Americans Certify Second Amendment, Divided Over Gun Laws
In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,009 American adults, 85 per cent of respondents believe that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution means that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, while only seven per cent openly disagree with this view.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/44307/americans-certify-second-amendment-divided-over-gun-laws/
One interesting point was:
Seven-in-ten Americans hold no reservations about people who are eligible to own firearms having access to handguns (73%) and rifles or shotguns (72%). However, only three-in-ten respondents (30%) feel the same way about semi-automatic weapons, with a majority (61%) suggesting that only the police and other authorized persons should have access to them.
These numbers seem strange with the popularity of the AR platforms and semiauto pistols.
= new reply since forum marked as read
If you look at the pdf (http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/2012.01.25_Guns_USA.pdf), they put them into three distinct categories, which is misleading.
There are handguns and shotguns/rifles that are semi-automatic. This survey doesn't take that into account.
Interesting to compare to gallup..
The 'more strict' / 'kept the same' is about the same as gallup +/- 3pts
Note the date of the survey-
[div class='excerpt']Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,016 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Feb. 8-10, 2008
That was before Heller.
Lol!
Most Americans don't know jack about the Constitution. 
Congratulations, you and your right-wing friends have successfully exploited the stupidity of the American people to install right-wing Supreme Court justices who will enforce the radical right-wing agenda. You must be very proud of Justice Scalia and friends...
Share with us what you mean when you call me a scalawag.
*cough* *cough* *cough*
...I'd like you to explain though how think it applies to this context. Losing your courage to discuss the words you use?
C'mon. What do you *exactly* mean when you apply that word to me in the context of this discussion?
You're just going to throw that out there and pout off?
*waiting to hear an explanation* 
The only thing I can think of that this "last refuge of a scalawag" is referring to is
http://www.samueljohnson.com/qotw02q2.html#0630
-- Samuel Johnson (Boswell's Life of Johnson)
His reference was to false patriotism, but his target remains obscure.
How on earth it applies here, I have no idea.
Funny to see him quoted by this poster though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson%27s_political_views#Taxation_No_Tyranny
He had no use for the USAmerican revolutionaries on two fronts: their unfounded rebellion, and their robbery of the indigenous peoples.
Here malice, rapine, accident conspire,
And now a rabble rages, now a fire;
Their ambush here relentless ruffians lay,
And here the fell attorney prowls for prey;
Here falling houses thunder on your head,
And here a female atheist talks you dead.
- Johnson, from London, 1738 ... once my sig line: iverglas in the gungeon
Last edited Wed Jan 25, 2012, 10:53 PM - Edit history (1)
has used this sort of language before:
20. OMG! You sound more like Bull Connor with every post
Just substitute "black man" for "fool carrying a gun in public" and I couldn't tell you two apart.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=3188
He seeks to inject racially charged language in this debate. That's why he doesn't care to elaborate, because he's too mixed up in his gun love to even really understand what he's saying, but to him it sounds mean and so he's cool with it. He doesn't want elaborate because that would risk exposing his deep-seated fears about the intentions of minorities and White Reformers. Identifying himself with certain good minorities is how he justifies to himself the cloaking of this idea of gun-ownership being essentially to liberty, because if it's not he's at risk of appearing prejudiced and thus in line with ugly history of racism in America. He went to great pains to make this argument in relationship with MLK Jr., he can't possibly be racist, even if he is willing to turn a blind-eye to the blight of gun violence in minority communities. It's subtle, but it's undoubtedly racially charged, and it shows the callousness of the gun culture to gun control reform as stemming from fear of Others.
In United States history, scalawag was a derogatory nickname for southern whites who supported Reconstruction following the Civil War.
