Gun owners are in favor of more gun control...

[Will Brink]

Folks, any of you ever take a look at the Second Amendment Research Center?

http://www.secondamendmentcenter.org/test_index.asp


They present themselves as a objective public policy center regarding the Second Amend and issues around guns. Great, so I read some of their debates on the topic. Facts and figures are thrown around, which to my eye, seem mighty dubious at best. For example, the following is from a comments made by one Gregg Carter:


“..for example, 81 percent of the general public versus 71 percent of gun owners favor the registration of all handguns. The Brady Law is favored by 87 percent of the general population and 82 percent of gun owners. Fully 64 percent of gun owners, and 69 percent of the general population, favor “one-gun-a-month limits.” Fourth, there is broad support for gun control measures across political parties, ideological views, and race.”

There are a bunch of these stats thrown around without citations from what I could see. Now I have been around gun owners for decades, been all over the many forums, attended conferences, read about a zillion articles, editorials and books on the topic, etc, etc, and I have NEVER in all my life met a gun owner who would agree to the above. Anyone here agree with the above?

Where are these gun owners they speak of? I sure as heck never met one of them. Have you? The debate is full of these supposed stats from polls (and of you ever been contacted for such a poll?) claiming most Americans, including most gun owners, are in favor of more gun control, but the big bad NRA prevents it from happening…now we all know polls can be misleading, but this is ridiculous?

Besides being mucho incredulous over the statements these guys are making, I genuinely want to know, where are all these gun owners in favor of more gun control???? The article I pulled the above from is here:

Cont:

http://www.secondamendmentcenter.org/debate4.asp

 

[FPrice]

Where are these gun owners they speak of? I sure as heck never met one of them. Have you?

Just go to some of these fancy shot-gunning ranges where old dudes in fancy clothes walk around with their $5,000 European O/U guns and you will meet some of them.

 

[JonJ]

Just go to some of these fancy shot-gunning ranges where old dudes in fancy clothes walk around with their $5,000 European O/U guns and you will meet some of them.

Ala John Rosenthal and his ilk.

 

[Mr Weebles]

Folks, any of you ever take a look at the Second Amendment Research Center?

http://www.secondamendmentcenter.org/test_index.asp

They present themselves as a objective public policy center regarding the Second Amend and issues around guns.

They are a research group at OSU headed by Saul Cornell, no friend of the Second Amendment. Most of their funding comes from the Joyce Foundation, a far-left, anti-gun group if there ever was one. Here's some info on the Joyce Foundation:

(b) The Anti-Gun Program seeks to drive small gun dealerships out of business by placing the firearms industry completely under consumer product health and safety oversight. It misrepresents the findings of research on gun-related deaths by failing to distinguish between gun-related deaths among inner-city gang members, where the death rates from shootings are astronomical, and gun-related deaths among members of the general population, which are relatively rare. As a result, it depicts gun violence as a national epidemic, thereby creating a perceived justification for what it hopes will be the erosion of Second Amendment rights.

Here's some info from 2003 when the Second Amendment Research Center was founded:

From the Joyce Foundation newsletter, Work In Progress
Issue date: January 2003

Right Balance

"Gun rights groups have made it seem that the Second Amendment belongs to them. But it belongs to all Americans — we all need to understand what it means."

Getting a clearheaded understanding of the Second Amendment is a tall order these days. But scholars at The Ohio State University — with Joyce funding and the backing of an all-American hero — are taking up the challenge. The John Glenn Institute at OSU is creating a research center to help courts, scholars, journalists, and the public understand a little known area of our constitutional past that has huge implications for future public health and security.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed": for two centuries that language was interpreted by the courts as "pretty much a nonentity, with little if any effect on public policy," says Glenn Institute director Deborah Merritt. Judges consistently held that the amendment protected state militias, to balance the powers of the new central government created by the Constitution. Laws regulating individual ownership and use of firearms were routinely upheld.

But understanding of the past is always shaped by the politics of the present. In the last thirty years, new research has been reinterpreting the Second Amendment as asserting an individual right to bear arms, similar to the rights of speech and religion protected by the first amendment. Some of the new studies are by legal scholars and historians, but much of it rests on scholarship by gun rights advocates with a clear political agenda. Relatively few studies have explored the alternative, "collective rights" approach; it was so widely accepted that scholars had little interest in examining it.

Although scholars are divided over how to interpret the Second Amendment, the new gun rights scholarship is having an impact. In a dramatic shift of federal policy and jurisprudence, a Federal Appeals Court in Texas and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft both recently cited the research in supporting an individual right to own firearms. On the other hand, a recent decision by the 9th Circuit Court embraced the dominant collective rights view. The conflict between these two courts makes it likely that the Supreme Court will take up the question in the next few years.

