DIVIDED AMERICA: Gun views fractious even as fewer bear arms

[webfact]

DIVIDED AMERICA: Gun views fractious even as fewer bear arms
By MATT SEDENSKY

NEW YORK (AP) — Wherever you look in this nation born of a bloody revolution of musket fire, chances are there's sharp disagreement over firearms.

Democrats war with Republicans, and small towns are against cities. Women and men are at odds, as are blacks and whites and old and young. North clashes with South, East with West.

"The current gun debate is more polarized and sour than any time before in American history," said Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA and author of the 2011 book, "Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America."

___


EDITOR'S NOTE — This story is part of Divided America, AP's ongoing exploration of the economic, social and political divisions in American society.

___

In the midst of debate over the latest mass shooting, in Orlando, it's easy to imagine that guns have always divided us this way. But a close look at survey data over decades shows they haven't.

There was a time, not that long ago, when most citizens favored banning handguns, the chief gun lobbyists supported firearm restrictions, and courts hadn't yet interpreted the Second Amendment as guaranteeing a personal right to bear arms for self-defense at home.

Today, in a country of hundreds of millions of guns, public opinion and interpretation of the law have shifted so much that outright gun bans are unthinkable. It's true that large segments of the public have expressed support for some aspects of gun regulation — but when Americans have been asked to say which is more important, gun control or gun rights, they trend toward the latter.

That shift has come, perhaps surprisingly, as fewer Americans today choose to keep a gun in their home. The General Social Survey, a massive study undertaken by NORC at the University of Chicago since 1972 and one of the foremost authorities on gun ownership, found 31 percent of households had guns in 2014. That was down from a high of 50.4 percent in 1977.

"Institutions have repeated, 'More guns, less crime. More guns, less crime,' over and over again for almost 40 years, and it's hard to turn that belief around in any easy way," said Joan Burbick, an emeritus professor at Washington State University who wrote "Gun Show Nation: Gun Culture and American Democracy" and who owns a gun for hobby shooting.

Among the longest-existing measures of public gun sentiment is a Gallup poll question asking whether there should be a law banning handguns except by police and other authorized people. When it was first asked, in July 1959, 60 percent of respondents approved of such a measure.

By last October, only 27 percent agreed.

Many point to a single date as crucial in the societal shift: May 21, 1977, when the National Rifle Association held its annual meeting at a convention hall in Cincinnati.

"That was the moment, in one evening, when the gun debate in America radically changed," said Winkler.

The turmoil of the country in the 1960s and 1970s roiled institutions of all kinds, the NRA included. The organization had fought gun laws in the past, but also had come to accept some, including the Gun Control Act of 1968. As the next decade wore on and the NRA entered its second century, it faced an identity crisis: Was it a coalition of sportsmen, or a political powerhouse?

Leaders were set on the former, drawing up plans to move its headquarters from Washington to Colorado and to retreat from politics. Some of its most fiery members disagreed, staging a revolt that night that stretched into the next morning, and remade the group's leadership. Plans for a westward move were scuttled, and a rightward move politically was sealed.

The gun lobby's increasingly powerful voice found receptive ears among a public that witnessed the country's civil rights battles, assassinations of beloved leaders and growing lawlessness in cities. Over time, statehouses and Congress bowed to the influence of the NRA and its allies. And in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court finally declared Americans have the right to a gun for self-defense.

"What they (gun rights advocates) did is a classic example of how you make constitutional change: They realized they needed to win in the court of public opinion before you could win in the court of law," said Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University and author of "The Second Amendment: A Biography."

Pew Research Center data provides a sketch of what the gun-owning populace looks like today:

—74 percent of gun owners are men and 82 percent are white.

—Those in rural areas are more than twice as likely as urbanites to own a gun.

—Ownership rates in the Northeast are lower than in the rest of the country.

—Gun owners are far more likely to identify with or lean toward the Republican Party.

Data from GSS shows gun owners are more likely to have higher incomes — and to vote.

Taken together, this is a description of a motivated and politically potent group. But their clout sometimes obscures a simple fact: Though polarization appears in broad questions on gun rights, far more consensus emerges on individual proposals.

A Pew poll released in August showed 85 percent of people support background checks for purchases at gun shows and in private sales; 79 percent support laws to prevent the mentally ill from buying guns; 70 percent approve of a federal database to track gun sales; and 57 percent favor a ban on assault weapons.

"The fact is it's not divisive. The things that we're advocating in the American public, when you're talking about keeping guns out of dangerous hands, we all agree. We all agree on the solutions," said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and whose brother was severely hurt in a shooting. "The only place where this is truly a controversial issue is, tragically and disgracefully, in Congress and in our statehouses across the country."

In the wake of the Orlando shooting that claimed 49 lives, Democrats mounted a 15-hour filibuster in the U.S. Senate to try to break a stalemate on a gun bill — just as attempts to revive legislation have followed other recent mass shootings, though with little effect. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a moderate Republican, likened it to "Groundhog Day," while Sen. Bill Nelson, a Democrat from Florida, said he couldn't see how even the NRA could object to a bill such as the one being considered, to keep those on a terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.

