Congressional action on guns

What should Congress do about gun control?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

 
SUGGESTED STORIES

Comments

  • Douglas

    The Federal Government should establish a federal hand gun permit that requires training and a background check, but allows conceal carry across state lines.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mark.pashia Mark Pashia

    Our country does not enforce the laws that are already on the books. The few that are prosecuted are done so retroactively, i.e. after someone has committed some other crime and gun violations are pile on to look like they are doing something. Most gun laws are a burden upon law abiding citizens and criminals by definition don’t mind breaking another law if they are going to commit a crime!!!

  • Engineer

    No mention in the debate was made of the 30,000 people who die every year as a result of guns. That is an appalling loss of life by any standards but in civilized country it is shameful and unique.

  • i’m right

    yes, i’m sure if you ban guns all those illegal users committing the crimes will abide. You realize 90+% are not unlicensed. I’m ashamed to be an engineer at times like these. I guess some of us aren’t all that smart.

  • i’m right

    the man makes sense

  • Pete85

    2/3 of those deaths are suicides and every study that has been done has found no correlation between gun ownership rates and suicide rates. Of the remaining deaths, a very large percentage (between 60% and 80% depending on the source and year) are gang and drug related, much of it concentrated in major cities with very strict gun laws. If the goal is to save lives, it would be much more fruitful to attack the causes of violence (and depression in the case of suicides) than to focus on guns.

  • Law abiding citizen

    Its because of the second amendment and the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS that people like you are in a FREE country and can speak your mind…not that I agree with you.

  • http://twitter.com/Lcstyle Loose Cannon

    How about we enforce the laws we have on the books now? How about we expand mental health services? Millions of gun owners in America are legal law abiding citizens. Why burden them or make turn them into criminals with the stroke of a pen. Criminals won’t abide by any laws anyways, and this country was founded on core beliefs, namely, the constitution. If you don’t agree with the principles this country was founded upon, move elsewhere. There are plenty of countries like Canada, Australia, Europe, where the populus is completely disarmed.

  • Mikel

    The latest Supreme Court decision specifically allows for regulation of guns while upholding our right to own one for our protection. Having a gun and being required to register it or license it or be subject to background checks are two completely different subjects. The difficulty arises when some gun owners are unreasonably afraid that the government would want to confiscate all guns.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mark.pashia Mark Pashia

    Before anything more is done with gun laws, we need to establish that all records of gun holders be declared out of the public domain. As things stand, newspapers have filed freedom of information cases to get hold of a gun registry in the state of New York and then published the database of information as an interactive map on their website!!! At least two home invasions have been documented from that information and the criminals were looking to STEAL GUNS!!!! If the government is collecting such information, it should be deemed as private information and not disclosed to any one who asks for it!!! This was under New York state law, but it should inform any government agency at all levels!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/mark.pashia Mark Pashia

    We could have had expanded background checks if gun owners knew that their information was safely stored and not subject to freedom of information actions AND if they could trust our own government not to try confiscation of existing guns. Unfortunately, both have been tried in the recent past and that is the crux of the problem. The media has been all over the idea that 90% of Americans support background checks and in theory that MIGHT BE true, but in practice the numbers are no where near that high. When the details are filled in, I am sure that less than 50% would support it as designed. That is why it failed in the Senate!!!

  • Pete85

    The universal background check idea would do very little. Private sales across state lines are already illegal at the federal level. Private sales within state borders (both buyer and seller are residents of the same state) are regulated by the individual states. I don’t claim to be familiar will all states’ laws, however in most cases to legally make a private sale you either need to personally know the other person (and know they aren’t a prohibited person) or the other person needs to possess their respective state’s CCW license (proving the person has been checked by law enforcement and is not a prohibited person). Since any laws requiring mandatory NICS background checks for legal private sales would require voluntary compliance, it’s not going to affect those willing to break (and in most cases already breaking) the law.

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.concannon.940 Michael Concannon

    Maybe we should require a test for competency before you vote? Wait, I think we tried that… :-/ Any barrier to fundamental rights can, has and will be used against you or some other “out of favor” group. Abridgement of rights requires due process – PERIOD. Everything else is a tool for institutional discrimination, subjugation, or worse.

    If you are worried about “little Johnny” and a gun, you need to be worried about him and a car, chemicals, knives, bricks, propane tanks, etc… If he is mentally ill, get him the help he needs and stop waiting for other people to fix your problems. If he is a violent criminal, lock him away and keep him there until he isn’t any more, but only after due process.

  • Anonymous

    How about having the NRA train their members as volunteers to serve as armed guards in all of our public schools while posting a $10 million bond in case of wrongful death or injury. I know the NRA would never agree to this because they know what their membership is.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mark.pashia Mark Pashia

    pete85, you are preaching to the choir. I understand fully that the reality is that criminals will steal all of the weapons that they need, or will go with a professional arms dealer that does not follow any laws. Gangs don’t go down to the gun shows and buy them, they just buy them off of the street. That is why Chicago has such a problem. For a city that has such great gun control laws, they sure have a lot of shootings every day of the week!!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/anthony.mcadams.96 Anthony McAdams

    Only in the last 50 years does it appear all our “rights” up for grabs.
    7 minutes of “Constitutional Reflection” by the “Court Fool”:
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-24-2013/weak-constitution

  • Anonymous

    I would like to see all infringement removed. The Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to do any of this. The Militia clause of the Second Amendment is only an explanation of what they wrote after that. The key part is the acknowledgement of our natural right to self defense that derives directly from the natural right to life: “..the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I don’t care what dodge you want to pull, how you wish to phrase your excuses. Shall not be infringed is pretty clear. You know exactly what it means when you’re saying something like that to your kids. It means “no”, even if the Supreme Court wants to treat it as “maybe” and sometimes “yes”. That’s bad behavior when my kids try it. Yours?

    The First begins “Congress shall make no law…” That left plenty of room for the States and even Municipalities to make all the laws they please. Now the First is treated as sacred, even though it was limited to begin with. The Second was rock solid. Shall not be infringed. Today politicians say that infringement isn’t really

    NPR – you really like to exercise your First Amendment rights. Why do you and the rest of the media hate the Second Amendment? Without the Second, the first is just a gift of magnanimous government. They don’t need to be so nice once they place sufficient controls on the ability to defend the First. For four years President Obama swore he didn’t want to change gun laws. Now he wants to do all he can get away with. Turns out the plan was being put together for over a year. The First could be next.

  • Anonymous

    You just had to resort to insult. Tsk tsk.

    First, I’ve volunteered to function as an armed guard at my grandson’s school. No charge. I’ll supply my own gear. I’m a veteran. I’ve maintained a training regimen. I practice. I protect myself and my family because it’s my job.

    Second, why should the NRA pay anything? This is an obligation of the parents. What happened to their responsibility to protect their children? Can’t hack the cost, don’t have kids.

  • Anonymous

    99.996% of the guns in the United States never shoot anyone. The people who own those guns are as civilized as anyone in the world.

    The UK is more than four times more violent than the US. A high percentage of that are home invasions by thugs preying on the elderly. Turns out they’re really not all that civilized.

    90% of the murders in Chicago, which is both the murder capitol of the US and a Gun Free Zone, are committed by gang bangers who never follow the law, much less suffer a background check when they buy a gun on the street.

  • Anonymous

    In order to write those decisions the Supreme Court had to decide that no could mean yes. That’s bad behavior when my kids do it. Why is it not bad behavior when a Supreme Court Justice does it?

    The authors of the recently defeated bill, which will doubtless be back again, stated that background checks would be meaningless unless records are kept – that’s registration. NY Governor Cuomo stated, prior to their change to the law, that mandatory buy backs and outright confiscation were on the table.

    Are gun owners unreasonably afraid, or wisely concerned? I’m going with wisely concerned since there are liberal leaders talking about the very things you dismiss.

  • http://www.facebook.com/abdulah.rome Abdulah Rome

    I found this poll posted on an anti-gun website. Glad to see those for the 2nd Amendment have found it as well.

  • A.R. Hutchings

    Instead of passing new gun control laws trying to restrict gun ownership for law abiding ppl they should make the states and federal governments enforce the ones already on the books and hold the parents of underage ppl resonsonsable for their actions this would solve most of the gun problems (ie: if a underage person has a gun with no adult overseeing them then arrest the kid and his parents and charge both with breaking the law on underage ppl having a gun by doing this parents will pay more notice to what their kids r doing )

  • http://www.facebook.com/monte.moore.395 Monte Moore

    How about eliminating/repealing some of the thousands of ineffective “feel good” anti-gun laws? That’s the better question!

  • http://www.facebook.com/abdulah.rome Abdulah Rome

    When laws proposed have more focus on law abiding citizens rather than the criminals, there’s a problem..

  • http://www.facebook.com/rob.mcewen.3 Rob McEwen

    90% my ass.

  • Anonymous

    Gun laws have one big problem: they don’t apply to the people who are responsible for gun crime. They only hurt the innocent and law abiding.

  • Anonymous

    The recent SC decision also says that government may not ban weapons that are “in common use”. Yet that is exactly what some state governments have done and the Democrats tried to do.

  • Anonymous

    Guns are not the root cause of those deaths. For the vast majority of them, Illegal drugs are.

  • Anonymous

    Unless the illegal drugs picked up a gun and shot someone, I must insist that as almost always, it’s criminals that are the root cause of those deaths.

  • Anonymous

    Hmmm …. looks like about 90% want to leave the laws alone …. what happened to the 90% that wanted expanded background checks that comrade Obama is so fond of declaring?

  • chris

    Enforce the laws on the books. Lets figure out who was responsible for Fast and Furious first and put them in prison for life. If you commit a violent crime with a gun or you are a felon/prohibited person, apply the penalty instead of letting them out to commit more crimes. Gangs commit most of the violent crime in the US. 80-90% MS 13 gang are illegal aliens. Our government is not concerned with going after the criminals.

  • Andrew

    where is the “repeal many of the restrictions currently in the books” option?

  • Anonymous

    Andrew, I’d like to suggest that it should be “Repeal the restrictions currently on the books.” After all, give ‘em an inch and they’ll take a lightyear.

  • http://www.facebook.com/erik.saur Erik Saur

    Where’s the option to rescind the unconstitutional restrictions we’ve been saddled with over the years?

  • expat

    There are too many laws now. If anything, they need to roll back most of them.

  • Netspirit

    I recommend banning “gun free zones” which crazy criminals are attacked to (because people are defenseless there)

  • http://www.facebook.com/jeff.wyman.35 Jeff Wyman

    The majority of gun-related crimes in this country fall into two categories: 1) gang-related violence, and 2) suicide. The majority of both are committed with small-caliber pistols, not “assault weapons” or “high-capacity” rifles/pistols. Don’t believe me? Look at the FBI’s published crime statistics. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

    The political theater that has taken place in the last few months became less than transparent very quickly. Americans aren’t stupid, and can see through it quite easily, and many of us are frankly insulted by the incessant finger-pointing, shaming, and demonizing of American gun owners that has been purposefully doled out by the Obama administration.

    I used to be a supporter of Obama, but will likely not be voting for a single democrat in the coming 2014 election.. The sum of the last few years of Obama’s presidency has been less than beneficial, in my opinion – and I’m still sugar coating that statement a little bit.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jeff.wyman.35 Jeff Wyman

    Why should the information be stored at all? Isn’t the point of a background check, to ensure that the purchaser is clear to posses a firearm? If that’s all it is, why are we keeping records on who owns what? Why not just allow gun owners to qualify for a “firearms owners card,” which implies that the individual has successfully passed a criminal background check, and as long as this ID is valid, he/she can buy and sell as many firearms as they want from licensed dealers or other individuals that hold this ID? Oh, that’s right – because “universal background checks” is really about removing the lawful right to sell and purchase firearms between private individuals, which is the only means by which the government has no record of the sale. The true goal is for the government to have a full record of who owns what, where it is, and when it was purchased. The true question, depending on the size of your tin foil hat, is: WHY?

  • Haldor

    Why is it that there no option in this poll to reduce gun laws? Why do you assume that the only options are to leave gun laws alone or to increase them?

    Do we need more laws restricting free speech or any other constitutionally protected rights?

  • http://www.facebook.com/abdulah.rome Abdulah Rome

    You can’t legislate evil away. If anything, we should get rid of the Gun Free School Act.. Look how much “good” that has done..

  • Clint

    Hows the guns laws work in Chicago, crime captial of the world with the toughest gun laws working out for them? Mental Cases and Bad Guys don’t care about another law, they don’t obey the toughest most capital laws we already have such as murder, rape, stealing, etc, what make you think they’ll follow another gun law… Get the guns off the street by enforcing what we already have on the books, round up gangbangers and outlaws that are the real threat, not Joe Taxpayer!!

  • Adam R

    What about the VICTIMS OF GUN CONTROL? When do they get to be on TV? Countless people have been beaten, raped and murdered after being restricted by gun control, or during “waiting periods”, etc.

    Some gun facts the media doesn’t want anyone to know:

    1. Over 99.9% of the guns in America were never used to harm

    2. Shooting sports are statistically safer than school sports, safer than bicycle riding.and most all other sports.

    3. Its far more dangerous to have a backyard pool than guns in your home.

    4. People have used guns to save countless lives

    5. Criminals are responsible for their actions, not law abiding gun owners.

  • Pup

    This poll is blatantly biased. It has NO option for reducing or eliminating any federal gun laws, all of which are unconstitutional.

  • Turbo

    Government would save many more innocent lives if we’re to ban high capacity mini vans. Not magazines.

  • Citizen

    The ONLY constitutional gun law is the second amendment to the constitution.

  • http://twitter.com/SHARKEE69 Adrenaline Junkies

    terrorists with bombs supposedly on a watch list , russia involved, shooting at cops, UN says we deserve it, FBI wasn’t aware, ALAHARBI a 2123B yet gets into a state he isnt suppposed to be in yet YOU WANT US TO DO WHAT ?

    Try keeping the terrorists out and the AMERICAN PEOPLE SAFE, at least BUSH COULD DO THAT…F ME wtf is the GOVT doing because apparently thats all they know is to screw with the people who aren’t proclaimin JIHAD..

  • Anonymous

    It’s interesting that according to the FBI most gun crimes are committed with hand guns, yet a huge focus has been on so called “assault weapons” (an inaccurate and misleading term). This would suggest that those pushing so hard for gun control have an agenda somewhat different, and more restrictive, than what they’ve said.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jennifer.baker.589100 Jennifer Baker

    Until they enforce the laws they have NOW 100% leave them alone!
    It’s not that the laws don’t work….its that they are not enforced!!! It’s not a gun loop hole its a political loophole. You only have to look as far as Holder to see it!

  • Chris Dale

    The Bill of Rights limits GOVERNMENT NOT PEOPLE. Remove ALL infringement, as all are unconstitutional.

  • http://www.facebook.com/AtTheMurph Jack Murphy

    That was a lie that if repeated often enough they hope to become accepted as truth.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ed-Stremel/707275119 Ed Stremel

    how about an option that involves less gun control?

  • myotic

    You forgot to include a fourth option: Repeal most guns laws.

  • Anonymous

    They need a new option on the poll, for *ANONYMOUS* expanded background checks. A large part of the opposition is due to the current bill requiring the Feds to keep track of the transaction, resulting in a database of gun owners. If they simply made the system anonymous, a lot of gun owners would welcome it. I know I dont want to accidentally sell a handgun to a felon or mental case.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1668858553 Faith M Martin

    Gun control laws only affect law abiding citizens. They are tantamount to punishing an innocent person for the crimes committed by another. I don’t think these Congressmen would want to serve time for a crime they did not commit, so why make innocent law abiding citizens pay for what criminals do by taking away or infringing upon their rights? It is now, and always has been about PEOPLE control, not gun control.

  • Jojo

    Background checks cannot predict future events.

  • The Earl o Sammich

    Why, when left and right both ackwnowledge that universal back ground checks would have done NOTHING to prevent Sandy Hook, (he killed his mother for Cry Sakes) is it still refered to as “common sense”?

  • The Earl o Sammich

    Actually Pete most states have no laws regulating it. Some do for handguns but most don’t for all guns. You can check the want adds in the paper and just go buy it. Practically every state has “knowingly sell to a ….” prohinted person law but otherwise not much else.

  • http://www.facebook.com/whit.parham Whit Parham

    Hear hear! A fourth option should have included, “Change/remove existing gun laws.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/whit.parham Whit Parham

    Congress should care more about rights instead of laws. However, as good Keynesians, they never miss an opportunity to through bricks through people’s windows.

  • clt capt

    Where is the choice of “Repeal gun laws” and let the 2nd Amendment be your guide?

  • http://www.facebook.com/gregory.a.winchester Gregory Allen Winchester

    try enforcing the laws that are already on the book’s everything they are trying to pass is covered in one way or another already

  • http://twitter.com/stymiecosentino stymiecosentino

    Defund PBS now!!!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/eric.lizotte.7 Eric Lizotte

    Chris Christie put forward a law to “reduce gun crime and prevent future mass killings” and as a part of it, NJ is going to ban the Barret 50bmg rifle. Its a $7000+ rifle, with ammunition that is in the range of $10 a bullet. So far as I can find one has NEVER been used in the commission of any sort of crime. In Connecticut, their new assault weapon ban is so poorly done that a SINGLE SHOT bolt action rifle that has a thumbhole through the rifle stock is now considered an assault weapon. Its a joke, particularly when people who have no understanding of how guns actually work attempt to write laws governing them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sam.singleton.77 Sam Singleton

    The ACLU has won the right of delusional paranoid schizophrenics to remain homeless, and remain a prisoner of their disease. Until this is corrected and compassion shown to the mentally ill, no gun law will change mass shootings.

  • Anon

    I actually think they should repeal the current gun laws as well. They are nothing but feel good unconstitutional tyranny.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sam.singleton.77 Sam Singleton

    Murder rate by gun is falling, except in Chicago where gun laws are tough. Allow the honest citizens to carry and the rate is less. Send in the militia to police the areas where gun violence is high. Shoot the bad guys. Leave the rest of us alone.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mark.falade Mark Falade

    Here you go, here’s the 90% they’re all talking about. But wait…

  • http://www.facebook.com/daniel.h.douglass Daniel Henry Douglass III

    I actually believed some of the existing Federal laws of guns should repealed.

  • Anonymous

    most people only see the tragic gun stories. we need to get the facts out there: guns are used overwhelmingly for defense by law abiding citizens, near 2.5 million times every single year in the US. Stricter gun laws only put a burden on the lawful, they do not affect the criminals at all. Every expanded law reduces the numbers of lawful defenses while keeping or increasing the number of criminal offenses. Shall Not Be Infringed.

  • ernestsuter

    How much do you want to bet that Obama hides this poll and it never sees the light of day. He keeps pushing his “90% want background checks”, well 93% FROM A LARGER POLLING AUDIENCE (the 90% poll was about 1254 people in 3 states and only a handful of towns, this is a TRUE poll on a national level) but it contradicts what Obama is saying and his falsified numbers. The 90% poll was either incorrectly asked by those that have no clue and felt that there was no background check (which is false) or they asked the question as “do you feel background checks are necessary?” in which case as a gun owner I feel they are necessary BUT they are already done. Any time an idiot gets hold of a gun for the wrong reason all legal gun owners are punished for their action. I do not want lunatics getting guns BUT THAT’S ALREADY IN PLACE… They have to enforce the current laws and go after straw buyers and those that traffic the guns rather than make new laws. It seems to me that law enforcement has given up and surrendered to the criminals and figures it’s easier to show gun control is taking place by adding new laws THAT THE CRIMINALS WILL NOT FOLLOW, but if they can show that those that legally buy guns are checked further, maybe even stick a probe up our @$$ when buying a gun, the liberals will cheer for a victory over the ones that don’t cause the problem in the first place!

  • Dana

    You people and your background check crap. You don’t even know hat the damn laws are or when the government is pulling a fast one. WE HAVE BACKGROUND CHECKS!!!!! The poll is a fraud! Get educated before you people vote.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Bruce.Sue Bruce Sue DeLong

    because it’s from a left wing organization!!!! pbs is funded by the progressives

  • Gun Nut.

    Your poll shows significant inherent bias. Where is the option to repeal the Federal firearms laws we have now? The federal govt. shouldn’t regulate firearms at all, see amendment 10, CONUS. (To say nothing of amendment 2.)

  • Bill Fuccillo

    Where is the option to roll back half the gun laws that dont work, and allow law abiding citizens to carry a weapon for personal protection and be able to cross state lines with it without being arrested?

  • ObamaSux

    Why no option to restore the 2nd Amendment as it was written and get rid of all the restriction the gov’t imposes on law abiding citizens?

  • Styx

    You won’t have the guts to report the results of this poll. You’ll bury it on page 27 and continue to play up the BS idea that the ant-gun crowd has a vast majority of Americans behind them.

  • Vin

    and somehow the Prez keeps claiming that “90%” support his agenda … makes you wonder…

  • Anonymous

    There is no option for “reduce the number of gun laws”, which would have been my number one choice had the poll been properly constructed

  • http://www.facebook.com/CarGod01 Richard Wick

    The Former Soviet Union, N Korea, China and many other totalitarian regimes have used ‘mental health’ as a smokescreen to lock dissidents away for decades. Don’t allow it to happen here!! That is exactly where they are headed with universal background checks (which is defacto registration) and ‘expanded’ mental health reporting under Obamacare!

  • http://www.facebook.com/andrew.capone.735 Andrew Capone

    How about the option to repeal current “feel good” gun control laws? They only hurt us, the law abiding majority of good people.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mfpita Michael Gingras

    Wait but thw president said 90% were for gun control. Guess he lied again lol truth hurts Obama

  • muzzledan

    But Obama said 90% of the people want more gun control. Did he lie or just misstate the facts?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pocono-Shooting-Range/100001567268553 Pocono Shooting Range

    Shall not be Infringed = Not limited, Not restricted, Not Controlled.

    Well Regulated = Well manned and Equipped. (not govt controlled)

    Militia = All gun owners capable and willing to fighting. (not enlisted men under contract)

    Arms = Ordinary Military Equipment (not crew operated)

    These definitions came out of the 1939 United States vs Miller Supreme Court case.

    Liberty is worth the Risk of DEATH !!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pocono-Shooting-Range/100001567268553 Pocono Shooting Range

    I was rather looking for an option to do away with all existing gun control.

  • Gun Owner

    Seriously Dana? Of course we know the laws, we have to obey them to purchase our legal guns. Of course we see the gov’t was trying to pull a fast one, it’s why we are all here. Maybe you should think before you post.

  • http://www.facebook.com/vangelder.kevin Kevin VanGelder

    This poll needs an option “Repeal all existing federal gun control laws”!

  • http://www.facebook.com/cmarinaccio Carol Marinaccio

    are you serious? if his mouth is moving, he is lying! he states what he, in his own mind, wants to be the truth. you see the results of this poll – a small group of people agree with him. the rest agree with the constitution and the bill of rights given to us by our forefathers.

  • http://www.facebook.com/cmarinaccio Carol Marinaccio

    he’s lying – like he does on every subject. he wouldn’t know the truth if it hit him in the face.

  • MisterDK

    When is the last time you heard a politician speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help us God.

  • Jim

    We need to protect our rights the call for the taking of rights of law abiding people is wrong could you imagine the outcry if all immigrants were held liable for the actions of a few!

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.g.lander.16 David G. Lander

    Only two things I disagree with on this. One, Well Regulated means Well trained, not well equipped. Each man is supposed to provide their own, suitable, equipment with which they are supposed to practice and train with as much as possible. Two, Arms would be anything that is one man portable, and shoulder or hand fired… Besides those two minor points, yeah, that about it.

  • MisterDK

    The fourth part of the question should be that all federal firearms laws should be repealed and left to the individual states. They should use NY state as a shining example of what NOT to do. And while they are at it, pass a law that allows for a recall vote for any and all elected/appointed political office up to and including the POTUS.

  • KLEMOD

    If ANY LAW [including Second Amendment Law] is clearly Unconstitutional, one is not bound MORALLY or LEGAALLY to obey that law. -kle/mod-

  • Tracy

    I just wanted to share that there was no answer that said get rid of gun laws and let the Constitution stand as it should

  • Tracy

    gun rights are inalienable and not left to the states or the federal government. They are specified in the Constitution

  • l0b0t

    Pretty sad that those 3 statist options are the only ones presented. how about we respect the Constitution – “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”

    Repeal the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968; armed self-defense is an inalienable natural right.

  • http://twitter.com/darkpath0010 Lane Lombardia

    The question is horribly biased. No option was given for rolling back existing law.

  • idk

    Is this the 90% pole that Biden keeps talking about?

  • http://www.facebook.com/louis.chapman.969 Louis Chapman

    I’m sure this poll will never see the light of day on any major news network.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1093042969 Lee Daughdrill

    this is more screwed up lies !! no matter what america say’s , our opinion will never be heard. just like the election The muslim dictator will never leave washington !!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1331561862 Gary Nero

    Ban politicians!

  • john doe

    This poll is complete nonsense and you all know it. Please. A PBS poll full of PBS watching liberals voting OVERWHELMINGLY against gun safety? Well, guess what? I tried voting more than once. No problem. I tried voting FOUR times. No problem there. Any poll where one over zealous gun nut can vote thousands of times is not a valid poll. Just look at the comments from all the semi-literate mouth breathers, repeating the same old, tired NRA propaganda out here and asking for a REPEAL OF ALL GUN LAWS? Sorry…NOT BUYING THIS POLL FOR A NANO-SECOND. A real poll is one where you can only vote ONCE, not 6,000 times. I declare this poll 100% invalid.

  • john doe

    WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sharlene.shappart Sharlene Gonzales-Shappart

    Great to see a real poll for a change, however the choices were limited. We need more gun laws repealed, to truly be a secure nation. Right now New Yorkers are unarmed victims, this needs to change. Detroit, unarmed victims, D.C., unarmed victims.

  • ept

    Where’s the national conceal carry permit option?

  • john doe

    Explain England.

    Are they not free. They have no guns. The cops don’treven carry them

  • john doe

    Any poll where one person can vote thousands of times is not a real poll.

    Sorry. It’s just not. I was able to vote 4 times. I did that just to see if it was possible. This poll has no validity whatsoever.

  • john doe

    Any poll where one person can vote thousands of times is not a real poll.

    Sorry. It’s just not. I was able to vote 4 times. I did that just to
    see if it was possible. This poll has no validity whatsoever.

    .

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lance-Brown/1742397077 Lance Brown

    Typical Lib. Voting more than once on issues you can’t comprehend.

  • Joseph

    I voted 3 times but it DID NOT change the “total vote numbers”
    Sorry John Doe, nice try tho :)

  • Joseph

    I voted 3 times and it DOES NOT affect the redults, total votes stay the SAME

  • Fred

    Same result.

  • john doe

    Typical Con. Being an asshole. I comprehend the issues just fine. I voted more than once to prove that it’s rigged.

  • john doe

    Then you’re blind. I voted multiple times and the total numbers changed. You really expect me to believe that a bunch of PBS watching Liberals voted against background checks? Please.

  • Wally

    They actually need to remove all federal laws period and let the states choose their own laws. The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, however the Constitution also says all powers not reserved by the federal powers is left to the states as long as they do not violate the Constitution. Ergo we shouldn’t have one gun law period, with the exception of if you become a felon you should be stripped of your right to arm yourself because you made a conscious decision to violate a law and were found guilty by a court of law. However if you deprive one of his right to self defense you must also provide his defense within reason therefore all felons would have to be gated secure communities. Who would pay for that, but the taxpayer of course, so in the end we all lose. Criminals will get their hands on weapons irregardless, so we may as well have a fully automatic, suppressed, concealed, and polite society and if someone threatens you or someone else you bear witness to, you should be fully within your rights to arrange a burial for them.

  • Dez

    Leave the guns laws alone! They can’t even enforce the laws already on the books!

  • john doe

    Yes, that’s right, gun nuts. Lets not have any laws at all. Why not just make murder and rape legal and let everyone go by the honor system. You are all completely insane.

  • Amanda

    Have you not read the laws. We already have background checks in place.

  • Dez

    Gun nuts? No. Defender of my rights!

  • john doe

    DC vs Heller

    ” Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is
    not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
    whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
    prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
    The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
    prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
    ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
    such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
    and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

  • john doe

    Here’s what the supreme court says about your rights

    DC vs Heller

    ” Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is
    not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
    whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
    prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
    The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
    prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
    ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
    such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
    and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

  • john doe

    What about the rights of the REST OF US not to get SHOT by one of you “law abiding citizens”??

  • Gunner Gatlin

    Insane is the pipe dream that taking away firearms from law abiding citizens ( citizens that follow the law) so that crime and violence would stop…idiotic thinking at best.

  • Joseph

    Gooooooo 2nd Amendment!!!!!!!
    Tried voting twice, again, NO EFFECT– poll looks GOOD

  • pro2a

    You are an idiot!!

  • Papa Squat

    what you are saying is ignorance at it’s best.

  • john doe

    What about the rights of the REST OF US not to get SHOT by one of you “law abiding citizens”?? Does that not matter to any of you gun zealots?

  • john doe

    Poll is rigged, rigged, rigged. I don’t believe this bs poll for a second.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tim-Bromund/1359453517 Tim Bromund

    That’s just it pinhead, it’s not us “law abiding citizens” you need to be worried about, unless of course, YOU are a criminal scumbag.

  • http://www.facebook.com/amy.welker Amy Welker

    Law abiding citizens do not shoot people… Criminals shoot people….

  • ept

    Uh, this is not a true national poll, it’s an internet poll. The two are not even nearly the same. And Obama isn’t going to ‘hide’ this, as if they care about some non-scientific internet poll. I agree with a lot of what you believe about gun control vs. rights but you really need to learn about things before you rant about them… just like gun control folks.

  • john doe

    WELL REGULATED MILITIA. What is the name of yours?

  • john doe

    WELL REGULATED MILITIA. What is the name of yours?

  • john doe

    WELL REGULATED MILITIA. What is the name of yours?

  • abbynormal

    Well, if they are ‘law abiding’ …as most are…they won’t be shooting you, since shooting you would be a crime. The stats don’t lie.

  • abbynormal

    Well, if they are ‘law abiding’ …as most are…they won’t be shooting you, since shooting you would be a crime. The stats don’t lie.

  • abbynormal

    Well, if they are ‘law abiding’ …as most are…they won’t be shooting you, since shooting you would be a crime. The stats don’t lie.

  • mamaprepper

    Seriously? Do you really think we go around shooting people? Your not getting correct info here dude. I am a regular Christian homeschooling mom and I DON’T go around shooting people. Unless you break into my house and intend to do me and mine deadly harm, then I’ll be shooting.

  • mamaprepper

    Seriously? Do you really think we go around shooting people? Your not getting correct info here dude. I am a regular Christian homeschooling mom and I DON’T go around shooting people. Unless you break into my house and intend to do me and mine deadly harm, then I’ll be shooting.

  • john doe

    WHAT militia?

  • john doe

    WHAT militia?

  • john doe

    WHAT militia?

  • john doe

    Law abiding citizens do not shoot people. Until they do.

  • john doe

    Law abiding citizens do not shoot people. Until they do.

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.leggat.75 John Leggat

    John Doe, rape and murder are already illegal with ‘supposed’ harsh penalties. Your blaming the tool not the individual that commits these crimes. Perhaps you would consider putting focus on mentally unstable individuals, you know, like the ones that blame inanimate objects for the terrible things humans do.

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.leggat.75 John Leggat

    John Doe, rape and murder are already illegal with ‘supposed’ harsh penalties. Your blaming the tool not the individual that commits these crimes. Perhaps you would consider putting focus on mentally unstable individuals, you know, like the ones that blame inanimate objects for the terrible things humans do.

