75% Believe Constitution Guarantees Right To Own A Gun (Rasmussen)

[davepc]

Seventy-five percent (75%) of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Just 14% say gun ownership is not a constitutional right. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.

Of those with a gun-owner in the household, 89% say the Constitution guarantees a citizen’s right to own a gun. Sixty-four percent (64%) of those without a gun owner in the home agree.

A whopping 92% of Republicans say the Constitution guarantees their right to own a gun, compared to 64% of Democrats and 71% of adults not affiliated with either of the major political parties.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “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.” The amendment is part of the Bill of Rights.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/75_believe_constitution_guarantees_right_to_own_a_gun

[msongs]

1. gun owners should be required to join the militia - "A well regulated militia being necessary..." nt

[Renew Deal]

2. What makes you think they wouldn't?

Though that's dangerously stupid. It would force us all to join militias for fear of not being in one. It would be hyper tribal.

[davepc]

3. So just males 17-45 can be gun owners? Thats how the law is now.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[HALO141]

21. Incorrect.

Unless, of course, you want to redefine the definition of "The People" to include only males 17-45.

[zbdent]

4. they just forget about the "well-regulated militia" part ...

which pretty much seems to be a qualifier to their "right" to keep and bear arms ...

[davepc]

5. The Supreme Court said otherwise, until they reverse themselves that is the law of the land.

Held:
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.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing
rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals
that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
Pp. 30–32.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

[jeepnstein]

9. Context is everything.

What do you thing "regulated" meant when they wrote the Constitution? It meant you were free to own a "regulation" weapon suitable for armed conflict. Wanna guess what weapon is best suited for such work in the United States these days? Think of a weapon system that has common parts, ammo compatibility, common magazines, and a similar manual of arms with regular forces. Hint, it's not Dick Cheney's .410.

well regulated = well equipped

[onehandle]

14. Great! Can I have a nuke?

My neighbor looked at me funny.

[HALO141]

23. No. n/t

[jeepnstein]

41. That's kind of a silly question.

[rl6214]

95. How old are you?

[Transmorgify]

107. lol

[paulsby]

52. it doesn't matter

because it's a prefatory clause.

iow, it's irrelevant what "regulated" means, because the right is not a right of militias, it is a right of the people.

the prefatory clause merely explains why that right is so important, not that it only attaches to militias, regulated or not.

[HALO141]

26. Nobody's forgetting anything.

It just doesn't mean what you think it means.

[paulsby]

51. except it's not a qualifier

let me give you another example of a prefatory clause, such as the 2nd amendment.

from rhode island's 1842 constitution
"The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty "

the "liberty of the press", much like a "well regulated militia" is a prefatory clause.

by your logic, the rhode island framers would then only say the right of the PRESS exists to publish sentiments. read it again, it clearly establishes (recongizes) the right of the PEOPLE (any person) to publish sentiments.

refer to prof. volokh's "commonplace second amendment" for more examples

it does not say "provided a person is in the militia, he has the right to keep and bear arms"

THAT would be a qualifier.

nor does it state

"The right of states to maintain militias, shall not be infringed."

it says the right of the PEOPLE, which means... wait for it... PEOPLE... just like in any other amendment.

[TheWraith]

80. You do know what "militia" means in a constitutional context, right?

It's defined as two branches. Organized militia, meaning the National Guard and Coast Guard. And unorganized, which means every American otherwise qualified for service. Everybody.

[Captain Hilts]

6. Yes, as we had no standing army or police force when the Constit. was written.Join a 'well-organized

militia.

This one does NOT count as 'well-organized':

[jeepnstein]

8. I love that movie.

[Captain Hilts]

10. It's a documentary in so many ways. nt

[zbdent]

15. and you're not jumping on him for using a term which wasn't in the

specified Amendment?

[jmg257]

20. Naa - 'well organized' is a sub-condition of "well regulated", ' well armed' and

'well trained/disciplined' being the rest. Which of course all leads to well functioning, efficient and effective.