There is little expectation that the Democratic bill will pass. "They are accustomed to getting their way around here," Nelson said of the NRA.

The NRA did not respond to an interview request.

Gross sees signs for hope for gun control supporters. Social media, he said, has helped get out a message that his side, for years, struggled to spread against the deep pockets of the gun lobby. The Democratic presidential primary, in which Hillary Clinton made gun control a flagship issue in differentiating herself from Bernie Sanders, showed it's not an untouchable political issue. And changing national demographics could further bolster the case of those who favor gun restrictions, because minorities are comprising a larger share of the populace and are less likely to own guns.

Still, this debate remains one of the most toxic in America.

Winkler, the UCLA professor, knows divisiveness. He worked on the defense teams of O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson. His research has prompted impassioned debates on issues from free speech to campaign finance.

"Nothing has ever come close to the level of vitriol I have seen with guns," he said. "Both sides feel that life and death is at stake."

The fear expressed by many gun owners that the government seeks to confiscate their weapons harkens back to the time of the Constitution's framers. When James Madison first proposed the right to bear arms, Waldman said, it was specifically seen as a right for gun ownership in the service of militias, which were seen as a bulwark against the possible tyranny and risk of overreach from a central government. That rationale for gun ownership still exists among many today.

"People were worrying about overreach from Washington when it was George Washington and not Washington, D.C.," Waldman said.
___

Associated Press data reporters Larry Fenn and Angeliki Kastanis contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-06-20

[daveAustin]

Doesn't look like the Red Coats are coming back, so time to give em up? On the other hand, freedom of choice and all that; just need to keep them out of the hands of crazies, which is potential everyone. ​

[Pinot]

They always point to the second amendment, the one that gives us militia and muskets. I'd like to see the new liberal Supreme Court put a stop to guns. Interpret the constitution differently. Make guns a safety threat that supercedes all the right to own bullshit.

The threat to America isn't radical Islam, it's radical Republicans.

Enough with the guns. Vote the wingnuts out.

[Andreas2]

What the Pew Research Center data unfortunately doesn't provide:

• How many of the asked people own a gun(s) illegally, identified themselves as gun owners and gave some of their personal data / preferences to the researchers
  • Why did they admit to own a gun(s) illegally
• How many of the asked people own a gun(s) illegally and identified themselves as non-gun-owners
  • Why didn't they admit it
• What is the statistical analysis of these people who own a gun(s) illegally: Are they also mostly white, male and have a higher income? Do they care if it is illegal for law abiding people to own guns? What's their political leaning? Etc., etc., ...

Maybe additionally

• How many of the people, who can afford and have bodyguards, don't let them wear guns. Again, statistical analysis as above

Maybe I missed this part in the analysis but this is also something that could be of interest - And maybe help to explain the result / conclusions of this study.

[mopar71]

[Kwasaki]

I owed guns in England but there were very strict procedures, far from it be for me to tell Americans what to do but looking at the English model would be a start.

[Emster23]

At times I think perhaps revolution was a mistake. If we'd remained with GB, perhaps no Civil War, WWI, WWII. Guys like Trump could not rise in leadership to become PM. Imagine him during Parliament questions sessions. And if we'd taken Parliament model, crooks like Nixon could have been easily given no confidence vote.

[sgtsabai]

There were only 3 commies (they were in reality nothing but dictators) in your picture, no socialist, one fascist and an oppressive English king, at least the part on non-ownership. Obama, which was the purpose of the right wing propaganda, has never opposed gun ownership nor tried to confiscate. I don't like him for real reasons, something the right wing has never understood exists. I would venture a guess that criminals did not respond to the poll you site. I owned many guns, from .22's to long range elk or other use (put a name on it) rifles and many semi-automatic military type weapons, never enough. I enjoyed reloading and shooting all of them. I'm no right wingnut Republican. I'm far left, radical militant. The US has a mental health problem dating back to the Regan regime. In fact I think the US has lost its collective brain. The fumbling bureau of idiots spends all its time entrapping people to make it look like there is a terrorist behind every bush and they are doing their job. They miss the ones that they should have caught, time and time again. Americans have the right, yes right, to legally own weapons and it doesn't matter whether it is for hunting or protection or just because one likes to own them. One can even legally own a fully automatic "real" assault rifle (not the ones the misinformed call assault rifles), even a machine gun. You better have a damn clean record and a lot of money both to purchase and for license. Wish I had that kind of money. That license and hunting license (supports wildlife) I fully support.

[JetsetBkk]

[kamahele]

Yes. Can our fellow posters identify the 5 socialists / communists?

So did Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King all still favor gun ownership after they were assassinated? I guess it was hard to ask. Also, Barack Obama has never, not once, ever even remotely even imply that Americans shouldn't own guns. He did however state that some Americans should not own guns (mentally ill, on the no fly list etc.) and some guns should not be sold as they were designed for battle field killing, not for hunting or home protection.