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.leggat.75 John Leggat

    John Doe, rape and murder are already illegal with ‘supposed’ harsh penalties. Your blaming the tool not the individual that commits these crimes. Perhaps you would consider putting focus on mentally unstable individuals, you know, like the ones that blame inanimate objects for the terrible things humans do.

  • mamaprepper

    So if we shoot someone, then we’re no longer law abiding? What will you do to defend yourself? Defense is not illegal.

  • mamaprepper

    So if we shoot someone, then we’re no longer law abiding? What will you do to defend yourself? Defense is not illegal.

  • mamaprepper

    So if we shoot someone, then we’re no longer law abiding? What will you do to defend yourself? Defense is not illegal.

  • http://www.facebook.com/amy.welker Amy Welker

    Show me one case of a law abiding citizen that has shot someone.

  • http://www.facebook.com/AShraderJr Tony Shrader Jr.

    If you had a gun and knew how to use it maybe you wouldn’t be so insecure with the thought of freedom. Oh and very courageous of you to have such a strong opinion behind the guise of “John Doe”

  • http://www.facebook.com/AShraderJr Tony Shrader Jr.

    If you had a gun and knew how to use it maybe you wouldn’t be so insecure with the thought of freedom. Oh and very courageous of you to have such a strong opinion behind the guise of “John Doe”

  • http://www.facebook.com/AShraderJr Tony Shrader Jr.

    If you had a gun and knew how to use it maybe you wouldn’t be so insecure with the thought of freedom. Oh and very courageous of you to have such a strong opinion behind the guise of “John Doe”

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.leggat.75 John Leggat

    Liberals, you mean like ‘those desiring free choice and personal responsibility? Or the liberals that simply want free stuff? Hard to keep track if your not more specific.

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.leggat.75 John Leggat

    Liberals, you mean like ‘those desiring free choice and personal responsibility? Or the liberals that simply want free stuff? Hard to keep track if your not more specific.

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.leggat.75 John Leggat

    Liberals, you mean like ‘those desiring free choice and personal responsibility? Or the liberals that simply want free stuff? Hard to keep track if your not more specific.

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.leggat.75 John Leggat

    Liberals, you mean like ‘those desiring free choice and personal responsibility? Or the liberals that simply want free stuff? Hard to keep track if your not more specific.

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.leggat.75 John Leggat

    Liberals, you mean like ‘those desiring free choice and personal responsibility? Or the liberals that simply want free stuff? Hard to keep track if your not more specific.

  • http://www.facebook.com/amy.welker Amy Welker

    Government has gotten out of control… I was asked for ID to buy glue the other day…

  • papa squat

    i love how you use one small exerpt from the official ruling. typical ignorance. you really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

  • papa squat

    i love how you use one small exerpt from the official ruling. typical ignorance. you really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

  • john doe

    Bullshit

  • john doe

    Bullshit

  • john doe

    Bullshit

  • john doe

    Bullshit

  • john doe

    Lets get rid of murder and rape laws while youre at it, huh?

    Cant legislate away evil, right?

  • john doe

    Lets get rid of murder and rape laws while youre at it, huh?

    Cant legislate away evil, right?

  • john doe

    Lets get rid of murder and rape laws while youre at it, huh?

    Cant legislate away evil, right?

  • john doe

    Lets get rid of murder and rape laws while youre at it, huh?

    Cant legislate away evil, right?

  • http://www.facebook.com/amy.welker Amy Welker

    Go to Walmart to buy glue, I am serious here. Home Depot will ID for spray paint also.

  • http://www.facebook.com/amy.welker Amy Welker

    Go to Walmart to buy glue, I am serious here. Home Depot will ID for spray paint also.

  • http://www.facebook.com/amy.welker Amy Welker

    Go to Walmart to buy glue, I am serious here. Home Depot will ID for spray paint also.

  • http://www.facebook.com/amy.welker Amy Welker

    Go to Walmart to buy glue, I am serious here. Home Depot will ID for spray paint also.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tim-Bromund/1359453517 Tim Bromund

    Hey “john doe” why don’t you grow yourself a set and identify yourself instead of gutlessly hiding behind an alias. Oh that’s right, asking a libtard to be responsible is kind of like asking an infant to not crap its diaper.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tim-Bromund/1359453517 Tim Bromund

    Hey “john doe” why don’t you grow yourself a set and identify yourself instead of gutlessly hiding behind an alias. Oh that’s right, asking a libtard to be responsible is kind of like asking an infant to not crap its diaper.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tim-Bromund/1359453517 Tim Bromund

    Hey “john doe” why don’t you grow yourself a set and identify yourself instead of gutlessly hiding behind an alias. Oh that’s right, asking a libtard to be responsible is kind of like asking an infant to not crap its diaper.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tim-Bromund/1359453517 Tim Bromund

    Hey “john doe” why don’t you grow yourself a set and identify yourself instead of gutlessly hiding behind an alias. Oh that’s right, asking a libtard to be responsible is kind of like asking an infant to not crap its diaper.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tim-Bromund/1359453517 Tim Bromund

    Hey “john doe” why don’t you grow yourself a set and identify yourself instead of gutlessly hiding behind an alias. Oh that’s right, asking a libtard to be responsible is kind of like asking an infant to not crap its diaper.

  • http://www.facebook.com/amy.welker Amy Welker

    And Tops will ID for cough syrup…

  • http://www.facebook.com/amy.welker Amy Welker

    And Tops will ID for cough syrup…

  • http://www.facebook.com/amy.welker Amy Welker

    And Tops will ID for cough syrup…

  • http://www.facebook.com/amy.welker Amy Welker

    And Tops will ID for cough syrup…

  • Anonymous

    Dicta-(don’t know what dicta is? look it up F. Lee.)

  • Anonymous

    Dicta-(don’t know what dicta is? look it up F. Lee.)

  • Anonymous

    Dicta-(don’t know what dicta is? look it up F. Lee.)

  • Anonymous

    Dicta-(don’t know what dicta is? look it up F. Lee.)

  • http://www.facebook.com/AShraderJr Tony Shrader Jr.

    Oh, And I voted 25 times. No change to the results. Even used different Browsers. And if you can vote unlimited times why don’t you take the time to turn this poll around buddy ;) Get a win for your kind. After all, If you libs don’t have BS Statistics and misread information, what do ya have right?

  • http://www.facebook.com/AShraderJr Tony Shrader Jr.

    Oh, And I voted 25 times. No change to the results. Even used different Browsers. And if you can vote unlimited times why don’t you take the time to turn this poll around buddy ;) Get a win for your kind. After all, If you libs don’t have BS Statistics and misread information, what do ya have right?

  • http://www.facebook.com/AShraderJr Tony Shrader Jr.

    Oh, And I voted 25 times. No change to the results. Even used different Browsers. And if you can vote unlimited times why don’t you take the time to turn this poll around buddy ;) Get a win for your kind. After all, If you libs don’t have BS Statistics and misread information, what do ya have right?

  • http://www.facebook.com/AShraderJr Tony Shrader Jr.

    Oh, And I voted 25 times. No change to the results. Even used different Browsers. And if you can vote unlimited times why don’t you take the time to turn this poll around buddy ;) Get a win for your kind. After all, If you libs don’t have BS Statistics and misread information, what do ya have right?

  • Papa Squat

    it is because you are living in a dream world. if you want gun control, go live in great brittan where the violent crime rate is almost 5x as bad as it is in the US. GB rating over 2000 per 100000 people and the us is just over 400 per 100000. please take your head out of your ass.

  • Anonymous

    No, Tracy, the right to self defense is an inalienable. The right comes from nature or God, not the Constitution. The Constitution is a protection from government infringing that right. The government doesn’t grant the right.

  • http://www.facebook.com/amy.welker Amy Welker

    The British definition of violent crimes includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.” So that data has become an invalid point…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lance-Brown/1742397077 Lance Brown

    Typical Lib. Vote more than once on issues of which you have no clue.

  • Dan Scroggins

    What is your point? Did you read the rest of the case?

  • Daniel Rancourt

    The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, which is presently defined by the Militia Act of 1903 to consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.(That is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft.) Former members of the armed forces up to age 65 are also considered part of the “unorganized militia” per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[2]

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lance-Brown/1742397077 Lance Brown

    Come out from hiding Coward and identify yourself. No balls?

  • http://www.facebook.com/joe.aiello.1426 Joe Aiello

    you have more chances of drowning in a pool or being killed in an auto than you do from getting shot by anyone and also all people that are shot are done so by criminals.

  • majorbozon

    Betcha don’t like these results do ya? Tuff titties as we used to say…

  • http://www.facebook.com/mrthomas994 Mark Thomas

    Hello Mr. John Doe, you wanna cite court cases about what the federal courts say about our 2nd Amendment rights then you need to check out these cases. they say everything you need to know, it even covers so called assault weapons ( that are not actually assault weapons at all, seeing as how the term was made up to describe a weapon that looks like an assault rifle, an assault rifle is what people like you think people like us have, because an assault rifle can have select fire ranging from semi to fully automatic or even three shot burst. Our “assault weapons” are nothing more than regular caliber semi-automatic rifles that cosmetically appear to be assault rifles.) Here are two Supreme Court cases that point to our right under the 2nd Amendment, to keep and bear the same arms that have a military application and gives us the right to defend ourselves against any violation of our civil rights using any means necessary even if your life is not being imminently threatened by the offending party. You will never here anyone that is pro gun control bring these cases up. Know your rights and stay free America!
    Two Supreme Court Decisions You Won’t Hear About From Gun Control Advocates..

    Here are two Supreme Court Decisions that are guaranteed to be left out
    of the talking points of any Pro Gun Control advocate. The first makes
    the argument that the Unorganized Militia, or The People, have a
    protected right to the same arms that the military use.
    The second makes the case that as a citizen you have the right to
    defend against violations of your civil rights using any means
    necessary. Even if your life is not being imminently threatened by the
    offending party.
    Interesting cases and rulings that appear to still be standing t this day. Good debate pieces perhaps.

    There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current
    anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.

    The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off
    shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a
    right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme
    Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not
    being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since
    it didn’t, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument,
    the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a
    military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military
    now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but
    an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military,
    therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which
    includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex
    discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age
    17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is
    clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those
    nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round
    magazines.

    The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v.
    United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest
    Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman
    who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and
    sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had
    the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false
    arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not
    kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen,
    you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated
    using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the
    offending party isn’t trying to kill you.
    Both of these cases are standing law to this day.
    The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having
    a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the
    government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for
    having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not
    trying to kill you.

    I didn’t make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.

  • mikenelson06

    Stop drinking the koolaid and wake up, law abiding people do not just go and shoot people. I will defend my family with any means needed. If that makes me a criminal then your a true idiot!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Roger-Helmich/1135943934 Roger Helmich

    keep your hands off the guns and you won’t have to worry about the “Law abiding citizens!” you will only have to worry about the ones that don’t care about laws to begin with.

  • http://www.facebook.com/DarthKorndog Kory Cordier

    Don’t enter my house uninvited with a ski mask and a crowbar and you have nothing to worry about there Tiger. Gun owners aren’t crazy. We are normal people that take personal responsibility for our own safety and the safety of those around us. Please stop believing every single thing you see on TV from those idiots on CNN, and MSNBC.

  • Derek

    Mr. Doe

    I have been shooting guns since I was 10 yrs old. I’m now 50 and I have not shot anyone yet. I spent my summers with a friend walking all out behind our neighbor hood with a 22 rifle and 16 gauge shot gun. My Dad gave me a 12 gauge when I was 15. The family had a 200 ac farm and I bet I walked that place for 5000 miles in my life time with a gun on my shoulder. I did not grow up to be a mass killer. I’m not a nut but I do enjoy my freedom, as you can enjoy your freedom. Your freedom to not own a firearm if that is your choice. And you are free to have a choice which I respect. We,I, the rest of us should be free to make our choice to own firearms with out being demonized for it. Most of the folks I know in the rural southeast would vote to leave the gun laws alone. It’s our way of life.

  • Reverend Joseph

    Well Mr. Doe if you don’t like us law abiding citizens having guns then when you become a victim of a criminal you won’t complain that we didn’t use our guns to protect you. When seconds count the police are minutes away.

  • alan

    Poor John Doe. He’s gone off his meds again.

  • Anonymous

    It’s name is “we the people”. You may want to read up on the last 200 years of supreme court descisions regarding the matter.

  • Reverend Joseph

    What are you, 13 years old?

  • Joseph

    That is correct, let’s handle this attack THEN get the Constitution FULLY applied

  • efpophis

    You’re wrong about Detroit. We have shall-issue concealed carry in all of MI. I carry in Detroit all the time, legally. In fact, I won’t go anywhere near the place without my piece.

  • JL

    Rigged question since removal of the current infringements isn’t listed.

  • Reverend Joseph

    Yea and thats worked out real well in Aurora, Sandy Hook, Fort Hood, Virgina Tech and Boston. Law abiding gun owners who carry concealed do so to protect themselves and in a large part, other innocent unarmed civilians amongst them. And contrary to popular belief, based on the writings of the Framers, the 2nd Amendment IS unlimited. Read The Federalist Papers and be enlightened.

  • http://www.facebook.com/AShraderJr Tony Shrader Jr.

    Don’t break into our homes or shoot at our children with illegal guns and you’ll be just fine “John Doe”. The only people that should fear a legally armed citizen are those that wish them harm.

  • Reverend Joseph

    Pay no mind to the liberal troll. Your wasting good breath on bad thinking.

  • Anonymous

    no, when the data is adjusted accordingly it still works out to gb almost 3x higher than US. I know, that doesn’t fit the red coat message so instead people like you just say it doesn’t count. but it is real whether you want it to be or not

  • Peter Miller

    No one would “welcome” it. Take your gun to your local gun shop and have an actual TRANSFER done to ensure you aren’t dealing with felons… Wake up people!

  • Peter Miller

    You’re a very good troll..

  • Reverend Joseph

    He is a PBS troll. Your spittin in the wind my friend.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Mock/1008887067 Jason Mock

    I wanted to vote to repeal the 1934 NFA, but that wasnt an option, so I went with stay the same.

  • Anonymous

    We are likely to need our guns to fight against Tyrant Obama who violates the constitution at will. He pretends to be a law professor so he should know better. He made recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess. A violation off the Constitution. He has modified US immigration law. A violation of the Constitution. He modified US welfare laws. A violation of the Constitution. In so doing he broke his oath of office and made himself unfit for it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Mock/1008887067 Jason Mock

    You still have that right. No one is ever going to take that right from you.. If someone tries to take that right away from you, call the police.

  • Anonymous

    Translation of the Supreme Court decision in Heller: No can mean yes when it’s really important to the entity being told no, and that entity is the government.

    If one of my kids told me that when I told them no it really meant yes it would have been bad behavior. It is no less bad behavior when the Supreme Court does it.

    The words of the Second Amendment are absolute and unlimited. “..shall not be infringed.” That’s a no, even if the Supreme Court doesn’t understand it that way. The problem lies with the Supreme Court.

  • NealGA

    I wish there was an option to eliminate the unconstitutional federal restrictions that have already been enacted. I wonder how many of the 93% that voted to leave them alone would have supported it.

  • Anonymous

    Still a crock of meadow muffins, no matter how many times you write it.

    Don’t break into my home. Don’t try to rob me. Generally speaking, behave yourself. You’ll remain quite safe from being shot by me.

    99.996 of all guns in the US are never used in any crime, including the murder of liberals employing silly arguments to mindlessly push their will upon others.

  • Joseph

    And the other’s I would say 95% plus— with ya on that one!

  • Anonymous

    Since you like to say the same thing over and over, here’s my response:

    Translation of the Supreme Court decision in Heller: No can mean yes when it’s really important to the entity being told no, and that entity is the government.

    If one of my kids told me that when I told them no it really meant yes it would have been bad behavior. It is no less bad behavior when the Supreme Court does it.

    The words of the Second Amendment are absolute and unlimited. “..shall not be infringed.” That’s a no, even if the Supreme Court doesn’t understand it that way. The problem lies with the Supreme Court.

  • Anonymous

    more yellow journalism,, no option to roll back gun restrictions ,, oh wait.. sorry guess that doesnt fit the liberal press agenda

  • http://www.facebook.com/abdulah.rome Abdulah Rome

    Get rid of the Gun Free School Zone Act… Look how “good” that has done..

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Harrold-Nutczak/100000946379020 Harrold Nutczak

    Who do you think the NRA is!?
    I’ll give you a clue, the NRA is its members, the people who join the NRA so they can be the voice of firearm owners. Without members , the NRA is nothing. So when you refer to the NRA, you are referring to the millions of Americans who have joined the NRA.

  • http://www.facebook.com/abdulah.rome Abdulah Rome

    We banned alcohol during the Prohibition, how well did that go?

    We banned illegal drugs during the ongoing War on Drugs, how well is that going?

    You want to ban guns based on their looks now?.. I have a feeling it will do nothing except give an advantage to criminals.

  • denton

    ***Lets not have any laws at all. Why not just make murder and rape legal…***

    Nobody with at least half a mind has proposed anything remotely similar to that. Strawman. Distraction. Absurd.

    ***gun nuts*** I don’t think I’m a nut of any kind. Did you expect to win by insulting others?

    Our Founders knew very well the advantages and problems associated with having an armed populace. For every crime committed with a gun, about 10 are prevented by a citizen with a gun, so it is evident that they chose correctly. If you think they gave us bad policy, you’re a little over 200 years late to the meeting where the decision was made. Well, that, plus you’re not paying attention to the relevant numbers.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Harrold-Nutczak/100000946379020 Harrold Nutczak

    Sadly, we are the ones funding NPR through our tax monies. I say NPR should be defended and they can rely on donations only if they continue their liberal leanings. Our taxes should not be used for political biased broadcasting

  • http://www.facebook.com/mike.ocasio.7 Mike Ocasio

    How about enforcing the federal laws that already exist.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Harrold-Nutczak/100000946379020 Harrold Nutczak

    Do those laws stop those crimes from happening? No they do not, but in your twisted logic you still want to disarm the women so they cannot defend themselves! You are one twisted liberal

  • a patriot

    Mr. Doe,
    I am sorry you feel the way you do, it’s sad in fact. We as firearm owners will respect your rights and openions. So when a person attacks you with a screw driver or knife or pen, we will not defend you with our firearms, we will ask you first if you want help then we will dial 911 and go home.

  • l0b0t

    That is not true at all. The UK, UN, Interpol, and FBI all use the same definition, to whit – violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent
    manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

    The only substantive difference lies in the way some crimes are reported, in the UK, a death is only reported as a murder when there is a conviction. Unsolved homicides are not reported as part of the Home Office’s statistics. So the UK murder rate is, using American reporting standards, even higher.

    Why are people so surprised at what a violent place Europe is? Hell, even Canada has higher rate of violent crime than does the US.

  • Sarah

    Remove the current worthless laws keeping law abiding citizens from protecting themselves!

  • ML

    Everyone needs to read this. It explains our rights and who is in control of our rights. http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=220166

  • http://twitter.com/Kailess Phil Sanders

    Why is there no option for remove some federal gun laws?

  • Anonymous

    Either of the first two options violate the Constitution, either the right to bare arms or the right to privacy.

  • Clint

    Agreed.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kelvin.jones1 Kelvin Jones

    I would have added a fourth option of Repeal all laws excepting the NICS check. Only background checks ascertaining only if an individual is able bodied are constitutional. Definition of infringe is “Act so as to limit or undermine”. Does it add a fee, tax, or additional cost to manufacturers, retailers or consumers if so it is an infringement. Does it limit what where when or why? If so it is an infringement. The only limitation is determining able bodied(mind and social behavior) because every able bodied citizen is a member of the unorganized militia of the state and should be able to be called up at any time in an emergency and is expected to carry their own arms and munitions to defend the security of the free state. The 2nd Amendment reads “A well-regulated(meaning trained and equipped not regulated in todays terminology) Militia(comprised of every able bodied citizen{since women fought for equal rights they also have equal responsibility here now}), being necessary to the security of a free state(the purpose of having the militia in the first place), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed(once again defining exactly what comprises the militia, the PEOPLE and thier private arms and munitions.).

  • Anonymous

    I like that article. Most Americans do not know that the Government cannot take from you what they cannot give you. Even a Constitutional Law professor like Barack Obama should know that (that is if he was ever one).

  • Merk

    Millions of LEGAL gun owners DIDN’T shoot anyone, yesterday, today and probably not tomorrow. I use my guns for many things, including recreation and work. Criminals won’t go through a background check. Criminals don’t buy their guns from licensed dealers. You don’t have to own one, we won’t force you, it’s your RIGHT not to. But the constitution gave us the right TO own them.

  • Anonymous

    300,000,000+ firearms shot no-one today.. Did you know that us law-abiding, CPL holding, Citizens have a better track record than Law Enforcement when it comes to shooting people that should not have been shot??? Maybe we should restrict the firearms that LE has access to???

  • http://www.facebook.com/brian.tennant.94 Brian Tennant

    How about we repeal the gun control act of 1968!

  • Merk

    By the way, the number one weapon of choice for murder is a ‘blunt force’ weapon. Baseball bats being number 1. Should we ban baseball bats? How about hammers, they fall in that category too. Oh, more folks are killed by drunk drivers in a year than are killed by guns in several years.

  • Anonymous

    I have to disagree on your “one man, shoulder fired” argument.

    At the beginning of the Revolution almost all the cannon used were privately owned. Even at the end of the Revolution a large percentage of cannon were privately owned. Cannon may not be shoulder fired, but they are arms.

    The means to move cannon were also privately owned. As a result, Tanks should be considered arms – buy one if you can afford it. (Driving it on the road is a whole different discussion.)

    Since individuals can own helicopters, an Apache gunship should be considered an arm. It’s just a helicopter with guns and cannon added. Buy one if you have the funds.

    Thermo-nuclear devices? (Since this discussion always seems to wind up being taken to that extreme.) Not sure. Bombs were just a keg of gun powder and nukes are really just bombs, so maybe. On the other hand, it’s hard to see a nuke being used for the defense of the individual or the state. That one I’m still thinking about.

  • john doe

    This poll has CLEARLY been either rigged or hacked, since we know for a fact that the results are completely upside down from almost every other poll out there. Clearly this is complete and total BS. If you gun zealots think you are going to get away with such obvious dishonest shenanigans you are sadly mistaken. PBS has been contacted about this poll and they are looking into it as we speak. Whatever you folks are doing…hacking…”stuffing the ballot box:”..whatever…you are lying ans subverting democracy and you will not get away with it. The vast majority of this country WANTS universal background checks. There is NOTHING about background checks that constitutes “infringement”. A slight “inconvenience” at best is all it amounts to. You all need to grow up.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Curry/1295391111 John Curry

    “john doe”… You’re joking, right?

  • john doe

    A screw driver, knife or pen? Really? Grow up. You think I want you shooting someone who comes at me with a pen? Now I see why you oppose background checks. Clearly you are mentally ill.

  • john doe

    NO ONE IS BANNING GUNS. Background checks are not a ban. Your argument is childish.

  • john doe

    Fight against Tyrant Obama ? Thats’s called TREASON. Look it up. I’ve reported your comment to the FBI.

    He hasn’t done ONE thing against the constitution. Not one. Everything he has done is constitutional. You are an uneducated moron.

  • Dan Scroggins

    Bring it. I’ve shared this poll with all of my friends, some love guns, some don’t. I’ve invited everyone to come make their mark. Seems legit to me.

  • john doe

    Ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of the morally bankrupt.

  • john doe

    Oh, how “mature” of you.

  • john doe

    Oh, how “mature” of you.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sharlene.shappart Sharlene Gonzales-Shappart

    Is this person for real?? lol what criminal waits in line for a background check? Haha is the public really this delusional? Lets take away “John Doe’s” freedom to rant away (anonymously I might add), then we can talk about “inconvenience” versus “infringement”. Give me a break….

  • http://www.facebook.com/JacobDRoush Jacob Roush

    Aww, you are clearly out voted of your thoughts and instead of realizing how inept your thoughts are, you complained and cried foul? I would feel pity on you, but I’m not sure you deserve it.

  • juddly

    It must suck when you realize you’ve been lied to for so long.

  • john doe

    Did I ask you to protect me? I call trained professionals if I need help. Anytime I have ever called the police they were there immediately.

  • F-OBAMA2HELL

    LOL ALL YOU DEMORATS DO IS LIE AND PROTECT YOUR HEAD LIAR AND COMMIE THIEF !

  • john doe

    “Gun owners aren’t crazy. We are normal people”…until they shoot somebody. Happens EVERY day.,

  • john doe

    I have no intentions of touching your guns, yet here you are threatening me with yours.

  • john doe

    ” law abiding people do not just go and shoot people.”..until they do.,

  • juddly

    It will most likely NOT be a law abiding citizen that shoots you!

  • juddly

    It will most likely NOT be a law abiding citizen that shoots you!

  • John Doe 2

    Hey John Doe, get your head out of your ass. A background check is only good for about 5 min. for the legal citizen. After 5 min. you’ll get your gun and then you can become a criminal, all you want. So what’s the point then??? Makes you feel safe? Jerk.

  • john doe

    So…you’re a Christian, huh? What did Christ say about weapons?

    Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

  • john doe

    Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they shoot someone.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dannye.smith2 Dannye Smith

    I will be glad to let some fool kill you with a knife or pen if you wish.

  • john doe

    Law abiding citizens do not shoot people…until they do,

  • http://www.facebook.com/derick.mcnally Derick Tiberius McNally

    It isn’t rigged, per se. Stop sensationalizing. This poll is being circulated on every two-bit pro-gun Facebook page imaginable, I am yet to see it anywhere else.

    I might as well start a poll on whether bacon is awesome and go to the meat-lovers Facebook page and promote it. What do you think would happen?

    I’m also laughing at the people who think this poll is legit. Yes, PBS is totally awesome and doesn’t have a bias whatsoever, but when you saturate a poll with the only people who will vote for something as boneheaded as leaving the laws as they are, well then you get this.

  • john doe

    On the internet? Why? So you can come shoot me?

  • http://www.facebook.com/dannye.smith2 Dannye Smith

    you are full of it John Doe

  • john doe

    You’re kidding right? It happens every day. People aren’t BORN with criminal records, dimwit. The first time someone shoots someone…is the first time someone shoots someone. How stupid are you? I can link you to several hundred news articles where some “law abiding citizen” shit his wife during an argument . Please. Grow up.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dannye.smith2 Dannye Smith

    Name 12 people accidently killed by a law abiding citizen trying to stop a crime. You can’t can you?

  • john doe

    What do we all live in the wild west? I live in NYC and have never had to use a gun in self defense. You people live in a paranoid fantasy world.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dannye.smith2 Dannye Smith

    Law abiding citizens do not shoot people who don’t need shooting!!!

  • john doe

    I feel MUCH safer without obvious psychopaths like you owning guns.

  • John

    No one is going to get convinced by this Anti gun Bias

  • John

    98 percent of americans support background checks????
    Where are politicans getting these numbers

  • Retired Corporal

    John Doe, just because you don’t like the results doesn’t make it rigged or hacked. For too long now Law Abiding Gun Owners have kept quiet to avoid the scathing comments and names that Liberal Zealots like to call us. But we are keeping quiet no longer. Some day you will realize that just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it has to be banned or taken away. There are laws already on the books that do everything that needs doing and then some, but evil is still going to be among us. You will never get a criminal to follow these laws, just like they aren’t following the rest. These laws do nothing to stop criminal behavior or help with mental health issues, they only result in more restrictions on law abiding citizens. I spent 15 years dealing with criminal behavior as a Law Enforcement Officer, there is nothing in these laws that will do anything to stop the violence.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dannye.smith2 Dannye Smith

    name calling because you have no valid argument…

  • http://twitter.com/jediwebdude Phillip Jones

    Regulating law-abiding citizens will have little impact on reducing crime. This is what elected officials can’t comprehend: individuals who wish to conduct a mass killing will find a way to do their horrible deed with or without more gun control. For example: the recent use of pressure cookers for a home-made bomb. Pushing for more gun laws doesn’t stop criminals. The criminal behind the recent school shooting broke over a dozen laws. The Boston bombers broke over a dozen laws. Pushing for more legislation is not the appropriate response.

    Getting tougher on crime, improving treatment and increasing secure housing for the mentally ill, securing our borders, etc…are the efforts we should be pursuing to reduce crime and mass shootings.

  • john doe

    Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

  • Luis

    funny thing is this has more respondents than the poll being used to claim 90% of Americans support more gun control…. And I know its still not enough to make a claim about the entire population

  • john doe

    “more respondents than the poll”…THE poll? Uh…no. There were many polls. This one is the outlier.

  • http://www.facebook.com/derick.mcnally Derick Tiberius McNally

    It’s 90% and they are from Gallup.

  • Derek

    Oh John Doe …… Reality Check! WE ALREADY HAVE BACKGROUND CHECKS!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/dannye.smith2 Dannye Smith

    You’re right John Doe, he hasn’t done One thing… He’s violated the Constitution on numerous occasions.

  • Has the revolution started?

    Dumbass

  • john doe

    Weak ones. Not at gun shows and not over the internet and not for private sales. Anyone can open up a trunk in the middle of nowhere and sell anything they want to anybody. 40% of the guns sold in this country require no checks.

  • Benjamin Pointon

    If everyone carried a gun and could legally defend themselves it would not matter if murder or rape were legal or not, no criminal would try to commit a crime if he knew he would get shot in the process.

    An armed society is a polite society.

  • Randol Thrasher

    Only anti-gun people should be allowed to vote, right John Doe?

  • john doe

    Can you imagine Jesus with a gun?

    If you say yes….you are either lying or stupid

  • E.Logan

    There needs to be another choice: Roll back all unconstitutional gun laws – all unconstitutional laws, period.

  • john doe

    Nope. Everyone should be allowed to vote. Putting words in someones mouth is a childish way to debate.

  • john doe

    The SCOTUS makes that decision.

  • Anonymous

    It could be that the other polls are rigged. In fact, it could be that the polls you like so well are conducted among the anti-gun crowd while this one is open to the actual public.

    Subverting democracy? The US isn’t a Democracy. The majority doesn’t get to violate the rights of the minority just because it makes them feel good.

    The infringer does not get to define infringement. The infringed entity does. I consider the laws we have now to be infringement.

    Based upon your level or argument it would appear we are not the ones who need to grown up.

  • http://www.facebook.com/joshua.motes.10 Joshua Motes

    Guns sold on-line DO require back-ground checks!

  • john doe

    I never said anything about disarming anyone. Don’t be childish. But judging by your screenname you cant help yourself

  • Dan Scroggins

    Jesus was not an American citizen.

  • john doe

    No, They do not. Stop lying

  • http://www.facebook.com/joshua.motes.10 Joshua Motes

    Do you have the faith to point at someone and knock them down?

  • http://www.facebook.com/joshua.motes.10 Joshua Motes

    Do you have the faith to point at someone and knock them down?

  • NOTignorantLIKEYOU

    at gun shows they do background checks a lot of vendors are FFL dealers so i dont know where you get this facts from

  • NOTignorantLIKEYOU

    at gun shows they do background checks a lot of vendors are FFL dealers so i dont know where you get this facts from

  • dafuq

    keep drinking that koolaid, asshat. Try doing some research before you spout off liberal talking points. You have no idea how stupid you sound.

  • dafuq

    keep drinking that koolaid, asshat. Try doing some research before you spout off liberal talking points. You have no idea how stupid you sound.

  • john doe

    I;m not name calling I’m being descriptive. I have a very valid argument::Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

  • john doe

    I;m not name calling I’m being descriptive. I have a very valid argument::Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

  • Dan Scroggins

    So, nobody that died by a sword was peace-loving and unarmed?

  • Anonymous

    Can you imagine an Apostle with a sword?

