Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Gun Control - For those waiting to find out what they think

Posted 1 year ago on July 24, 2012, 5:50 p.m. EST by brightonsage (4494)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

WASHINGTON -- A survey of National Rifle Association members and non-affiliated gun owners conducted by a prominent Republican pollster shows that there is broad support for certain provisions that would restrict the sale of guns.

According to a study unveiled at the Center for American Progress on Tuesday, 82 percent of 945 self-identified gun owners said they support requiring criminal background checks for gun purchasers. The sample was divided evenly between gun owners who were current or lapsed members of the NRA and non-NRA gun owners. 74 percent of the NRA members said they support the background checks.

The study, which was conducted in May by GOP wordsmith Frank Luntz, revealed the following data points as well:

74 percent of NRA members believe concealed permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.

68 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who do now have prior arrests for domestic violence.

63 percent of NRA members believe that concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.

75 percent of NRA members believe that concealed carry permits should only be granted to those applicant who have not committed any violent misdemeanors.

Taken in full, the numbers cut against the conventional wisdom, which holds that there is little political will for tackling gun control legislation in the wake of Friday's shooting in Aurora, Colo, But the theory, the study's authors insisted, was always based on a false reading of the public opinion data.

“Gun owners and NRA members overwhelmingly support common sense steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, even as the NRA leadership continues to oppose them,” said New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which commissioned the study. “It’s time for those in Washington -– and those running for President –- to stand with gun owning citizens who are concerned about public safety, rather than influence peddling lobbyists who are obsessed with ideology."

So, cancel your previous posts, or replace them with what you can think now. Of course, the NRA doesn't agree with their members, or the GOP at large, or the American people, but what does that matter as long as the politicians of both stripes do as they are told?

5 Comments

5 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20479) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

This, in a nutshell, reflects the actual realities behind the statements oft made by the likes of House Majority Leader John Boner, [R, Ohio], ever single time he invokes that phrase -

the will of the American people

Whatever they claim it is, one can be sure, it is without deviation, always the opposite of their claim.

[-] 0 points by throaway (57) 1 year ago

Uh, you DO realize that virtually every bullet point above IS EXISTING LAW? Not sure about violent misdemeanors. The so called 'gun show loophole' is grossly exaggerated. A private party can sell to another without background check. That's a private party that isn't in the business of selling guns. Just like the occassional selling of one's used car. Most gun shows are filled with dealers and they DO DO background checks.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I DO realize that these are cited again and again (by NRA mouthpieces) as examples of the sort of steps that are taking away all of our second amendment rights and soon, no doubt, they will come and take away all of our guns. Of course, the biggest indicator that this is happening is that nothing has changed for some time.

Doesn't look like that has been selling that well?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 1 year ago

Regulation is a states rights issue, not a Federal issue. You're are speaking as if one could just pass a law and that's not the case.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

One could not pass a law certainly. Right now, a majority can't get enough representation to pass anything Nobody outside of the 196 guys that own Congress can get anything done. So, lets just assume hypothetically that if this were a Constitutional representative democracy that wasn't totally corrupt, that we could get something done.

Re states rights, we would be better off if half of the states seceded and the rest would form a federal union and the ones that left could reform the CFA and show how smart they are.