Edited June 20, 2016 by kamahele

[kamahele]

I'm proud to be an American but not proud of our situation in regards to gun ownership and our politicians who have prostituted themselves to the gun lobby. The NRA is no longer an organization which represents the individual gun owner but instead one which represents the gun manufacturers. They have hoodwinked the American public into believing that more guns equals safety and have blocked any attempt to keep guns out of the hands of those who would harm us. On the no fly list? Can't fly but you can buy a gun. Convicted felon? Fine, you can't vote but you can buy a gun. Your state has strict gun laws to protect the population? Fine, just drive across the border to a neighboring stating with lax gun laws, buy several and then sell them on the street when you get back for a tidy profit. The NRA has even arranged it so that it is illegal for the federal government to spend money to research gun violence. It's a shame. A shame on us.

[DefaultName]

I'm not American, but I think they should be allowed all the guns they want, it's in their constitution after all.

Bullets though should be banned - then they can club each other over the head with their guns until they get tired of it without risk to bystanders & innocents.

[Guest]

I think the gun debate brings a focus on the difference between the American mind set .. and much of the rest of the world.

It seems that in some of the most civilized and happiest countries ... gun ownership is restrictive and measured.

America is not ... contrary to the legend .. a happy place to live .. fat, dumb, complacent, spoiled, narrow minded .. yes ... "American Comfortable' ... but honestly ... no .. the average American would not describe themselves as happy, and would be very hard pressed to point to one thing the government does to IMPROVE their lives .. with all the taxes they pay !!!

The gun debate just brings to the surface the stubborn and stupid underbelly of the USA (Two words -- 'Donald Trump') ... because it should be obvious any country invested in the health, safety, welfare and happiness of its citizens would say "no guns = no shooting" .. let's head in that direction.

I could write the responses that will follow .. simplified and silly excuses from paranoid and fear filled folks who secretly love to be bullies .. It is really that simple .. they get off on being Captain America ...

Well, I think the world has seen what good that mind set has produced. Rivers of blood, to sail the "Democracy Ship" on when all along .. it was not about the money ... it was about the MONEY

The gun debate would end tomorrow if thousands of Black and Latinos went out and bought the AR 15 .. the NRA would be weeping and begging to restrict sales and distribution.

Why? Because "Make America Great Again" REALLY means "Make America WHITE Again"

Edited June 20, 2016 by Guest

[sgtsabai]

Here's a good one, enjoy. http://www.duffelblog.com/2016/06/journalist-fired-bazooka-awarded-national-defense-service-medal-va-benefits/

[Thaidream]

No one can deny that both Japan and the UK which have very strict gun control laws have very few incidents involving death/murder by guns. Now having said that, America is a different country with a different mindset. There is a real fear in America that the government wants to take guns away even from law abiding citizens and people are suspicious of the reasons. In addition, there is a fear of terrorism. Americans also believe our Constitution protects gun ownership. I never saw a need for a gun but I am not adverse to a long gun (rifle or shotgun) as long as properly registered with adequate background checks. No one should own a handgun except in law enforcement- Handguns exist only to kill another person and need to be highly regulated. the long gun can be used for hunting; target shooting; or protection . So called assault weapons or 'war weapons' need to be banned completely and never offered for sale to the public. There is nothing in the American Constitution that lays out that every person has a right to a handgun; an assault weapon or any weapon that they desire to own.

The framers of the American Constitution included owning a weapon based upon the fact that Americans needed weapons at home for hunting; protection against animals; and in case of the country being invaded. The World was completely different then . Even during America's expansion into the West- most towns had laws that guns needed to be checked at the local constable's office to avoid gun incidents in the streets. What made sense then makes more sense today

The NRA- National Rifle Association could care less about how many people are murdered by guns; commit suicide; or any other nefarious use. They exist to protect the wealthy manufacturers of weapons and hide behind the Second Amendment to get away with it. The politicians are worthless- again bankrolled by big money and they will never act. The crazies or radicals will continue to get the weapons and kill at will while people like Donald Trump will try and build walls keeping Mexicans out of the US or check Passports at US entry points to find out who is a Muslim. Complete and utter madness!!!

[kbelyeu]

I think the gun debate brings a focus on the difference between the American mind set .. and much of the rest of the world.

It seems that in some of the most civilized and happiest countries ... gun ownership is restrictive and measured.

America is not ... contrary to the legend .. a happy place to live .. fat, dumb, complacent, spoiled, narrow minded .. yes ... "American Comfortable' ... but honestly ... no .. the average American would not describe themselves as happy, and would be very hard pressed to point to one thing the government does to IMPROVE their lives .. with all the taxes they pay !!!

The gun debate just brings to the surface the stubborn and stupid underbelly of the USA (Two words -- 'Donald Trump') ... because it should be obvious any country invested in the health, safety, welfare and happiness of its citizens would say "no guns = no shooting" .. let's head in that direction.

