2017/2018 Gun Control debate

90% believe those who believe in '90% agree' are 100% full of shit!

Im liking the new terminology "semi automatic single shot rifles" heard this on the brian williams show.

teratos said:

Are 90% of people really in favor of background checks? I doubt it. I would have no problem with it if it were truly just used to weed out the criminals and .gov had no designs on using it as a registration scheme and actually respected the 2A.

Click to expand...

Back in April of 2016 I tracked one of these claims to ground:

ShafTed said:

We keep hearing the national propaganda media outlets quoting things like "75% of NRA members support universal background checks" but they never say where those alleged facts come from. A bit of investigation leads to

https://www.americanprogress.org/pr...hecks-see-nra-as-out-of-touch-new-poll-finds/

with a very telling tidbit right here:

The Public Policy Polling poll, conducted on behalf of MoveOn.org Civic Action and the Center for American Progress, surveyed 816 gun owners on November 11 and November 12 with a margin of error of +/- 3.4 percent.

The poll only lists 816 people, with 24% claiming NRA membership and 72% of those supporting background checks. So the real truth is they found about 140 people to give them the answer they wanted. The survey itself (https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp...7054452/PPP-GunOwnersPollResults-11.17.15.pdf) is very suspect. The questions were obviously crafted as a hit piece on the NRA. It claims to be a "National Survey" but they never say where or how the participants were chosen. It also says that 100% of the respondents own guns, which tells me they cherry-picked the results, their 816 was out of how many total that they contacted? And how many had to be weeded out before they could cook up their ">70%" number?

When the NRA actually polled their members, it came out to 5% who supported background checks, more details here: https://www.gunowners.org/04052013congress.htm so, as we already knew, ACCEPT NOTHING, VERIFY EVERYTHING!

Click to expand...

I haven't looked into the current "90%" manure pile, so if someone wants to do the research, have at it. I'm sure Little Danny Webster has a whole stack of "polls" sitting on his desk, just waiting to be unleashed.

ShafTed said:

Back in April of 2016 I tracked one of these claims to ground:



I haven't looked into the current "90%" manure pile, so if someone wants to do the research, have at it. I'm sure Little Danny Webster has a whole stack of "polls" sitting on his desk, just waiting to be unleashed.

Click to expand...

Thanks! Appreciate the efforts!

doggyjacket said:

The simple truth is that there cannot be a debate. The left won't be happy until all guns are banned. That's all they care about. We can't give a single bleeping inch b/c it's a slippery slope and always is with "progressives."

Click to expand...

I agree totally, if they get the bump stock today they'll want more tomorrow. Give up nothing!

Just out of curiousity has the crime rate increased in md since the 2013 FSA? 318 murders in 2016 and we are at 270+ murder as of early october.

Nope. No more gun control. Not one more inch. I heard Cardin braying away on WMAL... The correct answer is no! In fact I want the Hitler based GCA of 68 repealed. And the NFA act...And they can take their background checks and stick them where the sun don't shine.
How about mental health checks, drug screening and background checks for every Con Gress person, staffer, senator etc? Seems to me that they do more damage to the country than all the (100 million plus) gun owners combined.
Time we all stopped sitting still for the erosian of a Constitutional RIGHT. Write them. Fax them. Call them. You know the organized left will be, it is time to drown out their voices.

teratos said:

Are 90% of people really in favor of background checks? I doubt it. I would have no problem with it if it were truly just used to weed out the criminals and .gov had no designs on using it as a registration scheme and actually respected the 2A.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised at the 90% depending on how the question was asked. In most polls, how something is phrased, can have a major impact.

Most gun owners have purchased at least one firearm from an FFL. In their head NICS background checks already are universal, so why would you say you are opposed to something that is reasonable, and that you already do? What the libs that wrote that poll neglect to say is if they have it their way, you are an instant felon if you loan a gun to a hunting buddy or take your wife to the range. The results to such a poll would be MUCH different if you juxtaposed that additional information to the question.

Im now optimistic as to what President Trump will say about gun control?

Cruacious said:

I'll throw this subject in as it's the only reasonable middle ground I see. Remove HIPPA protections from mental health history and attach them to the NICS system and create a list of disqualifying mental conditions to prevent people who are not sane from acquiring firearms. That's about as far as I am willing to go currently on

Now, for more a more contentious discussion, how about we discuss whether or not we remove the in-person transfer of long guns without a background check being required (much less an FFL)?

(Note: If someone has a valid C&R license a background check will still not be required.)

Click to expand...

Giving the government unfettered access to your medical records to decide who is “sane” enough to exercise rights is definitely NOT a middle ground position.

There is no middle ground here. It’s just about losing more ground to anti-gunners who use any excuse to blame access to and the weapon itself and not the individual.