  • Anonymous

    Can you imagine an Apostle with a sword?

  • john doe

    A lot are. Some aren’t. That’s the LOOPHOLE, dimwit

  • john doe

    A lot are. Some aren’t. That’s the LOOPHOLE, dimwit

  • john doe

    A lot are. Some aren’t. That’s the LOOPHOLE, dimwit

  • john doe

    A lot are. Some aren’t. That’s the LOOPHOLE, dimwit

  • john doe

    A lot are. Some aren’t. That’s the LOOPHOLE, dimwit

  • john doe

    I have no need to be violent.

  • john doe

    I have no need to be violent.

  • john doe

    I have no need to be violent.

  • john doe

    I have no need to be violent.

  • john doe

    I have no need to be violent.

  • john doe

    So, fuck what he said then…right? Is that what you’re saying? The hell with Jesus, huh?

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.ellerman.3 Michael Ellerman

    Can you imagine Jesus shaking hands or embracing this President? If so ……………

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.ellerman.3 Michael Ellerman

    Can you imagine Jesus shaking hands or embracing this President? If so ……………

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.ellerman.3 Michael Ellerman

    Can you imagine Jesus shaking hands or embracing this President? If so ……………

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.ellerman.3 Michael Ellerman

    Can you imagine Jesus shaking hands or embracing this President? If so ……………

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.ellerman.3 Michael Ellerman

    Can you imagine Jesus shaking hands or embracing this President? If so ……………

  • fedup with liberals

    I’m not saying you’re an idiot John Doe, you just sound like one here. There are already background checks to purchase weapons. How many criminals has it stop so far? Drugs have been illegal for years and years and years that’s helped a lot. Do you know what the differences between a Democrat and a Republican? A Republican is willing to fight for his beliefs and a Democrat once everyone to believe what he believes to be right. I want to know what America’s doing about the baseball bat situation. Baseball bats are responsible for more injuries and deaths in America than guns are. Shouldn’t they be regulated to. You’re an idiot shut up and leave me alone.

  • fedup with liberals

    I’m not saying you’re an idiot John Doe, you just sound like one here. There are already background checks to purchase weapons. How many criminals has it stop so far? Drugs have been illegal for years and years and years that’s helped a lot. Do you know what the differences between a Democrat and a Republican? A Republican is willing to fight for his beliefs and a Democrat once everyone to believe what he believes to be right. I want to know what America’s doing about the baseball bat situation. Baseball bats are responsible for more injuries and deaths in America than guns are. Shouldn’t they be regulated to. You’re an idiot shut up and leave me alone.

  • fedup with liberals

    I’m not saying you’re an idiot John Doe, you just sound like one here. There are already background checks to purchase weapons. How many criminals has it stop so far? Drugs have been illegal for years and years and years that’s helped a lot. Do you know what the differences between a Democrat and a Republican? A Republican is willing to fight for his beliefs and a Democrat once everyone to believe what he believes to be right. I want to know what America’s doing about the baseball bat situation. Baseball bats are responsible for more injuries and deaths in America than guns are. Shouldn’t they be regulated to. You’re an idiot shut up and leave me alone.

  • fedup with liberals

    I’m not saying you’re an idiot John Doe, you just sound like one here. There are already background checks to purchase weapons. How many criminals has it stop so far? Drugs have been illegal for years and years and years that’s helped a lot. Do you know what the differences between a Democrat and a Republican? A Republican is willing to fight for his beliefs and a Democrat once everyone to believe what he believes to be right. I want to know what America’s doing about the baseball bat situation. Baseball bats are responsible for more injuries and deaths in America than guns are. Shouldn’t they be regulated to. You’re an idiot shut up and leave me alone.

  • fedup with liberals

    I’m not saying you’re an idiot John Doe, you just sound like one here. There are already background checks to purchase weapons. How many criminals has it stop so far? Drugs have been illegal for years and years and years that’s helped a lot. Do you know what the differences between a Democrat and a Republican? A Republican is willing to fight for his beliefs and a Democrat once everyone to believe what he believes to be right. I want to know what America’s doing about the baseball bat situation. Baseball bats are responsible for more injuries and deaths in America than guns are. Shouldn’t they be regulated to. You’re an idiot shut up and leave me alone.

  • john doe

    And I’m defending MY right to live without being afraid of your guns and your mood. The bottom line is I don’t KNOW YOU and I don’t trust you.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dale.hanna.56 Dale Hanna
  • Dan Scroggins

    Then go share it with all your gun-hating friends and lets see who outnumbers who.

  • dafuq

    What makes you think only liberals watch PBS?

  • john doe

    “A Republican is willing to fight for his beliefs and a Democrat once everyone to believe what he believes to be right.”

    Fuck you. My father was a Democrat and volunteered to fight for his country in WWII. How DARE YOU?

  • john doe

    Absolutely I can. Jesus also wanted to feed the poor and care for the sick…..FOR FREE.

  • john doe

    This poll is an outlier and doesnt mean shit

  • john doe

    The word is POLL you illiterate fuck. Pole is what your mother dances on at the strip club

  • randy welsh

    john doe, why don’t you sign up for an nra gun safety class and get over your silly irrational fear. whats the worst thing that could happen? meet some nice folks and change your mind?

  • john doe

    I m afraid of nothing. Thats why I dont need a gun to feel like a tough guy, like you do.

  • Dan Scroggins

    Don’t put words in my mouth. If Jesus were to come to my house and I asked him if he wanted to go shooting, he’d probably go and get a huge kick out of it.

  • john don’t knoe

    When firearm are sold online, they are shipped directly to an FFL holder. At that point the person who purchased the firearm undergoes a background check through the FFL holder who received it. Once the check returns cleared the firearm is released to the purchaser. That is BATF regulation. Stop lying john doe…you do not have fact on your side.

  • john doe

    Sure….why not just get rid of ALL the laws? Make rape and murder legal. Lets make slavery legal again too. You’re an idiot

  • john doe

    Utter nonsense. Clearly you have never read the bible,

  • dafuq

    typical liberal nutcase

  • john doe

    If that is the case why did the Manchin-Toomey law seek to ADD background checks to internet sales??

    Hmmmmm? DUH

  • Dan Scroggins

    Let’s hope that remains true for you. Sadly, some whom did have a need to be violent were not able to and were killed by those whom also had no need, but a desire to be violent.

  • john doe

    Not at all. It;s YOU nutcases that want to get rid of laws “because criminals will just break them”. Im the one that WANTS laws against violence.

  • Roz

    I think that is what he is saying…Not positive but it seems that that is what he is saying…Furthermore this is not about religion in fact if you want to not have a gun because you don’t believe Jesus would own one then fine Fine, but don’t act like everyone believes in, or cares what Jesus did because that is the worlds problem anyway…Religion.

  • Don Welch

    John Doe, in the state I live in you may not buy a gun over the internet without a background check. Your facts are wrong, and you know as well as I do that your 40% number is bullshit. If you are going to be a liberal douche, at least be an honest one!

  • john don’t knoe

    Exodus 22:2-3 “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

  • john doe

    I am nothing if not honest, Conservative douche

  • john doe sucks

    well I’m sure as hell positive you didn’t volunteer for that because you’re too big of a pussy.

  • Anonymous

    All gun shops have to do a background check on all gun sales, even at gun shows. Internet gun sales must be either directly transferred (face to face) or sent to a shop with a firearms license, which must then conduct a background check. Face to face purchase across State lines can violate State laws, depending upon the States in question. Your truck example is a huge exaggeration. Anyone who makes a living from selling guns must apply for and obtain a firearms license.

    Only in-State private sales bypass the NICS background check. Even then it remains a violation of federal law to sell any gun to any individual who may not legally possess a gun.

    I’ve been chasing that 40% statistic. So far I have yet to find a reliable source. Got one? Short of that I must call BS.

  • john doe

    That’s not Jesus. Isn’t Jesus the authority for you folks? Unless you are a Jew you are quoting the wrong book. I AM Jewish and Im quoting YOUR guy.

  • john don’t knoe

    Exodus 22:2-3 2 “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

  • john don’t knoe

    Exodus 22:2-3 2 “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

  • Dan Scroggins

    Then move to a “safe” country where the citizens don’t have the right to keep and bear arms. Simple, but you won’t do it. You think you are better than the rest of us. You’re not.

  • Dan Scroggins

    Then move to a “safe” country where the citizens don’t have the right to keep and bear arms. Simple, but you won’t do it. You think you are better than the rest of us. You’re not.

  • Benjamin Pointon

    He was suggesting you educate yourself on a topic that you obviously know little about, yet you refuse to even consider learning something new.

    I’m not afraid of much either and I don’t own guns to “feel like a tough guy”. Like most people, I own guns for recreational shooting, hunting, and because of our constitutionally recognized right as citizens of the United States to protect our lives and our liberty.

  • john doe

    I wasnt even born yet, dimwit. And if you think Im a pussy why is it that YOURE the one that needs a gun to feel tough and I dont?

  • Anonymous

    Honest? Is your name really John Doe?

    Even if you are honest, many of the things you say are just plain incorrect.

  • john doe

    Im definitely better than you. I don’t need a gun to feel like a real man.

  • john doe

    Im definitely better than you. I don’t need a gun to feel like a real man.

  • john doe

    Im definitely better than you. I don’t need a gun to feel like a real man.

  • u are a moron

    You are the Dimwit, regardless of background check facts markets always exist for that which is illegal as long as DEMAND exists. Look at meth, crack, coke all are considered narcotics and those in possession are looking at the better part of their life in jail…And yet it is still out there, and people that want it still have access… Weird how that which is outright illegal with or without background checks is still out on the street.

  • u are a moron

    You are the Dimwit, regardless of background check facts markets always exist for that which is illegal as long as DEMAND exists. Look at meth, crack, coke all are considered narcotics and those in possession are looking at the better part of their life in jail…And yet it is still out there, and people that want it still have access… Weird how that which is outright illegal with or without background checks is still out on the street.

  • u are a moron

    You are the Dimwit, regardless of background check facts markets always exist for that which is illegal as long as DEMAND exists. Look at meth, crack, coke all are considered narcotics and those in possession are looking at the better part of their life in jail…And yet it is still out there, and people that want it still have access… Weird how that which is outright illegal with or without background checks is still out on the street.

  • u are a moron

    You are the Dimwit, regardless of background check facts markets always exist for that which is illegal as long as DEMAND exists. Look at meth, crack, coke all are considered narcotics and those in possession are looking at the better part of their life in jail…And yet it is still out there, and people that want it still have access… Weird how that which is outright illegal with or without background checks is still out on the street.

  • Dan Scroggins

    You think Obamacare is free, do you? LOL!

  • Dan Scroggins

    You think Obamacare is free, do you? LOL!

  • http://www.facebook.com/DarthKorndog Kory Cordier

    I got news for ya there Sport, I will still be a normal, non-crazy, law abiding citizen AFTER I shoot the would be badguy in the face that makes the horrible mistake of attempting to invade my home and harm my family.

  • Dan Scroggins

    Really? Tell me why Jesus wouldn’t come have harmless fun with me.

  • Dan Scroggins

    Really? Tell me why Jesus wouldn’t come have harmless fun with me.

  • Dan Scroggins

    Really? Tell me why Jesus wouldn’t come have harmless fun with me.

  • john don’t knoe

    Luke 22:36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

  • john don’t knoe

    Luke 22:36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

  • john doe

    By that logic I need to study child rape in order to be against it? NONSENSE.

    Yeah…you’re a REAL TOUGH GUY. You take a gun out in the woods and shoot defenseless animals for sport.

  • john doe

    By that logic I need to study child rape in order to be against it? NONSENSE.

    Yeah…you’re a REAL TOUGH GUY. You take a gun out in the woods and shoot defenseless animals for sport.

  • Anonymous

    Afraid of nothing? There goes your claim of “honest”.

  • Anonymous

    Afraid of nothing? There goes your claim of “honest”.

  • Anonymous

    Afraid of nothing? There goes your claim of “honest”.

  • john doe

    I never said anything of the sort, dimwit. Do you often have trouble with comprehension?

  • Randol Thrasher

    Then why are you complaining about the results?

  • john doe

    Is your name really steve in indy? Thats a funny last name

  • john doe

    Is your name really steve in indy? Thats a funny last name

  • john doe

    Is your name really steve in indy? Thats a funny last name

  • john don’t knoe

    This comment brought to mind a child having a tantrum.

  • john don’t knoe

    This comment brought to mind a child having a tantrum.

  • john don’t knoe

    This comment brought to mind a child having a tantrum.

  • john don’t knoe

    This comment brought to mind a child having a tantrum.

  • Dan Scroggins

    Asshole, you JUST put it in all CAPS. Are you some sort of 10 second Tom?

  • http://www.facebook.com/terry.williams.524596 Terry Williams

    Read Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. (kjv)

  • http://www.facebook.com/terry.williams.524596 Terry Williams

    Read Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. (kjv)

  • Anonymous

    Still a childish argument.

    We pass laws against actions that harm others. Since 99.996% of guns in the US never harm anyone there’s no action to protect against. On the other hand, the real crime in question is murder. We already have a law against that.

  • john doe sucks

    Hhahahahahah yeah you little wimp I’m not the one hiding in a bulletin board calling people names because he just enjoys pissing people off. Ya to see if your mommy still want you to come over and suck on her titties.

  • john doe sucks

    Hhahahahahah yeah you little wimp I’m not the one hiding in a bulletin board calling people names because he just enjoys pissing people off. Ya to see if your mommy still want you to come over and suck on her titties.

  • john doe

    Because not everyone is voting. This has been passed around on pro-gun sites and you have rigged the pool by stuffing the ballot box. Obviously

  • john doe

    Because not everyone is voting. This has been passed around on pro-gun sites and you have rigged the pool by stuffing the ballot box. Obviously

  • john doe

    Because not everyone is voting. This has been passed around on pro-gun sites and you have rigged the pool by stuffing the ballot box. Obviously

  • Dan Scroggins

    No, I said nothing disrespectful about Jesus.

  • Dan Scroggins

    No, I said nothing disrespectful about Jesus.

  • Dan Scroggins

    No, I said nothing disrespectful about Jesus.

  • Don Welch

    John Doe, my Jesus is the the sweet infant Jesus with the matching pair of 1911 pistols, ready to enforce the word of the Lord!

  • Don Welch

    John Doe, my Jesus is the the sweet infant Jesus with the matching pair of 1911 pistols, ready to enforce the word of the Lord!

  • Don Welch

    John Doe, my Jesus is the the sweet infant Jesus with the matching pair of 1911 pistols, ready to enforce the word of the Lord!

  • john doe

    I said JESUS wanted to heal people for free, dimwit.

  • john doe

    Jesus wasnt into killing things, dumbshit

  • john doe

    Jesus wasnt into killing things, dumbshit

  • john doe

    Jesus wasnt into killing things, dumbshit

  • john doe

    So you think we should make it as easy as possible for rapists and murderers to buy guns. Great

  • john doe

    So you think we should make it as easy as possible for rapists and murderers to buy guns. Great

  • Dan Scroggins

    “Also”, asshole. You said also, implying that you believe that Obama is offering free food and healthcare to the poor and sick.

  • Dan Scroggins

    “Also”, asshole. You said also, implying that you believe that Obama is offering free food and healthcare to the poor and sick.

  • Dan Scroggins

    “Also”, asshole. You said also, implying that you believe that Obama is offering free food and healthcare to the poor and sick.

  • john doe

    Come see me in NYC when you grow a pair of balls, pussy. No guns. Just hands.

  • http://www.facebook.com/terry.williams.524596 Terry Williams

    Read Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. (kjv)

  • http://www.facebook.com/terry.williams.524596 Terry Williams

    Read Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. (kjv)

  • http://www.facebook.com/terry.williams.524596 Terry Williams

    Read Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. (kjv)

  • Dan Scroggins

    Neither am I, dumbshit.

  • Dan Scroggins

    Neither am I, dumbshit.

  • john doe

    As have all of yours, child.

  • john doe

    As have all of yours, child.

  • john doe

    As have all of yours, child.

  • john doe

    As have all of yours, child.

  • john doe

    As have all of yours, child.

  • john doe

    As have all of yours, child.

  • dafuq

    here asshat, go to page 4 and come back and tell us all what you read about internet sales. http://www.atf.gov/files/publications/newsletters/ffl/ffl-newsletter-2010-06.pdf

  • dafuq

    here asshat, go to page 4 and come back and tell us all what you read about internet sales. http://www.atf.gov/files/publications/newsletters/ffl/ffl-newsletter-2010-06.pdf

  • dafuq

    here asshat, go to page 4 and come back and tell us all what you read about internet sales. http://www.atf.gov/files/publications/newsletters/ffl/ffl-newsletter-2010-06.pdf

  • dafuq

    here asshat, go to page 4 and come back and tell us all what you read about internet sales. http://www.atf.gov/files/publications/newsletters/ffl/ffl-newsletter-2010-06.pdf

  • dafuq

    here asshat, go to page 4 and come back and tell us all what you read about internet sales. http://www.atf.gov/files/publications/newsletters/ffl/ffl-newsletter-2010-06.pdf

  • john doe

    Sure you are. You love death. You love the feeling of shooting something. It makes your clit hard

  • john doe

    Sure you are. You love death. You love the feeling of shooting something. It makes your clit hard

  • john doe

    Sure you are. You love death. You love the feeling of shooting something. It makes your clit hard

  • john doe

    Sure you are. You love death. You love the feeling of shooting something. It makes your clit hard

  • john doe

    Sure you are. You love death. You love the feeling of shooting something. It makes your clit hard

  • dafuq

    Don’t ya hate it when your own pols lie to you?

  • dafuq

    Don’t ya hate it when your own pols lie to you?

  • john doe

    Yeah well maybe using Christianity, one of the most violent and un-Christlike religions on the face of the earth wasnt the best idea. I forgot about the Crusades and the Inquisition and how much Christians love to kill and torture people.

  • john doe

    Yeah well maybe using Christianity, one of the most violent and un-Christlike religions on the face of the earth wasnt the best idea. I forgot about the Crusades and the Inquisition and how much Christians love to kill and torture people.

  • Dan Scroggins

    You’ve lost this argument with your assumptions. You have nothing but opinions based on opinions.

  • Dan Scroggins

    You’ve lost this argument with your assumptions. You have nothing but opinions based on opinions.

  • Dan Scroggins

    You’ve lost this argument with your assumptions. You have nothing but opinions based on opinions.

  • Dan Scroggins

    You’ve lost this argument with your assumptions. You have nothing but opinions based on opinions.

  • Dan Scroggins

    You’ve lost this argument with your assumptions. You have nothing but opinions based on opinions.

  • Dan Scroggins

    You’ve lost this argument with your assumptions. You have nothing but opinions based on opinions.

  • Dan Scroggins

    You’ve lost this argument with your assumptions. You have nothing but opinions based on opinions.

  • Dan Scroggins

    You’ve lost this argument with your assumptions. You have nothing but opinions based on opinions.

  • john doe

    Well like I just said earlier…maybe using Christianity, one of the most violent and
    un-Christlike religions on the face of the earth wasnt the best idea. I
    forgot about the Crusades and the Inquisition and how much Christians
    love to kill and torture people.

  • john doe

    Well like I just said earlier…maybe using Christianity, one of the most violent and
    un-Christlike religions on the face of the earth wasnt the best idea. I
    forgot about the Crusades and the Inquisition and how much Christians
    love to kill and torture people.

  • john doe

    Well like I just said earlier…maybe using Christianity, one of the most violent and
    un-Christlike religions on the face of the earth wasnt the best idea. I
    forgot about the Crusades and the Inquisition and how much Christians
    love to kill and torture people.

  • john doe

    Well like I just said earlier…maybe using Christianity, one of the most violent and
    un-Christlike religions on the face of the earth wasnt the best idea. I
    forgot about the Crusades and the Inquisition and how much Christians
    love to kill and torture people.

  • john doe

    Well like I just said earlier…maybe using Christianity, one of the most violent and
    un-Christlike religions on the face of the earth wasnt the best idea. I
    forgot about the Crusades and the Inquisition and how much Christians
    love to kill and torture people.

  • john doe

    Well like I just said earlier…maybe using Christianity, one of the most violent and
    un-Christlike religions on the face of the earth wasnt the best idea. I
    forgot about the Crusades and the Inquisition and how much Christians
    love to kill and torture people.

  • john doe

    Well like I just said earlier…maybe using Christianity, one of the most violent and
    un-Christlike religions on the face of the earth wasnt the best idea. I
    forgot about the Crusades and the Inquisition and how much Christians
    love to kill and torture people.

  • john doe

    Well like I just said earlier…maybe using Christianity, one of the most violent and
    un-Christlike religions on the face of the earth wasnt the best idea. I
    forgot about the Crusades and the Inquisition and how much Christians
    love to kill and torture people.

  • john doe

    No. The childish argument is the one that says we shouldn’t have laws “because criminals will just break them:” Which was my point.

  • john doe

    No. The childish argument is the one that says we shouldn’t have laws “because criminals will just break them:” Which was my point.

  • john doe

    No. The childish argument is the one that says we shouldn’t have laws “because criminals will just break them:” Which was my point.

  • john doe

    No. The childish argument is the one that says we shouldn’t have laws “because criminals will just break them:” Which was my point.

  • john doe

    No. The childish argument is the one that says we shouldn’t have laws “because criminals will just break them:” Which was my point.

  • Anonymous

    Not exactly. The SCOTUS can declare the current gun laws unconstitutional since they are infringements. The Congress could end the infringement if they wanted. In fact they would if they were willing to actually abide by their oaths of office. After all, they’re just laws.

  • Anonymous

    Not exactly. The SCOTUS can declare the current gun laws unconstitutional since they are infringements. The Congress could end the infringement if they wanted. In fact they would if they were willing to actually abide by their oaths of office. After all, they’re just laws.

  • Anonymous

    Not exactly. The SCOTUS can declare the current gun laws unconstitutional since they are infringements. The Congress could end the infringement if they wanted. In fact they would if they were willing to actually abide by their oaths of office. After all, they’re just laws.

  • Anonymous

    Not exactly. The SCOTUS can declare the current gun laws unconstitutional since they are infringements. The Congress could end the infringement if they wanted. In fact they would if they were willing to actually abide by their oaths of office. After all, they’re just laws.

  • Dan Scroggins

    Because, like you, those asshats don’t know what they are even talking about.

  • Dan Scroggins

    Because, like you, those asshats don’t know what they are even talking about.

  • john doe

    That Jesus exists only in your sick, violence obsessed imagination

  • john doe

    That Jesus exists only in your sick, violence obsessed imagination

  • Benjamin Pointon

    Yes, you do have to know (or study) what something is to be against it. That is the only way you can learn and form opinions about things, otherwise you are just a sheep going along with something because someone else told you to.

    Also, I would never shoot an animal for sport. I hunt in order to get some good food for cheap.

    Besides, You don’t eat plants or animals? Every living thing has to kill and eat another living thing in order to survive. It’s the law of nature.

  • Benjamin Pointon

    Yes, you do have to know (or study) what something is to be against it. That is the only way you can learn and form opinions about things, otherwise you are just a sheep going along with something because someone else told you to.

    Also, I would never shoot an animal for sport. I hunt in order to get some good food for cheap.

    Besides, You don’t eat plants or animals? Every living thing has to kill and eat another living thing in order to survive. It’s the law of nature.

  • Benjamin Pointon

    Yes, you do have to know (or study) what something is to be against it. That is the only way you can learn and form opinions about things, otherwise you are just a sheep going along with something because someone else told you to.

    Also, I would never shoot an animal for sport. I hunt in order to get some good food for cheap.

    Besides, You don’t eat plants or animals? Every living thing has to kill and eat another living thing in order to survive. It’s the law of nature.

  • Benjamin Pointon

    Yes, you do have to know (or study) what something is to be against it. That is the only way you can learn and form opinions about things, otherwise you are just a sheep going along with something because someone else told you to.

    Also, I would never shoot an animal for sport. I hunt in order to get some good food for cheap.

    Besides, You don’t eat plants or animals? Every living thing has to kill and eat another living thing in order to survive. It’s the law of nature.

  • Benjamin Pointon

    Yes, you do have to know (or study) what something is to be against it. That is the only way you can learn and form opinions about things, otherwise you are just a sheep going along with something because someone else told you to.

    Also, I would never shoot an animal for sport. I hunt in order to get some good food for cheap.

    Besides, You don’t eat plants or animals? Every living thing has to kill and eat another living thing in order to survive. It’s the law of nature.

  • Benjamin Pointon

    Yes, you do have to know (or study) what something is to be against it. That is the only way you can learn and form opinions about things, otherwise you are just a sheep going along with something because someone else told you to.

    Also, I would never shoot an animal for sport. I hunt in order to get some good food for cheap.

    Besides, You don’t eat plants or animals? Every living thing has to kill and eat another living thing in order to survive. It’s the law of nature.

  • Benjamin Pointon

    Yes, you do have to know (or study) what something is to be against it. That is the only way you can learn and form opinions about things, otherwise you are just a sheep going along with something because someone else told you to.

    Also, I would never shoot an animal for sport. I hunt in order to get some good food for cheap.

    Besides, You don’t eat plants or animals? Every living thing has to kill and eat another living thing in order to survive. It’s the law of nature.

  • Benjamin Pointon

    Yes, you do have to know (or study) what something is to be against it. That is the only way you can learn and form opinions about things, otherwise you are just a sheep going along with something because someone else told you to.

    Also, I would never shoot an animal for sport. I hunt in order to get some good food for cheap.

    Besides, You don’t eat plants or animals? Every living thing has to kill and eat another living thing in order to survive. It’s the law of nature.

  • Benjamin Pointon

    Yes, you do have to know (or study) what something is to be against it. That is the only way you can learn and form opinions about things, otherwise you are just a sheep going along with something because someone else told you to.

    Also, I would never shoot an animal for sport. I hunt in order to get some good food for cheap.

    Besides, You don’t eat plants or animals? Every living thing has to kill and eat another living thing in order to survive. It’s the law of nature.

  • Anonymous

    You brought it up. Was that perhaps yet another mistake on your part?

  • Anonymous

    You brought it up. Was that perhaps yet another mistake on your part?

  • Anonymous

    You brought it up. Was that perhaps yet another mistake on your part?

  • Anonymous

    You brought it up. Was that perhaps yet another mistake on your part?

  • dafuq

    haha! His mommy wouldn’t know what to do if he left her basement long enough for that.

  • dafuq

    haha! His mommy wouldn’t know what to do if he left her basement long enough for that.

  • dafuq

    haha! His mommy wouldn’t know what to do if he left her basement long enough for that.

  • john doe

    DC vs Heller

    “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not
    a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
    whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
    prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
    The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
    prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
    ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
    such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
    and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

  • john doe

    DC vs Heller

    “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not
    a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
    whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
    prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
    The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
    prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
    ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
    such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
    and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

  • john doe

    DC vs Heller

    “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not
    a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
    whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
    prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
    The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
    prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
    ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
    such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
    and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

  • john doe

    DC vs Heller

    “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not
    a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
    whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
    prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
    The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
    prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
    ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
    such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
    and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

  • john doe

    DC vs Heller

    “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not
    a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
    whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
    prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
    The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
    prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
    ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
    such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
    and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

  • john doe

    DC vs Heller

    “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not
    a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
    whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
    prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
    The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
    prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
    ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
    such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
    and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

  • john doe

    DC vs Heller

    “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not
    a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
    whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
    prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
    The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
    prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
    ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
    such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
    and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

  • john doe

    DC vs Heller

    “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not
    a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
    whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
    prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
    The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
    prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
    ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
    such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
    and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

  • john doe

    DC vs Heller

    “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not
    a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
    whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
    prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
    The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
    prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
    ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
    such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
    and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

  • john doe

    DC vs Heller

    “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not
    a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
    whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
    prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
    The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
    prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
    ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
    such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
    and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

  • john doe

    DC vs Heller

    “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not
    a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
    whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
    prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
    The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
    prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
    ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
    such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
    and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

  • john doe

    DC vs Heller

    “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not
    a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
    whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
    prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
    The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
    prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
    ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
    such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
    and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

  • Pedro Ordonez

    No option for less infringement…that’s fair.

  • Pedro Ordonez

    No option for less infringement…that’s fair.

  • Pedro Ordonez

    No option for less infringement…that’s fair.

  • Pedro Ordonez

    No option for less infringement…that’s fair.

  • Pedro Ordonez

    No option for less infringement…that’s fair.

  • Pedro Ordonez

    No option for less infringement…that’s fair.

  • john doe

    Oh i see…You hunt for food. I had no idea I was dealing with a backwoods hick. That explains your stupidity and love of violence

  • john doe

    Oh i see…You hunt for food. I had no idea I was dealing with a backwoods hick. That explains your stupidity and love of violence

  • john doe

    Oh i see…You hunt for food. I had no idea I was dealing with a backwoods hick. That explains your stupidity and love of violence

  • john doe

    Oh i see…You hunt for food. I had no idea I was dealing with a backwoods hick. That explains your stupidity and love of violence

  • john doe

    Oh i see…You hunt for food. I had no idea I was dealing with a backwoods hick. That explains your stupidity and love of violence

  • Anonymous

    John Doe hardly sounds like a Jewish name. Are you sure you want to go with that “nothing if not honest” claim?

  • Anonymous

    John Doe hardly sounds like a Jewish name. Are you sure you want to go with that “nothing if not honest” claim?

  • Anonymous

    John Doe hardly sounds like a Jewish name. Are you sure you want to go with that “nothing if not honest” claim?

  • Anonymous

    John Doe hardly sounds like a Jewish name. Are you sure you want to go with that “nothing if not honest” claim?

  • john doe

    Its really pointless to deal with you hateful people. Go ahead. Shoot as many people as you want. The rest of us will clean up and do the mourning. Im out

  • john doe

    Its really pointless to deal with you hateful people. Go ahead. Shoot as many people as you want. The rest of us will clean up and do the mourning. Im out

  • john doe

    Its really pointless to deal with you hateful people. Go ahead. Shoot as many people as you want. The rest of us will clean up and do the mourning. Im out

  • john doe

    Its really pointless to deal with you hateful people. Go ahead. Shoot as many people as you want. The rest of us will clean up and do the mourning. Im out

  • john doe

    Its really pointless to deal with you hateful people. Go ahead. Shoot as many people as you want. The rest of us will clean up and do the mourning. Im out

  • john doe

    Its really pointless to deal with you hateful people. Go ahead. Shoot as many people as you want. The rest of us will clean up and do the mourning. Im out

  • john doe

    Its really pointless to deal with you hateful people. Go ahead. Shoot as many people as you want. The rest of us will clean up and do the mourning. Im out

  • john doe

    Its really pointless to deal with you hateful people. Go ahead. Shoot as many people as you want. The rest of us will clean up and do the mourning. Im out

  • john doe

    Its really pointless to deal with you hateful people. Go ahead. Shoot as many people as you want. The rest of us will clean up and do the mourning. Im out

  • john doe

    Its really pointless to deal with you hateful people. Go ahead. Shoot as many people as you want. The rest of us will clean up and do the mourning. Im out

  • John doe’s a crybaby

    Typical liberal getting butthurt and resorting to name calling!

  • John doe’s a crybaby

    Typical liberal getting butthurt and resorting to name calling!

  • John doe’s a crybaby

    Typical liberal getting butthurt and resorting to name calling!

  • John doe’s a crybaby

    Typical liberal getting butthurt and resorting to name calling!

  • John doe’s a crybaby

    Typical liberal getting butthurt and resorting to name calling!

  • John doe’s a crybaby

    Typical liberal getting butthurt and resorting to name calling!

  • John doe’s a crybaby

    Typical liberal getting butthurt and resorting to name calling!