I could write the responses that will follow .. simplified and silly excuses from paranoid and fear filled folks who secretly love to be bullies .. It is really that simple .. they get off on being Captain America ...

Well, I think the world has seen what good that mind set has produced. Rivers of blood, to sail the "Democracy Ship" on when all along .. it was not about the money ... it was about the MONEY

The gun debate would end tomorrow if thousands of Black and Latinos went out and bought the AR 15 .. the NRA would be weeping and begging to restrict sales and distribution.

Why? Because "Make America Great Again" REALLY means "Make America WHITE Again"

Rubbish

[Pinot]

Absolute nonsense. Different than rubbish. Off the NRA website?

The threat to America isn't radical Islam, it's radical Republicans. Let's see how declining to pass this gun bill will impact the Republicans in November.

Democrats will be taking Congress too.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Pinot

[Guest]

I think the gun debate brings a focus on the difference between the American mind set .. and much of the rest of the world.

It seems that in some of the most civilized and happiest countries ... gun ownership is restrictive and measured.

America is not ... contrary to the legend .. a happy place to live .. fat, dumb, complacent, spoiled, narrow minded .. yes ... "American Comfortable' ... but honestly ... no .. the average American would not describe themselves as happy, and would be very hard pressed to point to one thing the government does to IMPROVE their lives .. with all the taxes they pay !!!

The gun debate just brings to the surface the stubborn and stupid underbelly of the USA (Two words -- 'Donald Trump') ... because it should be obvious any country invested in the health, safety, welfare and happiness of its citizens would say "no guns = no shooting" .. let's head in that direction.

I could write the responses that will follow .. simplified and silly excuses from paranoid and fear filled folks who secretly love to be bullies .. It is really that simple .. they get off on being Captain America ...

Well, I think the world has seen what good that mind set has produced. Rivers of blood, to sail the "Democracy Ship" on when all along .. it was not about the money ... it was about the MONEY

The gun debate would end tomorrow if thousands of Black and Latinos went out and bought the AR 15 .. the NRA would be weeping and begging to restrict sales and distribution.

Why? Because "Make America Great Again" REALLY means "Make America WHITE Again"

Rubbish

Thank you for your well thought out and articulate reply.

Interesting word choice ... "Rubbish" .. very non-American.

So you must be an EXPERT !

So here is my reply to you "Garbage"

[Andreas2]

There were only 3 commies (they were in reality nothing but dictators) in your picture, no socialist, one fascist and an oppressive English king, at least the part on non-ownership. Obama, which was the purpose of the right wing propaganda, has never opposed gun ownership nor tried to confiscate. I don't like him for real reasons, something the right wing has never understood exists. I would venture a guess that criminals did not respond to the poll you site. I owned many guns, from .22's to long range elk or other use (put a name on it) rifles and many semi-automatic military type weapons, never enough. I enjoyed reloading and shooting all of them. I'm no right wingnut Republican. I'm far left, radical militant. The US has a mental health problem dating back to the Regan regime. In fact I think the US has lost its collective brain. The fumbling bureau of idiots spends all its time entrapping people to make it look like there is a terrorist behind every bush and they are doing their job. They miss the ones that they should have caught, time and time again. Americans have the right, yes right, to legally own weapons and it doesn't matter whether it is for hunting or protection or just because one likes to own them. One can even legally own a fully automatic "real" assault rifle (not the ones the misinformed call assault rifles), even a machine gun. You better have a damn clean record and a lot of money both to purchase and for license. Wish I had that kind of money. That license and hunting license (supports wildlife) I fully support.

Fair post, thank you, sgtsabai.

Re Hitler: Please look up what the "S" in "NSDAP" stands for. Additional hint: "AP" stands for "workers' party", a quite straight forward commie term.

It is true that under the NSDAP most people could keep and run their own business as long as they had the approval of the state (license). To be fair, children then could still sell their self-made orange juice or used books in their yard or on the street without being heckled by state servants. You know, IP and public health protection hadn't yet been that much sophisticated... Anyway, an integral part of fascism is state control over any private business activity by finally deciding if at all and with whom the business is allowed to be done. Does this ring any bells about the state of the "free" West? And political correctness was already then very popular - You could easily go to prison or be fined if you said something - or were accused of having said something, even out of context - that was not state approved.

Did I already mention gun control? Ok, water under the bridge.

Re President Obama: I think he is going to be remembered as someone who socialised quite some aspects for the U. S. populace, even if he did this under the progressive banner.

By the way, Hitler also introduced socialised health care for the German people, after all, he was a staunch progressive socialist. He was anything but a capitalist or conservative.

Conclusion:

Gun control makes oppression easier for any regime, no matter from which "political corner" it stems.

The freedom to protect and defend oneself by any means, means not to have to ask the state for approval, as it can't protect you anyway. It only protects its own institutions and some VIPs (very important politicians)... The best you can hope for is a proper investigation after a committed crime against you. That's it, no protection by the state for you.