[Transmorgify]

108. I can just imagine it :P

*Commercial starts showing army of citizens marching down a suburbia street*

*Deep voice intones* "You may keep your guns... but only if you do as the 2nd Amendment clearly implies. If you organize yourselves into well-functioning, efficient and effective bodies of mass-destruction."

[jeepnstein]

42. No, some times it's better to just kid around a bit.

[onehandle]

7. Not a chance. They treat the Constitution like a salad bar.

Use what they want and leave the rest.

Since the British haven't been a threat for hundreds of years and there is no militia, the second amendment is an antique.

[DonP]

12. "the second amendment is an antique." ... Really?

I guess you plan on repealing that sometime soon then, huh?

Let us all know how that goes for you.

I'm sure repealing one of the amendments in the BoR will be no problem right?

... and what do the British have to do with it anyway?

[onehandle]

13. No point to repeal it. It simply doesn't apply anymore.

We were at war with the British in antiquity. We had a militia. Now we have an army.

I'm fine with responsible gun ownership by citizens, but the second amendment has nothing to do with it.

It's just an excuse for the gun industry to wrap itself in a flag.

[valhalla]

16. Try again...

We weren't at war with the British when the constitution was written.

[onehandle]

33. I didn't fucking say we were at war at that time.

Nice try.

[valhalla]

46. We were at war with the British in antiquity.

Your words, not mine.

[slackmaster]

17. You should go back to whoever taught you US history

And demand a refund.

[HALO141]

25. You're the one that needs a refund.

The revolutionary war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783.

The Philadelphia Convention, wherein the Constitution of the United States was written, took place from May 25 to September 17, 1787.

So... You STILL want to say that the U.S. was at war with England when the Constitution was written?

[slackmaster]

28. I have never said that the US was at war with England when the Constitution was written

I think your reply was misplaced.

[HALO141]

29. DOH!

Yup, you're right. My apologies.

[onehandle]

34. See post #33. nt

[slackmaster]

44. Reply #33 doesn't begin to address the depth of your misunderstanding of our history

Everything you have posted in this thread is based on premises that are demonstrably false, e.g. that there is no militia.

[onehandle]

47. Really?

So we are at war with Britain?

I'll get my musket.

[slackmaster]

48. No, you didn't say we are at war with Britain

But the fact that we were once upon a time and now are not, has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the Second Amendment. Nor does your ill-informed opinion that it doesn't apply any more.

Your statement in reply #7 that there is no militia shows incredible ignorance. The simplest of Google searches could have innoculated you from saying something so foolish.

[onehandle]

62. Who? The Klan? Joe's Militia? The NRA?

You mean we're being defended by groups outside of the police, the feds, and the armed forces?

Officially?

I must remember to thank them.

[slackmaster]

64. Already answered in reply #11 by me, and by others

You're running out of material.

[onehandle]

69. Oh, yeah. Title 10.

Jefferson wrote that, right?


Keep wrapping the flag around the "right" to own a consumer product.

I'll give you my iPod when you take it from my cold, dead hands!


Excuse me. I must check and see if my power is dry. Damn Redcoats want a taste of my flintlock!

[slackmaster]

90. Thomas Jefferson never owned an iPod

But I'm sure he would have respected your right to own one.

[jmg257]

68. Of course. The Militia of the United States, and the Militias of the several states.

National Guard, the unorganized militia, numerous State Defense Forces.

And, you are welcome!

[onehandle]

73. And that's why I have the "right" to buy a consumer item?

:crazy:

[slackmaster]

83. No, militia membership is not a prerequisite for your right to buy a firearm

Nobody here except the gun-ban enthusiast contingent has ever said that it was.

[onehandle]

86. Then why an amendment?

Is someone going to go after my iPod?

Wal-Mart, please help us!

[slackmaster]

87. To prohibit the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms

Finally you're starting to ask some intelligent questions, snarky asides notwithstanding.

