Verizon Poll

[hilpala]

Well, I think those are all terrible. I don’t support finger printing, retention of purchase information, blocking of concealed/open carry, etc. I just don’t see how having your name ran through a system before you can get a gun is as horrible as many people are making it out to be. We already have background checks for most gun purchases. I don’t see how adding checks to gun shows and online sales will create a slippery slope where we somehow turn into Nazi Germany within 10 years.

Not to pile on here Abean but gun shows already run background checks and online sales from vendors already go to and through FFLs because most times it's cross state lines, being a federal offense to transfer ownership of regulated arms state to state without FFL BC. I believe the mantra missed is that we already have a system in place to screen and we barely run that efficiently (according to a state to state probe). How can you justify piling on another law or more hoops to jump through when the current system hasn't been ran optimally and quite frankly could and should be more than sufficient.

You will not stop a cirminal or person with ill will because if they're hell bent on harming they will find a way. So do we compromise on our enumerated and protected rights to comfort our worrying hearts with a false sense of security?

I am against fingerprinting, extended background checks, registries, ammo logs, retention of personal identifiable information, straw purchases, firearm related media scapegoats, spreading of false information for political gain and emotional guise, the marketing scheme used by anti's (manufactured connotative terminologies), and anybody aiming to leave me at the mercy of criminals whilst I await someone to come document my tragedy.

 

[dlmcbm]

NO- 112031
YES-26017

 

[Grampa G]

No- 112071
Yes-26123
Unsure-2294

 

[ShallNotInfringe]

Background checks for voting are a necessity! Talk about consequences!

When will they hang that poll out???

 

[gedelea]

Yea...some of those could be coming from North Korea!

 

[Sean Gollmer - A.F.&A.M.]

Done

I voted no along with 112,139 others.

 

[bbguns]

First of all, if you find the often-quoted polling data, you will note that, despite American party affiliation numbers being different, democrats outnumbered republicans by a significant margin. Additionally, left-leaning affiliation was greater than right-leaning. Don't forget that the poll was conducted by Marist, on behalf of that bastion of neutrality, MSNBC, and conflicts significantly with Gallup and even a CBS poll...so pick your data carefully. That being said, when was the last time you heard of roughly 90% of the people agreeing on much of anything?

Second, we still theoretically live in a Constitutional Republic...which means that, even in the face of overwhelming public opinion, certain rights are not easily adjusted, by design. The system is intended to blunt the tyranny of the majority.

Third, despite the BHO claims to the contrary, given the responses of the Senators, I very seriously doubt that their own internal polling shows anywhere near 90% support for universal checks.

Fourth, you would like to believe that NO law should be passed that doesn't have a reasonable chance of producing a substantial measurable positive effect...and there is limited data, at best, to support the concept that so-called universal background checks will change the gun crime rate in the nation. And I've not heard a single reputable expert claim that UC's would have had ANY chance of stopping Sandy Hook, the catalyst for the latest round of GC debate.

All of that being said, there can be no compromise when discussing a fundamental RIGHT. Throughout our history, every instance of 'common sense' compromise has eroded the second amendment rights of the citizens.

 

[Boss94]

Looks like the poll was taken down and a immagration poll put in its place.

 

[gamer_jim]

Well, I think those are all terrible. I don’t support finger printing, retention of purchase information, blocking of concealed/open carry, etc. I just don’t see how having your name ran through a system before you can get a gun is as horrible as many people are making it out to be. We already have background checks for most gun purchases. I don’t see how adding checks to gun shows and online sales will create a slippery slope where we somehow turn into Nazi Germany within 10 years.

As mentioned by others so I'll repeat, look at every other gun control legislation has led to liberal politicians wanting more. That's the slippery slope we are talking about. Mandatory background checks will be by definition registration. This won't be name and address only, they will include firearm info. MD already does this with every regulated purchase. Do you really think any legislation to prohibit the government for using information they already collected is going to work?

Again, criminals don't follow the law anyway. They will still illegally transport and transfer their firearms. Placing a huge burden on us law abiding citizens is what we don't like when it doesn't make logical sense that it will help with future shootings.

Also, let's apply your same logic to voting. Can we get background checks and require voter registration? The foundation of our country is freely elected political leaders. Some could argue it would be more dangerous to have non freely elected leaders than unregistered guns.

Instead of repeating lies by our leaders let's actually fix the problem that will reduce firearm violence. Fix the mental health system; stop the revolving door of a justice system we have here in MD; report violent mental health patients to NICS; are a few starters that would actually do something to reduce violence.

 

[abean4187]

So after reading this all and watching the videos I can say that you all make a very good point. UBCs won’t do anything without registration so it is safe to assume that registration is the next step once UBCs are made legal. Not going to be supporting this stuff anymore. Also, if you are looking for more polls to vote in, there is one at the bottom of this page. I already voted for “less strict”.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/background-checks_n_2590495.html

 

[Haides]

Dang, that poll needs our help! Pile on guys!

 

[gedelea]

I voted no change. They just need to enforce the current laws against the criminals who use guns in commission of crime.

 

[gedelea]

@Abean-Good to hear! Please spread the word to your friends and help educate them as well. Its great to see people take the time to educate themselves before jumping on a position or side on important issues such as this.

 

[Haides]

I voted no change. They just need to enforce the current laws against the criminals who use guns in commission of crime.

So the laws in Maryland, for example, don't need to be less strict?....

 

[gedelea]

Its a national poll. I don't think that the national laws need to change. MD laws definitely need to change but I didn't think that was the focus of the poll.

Now you have me thinking. God only know how they spin the results of this data. If they parsed the data on a state by state basis they could take my results to say I feel that nothing needs to change in MD. This is why I hate people trying to use polls to reflect folks view on an issue. They can be spun anyway they want to get the desired results.

 

[Haides]

Yup. In my opinion the "no change" and "not sure" options are only there to split the vote. The anti's get one, unified voice screaming "more restrictions!" while we're over here fighting over two or three options (though honestly, if you're "not sure" you haven't put enough thought into it to have any business answering the dang poll in the first place lol).

 

[6pack]

Definitely hit that poll. I hate that paper. Less strict!

 

[HRDWRK]

They changed to poll to immigration.

 

[Haides]

Did you hit the HuffPost poll abean posted above?

 

[Verbotene]

So after reading this all and watching the videos I can say that you all make a very good point. UBCs won’t do anything without registration so it is safe to assume that registration is the next step once UBCs are made legal. Not going to be supporting this stuff anymore. Also, if you are looking for more polls to vote in, there is one at the bottom of this page. I already voted for “less strict”.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/background-checks_n_2590495.html

Hit it. Let's make that poll make their heads explode.