[Traveler19491]

I think the gun debate brings a focus on the difference between the American mind set .. and much of the rest of the world.

It seems that in some of the most civilized and happiest countries ... gun ownership is restrictive and measured.

America is not ... contrary to the legend .. a happy place to live .. fat, dumb, complacent, spoiled, narrow minded .. yes ... "American Comfortable' ... but honestly ... no .. the average American would not describe themselves as happy, and would be very hard pressed to point to one thing the government does to IMPROVE their lives .. with all the taxes they pay !!!

The gun debate just brings to the surface the stubborn and stupid underbelly of the USA (Two words -- 'Donald Trump') ... because it should be obvious any country invested in the health, safety, welfare and happiness of its citizens would say "no guns = no shooting" .. let's head in that direction.

I could write the responses that will follow .. simplified and silly excuses from paranoid and fear filled folks who secretly love to be bullies .. It is really that simple .. they get off on being Captain America ...

Well, I think the world has seen what good that mind set has produced. Rivers of blood, to sail the "Democracy Ship" on when all along .. it was not about the money ... it was about the MONEY

The gun debate would end tomorrow if thousands of Black and Latinos went out and bought the AR 15 .. the NRA would be weeping and begging to restrict sales and distribution.

Why? Because "Make America Great Again" REALLY means "Make America WHITE Again"

Rubbish

No...actually, very well said.

[sugarcane24]

Doesn't look like the Red Coats are coming back, so time to give em up? On the other hand, freedom of choice and all that; just need to keep them out of the hands of crazies, which is potential everyone. ​

Agreed, especially out of the hands of the crazies in the US government. which because of them has arguably become the world's biggest terrorist organisation.

[Traveler19491]

There were only 3 commies (they were in reality nothing but dictators) in your picture, no socialist, one fascist and an oppressive English king, at least the part on non-ownership. Obama, which was the purpose of the right wing propaganda, has never opposed gun ownership nor tried to confiscate. I don't like him for real reasons, something the right wing has never understood exists. I would venture a guess that criminals did not respond to the poll you site. I owned many guns, from .22's to long range elk or other use (put a name on it) rifles and many semi-automatic military type weapons, never enough. I enjoyed reloading and shooting all of them. I'm no right wingnut Republican. I'm far left, radical militant. The US has a mental health problem dating back to the Regan regime. In fact I think the US has lost its collective brain. The fumbling bureau of idiots spends all its time entrapping people to make it look like there is a terrorist behind every bush and they are doing their job. They miss the ones that they should have caught, time and time again. Americans have the right, yes right, to legally own weapons and it doesn't matter whether it is for hunting or protection or just because one likes to own them. One can even legally own a fully automatic "real" assault rifle (not the ones the misinformed call assault rifles), even a machine gun. You better have a damn clean record and a lot of money both to purchase and for license. Wish I had that kind of money. That license and hunting license (supports wildlife) I fully support.

Fair post, thank you, sgtsabai.

Re Hitler: Please look up what the "S" in "NSDAP" stands for. Additional hint: "AP" stands for "workers' party", a quite straight forward commie term.

It is true that under the NSDAP most people could keep and run their own business as long as they had the approval of the state (license). To be fair, children then could still sell their self-made orange juice or used books in their yard or on the street without being heckled by state servants. You know, IP and public health protection hadn't yet been that much sophisticated... Anyway, an integral part of fascism is state control over any private business activity by finally deciding if at all and with whom the business is allowed to be done. Does this ring any bells about the state of the "free" West? And political correctness was already then very popular - You could easily go to prison or be fined if you said something - or were accused of having said something, even out of context - that was not state approved.

Did I already mention gun control? Ok, water under the bridge.

Re President Obama: I think he is going to be remembered as someone who socialised quite some aspects for the U. S. populace, even if he did this under the progressive banner.

By the way, Hitler also introduced socialised health care for the German people, after all, he was a staunch progressive socialist. He was anything but a capitalist or conservative.

Conclusion:

Gun control makes oppression easier for any regime, no matter from which "political corner" it stems.

The freedom to protect and defend oneself by any means, means not to have to ask the state for approval, as it can't protect you anyway. It only protects its own institutions and some VIPs (very important politicians)... The best you can hope for is a proper investigation after a committed crime against you. That's it, no protection by the state for you.

