Americans support tighter gun regulations

[NewCreation435]

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- "The great majority of Americans are in favor of more stringent regulation of the sale and ownership of guns in three ways that go beyond current law in most states. U.S. adults offer near-universal support for requiring background checks for all gun purchases, backed by 96%. Also, three-quarters favor enacting a 30-day waiting period for all gun purchases and 70% favor requiring all privately owned guns to be registered with the police."

rest of the article here
http://news.gallup.com/poll/220637/...rt%20Tighter%20Regulations%20on%20Gun%20Sales

 

[Albion]

What really matters is which restrictions would be constitutional. None of these suggested measures would stop school shootings and mass shootings, but they would make people think so--for a little while.

 

[Andrew]

Assault rifles should be banned, who needs one anyway? Why do you need a gun that scatters bullets (with no need to aim precisely -hence 'practice') into a crowd of people unless you are in a war?




Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

What really matters is which restrictions would be constitutional. None of these suggested measures would stop school shootings and mass shootings, but they would make people think so--for a little while.

True.
The rock was the first technology for man in weaponry.
Whether it be a pistol an arrow or slingshot, a killer is still a killer. Assault rifles or any military weaponry -again are unnecessary period, banning them would at least be a start to preventing mass shootings we have seen in the last 20 years.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

True.
The rock was the first technology for man in weaponry.
Whether it be a pistol an arrow or slingshot, a killer is still a killer. Assault rifles or any military weaponry -again are unnecessary period, banning them would at least be a start to preventing mass shootings we have seen in the last 20 years.

You are admitting, I take it, that gun confiscation is the planned next step.

 

[NewCreation435]

i think as a whole it will be harder in the future to buy an assault weapon, not because of Washington or laws though. Our political system is nearly broken and completely ineffective these days. it is the private sector, such as Dick's Sporting Good, which recently decided to stop selling assault weapons that are stepping up to the plate.

The NRA is simply too powerful a political lobby group and politicians are afraid of them.

 

[Albion]

The new policy announced by the owner of Dick's Sporting Goods is unconstitutional, by the way. I should think that they know this, but of course they got the favorable news coverage he was hoping for.

 

[NewCreation435]

The new policy announced by the owner of Dick's Sporting Goods is unconstitutional, by the way. I should think that they know this, but of course they got the favorable news coverage he was hoping for.

Unconstitutional? It is a private business. They can choose to sell what they want

 

[Stravinsk]

Unconstitutional? It is a private business. They can choose to sell what they want

Yes, and lose business because of it.

Not so many people are as stupid as the media would have us believe, and gun sales in general go up after these "incidents" that are targeted to the gullible television addict to pull on heart strings and pray after watching and digesting contradictory news and horrible acting.

 

[tango]

Assault rifles should be banned, who needs one anyway? Why do you need a gun that scatters bullets (with no need to aim precisely -hence 'practice') into a crowd of people unless you are in a war?




Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

If you want to do that you need to define "assault rifle". It's an ongoing problem with people commenting on "assault rifles" but without a clear definition of what counts as an "assault rifle". You can spray bullets with a semi-automatic pistol with comparable ease to a semi-automatic rifle if you aren't worried about where they go.

 

[tango]

The new policy announced by the owner of Dick's Sporting Goods is unconstitutional, by the way. I should think that they know this, but of course they got the favorable news coverage he was hoping for.

As far as a private seller goes I'm not sure there's anything unconstitutional about it. If they introduce a policy that says they won't sell a specific item that's for them to decide. I'm not sure how it's any more unconstitutional than McDonalds not selling AR-15 type weapons.

It's a way to get a short term publicity boost. Whether it translates into more sales long term remains to be seen.

 

[tango]

i think as a whole it will be harder in the future to buy an assault weapon, not because of Washington or laws though. Our political system is nearly broken and completely ineffective these days. it is the private sector, such as Dick's Sporting Good, which recently decided to stop selling assault weapons that are stepping up to the plate.

The NRA is simply too powerful a political lobby group and politicians are afraid of them.

I suspect the NRA has a lot of power because it's popular. It's easy to look at the big nasty beast that is the NRA, funding its pro-gun agenda as if that were an inherently bad thing, and not take a comparable look at the likes of Michael Bloomberg and George Soros.

One interesting twist on it relates to the whole definition of just what an "assault weapon" actually is. The term is banded around more and more as if it were a clearly defined thing but when asked to define an assault weapon few people seem to come up with anything useful. That said, if private businesses decide to stop selling a particular item they can sell, or not sell, anything according to their internal policies regardless of what definitions other groups may come up with. In theory Dick's could decide to sell AR-15 rifles and muzzle loaders and nothing else, if they decided that's the market segment they wish to pursue.

Of course many sporting shops sell all sorts of other sporting goods and accessories and firearms are just a small part of their overall range. And then you get into the stores that specialise in firearms and shooting in general, and shops like that are unlikely to stop selling a particular class of firearm of their own volition. They seem like better places to go to buy a firearm anyway, with more knowledgable staff and a better selection of new and used options.

 

[tango]

Yes, and lose business because of it.