The people who wrote the Constitution recognized that a well-armed populace (i.e. militia) was essential to the security of a free state*. That's why the Second Amendment was written.




* At least it was at the time. If you think it isn't now and can get enough members of Congress and 3/4 of the states' legislatures to agree, then you can appeal it. It's been done before.

[jmg257]

92. Read the constitution - the reasons are right there. If you still can't figure

it out, read the debates from the Constitution Convention, the early Congress, the state ratifying committees, etc.

If you still need help - I can explain it to you.

[Callisto32]

88. Note

that it says the right to keep and bear arms. That could mean guns, pitchforks, spears you carved yourself out of a stick and so on. It is the right to possess and use a certain category of tools, not any one specific kind from a specific source as your "consumer item" argument suggests.

[jmg257]

91. No - freedom gives you the right to buy things. YOU brought up the militia, not me.

:silly:


However the 2nd does specifically secure your right to buy, keep and bear ARMS. The right to private ownership OF ARMS was deemed important enough to secure, as the constitutional guarantees and so our freedoms depended on it.

Now ARMS (and not ipods) got this special treatment because in hopes of having more efficient militias, in A1,S8 the govt was given the duty to come up with general guidelines on how the people should arm themselves for militia service. Many people feared this designation of power to the feds from the states, because it was be seen as a power the new gov might/could use to DISarm the people, and so the 2nd was added. And thankfully so, because it is to this day what 'legally' secures the people's right to arms from a lot of misguided infringement (very often not from abuse of the militia powers, but via the commerce clause)...not only for the primary reason of ensuring an armed people / militia, which in SOME ways has indeed been obsoleted, but also because it specifically secures the private and individual right to arms.

The 2nd is EXACTLY what has been used to reverse and to defend us from infringing gun control attempts. Because the right is enumerated, it helps defend that right, not only from a tyrannical govt, but also from an overreaching majority.

It has proven to be far from being an obsolete amendment.

[Iktomiwicasa]

32. Jeebus H Christ on a crutch

The 2nd Amendment is a check on the power of the U.S. government, not to repel the British. Our current National Gaurd isn't a militia in the sense that the framers of the constitution meant, either. The N.G. functions as a reserve arm of the U.S. military, and as such is an arm of the State. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Notice it clearly says PEOPLE, not STATE.

[onehandle]

35. So you were there? You asked them to clairify?

Wow! Way to stay alive.

I support gun ownership, but the second amendment is meaningless in modern America.

[Iktomiwicasa]

36. the 2nd Amendment

is a check on the power of the Federal Government. What part of that do you not understand?

[onehandle]

38. I think it's about keeping the squirrels at bay in my yard.

But keep posting whatever the founding fathers beam into your head.

And the NRA.

And the Looneytarians.

[slackmaster]

43. The right to keep squirrels at bay in your back yard is protected

By the Ninth Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[friendly_iconoclast]

109. Should we take the pledge, then?

[DeadEyeDyck]

103. Bingo!

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. You studied at the John Yoo school of Constitutional scholarship, I see

"No point to repeal it. It simply doesn't apply anymore"

[paulsby]

53. ah, the gun industry canard

i guess the 4th amendment is just an excuse for the defense lawyer industry to wrap itself in a flag.

same "logic"

[DrCory]

59. You Need A Refresher Course...

In American history:

"We were at war with the British in antiquity. We had a militia. Now we have an army."

We had an army then as well...June 15, 1775

[onehandle]

61. Actually, I did know that. And I did not cite dates.

We no longer have a militia. Making the second amendment meaningless.

And yet I am not against gun ownership. I am against wrapping a consumer item in a flag.

[X_Digger]

63. How ignorant..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces

"State Defense Forces are distinct from their state's National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities (all National Guard units can be federalized under the National Defense Act of 1933 with the creation of the National Guard of the United States). The federal government recognizes State Defense Forces under 32 U.S.C. § 109 which provides that State Defense Forces as a whole may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States, thus preserving their separation from the National Guard. "

[onehandle]

74. I've addressed this elsewhere and will not continue on this tangent. nt

[DrCory]

72. Actually...

We do have a militia

Post #3 in this thread contains the relevant information.

