A Pew Poll shows the following:
A recent poll from Washington Post-ABC shows similar numbers.
So, what should we take away from this? Well, the first thing is obvious. The majority of Americans back the president. Specifically, an overwhelming amount support background checks for private and gun show sales. An overwhelming amount back the prevention of people with mental illness from purchasing guns. Two thirds support a federal database to track gun sales. Over 50 percent back bans on high ammo clips and assault weapons. That's much higher than I thought it would be. It seems clear to me that the background checks, the mental illness exception, and the database are all going to happen. It's simply going to be a matter of time.
But a key question remains as we go forward. Right now, the NRA has just under 5 million members. There are roughly 300 million people in this country. Are we going to let 1.75 percent of the population dictate how we are going to live in this country with guns? What a load of bullshit. I get shit constantly for the 50.1 percent that supposedly rule our country but 1.75 fucking percent? Are you KIDDING me?
The gun folks like scream long and heard about dictatorships and autocratic rule. Perhaps it's because they hate in others what they fear in themselves. The 2nd amendment doesn't trump every other right. The Constitution also guarantees the right to private property and charges the state with the task of protecting that private property with force, if necessary. If the 2nd amendment is, indeed, unlimited, the government can't protect private property anymore and we have anarchy. Don't I have the right to peaceably assemble or do I have to have a gun now? Don't I have the right to go to church (another place where there have been shootings) and freely worship?
According to the gun people, I don't.
8 comments:
Argumentum ad populum
In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."
It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong.
Fallacy: unsound, erroneous, misleading, deceptive, FALSE.
1.75 percent of the population
Not everyone who supports the Constitution joins the NRA. Here's why.
The gun folks like scream long and heard about dictatorships and autocratic rule.
Followed by another voice in your head. What I find fascinating is how you deny the possibility of autocratic rule while simultaneously calling for riding roughshod over "1.75 percent" and saying things like "break out the big fucking dick and start swinging."
Understand this, Marky. YOU are Exhibit A in demonstrating that tyranny is possible in this country. Furthermore, YOU are reason number 1 (not Obama) in why I am now pouring much more of my budget and time into self-defense. Or maybe I should say your drumbeating and hard core demonization of "the right"; which essentially matches the kind of rhetoric that typically precedes open warfare.
If the 2nd amendment is, indeed, unlimited, the government can't protect private property anymore and we have anarchy.
WTF kind of "logic" is that? Must be the Voices In Your Head™ again. That's like saying that if private individuals do anything to fight a fire in their house, a fire truck can't show up to battle the blaze. Silly, silly, silly, silly.
Don't I have the right to peaceably assemble or do I have to have a gun now? Don't I have the right to go to church (another place where there have been shootings) and freely worship?
According to the gun people, I don't.
Only in the Voices In Your Head™ version of your bubble. Not out here in the real world.
1) What is the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)
2) Is the Constitution law?
A poll. Whopee. Shall we disband Congress and just conduct govt via polls and the wishes of Supreme Leader?
The 2nd amendment doesn't trump every other right.
Who ever argued that it did?
Oh that's right, no one.
If the 2nd amendment is, indeed, unlimited, the government can't protect private property anymore
How exactly does someone exercising their second amendment rights deny another person of their property rights?
This isn't another one of your patented 'gas company is using force on me' B.S. conflations is it?
Pew poll question:
Making private gun sales and sales at gun shows
subject to background checks
Mark, can you explain what this question is asking?
A ban on high-capacity ammunition clips
that hold more than 10 bullets
Can you explain why this question is inaccurate and misleading?
A ban on assault style weapons
Why this question is misleading?
Creating a federal government database to track
all gun sales
Why this question is misleading?
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom, It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
–William Pitt, before the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom, It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
–William Pitt, before the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
M: The Constitution also guarantees the right to private property and charges the state with the task of protecting that private property with force, if necessary. If the 2nd amendment is, indeed, unlimited, the government can't protect private property anymore and we have anarchy.
Except for where people had lost some their rights through due process of law (such as being convicted of a felony or mentally defective), the 2nd Amendment was pretty much unlimited for white men (and similarly for women and even blacks in some states) for well over a century, Mark. You could buy a cannon (or several) if you had the money. Was there anarchy? Did things get more peaceful in the South when gun control laws were passed? As a supposed teacher, you should be familiar with the racist and anti-immigrant history of gun control in this country. I guess there must be anarchy in
Vermont while peace reigns in Chicago?
M: Don't I have the right to peaceably assemble or do I have to have a gun now? Don't I have the right to go to church (another place where there have been shootings) and freely worship?
That's a complete non-sequitur, one of Nikto-esque proportions, even. That's just an astoundingly stupid piece of rhetorical nonsense. Want to try again?
Post a Comment