Not so many people are as stupid as the media would have us believe, and gun sales in general go up after these "incidents" that are targeted to the gullible television addict to pull on heart strings and pray after watching and digesting contradictory news and horrible acting.

Interestingly after the incident at the Pulse nightclub (whatever actually went down that night) a group calling itself Pink Pistols had a sudden surge in membership. Essentially it was members of the gay community figuring they were vulnerable and deciding to exercise their constitutionally recognised right to bear arms to protect themselves.

 

[psalms 91]

I suspect the NRA has a lot of power because it's popular. It's easy to look at the big nasty beast that is the NRA, funding its pro-gun agenda as if that were an inherently bad thing, and not take a comparable look at the likes of Michael Bloomberg and George Soros.

One interesting twist on it relates to the whole definition of just what an "assault weapon" actually is. The term is banded around more and more as if it were a clearly defined thing but when asked to define an assault weapon few people seem to come up with anything useful. That said, if private businesses decide to stop selling a particular item they can sell, or not sell, anything according to their internal policies regardless of what definitions other groups may come up with. In theory Dick's could decide to sell AR-15 rifles and muzzle loaders and nothing else, if they decided that's the market segment they wish to pursue.

Of course many sporting shops sell all sorts of other sporting goods and accessories and firearms are just a small part of their overall range. And then you get into the stores that specialise in firearms and shooting in general, and shops like that are unlikely to stop selling a particular class of firearm of their own volition. They seem like better places to go to buy a firearm anyway, with more knowledgable staff and a better selection of new and used options.

They have 3 million members and as you say are only a small percentage of the population but they have lots of money which makes them powerful. Look at what happened in Georgia, that is politics gone wrong. If I was Delta I would bargain with other states and move my operations where they wouls support a tax break and nort pander to the NRA

 

[tango]

They have 3 million members and as you say are only a small percentage of the population but they have lots of money which makes them powerful. Look at what happened in Georgia, that is politics gone wrong. If I was Delta I would bargain with other states and move my operations where they wouls support a tax break and nort pander to the NRA

They have lots of money? What about Michael Bloomberg, doesn't he also have lots of money? If you want to focus on lobbying you need to focus on both sides, not just pick the side you dislike and complain about everything that is wrong with them.

Personally I'd like to see government power massively reduced to the point there would be little point lobbying for either side but I can't see that happening any time soon. In the meantime it goes without saying that where there's a lot of influence people and groups with money will try and buy influence.

 

[Albion]

They have 3 million members and as you say are only a small percentage of the population but they have lots of money which makes them powerful. Look at what happened in Georgia, that is politics gone wrong. If I was Delta I would bargain with other states and move my operations where they wouls support a tax break and nort pander to the NRA

I seriously doubt that the NRA has as much money to spend on arranging protests, etc. as do George Soros, Tom Steyer, Oprah Winfrey, and the other billionaires who own the Democrat Party and do the organizing of all these marches, writing campaigns, and so on.

 

[psalms 91]

They have lots of money? What about Michael Bloomberg, doesn't he also have lots of money? If you want to focus on lobbying you need to focus on both sides, not just pick the side you dislike and complain about everything that is wrong with them.

Personally I'd like to see government power massively reduced to the point there would be little point lobbying for either side but I can't see that happening any time soon. In the meantime it goes without saying that where there's a lot of influence people and groups with money will try and buy influence.

It is not lobbying as that has gone on since the beginning but rather the lopsided all powerful lobbying that goes on now, and you are right any lobby that attempts to buy votes by threatening someones position should be brought up short. The NRA which you seem to have a blind spot concerning is perhaps the single most guilty of this and has bullied their way with many legislators. They really do not represent mainstream America as most now favor some form of regulation for weapons but of course that matters nothing to them. What we really need is legislators who will represent all the eople and do what is the best for the country, this is why I support term limits for all offices. Maybe if they were less concerned about getting reelected they would start doing what is right

 

[Albion]

The NRA which you seem to have a blind spot concerning is perhaps the single most guilty of this and has bullied their way with many legislators.

It is amusing that the NRA is suppose to have bullied legislators when what they do is exactly what Planned Parenthood, the NEA, the Chamber of Commerce, US Conference of Catholic Bishops, all sorts of Environmentalist organizations, and hundreds of other special interest associations actively involved in lobbying our elected representatives do every day. But let the NRA do the same thing and we are supposed to consider it a national disgrace. LOL

 

[psalms 91]

It is amusing that the NRA is suppose to have bullied legislators when what they do is exactly what Planned Parenthood, the NEA, the Chamber of Commerce, US Conference of Catholic Bishops, all sorts of Environmentalist organizations, and hundreds of other special interest associations actively involved in lobbying our elected representatives do every day. But let the NRA do the same thing and we are supposed to consider it a national disgrace. LOL

You really should have quoted all of that post rather than cherry pick

 

[Albion]

You really should have quoted all of that post rather than cherry pick

I quoted the part (and all of it) that I was concerned enough to comment on--the mistaken criticism of the NRA as bullies for doing what is routine with lobbyists. If they are bullies, so are all the rest of them.