You really need to to research this subject more thoroughly before commenting.

[onehandle]

75. I've addressed this elsewhere and will not continue on this tangent. nt

[jmg257]

24. Of course there is a militia - several in fact. Which is only part of the reason the right was

secured, anyway.

The 2nd is alive and well and keeping your gun rights secured against alot of infringment.

[yay]

27. Nice

I'm going to remember that quote. Awsome.

[Tim01]

30. This country isn't very old

and we have already had one civil war. States are now threatening a second.
No matter which side you are on, it's better to have a gun in a gunfight.

[Jackson1999]

31. antique rights

Fine. Then start a movement to change it. We've amended the Constitution many times in the past. Until that time, however, don't deny me a right just because YOU think it is outdated.

[onehandle]

39. Buy a gun. I don't care.

Just don't use an out of date edict to wrap a flag around it.

[Iktomiwicasa]

40. Damn that ancient first Amendment...

...written in the days before television, radio, and the internet. It's archaic and should be scrapped.

:sarcasm:

[onehandle]

56. See reply #55. nt

[LuisCipher]

45. Wow...just wow

Such ignorance. Considering that the Bill of Rights is an enumeration of inalienable natural rights endowed to us by our creator, not by govt. Has NOTHING to do with the British and can NEVER be taken away.

[onehandle]

57. Who was talking about the Bill of Rights? See reply #55. nt

[paulsby]

54. wow

the constitution is an out of date edict.

tomorrow, i am going to go out and search any random person i see walking down the street.

i am going to write in my police report "i searched the defendant, without probable cause, because the 4th amendment protecting against unreasonable search and seizures is an out of date edict and thus does not limit state action"

this is kewl!

[onehandle]

55. I was talking about a specific part of the second amendment and you know it.

Now excuse me. I have work to do in my anvil shed.

I hear that the British are coming again, and I must prepare.

[pipoman]

58. Oh, so its just about the parts you don't like?

Funny that...the SCOTUS just ruled last year siting that outdated Amendment as the reason for the findings in their ruling...seems your feelings of antiquity are just that, YOUR feelings, and virtually no one else (including the dissenting justices) shares those feelings...makes them not unlike the feelings of some that NASA never really went to the moon, that the Earth is flat, and the moon is made of green cheese, huh..

[onehandle]

60. I didn't say I didn't like it. I think it's quaint.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a headache.

Time to get the leeches out.

[paulsby]

66. ironically

while they aren't used much for headaches any more, leeches have been used in modern medicine for oh... about the last 30 years, and are quite effective.

[pipoman]

94. Interesting choice of words,

quaint...Is the rest of the Constitution and BoR quaint too? Again your feeling of nostalgia isn't shared by SCOTUS or most other people, especially those who value their ability to defend themselves, their family, their community and their country. Further, in your newly found (and oft repeated today) proclamation of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment having to do with "consumer goods", well, this is just a way for you to nurture and maintain your demonstrably erroneous contentions that the Amendment is antiquated...if you say it enough it may become true...at least in your mind or while discussing the issue with friends and neighbors who are, as most people, basically disinterested...it won't fly here, nor where it really matters with anyone even mildly interested in Con. Law. Frankly the quaint First Amendment could be reduced to consumer goods too, huh. Computers, TV, newspapers, radios and the like are all basically just consumer goods are they not? Never mind their utility in delivering free exercise of the rights of both those who publish and broadcast and of those who access the information contained in these mediums...it's just about the object. I am sure you will read this and either not respond and go on telling yourself you're feelings are right or maybe you will respond with one of your quippy one-liners, this post is more to demonstrate to others the error in thinking you are espousing. Good day.

