Support For Stricter Gun Laws Drops Under 50%, Poll Finds — Lowest Rate In 16 Years

[Schiff for Senate]

An increasingly ignorant, distrusting, and angry public armed to the teeth. What could go wrong?

Hopefully a revolution occurs.

You are not a clown, but the entire circus

What an original comeback. At least clowns and circuses have a sense of humor, you could learn a thing or two from them.

If you're calling for a revolution, you are not a serious person who deserves a serious reply.

New Hampshire was the first state government in America and their State Constitution ensures a Right of Revolution, “whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right out to reform the old, or establish a new government.”

Yeah, but NH is also the state whose motto is "Live Free or Die" and their constitution also insists they go first in the primary, so I'm not sure how representative their constitution is of the nation's. By the logic that NH is the most important state because it had the first state government, all states should also enact stupid laws that allow adults not to wear seatbelts. I don't see what the point of quoting the NH constitution was.

[Hermit For Peace]

It makes sense to me that support for stricter gun laws drops. I myself have changed my tune. It's not guns that kill people, but people who kill people. Guns don't go off on their own.

I keep saying that society needs to take a deeper look at itself and why we keep producing broken people who do violence like this. It's society's problem, not the parent, or the school, or whatever. We are all a product of society and we need to change.

Banning guns is not the answer. Deal with the internal problems and the need and desire for guns will lessen. It's psychology.

[Big Abraham]

An increasingly ignorant, distrusting, and angry public armed to the teeth. What could go wrong?

Hopefully a revolution occurs.

You are not a clown, but the entire circus

What an original comeback. At least clowns and circuses have a sense of humor, you could learn a thing or two from them.

If you're calling for a revolution, you are not a serious person who deserves a serious reply.

New Hampshire was the first state government in America and their State Constitution ensures a Right of Revolution, “whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right out to reform the old, or establish a new government.”

Yeah, but NH is also the state whose motto is "Live Free or Die" and their constitution also insists they go first in the primary, so I'm not sure how representative their constitution is of the nation's. By the logic that NH is the most important state because it had the first state government, all states should also enact stupid laws that allow adults not to wear seatbelts. I don't see what the point of quoting the NH constitution was.

It's not just NH. Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, North Carolina, Texas, Greece, and the United Nations in the UDHR all affirm the right of revolution in their constitutions.

[Schiff for Senate]

An increasingly ignorant, distrusting, and angry public armed to the teeth. What could go wrong?

Hopefully a revolution occurs.

You are not a clown, but the entire circus

What an original comeback. At least clowns and circuses have a sense of humor, you could learn a thing or two from them.

If you're calling for a revolution, you are not a serious person who deserves a serious reply.

New Hampshire was the first state government in America and their State Constitution ensures a Right of Revolution, “whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right out to reform the old, or establish a new government.”

Yeah, but NH is also the state whose motto is "Live Free or Die" and their constitution also insists they go first in the primary, so I'm not sure how representative their constitution is of the nation's. By the logic that NH is the most important state because it had the first state government, all states should also enact stupid laws that allow adults not to wear seatbelts. I don't see what the point of quoting the NH constitution was.

It's not just NH. Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, North Carolina, Texas, Greece, and the United Nations in the UDHR all affirm the right of revolution in their constitutions.

Great. What does this have to do with opposing common-sense gun restrictions and background checks again?

[Big Abraham]

An increasingly ignorant, distrusting, and angry public armed to the teeth. What could go wrong?

Hopefully a revolution occurs.

You are not a clown, but the entire circus

What an original comeback. At least clowns and circuses have a sense of humor, you could learn a thing or two from them.

If you're calling for a revolution, you are not a serious person who deserves a serious reply.

New Hampshire was the first state government in America and their State Constitution ensures a Right of Revolution, “whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right out to reform the old, or establish a new government.”