The individual rights position, if upheld, could have a profound impact on public policy, says Merritt, a former Supreme Court clerk. "It would depend on how the courts interpret the guarantee. At the extreme, it could eliminate all gun regulation. More likely, it would restrict what legislatures can do." Meanwhile, criminal cases all over the country are potentially affected. "Think of all the defendants who have weapons charges against them," says Merritt. "Any one of them could raise a Second Amendment issue now."

Helping the courts, lawyers, and journalists make sense of all this is a job for scholars. That's where the Glenn Institute comes in. Through conferences, a website, and educational outreach, its new Second Amendment Research Center will make available the best scholarship underlying both the individual and collective rights interpretations, says center director Saul Cornell, whose specialty is early constitutional history. It will also assemble historical resources, such as state and local firearms laws from the period when the amendment was drafted. "Boston in 1786, for example, had a law on its books making it illegal to have a loaded firearm inside the home," notes Cornell. "Clearly lawmakers in Massachusetts thought that an urban area could require safe storage — a law that, today, some argue, would violate the Second Amendment."

One extremely important question is whether firearms would be treated like speech, which triggers strict scrutiny by the courts, a judicial standard that might imperil many of the nation's gun laws. The center plans a conference in 2004 at which scholars on both sides would examine what standard of scrutiny follows from their interpretation.

With so much at stake, Merritt and Cornell understand that they're venturing into contentious territory. But they're cheerfully confident — and determined — about playing the role of honest broker for both sides. Otherwise there's no point in the exercise, says Merritt: "Judges are decision makers. You can't gain their confidence by being an advocate — they know all about advocates, they have them in their courtrooms all the time. They won't pay attention to a zealous website."

And there's a broader public purpose to be served, adds Cornell. "Gun rights groups have made it seem that the Second Amendment belongs to them. But it belongs to all Americans. We all need to understand what it means, what it precludes and does not preclude in terms of gun regulation." As Senator Glenn himself put it, the Center will "use scholarship to promote public understanding of an essential policy issue."

Deborah Merritt, Saul Cornell
Glenn Institute, 614.292.4545
www.glenninstitute.org

 

[Scrivener]

Just go to some of these fancy shot-gunning ranges where old dudes in fancy clothes walk around with their $5,000 European O/U guns and you will meet some of them.

Or any deer station. The Fudds will be there in abundance, most of whom are quite happy to whore out anyone that likes a gun "you can't hunt with."

 

[codenamepaul]

Just go to some of these fancy shot-gunning ranges where old dudes in fancy clothes walk around with their $5,000 European O/U guns and you will meet some of them.

Hell-you'll meet some right here. Support any form of gun legislation? Background checks? Prohibited persons of any sort? Count yourself in. We have met the enemy, and he is us.

 

[dwarven1]

I genuinely want to know, where are all these gun owners in favor of more gun control????

Buying their children yet another SuperSoaker, I'd guess. In between soccer games, that is.

You mean that a SuperSoaker ISN'T a gun???

 

[Pilgrim]

The anti's theme is that if you tell a lie often enough, it gets believed.

 

[pdm]

The anti's theme is that if you tell a lie often enough, it gets believed.

It's unfortunately true.

 

[Len-2A Training]

MOST of the members of my first gun club were as described above. Their current president, who was the puppeteer pulling the strings of a former president (back in 2000 when I resigned after 24 years) is one of those. All he cares about is his custom $10K skeet or trap (can't recall which) gun.

His "Ch. 180 won't effect us" attitude back in 1998-2000 (which led to vehement arguments on his part) had a lot to do with my resignation, I just got tired of his crap and others believing him. [I was their legislative chairman back then.]

I was rather shocked when he yelled out a "hello" to me from ~30' away when we were in a public place a few weeks ago. I go out of my way to ignore him and only publicly acknowledge him when he's within arms-length of me.

 

[Patriot]

Or any deer station. The Fudds will be there in abundance, most of whom are quite happy to whore out anyone that likes a gun "you can't hunt with."

Scriv,

This is urban legend and is the thought process of the black rifle group. I have
hunted with a lot of hunters over my years and I would say the vast majority
are part time hunters and full time gunners and have no such agenda. YMMV.

TBP

 

[Scrivener]

Scriv,

This is urban legend and is the thought process of the black rifle group. I have
hunted with a lot of hunters over my years and I would say the vast majority
are part time hunters and full time gunners and have no such agenda. YMMV.