There is NO amount of scrutiny that would have caught someone this determined. That is playing EXACTY in the anti-gunners agenda: this is so terrible that even pro-gunners are going to be okay with even a little more infringement toward our goal.

Remember: the anti-gunners want NO CIVILIAN OWNERS OF GUNS. They will not rest until they achieve that goal. We need to be actively expanding our gun rights, NOT entertaining any appeasement that we all know will be ineffective in preventing the next tragedy.

What will prevent the next tragedy? More gun Freedoms and reciprocity, so that law abiding citizens can intervene when bad things happen and law enforcement isn’t around.

If a bad guy is going to go on a suicide mission, then enabling MORE law-abiding citizens to defend themselves is what will minimize casualties.

Anything else is one step closer to universal confiscation which returns us to the very issue Colonial Americans faced in the 1770’s; and they knew and drew the line - not because of taxes or lack of Parliamentary representation - but because they would not be disarmed and effectively turned into slaves by a tyrannical monarch and government.

teratos said:

That's what I was watching. Can that possibly be true?

Click to expand...

When was the last time this country was 90% behind anything? I dont think you could 90% of the people to agree the sky is blue.

swamplynx said:

I wouldn't be surprised at the 90% depending on how the question was asked. In most polls, how something is phrased, can have a major impact.

Most gun owners have purchased at least one firearm from an FFL. In their head NICS background checks already are universal, so why would you say you are opposed to something that is reasonable, and that you already do? What the libs that wrote that poll neglect to say is if they have it their way, you are an instant felon if you loan a gun to a hunting buddy or take your wife to the range. The results to such a poll would be MUCH different if you juxtaposed that additional information to the question.

Click to expand...

The Left wants universal background checks to become anal probes. They want to crawl up our asses so far and for so long that that it would take six months to a year get your firearm.

The Left wants a universal background check so severe that 99.99% of Americans would feel uncomfortable submitting to a background check. They want to check with all of our doctors. They want to check with all of our neighbors. They want to check with all of our employers. The want to check with all of our ex-significant others.

This severity is what they refuse to tell the American people. And for good reason. It would be rejected. Fully!

For once, I want to see their universal background check spelled out on paper. I wanted it submitted to the American public for all to see.

Until that occurs, I don't want one inch given to these gun grabbing bastards.

Do you submit to a background check to exercise any other right? No? Then why accept one for the 2a? The antigunners want them...They do not enhance my ability to exercise my right at all...Stop compromising with these anal pores, and force them to give ground for a change.

I've effectively killed several threads on Facebook this week, which is probably because I've switched up tactics a bit.

The first thing I ask is what they really want, or what they realistically think will help. I bring up a couple of simple truths, the first of which is that we now have current legal precedent regarding the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and what it means - i.e., Heller and McDonald.

For those who insist that banning guns is the only way, I've pointed out that it would mean a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, and that can only be accomplished by:

1.) 2/3rds majority in both houses of congress
2.) 3/4ths majority ratification by the US States (Article 5 of the US Constitution)

I then point out the fact that there are millions of guns across the nation that have been accumulated over the last 150+ years and that it would essentially boil down to Government men with guns disarming the populace of their guns, and then what do we have? We have a totalitarian government. That's when I ask them if that's the kind of country they want to live in, and that's usually where the conversation dies - liberals don't really want that kind of governmental control once you spell it out that way.

One of my acquaintances suggested a mandatory psyche evaluation, but of course that comes with issues too, because once the government has the ability to mandate a psyche eval for guns, there's nothing preventing them from instituting a psyche eval for anything else, which brings us right back to a totalitarian (aka "tryannical") government.

I've also added that even if guns were banned, we have so many of them that are undocumented that it would instantly create both a black market for guns, and a whole new class of criminal, and none of that would effectively prevent someone intent on doing harm from obtaining and using guns in the commission of that act.

It's truly an all-or-nothing approach. More restrictions are little more than half-measures that aren't going to prevent anything and only infringes upon good people, and an outright ban would bring about a level of governmental control that would be fundamentally opposite of everything our founding fathers stood for.

Manufacturers of bump/slide fire stocks have suspended orders due to high volumes of purchases.

Banning bump fire stocks is just another feel good measuer that accomplishes nothing. You don't even need a stock to bump fire.

How was the FBI/ATF able to figure out so quickly that Nutjob guy bought 33 firearms in the last year? They seemed to know this information within hours of the shooting.

Did these alphabet agencies visit one LGS after another and go through page after page after page of acquisitions? Seems unlikely.

Or does the FBI/ATF keep ALL of our long gun purchases on file somewhere? Even though we all feel they're not supposed to be doing that.

Is NICS really a backdoor registration system?

Very interesting demostrations.

WJZ just showed Moms Demand Action at a vigil in Annapolis. They interviewed Kevin KommieNutz who spewed typical gun ban BS.