  • John doe’s a crybaby

    Typical liberal getting butthurt and resorting to name calling!

  • Dan Scroggins

    Apparently you view the need to be violent differently than I do. My definition of the “need to be violent” is this: In self defense. You seem to believe that that “need” is really desire. So it seems you are projecting upon us sane folks your perspective which, is why you fear people with guns.

  • Dan Scroggins

    Apparently you view the need to be violent differently than I do. My definition of the “need to be violent” is this: In self defense. You seem to believe that that “need” is really desire. So it seems you are projecting upon us sane folks your perspective which, is why you fear people with guns.

  • Dan Scroggins

    Apparently you view the need to be violent differently than I do. My definition of the “need to be violent” is this: In self defense. You seem to believe that that “need” is really desire. So it seems you are projecting upon us sane folks your perspective which, is why you fear people with guns.

  • Dan Scroggins

    Apparently you view the need to be violent differently than I do. My definition of the “need to be violent” is this: In self defense. You seem to believe that that “need” is really desire. So it seems you are projecting upon us sane folks your perspective which, is why you fear people with guns.

  • Dan Scroggins

    Apparently you view the need to be violent differently than I do. My definition of the “need to be violent” is this: In self defense. You seem to believe that that “need” is really desire. So it seems you are projecting upon us sane folks your perspective which, is why you fear people with guns.

  • Dan Scroggins

    Apparently you view the need to be violent differently than I do. My definition of the “need to be violent” is this: In self defense. You seem to believe that that “need” is really desire. So it seems you are projecting upon us sane folks your perspective which, is why you fear people with guns.

  • Dan Scroggins

    Apparently you view the need to be violent differently than I do. My definition of the “need to be violent” is this: In self defense. You seem to believe that that “need” is really desire. So it seems you are projecting upon us sane folks your perspective which, is why you fear people with guns.

  • Dan Scroggins

    Apparently you view the need to be violent differently than I do. My definition of the “need to be violent” is this: In self defense. You seem to believe that that “need” is really desire. So it seems you are projecting upon us sane folks your perspective which, is why you fear people with guns.

  • john doe

    Huge. My only one….that is other than trying to reason with death toy fetishists.

  • john doe

    Huge. My only one….that is other than trying to reason with death toy fetishists.

  • john doe

    Huge. My only one….that is other than trying to reason with death toy fetishists.

  • john doe

    Huge. My only one….that is other than trying to reason with death toy fetishists.

  • john doe

    Huge. My only one….that is other than trying to reason with death toy fetishists.

  • john doe

    Huge. My only one….that is other than trying to reason with death toy fetishists.

  • john doe

    Huge. My only one….that is other than trying to reason with death toy fetishists.

  • john doe

    Huge. My only one….that is other than trying to reason with death toy fetishists.

  • john doe

    Huge. My only one….that is other than trying to reason with death toy fetishists.

  • john doe

    Huge. My only one….that is other than trying to reason with death toy fetishists.

  • john doe

    Huge. My only one….that is other than trying to reason with death toy fetishists.

  • john doe

    Huge. My only one….that is other than trying to reason with death toy fetishists.

  • john doe

    Huge. My only one….that is other than trying to reason with death toy fetishists.

  • john doe

    Huge. My only one….that is other than trying to reason with death toy fetishists.

  • john doe

    Huge. My only one….that is other than trying to reason with death toy fetishists.

  • john doe

    20 dead kids in Newtown. Case closed.

  • john doe

    20 dead kids in Newtown. Case closed.

  • john doe

    20 dead kids in Newtown. Case closed.

  • john doe

    20 dead kids in Newtown. Case closed.

  • dafuq

    No they don’t dimwit, the Congress does. The SCOTUS only determines if the laws are constitutional or not. Holy crap, is this a display of public education now days? we are doomed people.

  • dafuq

    No they don’t dimwit, the Congress does. The SCOTUS only determines if the laws are constitutional or not. Holy crap, is this a display of public education now days? we are doomed people.

  • dafuq

    No they don’t dimwit, the Congress does. The SCOTUS only determines if the laws are constitutional or not. Holy crap, is this a display of public education now days? we are doomed people.

  • dafuq

    No they don’t dimwit, the Congress does. The SCOTUS only determines if the laws are constitutional or not. Holy crap, is this a display of public education now days? we are doomed people.

  • john doe

    20 dead kids in Newtown. Case closed.

  • john doe

    My last name isn’t Doe, dimwit.

  • john doe

    My last name isn’t Doe, dimwit.

  • john doe

    My last name isn’t Doe, dimwit.

  • john doe

    My last name isn’t Doe, dimwit.

  • john doe

    My last name isn’t Doe, dimwit.

  • Anonymous

    Wow really? Seams that a baby holding guns isn’t violent, nor is one even shooting guns. Now one shooting people, that would be violent but I bet most everything is violent to you john DOH!!!!

  • Anonymous

    Wow really? Seams that a baby holding guns isn’t violent, nor is one even shooting guns. Now one shooting people, that would be violent but I bet most everything is violent to you john DOH!!!!

  • john doe

    Real men defend themselves with their hands.

  • john doe

    Real men defend themselves with their hands.

  • john doe

    Real men defend themselves with their hands.

  • Dan Scroggins

    Are you feeling that “need” to be violent again, John?

  • Dan Scroggins

    Are you feeling that “need” to be violent again, John?

  • Dan Scroggins

    Are you feeling that “need” to be violent again, John?

  • Dan Scroggins

    Are you feeling that “need” to be violent again, John?

  • Dan Scroggins

    Are you feeling that “need” to be violent again, John?

  • john doe

    Shes dead asshole. The next time you talk about her it had better be to my face, you spineless coward.

  • john doe

    Shes dead asshole. The next time you talk about her it had better be to my face, you spineless coward.

  • john doe

    Shes dead asshole. The next time you talk about her it had better be to my face, you spineless coward.

  • john doe

    Shes been dead for 30 years, asshole

  • john doe

    Shes been dead for 30 years, asshole

  • john doe

    Shes been dead for 30 years, asshole

  • john doe

    Shes been dead for 30 years, asshole

  • john doe

    Shes been dead for 30 years, asshole

  • john doe

    Shes been dead for 30 years, asshole

  • john doe

    Shes been dead for 30 years, asshole

  • john doe

    Shes been dead for 30 years, asshole

  • john doe

    Shes been dead for 30 years, asshole

  • john doe

    Shes been dead for 30 years, asshole

  • john doe

    Shes been dead for 30 years, asshole

  • john doe

    Shes been dead for 30 years, asshole

  • john doe

    Shes been dead for 30 years, asshole

  • john doe

    Shes been dead for 30 years, asshole

  • john doe

    Shes been dead for 30 years, asshole

  • john doe

    Shes been dead for 30 years, asshole

  • john doe

    Shes been dead for 30 years, asshole

  • john doe

    Shes been dead for 30 years, asshole

  • john doe

    Shes been dead for 30 years, asshole

  • john doe

    Shes been dead for 30 years, asshole

  • http://www.facebook.com/piers.morgan.3975 Piers Morgan

    Jon Doe, why so butthurt because this poll shows how Americans really feel compared to the propaganda poll the President has been pushing through the lame stream media?

  • http://www.facebook.com/piers.morgan.3975 Piers Morgan

    Jon Doe, why so butthurt because this poll shows how Americans really feel compared to the propaganda poll the President has been pushing through the lame stream media?

  • http://www.facebook.com/piers.morgan.3975 Piers Morgan

    Jon Doe, why so butthurt because this poll shows how Americans really feel compared to the propaganda poll the President has been pushing through the lame stream media?

  • http://www.facebook.com/piers.morgan.3975 Piers Morgan

    Jon Doe, why so butthurt because this poll shows how Americans really feel compared to the propaganda poll the President has been pushing through the lame stream media?

  • Dan Scroggins

    You obviously don’t know what you are talking about.

  • john doe

    Suddenly, yes. But I dont need a gun. Ill just slap you til you cry like a little girl

  • john doe

    Suddenly, yes. But I dont need a gun. Ill just slap you til you cry like a little girl

  • john doe

    Dont you hate being stupid all the time?

  • john doe

    Dont you hate being stupid all the time?

  • john doe

    Dont you hate being stupid all the time?

  • john doe

    Clearly I do

  • john doe

    Clearly I do

  • john doe

    Clearly I do

  • john doe

    Clearly I do

  • http://www.facebook.com/piers.morgan.3975 Piers Morgan

    Oh, your one of those……………FSA!

  • Benjamin Pointon

    Actually, I’m a tax accountant from a large city, but it’s nice to see that you are an ignorant, stereotyping, bigot.

    You also did not answer my question. Do you eat other living things? You do, I guess that means you love violence too.

    Why is it that anytime you anti-gun people start loosing a respectful conversation with someone about guns, you resort to insults and stereotypes. Maybe it’s because your logic is flawed and facts don’t support any of your arguments?

  • Benjamin Pointon

    Actually, I’m a tax accountant from a large city, but it’s nice to see that you are an ignorant, stereotyping, bigot.

    You also did not answer my question. Do you eat other living things? You do, I guess that means you love violence too.

    Why is it that anytime you anti-gun people start loosing a respectful conversation with someone about guns, you resort to insults and stereotypes. Maybe it’s because your logic is flawed and facts don’t support any of your arguments?

  • Anonymous

    WOW you can copy and paste. Good for you. That is a big accomplishment for a person such as yourself. You should feel good that you learned something new. Now you will let me know if you need and explanation of what accomplishment is. I know it’s a big scary word but it won’t hurt you little one.

  • Anonymous

    WOW you can copy and paste. Good for you. That is a big accomplishment for a person such as yourself. You should feel good that you learned something new. Now you will let me know if you need and explanation of what accomplishment is. I know it’s a big scary word but it won’t hurt you little one.

  • Anonymous

    WOW you can copy and paste. Good for you. That is a big accomplishment for a person such as yourself. You should feel good that you learned something new. Now you will let me know if you need and explanation of what accomplishment is. I know it’s a big scary word but it won’t hurt you little one.

  • Anonymous

    WOW you can copy and paste. Good for you. That is a big accomplishment for a person such as yourself. You should feel good that you learned something new. Now you will let me know if you need and explanation of what accomplishment is. I know it’s a big scary word but it won’t hurt you little one.

  • Anonymous

    My name is Steve. I live in Indy. Is your name John? Do you live in Doe?

  • Anonymous

    My name is Steve. I live in Indy. Is your name John? Do you live in Doe?

  • Don Welch

    I’m sorry Pedro, fair is only if you agree with the people trying to infrnge on your rights.

  • John doe’s a crybaby

    Wrong! Cannons and tanks are ordnance. Ordnance is squad based support weapons. I.E. anything that takes more than one person to operate.

  • John doe’s a crybaby

    Wrong! Cannons and tanks are ordnance. Ordnance is squad based support weapons. I.E. anything that takes more than one person to operate.

  • Randol Thrasher

    Well John, by all means, go get all of your freinds and have them cast their votes, that should swing the results back in your favor. You do have friends, don’t you?

  • Randol Thrasher

    Well John, by all means, go get all of your freinds and have them cast their votes, that should swing the results back in your favor. You do have friends, don’t you?

  • Dan Scroggins

    What does that have to do with me, my gun, or Jesus?

  • Anonymous

    Nothing but he is a troll he doesn’t have to make sense, just piss people off. Surprised you didn’t get that yet.

  • Anonymous

    Friends, FRIENDS!!! He don’t need no stinking friends!!!

  • Anonymous

    Friends, FRIENDS!!! He don’t need no stinking friends!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/piers.morgan.3975 Piers Morgan

    You live in NYC, home of nothing but commie shit stains. Now I see why you have been so deeply brainwashed. Its to late for you. Not only will I not come their to kick your ass, I will never visit NYC. They will never see a dime of my money. That state is a loss. It could break apart and sink into the abyss for all I care. Enjoy your Tyranny.

  • Anonymous

    Simple, as usual the left doesn’t have a clue what it is doing. It makes up solutions for problems that don’t exist to get people to vote for them. “LOOK AT ME, I am making laws that help you”. Doesn’t matter that the law already exists.

  • Anonymous

    There’s already a law against murder. Nobody in the “Gun Nut” camp is arguing that we abolish the law against murder.

    Are you really trying to argue that a criminal who would break one law will balk at a second? Didn’t the liberal media announce that the Lanza broke over forty? And here you are arguing “but one more…”

  • http://www.facebook.com/piers.morgan.3975 Piers Morgan

    Dont think he already hasnt. That is why he is freaking out and whining like a bitz. He cant believe it is still that lopsided. Who would have thought that the majority of Americans believed in the 2nd amendment and the U.S. Constitution. ;-) Freedom owns Tyranny!

  • Nothiding D.Roche

    hey don’t call him a bigot only a conservative can be a bigot remember (lol) jk buddy. you have a lot of patience my friend.

  • ChadC

    Interesting….the real 90(+)% has shown itself. LOL

  • Dan Scroggins

    What about small or elderly men? They just take the beating, stabbing, robbing or whatever else their potentially larger, more skilled, more violent attacker gives them? And women? What do they do? Pee themselves? I’ve been in several situations where my gun made a potentially violent situation into a non-violent one, simply by having it.

  • dafuq

    aww, feeling butthurt tonight? Have you done your reading yet and learned about internet gun sale laws? No? Ahhh sheesh, I forgot you probably can’t read. Maybe you should print that ATF document out and take it to someone that can read it and explain it to you. http://www.atf.gov/files/publications/newsletters/ffl/ffl-newsletter-2010-06.pdf

  • Dan Scroggins

    Funny, you claim to be a non-violent person. Maybe you’re afraid if you were sane enough to own a gun that you would be the one shooting people.

  • Anonymous

    Your only one. That’s the funniest thing you’ve said so far.

    My guns have never killed anyone, so they are just long distance hole punches. Whether or not it’s a fetish should probably remain between me and my wife.

  • Anonymous

    40% number was pulled from a survey of 251 people in 1991 on a random call generator. It is as statistically as useful as Santa Claus in real.

  • http://www.facebook.com/piers.morgan.3975 Piers Morgan

    Damn, you are brainwashed beyond all repair. You need to start opening your eyes and doing your own research to find out the truth. Quit watching the lame stream media.

  • Anonymous

    The Jews have a pretty good history of violence. Perhaps that’s where Christianity and Islam got their penchants for violence.

  • Dan Scroggins

    No John, you don’t. Furthermore, you don’t seem to have to desire to know what you’re talking about either. You want to convince those whom do know what they are talking about that they are wrong, and violent killers, because they wish to retain their rights.

  • D.Roche

    remember there where no firearms in a school, and over twenty kids were killed atrociously sorry I hate to put it so bluntly but even Newtown CT passed a law allowing armed guards in schools. it may seem like a very old idea but the only thing that will stop a crazed killer is anybody with a gun who intends to use it for good.

  • Dan Scroggins

    Haha! I’m starting to think you are not old enough to own a gun. Owning a gun has nothing to do with feeling like a man.

  • dafuq

    By a democrat with Mental issues

  • Provda

    Obama’s full of shit. Like always.

  • Anonymous

    You may not have said it, but you certainly left the door open for his comment.

  • http://www.facebook.com/piers.morgan.3975 Piers Morgan

    You are such a child. I really hope you are a teen trolling everyone.

  • dafuq

    Since you can’t read, here is a video you can watch. Why don’t you go check it out and then come back and tell us how horrible the crusades were. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y

  • Dan Scroggins

    I got it. I was having some troll fun, too. Sadly, he got tired of the truth and left.

  • Anonymous

    Much like john doe.

  • Bear

    John Doe, your take on firearms and Jesus, seems very uneducated. The fact that you said Jesus only “exists in your mind”, blatantly points out that you’re ignorant. They have proved that Jesus existed. I, myself do not believe in God, but at least I am not oblivious of the truth. And the fact that you say hunting is only for sport and killing animals, when in fact most hunt the animal for the meat and use the rest of the animal left overs as much as possible disposing very little. I personally do not hunt because I do not have the need for it. But I do own firearms for personal protection not because I am afraid of everything, but because it is harder to physically persuade someone when verbal communication has failed, whether its the government attempting to take my personal freedoms or someone who is trying to rob myself or my family. So before you attempt to state you’re opinion of the 2nd Amendment, please take the time to inform your self on the subject matter which I have been learning about for the past 8 years, and will continue to learn.

  • The-real-John-Doe

    Dear kill people all the time are you kidding?

  • Anonymous

    Shame on you. Dancing in the blood of children. How utterly dishonorable.

  • Anonymous

    I’m pretty sure he’s still crawling around here somewhere.

  • http://www.facebook.com/piers.morgan.3975 Piers Morgan

    Adam Lanza broke many laws before actually shooting those poor defenseless children who were forced to attend a free kill zone, I mean a gun free zone.

  • Gene

    ANY reasonable person aware of BATF regulations knows there are plenty of good laws in place already – they only need be enforced by all levels of law enforcement agencies.

  • Anonymous

    Do you have a source for that “proved Jesus existed” statement?

    Other than that, keep fighting the good fight!

  • Ellis L.Mattison Jr.

    John Doe.. y do u hide behined a fake name

  • http://www.facebook.com/piers.morgan.3975 Piers Morgan

    No, I live in New Orleans where people kill each other for fun. You are the one living in a fantasy world singing Kumbaya.

  • bear armless

    HA Ha 90% lair lair pants on fire!!!

  • D.Roche

    You are an idiot and a bigot. You claim people love death when they go shooting? Moron I have never shot anyone or anything that breaths The only things I have ever shot is a paper target, plastic soda bottles, and a Playstation. I like shooting and I like my guns. Is that so fucking bad? And if so why? I do this because I’m skilled at it and I find it fun. And why should anyone keep me from trying to do it? If guns bother you FINE DON’T OWN ONE but don’t try to tell me I’m evil because I like mine. I don’t think what you do for fun is evil (unless you are bringing harm to others for fun). Now here is the problem with Liberals they think that one thing someone does is immoral… WHO CARES ABOUT THE OTHER GUY? WORRY ABOUT YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY OR WHATEVER YOU HAVE.

  • D.Roche

    Not to mention buying a gun at any gun show or gun shop and there is already a background check.

  • dafuq
  • Dan Scroggins

    LOL! I think he really though we were all ignorant. He’s probably huddled in a corner, rocking back and forth trying to convince himself he is some sort of hero.

  • Dan Scroggins

    *thought

  • Ms. Sippi

    Until last month, I used to hate guns until someone took me out and convinced me to shoot one. I was so nervous on the ride there that I almost threw up. They taught me about the safety and then I got to shoot at targets with a gun that had two leg looking things on the end to hold it up. I shot it a lot and didn’t realize how much until they showed me the pile of fired bullets on the ground next to me. I am going to buy one myself now and enroll in a complete safety course before I do. I have since been reading up on the laws and researching statistics. I am embarrassed to admit how completely ignorant that I was about firearms all along, and especially about how there are already so many laws, but they just aren’t enforcing them. And I now honestly understand what they mean when they say that guns don’t kill people, violent criminals with guns do. I used to hate that saying, but now admit that it is true and I was wrong in refusing to understand its meaning until now.

  • Anonymous

    here is the 90%+! its just on the other side of the debate Usurper Obama!

  • dafuq

    you’re drunk, go to bed.

  • dafuq

    Hey guess what? “Our guy” was Jewish too! idiot

  • http://www.facebook.com/piers.morgan.3975 Piers Morgan

    JOHN DOE! Where did you go?

  • dafuq

    well that was fun. He left far to early. I wonder if he thought the other 4% that are in favor of expanded gun control laws were going to jump in and help him.

  • dconway

    Will this poll get published or talked about on NPR or by the Adminstration? I doubt it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/aj.ferguson.33 Aj Ferguson

    See the original poll only had a targeted. 1755 people this one is roughly ten times that number and hmmmm guess what its 90+% against not for so this just shows how flawed the first one was

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-Pool/529397972 Jason Pool

    94%
    say the administration is wrong, 94% say that Feinstein, Schumer and
    their ilk are wrong. It is not about guns people, never was; it is about
    control of us… the redcoats are coming

  • http://www.facebook.com/kjmcnary Karla J Mcnary

    If our guns are taken we all know there will be a
    Revolution!! There are to many gun owners in America
    Who are not going to allow it

  • puffthemagicdragon

    john doe I love you. yes, i will be your husband. I am so glad our marriage is now recognized in our state.

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.k.williams.90 John K Williams

    should be a 4th option remove laws that deny people there 2nd amendment rights like “gun free zones” that do little more than provide a target rich enviorment for criminals

  • http://www.facebook.com/abdulah.rome Abdulah Rome

    The 2nd highest option to “ban assault weapons” begs to differ.

  • http://www.facebook.com/abdulah.rome Abdulah Rome

    Hey Obama, we found your 94%. But you won’t like what they voted for…

  • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.porter.7906 Kevin Porter

    I think that 90% was his 10 closest friends and one didn’t lke it .

  • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.porter.7906 Kevin Porter

    If you wait till your guns are taken, it will be too late. Keep signing petitions and getting in touch with your senators and governors. But if their like NY’s, they are useless.

  • Closedmindedliberals

    Here’s how Obamas poll went: do you want gun control or do you want all the little children to die?

  • Ozz

    Welcome to the Light Side!

  • alan

    How come in this PBS form people seem to speak and respond a LOT differently than in the main stream press, regarding gun control, personal safety, and the role of government in being our big protector from evil?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tim-Bromund/1359453517 Tim Bromund

    My my my my, just look at all the straw men our pathetic little troll is spewing.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ron-Erke/100003557059225 Ron Erke

    John you left out the last sentence in that portion of the Heller decision here I’ll help – “Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

    Meaning of course that firearms in common use cannot be banned. Here are the other 2 points SCOTUS made regarding the Heller case that struck down the DC handgun ban.

    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

    2. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

  • klivengood

    I think the people have spoken,where is the 90% at now?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000126023259 Lengel Anderson

    I hated the way this was worded! Where is the option to get the Feds out of this issue altogether! States rights what happened to you!?

  • RFCsLover

    while 94% of this vote wants laws left the way they are… BETCHA congress won’t even LOOK at that survey… Despicable act of TREASON on the part of congress.

  • 123abc

    What do Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Rahm Emanual, Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Franken, Carl Levin (there’s many more) have in common?

    Yup. You got it! Now oust them to Afghanistan. They’ll be just fine there.

  • Anonymous

    I know, Terry. That’s why I brought it up. I believe that if written today the scripture you quoted would read gun, not sword. I’m just trying to get john doe to think instead of simply jerking his knee.

  • Rjclark

    They called it the civil war, The war for States Rights Vs the Federal Gov, and you know how that ended. Do Not kid your self, it wasn’t about slavery until the emancipation proclamation.

  • ecovelli

    Why did they leave out the important gun safety laws? Update the existing background check system, eliminate gun free zones, enact concealed carry permit reciprocity, have armed personnel at schools, enforce existing laws instead of returning violent criminals back on the streets.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, cannon are ordinance. Ordinance falls under the blanket term armament. In 1791 that would have been “arms”. Remember, modern terminology doesn’t count. The Second Amendment was written in 1791 and used the terminology of the day. To understand it we must use the terminology of their day.

    The militia, which is mentioned in the explanatory portion of the Second Amendment, was expected to show up with their own military weapons. Some of the Revolutionary War soldiers showed up with cannon. That usually meant they got to be officers. They then functioned in a leadership role and got others to help them. Poof, there’s the squad. If you own a tank I’ll bet you can get others to help and you’ll have a squad too. Just like in 1776.

    Sorry, I must argue that you are not correct in your argument for limitation. I do, however, agree about john doe.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mark.falade Mark Falade

    I wonder if “John Doe” = John Siegle? Hmmmmm…. very similar rhetoric. ;)

  • Anonymous

    I’m with you on everything but background checks. Who gets to say what background items disqualify a buyer? Looking at what these people want to do, what prevents them from adding trivial nonsense to the list of disqualifying issues and acts? Ultimately this brings us into the realm of prior restraint. How badly do you want punished for something you have not done and may well never do?

    I believe we should remove all infringements, including background checks, tax stamps, and import restrictions. I believe we should then very firmly punish people for the evil they actually do. Further, I believe that if we are not confident the individual is no longer a threat we should not allow him/her to roam free among the people.

  • Anonymous

    How many times are you going to spam this? I know what they said in Heller. I know that what they said means that no can mean yes. I know that is bad behavior. I know the Justices of the Supreme Court hold office under good behavior. Since they have functioned in judicial bad behavior, those making that argument should be removed from the bench. It’s kind of a shame the Supreme Court lacks the honor to actually follow the Constitution rather than simply doing whatever they want.

  • Anonymous

    And you said you were nothing if not honest. So much for honesty.

    And since you seem to need things repeated to come to some form of understanding: My name is Steve and I am in Indy. All true.

  • Emma

    Because the liberal media, picks and chooses who they poll, in order to get the results they want to hear, instead of how people actually feel.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve been saying the same things in the mainstream press that I’m saying here. In some places my comments have been removed, though I try to remain polite and on point. In other places I’ve been called names, and had my manhood questioned, all for making too valid a point. It would appear that PBS is trying to run an honest poll, unlike the majority of the commercial mainstream media.

  • John

    Wait, I thought 90% of people wanted to ban guns and expand background checks? That’s what the news told me. You mean they don’t report truthfully?!?!?! Big surprise! Guess what, 94% of America says gun control does not work, it is all about people control. If strict gun laws worked, Chicago and DC would be Americas safest places. IT JUST DOESN’T WORK.

  • http://www.facebook.com/clarkws756 Clark Snyder

    Glad to see some one else who knows the truth… The Civil War was NOT fought over slavery. It was fought over state’s rights v. federal control. Slavery was used as an issue to (finally) recruit enough Yankees to effectively prosecute the war. Just as the nation was divided between slave states and free states prior to the war, we are rapidly becoming divided as anti-gun states v. gun states. When the shooting starts, better hope you are in a gun state.

  • http://www.facebook.com/clarkws756 Clark Snyder

    Deer can run fast! That carrot is stuck right there!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1322389570 Jason A. Partridge

    I would actually like to see a 4th option… remove all unconstitutional restrictions on my 2nd Amendment rights!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1073576932 Matthew Hiller

    MOLON LABE.

  • http://www.facebook.com/clarkws756 Clark Snyder

    No that is not “case closed.” It is horrible beyond words. But crimes such as this are so rare (a few a year IS rare) as to be statistically insignificant. It is simply bad policy to right laws based on the very rare occurance that punish millions of people who exercise their constitutional right to own guns.

  • https://www.facebook.com/motorcycle.michael.smith Big Morgan

    Amen… repeal the acts of 1968 and 1934 and let the states decide.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002933271411 Robert Jennings

    While technically true, slavery was always at the heart of states rebellion against federal incursions just as gun rights are at the root of states current fight over states rights.

  • http://www.facebook.com/pimpleton.mcpimpster Pimpleton Obviouslyafakename M

    Flavious Josephus(1st century historian), Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3, Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1

  • Joeprimo55

    America is waking up…

  • Smyrna Jim

    Sorry PBS. We know you are disappointed with the survey
    results! Another reason you should stop receiving Federal funds!

  • http://www.facebook.com/craig.cook.963 Craig Cook

    Now… do a “poll” on repealing obamacare, P.B.S.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000444586450 Jerry N

    we should have background checks on all immigrants legal or illegal. stop giving welfare to them re:the boston bombers and the Mexicans in this country. why does the u.s. continue to take these people in .half of them or more are hardened criminals from their own country.

  • Ron

    Yes! Remove all gun laws so we can defend ourselves. Background checks are not needed. If someone is a homicidal maniac, simply do not turn them loose on society. Problem solved!

  • http://www.facebook.com/ronald.allan.14 Ronald Allan

    Doesn’t matter how many of us vote against more gun laws, PBS will just ignore and continue their anti gun slant. Read our lips: we have made more than enough concessions in the last 100 years. NO MORE INFRINGEMENTS. our RIGHTS are not up for popular vote!

  • RDC

    Lame. No option for “we have too many laws now. Repeal everything that violates “shall not be infringed”.

  • les strat

    32,367 automobile fatalities in 2011…. and that was the lowest in number in 62 years. According to your twisted way of thinking, let’s ban all vehicles. Ban cell phones, Yeah. Lots of death from morons who text while talking. JD, give up your phone and car now. It’s the only way!

    You are a classic liberal that resorts to name calling because some people actually hunt instead of driving to the grocery store and buy dead animals, thus detaching themselves from the fact that something gave its life for you to live. Pathetic and straight out of the liberal hand guide. You’ll be the first whiny baby to cry when the sh!t goes down and you have no food and no protection, because the .gov won’t be there to protect you.

  • RDC

    States are subject to Article 6 paragraph 2. “Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding”. “Shall not be infringed”.

    This doesn’t even get to the Privileges and Immunities clause in the 14th Amend from which the “incorporation” mythology stemmed from.

  • TKSI

    Roll back every gun law to pre GCA 1968.

  • les strat

    Yes they do. Once again, a low-information voter spouts off crap they know nothing about, only what they have heard.

    If you purchase a firearm online, it legally has to be sent to an FFL dealer where the background check takes place. This is under strict regulation by the ATF. Also, gun dealers have to do background checks at gun shows. It’s the law and they can lose their license otherwise. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT and stop sounding like a fool.knw

  • les strat

    Real men will use any method they can to defend their families, country, and themselves.

  • Anonymous

    I see you finally grew a brain and stopped reacting with feelings.

  • Anonymous

    From their rear ends is my guess.

  • Anonymous

    We shouldn’t even allow immigrants any longer unless they’re educated and can fill a role that this country needs filled. Accepting 3rd world criminals by the millions is obviously not a good plan.

  • Anonymous

    I say to liberals. If you want to take my guns then have the guts and try to take them from me directly. Come to my house and take them. You may not like the consequences but at least have the balls to do what you say.

  • Jess James

    Especially John Mclame. He can’t even do email.

  • Jess James

    no mas pantalones

  • Jess James

    the 1st Amendment says no one has to prove it.

  • Bear

    One’s right to speech does not override a citizens right to bear arms.

  • Pup

    Where’s the option to reduce infringements on our gun rights???? PBS bogus biased BS poll.

  • les strat

    Once again, the people have spoken. Will you liberty-stealing maggots just please move to another country and start your own commune??? Let me know how that works out for ya.

  • Anonymous

    NOT ONE INCH!

  • Anonymous

    Kudos for going out and trying to learn about the subject. If you still did not like it afterwards, or you believed it was not for you, at least you would be making an informed decision, and that I can respect.

  • Uncle Fink

    And Democraps will either ignore this poll or vote Opposite of what The People of The United States REALLY want.

  • ronc

    The choice I wanted was not listed and that is to repeal all gun control laws, so I checked the only other option available, to leave the laws as they are. Give us more options if you want to know truly how we feel.

  • ronc

    I like it. Can I steal it?

  • religion&politics

    just like they did with Obummercare

  • ronc

    Hallefrigginlujah!!!

  • Mark Bittner

    Give not one inch to the feds, nothing, zero, nada. Gun control is simply about more government control, period. The fed is far too powerful already. After all, the feds aren’t giving up a single one of their arms, they’re not giving up their bodyguards, they’re not giving up their Homeland Security or their TSA, and that’s exactly what the second amendment is there for. The poll shows that the American people have no enthusiasm for compliance with any more unconstitutional laws.

