)

All i see in that statement is the POTUS endorses OC

 

[88GT]

I posted this in the 2nd Amendment forum. It's not all good news. In fact, I think it kinda sucks. And I'm wondering if everybody read it all the way through because any joy from finding out that people support the right to defend oneself is crushed when you read on and find out that they fully support limitations on doing it.

From a link (not active, just text) in the article: http://link.reuters.com/teh67s

74% support laws limiting the sale of automatic firearms
A whopping 91% support laws requiring background checks for purchases

And every cohort polled except those identifying as Republican showed a significant preference for MORE restrictions on firearm ownership. The Republican margin was probably within the margin of error rendering it a statistical tie.

Remind me again what progress we're making in rousing the sleeping population.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I posted this in the 2nd Amendment forum. It's not all good news. In fact, I think it kinda sucks. And I'm wondering if everybody read it all the way through because any joy from finding out that people support the right to defend oneself is crushed when you read on and find out that they fully support limitations on doing it.

From a link (not active, just text) in the article: http://link.reuters.com/teh67s

74% support laws limiting the sale of automatic firearms
A whopping 91% support laws requiring background checks for purchases

And every cohort polled except those identifying as Republican showed a significant preference for MORE restrictions on firearm ownership. The Republican margin was probably within the margin of error rendering it a statistical tie.

Remind me again what progress we're making in rousing the sleeping population.

The way I look at is most change in Americans' attitudes are usually evolutionary rather than revolutionary. I don't think we can deny that folks' attitudes about guns, carry, and self defense has "liberalized" in the last decade or two. The progress isn't always in a straight line, but I contend the progress is accelerating.

 

[88GT]

The way I look at is most change in Americans' attitudes are usually evolutionary rather than revolutionary. I don't think we can deny that folks' attitudes about guns, carry, and self defense has "liberalized" in the last decade or two. The progress isn't always in a straight line, but I contend the progress is accelerating.

I disagree. I don't think this is a change for the better because I don't think it's a change at all. I don't think that people were overwhelmingly opposed to the use of force and/or self defense. Sure, the percentages will fluctuate based on statistical sampling, variations in question presentation, etc. But I think only a fraction of the population has ever really been opposed to self defense.

So where does that leave us? The same place we've been for the last 20-30 years*. Where's the improvement?




*Actual firearms law notwithstanding. But those are just catching up to public opinion, not operating in spite of it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Gentlemen, may I propose a compromise answer? It appears to me that there are some indications of the people waking up, but at the same time much evidence that, just as when you roll me out of bed at 0300, they just can't seem to get the fog out of their heads. I would say that we have a start, but only a start, and while there is a glimmer of hope, they could just as easily roll over and go back to sleep.

 

[J_Wales]

This problem is about enough to make me a believer in practical applied Darwinism. The core problem is that we have a society heavily influenced by those who accept Darwinism not so much as a science but a religion who refuse to let it run its course. These people at some point past came to the conclusion that it is incumbent upon the government to make the rest of us responsible for protecting the stupid from themselves manifested in ways ranging from asinine product safety requirements (as in I would hate to be the manufacturer forced to admit under oath that nowhere on my product was there a warning the the consumer should not insert it into his ear canal and ignite it) to providing for those who are not willing to provide for themselves to a level determined by the government which may or may not exceed the resources available to those who work but have not mastered working the system who are paying the bill. In the end, a significant portion of our population has been absolved of responsibility for its own well-being and had been told that it is entitled to have all responsibility removed from it at the expense of others. We are now near, perhaps past, the point at which half or more of the population votes for a living. I would include in this not only recipients of aid, but also those who enjoy unnecessary government employment who in practice create problems rather than solving them. As grandpa used to say, the problem is not enough workers and too many drones.

Dead on balls accurate, Sir.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I disagree. I don't think this is a change for the better because I don't think it's a change at all. I don't think that people were overwhelmingly opposed to the use of force and/or self defense. Sure, the percentages will fluctuate based on statistical sampling, variations in question presentation, etc. But I think only a fraction of the population has ever really been opposed to self defense.

So where does that leave us? The same place we've been for the last 20-30 years*. Where's the improvement?




*Actual firearms law notwithstanding. But those are just catching up to public opinion, not operating in spite of it.

Because we're immersed in the changes, they can seem inperceptable. They are definitly, agonizingly slow. But I'd point to the evolving carry laws and gun sales, fast & furious, Brady hyperbole, etc as indicators of change. When giffords got shot a couple years ago, the left did their best to capitalize on that to affect more gun control, just as they are now with the Zimmerman thing and castle doctrine...the former failed and I think the latter will too. I contend in years past, they would have been successful in parlaying these into new and more constricting laws.

Maybe I'm just in an optimistic mood tonight.

 

[J_Wales]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed



Even in a group like INGO, few truly support the Second Amendment.

 

[IndyDave1776]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed



Even in a group like INGO, few truly support the Second Amendment.

Sad but true. I wonder how many would support the repeal of ALL 'gun control' laws. I can see it stratifying as follows:

1. Most everyone would agree with few if any restrictions on Fudd guns.

2. Most would agree on freedom of ownership and carry of handguns although the majority would support licensure and restrictions to concealed carry.
3. Most would agree to freedom to possess and use what we commonly know as assault weapons (although they are not true assault weapons).
4. Fewer would agree to few if any restrictions on what we know as NFA weapons (although I defy anyone to show constitutional authority for the government to pick and choose).
5. Most would s**t their pants at the thought of completely unregulated and uninfringed manufacture, sale, possession, and use (when appropriate) of all weapons.
6. Even more would s**t their pants when they considered that this right applies to all citizens, not just those deemed 'proper' by the government.

If Liberty were to show up, I would estimate that 70% of the population would hide under the bed.

 

[J_Wales]

Sad but true. I wonder how many would support the repeal of ALL 'gun control' laws. I can see it stratifying as follows:

1. Most everyone would agree with few if any restrictions on Fudd guns.

2. Most would agree on freedom of ownership and carry of handguns although the majority would support licensure and restrictions to concealed carry.
3. Most would agree to freedom to possess and use what we commonly know as assault weapons (although they are not true assault weapons).
4. Fewer would agree to few if any restrictions on what we know as NFA weapons (although I defy anyone to show constitutional authority for the government to pick and choose).
5. Most would s**t their pants at the thought of completely unregulated and uninfringed manufacture, sale, possession, and use (when appropriate) of all weapons.
6. Even more would s**t their pants when they considered that this right applies to all citizens, not just those deemed 'proper' by the government.

If Liberty were to show up, I would estimate that 70% of the population would hide under the bed.

I agree. I wonder if there is a way to poll members.

Oh... Wait... There is.

 

[88GT]

Because we're immersed in the changes, they can seem inperceptable. They are definitly, agonizingly slow. But I'd point to the evolving carry laws and gun sales, fast & furious, Brady hyperbole, etc as indicators of change. When giffords got shot a couple years ago, the left did their best to capitalize on that to affect more gun control, just as they are now with the Zimmerman thing and castle doctrine...the former failed and I think the latter will too. I contend in years past, they would have been successful in parlaying these into new and more constricting laws.

Maybe I'm just in an optimistic mood tonight.

And yet the poll clearly shows that more people support greater legislative control on firearms ownership that those who don't.