It's Over: CBS News Poll 50% of Americans want Gun Control Laws Less Strict or Kept As They Are

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
In my humble opinion, strict gun control laws will not reduce the crime rate for the plain and simple fact that criminals and psychopaths do not care about the law.




posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by SpaDe_
 


It's not about murder...it's about our antiquated gun culture and some Americans lack of societal progress.

Americans need to move forward...education is key in this...it is not a coincidence that the highest prevalance of gun ownership is in the least educated areas of the country.


Yes, guns are old-school. We need to move forward and educate the masses. When everyone learns more about math and science, we can get rid of these outdated pea-shooters. Then we can move on up to electricity-based weapons, accoustic weapons, microwave weapons, and laser guns.

Oh what a glorious day that will be! Oh wait, you think murder and violence will be eradicated if there are no more "guns"? Get real and focus on the real problems we are facing. You can take away one type of weapon, and it will be replaced by other weapons. Just look at countries where guns are banned. A rock can kill someone too, ya know.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by SpaDe_
 


It's not about murder...it's about our antiquated gun culture and some Americans lack of societal progress.

Americans need to move forward...education is key in this...it is not a coincidence that the highest prevalance of gun ownership is in the least educated areas of the country.


I have a post high school education, made all As, and I support the right to bear arms. It's due to my education that I am wise enough to see that without the second amendent and a fair distribution of power, the people are subject to oppression. Therefore, the second amendment must not be infringed upon, and moreover, the people should have access to the same weapons as their government, lest the government be given an unfair tactical advantage to carry out an oppressive regime.


I never said education is 100% effective.

And since you think people should be able to own nukes...well...I think you pretty much just showed how uneducated you are.


So... Your brand of education isn't 100% effective. Your brand being more indoctrination than true education.

Guess that shows how much a communist you are. You've been 'indoctrinated' well...



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Poll results are really useless in these debates. There is no control over who answers and how many times they answer. To give you a good example, i conducted a poll this last weekend and the results showed that 100% of the people do not want any form of gun control. The same poll showed that 50% of the people polled support Obama and also that rum should be free to all Americans. Is any of that relevant? Nope. Polls can be controlled to lean one way or the other depending on who is asked, when they are asked, and how they are asked.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   


Has anyone seen this guys channel? Instead of moving forward, what if we moved backwards with todays materials and knowledge. Can you imagine people getting murdered with full-auto crossbows? There are plenty of OLD weapons that are MORE dangerous than a little gun. Although, some are less portable than a handgun.

Shall we ban cannons and hardware stores? Wood, metal, pvc pipe? Gun-grabbers also forget that some people aren't dependent on mass-produced products.




posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TauCetixeta
 


So what is plan b? you have to watch out for plan b. This could have just been a diversion for plan b



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by JrDavis
Our founding fathers created the second amendment to protect us from a tyranical government. This can not be disputed. That being said, did our founding fathers, our FIRST government representatives, believe that they (themselves) would be tyrants to the people?


To be honest, they probably allowed Gun ownership back then as the US was a wilderness with Natives running around.

It seems the romantic notion of it being to protect yourselves from Tyrants was added later....
edit on 27/3/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)


I think the only big difference between a british conservative and an american conservative is of that in gun ownership, otherwise you folks are quite similar. You really like the choking regulations in the UK that only shotguns are allowed IF you are part of a shooting club, have all your ammo counted, gun safes verified, etc?
I think you can also own a shotgun if you go shooting on private property. And .22lr is allowed on private property.

This then brings the necessity of thousands of cameras watching people in the big towns/cities. I would rather not be watched so much. Best to be self-reliant to an extent and not have to depend on the police for your safety. The police cannot be everywhere at the same time and usually show up to investigate crime rather than stop it.

As for tyrannical governments one only need to see what is happening in the EU countries especially the PIIGS. They are constantly being extorted by the central banks and the politicians(both national and EU parliament) to see that national sovereignty has died. We also have *the arab spring* that took place last year that resulted in the removal of 40 year dictators and is continuing to this day. The true motives of arab spring are not crystal clear yet and might not be as pure as they seem.