  • http://www.facebook.com/EnosEugenius Seth Eugene Baldwin

    I believe the crux of ecovelli’s argument is, rather than “expand” background checks, fix the current system, to reduce the false positives AND the false negatives. The burden is, of course, on the State to prove someone is not fit to possess firearms, and I agree (as does the NRA) that there are certain people who have proven, by past actions that they should not have firearms (felonies, violent crimes, being found BY A COURT OF LAW, after HEARING ALL THE EVIDENCE, and after being afforded FULL DUE PROCESS, including the right to an attorney and to present expert testimony and evidence, that there is CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE [i.e., not just that it's "more likely than not"] that they pose a risk to themselves or others). But expanding “mentally unstable” to include mild depression or anxiety, non-violent, non-delusional PTSD, or even ADHD is a slippery slope down the path to “no one is qualified to possess firearms because EVERYONE has or may have some mental health issue, or may have had one in the past.” And if we make the test too “flexible,” then we just make the system worse than it already is.

  • ronc

    Funny how few actually know this.

  • Califlyer

    So much for that bogus “90 %” myth.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dave.helmersr Dave Helmer Sr

    Amen to another I read… Repeal existing gun ‘control’ laws choice was not there, so I chose the next best thing, Leave them alone!

  • Anonymous

    Exactly, whats the problem with taking your gun to a shop or a dealer to get a transfer? You are saying that should be optional, I am saying I dont mind if its required as long as the cost is reasonable, say $25.

  • Marcus Porcius Cato

    How about repealing all gun laws that restrict people who haven’t been convicted of a crime or adjudicated violently mentally ill?

  • http://www.facebook.com/mark.payton.98 Mark Payton

    I ALSO THINK THAT THEY NEED TO LEAVE OUR DAMN GUN RIGHT THE HELL ALONE,OBAMA AGENDA IS TO DE ARM US ALL THIS OUR DAMN COUNTRY AND OUR RIGHT’S SO LEAVE OUR CONSTITUTION ALONE,WE THE PEOPLE DON’T NEED YOU TRYING TO TAKE A DAMN THING AWAY FOR US……

  • http://profiles.google.com/robb.shimp tank soldier

    You forgot the 4th choice: repeal it all.

  • Seamlesstan

    IF!!!!! there was a PROOF POSITIVE way for BG checks to be performed and
    fool proof erased with in hours and IF there was a Fool Proof way of
    establishing Mandatory Prison time for subverting the check to create a list, I
    might give it consideration to weed out some who are not deserving. BUT, I DO
    NOT TRUST Gvt Bureaucrats to be HONEST! There can NEVER be a way to create a
    list of armed Citizens! Although I’m NOT SURE it isn’t already being ILLEGALLY
    done.

  • Anonymous

    Written c 94, over 60 years after Jesus’ death by a guy who wasn’t alive when Jesus would have been. Sorry, but that’s not actually proof. Certainly it adds some weight to the argument Jesus lived, but it is hardly proof.

    Thanks for trying, though.

  • Anonymous

    Why is there even a law on the books when it comes to Self Defense?
    Our “All Knowing” government at work . . . .

  • Anonymous

    The First Amendment says nothing whatsoever about no one having to prove the existence of Jesus. In fact it doesn’t say anything about Jesus at all. It also doesn’t mention not proving things.

  • http://www.facebook.com/glen.graybillsr Glen Graybill Sr

    Hey PBS why don’t you ask if a background check should be done on Obama????

  • Anonymous

    I wanted to check the box where it gave the option of eliminating all federal gun laws but there was no such option. Gun control is people control, people control = confiscation.

  • ReadyorNot

    Pre-1930

  • Liberal Larry

    why don’t the govt quit arming the cartels first?

  • MSNBC4Life

    can our own president pass a background check??

  • mike

    “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”.

    That seems pretty cut and dry to me. Why is it progressive liberals can’t seem to read?
    How would you liberals like it if your 1st amendment rights were violated?
    Or your 4th?
    If you don’t like guns, then don’t own guns. I don’t like smoking, so i choose not to smoke. I don’t try taking that right away from others.

    You guys left a choice off your little poll. The one where we all stop watching PBS because you’ve managed to anger everyone. Hope you lose all your funding. Progressive liberal dirtbags.

  • Bob

    Painting gun owners with such a broad brush is just old fashioned bigotry. Good grief, we aren’t even all NRA members and the anti-gun lobby has lied constantly.

  • Burr

    Liberals have no problem whatsoever giving up their (and your) 4th amendment rights. Have you seen the videos of the warrantless searches conducted by federal and local police forces in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings? People were literally being forced out of their homes at gunpoint and police were entering their homes without warrants OR consent. Not so much as a whimper has been made by the libereal civil liberties organizations in protest.

  • John Locke

    Where is “return to the constitution and remove all federal limitations?”

  • *✿*Blueburb*✿*

    The liberals are the ones that are bitter clingers, now

  • Wassim Absood

    No option to roll back to 1934 National Firearms Act and ensure Federal Pre-emption? I would have voted for that.

  • LeonC

    What is the point of a permit other than to tax and track law-abiding firearm owners? Tracking will eventually lead to confiscation or surrender.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jeremy.rawley Jeremy Rawley

    Here’s a better idea: A federal ban on assault politicians and low-capacity craniums.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sis5812 Sis Metcalf-Eschbaumer

    awesome!! we need to rethink our congressman, statesmen/women and all other idiots!! Need to know basis? Kick it to the curb!!

  • Daharsh

    there should be an option to repeal all Federal firearms restrictions

  • http://www.facebook.com/darthvic Victor Burman

    Should be a “Repeal all gun laws” option.

  • Joe

    Didn’t all you political hacks take an oath that states: “Uphold and defend the Constitution? “

  • Brian

    Your poll is getting skewed by the NRA lobby. They picked it up and linked it to their site..

  • Ken

    Your poll is getting skewed by the left. They believe the poll is unduly influenced by the NRA. The audience of any and all PBS/NPR affiliates knows the truth. Both NPR and PBS are the left…

  • http://www.facebook.com/Higgy.F.Baby Matthew Higgins

    just curious but how is that any different than the skewed polls that claim “90% of Americans support UBG checks”, that the WH Admin rails about? they too, are a FAR cry from accurate. it’s really quite easy to skew survey results to go either way. it’s all about the people polled and the survey wording.

  • The Truth Hurts

    The left is now learning why it is that legislation failed and why so many dems lost their jobs after the 1994 AWB. It’s not about the NRA, it’s about THE PEOPLE that the NRA represents. The passionate people.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bill.newcomb.14 Bill Newcomb

    BLOOMBERG — look !! its not 94% for back ground checks, Its 94% Against !!!
    STOP Lying !!

  • mrskeptic

    I just saw your gun control “poll” and I am astonished at how ridiculous this is. It has been completely hijacked by the NRA. I can “vote” 50 times. So now you have the gun nuts representing this as fact. With “work” like this, you should be refunded! Any respect I had for PBS has just been flushed down the drain. Please consider your actions and the effect they have.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bf-Caffrey/100000376924378 B.f. Caffrey

    And this is different from the way the liberal-left does the same thing on polls about immigration, abortion and marijuana issues? Just how exactly?

  • Not Mr Skeptic

    I don’t think that’s correct. I tried to vote several times to verify your statement and the total voter count did not change. It is probably verifying multiple hits from the same IP address and voiding any duplicates.

  • Anonymous

    Is the Federal Government actually authorized by the Constitution to do that, or are you suggesting the Feds do even more stuff they’re really not allowed to do?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1653451064 Matt Arnold

    Roll back ALL anti-constitutional “gun control” legislation.

  • Anonymous

    looks correct to me!

  • Anonymous

    In fact, the poll is skewed because there should be a 4th category:
    “Gun laws are too numerous, confusing, and restrictive and should be eliminated”

  • DrVino

    What’s happening is the people who have an informed opinion and a stake in the discussion are passing this around and their voice is being heard. It may be linked to by NRA, but if you think the NRA is the only pro-2A organization in this country, you are woefully ignorant of who and how many people want to keep their guns – especially if you fail to recognize that there are millions of unaffiliated gun owners who are coming here from twitter, FB and whatever other social media and voicing their opinion.

    The president used stale (how many years old?) inaccurate “statistics” of 92% (of, what, 1200 people in 4 northeast states?) supposedly “supporting” background checks (Which the Toomey-Manchin was NOT about) and that was fine and it was the “will of the nation”, but now that almost 18K people (as of the time I write this comment) say the current federal laws are fine, you’re indignant and crying foul?

    Get over it.
    There already ARE extensive measures restricting and limiting Second Amendment right. What we need is common sense reforms of laws dealing with dangerously mentally ill people, not those that restrict law-abaiding, sane people.

  • DrVino

    Remember than in a revolution, once all the useful idiots are done being useful, they are the first to be eliminated by new establishment (formerly know as the opposition or the revolutionaries).

  • NolanR

    I would vote for that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Hypnogator Gary Griffiths

    What Spanz said! Repeal restrictions on interstate sales, and deny federal law enforcement assistance funds to states that don’t recognize every other state’s concealed weapons permits.

  • Ms. Sippi

    Mr Skeptic is right. If you try to vote several times and then refresh, it will not register your vote more than once. I tested this late at night when there was no traffic on this site just to make sure the poll is valid. And by the way, I used to be against guns until last month when I got to shoot one and did some research. I’m buying one next month after taking a safety course I enrolled in.

  • Ms. Sippi

    Oops, I meant “NOT Mr Skeptic” was right.

  • NolanR

    Not unless he lies. Oh, hell, we are talking about obummer aren’t we?

  • Ms. Sippi

    And just so you know, “mrskeptic”, I found out about this poll on a very well known liberal website that was urging all of its members to vote for the expanded background checks and assault weapons ban. So you cannot say this poll is skewed.

  • Joseph

    Mrskeptic, if what you are saying is “true” then why do you not flood the poll the way YOU want it to go, you,according to your logic, should be able to salvage this poll YOUR WAY.

  • Joseph

    I agree, one step at a time. Lets win this battle and go for the FULL restitution of the Constitution!!!

  • hkguns

    Your brain is unlawfully skewed by the ignorant, freedom hating left. The people of this Country ARE the NRA.

  • HKGuns

    Sure it is if you’re trying to fill the voting booths with more people voting for handouts. Immigration changes will accomplish nothing but fill up the voting booths with people who will vote future NOBAMA’s into office.

  • HKGuns

    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

  • HKGuns

    READ MY LIPS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Stop deleting my post NPR.

  • CB

    Probably end up like the rest of the gun polls. At 94% now will end in the 90′s and come back in 3 weeks saying the majority of Americans want gun control. Awaiting the spin now.

  • Dogbert

    No gun control discussion of any kind for me until Obama overturns the Patriot Act and restores habeus corpus like he promised to do in 2008. Then he can retract the NDAA and all of the other executive orders that pretty much give him and DHS dictatorial powers. The man is a puppet who serves evil masters and he simply cannot be trusted. He is even scarier than Bush/Cheney, never thought I would say that. BTW, I am politically moderate, a PBS donator, not an NRA member, not a gun guy and have only voted Republican maybe twice in 40 years. Are you listening, Dems? We don’t want your police state!

  • Careful

    English? I’m with your sentiment but yelling in Ebonics hurts the cred a bit

  • Careful

    Amen sister – welcome to the informed

  • Peepsite

    Congress has more options than the three above. I can’t vote on any of them as they aren’t constitutional. Discharge the ATF and leave the freedom to own a gun to the citizen. It will save the nations citizens millions to just discharge that branch. Transfer the workers to border of Mexico to help keep out gangs and terrorist. If we don’t have enough NGs to guard us then the citizens need assault rifles to defend their neighbors and families. Some of us live in states that border Mexico and we are worried that the Gangs and possibly Al Queda has us out gunned.

  • http://www.facebook.com/nancy.r.corbin Nancy Ricciardelli Corbin

    You can’t keep the 1st if you do not have the 2nd!

  • TooBig

    They need to enforce our laws on the books and most Obama supporters can’t or won’t pass a background check and they do nothing to them when they catch them

  • Careful

    HUMAN violence in God’s name.

  • Careful

    Many people commit violence in the name(s) of their God(s). It has zero to do with faith or their God(s), and everything to do with rationalizing actions. Get off the soapbox and use some real logic Einstein.

  • Careful

    Utter ignorance

  • Careful

    Yes, they DO Einstein

  • Careful

    Because much like you, they have no real understanding of the laws in the books. Stop watching cable news and read the laws for yourself; you’re making yourself look like a hack…either that or having a boatload of fun pouring gasoline on a fire.

  • Careful

    Dude, are you up late drinking, having a little fun with people who are taking a boatload of ignorant drivel seriously?

  • Careful

    FBI? That would be the Secret Service genius.

  • Careful

    Immediately? Really? Do you live in an apartment above a police station? And do you have any idea how little your “trained professionals” actually shoot their duty weapons?

  • Careful

    I think it’s some kid up drinking, otherwise a mental patient with internet access.

  • Careful

    Bovine fecal matter

  • Anonymous

    Where is the poll answer, “repeal existing gun control laws”?

  • Careful

    The Bovine Fecal Matter Militia, named in honor of your posts

  • Careful

    Bovine fecal matter

  • Careful

    it was past his bed time; warm glass of milk must have done the trick

  • Smitty

    Are Chicago’s strict gun laws keeping the residents there safer? Hell No!

  • Careful

    Bovine fecal matter

  • Careful

    Ignorant bovine fecal matter

  • Careful

    Ignorant bovine fecal matter. Free has nothing to do with Jesus.

  • Careful

    Spineless bovine fecal matter

  • Careful

    IGNORANT

  • Anonymous

    Perhaps you should learn before you speak. ALL FFL’s, at gun shows, their stores or their homes are REQUIRED to run NICS on firearms sales. If they sell over the internet that firearm must be shipped to another FFL that is required to run a NICS before turning it over to the buyer. The 40% number was pulled out of someones rear because it was developed from data that was gathered BEFORE Brady went into effect.

    Try going to the BATFE site and looking at the Form 4473 section and the FBI NICS site. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics
    Any other lies you would like to try and spread?

  • http://twitter.com/TheDanHannah Daniel Hannah

    You are 4 times more likely to be stabbed during a mugging in UK than get shot for any reason in America. A knife might be “less deadly”, but I would much rather take my chances with the country that has 400% fewer violent crimes.

  • http://twitter.com/TheDanHannah Daniel Hannah

    And that’s how it should be.

  • http://twitter.com/TheDanHannah Daniel Hannah

    Actually, the NRA volunteered to train teachers in tactical firearms and CC in school completely gratis, something like 40 hrs per head, would have cost the NRA millions. Most states and school boards said no.

  • Zed’sDed

    From Wikipedia: “As passed by the Congress:

    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.

    As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

    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.”

    It would seem the National Guard is the well regulated militia referenced here and is what is connected with people keeping and bearing arms. However, I’m not against responsible personal gun ownership. I do have a difficult time believing so many people are against changes in background checks that might help prevent some large tragedies as well as many smaller ones that might not make national news. Then again, if it makes it just a bit more easy to buy a gun, it must be worth voting it down.

  • Zed’sDed

    A legitimate question might be where is the well regulated militia mentioned as being connected with the gun ownership?

  • ar15mike

    LOL. The Free Sh*t army wants all guns banned. Just look at that gun control Mecca of Sh*tcago. How’s that working? You oppress lawful citizens and criminals run the table because laws don’t apply to them. Typical limousine liberal idealism.

  • HKGuns

    http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf

    Required reading for EVERY American Citizen.

  • Obummer

    Were is the repeal all gun laws button ??

  • theDrew

    Really! Rudy Giulliani cleaned up NYC not by creating a bunch of new laws but simply by cracking down on crime and corruption using laws that already existed.

    Here’s a crazy idea: let’s follow that example!

  • theDrew

    Ditto for not owning a handgun until a couple months ago. Now I own two and am planning to take some lessons. Tell me how to live my life? NO SIR!

  • theDrew

    it is no different

  • gunny

    and maybe ENFORCE the laws that are already on the books….

  • http://www.facebook.com/donald.sanders.718 Donald Sanders

    Typical PBS (Pucking, Barfing and Shitting) poll. The one question not asked is the one question the Libertards don’t want to hear. REPEAL all gun laws as un-Constitutional.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rocky.thomas.186 Rocky Thomas

    No… there should be 5 categories. There should also be one recommending immediate removal from office and pressing charges against ALL elected officials that support infringing on the Second Amendment, for failing to uphold their oath of office in respect to protecting the constitution.

  • Blah McBlah

    Leave them alone.

    Stop trying to change the constitution. Damn marxist, commie leftist. Get out of america.

  • http://www.facebook.com/worldwide850 Ray Bailey

    No more Gun Laws,Just enforce the ones we already have.

  • Louis4:16

    Still wont put a dent in president Osama’s roll… But here’s the best vote I can put in…

  • Anonymous

    Sorry, the Second Amendment acknowledges a right of the individual, not a group. The phrase “the people” is used several times in the Constitution. Try replacing the words “the people” in any of those phrases with the name of any group and see if it still works as a phrase. Tip: it does not. Try it.

    States also have inactive militias as specified in their individual State Constitutions. In most cases everybody above the age of seventeen is included in the inactive militia. Perhaps you should read Federalist 29 and Federalist 46 to see what two of the Founders expectations were.

    Short version: Nope, sorry, you’re wrong.

    Also note that the Senate bill that failed would have done nothing to prevent a madman from stealing a gun and killing people. Even the authors admitted this.

  • Anonymous

    The militia is not “connected”, it’s the reason they acknowledge the people’s natural right to protect their lives by keeping and bearing arms. And before you head down that failed path, In 1791 “well regulated” meant trained or practiced, not controlled by government. Look it up.

  • http://www.facebook.com/davidecasteel David E. Casteel

    Actually, my vote would be to rescind most of them, but that wasn’t an option in the poll.

  • Heather Hau

    Don’t fix what’s not broken.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003310660682 Dennis Martin

    They were afraid to ask…..repeal long gun laws??? The response would be overwhelming.

  • Anonymous

    I’m a member of the NRA, and I do not agree with them. Or you. In the end what you and they suggest is infringement upon the law abiding in an attempt to keep guns away from people who really shouldn’t be loose among the public in the first place.

    You’re talking about compensating for mistakes made over years. I’d rather address those earlier mistakes rather than make more mistakes.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brad-Axsom/1628694358 Brad Axsom

    get rid of the NFA so I dont have to pay a tax to own a SBR

  • Anonymous

    That depends entirely upon the revolution. In our US Revolution it didn’t work that way.

  • Anonymous

    Licensed dealers are required to keep the records of all sales for a minimum of five years. The BATFE can drop by and inspect those records any time it wants. There may not be a centrally organized list, but there most certainly is a form of registration.

  • Anonymous

    He was getting pretty cranky.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000321692567 Leigh Rich

    How can the left skew these results to their ajenda? The PBS pole: 94% say leave gun laws as they are.

  • Anonymous

    Obviously. Why would an omnipotent entity, assuming one exists, need human help to do anything?

  • Anonymous

    We’re not the ones wanting to shoot people. You, on the other hand, seem to have a pretty short fuse.

  • William Northup

    Wait- isn’t PBS supposed to be a bastion of liberal thinking? This sounds much closer to main-stream American values.

  • Anonymous

    Unlike the others this one is open and not targeted at the anti-gun crowd. Funny what results one can find when one does not try to rig the poll.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1404660655 Jake Wright

    The funny thing is the same people that want to take everyone’s guns away are also the first to show sympathy for murderers on death row and support abortion on demand.

    You want a safer country? Repeal the NFA and encourage people to arm themselves. Give a tax break to citizen who make the public safer by carrying a firearm.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1404660655 Jake Wright

    Now days they are busy watching “reality” TV and porn.

  • Sherrif

    I would like to see a poll on how citizens feel about eliminating the power of lobbyist over our Government. Then lets see the direction Federal Law goes.

  • fred125

    Leave me alone you freedom hating communists, and do something to create some real jobs, not pork barrel jobs for your union hack friends.

  • Fred Ingram

    Something tells me this is not the result they were looking for (especially since this was the last option on the voting page)

  • Rand

    Not a viable poll, it allows you to submit multiple votes.

  • takeaim

    How many times did you vote? I personally voted at least 10 times.

  • theDrew

    Apparently it is not counting multiple votes from the same IP address. That’s the rumor, at least.

  • iceman1979

    it only counts one vote

  • randy welsh

    wow, now we are at double the sample size of that other poll. did they run out of obama phones?

  • Guest

    Leave the laws
    the way they are? I personally want them to enforce what they have on the books
    or repeal some of the laws. Case in point? The short barreled rifle second of
    the 1934 Firearms Act. The law as it is written now allows for 16 inch barrels.
    If you cut the barrel down to below that length and don’t pay the 200 dollar
    tax stamp and wait for bureaucrats to approve the modification (6 to 8 months)
    you have committed a felony punishable by a 10 year stay in a federal pen. This
    penalty is more harsh than what straw purchasers typically get and worse than
    some murderers get. You don’t even have to commit a crime, if you just make a
    modification to a legally purchased firearm and someone notices it, you could
    be convicted. I personally know one person this would have snagged if the wrong
    person saw him with the firearm. It was purchased at an auction (And yes they
    DID require a background check as do most gun shows.). The firearm looked
    short, so we measured it and sure enough someone had modified it to be below
    the required 18 inches for a shotgun. It was 17 inches. By owning the firearm,
    this person had committed a felony. We pulled the barrel and destroyed it.
    Fortunately, shotguns are easily fixed. I am sick of politicians, bureaucrats
    and the people who don’t even understand firearms screaming for bans and further regulations.
    don’t understand.

  • Guest

    Leave the laws the way they are? I personally want them to enforce what they have on the books or repeal some of the laws. Case in point? The short barreled rifle second of the 1934 Firearms Act. The law as it is written now allows for 16 inch barrels. If you cut the barrel down to below that length and don’t pay the 200 dollar
    tax stamp and wait for bureaucrats to approve the modification (6 to 8 months)
    you have committed a felony punishable by a 10 year stay in a federal pen. This
    penalty is more harsh than what straw purchasers typically get and worse than
    some murderers get. You don’t even have to commit a crime, if you just make a
    modification to a legally purchased firearm and someone notices it, you could
    be convicted. I personally know one person this would have snagged if the wrong
    person saw him with the firearm. It was purchased at an auction (And yes they
    DID require a background check as do most gun shows.). The firearm looked
    short, so we measured it and sure enough someone had modified it to be below
    the required 18 inches for a shotgun. It was 17 inches. By owning the firearm,
    this person had committed a felony. We pulled the barrel and destroyed it.
    Fortunately, shotguns are easily fixed. I am sick of politicians, bureaucrats
    and the people who don’t even understand firearms trying to ban something or propose further regulations for something they don’t understand.

  • gyro

    Leave the laws the way they are? I personally want them to enforce what they have on the books or repeal some of the laws. Case in point? The short barreled rifle section of the 1934 Firearms Act. The law as it is written now allows for 16 inch barrels on rifles and 18 inch barrels on shotguns. If you cut the barrel down to below that length and don’t pay the 200 dollar tax stamp and wait for bureaucrats to approve the modification (6 to 8 months) you have committed a felony punishable by a 10 year stay in a federal pen. This penalty is more harsh than what straw purchasers typically get and worse than some murderers get. You don’t even have to commit a crime, if you just make a modification to a legally purchased firearm and someone notices it, you could be convicted. I personally know one person this would have snagged if the wrong person saw him with the firearm. It was purchased at an auction (And yes they DID require a background check as do most gun shows.). The firearm looked short, so we measured it and sure enough someone had modified it to be below the required 18 inches for a shotgun. It was 17 inches. By owning the firearm, this person had committed a felony. We pulled the barrel and destroyed it. Fortunately, shotguns are easily fixed. I am sick of politicians, bureaucrats and the people who don’t even understand firearms trying to ban something or propose further regulations for something they don’t understand.

  • guest2

    There should be a 4th choice: “Repeal the existing unconstitutional and ineffective gun laws.”

  • Lee

    Odd how they like to tell us what the people want …. but the numbers never back up what they say.

  • Lee

    They will ignore this poll and the peoples will.

  • gyro

    As long as the gun prohibitionists and attackers of the constitution like The Brady Campaign and The Violence Policy Center are the first to go. I can still give money to the NRA directly, but if those to groups have their federal funding cut, it will do more to destroy them than it will hurt the NRA.

  • gyro

    REPEAL THE NFA!!! Love it. While they are at it they should scrap the Hughes Amendment.

  • gyro

    Don’t forget the Hughes Amendment. I don’t just want an SBR, I want an SBR capable of full auto and I want a suppressor on that rifle.

  • Fred Ingram

    Well – you wasted your time – programmers would check for identical IP addresses

  • http://www.facebook.com/DarthKorndog Kory Cordier

    It does NOT count multiple votes smart guy but good effort.

  • DILKe

    So when do you think PBS will skew these poll results in favor of gun bans???

  • http://www.facebook.com/DarthKorndog Kory Cordier

    You only get one vote guy. And your vote is only counted ONCE. If we wanted an inaccurate poll we’d look at the one Comrade Obama keeps ranting about.

  • MattNU

    You guys have a poll failure, there is no option for rolling back some of the stupid gun laws we have.

  • LiberalLarry

    This poll only let me vote once. Geese guys my fellow left wingers and liberals, quit whining and complaining and looking like babies.

  • Infringed Upon

    Definitely. Those things are only attributes to a firearm, they do not make the owner any more or less likely to use it to commit a crime, same as with any other modification to a firearm.

  • denton

    If OSHA administered firearms laws, suppressors would be mandatory.

  • theDrew

    In my best Obi Wan Kenobi voice: “These are not the results you are looking for…”

  • downlinx

    they most likely have never heard of the laws of 1968

  • denton

    It says “well regulated militia”, not a “well regulated populace” or “well regulated firearms”. “Well regulated” in this context means “properly functioning”, not “subject to strict laws”.

  • downlinx

    everyone suggestting repeal gun laws, lets not get hasty and those that say roll back, lets not get ahead of ourselves. PBS most likely has never heard of the laws that enacted right now.

  • Greg

    I agree with MattNU (below): You guys have a poll failure, there is no option for rolling back some of the stupid gun laws we have.

    Greg

  • steve stevenson

    how about the government enforces half of the laws they have on the books before they start talking about new laws, which by the way they will write huge laws, add in all sorts of pork, nobody will read them, and they will vote on them. congress and the senate are broken beyond repair.

  • clayusmcret

    You’re spot on. From Atlas Shrugged:

    “Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone?

    But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.” (‘Atlas Shrugged’ 1957)

  • Gun owne

    The government relies on fear to ask for more power. Same with Chiefs of Police and mayors. More fear means more money and more power. You increase fear by making the public afraid. Also, liberals (marxists) in our government have disarming the public as part of their agenda. Communism failed miserably almost everywhere it’s been tried. China isn’t really communist, but a totalitarian capitalist regime. Vietnam is nationalist, but small. North Korea and Cuba are destitute and on shaky ground. Yet these power mongers in politics in this country want a failed method. Classic insanity. By the way, we need to enforce some gun laws, repeal others.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bf-Caffrey/100000376924378 B.f. Caffrey

    Want fewer stolen guns? Offer citizens a tax break for buying a gun safe or lock box. That will encourage people to secure their guns when not at home.

    @Jake Wright is correct about most gun control advocates. They decry people using guns for defense, but they also claim it is “cruel and unusual punishment” to execute a vicious killer –or that he may actually be innocent — but merely a woman’s “choice” to kill her certainly innocent unborn child.

    They claim the gun industry is playing on women’s fears to sell guns, even creating a pink gun just to lure unsuspecting women into owning guns. It’s wrong, they say, to use fear to sell a product. Really? I thought the left believed in women’s lib. Why are they saying women don’t like guns or wouldn’t own guns unless the gun industry was luring them into it? Do they expect women CEOs, Helicopter pilots, police officers, doctors and judges to cower in fear until a man shows up to save her from the big bad criminals? Should they stay home and bake cookies to, instead of having a useful career?

  • mike

    The “militia” is comprised of “the people”. Try reading your state constitution before adding your input, making yourself look astronomically retarded.

  • Michael Parsons

    Of the thousands and thousands of Federal gun laws, the Obama Justice Department only prosecuted 44 last year. That’s right, only 44. It’s about control and making criminals out of all legal gun owners.

  • Sean W

    This one seems pretty close!

  • mud dauber

    I voted to leave the guns laws as they are but some of the laws need to be withdrawn. The government seems like they want to pick and choose what laws to enforce and what laws they want to ignore. Laws should be enforced not ignored. Executives should be accountable for failure to do their jobs.

  • stargeezer

    What good are laws if the right people don’t break them? ASII

  • stargeezer

    Any bets about how soon this poll “disappears”?

  • Anonymous

    Where are the 90% that Obama was spewing about?

  • dsfloyd

    so much for the 90% anti gunners always throw around

  • mike

    It mentions it right here:

    http://constitutions.vlex.com/vid/militia-303015

    This is Florida’s constitutional militia.

    (b) “The organizing, equipping, housing, maintaining, and disciplining
    of the militia, and the safekeeping of public arms may be provided for
    by law”.

    I don’t know about your state, but that is how mine reads.

  • http://www.facebook.com/james.veverka.75 James Veverka

    what a bogus unscientific internet poll. Useless! Some of the remarks remind me of Fox news just ignoring what the polling said about the election. Don’t like the real world? Invent a new one!

  • http://www.facebook.com/james.veverka.75 James Veverka

    What failed method are you talking about. We are presently third way as we were under Clinton. Now if you want to talk about failed ideas how about we talk about trickle down, supply side economics? And the fact that our gun murder rate is 20X the rest of the OECD average. You wanna talk failed ideas? Have at it, Hoss!.

  • hkguns

    Have at it? Since when do WE compare ourselves with the socialist Monarchies?

    We broke those chains long ago LEST YOU FORGET. Better study history Hoss.

    Look at the mess Europe is in, yeah, I really want to follow them into the ground of the high tax hand-out society. Trickle down? What trickle down, we have the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world. How exactly is that “trickle down”? NOBODY wants to do business in Europe and you want us following them?

    I’d rather DIE FREE than live like most of the peasants in Europe.

  • Jed’sDed

    Agreed. If other polls, including Fox’s own, matched up with this one, then it might have some merit. It’s a thorough circle jerk, and that’s about it. :D

  • Ms. Sippi

    Oh, snap!! I guess they will have to shut down this poll and completely disregard the results because one person doesn’t like the outcome…

  • Zed’sDed

    Hopefully, you do realize how that awesome fear tactic had been a favorite of the previous admin’s.

  • Anonymous

    You’re just crying because the truth is finally coming out. Turns out the liberal fantasy world isn’t real after all. Obama, using the Sandy Hook parents as props, has not been telling the truth. We’re shocked! Shocked, we tell you. (That’s sarcasm, by the way.) Now stamp your foot and flounce away in a huff.

    Look at Chicago as an example. Obamaesque gun laws. Murder capitol of the US. Blaming everybody else for their problems. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

  • Zed’sDed

    I believe the bias in the results is due to the poll being linked directly to some large pro-gun ownership forums, which helps explain the chain mail-like posting. IMO, some good points include most posts containing grammar superior to the lot I usually see posting on the topic, and I agree with enforcing the laws already in place. And although there is definitely a presence of the typical hypocritical anti-Obama poster who vents about the same things GW had in place during his admin but was no problem to them then, they seem to be much fewer in number than I expected to see.

  • Anonymous

    Violent crime has skyrocketed there. Including things like home invasions. And it is all because they know that they have nothing to fear. Sure, shootings are down, but all other types of violence are up. I don’t mean to sound cold and uncaring, but most gun deaths here in the U.S. are gang related; and most of those are members of violent gangs that are shooting each other and shooting members of other gangs. I feel that gun control here in the U.S. is sot so much about safety as it is about control, period. I have never harmed anyone with my guns and I will not harm anyone unless I am threatened with deadly violence and physical harm.

