TexasCHLforum.com

Poll and article on repealing the 2nd Amendment (winning but low numbers still)
http://www.record-eagle.com/opinion/loc ... d=topstory



PBS Poll:
Do you agree with the Supreme Court that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting?
http://www.pbs.org/now/index.html#poll

Thats kinda wrong to even ask...unless those idjits wanna put "Should the Constitution be repealed"

Idiots

Molon_labe wrote:Thats kinda wrong to even ask...unless those idjits wanna put "Should the Constitution be repealed"

Idiots

Agreed x 3.

Last I looked the polls were taking a beating beyond anything usual.

The time could come when the second amendment would be repealed.

That would not remove our right to keep and bear arms.

The RKBA was granted us buy our creator and existed when God gave us breath. No man or government established by man can take the right to keep and bear arms away from us.

We allow infringement, reasonable restrictions, common sense gun laws, and the politicians the enact such legislation.

Repealing the right to keep and bear arms would not remove from us the responsibilility to remove such a tyrannical government from existence.

Anygunanywhere

A constitutional amendment requires approval by two-thirds of each house of Congress and ratification by at least three-quarter of the states, which means 38. Given the numbers in Conress that vote in favor of pro-RKBA legislation and that about 36 states have shall-issue concealed carry, I can't see a modification of the second amendment having a snowball's chance in you-know-where.

Suggesting it is a waste of breath.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:A constitutional amendment requires approval by two-thirds of each house of Congress and ratification by at least three-quarter of the states, which means 38. Given the numbers in Conress that vote in favor of pro-RKBA legislation and that about 36 states have shall-issue concealed carry, I can't see a modification of the second amendment having a snowball's chance in you-know-where.

Suggesting it is a waste of breath.

- Jim

WOW...glad you're on our side

seamusTX wrote:A constitutional amendment requires approval by two-thirds of each house of Congress and ratification by at least three-quarter of the states, which means 38. Given the numbers in Conress that vote in favor of pro-RKBA legislation and that about 36 states have shall-issue concealed carry, I can't see a modification of the second amendment having a snowball's chance in you-know-where.

Suggesting it is a waste of breath.

- Jim

Also, considering that during the last 30-ish years, Shall Issue CHL went from about 12 states to 40 essentially shall issue states. Many states like Texas continue to improve the law by relaxing unnecessary and silly restrictions each legislative session or so. One state, Alaska, even removed the requirement for having the CHL in order to carry legally.

Many states have adopted, and in the process of adopting, Castle Doctrine and parking lot laws to further protect the rights of citizens to self-defense.

And a significant number of states actually ADDED a right to keep and bear arms protection by Amendment their own state constitutions -- bringing the total to 44 states with explicit constitutional protection at the state level -- 45 if you count California (statutory protection and explicit deference to the US Constitution.)

The political will is to increase protections for the right to self-defense and the means and the rights to own and carry arms to effect that right.

Will this be the case in another 20 or 50 years? Depends on how TV, movies, the press, schools, and parents educate our children....(and that is scary.)

HerbM wrote:Poll and article on repealing the 2nd Amendment (winning but low numbers still)
http://www.record-eagle.com/opinion/loc ... d=topstory

They should change the name of that place from Traverse City to just plain Travesty, cause that's what that article is.

DoubleJ wrote:

HerbM wrote:Poll and article on repealing the 2nd Amendment (winning but low numbers still)
http://www.record-eagle.com/opinion/loc ... d=topstory

They should change the name of that place from Traverse City to just plain Travesty, cause that's what that article is.

Don't blame them. It's just a reprint of an op-ed piece from the Chicago Tribune.

oh c'mon, that was funny!!!

oh, Chicago Op-Ed.... now there's a surprise

seamusTX wrote:A constitutional amendment requires approval by two-thirds of each house of Congress and ratification by at least three-quarter of the states, which means 38. Given the numbers in Conress that vote in favor of pro-RKBA legislation and that about 36 states have shall-issue concealed carry, I can't see a modification of the second amendment having a snowball's chance in you-know-where.

Suggesting it is a waste of breath.

- Jim

California?

I was thinking more like Nairobi or Kampala.

- Jim

HerbM wrote:Poll and article on repealing the 2nd Amendment (winning but low numbers still)
http://www.record-eagle.com/opinion/loc ... d=topstory

Yeah, we're winning that one handily:
Should the 2nd Amendment be repealed?
Yes 4.37%
No 93.99%
Not sure 1.64%
Don't care %
183 votes counted

PBS Poll:
Do you agree with the Supreme Court that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting?
http://www.pbs.org/now/index.html#poll

They don't give raw numbers, but the results are about the same:
In the Supreme Court's first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history, it ruled that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting. Do you agree with the decision?
Yes 96%
No 3%
Not Sure 0%

I'm surprised how lopsided these unofficial poll numbers are. I don't give online polls much credence; but in this case, they support two conclusions:

• There are very few truly anti-RKBA activists. The ones that we encounter in some forums are the lunatic fringe.
• About half of American households own firearms for some purpose. Americans do not like to be told that they don't have a right to something, whether it's free speech, religion, arms, or cold beer and barbeque on the 4th of July.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:I'm surprised how lopsided these unofficial poll numbers are. I don't give online polls much credence; but in this case, they support two conclusions:

• There are very few truly anti-RKBA activists. The ones that we encounter in some forums are the lunatic fringe.
• About half of American households own firearms for some purpose. Americans do not like to be told that they don't have a right to something, whether it's free speech, religion, arms, or cold beer and barbeque on the 4th of July.

- Jim

You are correct. Polls (including scientific ones) have been running 60-80% for there being an individual right to keep and bar arms for years.

But, the gun control advocates had used the argument "no individual right", "no right to modern weapons", "collective right", "it's obsolete", "no right for self-defense (i.e., it's about hunting or the NG), etc as propaganda tools. Many people who just don't like the results of criminal gun use and see "guns as (generally) bad" were easy to convince that there was no right to firearms. Most of these people don't understand or even investigate the issue.

In fact, neither do most gun owners know the real truth about gun control, the effects (good and supposedly bad) of guns owned by law-abiding citizens, or what the Constitution has clearly said.

Once the Court clearly defined what the words meant -- and Scalia deconstructed the entire 2nd Amendment, every word and the grammar leaving no ambiguity --then those people who only look at the "result" now know that the Supreme Court doesn't agree with what gun controllers have been saying.

This is perhaps one of the biggest advantages of Heller: simple public relations and propaganda (in the neutral or positive original meaning of the word.)

Prior to Heller there were no abuses of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms being protected by the 2nd Amendment -- all protections were state legislatures, Constitutions, and courts. That was working out fairly well (44 state constitutions, 40 essentially Shall Issue CHL states and growing, etc). Or at the Federal level a little by the failure to renew the AWB, but none of this was through the Federal courts or by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

So, once the Court says "individual right, unrelated to military/militia service to all bearable arms" almost all Americans will agree. The 67% of those who already new this, and the vast majority of the others who were duped and confused.

DC v Heller is big. How many people "understood" why Miranda was important and necessary, day one?

I will bet it was less than 30% (but I don't have any stats.) Maybe I will research the political and public reaction to Miranda....