81% of Americans: INDIVIDUALS have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms

[TPaine7]

Most people in the United States interpret their Constitution’s Second Amendment in the same fashion, according to a poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion. 81 per cent of respondents believe the Second Amendment means that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.

Source: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/35735/americans_agree_on_second_amendmentaas_meaning

The marginal militia rights/states' rights/collective rights position is getting more marginal. I seem to recall the number being 75% last time I heard.

PS: In the interest of honesty, I have an issue with the poll wording. I doubt, however, that the issue I have can account for the change, given how polarizing the issue is.

[damntexdem]

1. Well, they've been so told by the SCOTUS.

How about asking whether they think individuals SHOULD have such a "right"?

Or simply rack it up to one more turn in the American death spiral.

[proteus_lives]

18. What other rights SHOULDN'T we have?

[sharesunited]

70. This so called right is completely imaginary, and is used to justify rampant injustice.

All for the love of a popping sound and the power to do damage at a distance.

[rrneck]

71. It's just as real as your right to proslytize. nt

[county worker]

2. I think it's over half of Americans that believe god created the earth in 6 days about 6000 yrs ago.

I think the poll is about right. I also think that most Americans believe that some gun control is needed.

In the poll, the two statements lead people to accept the first statement.

[TheWraith]

3. A plurality believe we need to keep current laws or should liberalize gun laws. nt

[county worker]

6. I don't know if I am in that plurality or not.

I think everyone over 18 should be able to buy a gun if they want one. I don't think that every kind of gun should be for sale. Most current military weapons should not be sold to anyone who wants them.

I think we should restrict sales to certain people like spouse abusers and criminals and some mentally disturbed people.

I own a gun and don't see the need for a law to prevent me from owning it if I am not a danger to society.

I also think the current surge in concealed carry permits and the laws that use to prevent guns in national parks and churches etc being rescinded is a move in the wrong direction.

I think there is too much unrealistic paranoia driving these gun issues.

[TheWraith]

14. Okay, one step at a time.

"I think everyone over 18 should be able to buy a gun if they want one."

Then you support looser gun laws in this case, since in most states the age to buy a handgun is 21.

"I don't think that every kind of gun should be for sale. Most current military weapons should not be sold to anyone who wants them."

It's a myth that you can buy current military weapons. You can't. Just because an AR-15 *looks* like an M-16 doesn't mean it's the same thing. Most of the weapons used by the military are completely unavailable to civilians.

"I think we should restrict sales to certain people like spouse abusers and criminals and some mentally disturbed people."

Already done.

"I also think the current surge in concealed carry permits and the laws that use to prevent guns in national parks and churches etc being rescinded is a move in the wrong direction."

Why? There's ample proof that people with concealed carry permits are actually less likely than average to commit a crime, so what's the harm? Furthermore, why is a church or a national park more deserving of special status than a grocery store?

[county worker]

33. The only reply is to the concealed carry issue and the 18 yr old issue.

In my opinion, the more people there are carrying guns the better the chances of an innocent person being killed. I do not accept the idea that the gun owners' motives and feelings about their abilities should give consolation to the rest of us. To me it is similar to the corporations telling me to trust that they will police themselves and are concerned about my best interests.

About the 18 year old issue. I was drafted at 19 and sent to Vietnam. If we can do that to people before they turn 21 they should be able to buy a gun before they turn 21. At the age of 20 I had used M-14, M-16A1, M-60 machine gun, Browning .50 cal machine gun, M-79 grenade launcher, M-1911A1 .45 Cal automatic pistol and Mk2 grenade, yet it was illegal for me to purchase a gun at home in Ohio.

[rrneck]

36. I wonder...

When you were there did anyone just give you an M-60 and tell you to go play with it, or was there some sort of rigid command structure regulating your every waking moment? That might be the difference.

[county worker]

42. All the weapons I used, I was ordered to use.

I left off the sawed off Winchester model 12 shotgun I was given in the replacement battalion. I was put on guard duty and was a perimeter defense and early warning system I guess. I had a handful of shells and was told to shoot and anything trying to cross my post.

I got the M-14 when I got to my company and soon traded it for the M-16A1. I had to man the .50 cal that was mounted on our APC. We took turns at that. The 45 automatic and grenade launcher I used when I rode shotgun in a nightly truck caravan that we were were volunteered for because the Vietnamese who use to drive in it refused since it was attacked almost every night with RPGs

I always carried as many grenades I could. All the shit I wore was about as heavy as I was at the time. I was and still am a little shit.

The M-60 was given to me after a half hour's training. We were surrounded by North Vietnamese during Tet. Me and another guy took the M-60 and as many ammo boxes as we could get and were sent to a guard post across the road from Bien Hoa air base. The air base ammo dump was blown up and we had know way of telling were we might get hit from. Luckily a couple of heuys and cobras kept the VC off out backs that night.

No I didn't play with any of those weapons.
Check it out. http://www.historynet.com/tet-offensive-the-battles-of-bien-hoa-and-long-binh.htm

[rrneck]

43. You didn't play with them

because you were trained not to. I'm guessing you went to boot camp before shipping out?

"All the weapons I used, I was ordered to use."

That's the rigid command structure I was talking about.

[county worker]

46. Of course I went to boot camp and AIT also. I don't know what you are getting at.

If you want to tell me that most gun owners are as proficient and safe with their weapons as I was, please don't. I used those weapons because I had to, not because I wanted to or because I thought it was a fun thing to do. And life here isn't any where near as dangerous enough that people need to carry weapons around. They do it because they want to and it's fun. You could never fight the U S Army or Marines with a two bit militia and the chance that you will get a gun in your face from a criminal is less than getting killed in a car accident.