[paulsby]

65. good point

it is his FEELINGS. calling them thoughts or conclusions implies some sort of thought process vs. the reality, which is an emotional response a la "i don't like the ramifications of the 2nd amendment. i feel it's outdated"

[onehandle]

76. It's a Wal-Mart amendment.

I have the "right" to buy a consumer item.

Bully for the gun industry.

[paulsby]

77. it's no more a consumer issue

than choice is.

you have the right to purchase an abortion, or a gun.

neither is a walmart amendment or a consumer item.

it's about civil rights.

[onehandle]

78. Where's my iPod amendment?

Steve Ballmer wants to take my "right" to own a consumer item away.

Waaaahhhh!

[benEzra]

82. A ban on paper, pens, or printer's ink would be unconstitutional...

The courts have already addressed that. The relevant case was IIRC a state law that attempted to heavily tax printer's ink, on the theory that the First Amendment protected the press, but didn't say anything about the right to buy ink. The Court rightly put the kibosh on that, and ruled that an attempt to tax ink was an attempt to tax the press.

[onehandle]

85. But I have NO GUARANTEE of a right to own an iPod!

I want my piece of the Constitution.

I want my consumer product wrapped in the American Flag!

[slackmaster]

89. Yes you do

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I think that pretty well covers the right to own an iPod.

I want my consumer product wrapped in the American Flag!

The only person stopping you from doing that is you.

[onehandle]

96. Not specific enough.

The Constitution clearly states that I have a right to walk into a Wal-Mart and purchase "arms."

Provided that at any moment I am willing to repel Redcoats.

I want that for iPods!

What would be the catch to give me the right to purchase this specific consumer item... Hmm...

Ok. I would be willing to "Rock on!"

Now can my fetish be singled out for protection?

[benEzra]

97. Get a constitutional amendment passed saying

"the right of the people to keep and bear portable music players shall not be infringed." We already have one for small arms.

[slackmaster]

102. Wrong

The Constitution says nothing about Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart did not exist in the 18th Century.

[jmg257]

93. Get a movement going - secure that right specifically via an amendment and you are good!

[onehandle]

98. I dunno. An amendment to protect the right to purchase a specific consumer item.

Sounds far fetched to me.

In the 21st century world, one could conclude that it's the manufacturers' rights being protected.

Hell, you would be able to read just about anything into it, assuming you couldn't get in touch with the authors.

[benEzra]

99. If you protected only a specific manufacturer or type

instead of generally protecting the genre, you might have a point.

"The right of the people to keep and read books" is not a protection of manufacturer's rights, but the people's. "The right of the people to keep and bear books published by Random House" would be, because it is about funneling book purchasing to a particular manufacture.

[onehandle]

100. Good... Good...

Let's make it, "The right of the people to keep and bear portable electronic music devices."

But, we will need financing. Users would be the obvious source, but I would rather it be a bit more transparent in purpose.

Apple. The ball is in your court. Protect my rights as a consumer.

As soon as that one passes, we can work on... Oh, let's say toilet plungers.

[benEzra]

101. Is there a concerted effort to restrict the manufacture, sale, and ownership of music players

that I've missed?

Because there IS such a movement with regard to privately owned small arms, and always has been. Hence the need for the 2ndA, which originated as a "never again" response to the confiscation of privately owned firearms by British law enforcement in Massachusetts in the early 1770's, just as the 4thA was a "never again" response to British law enforcements' warrantless search/seizure policies of that era (aka Writs of Assistance).

I can give you links to about five very well funded and well connected organizations fighting to outlaw the most popular civilian small arms in this country. I don't think you can say the same about portable music players (and one could probably make a 1stA defense there anyway).

[AtheistCrusader]

104. It might be an interesting case but I expect that would be covered under the first amendment.

Most portable music players can recieve FM radio, music itself is an expression of free speech, podcasts, vlogging, etc. I would expect any attempt to ban portable music players would go over like an attempt to ban paper newspapers. Meaning, it wouldn't work at all.