Yeah, but NH is also the state whose motto is "Live Free or Die" and their constitution also insists they go first in the primary, so I'm not sure how representative their constitution is of the nation's. By the logic that NH is the most important state because it had the first state government, all states should also enact stupid laws that allow adults not to wear seatbelts. I don't see what the point of quoting the NH constitution was.

It's not just NH. Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, North Carolina, Texas, Greece, and the United Nations in the UDHR all affirm the right of revolution in their constitutions.

Great. What does this have to do with opposing common-sense gun restrictions and background checks again?

Quite a lot given that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right. But I was specifically responding to your claim that NH's constitution is not representative of the nation, which is false because (1) numerous other states, countries, and human rights declarations affirm right of revolution; and (2) it's also affirmed by the document which declared our independence from Great Britain.

[Ferguson97]

 An increasingly ignorant, distrusting, and angry public armed to the teeth. What could go wrong?

Hopefully a revolution occurs.

You do realize that if there is a Second American Revolution, it likely won't be the working class rising up against the rich, right? It's far more likely to be white supremacists and fascists.

[Schiff for Senate]

An increasingly ignorant, distrusting, and angry public armed to the teeth. What could go wrong?

Hopefully a revolution occurs.

You are not a clown, but the entire circus

What an original comeback. At least clowns and circuses have a sense of humor, you could learn a thing or two from them.

If you're calling for a revolution, you are not a serious person who deserves a serious reply.

New Hampshire was the first state government in America and their State Constitution ensures a Right of Revolution, “whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right out to reform the old, or establish a new government.”

Yeah, but NH is also the state whose motto is "Live Free or Die" and their constitution also insists they go first in the primary, so I'm not sure how representative their constitution is of the nation's. By the logic that NH is the most important state because it had the first state government, all states should also enact stupid laws that allow adults not to wear seatbelts. I don't see what the point of quoting the NH constitution was.

It's not just NH. Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, North Carolina, Texas, Greece, and the United Nations in the UDHR all affirm the right of revolution in their constitutions.

Great. What does this have to do with opposing common-sense gun restrictions and background checks again?

Quite a lot given that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right. But I was specifically responding to your claim that NH's constitution is not representative of the nation, which is false because (1) numerous other states, countries, and human rights declarations affirm right of revolution; and (2) it's also affirmed by the document which declared our independence from Great Britain.

I in turn was disputing Ishan's implication that just because NH does something the country should as well, because NH had the first state government. Neither Ishan nor I mentioned any other state. And honestly this nonsense reasoning that guns should be allowed completely because muh revolution and muh Second Amendment is getting old. The only 'revolution' going on nowadays is from far-right crackpots. Moreover and more importantly, you should know that the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment in a time where the most powerful firearm took a while to shoot one bullet out; today, there are much, much more powerful firearms that do much more harm. And they supported the 'right to own firearms' because there was no military and a 'citizen militia' like the one partly used in the American Revolution was necessary at the time. Now, we have a very powerful standing army. And besides, disputing the Second Amendment's validity is irrelevant here because background checks and limits/restrictions on some very harmful guns doesn't whatsoever violate the Second Amendment. This whole 'revolution' schtick stops being nice after a while and gets old, especially when you use it to defend nonsense positions like the one you are touting here.

 An increasingly ignorant, distrusting, and angry public armed to the teeth. What could go wrong?

Hopefully a revolution occurs.

You do realize that if there is a Second American Revolution, it likely won't be the working class rising up against the rich, right? It's far more likely to be white supremacists and fascists.

He realizes it, but he blindly supports all revolution...he sympathized with the January 6 attackers!

[Big Abraham]

 An increasingly ignorant, distrusting, and angry public armed to the teeth. What could go wrong?

Hopefully a revolution occurs.

You do realize that if there is a Second American Revolution, it likely won't be the working class rising up against the rich, right? It's far more likely to be white supremacists and fascists.

Sure buddy. Never mind that all the popular movements of the past twenty years have been working people expressing their dissatisfaction with the neoliberal ruling elite who have bled this country dry? Look at Occupy, the 2011 Wisconsin demonstrations, anti-Iraq War rallies, even the BLM protests.

