Voters Ultimately Divided On Banning Scary Looking Guns

Despite all the caterwauling by Democrats in their quest to limit the Constitution Rights of citizens (2nd, 4th, 6th, and so on), along with their sit-in cry-fest, the American public is just not ready for their brand of gun grabbing

(NBC News)  With gun policy taking center stage on Capitol Hill in the aftermath of the June 12 mass shooting in Orlando, Americans still remain lukewarm to sweeping gun control compared to the mid-1990s, when public opinion propelled a 10-year assault weapons ban into law.

Fifty percent of voters say that they are concerned that the government will go too far in restricting the rights of citizens to own guns, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, while 47 percent said they were more concerned that authorities would not do enough to regulate access to firearms.

And therein lies one of the big problems: Government. We could implement better measures to restrict firearms from people who really should not have them, namely terrorists, those who have show a propensity for getting involved in radical Islamist movements, and a few other very limited folks, but, there is a serious concern that Democrats will use these powers to deny law abiding American citizens their 2nd Amendment rights based on bureaucratic say-so. Especially as Democrats are uninterested in Due Process, and are thrilled with the prospect of making citizens guilty till proven innocent.

A ban on the sale of the semi-automatic firearms referred to as assault weapons remains relatively popular, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, with 51 percent of voters supporting such a ban while 31 percent oppose it.

Quick, which one can do more damage?

What’s more, asked now how they would describe a proposal to ban the sale, voters are split on whether the ban would be worthwhile.

Forty-five percent said an assault weapons ban would be “worth it because it is one more step that could be done to try to reduce the number of casualties and save lives.” Forty-nine percent said such a policy is “NOT worth it because it will not stop the attackers from getting the weapons they need.”

Since few shootings use a rifle, what would be the point, other than banning those scary looking weapons, which allow women to protect themselves with lighter, more weidly guns?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “Voters Ultimately Divided On Banning Scary Looking Guns”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Since few shootings use a rifle, what would be the point, other than banning those scary looking weapons, which allow women to protect themselves with lighter, more weidly guns?

    Since most mass shooters are weak, cowardly, insecure in their manhood pussies, they prefer assault weapons (the “scary” looking ones) for some reason, probably for the easy handling, flash suppression (easier to see secondary targets), pistol grip and large magazines. Do women use assault weapons very often in self defense?

  2. John says:

    Well Teach how woukd you like to reduce the 30000 deaths caused by guns each year?
    That is well over half a million since 2000
    I think something should be done to reduce that number Guns make it too easy to kill another human being
    We do know that the states with the highest rates of gun ownership also (duh!) have the highest rates of gun violence We also do know that out of the top 10 states for gun violence all but one are Red states
    We also know that ALL 10 of the states with the lowest amount of gun violence are all Blue states. And THE state with the lowest gun violence has the toughest laws about gun ownership Hawaii
    See a pattern here Teach ? And Teach per capita gun violence in rural areas is equal to that of urban areas

  3. drowningpuppies says:

    “There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous men.”
    — Robert Heinlein

    “Americans have the right to choose to be unarmed and helpless. Be my guest.”
    –- Ted Nugent

  4. John says:

    Responsible law abiding gun owners are responsible and law abiding, right up until they are not. Then it is too late.
    Can’t wait for a new SCOTUS

  5. John says:

    And even before we get a new SCOTUS
    We have a new good ruling on guns from them. No guns for domestic abusers.

  6. Gregg says:

    Convicted domestic abusers are already forbidden access to firearms. You’re not even allowed to posses firearms if your domestic partner takes out a restraining order on you, as is common in divorce cases.

    As far as self defense, the AR-15 is one of the best choices for home defense. Not only is it light, low recoiling and rather fun to shoot which encourages practicing with the firearm. It also has trouble penetrating multiple layers of drywall, even more so when there is insulation between the layers of drywall. In fact, both shotguns and handguns tend to penetrate standard construction walls better than standard AR-15s.

    It is obvious that you do not have even the least amount of knowledge on this topic. Why exactly should anyone listen to your opinion when you are so ill informed?

  7. Gregg says:

    Oh, and John where exactly did you get your numbers on gun deaths?

    They do not jive with the numbers I have seen from the FBI or other relatively unbiased sources. In fact the only places I have seen numbers like those are from the various gun control groups.

  8. Jeffery says:


    Approximately 20,000 suicides with firearms, 10,000 homicides and fewer than 1000 unintentional in US. 30,000 per year is a good rule of thumb.

  9. Gregg says:

    A) Once again please cite your source.

    B) even if we take those numbers to be accurate. The 20,000 suicides will just move to a different method. The number of accidental shootings is negligible in the population, actually quite low compared to other items like swimming pools and cars. As for the homicides that does not specify justified vs unjustified. I’m willing to bet that the majority of those are gang or drug related and that the firearms used are not legally acquired.

    I fail to see how more gun control will affect anything in a positive manner, or do you want us all to live in some version of Chicago?

  10. Jeffery says:


    If you’re interested you can look it up. Google “firearms deaths”. It will mean more to you if you find out for yourself.

    Suicide attempts are often a response to an acute problem. 90% of suicide attempts with firearms are successful. Only 3% of suicide attempts with poisoning/drugs are successful. One can argue that those who attempt with firearms are more serious about ending their lives. Of those that fail an initial suicide attempt, how many subsequently succeed? The literature quotes a successful “re-attempt” rate of 10-15%.

    You’re probably right about homicides, except for mass murders.

    Our 30,000 firearms related deaths each year are the price we pay for the freedom to have unfettered access to guns. There’s little we can do about it in practical terms.

  11. Gregg says:

    What has been seen in other countries that have followed through and heavily regulated firearms is an uptick in crime and no corresponding down tick in deaths.
    Is it better somehow to be killed with a machete or a hammer than with a gun?

  12. Jeffery says:


    I’m on your side! I don’t think we’ll ever change our gun culture, so why do we even bother.

    Certainly it should be easy to see the increased crime if a country suddenly limits weapons. The hypothesis is that by taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens that crooks will guns will go wild.

    Is that true? I’m familiar with Australia, and data there does not support your contention that “in other countries that have followed through and heavily regulated firearms is an uptick in crime and no corresponding down tick in deaths”.

    I’ve made the argument that our high crime rate is surprising in light of our armed populace.

Pirate's Cove