[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Bang / Guns Title: Backfire: CBS/NYT poll shows majority opposes “assault weapons” ban — for first time ever The NYT report saves this nugget for the second-to-last paragraph in its lengthy analysis of the survey: Yes, those attitudes on bans of vaguely defined weapons have shifted notably, and noticeably in the opposite direction of what the lecturing elites in government and the media intended. I wonder what that means. One thing it means is that Americans trust Republicans more than Democrats on gun laws, albeit narrowly at 41/37 not bad for a D+5 sample (24/29/40). However, its not apparent that there has been a big shift on other gun issues from this poll. On whether existing gun laws should be more strict, a majority of 51% still says yes. more or less within the range of the last couple of years, and significantly higher than the 39% in 2012. On whether those laws would help prevent gun violence, its a virtual split at 50/48, while two months ago it got a 59/40. Mental-health screening and treatment as a solution to gun violence is still very popular, with 77% of respondents saying it would help some or a lot, and only 19% saying it wouldnt have much or any impact. The big shift is that Americans have finally begun to tire of the we need to ban scary looking weapons that dont differ much from other weapons demagoguery that Democrats have been pushing for the last few years. One might have thought that the 2014 elections would have provided some clue, but perhaps a poll in the New York Times will have a little more impact. We might wonder about the impact on The New Republic, too. They chose yesterday to run Phoebe Maltz Bovys emoting on the need to ban all the guns: Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Dont sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be knownas if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.
It doesnt take specialized expertise in constitutional law to understand that current U.S. gun law gets its parameters from Supreme Court interpretations of the Second Amendment. But its right there in the First Amendment that we dont have to simply nod along with what follows. That the Second Amendment has been liberally interpreted doesnt prevent any of us from saying its been misinterpreted, or that it should be repealed. When you find yourself assuming that everyone who has a more nuanced (or just pro-gun) argument is simply better read on the topic, remember that opponents of abortion arent wondering whether they should have a more nuanced view of abortion because of Roe v. Wade. Theyre not keeping their opinions to themselves until theyve got a term papers worth of material proving that theyve studied the relevant case law. Um
did anyone ever explain to Bovy the difference between a Supreme Court ruling and explicit constitutional text? There isnt any language in the Constitution about abortion; there is an explicit right to bear arms. Its right there in the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court could reverse Roe, but they cant change the text of the Constitution. Furthermore, no one is suggesting that Bovy be prevented from making dumb arguments, but most people should know better than to take those seriously at least those outside of the editorial offices of TNR. On one point, Bovy is correct: the Second Amendment can be repealed, and she can argue for that. But its not a process that involves the Supreme Court, or any court at all. It takes 38 states and two-thirds of both chambers of Congress to amend the Constitution, or a constitutional convention. When Bovy has a path to that kind of action open, plus any rational idea about how 60 million households would get stripped of their firearms without starting a war, then she can be sure to let us all in on the plan. This suggests that shes not even within sight of rationality, though: Whats needed to stop all gun violence is a vocal ban guns contingent. Getting bogged down in discussions of whats feasible is keeps what needs to happenno more gunsfrom entering the realm of possibility. The logical fallacy here is amazing to behold in a once-significant publication like TNR. Seizing every gun from every home and repealing the Second Amendment isnt impossible because no ones talking about it. No one talks about it because its impossible practically, politically, and morally. Just the size of the police state required to execute such a plan boggles the rational mind, an encumbrance from which Bovy clearly does not suffer. Thankfully, Americans have started to become a lot more rational about self-defense as gun-grabbers have become a lot more transparent about their true desires. Poster Comment: Striking results, considering this is CBS/NYSlimes. Bammy's gun-grabbing speeches must have really annoyed some people. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 7.
#2. To: TooConservative (#0)
Given that polling organizations are like other companies and want repeat business,I'm guessing there was some sort of communication snafu,and the team handling the poll pushed for less instead of more gun control. I suspect CNN and NYT are already in the market for a new polling organization.
It's even more humiliating for the Slimes because they made a historic move to put a full antigun opinion rant on the front page of the Times, always reserved for hard news, never opinion pieces. Putting an opinion piece on the front page of the Slimes is for things like a presidential assassination or Pearl Harbor or 9/11. So the Slimes fired its biggest cannon against assault weapons and guns in general. And this poll was their reward? You can just smell the schadenfreude. : )
Given their polling methods leaning left, the actual numbers are probably worse.
I'm not sure if I believe the result. How would assault weapons get so much more popular than ever before, all at once and right after an AR-15 massacre? It makes no sense at all. I kinda think this may represent anger and resentment at Obama using another Muslim-related massacre as a way to campaign (yet again) for gun control. And that explains why he now calls Fort Hood terrorism, along with San B. Fort Hood was arguably more terrorist than San B. because at Fort Hord, Hasan attacked fellow-soldiers but they were strangers to him. In San B., every last person at the event knew the terrorists and they had given them a recent baby shower. So San B. actually does come much closer to a "workplace violence" incident than Fort Hood ever did. Yet, Bammy suddenly flipped and called both terrorism after being so perversely stubborn about Fort Hood's designation. That change reflects much deeper changes that Oblowme was trying to pander to but only succeeded in marginalizing himself and giving Dems a black eye by association. Maybe the general public has just reached the STFU phase of the Obama presidency.
#8. To: CZ82 (#7)
http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/01/Crap.jpg This photo May have not shown up.
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
||
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|