Meanwhile, Charlottesville had what, 20 white supremacists show up? Who were outnumbered by counter-protestors (many of whom were armed) by at least 100:1?

If you really cared about defeating white supremacy or fascism, you would take a staunch defense in favor of gun rights.

[Horus]

 An increasingly ignorant, distrusting, and angry public armed to the teeth. What could go wrong?

Hopefully a revolution occurs.

You do realize that if there is a Second American Revolution, it likely won't be the working class rising up against the rich, right? It's far more likely to be white supremacists and fascists.

Not if the Democratic party starts supporting full 2A rights instead of sabotaging themselves in the name of "safety"

[Big Abraham]

The only 'revolution' going on nowadays is from far-right crackpots.

See my above post to Ferguson97.

Moreover and more importantly, you should know that the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment in a time where the most powerful firearm took a while to shoot one bullet out;

This is indeed false. The Founders recognized the right of ownership of much more than muskets, for example cannons, artillery and naval guns, and this in fact still applies today.

today, there are much, much more powerful firearms that do much more harm.

I know, it's glorious. Too bad the state has a monopoly on much of them.

And they supported the 'right to own firearms' because there was no military and a 'citizen militia' like the one partly used in the American Revolution was necessary at the time. Now, we have a very powerful standing army.

Indeed, completely contrary to what the Founders wanted. We ought to completely dismantle the standing army and the entire military-industrial complex along with it and arm all the people.

And besides, disputing the Second Amendment's validity is irrelevant here because background checks and limits/restrictions on some very harmful guns doesn't whatsoever violate the Second Amendment.

Last I checked, the Second Amendment doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed... unless the guns are really scary and harmful!"

This whole 'revolution' schtick stops being nice after a while and gets old, especially when you use it to defend nonsense positions like the one you are touting here.

Advocacy of revolution is the entire basis of my political thought. I am a far-leftist. Revolution also happens to be the entire basis of the American republic, and all great movements and events throughout world history. Political power comes from the barrel of a gun, and revolutions are the locomotive of history. If you support progress, you support revolution. Without it, we retard into stagnation.

[Joe Republic]

^ Ah, to be in my early twenties again.  Such poorly developed ideas, and yet such confidence in them.

"Everybody should have any weapon they want, but alas the government already has most of them… so we should force the government to give them up!  And then and then and then we can all have guns!  Yeah!  And then we can all rise up against the government! Everybody will join in! And if they don't we'll shoot them will all the guns we have now!"

[Schiff for Senate]

The only 'revolution' going on nowadays is from far-right crackpots.

See my above post to Ferguson97.

Moreover and more importantly, you should know that the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment in a time where the most powerful firearm took a while to shoot one bullet out;

This is indeed false. The Founders advocated for the right to private ownership of much more than muskets.

today, there are much, much more powerful firearms that do much more harm.

I know, it's glorious. Too bad the military has a monopoly on them.

And they supported the 'right to own firearms' because there was no military and a 'citizen militia' like the one partly used in the American Revolution was necessary at the time. Now, we have a very powerful standing army.

Indeed, completely contrary to what the Founders wanted. We ought to completely dismantle the standing army and the entire military-industrial complex along with it and arm all the people.

And besides, disputing the Second Amendment's validity is irrelevant here because background checks and limits/restrictions on some very harmful guns doesn't whatsoever violate the Second Amendment.

Last I checked, the Second Amendment doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed... unless the guns are really scary and harmful!"

This whole 'revolution' schtick stops being nice after a while and gets old, especially when you use it to defend nonsense positions like the one you are touting here.

Advocacy of revolution is the entire basis of my political thought. I am a far-leftist. Revolution also happens to be the entire basis of the American republic, and all great movements and events throughout world history. Political power comes from the barrel of a gun, and revolutions are the wheel of history. If you support progress, you support revolution. Without it, we retard into stagnation.