Well stated, but I would disagree. Especially with your comment, "Gun control makes oppression easier for any regime, no matter from which 'political corner' it stems." This is one of the principal arguments consistently foisted on a gullible public by the gun humpers. No, gun ownership will not ever provide even the slightest hiccup of concern within a modern-day regime bent on oppression. And I offer one word in defense of my position..."drone". How well is an AR-15 or any other gun going to stand up to an armed drone eyeing you from 5,000 feet? I would point to the Taliban, ISIS, and al-Queda. They can go you one better...maybe two. They have fully automatic weapons, including vehicle mounted weapons, and RPG's. How well have they fared against an armed drone? Or an attack helicopter? Or an F-18? And that's in heavily mountainous terrain. How well do you think you'll do in American topography? Claiming that you need your lever action 30-30 or even an AR-15 to defend yourself against a committed force of Airborne troops is ludicrous. Why not just admit it..you want to own an AR-15, or similar assault type weapon, because it's a hell of a lot of fun to take to the firing range, squeeze off a magazine, yell "YEEHAW" while thrusting your fist in the air, and get horny at the smoke and fumes emanating from the barrel. Owners of those types of weapons impress the hell out of themselves and their buddies while guzzling Bud's and outlining exactly how they'll take down a full battalion of infantry. Fun for you? OK, I have no problem with that. That's your thing, then knock yourself out. But to offer the lame reasoning that you need weapons like that to defend against a fully outfitted army the likes of the US military is just simple bullsh*t and you know it.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Traveler19491

[sugarcane24]

They always point to the second amendment, the one that gives us militia and muskets. I'd like to see the new liberal Supreme Court put a stop to guns. Interpret the constitution differently. Make guns a safety threat that supercedes all the right to own bullshit.

The threat to America isn't radical Islam, it's radical Republicans.

Enough with the guns. Vote the wingnuts out.

Guns in the hands of private citizens are surely a minute problem compared with that of governments having guns. How many people have died because of guns owned by private citizens? Governments have killed millions over the past century alone. As long as psychopathic governments have access to guns, private citizens should in my opinion have access to guns as well, as a matter of balance.

[sugarcane24]

They always point to the second amendment, the one that gives us militia and muskets. I'd like to see the new liberal Supreme Court put a stop to guns. Interpret the constitution differently. Make guns a safety threat that supercedes all the right to own bullshit.

The threat to America isn't radical Islam, it's radical Republicans.

Enough with the guns. Vote the wingnuts out.

Guns in the hands of private citizens are surely a minute problem compared with that of governments having guns. How many people have died because of guns owned by private citizens? Governments have killed millions over the past century alone. As long as psychopathic governments have access to guns, private citizens should in my opinion have access to guns as well, as a matter of balance.

[Traveler19491]

They always point to the second amendment, the one that gives us militia and muskets. I'd like to see the new liberal Supreme Court put a stop to guns. Interpret the constitution differently. Make guns a safety threat that supercedes all the right to own bullshit.

The threat to America isn't radical Islam, it's radical Republicans.

Enough with the guns. Vote the wingnuts out.

Guns in the hands of private citizens are surely a minute problem compared with that of governments having guns. How many people have died because of guns owned by private citizens? Governments have killed millions over the past century alone. As long as psychopathic governments have access to guns, private citizens should in my opinion have access to guns as well, as a matter of balance.

"Guns in the hands of private citizens are surely a minute problem compared with that of governments having guns." The numbers would argue against you. According to the Centers for Disease Control, over 32,000 gun-related fatalities in the US annually. Over 85,000 non-fatal injuries. My math isn't that good, but I believe that adds up to well over 117,000 lives negatively impacted by guns annually. Again I would ask, how well is your AR-15 going to stand up to an armed drone, an attack helicopter, or a well trained, combat hardened professional soldier with a fully automatic M-4? Please don't try to feed me that bovine feces.

[Andreas2]

There were only 3 commies (they were in reality nothing but dictators) in your picture, no socialist, one fascist and an oppressive English king, at least the part on non-ownership. Obama, which was the purpose of the right wing propaganda, has never opposed gun ownership nor tried to confiscate. I don't like him for real reasons, something the right wing has never understood exists. I would venture a guess that criminals did not respond to the poll you site. I owned many guns, from .22's to long range elk or other use (put a name on it) rifles and many semi-automatic military type weapons, never enough. I enjoyed reloading and shooting all of them. I'm no right wingnut Republican. I'm far left, radical militant. The US has a mental health problem dating back to the Regan regime. In fact I think the US has lost its collective brain. The fumbling bureau of idiots spends all its time entrapping people to make it look like there is a terrorist behind every bush and they are doing their job. They miss the ones that they should have caught, time and time again. Americans have the right, yes right, to legally own weapons and it doesn't matter whether it is for hunting or protection or just because one likes to own them. One can even legally own a fully automatic "real" assault rifle (not the ones the misinformed call assault rifles), even a machine gun. You better have a damn clean record and a lot of money both to purchase and for license. Wish I had that kind of money. That license and hunting license (supports wildlife) I fully support.

Fair post, thank you, sgtsabai.

Re Hitler: Please look up what the "S" in "NSDAP" stands for. Additional hint: "AP" stands for "workers' party", a quite straight forward commie term.

It is true that under the NSDAP most people could keep and run their own business as long as they had the approval of the state (license). To be fair, children then could still sell their self-made orange juice or used books in their yard or on the street without being heckled by state servants. You know, IP and public health protection hadn't yet been that much sophisticated... Anyway, an integral part of fascism is state control over any private business activity by finally deciding if at all and with whom the business is allowed to be done. Does this ring any bells about the state of the "free" West? And political correctness was already then very popular - You could easily go to prison or be fined if you said something - or were accused of having said something, even out of context - that was not state approved.