Throughout history there are many examples of why self-protection and protection of the constitutions are necessary through many nations and many years. Many massacres have happened and many dictatorships have formed because people were unarmed or not armed good enough.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I'll believe it when i see it. As of right now, im not convinced.

If the people do win this one, hopefully we can go after Monsanto, gmo, and get everything labeled



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by SpaDe_
 


It's not about murder...it's about our antiquated gun culture and some Americans lack of societal progress.

Americans need to move forward...education is key in this...it is not a coincidence that the highest prevalance of gun ownership is in the least educated areas of the country.


I have a post high school education, made all As, and I support the right to bear arms. It's due to my education that I am wise enough to see that without the second amendent and a fair distribution of power, the people are subject to oppression. Therefore, the second amendment must not be infringed upon, and moreover, the people should have access to the same weapons as their government, lest the government be given an unfair tactical advantage to carry out an oppressive regime.


I never said education is 100% effective.

And since you think people should be able to own nukes...well...I think you pretty much just showed how uneducated you are.


No i don't think the people need nukes. Who would we nuke? Nukes cause mass destruction; the kind of destruction which if utilized by us, we would only be hurting us. A war against tyranny would require much greater accuracy... The kind of accuracy you would expect from an ar15. If tyranny is at your door with an ar15, you might need a little more than a revolver to ensure your basic human rights, but a nuke? Yeah, light a nuke on your doorstep and let me know how that goes.
edit on 28-3-2013 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by TauCetixeta
 


I would say that it is far from over... in fact it is only beginning. I also want to point out that having a scope like that on an AR is POINTLESS, because an AR is really only good for about 400 - 500 yards as far as accuracy is concerned, unless you are literally a world class shooter, then you may get up to 650-700, but those people are very few and far between. A good holographic scope is really all you need.


Pointless???

I want the - freedom - to put anything i want on my Colt LE901 that shoots 308 ammo.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by votan
reply to post by TauCetixeta
 


So what is plan b? you have to watch out for plan b. This could have just been a diversion for plan b


The Tea Party is watching and ready to respond to Plan B, Plan C, Plan D etc.

There's a new sheriff in town and his name is Senator Ted Cruz.

Don't believe me? Just ask Senator Dianne Feinstein.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by TauCetixeta
 


What's over? People buying guns without background checks?
I know. Background checks are happening.

Even with that said, am thinking a single news poll isn't going to determine anything.



Oh really? Ask Senator Harry Reid.

He abandoned Senator Feinstein because he has 1 eye on the polling data.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by TauCetixeta
 

Yes, he got a little scared after his re-election.
It was closer than he expected it to be.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 



No i don't think the people need nukes. Who would we nuke? Nukes cause mass destruction; the kind of destruction which if utilized by us, we would only be hurting us. A war against tyranny would require much greater accuracy... The kind of accuracy you would expect from an ar15. If tyranny is at your door with an ar15, you might need a little more than a revolver to ensure your basic human rights, but a nuke? Yeah, light a nuke on your doorstep and let me know how that goes.


Yet you are the one that said that people should have access to every weapon the government has access to. And now you are back peddling on that statement.

So you do draw the line somewhere...some weapons shouldn't be in the hands of the common person. Do you think people should be able to own Stealth Bombers? Tanks? Surface to air missles? Where exactly do YOU draw the line?

I draw the line at any weapon that can be used to quickly kill a large amount of people...so yes that does include AR15s and other guns that can be used to quickly and efficiently deal death.

We don't disagree philosophically...we both agree that the line needs to be drawn somewhere...we only disagree on where that line should be. So in a sense, you (and most pro-gun people) are against the 2nd amendment as well...just to a different degree.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by smithjustinb
 



No i don't think the people need nukes. Who would we nuke? Nukes cause mass destruction; the kind of destruction which if utilized by us, we would only be hurting us. A war against tyranny would require much greater accuracy... The kind of accuracy you would expect from an ar15. If tyranny is at your door with an ar15, you might need a little more than a revolver to ensure your basic human rights, but a nuke? Yeah, light a nuke on your doorstep and let me know how that goes.