1.) I've done that. And you're blind if after the election, after January 6, after the rise of the far right, you still actually think that revolution isn't something that's being supported by the radically Trumpish. 'Revolution' is short for Proud Boys, Stop the Steal, and the 3%ers, along with other far-right and white supremacist groups. Period.

2.) Yes, including slaves. Believe it or not, the Founding Fathers weren't perfect.

3.) Really. Wow. I just don't know what to say to you if you're oblivious to the very powerful firearms (including semi-automatics and machine guns and what not) that are commonly used - by civilians - in gun shootings.

4.) The military is a much more solid defense mechanism than an unreliable populace. And arming all the people with guns / dismantling the military is the fantasy of far-right, anarchist sickos, groups of people you clearly sympathize with based on your support of January 6.

5.) I shouldn't need to say this, but apparently I need to explain it very slowly to you. Background checks, waiting periods, red flag laws and the like don't ban guns whatsoever - they just keep them out of the hands of the types of people you support  (January 6 attackers and white supremacists).

6.) No, you aren't, and I'd advise you rid yourself of those delusions. No far-leftist in their right mind would support January 6 (as a matter of fact no one in their right mind would support January 6). And using the word 'revolution' to justify your crazy, radical views doesn't work after a point, it simply becomes an old and uncreative way of trying to get out of logically explaining your views. All that holds true no matter what you say. Woodrow Wilson, who I believe you said you support, stated that progress should not be fought for for 'progress' sake', that you shouldn't blindly support all 'progress' and revolution for the sake of progress and revolution.

[Big Abraham]

1.) I've done that. And you're blind if after the election, after January 6, after the rise of the far right, you still actually think that revolution isn't something that's being supported by the radically Trumpish. 'Revolution' is short for Proud Boys, Stop the Steal, and the 3%ers, along with other far-right and white supremacist groups. Period.

All of the movements which I listed have far more popular support and many more participants than January 6th did.

2.) Yes, including slaves. Believe it or not, the Founding Fathers weren't perfect.

Slave-owning is forbidden by the Constitution, whereas gun-owning is protected by it. And the right to bear arms has long been recognized as an inherent liberty going all the way back to the English Bill of Rights. And, in case you've forgotten, it took a violent revolution to free the slaves in the first place. But I guess back then you would've said "disarm the populace! otherwise the Confederates might have too many guns."

3.) Really. Wow. I just don't know what to say to you if you're oblivious to the very powerful firearms (including semi-automatics and machine guns and what not) that are commonly used - by civilians - in gun shootings.

The vast majority of illegal gun shootings occur with simple handguns.

4.) The military is a much more solid defense mechanism than an unreliable populace. And arming all the people with guns / dismantling the military is the fantasy of far-right, anarchist sickos, groups of people you clearly sympathize with based on your support of January 6.

I have no sympathy for the January 6th rioters, nor do I defend their actions. I have only taken issue with labelling it an "insurrection" and the draconian prosecution of those who were present. And, even if it were an insurrection, it should be obvious that insurrection ≠ revolution.

5.) I shouldn't need to say this, but apparently I need to explain it very slowly to you. Background checks, waiting periods, red flag laws and the like don't ban guns whatsoever - they just keep them out of the hands of the types of people you support  (January 6 attackers and white supremacists).

I hate to break it to you, but background checks are not a "white supremacy check."

6.) No, you aren't, and I'd advise you rid yourself of those delusions. No far-leftist in their right mind would support January 6 (as a matter of fact no one in their right mind would support January 6). And using the word 'revolution' to justify your crazy, radical views doesn't work after a point, it simply becomes an old and uncreative way of trying to get out of logically explaining your views. All that holds true no matter what you say. Woodrow Wilson, who I believe you said you support, stated that progress should not be fought for for 'progress' sake', that you shouldn't blindly support all 'progress' and revolution for the sake of progress and revolution.