Did I already mention gun control? Ok, water under the bridge.

Re President Obama: I think he is going to be remembered as someone who socialised quite some aspects for the U. S. populace, even if he did this under the progressive banner.

By the way, Hitler also introduced socialised health care for the German people, after all, he was a staunch progressive socialist. He was anything but a capitalist or conservative.

Conclusion:

Gun control makes oppression easier for any regime, no matter from which "political corner" it stems.

The freedom to protect and defend oneself by any means, means not to have to ask the state for approval, as it can't protect you anyway. It only protects its own institutions and some VIPs (very important politicians)... The best you can hope for is a proper investigation after a committed crime against you. That's it, no protection by the state for you.

Well stated, but I would disagree. Especially with your comment, "Gun control makes oppression easier for any regime, no matter from which 'political corner' it stems." This is one of the principal arguments consistently foisted on a gullible public by the gun humpers. No, gun ownership will not ever provide even the slightest hiccup of concern within a modern-day regime bent on oppression. And I offer one word in defense of my position..."drone". How well is an AR-15 or any other gun going to stand up to an armed drone eyeing you from 5,000 feet? I would point to the Taliban, ISIS, and al-Queda. They can go you one better...maybe two. They have fully automatic weapons, including vehicle mounted weapons, and RPG's. How well have they fared against an armed drone? Or an attack helicopter? Or an F-18? And that's in heavily mountainous terrain. How well do you think you'll do in American topography? Claiming that you need your lever action 30-30 or even an AR-15 to defend yourself against a committed force of Airborne troops is ludicrous. Why not just admit it..you want to own an AR-15, or similar assault type weapon, because it's a hell of a lot of fun to take to the firing range, squeeze off a magazine, yell "YEEHAW" while thrusting your fist in the air, and get horny at the smoke and fumes emanating from the barrel. Owners of those types of weapons impress the hell out of themselves and their buddies while guzzling Bud's and outlining exactly how they'll take down a full battalion of infantry. Fun for you? OK, I have no problem with that. That's your thing, then knock yourself out. But to offer the lame reasoning that you need weapons like that to defend against a fully outfitted army the likes of the US military is just simple bullsh*t and you know it.

...Especially with your comment, "Gun control makes oppression easier for any regime, no matter from which 'political corner' it stems."...

That's exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned "...or were accused of having said something, even out of context..."

The topic of my post was to show that "fascism" and "progressive socialism" do not necessarily have to exclude each other; This as a response to sgtsabai's fair and appreciated post.

I further listed some examples which indicate, that a government for the people tends to be oppressive, if it criminalises more and more of its own people for saying or doing things, even if there are no victims to claim (like calling a spade a spade or possessing an assault weapon, a flame thrower, a tank, an F-18, you name it -- For protection, self defence). As long as there is no aggressor in the sense of the NAP (Non-Aggression-Principle), who forces you to use your tools for defence, there is absolutely no case for the state to be involved, to investigate AND to judge.

Additionally I argued, that a mountain of governmental business regulations (licensing) is a signature of fascism.

In my conclusion I tried to show the absurdity, that a government of any "colour", which (understandably) can't protect you on an individual basis, is very ignorant, disrespectful and dangerous to say the least (tyrannical?) if it criminalises YOU by regulating your means to defend yourself and your loved ones.

By finishing this response, I also take the freedom to select a little titbit (out of the context, of course) of your post: As it seems, mentioning "AR-15" is the flavour of the month (I haven't seen it before). If you use it in reference to the horrible Orlando terror attack, let me tell you, that it was an SIG Sauer MCX, which was used.

No offence intended, just trying to end my post with a little, friendly wink.

[NeverSure]

Fair post, thank you, sgtsabai.

Re Hitler: Please look up what the "S" in "NSDAP" stands for. Additional hint: "AP" stands for "workers' party", a quite straight forward commie term.

It is true that under the NSDAP most people could keep and run their own business as long as they had the approval of the state (license). To be fair, children then could still sell their self-made orange juice or used books in their yard or on the street without being heckled by state servants. You know, IP and public health protection hadn't yet been that much sophisticated... Anyway, an integral part of fascism is state control over any private business activity by finally deciding if at all and with whom the business is allowed to be done. Does this ring any bells about the state of the "free" West? And political correctness was already then very popular - You could easily go to prison or be fined if you said something - or were accused of having said something, even out of context - that was not state approved.

Did I already mention gun control? Ok, water under the bridge.

Re President Obama: I think he is going to be remembered as someone who socialised quite some aspects for the U. S. populace, even if he did this under the progressive banner.

By the way, Hitler also introduced socialised health care for the German people, after all, he was a staunch progressive socialist. He was anything but a capitalist or conservative.

Conclusion:

Gun control makes oppression easier for any regime, no matter from which "political corner" it stems.