  • Anonymous

    At the sunset hearings the FBI’s representative testified that there was no statistically significant change in any murder statistics during the ten years of the ’94 gun ban. The ban was widely acknowledged to have been a failure. That is why it was allowed to expire.

    Your comment on murder rate is wildly incorrect. The OECD average is 2.1 per 100,000 while their statistic for the US is 5.7 per 100,000. (You know, people can look this stuff up. I did.)

    If you bother to look further you will find that the vast majority of gun crime in the US is committed by criminal gangs. Naturally the liberal solution to the problem of criminal gangs is disarm the law abiding. (Don’t try to deny “disarm”, Cuomo already let the cat out of the bag and no liberal leaders took the time to deny it.)

    You want to keep advocating failed ideas, have at it. I’ll be more than happy to keep pointing to the truth.

  • Anonymous

    That court has made many bad decisions. I am a human being with God given rights. That does not change because a group of politicians with a lifetime job and 24 hour security decides to ignore their oaths to the Constitution because they care more about the game of politics than their true jobs.

  • Zed’sDed

    Abortion on demand? *facepalm* :D

    I like the idea for incentives to safely secure guns, though. 8)

  • Lamont Baker

    That conversation about guns was had. In case anyone missed it, this is the summary: HANDS OFF!

  • http://www.facebook.com/mike.carpenter.94695 Mike Carpenter

    James, before you start a debate…please do some research FIRST to get actual facts. You can start at the following databases:

    FBI, BJS and the CDC.

    These are a few big name reputable sources for you to find information that is not tainted by political ideology or agenda. Once you actually research you will find the Liberal talking points on “gun control” fail!!!

  • impeach the traitors

    They will keep the results, just mix the questions around!!

  • Anonymous

    Quite right.

  • Tude

    Enforce the existing laws. Why pass more when they do not enforce the current laws?

  • MaxEffectUSA

    Similar to the “anti-NRA” rally where less than 100 persons showed up including press and bystanders, Huh?

  • http://www.facebook.com/sarah.b.natividad Sarah Brilliant Natividad

    I only voted for “leave the gun laws as they are” because my option, “do away with background checks altogether,” wasn’t on the list.

  • MaxEffectUSA

    Just reload the page.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lsnover Lee Snover

    How about just enforcing the ones we already have?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Harrold-Nutczak/100000946379020 Harrold Nutczak

    So the liberals who freely stated that figure of 90% got it backwards?
    Gee, imagine that!

  • Observer

    Well, the talking heads say that everyone that is not an NRA member wants gun control! You know, say BS enough and everyone will believe it.

  • Anonymous

    The Supreme Court decision you refer to is the equivalent of them saying that no can mean yes when it’s convenient for the entity being told no. Saying no can mean yes is bad behavior. The Justices hold office under good behavior. Time for several of them to go to their rooms. Permanently.

    You say unreasonably afraid. I say wisely concerned. Governor Cuomo stated that “mandatory buy-backs and outright confiscation are on the table.” Cat’s out of the bag. It’s way past too late to deny confiscation as the ultimate intention.

  • http://www.facebook.com/terry.williams.524596 Terry Williams

    So 90% of Americans are for more gun control? I don’t think so, check out this PBS Poll. http://t.co/pmX6MsLFO2

  • http://www.facebook.com/cyjbrown Cy Brown

    Why isn’t there an option in the poll to repeal existing federal gun laws?

  • Boris Greybeard

    The Fed and all states should be pushing for the Firearm Reform Bill(s) I wrote @ Http://Profirearm.com You can see them before they are put up for vote and are PRO 2 A

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1140885301 Scott Murphy

    Have you noticed a lot of homicidal maniac following gun laws? Not to rain on your parade but it seems that said loons already ignore any laws they find inconvenient, notice how often they commit murder in gun free zones.

  • ammonotguns

    I’m confused about firearm control why is everyone talking about firearm control is it really that confusing that its not gun control it’s AMMUNITION control. tell me the last time you went to walmart or a gun shop and they verified all your information about the ammo your buying ANYONE can get a gun the throttle needs to be puled on ammunition just a thought from a concerned citizen in an area with large gangs population.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1140885301 Scott Murphy

    And this is why we (meaning gun people) win. Not only is shooting a fun and safe sport but all the gun banners have to give Ms Sippi is a good scolding.

  • Clark

    Obama is anti 2nd amendment, just dig up past statements made by him. He is on record stating so. He wants us to mirror Europe in as many ways as possible and that is just one.

  • Anonymous

    hmmm, whatever happened to that 90%? lol

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1140885301 Scott Murphy

    While not a religious kind of guy I’m going to give you an amen for that Rocky.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1140885301 Scott Murphy

    Hmmm I wonder if that’s because we were all armed? Historically ours was the exception in several other ways as well.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1140885301 Scott Murphy

    SCOTUS agreed 9-0 that it was an individual right unconnected to militia membership in Heller v Washington D.C. way back in 2008 although when deciding to strike down D.C. ban on handguns and law requiring all firearms be inoperable while within the city limits it was only 5-4. In 2010′s McDonald v Chicago it incorporated the 2nd under the due process clause just like the first amendment. Next up is the arbitrary may issue laws of several east coast states and NY’s new SAFE act.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1140885301 Scott Murphy

    Hell I’d be fine with just repealing the Hughes amendment. I can live with the $200.00 tax stamp and the ATF probing if I can buy an M4 like I used to carry while serving. Funny how I was trustworthy at 19 but not now that I’m not in the military. I would like to see suppressors taken off of the registry though as it’s dumb I can’t put a muffler on my rifle but if I need one for my car.

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.sexton.161 John Sexton

    Gee does this look like 90% want expanded gun laws to you? Not me.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1140885301 Scott Murphy

    2008′s Heller v D.C. had all nine supreme court justices finding the 2nd was unrelated to the militia and an individual right.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1140885301 Scott Murphy

    Lets get rid of the tax stamp for suppressors too while we’re dreaming because it is stupid that I need a muffler on my car but will go to jail for ten years if I put one on my rifle. My neighbors would appreciate a little peace and quiet.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1140885301 Scott Murphy

    And 1934.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1140885301 Scott Murphy

    Or hell he could just move north to Canada.

  • Vincent Goetz

    I am thinking Zero needs to recalculate

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alan-R-Thomas/728639873 Alan R. Thomas

    Go after the felons and gangbangers and leave the law abiding citizens alone!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/bill.oehlke Bill Oehlke

    You will never see the results of this poll in main stream media

  • Eric Gunsarenttheproblem

    This poll represents is the way America feels not, the way the liberal controlled media wants America to feel. I’m sure the results will be skewed to fit by PBS.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jason.whitney.90475 Jason Whitney

    It is known that armed citizens prevent the gangs and crime… wake up!

  • Tim

    Where’s the option to repeal the NFA?

  • milehisnk

    Don’t forget repeal the Hughes Amendment.

  • Gary

    The law abiding citizen IS NOT THE PROBLEM!!!

  • Glynn Finley

    and 90% are in support of Obama’s gun control…really???

  • Anonymous

    Guess PBS won’t like the results! God Bless America!

  • pro 2A

    anyone sending this to mainstream media?

  • milehisnk

    Screenshot it. Keep hard copies of it.

  • manuel

    There should be a 4th option: repeal all the Federal Laws associated with firearms, especially the 1934 NFA—they are unconstitutional.

  • Anonymous

    Why is deregulation not an option? Bans/NFA regulation on suppressors is not keeping us safer and they have a very agreeable purpose in the shooting realm.

  • Brad

    Like others would like to see the 4th option!

  • Bob

    Like it has been said over and over, enforce the laws already in place. Then we can work on complete deregulation

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000234237439 Jesse Tronier

    Where is this 90% I keep hearing about, I only see that 5% agree XD

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ben-Enjerry/100002912618382 Ben Enjerry

    Per the FBI, 16 mass shootings occurred in America in 2012, killing 88 people. Yes, all were tragic. But that’s a very small percentage when you compare it to the general population of 312 million. Based on those numbers, you had a 1 in 17 million chance of being involved in mass shooting last year. The odds of being struck by lightning in a given year is 1 in 1,000,000 per the National Weather Service. The national murder rate per 100,000 has been going down for years. Despite a population growth of 100 million more people in the nation since 1970:
    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/images/murderrate.png

  • Bob

    Obviously you haven’t been to walmart or a gun shop in a while. Our government has already begun to buy up all the ammo law abiding citizens require for their guns. Gang members are chicken sh@t and won’t invade a neighborhood that’s well armed.

  • Doughboy Racing

    Just got this in an email from Congressman Kerry Bentivolio I really like him

    The 11th District Dispatch
    April 2013

    Dear Neighbors,

    I wanted to give you a quick update and fill you in on what we are
    doing in Washington and around the district to best serve you.

    My top goals as your Congressman are:
    1) To provide you with top-quality service
    2) To always be transparent and accessible
    3) To bring common-sense solutions to Washington

    If you have any questions, comments, or ideas on how we can better
    accomplish these goals, please contact us at the District Office
    248-859-2982 or via my web contact form here.

    Sincerely,

    Your Representative in Congress
    Ever Vigilant for the Second Amendment

    The failure of gun rights restrictions to pass the Senate on April 17
    was an encouraging sign for supporters of the Bill of Rights, but the
    President was clear when he said, “this is just Round One.”

    More recently, some Senators have said they expect the bill will be brought back before the end of the year.

    Should any bill pass the Senate, it is possible that a similar version
    would pass the House—after which it would head to the Obama-dominated
    Conference Committee, where anything might happen.

    The
    Schumer-Toomey-Manchin gun control amendment was defeated on April 17,
    but the bill itself is not dead and anything might ultimately pass the
    Senate. Whatever form ultimately emerges, I will stand firmly by the
    Second Amendment, and by the right of law-abiding citizens to their
    privacy. I will oppose any bill that infringes on the Second Amendment
    and jeopardizes the peace of law-abiding gun owners.

  • milehisnk

    I’m not okay with the FBI being able to come into your home whenever they feel like it to inspect your NFA firearm. Scrap NFA and Hughes together.

  • milehisnk

    That would be the best anti-hippie gun ever. That alone would give Gabbie Giffords and the Brady Bunch life-ending coronaries. Simultaneously. You’d be able to feel the extra oxygen content in the air at that exact moment from the collective loss of all 12 points of IQ shared amongst them.

  • Joe Clarke
  • Kid Richie

    Do they not understand what the phrase:”shall not be infringed upon” means?

  • jim

    Because this is a Leftist run website. That is Blasphemy to even think that any type of deregulation would be a good thing.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=738036411 Josh Crager

    Wait!! This cant be right!! Remember? Obama said 90% of americans support gun control. Hmmm, maybe he was mistaken…

  • http://www.facebook.com/frank.magistro Frank Magistro

    That 90% number came from a 20 year old survey of 250 hand picked people. Typical of this administration.

  • http://www.facebook.com/annette.hitchcock Annette Hitchcock

    I believe the federal government should not infringe on our gun rights anymore than they already have, and that as long as you have been issued a gun card. That you should be able to conceal carry anywhere you go, including across state lines, unless they can guarantee the safety of you and your party!!!

  • Richard Nixon

    I think he must have meant to say 90 percent of Americans do not support gun control… either that, or hes a lying sack of donkey dung.

  • Anonymous

    Went there. Read it. Read the linked proposal.

    No. What you suggest is unquestionably infringement.

    Allow me to point out that the First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law…” The States and Municipalities could make laws if they chose, and they did. The First was written as a limited right.

    The Second Amendment says “..shall not be infringed.” No political entity specified. The States all signed up to be part of the Nation so they are all bound. There is no State’s right to infringe upon the people’s right to keep and bear arms. There is no Federal authority to infringe. The Second is an absolute right.

    I certainly hope I don’t need to mention that the militia clause simply explained why they acknowledged the people’s natural right and did not tie the right to militias.

    I am well aware that the Supreme Court does not agree. Simply put, they are wrong. Bear in mind that the Supremes can not tell anyone what is in the Constitution. That exists for all to read. The Supremes can only tell government what it is allowed to get away with. The Supreme Court currently allows government to get away with infringing the Second Amendment. Shame on them.

    Again, no, thank you.

  • Aking

    Actually the odds of being struck by lightning are 1 in 10,000

  • Fred Ingram

    Seems like Obama’s 90%+ statistic was the wrong way LOL

  • Fred Ingram

    They did not pout that there becasue they were trying to pre-ordane the outcome – they were fooled

  • Fred Ingram

    Bet you wont see the results of this poll on any main stream media outlet

  • Anonymous

    I think being an armed people made a lot of difference.

    Quite a few people argue that the Second Amendment acknowledges our right to overthrow tyranny. I don’t see it that way. I think the Second was primarily written to help protect the nation in a time when there was no standing army. I believe that it was understood that a people who could protect the nation could protect themselves from tyranny with no permission needed. Jefferson and Madison made that concept quite clear in Federalist 29 and Federalist 26.

    While I must accept the current infringements in application, I do not accept their Constitutional validity. The people should have access to all weapons the military can commonly use so that we can live up to the ideals express in the mentioned Federalist Papers. While there may be doubt that was the intent of the Second Amendment, there can be no doubt it was the intent of the men themselves.

    The Supreme Court, quite possibly the most important branch of our government, has failed to uphold their oaths. They have failed to uphold the Constitution. They have failed us all.

  • http://www.facebook.com/charles.j.bates Charles J. Bates

    ‘Assault weapon’ is an inflammatory term…

  • Bubba Smith

    Looks like the country is truly polarized, with 95% of the people on the normal extreme and 5% on the insane liberal extreme.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brandon-Shipp/675047024 Brandon Shipp

    Another statistic they don’t tell you is that every mass shooting since 1950, except 1, happened in a gun free zone.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lovelee8985 Ashleigh Lee

    90% Mr. President? That was laughable before, and now seeing it on a poll from liberal PBS, your percentage numbers are bordering on hysterical.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001226073806 Gary Mitidiero

    Why such a biased poll? There should have been a fourth choice. “Enforce the second amendment as it is written and guarantee the people the same access to weapons as any civilian police force.” If DHS, or any civilian police force has it, I should have unrestricted access to it.

  • big john

    No repeal federal weapon laws

  • http://twitter.com/sitycent Blake

    Looks like dyslexia, or pathological lying (more likely), is epidemic in Washington D C. It was 90%, just the other way.

  • Last in line

    Stop trying to get our guns…. We are never going to give in to this scam to disarm America. Go find another country to pull this on. Your life is in danger if you think you can get our guns. While we are pulling the trigger…

  • Barca

    How about politician control? President control? Spending control? DHS control? Guns are about the only thing you can count on to protect us these days at all.

  • walter12

    The American Communist, Marxist, arch Leftist, Obamanite is only concerned with one thing, making this nation into the image of what they wanted the Soviet Union to be, but failed. In that PBS is an arch leftist organization and always has been, there could never be an honest poll using this outfit. There are many of us out here in the hinterland that will never give in to the leftist agenda or this Obama character.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004383643647 Xcetera Xcetara

    Why is the 2nd amendment the only one that people are willing to “control”?

    I’ll tell you why, and armed society is a polite society, liberals won’t have any victims to exploit for their agenda and the government won’t freely wrench our liberties away from us. The 2nd Amendment was put in place to protect the populace from a tyrannical government. The governemnt currenlty in place is about as tyrannical as you can get (Benghazi, Solyndra, Fast & Furious, dodging subpoena’s etc.). It’s time something be done about these politicians. They’ve forgotten that they represent WE THE PEOPLE and not themselves.

  • Chas

    How about roll back federal gun laws as an option

  • http://www.facebook.com/steve.davis.908 Steve Davis

    Communits have infiltrated our government.

  • nugget chaser

    Take away federal employee’s guns first and leave our 2nd amendment alone

  • William Waldo

    Well said. Sir

  • Armed_AL

    They are fixin” to learn

  • http://www.facebook.com/jesse.turlington.7 Jesse Turlington

    Why not have the states make the changes to gun laws if they want them. No need to blanket the whole country with the same legislation.

  • Sniper 173

    There are over 20,000 anti-gun laws on the books across our land. None of them, not a single one of them, can be documented as having saved a human life. For some reason we, as a society, continue along the same useless path to try to introduce more useless anti-gun laws. How about laws that control the bad people and the mentally ill people from getting guns? If we control them, really control the bad people and get good help for the mentally ill people, then we can probably get rid of 20,000 useless laws.

  • Sniper 173

    I don’t own any assault weapons. I do own some sport utility rifles. Is that what they mean?

  • Sniper 173

    Well said. Very well said.

  • Sniper 173

    Well said. Very well said.

  • Roger

    Anything that takes guns out of the hands of the undeserving, aka beowulf

  • Finneas

    THe states have no more right to infringe upon our freedoms than the Feds do. Don’t bury your head in the sand

  • http://www.facebook.com/teresa.daulton.5 Teresa Daulton

    Im sick and tired of our Government making laws in the name of “protecting the people.” You can’t stop someone who is hell bent on destruction. Making more laws for the criminals to NOT obey will only do two things…diddly and squat! Only law abiding people follow the law. If you want to hurt the law abiding people…keep making restrictions. You won’t accomplish anything except to make those people hate their Government. Why can’t we make the criminals pay for their actions? Before you cut programs to help the needy, try cutting back on the perks for inmates. Most people in prison have it better in jail than out. Three meals a day, healthcare, shelter, clothing, gym memberships, cable tv and they don’t have to work or pay taxes! That is better than what we provide for our elderly!! I say give the phuckers oatmeal for breakfast, a bologna sandwich for lunch and ramen noodles for dinner. They don’t need exercise equipment. Sit ups and push ups are free. Phuck tv…..its to violent for criminals to watch anyway. The only things they should be allowed to do are things that will better them as an individual ie: schooling and working. They should be MADE to work six days a week, to help pay for their crimes. If we want to make it tough on someone…lets make it tough on the criminals and leave the law abiding citizens the hell alone! Good day!!

  • me

    fourth box gun laws are already too restrictive and should be removed

  • Rolo

    RIP Caroline Sparks

  • Bob M

    Why don’t congress drop this crap about gun control and get us a budget. We haven’t had one in over 4 years and Obama is spending like a crazy man.

  • DewDah

    I guess the 90% of Americans that want to expand background checks, have not shown up yet?

  • http://www.facebook.com/melodic.invention Mike Rudolph

    Honestly, what’s wrong with just having one law that says you can’t cause harm to your fellow human beings unless done so in self-defense?

  • Chad Rapper

    Teresa, how does expanding background checks “hurt” law abiding people?? 60% of poeple that buy guns now have to get a background check. If I go to a gun show today and buy a gun through a private seller there I’ll have no background check done on me. Lots of criminals buy weapons that way because it’s less risky for them to get busted because the guns were then bought legally. Does it really seen unreasonable to you that it should be required if you buy a gun you get a background check?? What’s the downside to this? The person has to wait a few extra days? Big deal. NOBODY is say this will 100% automatically stop killings from happening and that’s such a cliche answer to assume people think that. If there’s a chance it can stop one person from being killed is it really not worth it?

  • Chad Rapper

    Dumbest response ever. You said “20,000 anti-gun laws on the books across our land. None of them, not a
    single one of them, can be documented as having saved a human life” Well can you show they haven’t saved any lives? And really, how do you know not a single one of them can be shown they saved a life? You’ve actually done extensive research on the 20,000 laws and hundreds of thousands of shootings or possible shootings to give this “scientific” answer? Of course not, you’re speaking from emotion and not facts, just what this topic needs.

  • http://twitter.com/Flashcracker Stanley Hill

    The wording on this is honest wording. The others that say do you support background checks, leaves many to think there are no background checks now or do you want them taken away. Wording is the way you can get the results you want it to show. But then if you search the university that do the polls for who donates to them, Bloomberg shows up with his millions. Should I think a donations that big isn’t going to have any effect? When this country is run with polls results instead of the people (constituents) we have lost it! This socialistic run government will be the end to the American Dream. If you don’t care if your children and grand children can ever reach the American Dream, Just keep voting Democrat, the party is 90% socialistic and all of you that work will support all that want to retire! We got to take this country back to it’s Republic form!

  • Vin

    “If I go to a gun show today and buy a gun through a private seller there I’ll have no background check done on me.”

    WRONG!

    1) Private sellers can’t sell guns at a gun show. To do so you have to be a registered FFL.

    2)And, being an FFL, they are required by law to do a background check at the point of sale. And nearly every gun show has a few ATF agents wandering around undercover trying to sting FFLs who try to get around this, so you’d be hard pressed to find a dealer who would ever consider a deal like that.
    The “40% without background checks” that gun control advocates have been throwing around isn’t a current number, its from the mid 90s, and it was found to be inaccurate back then
    Also, “waiting periods” are not the same as background checks. A background check takes 5 minutes to perform, maybe 15 if there is a massive amount of checks running through at the same time. “Waiting periods” are put in place in some municipalities with the idea that they might prevent someone from buying a gun in “the heat of passion” and committing a crime before one’s head cools.

  • bhouser

    Yiur right, you can go to a gun show and buy a gun privately. Here is the catch, if your a criminal, than your breaking a law that already exists. Criminals are not suppose to purchase a firearm, and if the guy selling has any reason to believe the guy he is selling the gun to is a criminal, well guess what, again he is breaking a law that already exists. So whats a new law going to do to stop this? Criminals will always get guns until there is not a single gun left in this world, which will never happen.

  • Vin

    It’s called logic. No law actually stops someone from committing a crime. All any law can do is outline a potential punishment for committing a certain crime. Ergo, the 20,000 gun laws have saved no lives, they, in the instances in which they are actually enforced(quite rarely, for many of them) merely outline possible repercussions to breaking them.

  • bhouser

    You are wrong, appreciate you support the 2nd amendment, but dont spread wrong info. It makes us look bad. You do not need to be an ffl at a gunshow. Any tom dick or harry can rent a table and sell and buy without a background check. As long as his business is not with an ffl dealer.

  • Mike Thomas

    I wander if this poll will hit CNN / FNC / WHITE HOUSE??

  • http://www.facebook.com/rturtzer Robert James Turtzer

    Where is the option to decrease the laws and repeal things like the 1986 Gun Owner Protection Act and National Firearm Act?

    Whether you agree or disagree, the poll seems incomplete without such an option.

  • Anonymous

    Awesome…and correct…response.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mtmaltby Matthew Maltby

    It will, but they will ignore it. I still haven’t seen much coverage on the Gallup poll that concluded only 4% of Americans think Gun Control is an important topic and NOTHING on the PoliceOne poll where Law Enforcement Officers from all over the nation overwhelmingly showed opposition to Assault weapons bans and magazine limits.

  • Anonymous

    According to the National Survey on Private Ownership and use of Firearms apparently used by people who haven’t read it (I created a PDF 11 Aug 2006 and I proofed it line-for-line), gun acquistion sources (how did you acquire?) include:
    60% purchase from gunshops, pawnshops, sporting goods departments and other federal firearms licensed sources or FFLs,
    13% purchase from private owners selling used guns,
    3% swap or trade from private owners,
    19% family or friends as gifts, and
    5% inhertances.

    The 40% non-dealer acquisitions are not “40% gun show sales without a background check” as constantly repeated in the news or congressional hearings. The NSPOF “from where question” gave 4% (four percent) acquired at gunshows and flea markets combined, and every gun show I have attended since the 1980s the licensed dealers out number private sellers and they do 4473s transaction records and have done NICS BG checks since Nov-Dec 1998.

    The NSPOF surveyed a sample of “non-institutionalized” citizens.
    The Bureau of Justice Statistics surveyed state inmates and asked criminals where they got their guns. BJS got a response of 0.7% from gunshows, less than 1%. As the earlier NIJ “Armed and Considered Dangerous” survey showed, the BJS survey rediscovered that over 80% of armed felons tended to acquire weapons from hard to regulate sources in hard to regulate ways. Both surveys cited for example drug dealers as a major source of crime guns.

    UBC was promoted with a 40% statistic parrotted without close examination.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mtmaltby Matthew Maltby

    HAHAHA!!! Funny, right after the Senate voted it down polls from BEFORE the Senate vote only showed 49% were in favor with 45% opposing! Chalk the 90% poll up to ambiguous and leading questions and a focused polling demographic. I mean, c’mon..When have 90% of Americans EVER agreed on ANYTHING?!! But I could get 90% of Americans to oppose dairy products if i only asked leading questions to the lactose intolerant!

  • http://www.facebook.com/mtmaltby Matthew Maltby

    Caroline’s loss was a tragedy. It never should have happened and we are all saddened to hear of it. But you’re posting this here to elicit an emotional response is not any different than lawmakers basing politics and legislation on emotion rather than facts. UBCs have ben acknowledged by even those on the side of gun control as a measure that would not have prevented ANY of these mass shootings. In fact, if you pay attention to legislative history, you’ll see that closing the “gun show loophole with “universal background checks” has been a Democratic political agenda going back to the original 1994 AWB and beyond. But according to those who are pushing them, they would not have prevented Newton, Aurora or Tucson. So Why push them? Even if they were in place already these tragedies would still have happened. They are using the emotional response from Newtown to push existing agenda.
    As for Caroline, I am deeply saddened to hear this news. But I think the blame lies in the hands of the parents and not the gun community. The .22 rifle he owned has more safety features than any other rifle and this can be explained as improper storage on the parents part. I, personally, disassemble all weapons that are not within my immediate control or need and lock them in a safe, with a trigger or cable lock. I also segregate ammunition, weapon and action(integral firing mechanism) into separate locked containers. Even the ones I rely on to protect me from home invasion are in a locked container and/or under my control at all times. I also teach my children that they are NOT toys and they should never touch them without an adult telling them to. I follow gun safety measures and teachings and my kids do too.
    Using Caroline’s death to argue for greater controls is akin to POTUS flanking himself with children.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mtmaltby Matthew Maltby

    That is true..Unless your local laws require it. I don’t know where Vin lives, but to make a blanket statement to his blanket statement, without knowing his laws, is just as wrong. In AZ private sellers can sell at Gun Shows, but booth spaces are expensive so most are FFLs

  • Anonymous

    The gun shows I attend grew out of local private collector shows. During the 1980s, ATF started allowing licensed gun dealers to setup at the gunshows.

    The gun shows I have attended in the past 20 years have been mostly licensed dealers following all ATF regulations they would follow at their brick-and-mortar store. Private sellers and traders are now in the minority, even at the Appalachian Trade Fair gunshow.

    However, there are legal jurisdictions and managers of gunshows that have a policy of allowing only licensed dealers.

    Surveys of noninstitutionalised adult gun owners show that the gun show/flea market are 4% of the gun sources.

    Surveys of state inmates show gun shows are 0.7% and flea markets are 1% of their gun sources. Some crime sources included 9.9% Theft or burglary, 20.8% Drug dealer/street, 8.4% Fence/black market. I don’t think they would do BG checks,

  • http://www.facebook.com/mtmaltby Matthew Maltby

    Chad, check your facts. i know this is an “Obama approved” statistic(like the 90%..funny that the USA Today poll showed such a drastic discrepancy so close to the senate bill vote) but please research your statistics before commenting. This is from a 1994 poll where the only questions asked were if he or she bought from a licensed firearms dealer, the possible answers included “probably was/think so” and “probably not,” leaving open the possibility the purchaser was mistaken. Additionally, this poll was taken BEFORE THE BRADY ACT WAS IMPLEMENTED!!!! The current background system, NICS, was a result of that act. Your information is outdated, out of context(since NICS is now the standard) and you’re out of luck with it!

  • Christopher

    The Firearm Owners Protection Act had some good to it. The safe passage provision, and a Registry prohibition.
    As an avid supporter of the Bill of Rights I do agree with the current form of background checks set forth in the FOPA.

    I do agree with you the Hughes Amendment, from William J Hughes D NJ. Is a crap amendment, and the reason I will not join the NRA EVER. They have no interest in repeal of that amendment.

    As far as the NFA 1934, it works, sorry.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mtmaltby Matthew Maltby

    Funny, with all the diatribe being spouted in the comments that the actual percentage of “leave laws as they are” has actually RISEN(I’ve been watching the poll)! Seems like the “small 2A vocal percentage” that gun control advocates claim is not showing up as that way in this, or other, poll(s)!

  • Chad Rapper

    Sorry you are NOT correct Vin. “The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires anyone engaged in the business of
    selling guns to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and keep a record of their sales. However, this law does not cover all gun sellers. If a supplier is selling from his or her private collection and the principal objective is not to make a profit, the seller is not “engaged in the business” and is not required to have a license. Because they are unlicensed, these sellers are not required to keep records of sales and are not required to perform background checks on potential buyers, even those prohibited from purchasing guns by the Gun Control Act. The gun show loophole refers to the fact that prohibited purchasers can avoid required background checks by seeking out these unlicensed sellers at gun shows.” This is the loophole we keep hearing about that people want closed.

    @Bhauser…you’re correct that criminals are not supposed to buy guys but with the way the laws are set up now, nothing stops them from buying them from a private seller at a show like I mentioned earlier. There’s no way for a seller to be able to decipher who was a criminal and who isn’t. So if background checks were expanded to cover this loophole, the criminal wouldn’t be able to get a gun this way. Again, not this will stop all crimes but anything that can make it harder for them to get a gun is fine by me.

  • Anonymous

    You won’t see these results on the news, it doesn’t promote the Communist agenda of the White House.

  • Chad Rapper

    I love these huge sweeping assumptions. I personally know people that because of how strict drinking and driving laws are in IL, they take cabs home from clubs or bars where years ago before they were are strict as they are now, they would have chanced it and driven. I’m sorry but that’s a clear example of how a law stopped someone from committing a crime.

  • Anonymous

    National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, did do an extensive review of gun laws and impact on violent crime, “Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review” (2004)
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881

  • Anonymous

    Private sellers of used guns have, for decades, sold guns
    (a) out of the car trunk on the back row of the flea market
    (b) by ads in the newspaper classifieds
    (c) by word-of-mouth among friends, coworkers, or the guys at the bar.
    Taking private sellers out of the gun show is not necessarily a good idea. Many walk-ins at gunshows sell or trade their guns to licensed dealers. Barring them from gunshows actually puts transactions back “on the streets”. I don’t think that is safer. Every gun show I have attended has a policeman at the door safety checking the guns and cable tying them. And the meme of ATF undercovers walking the aisles looking for violations is not an urban legend out of John Ross’ “Unintended Consequences”.

  • Anonymous

    The wording is honest enough, but it’s missing the option to reduce the infringement of the second amendment.

  • Elia Atkinson

    How about an option to return them to their pre-1934 status?

  • Chad Rapper

    What are you even talking about Matthew? What stat that I posted above is outdated? 60% of gun owners get background checks now, that’s not outdated. I understand that doesn’t automatically mean that 40% of other guns are bought from private sellers but again, that’s not the point. There still are guns bought from private sellers at shows regardless if it’s a big number or not. My point is what’s the big deal if we expand background checks to include those buying situations too?? We NEVER heard people complaining about background checks before all this started up again so expanding them shouldn’t be a big deal. You really didn’t address ANYTHING I said.

  • Anonymous

    So you’re saying that nobody drinks and drives anymore? People drink and drive less because the laws are more strictly enforced and even advertised now.

    Incidentally, how are the gun control laws working out over there, specifically in Chicago?

  • Anonymous

    What do you bet the president throws another tantrum and says it’s unfair and racist to use a poll, that is less than 20 years old and has clearly worded questions, to prove something?

  • Anonymous

    Really the only good it did was reaffirm what the second amendment already says. it did much more harm than good.

  • http://www.facebook.com/william.randall.750 William Randall
  • Anonymous

    Washington Post, March 2013, survey question: “Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows?”