Dude, how many times are you going to mention January 6th in one post that doesn't even have anything to do with that? January 6th was not a revolution, much less a popular revolt. And Wilson, whom I have always taken to be a massive HP and a war criminal, is correct to say that progress should not be blindly fought for progress' sake, but rather should have specific aims. Thus, any revolution will also have such specific goals, as many of the popular movements I mention do (police reform, resisting anti-union laws, etc.) Ironically, this is an argument against your January 6th hysteria, since those goons had no specific plan in mind to consummate their ludicrous "beliefs."

[Joe Republic]

And, in case you've forgotten, it took a violent revolution to free the slaves in the first place.

Please tell me this is not a reference to the US Civil War, or if it is, that you're not describing the "revolutionaries'" cause as the one in favor of freeing the slaves?

[Big Abraham]

And, in case you've forgotten, it took a violent revolution to free the slaves in the first place.

Please tell me this is not a reference to the US Civil War, or if it is, that you're not describing the "revolutionaries'" cause as the one in favor of freeing the slaves?

What else would you call it? The Civil War ended slavery and destroyed the slave-owners' power as a class. It was an extension of the American Revolution of 1776. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the North's arming of black soldiers transformed the Civil War from a purely constitutional war to preserve the country with slavery intact, into a revolutionary war, by destroying the institution of chattel slavery without compensation to the plantation class and arming former slaves. Even the revolutionaries of 1848 who fought in the Union Army, like Willich, came to the conclusion that fighting for the Union was participating in a revolutionary war. It may not have begun as such, but it certainly became one by the end, for the better.

[Joe Republic]

Ah, got it.

So having started this thread arguing in favor of widespread gun ownership by quoting someone who argued for the same thing and was later gunned down in a crowded room… you're now arguing in favor of armed revolution by citing the Civil War, in which the first shots fired were from those - the "revolutionaries", if you will -  trying to maintain the status quo against a democratically elected government that wanted to radically overhaul the nation.

Man, you've been the gift that keeps giving in this thread.  Please, continue.

[John Dule]

Revolution is neither an inherently good nor an inherently bad thing, and any attempts to define it as such are doomed to failure.

[AGA]

"Stricter gun laws" is pretty vague. I'd support slightly stricter gun laws at the federal law, but less strict at the state (NY) level.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

And, in case you've forgotten, it took a violent revolution to free the slaves in the first place.

Please tell me this is not a reference to the US Civil War, or if it is, that you're not describing the "revolutionaries'" cause as the one in favor of freeing the slaves?

What else would you call it? The Civil War ended slavery and destroyed the slave-owners' power as a class. It was an extension of the American Revolution of 1776. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the North's arming of black soldiers transformed the Civil War from a purely constitutional war to preserve the country with slavery intact, into a revolutionary war, by destroying the institution of chattel slavery without compensation to the plantation class and arming former slaves. Even the revolutionaries of 1848 who fought in the Union Army, like Willich, came to the conclusion that fighting for the Union was participating in a revolutionary war. It may not have begun as such, but it certainly became one by the end, for the better.

I have no dog in this fight w/re: gun control, just dropping in to say this is a fairly mainstream interpretation of the Civil War, defended by no less a historian than James McPherson, whose 1988 work remains the definitive single-volume history of the conflict.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Revolution is neither an inherently good nor an inherently bad thing, and any attempts to define it as such are doomed to failure.

This is a rather interesting thing for a Hobbesian to say, but I agree.

[John Dule]

Revolution is neither an inherently good nor an inherently bad thing, and any attempts to define it as such are doomed to failure.

This is a rather interesting thing for a Hobbesian to say, but I agree.

To be fair, Hobbes did say that an individual has the right to resist if the state attempts to deprive him of his life. No one is obligated to injure themselves, and everyone has the right to self-preservation. Unfortunately I left my copy of Leviathan back in Michigan so I'm unable to quote chapter and verse.

[fhtagn]

An increasingly ignorant, distrusting, and angry public armed to the teeth. What could go wrong?

Hopefully a revolution occurs.

You are not a clown, but the entire circus

Funny, everyone here says that about you.