Posted on 08/24/2007 10:53:27 AM PDT by gc4nra
Anti-gun interests keep taking potshots at your intellect. And safety.
_________________________________________________________
I'm getting so tired of the anti-gun, anti-family organizations running out of both steam and money, and then blaming it on the Gun Lobby. The Brady Center's website Second Amendment Fantasy and The Center's remarks praising Virginia Tech's anti-student panel ruling refuse to accept the smarts of American citizens – and their rights.
Has anybody seen the latest instalment of The Power Of 10?
The week of August 20th, 2007, Host Drew Carey posed a question about gun control to the contestant: what percentage of Americans believe that Americans should be allowed to own automatic weapons?
The answer was 41%. I watched the show and the audience applauded. If, as Drew notes from time to time, that the Poll was conducted of New Yorkers, man, am I impressed! The significance is that on the question of ‘automatic weapons', the finding is not 1 or 2 percent or even 10 or 20 percent, but a thriving 41%.
And Drew, thank you for your service. I didn't know you are a Marine.
So much for the big, bad gun lobby.
Let's not forget that there is an anti-gun lobby. Where your right to own and carry a gun is a civil right – you might say your right to choose – can you imagine a lobby that legally operates against a civil right, thinking up all sorts of arguments against you? Yes, you.
If this is how Americans believe in fellow citizens on the issue of automatic weapons, I'd love to learn more about how they poll out on home self-defense, defense away from home, concealed carry and Castle Doctrine. Judging by the majority of states which affirm concealed carry of weapons, including reciprocity among states, I'd say we already have that answer, and this makes the Brady Center not only out of step with American values, but also irrelevant.
Of course, one might observe that 59% of that Poll disagree, but you have to ask how many of those polled knew that police have no duty to protect individuals, and never have; that citizens are possessed of all legal authority to use up to lethal force when facing grave danger, and how many knew that, tactically, the target is the first line of defense for both person and community? Or campus.
These are truths the anti-gun movement leaves out, and this is what makes them anti-liberty and anti-family. Heads of household and loved ones are killed across this country because they are talked out of their liberty – talked out of it – by anti-family organizations who compel them to walk defenseless while thugs roam armed.
It's what they don't tell you in their crusade to take away the force which backs all citizen authority in this country - again Crime's being used as a wedge issue. They need people to get hurt in order to sustain their emotional arguments.
One of the beauties of concealed carry is in the number of people who do not get hurt, because the armed citizen de-escalates a crime in progress with authority and superior force without discharging the weapon; about 2.5 million times a year according to the FBI. That kicks the stuffings out of the idea of an honest citizen not owning and carrying superior force. You have the authority, but this is obfuscated. Why?
And get this: Zogby International Poll contemporaneous with this [August 21, PR Newswire] finds that 66% of Voters say ‘No' to more gun laws. Big bad gun lobby.
2008 Candidates, call your offices.
As I very carefully point out, we won't stop the next school or workplace shooting by psychoanalyzing or profiling the next shooter, or by disarming students or employees – we'll stop the next shooting by preparing the students and workers to de-escalate it in progress (just as it's done 2.5 million times a year when first responders are not available).
Victims don't become victims because they fight back – they die because they didn't. Why obfuscate this individual authority? Why punish self-defense? Why characterize facing grave danger as settling a dispute in anger?
For every school shooting, an Administration forced students to choose between felony or funeral, and, for some students, now deceased, it obviously chose for them. This is a very resentful concept. Every campus which disarms students another hour shares the blame for the actions of the next shooter.
More citizens are becoming aware of their authority to act without permission from bureaucrats – their authority hidden or punished in being forced to choose every day between felony or funeral. These constituents see a third choice – freedom without having to get permission, and, in fact, instructing officials.
The solution is, of course, to repeal all gun laws and respect citizen authority.
That would be most refreshing. It would be a good stump issue. It would be good for the country.
____________________________
John Longenecker is author of The Case For Nationwide Concealed Carry Of Handguns. See www.TransferOfWealth.net
So, 41% of New Yorkers believe that Americans should be allowed to own automatic weapons but they can't get a majority of New Yorkers to support the ownership of handguns?
Gee, maybe they meant that Americans should be allowed to own automatic weapons -- outside of New York.
JB has the gun list, I usually ping him to gun threads.
That’s GOOD to know. Hey Joe, can you put me on your ping list? TIA. :-)
A submachine gun is a firearm that combines the automatic fire of a machine gun with the cartridge of a pistol, and is usually between the two in weight and size. They were first experimented with in the form of a stocked pistol being converted from semi to fully automatic in the early 20th century
The Question as posted on the power of 10 website does say “automatic weapons”, as shown here: http://www.cbs.com/primetime/powerof10/community/. As to owning automatic weapons you obviously don’t live in CA.
They can’t get a majority of voters to pass an initiative allowing the free ownership of handguns. That doesn’t mean that they don’t support it. It simply means many gun owners are either lazy or have lost faith in the process, and don’t vote.
“The question didn’t ask “automatic weapons” it asked how many thought Americans should be allowed to have “machine guns”.”
It asked automatic weapons.
The term “machine gun” actually means the same thing, but in peoples minds it means a military type of fully automatic weapon.
Not all automatic weapons are machine guns. Machine gun generally refers to a crew served or belt fed weapon in a rifle caliber.
My bet is lazy.
Meaning these polls are worthless and should be ignored. Responding to a poll question costs nothing and obligates no one.
Technically that should be Submachine Gun Kelly.
Perhaps people were reluctant to point out his error, huh?
LOL!
Umnnnhhh...whether a majority of New York residents do or do not favor concealed carry is irrelevant.
It takes a majority of the Common Council (whatever) and a Mayor to make CCW practically available.
Also note that other surveys on roughly the same topic show results that ‘citizens of major cities are evenly divided’ on most gun issues.
So NYC residents are evenly divided—but outstate is likely 2/3rds or more with the NRA’s position(s).
Not quite.
"Initiative-referendums" are not available under the Wisconsin Constitution--and it's likely that New York State doesn't allow them either.
And in Wisconsin, we were ONE vote short of over-riding our JackassGovernor's veto--meaning that we had 2/3rds of the Leggies on our side.
Don't know about NYState, but getting a 67++% Leggie majority is damned hard to do, period.
I understand. But the people DO elect the Common Council and the Mayor? They CAN make their voices known?
My point is, anyone can respond to a survey -- machine guns? Sure, why not? But when asked to actually go to the polls and vote to legalize it ... different matter altogether.
I don’t know too much about NYC politics, but my guess is that gun-rights are not too high on anyone’s platform—whether Yea or Nay.
And I will grant you that most of the population in NYC probably doesn’t give a rotten damn about it. Those who want guns, legal or not, have them. Those who don’t don’t.
But my guess is also that there are a lot of NYC citizens who have guns—the law-abiding, quiet types—and maybe don’t even have them registered. They CERTAINLY don’t have carry-permits, even if they carry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.