More Americans prioritize gun control above Second Amendment rights by the widest margin since President Barack Obama took office, according to a new poll released Thursday in wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings.Well, it certainly wouldn't be right to disparage telephone surveys which produce pro-gun results and then place credence in this one. However, unlike some of them, this one makes sense.
Forty-nine percent of those polled said it’s more important to control gun ownership, compared to 42 percent who say it’s more important to protect Americans’ rights to own guns, according to a Pew Research Center Poll.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
WOW! I just read that the Chinese government also thinks the US should disarm the citizens. I wonder why that is.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"
DeleteThat's why.
The private ownership of firearms by the common civilian endows the masses with the ability to use violence as a means to achieve political change. Such would be destructive to the world community.
E.N., do you believe that "state actors" can do wrong? If so, what can force them to be accountable for their actions?
DeleteChina is probably feeling sorry for us in our decline and is offering some neighborly advice.
DeleteChina may feel free to shut up. On questions of morality, China's like a rapist telling a man who smokes around his family that he's doing wrong.
DeleteAfter much thought I have come to one definitive conclusion relating to the ills of the American (Common Law Federalized Constitutionalist)legal system. All problems relate to one fundamental problem concerning government:
ReplyDeleteCurrently the State strictly legislates "thou-shalt-not's". Criminal codes State what acts a subject must not engage in. This is wasteful, inadequate, and often bears tragic consequences. Instead of enacting negative duties and prohibitions, by telling a subject what they can't do, the State should tell subjects what they can do.
The Government ought to legislate what citizens MAY do as opposed to what they MAY NOT do.
A diametrically opposite situation affects State activity. The United States Constitution implicitly prohibits all Federal action, and then proceeds to establish exceptions (commonly known as "Enumerated Powers") to enable the Federal Government to carry out limited duties which exceed the authority of the individual State. The power of the States which comprise the union, are limited by the (typically negative) "rights" found in their native constitutions, or more recently, the provisions of the Federal Constitution which have been deemed to apply to such.
The current system illustrates the backwards notion that individuals (as opposed to the collective State) are (somehow) endowed with "rights" (such as the right to hate, the right to evade law enforcement, the right to own killing machines, and the like) and that, upon the formation of a collective society, and a State to rule over such, subjects grant necessary power to the State in order for such to fulfill specific duties.
Such a concept is ridiculous, in addition to being inherently dangerous, as the common subject has no rights in a civilized society. When a government is formed, all rights previously retained by individuals are collectivized, and left to the discretion of the State.
We need to rethink our concept of "crime" before such "crime" consumes us all. Therefore the role of the State's legal codes ought to be re-evaluated to allow certain actions, as opposed to prohibiting certain actions.
Government ought to tell the people what they can lawfully do, instead of what they can't.
So where have you been authorized to speak? Oh, yes, you were born with that right, and our Constitution bars the government from infringing on it. The more you talk, the more you confirm the existence of the right.
DeleteWhy did we bother with that silly ol Revolution then?
DeleteHey Mike, we have a representative republic specifically so the majority CANNOT overrun the minority. Gun control must pass a VERY high bar to be Constitutional.
ReplyDeleteThat's crap, Rev. The 2nd Amendment is obsolete. Politicians may continue to give it lip service, but no one in their right mind thinks it applies to what's going on in the country today.
DeleteOn what grounds do you call the amendment obsolete? You have nothing other than the fact that you don't like guns. If you didn't like speech, you'd say the same about the First.
Delete