TBP

"Urban legend?" Bull. Who do you think Zumbo spent decades writing for and preaching to?

I got calls for years after Chapter 180 from the clueless hunter/shotgunner contingent who had no idea what happened or why and didn't care, until they couldn't buy their annual "box of bullets" for hunting season. I still get the occasional call from the "I don't want a pistol or assault weapon; I just want to go hunting" type.

The shotgun crowd has many "golfers with guns" in it; people who think they are the direct descendants of European gentry and are, therefore, entitled to their "sporting arms" while the peasants are not. I am not saying all hunters are Fudds nor all shotgunners "GWG's," but there are far too many of each to classify their existence - and threat - as an "urban legend."

 

[Producer]

Those 74 82 64 numbers make no sense

However, and not to go off subject, but I believe in very strict punishment for people that use guns improperly. A gun used in a holdup or car jack; mandatory prison time. Murder, the death penalty. General misuse of firing rounds at an improper direction, huge fine or possible jail time. I also don't think former felons should own guns without a trial or some strict process they would have to fight for.

Am I for gun control then?

 

[KMaurer]

Those 74 82 64 numbers make no sense

However, and not to go off subject, but I believe in very strict punishment for people that use guns improperly. A gun used in a holdup or car jack; mandatory prison time. Murder, the death penalty. General misuse of firing rounds at an improper direction, huge fine or possible jail time. I also don't think former felons should own guns without a trial or some strict process they would have to fight for.

Am I for gun control then?

No, like me, you're probably in favor of dangerous stupidity control. People who do stupid things (with or without guns) that endanger or result in foreseeable injury to someone else, should be horse whipped until they learn to limit the risk from their behavior to themselves. OTOH, I believe that if we're willing to let somebody out to walk the streets, they should be able to purchase and carry guns the same as the rest of us. If they're too dangerous for that, they're too dangerous to roam free.

Ken

 

[Producer]

I agree with you for the most part. But don't you think people should lose rights? I know driving a car is a privilege (drinking and driving), but what about pedophiles living near schools, restraining orders, search warrants, losing a right to trail due to mental illness, the draft, monopolies, screaming fire in a theater, etc...

I think there are situations where chronic offenders should lose their rights. We already have enough people in jail. I personally think some people should not be able to own a gun, but be allowed to be in society.

Just my humble opinion.

 

[KMaurer]

The problem with prison overcrowding is that way too many people who pose no real threat to the public are there, while a lot of other people who do pose such threats are walking the streets. Start by ending the stupid war on (some) drugs, then release everybody doing time for nothing more than use, possession or sale. The dealers will all quickly discover that they'll have to get honest jobs if they want to keep buying all those nice cars, big TVs and bling. Take 5% of what we currently spend enforcing those laws and use it to send every user who wants to get straight to the Betty Ford Clinic. Now since the prisons are suddenly 2/3 empty, there will be plenty of room for the child molesters and other chronic offenders to spend the rest of their lives among their own kind. Oh, and throw in every stupid lawyer or politician who claims that their not having HDTV cable, gourmet meals or free college educations is a cruel or unusual punishment. Since they'll only be coming out in walkers, wheelchairs or boxes, we don't need "rehabilitation". As an added bonus, you or I wouldn't need to prove that we're "good guys" every time we want to buy another gun or a couple bricks of .22.

Ken

 

[dixidawg]

The problem with prison overcrowding is that way too many people who pose no real threat to the public are there, while a lot of other people who do pose such threats are walking the streets. Start by ending the stupid war on (some) drugs, then release everybody doing time for nothing more than use, possession or sale. The dealers will all quickly discover that they'll have to get honest jobs if they want to keep buying all those nice cars, big TVs and bling. Take 5% of what we currently spend enforcing those laws and use it to send every user who wants to get straight to the Betty Ford Clinic. Now since the prisons are suddenly 2/3 empty, there will be plenty of room for the child molesters and other chronic offenders to spend the rest of their lives among their own kind. Oh, and throw in every stupid lawyer or politician who claims that their not having HDTV cable, gourmet meals or free college educations is a cruel or unusual punishment. Since they'll only be coming out in walkers, wheelchairs or boxes, we don't need "rehabilitation". As an added bonus, you or I wouldn't need to prove that we're "good guys" every time we want to buy another gun or a couple bricks of .22.

Ken

+1

A wise man I worked with long ago summed it up nicely.

The war on drugs is being fought by the wrong soldiers!

More addiction specialists and rehab beds instead of DES agents and prison beds.

 

[Producer]

Well said Ken You got my vote.