    How does that translate to support of the specific Universal Background Check bill, with details on extended background checks and how they would be done?
    Anyone buying a gun currently from a licensed dealer’s business inventory must be background checked, even when the licensed dealer is operating from a table at a gun show.
    Currently you can get private gun sale background check in my home state, but the cost quoted to me was $30. Licensed dealers charge $10 (actually the state charges the fee). A local dealer will handle transactions (taking the seller’s gun and entering it into his inventory then transfering it to the buyer) and charges $65.
    However, other jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia, charge $125 for a private gun transaction background check.
    As I understand it, the $7 fee in the UBC bill is not a cap, it is a minimum.

  • Danny Nuenann

    I just love watching Barry piss and moan and stamp his feet, and seeing Joey Bidet with that sillyass stern look on his sillyass face and shake his mostly empty noggin just makes my day. Proof positive that two wrongs don’t make a right.

  • Joseph

    I know that “…59% were dissatisfied…” BUT what in particular was the dissatisfaction, re the results, was it 1) too close for comfort 2) This is a non-issue 3) more important things should be being addressed 4) Senators violating their oath to the Constitution. 5) the laws didn’t pass. 6) more wasted tax payer money…etc.
    Another “opinion poll” that is vague, indeterminate and biased.
    The above is MORE clear cut but, I agree with others, there should have been one more category “repeal all laws that are in violation of the 2nd Amendment and ‘shall not be infringed upon’”

  • http://www.facebook.com/jeremy.edge.of.chaos Jeremy von Kesselburg

    The survey, which polled 965 adults nationwide between April 24-28.

    965 adults? Where was that list from… Chicago?

  • Russ Peterson

    Right now the great state of California, where all the violence comes from in movies, where the actors that make these movies are claiming anti guns like Mr Stallone, and Mr Bronson and the whole bunch of em, signed into law by Demo Gov Brown, confiscation of weapons. There seems to be no interpretation of what that really covers. The door is wide open, if they deem you incapable, they take em.

  • Anonymous

    No, one life is really not worth it. Even if it is mine.

    Adding to the many comments in response to your argument, the recent (and doubtless returning) UBC bill would have exempted face to face purchases. That means that while more tightly controlling gun shows and other “advertized” sales, they would have left street corner buys untouched. Since fully a third of the guns used in crimes are acquired on the street, the current “feel good” bill would have done nothing about the problem while increasing the infringement on law abiding citizens.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jan-Marra/1139453450 Jan Marra

    Freeped.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jan-Marra/1139453450 Jan Marra

    You LOST. You’re going to lose in 2014, too. And in 2016, like as not. Probably 2020, too.

    Get ready to love watching another Democratic President. Get ready to love watching Hillary Clinton. Get ready to maybe love President Joe Biden.

    Get ready to SUCK IT, in other words. You’re on your way out, an obsolete model.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000177010583 Tom Laws Jr.

    NO , chad, no waiting periods no background checks NO more bullshit. The gov. has already overstepped their boundries by way too far. We shouldn’t need a “license” to carry concealed, we shouldn’t have to register firearms. Background checks are stupid, time consuming and a violation of our God given, government controlled rights.When more people carry, less crime is inevitable. Background checks will NOT save lives, that’s a libtarded way of thinking.

  • Anonymous

    Change that to “military” and I’ll gladly hop on the bandwagon. The Second Amendment was not about the police. It was about the military.

    Neither the Constitution, nor any of the Amendments, authorizes the Federal government to even have an opinion on hunting or defensive weapons. The Tenth Amendment say if they don’t have authorization it isn’t their job.

    The First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law…” leaving ample room for the States and even Municipalities to make laws abridging the rights referenced. The First is clearly not absolute.

    The Second Amendment specifically states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No political entity was specified. That would appear to make the Second absolute. The States joined the Nation under the Constitution, so “shall not” must apply to them too, or Congress would have been singled out as in the First.

    All of that means the States may have an opinion on hunting, but not military weapons. Since military handguns like the 1911 and current military sidearms can be, and quite often are, used for personal defense, that would at least suggest the States are left out of the issue of personal defense as well.

    What’s left, according to the Tenth, are the people. We the people get to keep and bear arms. Even limiting the people to police weapons is infringement.

    The sad fact that the Supreme Court doesn’t agree simply illustrates their failure. The words are there for anyone to read. A bunch of bad decisions can’t change that.

    Other than that, I agree.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1140885301 Scott Murphy

    Because the 2nd is no different than the 1st, both are now incorporated against the states and reading the dicta in both Heller and McDonald all indications are that as more cases reach the Supreme Court we will see strict scrutiny used to define the limits of government encroachment.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pocono-Shooting-Range/100001567268553 Pocono Shooting Range

    Clearly… Obama’s propaganda that 90% support more gun control is false.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pocono-Shooting-Range/100001567268553 Pocono Shooting Range

    They load those statistics up so much to produce the results they want.

    They cherry pick the crowd to be polled… and then they ask very loaded questions…like…. “do you support gun laws that would keep children from getting murdered”. Such B.S.

  • Stargeezer

    When I die and pass my 358 piece gun collection on to my son, do you really think he and the public will be well served by his being forced to pay for a background check on every gun???? This collection was started by my grandfather, added to by my father and I try to add another every few months. Almost 100 years of guns purchased legally, used legally and owned legally, but now my son should be forced to go hat in hand and beg for permission to keep them???? No Chad.
    It’s not about gun control, it’s about people control.
    A armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is serf.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1244375102 Michael Harris

    then the people of California need to rise up,and get rid of these dirt bag politicians , form legal militias , if need be.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000234237439 Jesse Tronier

    I think he was being accurate, just said GUN instead of GOV.

  • MV

    I just voted THREE TIMES. The poll did not stop me. I watched the numbers go up. I could sit here and vote a certain outcome all night. Or I could send it across the net to Facebook groups and Twitter feeds to get many votes for certain outcomes.

    Does anyone see a problem with this?? *rolls eyes*

  • http://www.facebook.com/abdulah.rome Abdulah Rome

    You can vote but it won’t count it.. I voted days ago and just tried now, it lets me vote but the results aren’t changed (and I checked the numbers before I voted).

  • Joseph

    Send it so you can get your outcome :)

  • Anonymous

    The number changes on the pop-up when you vote. Are your votes the change reflected in the poll numbers? Hard for you to tell if others are voting at the same time. How do you know they are not logging your address and comparing addresses to block repeat votes? I don’t know they are, but I also don’t know they are not. I do know that if I were writing the server side polling code, I most certainly would.

    We know that the polls the antis like to wave around use spun questions and are generally asked of a limited number of people in pro-Democrat, anti-gun States. In other words we already know that the anti-gun polls are rigged.

    Do you see a problem with that?

    Quite a few people have made the same accusation you do. They’ve been told to pass the word to their anti-gun friends and on anti-gun talk sites. If the antis are so numerous why haven’t the poll results changed to reflect the President’s claimed 90%? The change should happen pretty quickly if we gun nuts only represent a maximum of 10% of the public.

    I see the problem with that. Do you?

  • Jess James

    Biden looked like the dummy, Walter in that press conference. I can just here Walter looking at Biden and saying “dumbass.” Walter- Jeff Dunham.

  • Ms. Sippi

    You cannot vote multiple times. It will only register one vote per IP from your ISP. We’ve already tested it to ensure the integrity of these votes. Also, I saw some anti-gun people bragging on another board that they had each submitted 500 votes in favor of a ban, but were disappointed afterwards to find out that only one of their votes were submitted after refreshing the page.

    Now, I know that it must be difficult for you to accept these poll numbers, especially after being lied to by someone who quoted an extremely biased poll with opposite results, taken from such a tiny sample of the population. And just to let you know, I was an anti-gun advocate for many years myself up until last month, so please don’t think I’m being biased. I got tired of being lied to by fellow anti-gun advocates and decided to actually research this issue on my own. Within the last month, I had the opportunity to fire a gun for the first time in my life, an ar15. I have since enrolled in a safety course and have purchased one for myself. I am excited because it will arrive next month.

  • MT

    The number went up becauseother people voted genus

  • Joe Clarke

    You’re an idiot.! do you know anything about cookies and IP addresses? didn’t think so. Go back to grazing…

  • The mrs.

    I bet obama wishes romney would have had his way with big bird now….

  • ezchewy

    these results only prove that too many dipshits pay attention to pbs.

  • The Floorguy

    So,…… there is a gun registry database!

    No they will never use it to come take your guns……

    Suckers!

  • http://www.facebook.com/josephd.femoyer Joseph D Femoyer

    anti gun zealots do not realize that 40% of liberal democrats now our firearms to protect themselves,thats the latest gallup poll. democrats want to protect themselves and their families. the reason the “expanded background checks did not pass the senate is because we ALREADY have background checks that work, NCICS.VP BIDEN stated the reason we only prosecuted 44 cases out of 80,000 was because” we cannot prosecute them all”. then why pass new laws when you are unwilling to prosecute the old ones???. sen schumer forgot to tell the public that “expanded checks would cost taxpayers 400 million$$ and in reality it is a national gun registry. the MAJORITY of US citizens did not want this bill passed, end of story

  • dnoice

    The question I have for you is “What changed?” Why were you anti-gun and how did that change come about? What prompted you to fire a gun for the first time? More importantly, how do I encourage other anti’s to change their views?

  • dnoice

    OMG! You are so right!
    Biden is moonlighting as Jeff Dunhams dummy!

  • shtweed

    Hell PBS is a liberal run money pit.

  • HeyYouLie

    Horse crap, yak yak yak blah blah blah…We have all tried this already and NO YOU CAN NOY VOTE MORE THAN ONCE FROM THE SAME IP NUMBER. You are a liar!! Likely you are a democrat since most are liars.

  • HeyYouLie

    If you could vote mor than once, I’m sure these jokers from CeaseFirePA would have voted 1000000000000 times each, so I know that bullshit.

  • glassbubble

    shared that

  • glassbubble

    trying to make it look false?

  • glassbubble

    good for you man.

  • glassbubble

    i think he read the note as gun, but i was spelled ” GUBS” (woody allen lol).

  • glassbubble

    ya know? they must have realized there would be a run on firearms and ammo, or maybe this is the whole agenda? to get more guns on the streets. idiots. there are so many guns now in mexico, that smuggling to the bad guys, that can pay the big money from dope would be the norm. thanks to him for sending them there.

  • glassbubble

    funny how the boston attackers had to use fireworks powder and had only “one gun” which i heard wasnt and actual firearm.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000234237439 Jesse Tronier

    1. It’s one vote per IP, I did the same and nothing happened.
    2. Votes are happening so fast the same time you click vote 10 other people are so it seems like that.
    3. If you can vote more than once, I’m sure retarded bimbos would keep voting for banning and bacgkround checks to make it seem like anyone is retarded enough to want it more than the other.

  • http://www.facebook.com/BetaMaxevony Eric Clough

    Poor polling. There should be an option for repeal every law that limits citizens from owning or carrying weapons since they are clearly un-constitutional.

  • http://www.facebook.com/teresa.daulton.5 Teresa Daulton

    No…its not worth it. I don’t have a problem with background checks but what is the purpose? The criminals do not obtain their weapons that way. While I’m waiting the few extra days as you call them….they criminals are armed and ready to go. What part of..”CRIMINALS DON’T OBEY THE LAW” do you not understand?

  • scott germain

    Education and training with weapons prior to receiving a permit to purchase would be the ideal answer. In Massachusetts a person can take class in the classroom only and receive a certifcate to apply for a permit. That person does not ever touch a weapon but can receive a certificate to apply for a permit in his or her town or city. The state does not allow someone to drive without passing an exam in the classroom and then on the road, why would they want to issue weapons to someone without properly being trained in a classroom and on a range. Center Mass Weapons Training is the place to be trained in the classroom and on the range. Call 617-334-5938. leave a message they will get back to you. You will not want to be trained by anyone else in the state of Massachusetts after you recieve their trianing. they are retired Combat veterans from the Army Special Operations command and U.S. infantry with the experience and expertise superior to all other trainers in the state.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tony.goltiani Tony Goltiani

    I agree Eric, but it does show that we don’t want anymore of the 0bama/Feinstein gun grab agenda.

  • TS

    We can certainly HOPE that all gun owners act responsibly, but some will not. Training is key, however, the difference between driving and owning a gun is that driving is a privilege granted by the state, owning a gun is a RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

  • shane

    Make people responsible for weapons not properly secured. That kid who killed his 2 year old sister for instance: why was a loaded gun left out?

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.miles.7967747 John Miles

    responsible people don’t need to be made to do anything!

  • Archr5

    The problem here is as soon as you require a permit to purchase it immediately disenfranchises the poor. Center Mass is awesome, however they charge multiple hundreds of dollars for training courses. This is an unacceptably high barrier for entry to someone who is not a felon and is not mentally ill. The car analogy falls apart because I can go to a dealership tomorrow and buy a car and have it shipped to my home rather than driving it off the lot. If my property is big enough i can drive that thing around it all day with no license. We shouldn’t need governmental permission to protect ourselves in our homes. I’ll agree that a permit to carry concealed in public is a good idea even though it’s still a barrier to the poor… it’s a good idea, but it’s being executed poorly, Why on earth does it cost $115 to process CCW paperwork in addition to a training class that costs $100+? It’s 2013 these records should be digital and virtually free to manage at this point. I could see a $5 notary fee and maybe a $10 processing fee… but that’s about it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/james.veverka.75 James Veverka

    Please present the links. I believe nothing without verification. And just what are you backing up. As far as I can see you really didn’t say anything relevant

    My sites: http://www.stopthereligiousright.org

    http://nutjobexpress.blogspot.com

  • http://twitter.com/montemanm1 Full Name

    They left out an option on this poll: “Abolish all federal gun laws as violations of the 2nd and 10th amendments to the Constitution.”

  • http://twitter.com/montemanm1 Full Name

    There is another problem with this approach: Governments in several places have required training classes as a prerequisite to getting a gun permit – then failed to provide the classes.

  • jackie dinley

    MY DAD WAS A HUNTER. NEVER WAS THERE A LOADED GUN IN THE HOME. HE DID NOT NEED AN ASSULT GUN TO HUNT AND NO ONE ELSE NEEDS ONE EITHER. I AGREE THAT PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE GUNS BUT GIVE A BETTER BACKGROUND CHECK ON PEOPLE. DON’T JUST SELL A GUN TO ANYONE WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF WHO THEY ARE . ASSULT WEAPONS ARE ONLY MEANT FOR ONE THING AND THAT IS KILLING SOMEONE. BAN THEM.

  • WB189

    Jackie Dinley I respect your opinion, however I disagree with it. I’m not sure what the term “Assault Weapon” means to you, but to me it’s a political term. Automatic weapons have been heavily restricted since the end of prohibition. What my state defines as an “assault” rifle is ridiculous. Take a .22 caliber rifle and put a thumb hole stock on it and now it qualifies under their flawed logic. The functioning of the weapon hasn’t changed one bit, but because it looks scary – it apparently now is an assault weapon. Bullets are dumb, they only go where they’re aimed and the trigger needs to be pulled every single time to make it fire.

    Mental Health needs improved. Existing laws need enforced. But mainly society needs to hold people accountable for their actions. We’ve become a warmer, fuzzier, politically correct society where focus is on not hurting anyone’s feelings. Where I live, I prefer to have the option of protecting my family available to me as the Constitution allows and really don’t care how many feelings that hurts.

  • GaryB

    Jackie: As with the other poster, I respect your opinion. However, civilian copies of military firearms, such at the AR-15, were, until President Obama was elected, one of the MOST cost effective hunting rifles. At THAT time, until everyone started to get scared about not being able to purchase them anymore, you could purchase one for $425.00 at almost any firearms store. This means, that if you are a subsistence hunter (e.g. relatively poor) that it was an EXTREMELY cost effective hunting firearm. Also, there is a WIDE variety of ammunition choices for the AR-15… and many of those choices are excellent hunting rounds. In fact, the Army chose to use a civilian target round for the M-16 rifle (the machine gun issued to all US Army troops) when it found the 62gr M855 round to in largely ineffective in Afghanistan. On a different note: In 2011, 92% of all crime happen with handguns, 4% from shotguns, and 4% from rifles (of ANY type) [Source: Uniform Crime Report, FBI]. LESS THAT >350 people out of a population of 313,000,000 were killed in the US in 2011 with a copy of a military firearm; “assault weapons” account for almost no crime in the US. I’d MUCH rather be shot with an AR-15 as opposed to a hunting rifle; “hunting rifle” implies large caliber, even though an AR-15 is a fine medium game hunting rifle.

  • anonymous 2112

    doesn’t look like 98% to me…

  • Anonymous

    I respect your right to an opinion. I do not respect that opinion itself.

    Need has nothing to do with this. Want is enough.

    Hunting has nothing to do with this. Defense is the point.

    People have been obligated to bear arms for personal and common defense since the beginning of humanity. During the Colonial era all persons capable of the common defense were legally obligated to keep and bear military arms. The Second Amendment of the Constitution acknowledges and affirms the right of the people to keep and bear arms. To attempt to remove arms from the people is nothing short of treason.

    And quit yelling. It won’t help make your argument any less pathetic.

  • Anonymous

    What you call for is undoubtedly infringement.

  • Anonymous

    And here you are.

  • james early

    You’re an idiot incapable of engaging in critical thinking. What will you do when the criminal gene bearing “Son’s & Daughter’s of Obama” come-a-callin’ at your front door intent on forced “income redistribution”?

  • Patriot 2013

    PBS I hope you report this and not hide it? The
    AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SPEAKING PRETTY LOUD AND CLEAR,
    sure doesn’t look like 90% or 98% want change the pro-gun control
    lobby and President keep taunting!

  • http://www.facebook.com/rocky.ferguson.756 Rocky Ferguson

    Hey junior, why don’t you let people decide what they do and don’t need? And to be honest, no one here gives a damn about what your so called daddy needed.

  • Hodgie

    Honestly do you even know the process of legally buying a firearm in your state or anywhere in this country???Hoary for your dad being a hunter but show me where in the 2A is hunting mentioned? Ohh yeah it’s not! The right to bare arms goes beyond hunting. As far as owning assault weapons very few people actually do because they were banned in 86 by president Regan. In order to own an assault weapon one requires a 6 month back ground check preformed by the ATF which costs an additional $200.00 for the tax stamp. True assault rifles cost 10k and above. What you see on TV in the news reports are civilian semi automatic versions of assault weapons. If you dear ole Dad ever owned a semi automatic rifle of any type then he technically owned what you, the uneducated public and the untruthful media call and “Assault rifle”. I can show you some cases where people were successfully killed with an assault steak knife if you like. My AR-15 and M1A are used for competition HI power matches, these are now the most common rifles used for harmless sporting matches, and you guess it hunting. So stop yelling on online poles and get educated.

  • Hodgie

    Making people responsible is not This Administrations priority if that were the case we would not have generations of families living on the welfare system while smoking cigarettes, buying beer and playing the lottery. You cannot make anyone do anything. By implementing and enforcing laws that try and make people responsible all you do it restrict the rights of the responsible. The quota for idiots will not drop because there is now a law saying you cannot do it. Drinking and driving has many negative laws but yet somehow thousands of people die a year from it. So tell me how your idea works again?

  • Hodgie

    Excellent plug for your business nothing like a little free advertising right?
    And yes we all know that everyone that can train someone on how to use a firearm has to be an ex Navy seal…..

  • Hodgie

    Last I read the firearm they had was illegal and the serial number was ground off. I guess you can get firearms illegally on the streets go figure!

  • Hodgie

    What this poll proves is that there too many “DIpshits” who think they are in the majority and that someone they are better higher beings then all others. Now what your comments prove to me is that you are in fact the out of touch dipshit.

  • Anonymous

    Bear means carry.

    The owning and carrying of arms are natural rights recognized by and guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Second does not say “Congress shall not…”, specifying the entity that may not infringe. It simply says “..shall not be infringed.” The States are bound by the Second by its own wording, and the words of the Tenth.

    If we are required to gain permission to carry weapons, our Second Amendment right is infringed, no matter who demands we ask permission.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1173063613 Patrick McKenzie

    I am frankly dissapointed in PBS that you do not have a disclaimer clearly advising people that online polls are in no way scientific and should not be considered accurate. I am a huge supporter of PBS and NPR and always reference their accuracy when it comes to news. Highly dissapointed.

  • Rtmichigan

    How about a poll

    “Should politicians that are for gun control be sent to Gitmo??

    I would vote YES!!!

  • Downlinx

    And the polls that the mainstream media uses is more scientific? They call 300 people off a hand cherry picked list. An open poll like this one is a very good idea, you actually get to see public view. PBS has done a wonderful job with the poll. You can only vote once from an IP address. You can try to vote again but it will not count. Just because a poll does not support what you think in the results does not mean you need to say it is false in a way.

  • http://twitter.com/_Avocet Avocet

    The poll results might be affected by the fact that a link to this page is being passed around within various pro-gun groups

  • Downlinx

    I have seen this on a lot of anti gun groups too, maybe the results are what the public think?

  • WB189

    Thank you GaryB. For those who don’t know, every single police department in the nation is required to report index crimes to the FBI every month. That’s where these numbers come from.

  • shane

    If the crazies that have shot up movie theaters and schools had, instead, purposely crashed their cars or trucks into crowds of children, killing and maiming as many as they could, would any now be calling to outlaw and ban all cars & trucks?!?

    That’s the disconnect between the two sides of the debate finding any common ground.

    Govt needs to first enforce laws already on the books, the outrage should be directed towards why so few that break those laws are not enforced, like the tens of thousands of ‘straw man’ illegal gun purchases by criminals that are rarely ever prosecuted.

    Govt should also be leading charge to encourage hardening of soft targets crazies prefer, like ‘gun free’ schools. That’d go a long ways to protecting children that all would support, but instead, because NRA suggested it, media and anti-gunners ridiculed and dismissed it. That has NRA types thinking, rightfully, that protecting kids was not what they really wanted firstly, but instead only used tragedy as excuse to further restrict gun owners.

  • shane

    Anti-gun groups could, too, some may already be doing so, that there are not as many or that they are not as committed to come and speak up and participate certainly reveals something here, too. The people that most care about this issue are here and voting.

  • shane

    Jackie, 2A was not about protecting citizens rights to shoot Bambi. It was all about assuring the govt could never get a monopoly on force. All tyrannical govts throughout history first outlawed their citizens having weapons. The writers of our Constitution knew this well, as in our own revolution here, the first shots fired were repelling the British attempting to confiscate the arms of the citizens. BTW, fascinating early history of gun control here, if you look into it, it was usually racist based to keep arms out of hands of blacks and Hispanics. Google “racist roots of gun control”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bob.dougall Bob Dougall

    SO PBS cannot get enough anti freedom folks to click a button?
    Really.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bob.dougall Bob Dougall

    You forgot the D choice. Take the gun laws back to 1933.

  • liberty or death

    No wonder lil Barry is down in Mexico trying to sell this gun control manure, when NPR polls are this much against him. Don’t you worry mentally challenged Marxist ankle biters, our resident golf pro will soon be back home with another crisis to exploit or fabricated issue to demagogue.

  • hodgie

    Sure and the anti gun face book page I found the link on is the only one out there.

  • hodgie

    Yeah they always seem to be inaccurate when they don’t go your way.

  • dontaskme

    I found the link from a anti-gun group.

  • geeeeeez

    Yeah, you are right, this onre is not as scientific as using a voter call list to pander from.

  • Glassbubble

    Wonder what right he can get blackwater to agitate change on next.

  • Josh6499

    Where’s the option for repealing current restrictions?

  • randy welsh

    “frankly” what you are is butthurt over learning the truth about how most americans feel and how youv’e been played by emotionally like a guitar.

  • Harry

    The Second Amendment is a bold, brave acknowledgment of the natural course of governments. Governments inevitably grow and impose on its constituents to the point of tyranny. The people must maintain the power to oppose that inevitable form.

    PBS should understand the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic where popularity polls or popular votes can’t override core rules codified in the Constitution.

    Perhaps, PBS should produce a show explaining why the Founders chose such a form of government.

  • Molon Labe

    I’m sure anti-gunners are keeping it a secret. Wait, isn’t this page the PBS page? You would think that the results here would be a little more convincing to you, but I guess no matter what you will continue to believe that 110% of people want all guns sent to the moon. Well, we’re ready for the fight, are you?

  • http://www.facebook.com/DarthKorndog Kory Cordier

    The 2nd Amendment was written to protect us from the tyranny of evil men. It was NOT written to protect hunting rights.

    Here let me write it out for you verbatim because I have a feeling you’ve never laid eyes on it in your lifetime:

    “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.”

    Where in those 27 words do you see the word hunting or anything even close to being hunting related?

    Let me ask you this Jackie, why is it that the Department of Homeland Security when seeking the purchase of 7000 Fully-Automatic, NOT Semi-Automatic AR-15′s (like the civilian versions you are foaming at the mouth to have banned) did they call the Full-Auto versions PERSONAL DEFENSE WEAPONS?

    Because “Assault Weapon” is a political term and has no real purpose but to demonize an inanimate tool.

    News flash Jackie, ALL GUNS HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO KILL AND ALL GUNS WERE DESIGNED FOR THAT VERY PURPOSE.

    I can’t think of a single one that was designed to do anything else.

    You cannot purchase a weapon over the counter without undergoing a federal background check and criminals are not to keen on following the law. That is why they are called criminals. If a criminal wants a gun he/she will get a gun and they wont stay within the confines of the law in order to do so. Also, since I’m sure you have never bothered to actually look up what the law is, it is already illegal to privately sell a weapon to a felon or mental deficient.

    We already have strong laws on the books but they are not properly enforced the way they should be.

    More laws won’t make anyone any safer if they don’t bother enforcing the ones on the books in the first place.

    IGNORANCE = FEAR

  • Jim

    They need a fourth option, repeal some of the current gun laws on the books. Like a tax stamp for suppressors and class 3 prohibition without tax stamp.

  • Proud to be American

    Yup.. just got my riffles and pistols and ammo.. i am ready to go out fighting if it comes to it….

  • Anonymous

    He is lying his ass off. He said that the majority of illegal guns are coming from the USA.

  • Chuck

    They need to change one of the options to “Enforce current Federal Gun Laws instead of wasting time and money on campaigning for additional gun laws.”

  • Anonymous

    He might not be entirely incorrect. After all, he sent most of ‘em.

  • Veteran

    Isn’t it ironic that after the Boston bombing, the Fort Hood killings and other terrorist acts, the obamists called for America to show patience towards extremist muslims. But after Aurora and Newtown they called for the persecution of law-abiding gun owners?

  • Anonymous

    When you say “scientific” you mean carefully spun with a highly controlled response group, right? As compared to this PBS poll which is open to everyone and has over 40,000 responses so far.

    I’ll take “let’s see what we get when we ask everyone” over “I’ll bet we can get what we want if we ask those guys over there” every time.

    Let me put it another way: If the President’s 90% has any validity at all it really shouldn’t take all that long for you guys to have 400,000 votes in favor of increased gun control. Just where do you suppose all of those people are hiding, if not in the President’s fertile imagination?

  • john savage

    may be too late for that now, they could have done what the american people expected of them before but now that the line has been crossed we may have need of felons, and crazies and addicts with guns. not to mention christians and vets that they were clearly going after next. if they can rename a gun as an “assault rifle” when it clearly isn’t we can call anyone whose guns are confiscated a “patriot”. hows that “incrementalization” plan working for you now?

  • GaryB

    Funny one: this year in Maryland we had at least 6000 people show up to testify in front of the MD Senate and House. All of those people we pro-gun. Over a two month period less than 200 anti-gun folks testified. They literally ran out of anti-gun people… It does, in fact, appear that most Marylanders appear to not care enough to show up… Though it is a fact that more people showed up this year to fight the inane laws being proposed (because they will not make anyone safer) than in the HISTORY of Maryland. (MD became a State in 1788!)

  • GaryB

    Your initial paragraph hits the nail on the head: In Maryland when the Senate debated the proposed firearms ban this year, one of the Democratic Senator (I’m almost ashamed to be a Democrat) literally blurted out, when another Senator proposed the 5 year mandatory sentence without parole for the use of a firearm in commission of a crime be enforce, “we can’t afford that!” …but they can sure as heck increase my taxes (I’m a lowly public servant in education) for far less important things!! [Oh, and in MD if a criminal points a firearm at you in commission of a crime, there is a 66% change they are on parole currently for a firearms related crime...]

  • GaryB

    Most people don’t understand where is the right to keep and bear arms actually came from within the US Constitution:

    After the Boston tea party took place the royal governor of Massachusetts decided to close the port of Boston and Boston itself. Upon hearing this news, the Royal governor of Virginia decided to steal all of the gunpowder from the public gunpowder magazine within Williamsburg.

    Until this point Virginia had not completely bought into the revolution on a large scale. However, this event was a turning point for the majority of those in Virginia. Becoming known as the gunpowder of affair or the gunpowder incident, militias sprung up over the colony of Virginia and they became part of the revolution in full.

    Many people wonder why the right to keep and bear arms is actually in the US Constitution. It in the Constitution because it is understood as a result of this exact incident That the general population should be able to muster a force In order to deal with internal threats to the United States.

    What this really is is a doctrine of ” implied threat,” Whereby any current government within United States has to worry about the general concerns of the population and how they will react to utterly insane laws, or outright attempts to try what so many other countries have in the past: actively harm the citizenry.

  • Teets Jones

    Jackie use your inside voice. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. We have background checks through the FBI using the NICS. So when “assault weapons ” are banned they will magically disappear? Or will only criminals own them and us law abiding citizens will be out gunned by them? Yeah that’s my idea of a utopian society. Not to mention the vast majority of gun violence is committed using handguns. Look it up on the FBI web site all the stats are there. BTW California has some of the most restrictive gun laws around especially with hand guns and California still leads the US in murders using… guess what! HANDGUNS.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Scott-Keith/709884817 Scott Keith

    I’d like to see a fourth choice. reduce the number of gun laws in the country…

  • Joseph

    Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it harder for non-drinkers to own cars, just some humor.

  • Joseph

    Joseph R Mallet On Thursday, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback received a letter from Federal Attorney General Eric Holder threatening action against the state should it enforce SB102 which Brownback signed into law last month.

    The new law states, in part:

    Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas

    The bill also provides for criminal penalties against federal agents who attempt to enforce specific federal laws on guns manufactured in the state of Kansas and sold within the state – as the state takes the position under the new law that the federal government does not “interstate commerce” authority over such items.

    In his letter, Holder didn’t take too kindly to such a proposition. He wrote:

    “In purporting to override federal law and to criminalize the official acts of federal officers, SB102 directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional.”

    He continued, “Under the Supremacy Clause…Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities. And a state certainly may not criminalize the exercise of federal responsibilities. Because SB102 conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supercedes this new statute; all provisions of federal laws and their implementing regulations therefore continue to apply.” Please write call and thank Senator Brownback.
    All from “Mr. fast and furious”
    Unbelievable!!!!!

  • Don Welch

    Don’t forget, stupid people are supposed to die, natural selection, otherwise they breed and make more liberals.

  • http://www.facebook.com/james.hickman.14 James Hickman

    If what you say is true, then explain why the 2d Amendment did not apply to the States when the Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 Amendments) was ratified in 1791. The Bill of Rights was actually a compromise between Federalists (Most of the Framers of the Constitution) and Anti-Federalists the latter who feared a too powerful Federal Government. Federalists held the opinion that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary. As explained in the Federalist Paper entitled Miscellaneous: Why list rights held against the Federal Government when that government did not have anything to do with authorization of that right. However, Federalists soon discovered that without a Bill of Rights, in the 2 largest States, NY and VA, the new Constitution was headed for defeat. So, they promised to add one as the 1st order of business of the new Congress. That secured a narrow victory for the new Constitution. To tell the truth once the Framers settled on establishing a standing army, instead of relying on a militia, with the President as Commander in Chief (CIC) the intent of some concerning the 2d Amendment was moot. If you look at State Constitutions of the 1st 13 States, you will see proscriptions that were imposed by the states, which due to the Bill of Rights were denied to the new Federal Government. Example, some States sponsored a State religion, others created religious tests to hold office. The 2d Amendment was only recently (2009) fully incorporated against the States trough the 14th Amendment in McDonald V Chicago. IMHO, I don’t think the 2d Amendment had anything to do with self-defense or protecting yourself in your home with a gun. In the new world who thought that people didn’t have the right to defend themselves with a gun? It was as if someone wrote an amendment protecting your right to breathe against government encroachment.

