1. Poll after poll come up with the same results so it cant be blamed on skewed questions. If you believe the questions are skewed, please show some real examples.
It's not, for me at least, about them "coming to get our guns." It's about making it difficult or impossible for law abiding citizens to obtain them.
I quoted the dude who wrote one of the polls showing your 90%. What is skewed is pulling the figure you want out of a poll while ignoring the obvious caveat derived from the questions that follow, 90% want universal background checks BUT......
Okay...here is the exact question:
That sounds pretty straightforward to me.
That is an just paranoia setting in. There was nothing in the background check law that allowed the government to take your legal guns away. Even if the full Brady Bill passed, there was nothing in there that allowed the government to take your legally purchased guns away. During the old Brady Bill (that was allowed to expire under Bush 43), it only limited the sale of newly manufactured guns. Guns that were already manufactured were not affected. I believe that the new Brady Bill would have been the same way.
See my reply to Bamaro about how it happened one step at a time in the UK. I wonder how many paranoid Brits wound up being right?
I'm not because I know it's a lost cause. Put in all the guns laws and restrictions you like. They will fail to accomplish what you're trying to accomplish. What it will accomplish is a false sense of security and be harder for the innocent to obtain weapons to protect themselves. That's what will happen. Again, I'm not sure what better example could have happen to prove that when idiots decide to go loco and kill folks they will than this past Monday. AND you've got a guy running through the neighborhoods going house to house. Do you think now's a great time for someone to have a gun with plenty of ammo? I would think so! But put in too many gun restrictions and when things like this happen you've left a lot of people potentially short of ammo or without a gun at all.
And as funny as this is this is exactly the mindset of a lot of anti-gun folks. Their "solution" is to lock your doors. WOOOOO!!!! THAT'll KEEP THAT BIG BAD DUDE WITH A FREAKIN' AR-15 FROM COMING THROUGH THAT DOOR!!! THAT WILL SHOW HIM!!! I say no thank you. I'll lock my doors, pull out my "toys" and if the the perp feels froggy enough to bust down my door I'll at least be able to fire back.
Why don't you give us the state-by-state breakdown, which is essentially all that matters in our form of government anyway. For example, do 90%, 74% or even 50% of Alabamians support expanded background checks? If not, you might begin to understand the Senate vote.
I don't see how that implies that it is trying to be a manipulative question. It is asking about what it should be. Not what it is now.
Was the purpose of the bill and/or the recently defeated amendment to simply require background checks at gun shows, or was the requirement intended to extend beyond gun shows?
Thats as false as most of the gun huggers arguments. Gun owning knows no political orientation although I would guess a higher percentage of conservatives own. I own a few guns myself. I have a very conservative friend who owns none. You never know.
