Poll: 92 percent of gun owners support universal background checks

Others have already brought it up, but along with the incidents in New York, New Jersey, and California, there was the forced confiscation of guns in New Orleans after Katrina. That is a stain on the history of this nation, because law enforcement did not have the resources to protect the people.... and they chose to respond by stripping the people of the right to protect themselves.

 

Read the poll.
24. Do you support or oppose - requiring background checks for all gun buyers?
91% say yes. But that's such a vague question, its like asking "Do you oppose crime?"

Go to the very next question and you start to see the real attitude:
25. Do you believe that if there are background checks for all gun purchases the government will or will not use that information in the future to confiscate legally-owned guns?
48% say the govt will use the UBC to confiscate guns, 38% say no, 14% don't know. That shows there is not nearly as much support for govt controlled background checks. The implication is that 38% - not 91% - support a govt run universal background check.

When the Universal background check was being proposed (Toomey Manchin Schumer), it would have won if the Coburn amendment had been added - that would allow individuals to do the check on the internet, the individual keeps the records not the FFL or the govt.

But Schumer demanded the FFLs do the checks and keep the records, records which are available to the govt.

UBC is a clear route to gun confiscation.

 

I know. Has any citizen yet taken background checks to courts of law and had this ruled on?

If they can background check me for licenses and buying guns, can they also background check me at the grocery store? What about at a local bar or pub? What happens when you want to check out at the hardware store and you get submitted to instant background check? I am thinking back to the boys using pressure cookers as weapons of destruction.

 

From my perspective, nobody would want to challenge background checks with the current climate of federal judges. Up until this point, what you have is a Supreme Court packed with judicial activists. And, being judicial activists, they leaned left. Add to that, Supreme Court Justices were once lawyers and virtually all lawyers are influenced by the American Bar, one way or another.

The American Bar Association is THE most liberal organization in America. So, while constitutionalists have the facts on their side, courts full of judicial activists are not the place you mount a constitutional challenge. Let Trump put someone else like Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and let's revisit your question.

 

We still do have an activist court and come to think of it, it still needs improving. As you say.

 

We have a lot of liberal retards and judicial activists serving in federal courts and federal appeals courts as well.

 

And also a lot of old fart conservative retards

 

Can you name any? Unfortunately, many conservatives are not constitutionalists.

 

Hell no I can't name any. I never cared about their names.

 

I've had to know their names, how they rule on key issues, what their religion is, political affiliation, etc.

They have way too much anonymity.

 

I hate to block people but as you refuse to quit making me the topic and continue to hurl insults you are now blocked.

 

According to available citations, during a three year period in the state of Delaware, seventy one percent of nearly twelve thousand firearm-related, felony-level offenses were dropped or otherwise not prosecuted, even when they included felon in possession of a firearm.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/2914/report-71-percent-gun-charges-dropped-delaware-aaron-bandler

During an eight year period in the city of Chicago alone, more than thirteen thousand such offenses were dropped rather than prosecuted.

http://chicagoreporter.com/thousand...-being-dismissed-cook-county-criminal-courts/

It has certainly been tried.

You are welcome.

 

It is for such reasons that a detached, impersonal approach is utilized in countless interactions.

 

A calmer approach is warranted in the matter. Often much can be resolved if one takes the time to ask wherein the problem lays, and working from there in order to develop an understanding.

 

Sorry chief. Was losing my cool with this one.

 

My takeaway from such high numbers is that the little state of Delaware has a disproportionate number of criminals or too many gun laws.

 

Such has been noted. However not every disagreement stems from individuals being close minded, and unwilling to learn. Some individuals simply do not understand why a topic is of such importance to others. When that is the case, it is necessary to provide a calm, detailed breakdown of why the matter is important. It does not mean one is ignorant, rather it means one does not possess the same familiarity as another.

for all that is understood on the part of myself, it will freely be admitted that there is much that is still not properly grasped and understood on various topics, including the one that is presently carrying on. There is no reason, at least on the part of myself, to believe the member Robini123 is not in a similar situation. There has yet to be a demonstration of the same behavior associated with members such as Vegas Giants, Barefoot, Forum Poster, and numerous others that have come before them.

 

Honestly I got a bit defensive after being exposed to them. The moderators mollycoddled those folks and if I responded in the same spirit, one mod in particular would infract me. Even PMs to the admin would go unanswered.

In all fairness, I responded to that guy's links and he insinuated that I was ignorant. Ignorant of what? But, I digress.

Having personally witnessed gun control at the local level on two different occasions, it is apparent to me that Universal Background Checks are the road to confiscation since there is no way to enforce them without National Gun Registration. In my mind it should not take a college degree to figure out that if you have to forfeit one constitutional guarantee in order to exercise another, you might be looking at the wrong answer.

Besides, looking at a person's past is much like closing the barn door after the cows have left. IF the objective were to reduce gun violence, you act on the problem BEFORE people start shooting, not after. We just never get to that point in this conversation and it irks me like you wouldn't believe. Okay rant off. One of the mods wants to ban me, so I might be seeing you on one of the other boards.

 

Such has never been disputed. It is merely being pointed out that sometimes it is necessary for points need to be laid out in a clear and concise manner so that one may see the matter from the perspective of another. Not everyone possesses the same type, level, and degree of education and understanding. It is not stupidity, simply different teaching standards being utilized, especially if there is an age difference involved.

 

I wonder if the gun banners who are so quick to claim most gun owners support the placebo and stupid idea of UBGC will be as big a fans of polls that suggest that 99% of all gun owners oppose gun bans?

 

Quinnipiac University poll? No wonder it sounds like total BS. I don't know a single gun owner that supports universal background checks...

 

Do you know of a gun owner that ever participated in a Quinnipiac poll? They couldn't get 92 percent if they were polling all Democrats anonymously much less 92 percent of gun owners.

If you could convince liberals of the long ramifications that such a precedent sets, one wonders if they were polled, probably 92 percent would then be against a Universal Background Check. The Fourth Amendment has to account for something. Sooooo...

Presuming Trump is completely successful with his Muslim ban and IF people have to start revealing their religious leanings, will the left still be in favor of Universal Background Checks???

 

Liberals don't care about the Constitution, so you'll have no worries there. Clearly they don't care about the First or Second Amendments. The only time they care about the Constitution is when they feel they can hide behind it after attempting to trample on the rights of the citizens they oppose...

 

You're absolutely right; however, both sides don't listen to reason all the time. Therefore, both sides cannot understand precedent. On this issue, the left wants us to be slaves and it has its downside. IF the Constitution does not protect the gun owner's unalienable Rights, then the Constitution cannot protect the Rights of religious extremists like radical Islamists that mainstream is intent on protecting and promoting.

The answer is to pursue the left the same way they would pursue a gun owner based upon the same precedents. Then, when they are the target, they will pick up a few history books and law books to learn where they went the wrong way.

 

I agree with you 100%, but the simple reality is that liberals are hypocrites. They will not care one iota about your rights, no amount of teachings and learning from history will sway them from their agenda, which is to relegate your rights to privileges, then your privileges into history. If it was really just a matter of learning all they'd have to do is actually read the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment is the shortest and most succinct of all the amendments, doesn't take a genius to figure it out, yet here we are...