--------
The term was originally a derogatory epithet but is used by many historians as a useful shorthand. The term originally meant rascal. Here is a quote by historian Ted Tunnell on the origins of the term:[7]
Reference works such as Joseph E. Worcester's 1860 Dictionary of the English Language defined scalawag as "A low worthless fellow; a scapegrace." Scalawag was also a word for low-grade farm animals. In early 1868 a Mississippi editor observed that scalawag "has been used from time immemorial to designate inferior milch cows in the cattle markets of Virginia and Kentucky." That June the Richmond Enquirer concurred; scalawag had heretofore "applied to all of the mean, lean, mangy, hidebound skiny [sic], worthless cattle in every particular drove." Only in recent months, the Richmond paper remarked, had the term taken on political meaning.
During the 1868-69 session of Judge "Greasy" Sam Watts court in Haywood County, North Carolina, Dr. William Closs, D.D. testified that a scalawag was "a Native born Southern white man who says he is no better than a negro and tells the truth when he says it." Some accounts record his testimony as "a native Southern white man, who says that a negro is as good as he is, and tells the truth when he says so."
The word's origins lie, via Scallywag in the Irish language word for drudge or farmservant, "sgaileog". It is a word which appears to be in common modern use within towns that have historic Irish communities in the Northwest of England, predominantly Liverpool, where it is sometimes abbreviated to "scall" or "scally". It is also a derogatory epithet, one that denotes a fashion follower of low class or abilities.
[edit]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalawag
He is in essence calling me a race traitor for questioning whether or not those polled understand the Second Amendment in constitutional terms. This poster appears to hail from suburban Chicago, which is by no means immune from traditional American racism. His general outlook is that anyone who would seek to deny him his right to self-defense is throwing him to the mercy of predominantly minority criminal elements. It's the Willie Horton canard.
Race traitor is a pejorative reference to a person who is perceived as supporting attitudes or positions thought to be against the interests or well-being of their own race. For example, one or both parties to an interracial relationship may be characterized as "race traitors." The term may indicate racialist attitudes on the part of those who use it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_traitor
The Willie Horton ad is the quintessential race-baiting ad from the 1988 Bush-Dukakis campaign.
Patriarchy, racism, and militarism go hand-in-hand.
I did alert on the linked to post...
"Or do you just play a gun control supporter on the interwebz?" - This is a personal attack on Hoyt's beliefs and this is also essentially a call out. Such disruptive behavior is a violation of the terms of service of DU which require the following standard: "It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints." - This sort of harassment is in complete violation of this intention and is intimidation without any attempt at productivity. "You an your ilk are such a treasured gift to the pro-second amendment movement, keep up the good work." - This is right-wing crazy talk - who does he mean ilk? Strikes me as bigoted hate speech towards an obviously liberal Democrat.
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sat Dec 24, 2011, 12:08 AM, and voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: I agree with the person who sent the alert.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: The Bull Connor comment is a definite attack on a DUer. Hide it.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Personal attack.
Thanks for the links!
(And when I said my time here wasn't wasted, I meant that reading your post, I could actually feel the gangleons tingling and new little pathways being made, as I learned something new and interesting all in a concise little rush of new knowledge, a whole extra little package of data added to the bank, and that always feels good. )
The expertise argument, again? The justifiable backlash argument, again? The well-you elected the Republicans, not us, even though they agree with our position argument, again? Really?
Gun control advocates didn't abandon the Democratic Party over a single, and in my opinion stupid issue, and bring on the BFEE. It was the irrational fears of the NRA that did that!
I and saw red states that wouldn't vote for a Democrat who wasn't a total DINO.
...and a blowjob was. 
The pro-AWB crowd is spouting verifiable nonsense on the issue day in, day out, ginning up fear among the ignorant while making the knowledgeable insulted and angry.
You know how Bush/Cheney rang up anti-Iraq fear for a year and a half? Plenty of smart people on already on DU saw through this, and plenty of smart people came to DU because they saw through it and got politically active on the liberal side because of it, even as the knuckle-dragging flag-waving cross-clutching right-wingers grunted in approval and screamed "traitor" to anybody that disagreed with them.
I didn't way that gun-control advocates abandoned the DNC; I said that people that were ambivalent or neutral on the issue DIDN'T come flocking to the Democratic party, but the people that were intimately affected by the issue (gun owners and pro-gun people) did go to the Republicans in large numbers.