The freedom to protect and defend oneself by any means, means not to have to ask the state for approval, as it can't protect you anyway. It only protects its own institutions and some VIPs (very important politicians)... The best you can hope for is a proper investigation after a committed crime against you. That's it, no protection by the state for you.

And I offer one word in defense of my position..."drone". How well is an AR-15 or any other gun going to stand up to an armed drone eyeing you from 5,000 feet? I would point to the Taliban, ISIS, and al-Queda. They can go you one better...maybe two. They have fully automatic weapons, including vehicle mounted weapons, and RPG's. How well have they fared against an armed drone? -snip-

Have they been defeated yet? By the mighty US military? By Russia who tried it first?

In all of history no guerilla army has EVER been defeated on its own soil. Look at the failed attempts by the mighty US in Korea and Vietnam and all over the ME and... The US and allies haven't won a war since WWII for exactly this reason.

There are more than 100 million armed American citizens with more than 300 million guns - FAR greater than the Taliban. It's the largest guerilla army the world has ever known.

Think before you post.

PS Your post also erroneously presupposes that members of the US Military or police departments would actually turn on their own people.

They.Would.Not.

Cheers.

Edited June 20, 2016 by NeverSure

[Andreas2]

Fair post, thank you, sgtsabai.

Re Hitler: Please look up what the "S" in "NSDAP" stands for. Additional hint: "AP" stands for "workers' party", a quite straight forward commie term.

It is true that under the NSDAP most people could keep and run their own business as long as they had the approval of the state (license). To be fair, children then could still sell their self-made orange juice or used books in their yard or on the street without being heckled by state servants. You know, IP and public health protection hadn't yet been that much sophisticated... Anyway, an integral part of fascism is state control over any private business activity by finally deciding if at all and with whom the business is allowed to be done. Does this ring any bells about the state of the "free" West? And political correctness was already then very popular - You could easily go to prison or be fined if you said something - or were accused of having said something, even out of context - that was not state approved.

Did I already mention gun control? Ok, water under the bridge.

Re President Obama: I think he is going to be remembered as someone who socialised quite some aspects for the U. S. populace, even if he did this under the progressive banner.

By the way, Hitler also introduced socialised health care for the German people, after all, he was a staunch progressive socialist. He was anything but a capitalist or conservative.

Conclusion:

Gun control makes oppression easier for any regime, no matter from which "political corner" it stems.

The freedom to protect and defend oneself by any means, means not to have to ask the state for approval, as it can't protect you anyway. It only protects its own institutions and some VIPs (very important politicians)... The best you can hope for is a proper investigation after a committed crime against you. That's it, no protection by the state for you.

And I offer one word in defense of my position..."drone". How well is an AR-15 or any other gun going to stand up to an armed drone eyeing you from 5,000 feet? I would point to the Taliban, ISIS, and al-Queda. They can go you one better...maybe two. They have fully automatic weapons, including vehicle mounted weapons, and RPG's. How well have they fared against an armed drone? -snip-

Have they been defeated yet? By the mighty US military? By Russia who tried it first?

In all of history no guerilla army has EVER been defeated on its own soil. Look at the failed attempts by the mighty US in Korea and Vietnam and all over the ME and... The US and allies haven't won a war since WWII for exactly this reason.

There are more than 100 million armed American citizens with more than 300 million guns - FAR greater than the Taliban. It's the largest guerilla army the world has ever known.

Think before you post.

PS Your post also erroneously presupposes that members of the US Military or police departments would actually turn on their own people.

They.Would.Not.

Cheers.

I didn't want to take this bait, but thank you for answering this post in the sense I would have done it, too.

[connda]

I wouldn't put a lot of trust in the statistics. Main steam media outlets (controlled by only 6 corporations) have been banging the same drum for years. So let's take another view:

"An Associated Press story receiving considerable attention cites the latest General Social Survey finding that gun ownership has declined in recent years, though other research—from Gallup polls to FBI background checks to NSSF-commissioned studies—provides evidence that Americans are embracing gun ownership at a much higher rate than the suspect GSS indicates." - Gun Ownership Declining? Don’t Believe It, By Steve Sanetti, National Shooting Sports Foundation

All arguments should be presented from multiple points of view. Main stream news generally spins the news from only one point of view.

And at the end of the day:

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

- Benjamin Disraeli

Edited June 20, 2016 by connda

[mopar71]

. The NRA has even arranged it so that it is illegal for the federal government to spend money to research gun violence. It's a shame. A shame on us.

From Jun 17, 2016...

Dem senator: CDC already has authority to study guns

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) wants to remind the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that it already has the power to study gun violence despite what he calls “widely held misconceptions” that say otherwise.

In a letter to the CDC on Friday, Carper dismissed an argument from many public health researchers who say federal gun research has been halted by the 20-year-old congressional budget rule known as the “Dickey amendment.”

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/283955-dem-senator-cdc-already-has-authority-to-study-guns