  • http://www.facebook.com/james.hickman.14 James Hickman

    I hope you know that an online questionnaire is not even close to a scientific poll, so it no way compares to the Gallup, the Times, or Pew Polls. It’s odd how folks like you jump at accepting a nonscientific online poll with which you agree, while pooh poohing scientific polls on the same topic.

  • Dan_USMC

    Really! Why isn’t this an option? The left wants compromise, but that to them just means they get a little of what they want now and the rest later. We have to reverse this trend

  • Anonymous

    Look at the dismally lax enforcement of laws on the books. A small percentage of 1% of those who commit felonies by lying on the firearms purchase forms are ever prosecuted. The only thing our so called “leadership” is doing is attempting to further their agenda by restricting the rights of law abiding Americans. They’re using people who have experienced horrendous tragedy (school shooting victim family members) while they are still trying to recover from the tragedy -to usurp our nations laws and freedoms.

    They should be coated in honey and rolled in chicken feathers and run out of town.

  • alive35

    You really should inform the public, before they vote, that we do NOT already have universal background checks. 42% or the public thinks that is the case.

  • dafuq

    Educate yourself, moron. Just what do you think NCIS is? http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

  • dafuq

    Funny how all the leftys are coming here complaining that the poll isn’t valid because it doesn’t fit their agenda.

  • PaulS1950

    I voted to keep the gun laws as they are but what we really need to do is remove some of the laws that are already in place. The only time that we do not have to go through a background check is when a private citizen (not a gun dealer) sells to another private citizen. Even at gun shows the dealers have to perform background checks on every sale they make.
    What bothers me is that when a felon is found to be in possession of a gun the only thing that usually happens is the gun is confiscated. There is not normally a criminal charge filed or prosecution started. If our police and judicial system really wants to cut down on gun violence why does this happen?

  • Greg

    So its ok for the Feds to violate the Constitution,kinda like its ok for the Feds to send firearms to Mexico or its ok for them to force us to pay for something most of us dont want

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001378735626 Trey Smith

    I am for repelling all gun control laws on the books. The government should not decide what firearms I buy.

  • Jerimiah

    They should have an answer that states “Congress should REDUCE the overly excessive gun regulations and force the Justice Dept to prosecute those that are left.”

  • Jerimiah

    Not really funny, just true.

  • randy

    that could be the answer to this whole problem. “if” the right to privacy of the insane can be modified and “if” a reasonable means for some categories of the prohibited to regain their right to bear arms was developed and “if” we get a president with the leadership ability to heal the divide that obama has created. a good start would be for the american people as a whole to decide that this beautiful little social experiment we have enjoyed for so long is worth continuing. this poll should be a wake up call. there are vast numbers of americans that live only on the money they work for that are pretty much done with paying for freeloaders with some new idea of what to do with our money. obama has failed to balance a budget three times now, how about if we have dhs patrol our borders and cancel the contracts for tanks to be used on american soil. make no mistake we have not evolved to the degree that what has happened in the past could not happen again. 20 or 30 people a year savaged by firearms would have been a dream come true at various times in the history of man. common sense gun laws?…..yes but not the kind that would make no one safe or free in order to enforce.

    jerimiah for president!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/Marcellusiv Michael Burke

    Randy: How do we actually define who is “insane” and who is not?

  • http://www.facebook.com/Marcellusiv Michael Burke

    Nor a good plan. Prohibiting aliens from possessing firearms in the US is a good law.

    Requiring serial numbers on rifles, pistols, and shotguns: good law, especially in recovering any firearms actually stolen so that the government can return stolen property to the rightful owners (per police reports, not a registration system)

    Other “gun laws” can go.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Marcellusiv Michael Burke

    This happens because almost all such arrests are state or local police, and no federal law exists to prosecute someone unless Eric Holder decides to actually order all of the various US Attorneys to aggressively prosecute criminals for federal gun crimes.

    But for some reason… Holder refuses to actually prosecute violent criminals.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Marcellusiv Michael Burke

    Yes, we do have a universal, nationwide background check system. Millions of checks are run every day by gun dealers in all 50 states.

    Then again, Bloods and Crips and MS 13 tend to buy and sell guns and drugs, sex slaves and other things on the black market, and Congress won’t let the black market dealers have access to NICS or the FBI database.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Marcellusiv Michael Burke

    You fail to truly understand history. In Europe, Asia, and Africa, people could not keep or bear arms. (Check the history as to why Kung Fu and Karate and other ‘open hand’ martial arts were invented: only the government/kings men could have swords/spears/arrows/guns.)

    In England, it was illegal for Catholics to have, keep, or carry a weapon (sword or gun). In Scotland and Ireland, the King and Parliament issued orders that allowed the Army to summarily execute (no trial needed) any Irishman or Scot with a knife, sword, dirk, firelock, pistol, or any other weapon.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Marcellusiv Michael Burke

    Just ignore the fully automatic AK 47 variants that came to Mexico from Cuba, Serbia, China, Venezuela, and other countries by the shipload.

    Or the M-16′s and M-4′s that the US sold to the Mexican Army and Navy and were stolen shortly after delivery by the Cartels.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Marcellusiv Michael Burke

    Or Probation Before Judgement for a crime of violence committed in the past 6 months

  • http://www.facebook.com/Marcellusiv Michael Burke

    Who is hiding it from the non-existent “gun control” groups with millions of non-existent members?

    Please name ONE pro-gun control organization with more than 1 million members. Provide the website and membership information.

    Waiting……….

  • http://www.facebook.com/Marcellusiv Michael Burke

    No need to fight. We just need to VOTE in 2014 according to your beliefs.

    You ARE registered to VOTE, correct?

  • http://www.facebook.com/Marcellusiv Michael Burke

    I researched the 60 mass murders in the US since 1960: most involved the use of a SHOTGUN, or a revolver, but most involved the use of multiple weapons (3 or more guns per killer). Only a dozen involved AR 15 or semi-auto variants on the AK design.

    Funny, but nobody in the “gun control” crowd is trying to ban shotguns or revolvers despite their widespread use in mass killings.

    Most of the victims at Aurora were hit/killed by the SHOTGUN used after the 100 rd magazine jammed.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Marcellusiv Michael Burke

    At one Maryland hearing in March 2013, “pro-gun-control” witnesses numbered 32 people on the list, vs. more than 1800 against the Governor’s bill. Of those 32, most were employees of Democratic officials (Mayor of Baltimore, etc) and most could not accurately describe what they wanted “controlled.”

    At several Judicial Committee Hearings, democratic delegates and Senators could be heard asking the Governor’s aide in the room “How should I vote on this?” because they acknowledged that they had no independent understanding of the topics being debated or the actual meaning of amendments being voted on.

    One vote was cancelled after the members suddenly realized that they had voted to prohibit “Good time” release policies that would keep violent offenders IN JAIL for their complete sentences.

  • Hog Rider

    There should be No federal gun laws ……. period !

  • scott germain

    Hodgie,
    this is a perfect oppurtunity to plug a weapons training company. People in Massachusetts should not only be trained in a classroom prior to being issued a certificate, but they should have to be trained on a range in order to understand the correct functions and use of weapons.
    Also, not everyone has to be a Navy seal, I am not one. There are other units in the military that are just as great as the Navy Seals also they are not ex Navy Seals just like a marine is not an ex marine. get off your high horse and stop being such an ass to people.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mtmaltby Matthew Maltby

    I’m wondering when this poll will close. It seems like whenever a poll that favors gun control shows a similar pattern, they close it immediately. But this poll has been going on since Apr 25th. I think it’s done by now! What are they waiting for? A surge in gun control supporters to find it? The pro gun-control groups don’t give US that opportunity!

  • Barry Soetero jr

    Voted “leave as is” since there were no options on REPEAL of other measures already in place.
    Too much wasted commentary & oppressive actions in play when the crux to always remember as a start point is: “…Shall not be infringed.”
    All current proposals target the law abiding; NONE address criminals or govt abuse of power.

  • randy

    “we” don’t, that’s why leadership is required. a reasonable decision needs to be made based on the input of all involved factions, experts & points of view. as with most regulations not everyone will be happy but will accept that it is better than what we have now. (we must also accept that the human animal can and does go mad dog killer, always has ,always will) that’s how democracy works in a constitutional republic. a president with leadership skills that had a genuine desire to improve on this long standing problem would have delegated the task to the best & brightest candidate by now. two things (1) i never voted against obama. (2) we in the nra (newly joined myself & don’t claim to represent) aren’t fighting because we want more tragedies, just the opposite but don’t mistake a lack of shrill emotional rhetoric for lack of patriotic resolve in this matter. were it me i would appoint sen. ted cruz from texas as gun control czar. hows that for bipartisan?

  • Vince

    Funny, I never thought that a poll that claimed that only 950 of 311,591,917 was representative of the whole was all that scientific.

  • Vince

    At this point, it’s far too late for shutting the poll down to for them any good. They would have had to have done that, say, between 1000 and 2000 votes at the latest( about when it passed the number of individuals in most of the “scientific” polls that support gun controls). After that point,too many people knew about it, and it spread far to quickly across the internet after that for it to be easily forgotten if they shut it down. The only options left to gun control types are attempting to discredit it, which they have tried, and failed to do. PBS managed to put a few safeguards in it to prevent “stuffing the ballot box”, and trying to claim that 44,000+ opinions are somehow less representative than a 900-1500 person poll just doesn’t wash.

  • http://www.facebook.com/carlgt1 Carl Christensen

    This spurious poll has been “freeped” by right-wing nutjobs from freerepublic.com et al, and is statistically useless – it’s worse than the old “Dewey Beats Truman” polls…

  • randy

    well you can’t stand for that in your own house can you? youv’e got it all the way down from 95 to94%. whats the matter y’all losing interest?

  • Law-abiding Larry

    Kinda sucks, huh Carl? I actually found the link to this “spurious” poll on an anti-gun facebook page. Gun control just isn’t as popular as you were misled to believe it is. A few radical liberals do not speak for the American people…..period.

  • FNWylde

    Why is it useless? Because it doesn’t fit an agenda?

  • Jerimiah

    The radical liberals just scream LOUDER and more often than thinking people do.

  • Jerimiah

    Since 1968 EVERY firearm has been required to have a distinct serial number to its make and model. As far as LEGAL aliens, I can see letting them own firearms AFTER they go through a thorough background (Including their home country) and a period of living in the USA for X number of years WITHOUT any criminal conflicts, I guess what I am saying is that a LEGAL Alien should have to show a certain responsibility, whereas a citizens record is there for all to see.

    Aside of that small part, I agree COMPLETELY!!

  • Jerimiah

    Like the Black pussies violating the voting rights act by threatening people at the Pennsylvania polling place in 2008?

  • FNWylde

    Anyone willing to give up a god-given freedom in the name of safety and security is an idiot. The first and second quotes from Thomas Jefferson are not incongruous. Injury doesn’t mean a gun shot wound, but injustice. Our government has chosen against the last quote, and the 17th amendment made our federal legislators immune to the wishes of their constituency. Without direction from state legislators, our federal government has become slave to special interests in closed door meetings. They sell our souls for power and self-indulgent glory.

    The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
    arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in
    government.

    A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one
    another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own
    pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth
    of labor and bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

    If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.

    To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of
    his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who,
    or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to
    violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to
    every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by
    it.

  • FNWylde

    I work in the construction supply industry and of the hundreds of people I have known in the 20+ years I have been doing this work, including several moves to various cities and states, I am really trying to remember an anti-gunner in all of my associations. My businesses have hosted trap shooting tournaments, raffles and contests for shotguns and rifles, i have shot with coworkers and customers at gun ranges in Colorado, Nebraska, and Iowa and have yet to be bashed directly by someone advocating gun control. Recently there was a homicide within a block of the business I manage today and a customer commented and asked if we were nervous being so close. I replied that this would be the safest place to be is SHTF. He implicitly understood the implication that there were enough CCW permit holders in the building to deter any nonsense from down the street.

  • dstryr

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/senate-chairman-pushed-for-arming-syrian-rebels/

    Interesting, isn’t it? In the US, pro-gunners are dangerous, but a Democrat is in favor of providing guns to rebels in Syria. Why is it ok for protestors of one government to have guns while not for another?

  • dstryr

    In a bombing, we aren’t blaming the bombs but the bombers. Why then are we blaming guns instead of the shooter? It is about control of people in the guise of safety. Liberty is sacred; protect it with your life.

  • Law-abiding Larry

    A couple of quick questions for gun control advocates….If a ban
    were passed, how do you plan on enforcing it? Do you honestly believe
    that the estimated 105 MILLION firearm owners in the US will simply turn in their freedoms along with their firearms just because you said so? Think about this; there are over seven times
    as many private, law-abiding, firearm owners in this country than there
    are soldiers in all the world’s militaries combined. So, how exactly do
    you plan to disarm the largest armed group of people on the planet,
    especially when their lives, freedom and liberty are at stake? Just
    curious…..

  • http://www.facebook.com/abdulah.rome Abdulah Rome

    So if the majority voted for stronger background checks and an assault weapons ban/magazine limit, it would be a legitimate poll, correct?

    Well I’m sure people who voted here are tired of hearing the lie that 90% of Americans want universal background checks (only a few thousand were polled in that IIRC) and showed what they really want, for federal laws to remain as they are..

    By the way, I found this poll being posted on several ANTI-GUN pages.. Glad I found it and am happy with the results.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000717078265 Phil Leone

    How can I vote if MY choice is NOT there?
    Federal gun laws need to be rolled back!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000737696214 Carol Johnson

    Obama’s Oath of Office, sworn to twice, includes defending the Constitution. This Treaty is in violation of the 2nd Amendment and the Constitutions of 44 States. Four States say a person has the right to defend themself w/out enummerating. Only 2 avoid the whole thing.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000737696214 Carol Johnson

    That’s an amazing number.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000737696214 Carol Johnson

    At this late date, I doubt you’ll see this BUT over 90% of people who have found polls have said to leave thing as they are. I found 1 post which said there are more guns in the US that in all the Armies in Europe combined.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000737696214 Carol Johnson

    I just found it on a pop-up, My guess is this’ll shut down after the Treaty is dealt with.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000737696214 Carol Johnson

    44 States allow Concealed Carry which, in all cases, requires a background check.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000737696214 Carol Johnson

    THREE CHEERS FOR KANSAS!!!!

  • JoshO

    haha…suck it, gun grabbers.

  • Phill Scott

    The gun laws should be regulated by the individual states not federally regulated.Someone in D.C. can not say what’s best for someone in Alaska..nor should laws in New York be the same as in Arizona.Hence the federal government should not regulate gun laws.The states should be in control of them.

  • Phill Scott

    They are actually suppose to prosecute the individual but it never happens.Usually to save time and money they will drop the firearm charge and offer a plea to a lesser crime.This is one of the things that alot of people are getting tired of.Chicago is a prime example of this sort of thing happening.They’re way up there for gun crime yet have almost no gun prosecutions..if they want to crack down on violence they need to enforce laws already in the books and not propose more useless laws.

  • Bud Brota

    We don’t. A court does. No one should be classified insane or incompetent and have their rights taken away without due process in a court. No board of medical or psychological personnel should have that kind of jurisdiction, as is currently being done at the Veteran’s Administration.

  • http://www.facebook.com/HeatherColeman81 Heather Lynn Marchese

    that’s because they’re RADICAL!!! holy crap!

  • Jerimiah

    Phil, I respectively have to disagree. The states have no rights to regulate firearms as stated in the TENTH Amendment of the Constitution. That “RIGHT” is given directly to the FEDERAL Government by the SECOND Amendment.

    But to go one step further, even though gun regulation is given to the federal government, it states that the RIGHT shall “NOT BE INFRINGED.” To make it clear, like religion or the press, the states do not have the right to regulate firearms. As well, the FEDERAL government does NOT have the power to infringe on the “Rights of the people to keep and bear arms.”

    Arms under the Second Amendment, by reading the quotes of those who wrote it, are defined as an weapon commonly used by a individual soldier. This does NOT include Bazookas, rocket launchers, NUKES or tanks, as the antis so often use in their ridiculous Hyperbole.

  • Anonymous

    Where is the poll option for “repeal existing laws?”

    I can think of several to roll back.

  • http://www.facebook.com/justin.farrar.583 Justin Farrar

    Please explain

  • Anonymous

    That’s right, if it doesn’t agree with what you believe it must be wrong! The poll that showed 90% in favor of stricter gun control was either the one done in the New York area and had “poll-pushing” questions or the one that was done over the phone over 20 years ago (before the Brady Bill). I can speak for about 99% of gun owners when I say that if someone calls and asks to know about what guns we have, we’re going to hang up on them. This “useless” poll is here for everyone to take.

    That’s totally unfair to not hand-pick the respondents in an area that is typically anti-freedom, and how can they even call it a poll when they aren’t trying to get people to answer one way!?

  • Anonymous

    I can tell you how they plan to do it. The proposed legislation required a national registration to have possibly been enforced, although the law did prohibit it, the law can be changed. In a few years, the politicians would “suddenly realize” that we needed a registration and would distract everyone with some disaster so they could ram it through in back-room deals. They would change the requirements of “mentally ill” over time. It would start out as people determined to be a danger to themselves or others. They would confiscate all of their guns. Then people who were required to see a psychiatrist would be added and their guns taken. Then anyone who ever voluntarily saw a psychiatrist would have their guns taken. Then people whose children have mental problems would have their guns taken. Then people who were involved in a fight would be determined to be “too violent” to own a gun. Then they would keep adding people to the list, a small group at a time. Remember the group of people that are a danger to themselves or others? Who decides if someone is a danger? The psychiatrists that will be so tightly bound by Obamacare that they aren’t able to make decisions for themselves will make that decision. If someone matches any point on a list created by some bureaucrat somewhere, the psychiatrist will be required to report that person or face prison time.

  • Anonymous

    And I almost forgot, people that think the government is trying to take our guns are “mentally ill”, so they can’t have guns.

  • Harry

    The reason why the Founders included the “Second Amendment” is unappreciated, apparently beyond the comprehension of some.

    Our implicit permission for the government to “protect” us from terrorists after 9/11 reminds me of the “The Howling Man” Twilight Zone episode ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Howling_Man ). The “left”, like the character ‘Ellington’ in the TZ episode, suffering from a full stomach and little knowledge of history, wants the devil released.

    We live in a world with millions who do not know civilization. They train their children to fly themselves into buildings, blow themselves up, train armies of pre-teens for a war against the West.

    Rather than staying brave and free while dealing with this threat, we yield to pressure to weaken the individual and to strengthen government. The inevitable state the Founders wanted us to be able to defend against.

    We chastise our children for referencing weapons in any way imaginable, vilify guns and warriors, increase surveillance of citizens, strip them of dignity before boarding transportation, archive our digitally transmitted thoughts.

    We’ve been neither brave nor freedom loving. Sad for us.

  • Jerimiah

    An excellent statement and a sad commentary on our society. (For those that are sheep any how.) Thank you!

  • arr

    no assault weapons were available when the 2nd amendment was made

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1340689403 John Hermann

    Niether were cell phones or computers…what’s your point?

  • Joseph

    ABC, NBC, Bloomberg new, Fox News, Drones, Internet, Bugs Bunny…ad nauseum WERE NOT available when the Constitution was written, so, in line with John H, what’s your point?

  • Sean

    Jeremiah – the Constitution doesn’t give the federal gov’t the right to regulate firearms. Firearm ownership (and the right of self defense) is considered an inherent right that can’t be taken away. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrict the gov’t from infringing on that inherent right, not grant authority to regulate it.

  • Phill

    Honestly I feel Obama is a traitor to the American people..he not only has given drilling rights to a Chinese Oil Company owned by the Chinese Government which gives them access to the Gulf of Mexico and cripples the security of the nation in that area(scenario:China says its interests in that area are threatened and sends its military there for security,and yes this could happen and as long as they stay in international waters their military could build up its forces without backlash from the international community.It’s even possible for them to setup a permanent base in nations such as Cuba) but has also attempted to disarm the US People during a time that China is attempting to exert its military strongarm in areas such as the South China Sea and even 50 kilometers inside India’s border setting up outposts. During WW2 Japan wouldn’t attempt to directly attack the US mainland due to the fact that so many citizens were armed so why during a time that China is attempting to expand their influence is the “President of the United States” attempting to limit the strongest deterent this nation has? His administration has also infringed upon the greatest reference material the free people of the US has and greatly disabled their ability to inform themselves(CISPA).An information blackout during a time of invasion would be catastrophic to the security of this nation.Yes it has already been used to disable a number of websites.Treasonous reasoning I say…just an observation which is easily referenced for yourselves and I suggest and support your ability to do so.

  • Jerimiah

    Maybe I should have phrased that better. The issue of “arms” is given to the Federal Government by the Second Amendment via the the TENTH Amendment. That does NOT mean the Feds have the right to ban firearms or other arms commonly used by, or of use to the individual soldier. It only means that the issue of firearms is taken from the states.

    OK, now the SECOND Amendment comes into play. It regulates what the FED CAN (Or cannot) do. The preface says “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” means that we need a “militia” as in an armed populace (Per many writing by the signers of the Constitution.) The BODY of the Second Amendment states, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    The “People,” as defined by all other mentions of “people” as the INDIVIDUAL. “Shall NOT be INFRINGED.” means that the FEDERAL government CANNOT infringe on the rights of the INDIVIDUAL to own and carry a weapon in “common use” or of practical use or an individual soldier. (Not Nukes, Not a mortar, not a Tank, though they are legal to own…)

    We agree that the Feds do not have the right to take away an individuals arms. I am only saying that the TENTH took away the STATES rights to regulate firearms, at all.

  • Anonymous

    What the hell is an Assault Weapon fancy pants? Define it for me.

  • randy

    no, they used muskets because blunderbuss’s were not state of the art anymore.

  • Duh Huh

    Any weapon used for offensive tactics would be considered an assualt weapon. This would include the musket with a bayonet.

  • http://www.facebook.com/appadee Jeremy Wyatt

    facebook wasn’t around when the first amendment was written therefore we should abolish the first amendment so I don’t have to see things I don’t want to see on facebook

  • http://www.facebook.com/NananWV Donna Johnson

    arr Were you were there?

  • http://www.facebook.com/NananWV Donna Johnson

    In those days, any weapon that would shoot was better than a knife.
    You don’t take a knife to a gun fight.

  • http://www.facebook.com/NananWV Donna Johnson

    We did it to ourselves. As Benjamin Franklin said: ” They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”.
    Franklin’s Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775
    Amen

  • http://www.facebook.com/NananWV Donna Johnson

    We have all been sheep, when we let the 4th Amendment be violated by Drug Testing with out “Just Cause”. I am not against it. I am against it when they do it “Just Because.” I had to do it when it was enforced by the Chemical Company I worked for. Because my husband was self employed and I was paid hourly with a good paying job. My wages were a given monthly his were not. We had three children. I regret to this day that I did not refuse. I had worked for them for 20 years when Drug Testing started. I was promoted through those years and had an excellent work history. But because I worked in a Safety Oriented job. I was included in The Random Drug Test Program. They violated my Constitutional Right and I let them, every time I signed the form prior to the test. I never tested positive and retired in 2006. Then the Patriot Act came along after 911. Another violation of the 4th Amendment. We opened the door back then, and I apologize for my lack of courage. If I knew then, what I know now. I would have taken a stand. My children are grown with children of their own now. My Grandchildren. I have to stand up now for their futures.

  • http://www.facebook.com/NananWV Donna Johnson

    moln labe
    NOT

  • http://www.facebook.com/darlene.mclaughlin.52 Darlene Mclaughlin

    Love this comment because somebody finally gets it.

  • Jerimiah

    Tell me Arr, can you commit an assault with a baseball bat? A tree limb? Your FIST? Sorry, but your statement was foolish and asinine. You might want to learn a few things about life before you make a fool out of your self again.

  • James Ritchie

    Neither was the internet and TV. Does this mean you can’t use them in any method that has to do with the first amendment?
    Though, of course, you are wrong. Assault weapons most certainly did exist when the 2nd amendment was written. They weren’t like the ones used today, but they were the best technology had to offer. And, simply put, unless you want today’s militia to use black powder rifles, you can’t say anyone else should use them, either.

  • James Ritchie

    The point is, you use these things to express your 1st Amendment rights, just like you’re doing right now. Unless you only want to be able to use your free speech rights with newspapers, it’s silly to say we have to use our 2nd Amendment rights with muzzle loading weapons.

  • James Ritchie

    You really don’t know what you’re talking about. That’s not where I’m from, nor many others I recognize here. And the only nut jobs commenting here are those like you who are stupid enough to think you go a single day without being protected by someone with a gun. You a government teat sucker, and a typical liberal who simply has no idea at all why the 2nd Amendment is the most valuable right we can possibly have.
    You also aren’t bright enough to understand that polls are not going to resolve this issue. Neither will the court, Congress, or any other gun grabber. We have the guns, and you simply do not have the power to take them. We aren’t going to obey Congress, or the courts, and certainly not any airheaded liberals.

  • James Ritchie

    Who was dumb enough to think a poll matters, however people vote? I’m not giving up my essential freedom because of a poll, because of how many vote in the elections, because of what the courts say, or because of what Congress says. There’s only one way I’m giving up my guns, and that’s one bullet at a time.
    If you all want my guns bad enough, some brave bunch of well-armed men may be able to take them, but none of you will be there. You’re just hot air. If that group of well-armed men can manage to get my guns, they best be careful about picking them up. The barrels are going to be very, very hot.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000234237439 Jesse Tronier

    No assault weapons existed today, it’s a fake term. And assault is an action, a weapon is anything in use of harm. Technically there was, and technically there was before humans existed. Dinosaurs used their “Assault weapons” (A.K.A. claws) to ASSAULT other dinosaurs.

    Hell, even before dinosaurs existed there were assault weapons, nature. Nature used itself to assault moss and kill plants. I suggest getting an education before commenting.

  • engelbach

    The Second Amendment says nothing about defending oneself against the government.

    On the contrary, it specifically states that the purpose of bearing arms is to defend the state.

    Good luck “defending” yourself against the strongest military machine in history with a handgun and a deer rifle.

  • Entrouble

    The “strongest military machine in history” still lost in Vietnam, stalemated in Korea, and has been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan with “insurgents” armed with handguns and rifles for over a decade. I guess 100,000,000 armed citizens would have no chance. I’m sorry if you do not understand this, but an armed populace helps insure things like the atrocities in Europe, USSR, China, and virtually everywhere else in the world in the last century do not happen.

  • Brie

    Or, maybe don’t use drugs when you have a job with a company whose policy is to not allow people using drugs to remain employed with them…

  • Uber Random

    No “assault weapons” but the common man was allowed to have the same weapons as the military, to protect themselves and their country. All we’re asking is the same here.

  • Uber Random

    Clarification: just the rifles, I don’t need a rocket launcher or a “nuke” as anti-gun nuts are so fond of strawmanning. I really don’t even want an automatic rifle, I see no need for it, but I don’t feel it is necessary to ban it from law abiding citizens.

  • anthony

    80% of the UK population want their guns back. Lets not make laws to be like the country our fore fathersers escaped from. If its a matter of saving children, like Obama said “if it saves just one child its worth it” then end abortion and the internet. The amount of people that download ways to kill, exploit, or use chat to harm children is way larger then the amout of children harmed by guns. Child porn is an epidemic, kiddnappings, and the murder of unborn children is in the millions. Lets address the big issues before going after the small ones.

  • Governmentsuxs

    This is the way the commies took over every country they run today.

  • Francesco Zerilli

    Curious, what exactly is an assault weapon? When I was in the Army, an “assault weapon” was a fully automatic rifle and full autos manufactured after 1986 are unavailable to the public. In fact, there have been only 2 incidents in over 50 years where a real assault weapon was used in a crime. The first one was 1988 when an actual LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER used one to kill an informant and the other one was in 1998 duriing a bank robbery in California. The term “Assault Weapon” is nothing more than the socialist’s attempt to redefine a weapon in order demonize it. Kinda like their successful campaign to redefine “abortion” and “fetal genocide” as “pro-choice”……LOL!

  • Francesco Zerilli

    The French Resistance were pretty successful against the Nazi’s…A handgun and a deer rifle in the hands of over 400 million armed citizens will certainly leave a mark……LOL!

  • Don Baltronis

    Adam lanza was denied a gun purchase 3 days prior to his act. Why wasn’t he investigated? The purpose of a backround check is for the police to investigate the person, and find out why he wanted a gun. Was it the fault of the dealer for not reporting it to the police? Or the fault of the police for not investigating him? Backround checks work. But only if they are followed through by the people doing them. I hold the newtown police and the gun dealer personally responsible for letting him slip through. And as if nsa spying helped anything. Think about it. Weather you like the constitution or not. Weather you own guns or don’t. The fault lies beyond the backround check. Everyone in newtown new lanza. And ill even bet some of these kids, {carly soto } went to school with him.

  • Anonymous

    There are no “Assault Weapons” period. There are however Assault Rifles, they are semi automatic switchable (by turning a lever) to full automatic. The military and police departments use “Assault Rifles”, the public own semi-automatic rifles. http://www.assaultweapon.info/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

  • Anonymous

    Your pretty blind. She stated she never used drugs pis-ant.

  • Brie

    My what is pretty blind…? ”Your pretty blind” is only half a sentence. And no, she didn’t state she never used drugs. Your eyes must be high, ’cause you are hallucinating some weird shit…

  • concerned citizen

    I believe as an American I have the right to defend myself. Roll gun laws back in NYS and make it so they can never be tampered with ever again.

  • Akula765

    Why is there no option for repealing certain federal gun laws, or enacting laws that strengthen the rights of gun owners?

  • Akula765

    The internet wasn’t available when the 1st Amendment was made.

  • Anonymous

    ElimInate all cars too.

  • Anonymous

    tyranny has come to the USA. Tyrant Obama has violated the constitution many times. Recess appointments when the Senate wasn’t in recess. Changing US immigration law by presidential fiat. Doing the same for US welfare law. He is a tyrant.

  • USresonsableCitizen

    The supreme court said states could enact gun laws for saftey it also said states and cities can not ban guns in common use. Semi automatic tech is over a hundres years old. Its the most popular and extremely common in all firearms. FED background checks Will BE federal registration I dont care what they say they lie and are not held acountable. The 2A is a right of the supreme law of this great land and ALL AMERICANS should stand by it. Shall not be infringend. Registraton is giving the other team your playbook and telling them which play is next. Not even Nostradomis can tell the future well enough to bet against the history of the last decade and 200 million dead defenseless civilians killed not in wartime. CALIFORNIA HAS LONG OVERSTEPED OBEYING THE 2A AND HAS EVEN MORE MANY MORE DRACONIAN LAWS IN LEGISLATION NOW
    Repeal gun control laws is the conversation to have

  • USresponsableCITIZEN

    Obama killed 26 kids plus civilians in 1 drone strike. OVER 200 KIDS AND CLIMBING. His kids are rightfully protected 24 hours a day by professionals and if it were up to him we would not be able to protect ours in our own home at night. He has said he would take all guns from citizens if he could. He gave thousands of guns to drug cartels that continue to murder and got caught yet not one person lost their job.

  • Isaac Rosenbloom