The DLC pushed the DNC into adopting a nationwide position that had no socially-redeeming benefit, no political benefit, and considerable political liability. You yourself admit it's a stupid issue, yet the fact that you're still pushing it means that the fears of the gun-owners are not irrational, or at least no less irrational that you continuing to push the "stupid issue".
Now, the justifications of the NRA are off the deep end... I'll freely give you that! 
...expecting some critical thinking from the gun culture at large is asking a bit much. Also, only you can make yourself angry; many of us are capable of controlling our emotions.
"but the people that were intimately affected by the issue (gun owners and pro-gun people) did go to the Republicans in large numbers."
Fair-weather friends.
I get two different stories on the AWB from the pro-gun crowd: 1. It was ineffective. 2. It was a travesty. My question, how can something that was ineffective, be a nuisance?
The NRA is already ginning up fear to fuel an attack on Obama:
Response to ellisonz (Original post)
Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:08 PM
Star Member tularetom
2. Well I got a letter from the NRA
That said that Obama had already placed all sorts of unreasonable restrictions on the purchase and ownership of firearms.
So WTF is it with this Obama guy? He's managed to piss off all the nuts on both sides of this debate.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12514660#post2
...most of us think the AWB didn't go far enough in restricting these types of weapons - the arms industry just slithered around it; the bill can and should be tuned up.
Also, only you can make yourself angry; many of us are capable of controlling our emotions.
Condescend much?
Nah, just try not make a habit of blaming others for my own emotions...
Fair-weather friends.
Yeah, because a true friend sticks with you no matter how much you ignore them or how much you tell them they're wrong!
I don't see Brady supporters going over to the GOP....
My question, how can something that was ineffective, be a nuisance?
Are you honestly puzzled by this? You really can't think of any other law passed that a) was ineffective and b) a travesty? How about the Bush tax cuts? Medicare Part D? The War on Drugs? Is any of this ringing a bell?
Just trying to trip up the whole nonsensical argument that we can't have effective gun control.
...not all gun owners are wing-nuts who think anyone trying to pass responsible gun control reform is against gun owners.
"Given the fact that there ARE single issue voters out there who would vote Democratic, why does the party, and Democrats like you, continue to alienate them over this single issue?"
Because politics shouldn't be about selling out to get votes...effective gun control is necessary and Constitutional whether you like it or not.
We're laughing at you
[div class='excerpt']The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.
Re 'the people'-
See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez
http://supreme.justia.com/us/494/259/case.html
[div class='excerpt']"the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the People of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1, ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble" ; Art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" . While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
Even as much as the dissent tried to play it down, they started by admitting the majority's position, then tried to hand-wave it away.
...to satisfy his own sense of self-doubt. So long as people are disagreeing with him on this, they must not only be disproved, but derided and silenced.
...at least you're able to do it civilly. 
A fine Canadian Tory firm.
I like these bits that you don't mention:
On the question of concealed carry—where states have enacted different regulations—half of respondents (51%) support the “shall-issue” notion of allowing citizens to carry a concealed weapon if they meet specific criteria laid out in the law. It is important to note that this prerogative is endorsed by a majority of Republicans (60%), Independents (53%) and gun owners (60%), as well as a plurality of Democrats (44%) and Americans who do not possess a firearm.
Analysis
The views of Americans on the Second Amendment have not gone through any significant fluctuations over the past two years. Democrats continue to call for stricter firearms regulations, while Republicans are mostly satisfied with the status quo.
Note that saying that a plurality of Democrats supports "shall-issue" simply means that it was the largest single option; it was outweighed by the others combined, and they would have included "no concealed carry" and some form of discretionary or criteria-based process, presumably -- i.e. more Democrats were against "shall-issue" than for it.
to make people think that a "semiautomatic" is something other than a pistol, rifle, or shotgun. The 73% support for handgun ownership (which are overwhelmingly semiautomatic) is strong evidence of that.
This is a "semiautomatic":
I have run into quite a few people in the media and on forums who think that "semiautomatic" is a technical term for "machinegun".