[jmg257]

105. Why? If the govt was given certain powers that could be abused to inhibit

the lawful purchase/use of the item, and you (and a bunch of other people) feared the govt doing just that, which in turn would further seriously jeopardize your other freedoms and constitutional guarantees, AND you could get an amendment to meet the requirements needed to get it passed - then why not?

It has happened before.

[slackmaster]

11. We are all in the militia

The militia is the people.

120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard,
State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the
active militia --and the unorganized militia.

121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to
service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard, the
State Military Reserve, or the Naval Militia.

122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=mvc&group=00001-01000&file=120-130

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=militia&url=/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

[Hangingon]

18. Looked into joining the Texas State Guard just this morning...

unfortunately I am too old.

[TheWraith]

19. Do you know what "militia" means in a constitutional context?

It means forces for national defense not part of a standing army. Typically it refers to the Guard, but constitutionally is also includes as "unorganized militia" every single person in the country who's eligible for service. In other words, if the US were to get invaded, EVERYBODY grabs a gun and fights back.

[jmg257]

22. Why not all 'the people' then - as intended? That way the

primary reason the right is secured will be fulfilled, and everyone who wants to will enjoy all the other reasons as a nice side-bar - with good training and experience under their belts.

[paulsby]

50. it's a prefatory clause

numerous others exist, and it was not an uncommon way to phrase at the time.

and it in no way makes it a requirement to join the militia.

i can cite prof. volokh's work and others in regards to this if you like.

[Occam Bandage]

71. Psst. The Heller case kinda killed our argument there.

[russ1943]

49. Believe...........

&
Nearly seven-in-ten Republicans (68%) believe the U.S. health care system is the best in the world, http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2008-releases/republicans-democrats-disagree-us-health-care-system.html

&
68% of Republicans do not believe in evolution. http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx

[russ1943]

67. polls

A large majority (71%) favors continuation of the ban prohibiting the sales of assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition while 26 percent opposes continuing the ban.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=498

82% want the sale of semiautomatic,
assault weapons limited http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/pdf/070410.guns.norc.pdf


Nine out of 10 Illinois voters across the state support closing
the “private sale loophole” by requiring background checks for
all gun sales, with 86% of Illinois voters outside of Chicago and
the Collar Counties supporting such a measure.

Nine out of 10 Illinois voters across the state support closing
the “private sale loophole” by requiring background checks for
all gun sales, with 86% of Illinois voters outside of Chicago and
the Collar Counties supporting such a measure.

Ban the sale and possession of
semi-automatic assault weapons. 79% favor 20% oppose
OVERBROOK RESEARCH http://www.icpgv.org/pdf/StatewideToplines.pdf

[russ1943]

70. POLLS

A February 2004 survey conducted by Opinion Research Corporation International for the Consumer Federation of America found that 76% of non-gun owners supported renewing the ban on assault weapons, while 67% of all respondents and 56% of gun owners agreed.

A poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center released on September 6, 2004, showed that 68% of the American public were in favor of extending the assault weapons ban, with the highest levels of support among women (71%), people with college degrees (75%), Hispanics (75%), and liberals (75%). Support was strong with gun owners (57%), conservatives (62%), and residents of rural areas (61%).

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1786/Public-Attitudes-Toward-Gun-Control-OPINIONS-ON-GUN-CONTROL-REGISTRATION.html

[onehandle]

79. Are you saying that some people want to limit my consumer options?

Shocking!

NRA, have at them. In the name of sales!

[benEzra]

81. And what percentage of those actually knew that automatic weapons are already banned...

and that the question didn't have anything to do with military firearms?

[slackmaster]

84. Those poll results are invalid, and here's why

They don't contain any kind of mechanism to determine whether or not respondents understand what an assault weapon is, therefore the results are meaningless.

A whole lot of people mistakenly believe that the AW ban restricted automatic weapons.

[jody]

106. 15%+ ignore inalienable/unalienable rights and the same percent believe Dubya was a good president.

I guess there is no accounting for how some people's mind functions.