Americans Clearly Divided on Gun Control

Angus Reid Global Monitor ^ | December 26, 2007 | NA

[neverdem]

People in the United States are almost evenly split between those who want tighter firearm legislation and those who believe this is unnecessary, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 42 per cent of respondents believe their country needs stricter gun control laws, while 44 per cent disagree.

The U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right "to keep and bear arms." Some American states have enacted their own gun control regulations, independent of existing federal legislation.

Earlier this month, eight people died inside a Nebraska shopping mall when 19-year-old Robert Hawkins fired over 30 rounds of ammunition. Hawkins later killed himself.

In April, Cho Seung-hui killed 32 people—fellow students and teachers—at the Virginia Tech University campus in two separate incidents, before turning his gun on himself. The shooting is the deadliest of its kind in American history and revived a debate on whether the country should introduce new legislation on gun control. In December 2005, Virginia judge Paul Barnett stated that Cho presented "an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."

On Dec. 20, the U.S. Congress approved legislation aimed at keeping guns away from mentally ill persons. The bill, which has yet to be signed into law by U.S. president George W. Bush, would demand background checks for gun buyers in order to determine whether their mental health status is clear. Democratic New York congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy—a chief sponsor of the bill—saluted the successful vote, saying, "Together, we have crafted a bill that will prevent gun violence, but maintain the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens."

[genefromjersey]

I read and saved that 35 page article. It’s compelling, but not the iron-clad hard evidence the Left and the wingnuts insist on.

(Dammit !)

[absalom01]

Talk about burying the lede....

“5. Will stricter gun control laws increase violent crime, reduce violent crime or have no impact?

22% Increase violent crime
35% Reduce violent crime
35% Have no impact
8% Not sure”

So, 57% of those surveyed thinkg that stricter gun control laws will either increase crime, or have no effect.

[neverdem]

Regardless of how "divided" Americans are regarding gun control, the issue is going to be largely clarified in 2008 with the Parker decision.

The appeal is now being called D.C. v. Heller after the only person determined so far to have "standing."

No point in trying to predict just HOW the Supreme Court is going to rule. The Kelo case (regarding eminent domain) _seemed like_ a no-brainer. Yet the Court decided for the "other side of the issue" in Kelo.

IIRC, that court had O'Connor. "The court said yesterday it will limit its ruling to one question: whether D.C. laws 'violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.'"

Court agrees to consider D.C. gun ban (The court...will limit its ruling to one question!!!)

IIRC, SCOTUSBLOG confirmed that quote.

Parker v. Washington D.C. in HTML courtesy of zeugma. We also note that at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read “bear Arms” in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering: “Surely a most familiar meaning [of ‘carries a firearm’] is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment (’keepand bear Arms’) and Black’s Law Dictionary . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing, we think the operative clause includes a private meaning for”bear Arms.”

[Still Thinking]

Why is the question framed as Tighter Laws vs. Status Quo? Does it not even occur to these people to question if even the current crap, er, crop of laws is good or bad? Why is there no option to vote on rolling back the failed anti-rights legislative experiments of the last century and returning to what was the status quo for 150 years? Stare decisis and all that.

[Eagles6]

I’m for tighter gun control. All shots should be in the 10 ring.

[Still Thinking]

IIRC, that court had O'Connor.

But O'Connor voted correctly in Kelo (with Kelo, against New London), as did Rehnquist. So if Kelo were decided again today, it would still be wrong, O'Connor's and Rehnquist's replacement notwithstanding. Now Roberts and Alito are generally more conservative than Rehnquist and especially O'Connor IMHO, but it wouldn't have helped Kelo.

[neverdem]

Why is the question framed as Tighter Laws vs. Status Quo? Does it not even occur to these people to question if even the current crap, er, crop of laws is good or bad? Why is there no option to vote on rolling back the failed anti-rights legislative experiments of the last century and returning to what was the status quo for 150 years? Stare decisis and all that.

For the same reason that the drive by media rarely cover legitimate defensive use of firearms. They want to control the debate, IMHO.

[Disambiguator]

What kills me is the folks who scream “get your laws off my body” and that abortion is in the Constitution are the ones trying to put their laws on my guns while declaring the second amendment does not allow me to possess a firearm.

You may have just come up with a good anti-liberal bumper sticker slogan: "Get your laws off my guns!"

[El Gato]

while declaring the second amendment does not allow me to possess a firearm.

Well they are right about that.. sort of. The second amendment doesn't "allow" anything. It tells the government "hands off" your right to possess (keep) firearms, or any other sort of arms for that matter.

[boop]

"It isn't up for debate or compromise. The right to keep and bear arms is not a right because the government grants it - instead, the government is only legitimate because it recognizes the right. Push enough gun control and the effort will spawn a civil war."

This is why I really hate some of these initiatives on ballots. If the second amendment were put up for a vote I wouldn't be surprised to find out it would "lose" the popular vote. So many Americans are willing to vote away freedoms.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[endthematrix]

That and also the liberal reporters who scream about injustices to FIRST Amendment rights...then write about banning the SECOND Amendment!

[Smokin' Joe]

Even if the numbers were identical to seven decimal places, the split isn’t even. One side is armed.

[Toadman]

Mr. Journalist who wants to abolish the Second Amendment,

Before publishing your column calling for the eradication of gun rights did you do all of the following?

a) Undergo a Federal background check to see if you should be allowed to exercise your First Amendment rights.

b) Fill out and sign an affidavit to testify that you should be allowed to exercise your First Amendment rights.

c) Wait for five days to “cool down” before you exercised your First Amendment rights.

d) Have your column writings tested by local authorities with a copy of your writing style on file. (Otherwise known as a “ballistic fingerprinting”)

e) Have the serial number of your column recorded with your name and address by local, state, and federal authorities.

f) Get fingerprinted by your local police.

g) Take a mandatory 16-hour Journalism Safety course.

h) Have your name and address published in the local newspaper stating that you had applied for a permit to carry your column around with you. (In Ohio)

j) Are you required to keep your columns locked in a cabinet when not in use.

k) are you allowed to write only one column every 30 days?

Bookmarking your excellent post.

[stevie_d_64]

Well, in real life it really doesn’t matter what “they” think...

“They” (gun-control advocates) are wrong, and will always be wrong...

And in real life it will take an extreme act of hypocracy on their part to enforce how wrong “they” really are...

And “they” will never be that unhappy again...

Just my opinion...

[longtermmemmory]

Divided?

This is DBM explicit lying. A lopsided ANTI-gun control split is not an even split even though they imply it.

If all 299,999,999 americans agreed with the conservate point of view the 1, who would be the left wing reporter, would report “divided america” and “americans not united”.

[Rummyfan]

Divided? What the ??? Gun control is a good sight picture and a smooth trigger pull!

[marktwain]

“42 to 44 percent, but which way is it moving?”

It is moving in our direction, the direction towards more freedom. Only a decade or so ago, these sort of push polls could convince a clear majority of people fed propaganda by the MSM that registration and more controls were needed.

We must continue the push to inform the public via the new media, of which Freerepublic is a part.

The truth, the Constitution, and human nature are all on our side.

[PeterFinn]

Amen, brother.

[Clinging Bitterly]

bump for after work