Yet you are the one that said that people should have access to every weapon the government has access to. And now you are back peddling on that statement.

So you do draw the line somewhere...some weapons shouldn't be in the hands of the common person. Do you think people should be able to own Stealth Bombers? Tanks? Surface to air missles? Where exactly do YOU draw the line?

I draw the line at any weapon that can be used to quickly kill a large amount of people...so yes that does include AR15s and other guns that can be used to quickly and efficiently deal death.

We don't disagree philosophically...we both agree that the line needs to be drawn somewhere...we only disagree on where that line should be. So in a sense, you (and most pro-gun people) are against the 2nd amendment as well...just to a different degree.


You are wrong in using this analogy to begin with . . . so again, logical fallacy.

Arms, under the 2nd, would be categorized as general infantry or personal in nature. Nuke weapons and other explosives are considered Artillery. These are already illegal to own or extremely regulated and expensive, while the debate can be made if they should be . . . they are not what the 2nd is talking about as "arms".

You are using hyperbole for the sake of argumentum ad passiones.

So, fail on your part or any other anti-gunner who brings this red herring to an argument.

Fail.
edit on 3/28/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


He is making the " Senator Feinstein Bazooka " argument.

That hyperbole fails the reality test.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 



Arms, under the 2nd, would be categorized as general infantry or personal in nature. Nuke weapons and other explosives are considered Artillery. These are already illegal to own or extremely regulated and expensive, while the debate can be made if they should be . . . they are not what the 2nd is talking about as "arms".


Please show me then where it is defined what the definition of "arms" is in the 2nd amendment. Please show me ANY definition of "arms" that is exclusive to guns.

If you want to start going by what was defined at the time the 2nd was written...then fine...that means they were definately not talking are AR15s.

Sorry...there is no logical fallacy...there is only you pretending to know some secret definition of "arms" that only includes guns. Remember...the 2nd doesn't say "firearms"...it says "arms". What you are doing is trying to ignore the actual definition of "arms" which simply means "weapon" to try to ignore the huge problem facing you and other gun supporters as to why you aren't crying about not owning other weapons.

Nice try...but you can't so easily dodge and ignore this issue. You are in fact against the 2nd amendment as well...just to a different degree.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


Yes it says arms . . . no artillery. They had canons during the time of the revolution and drafting, so the framers understood the difference.

You are talking about artillery and comparing to arms.

Apples to oranges my friend . . . your ignorance of the terms and intentional conflation is a red herring.

So, yes, logical fallacy and fail.

Also . . . more projection. "you are against the 2nd, cause you are okay with artillery being excluded".
edit on 3/28/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by xedocodex
 


Yes it says arms . . . no artillery. They had canons during the time of the revolution and drafting, so the framers understood the difference.

You are talking about artillery and comparing to arms.

Apples to oranges my friend . . . your ignorance of the terms and intentional conflation is a red herring.

So, yes, logical fallacy and fail.

Also . . . more projection. "you are against the 2nd, cause you are okay with artillery being excluded".
edit on 3/28/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)


You have failed to show me a defintion of where "arms" is defined as guns only.

You are desperately trying to dodge this because you know you can't find a definition that states that "arms" are guns only.

If you want to go by "intent"...then the intent of the founding fathers was for everyone to be able to own a musket.

Using the correct definition of words is not a logical fallacy...but pretending to "know" what the founders "meant" is just down right delusional ranting. The 2nd does not say "firearms" which would imply guns...it simply states "arms"...which covers all types of weapons from knives to nukes.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 

Here is something to digest:

First, a few modern definitions of “arms” present themselves. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines the noun arm as “a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially: firearm.”18 Black’s Law Dictionary defines the word arms as “anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon.”19

Source: Brain Shavings
Seems to rule out nukes.
There are mentions of what 'arms' meant back in 1787 at the link also.

edit on 28-3-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join