[rrneck]

49. On the contrary.

"About the 18 year old issue. I was drafted at 19 and sent to Vietnam. If we can do that to people before they turn 21 they should be able to buy a gun before they turn 21."

That's the difference between giving an eighteen year old a gun here and giving an eighteen year old a gun in the military. A civilian eighteen year old could just buy the gun and walk out with it to do as he will. In the military they hand you one, tell you exactly what to do with it and make sure you do.

[county worker]

51. I don't see a hell of a lot of difference between and 18 yr old buying a gun and a 21 or older

person doing the same. In each case you would have had to take a gun course unless the got rid of that law also.

Some of those guys in the tea party vids carrying guns around are about as mature as an 18 yr old or less in my opinion.

[rrneck]

54. There's a huge difference

between military training and the safety course for CCW.

It's true that twenty one still seems young for a lot of people. The line is arbitrarily drawn at the age of consent. As far as I'm concerned they shouldn't be able to draft anyone until twenty one either.

[PavePusher]

62. Ummm, where do you have to take a course in order to buy a gun?

Many states require a class in order to carry a gun concealed...

[GreenStormCloud]

57. You are wrong on the odds.

There are over one million violent crimes per year in the U.S., while there are less that 50K fatal accidents. There are about 17K murders in the US. Do the math and you will see that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is much greater than the odds of being killed in a car wreck.

My wife has already used her gun to prevent herself from being murdered. No shots fired, would be thug ran away when he found out that she wasn't an easy victim.

[Travis Coates]

61. Fighting the US Army

You could never fight the U S Army or Marines with a two bit militia

I guess someone should tell the Taliban that

[TheWraith]

38. There's an estimated 6 million people in the US with concealed carry licenses.

And yet, the predictions of "wild west shootouts" and "blood running in the street" never came true. Statistically, you're more likely to be wrongfully shot by a police officer than someone with a concealed carry license.

[county worker]

44. Like I said, I won't take comfort in the words of the concealed carry people.

[TheWraith]

45. What do the words of concealed carry people have to do with anything?

Unless you believe that the FBI statistics on violent crime are being made up to suit people who carry a firearm.

[county worker]

47. This is a discussion that never goes anywhere. I've had it many times on DU.

I think that feeling you need to carrying a concealed weapon is a result of some kind of mental problem, 2nd amendment or not. I know you don't so it goes nowhere.

[TheWraith]

50. None of which changes the fact that the FBI says your beliefs are wrong.

You said that concealed carry equals more deaths. The FBI's own statistics say that's wrong. The only thing you can come back with is that you think people who carry a firearm for self-defense are mentally ill. Besides the fact that that's offensive in general, do you think that there's no one in the world who needs to protect themselves while not at home? No one who walks through a bad neighborhood to get to work? No one who carries large amounts of cash? Nobody who works in a high risk area?

You can't back up your original claim, but you continue to push your faith-based view of the situation despite facts to the contrary.

[county worker]

52. My opinions are my opinions and nothing more. I've been wrong before.

When I was younger you had to show proof that you had a dangerous job or some other reason that your life could be in danger to get a concealed carry permit. I think that makes sense. Now it seems anyone who wants to can carry a concealed weapon no matter if they have a dangerous situation or not. I don't think that makes sense.

Yes you could get offended if I said that wanting to carry a concealed weapon is a result of a mental problem. It's called paranoia.

I am not trying to offend anyone but that's my opinion. In my life I have known some real gun nuts. I am not saying that people who own guns are gun nuts. I own a gun also and I don't consider myself a gun nut. But in the millions of people walking around everyday carrying concealed weapons are gun nuts like the people I knew. And that scares the shit out of me.

There was a reason for the laws that only permitted people with dangerous occupations to carry concealed weapons. Those reasons have not gone away just because the laws were changed.

Again this is all my opinion. I may be right but I'm sure you don't think so.

[TheWraith]

53. Climate change deniers have an "opinion" too, but that doesn't make it valid.

You asserted that more people carrying concealed means more deaths. That's provably wrong. I'm sorry if I'm not respecting your right to believe things that aren't true, but this isn't a situation where all ideas are equally valid. One is scientifically falsifiable.

[county worker]

56. We haven't had enough time to make a good judgment I think.

OK there may be statistics but I don't know of them. Please give me a link and I will read them. I'm hoping that they are from a neutral source.

[GreenStormCloud]

58. Several states annually publish their CCW statistics.

From the states that publish them, we assume that other states have similar experience. Also, the VPC, a noted enemy of CC keeps a running count of the number of people killed by CC holders, even if the killing is not done by firearms and is unrelated to CC, and even if the CC person is later exonerated. That number is very low. I am short on time now, but I will post some links tomorrow.

BTW - You are about 27 times more likely to be struck by lightning than you are to be illegally killed by a CC holder.

[X_Digger]

60. Here are two states that pubilsh the data..

TX- http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

FL- http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

Florida has had CCW since 1987, TX since 1995. Both show that CCW / CHL licensees commit and are convicted of crimes at a rate better than the law enforcement across much of the country, 6-20x less frequently (depending on crime) than the general public.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

67. I suppose it follows:

If you intend to commit a crime with a gun then registering yourself and your weapon may not facilitate the required level of anonymity to ensure a reasonable probability of escape. </geek-speak>

So if you're registered you probably realize you need ot mind you manners.

Maybe we should make EVERYBODY register for a CCW!

:P

[X_Digger]

68. No kidding.. especially in states that take fingerprints. n/t

[shedevil69taz]

69. Not everybody should have deadly weapons

so making those that shouldn't have them register to be able to carry one concealed wouldn't be the best use of resources.

[TPaine7]

9. Every theory of origin is preposterous on its face.

There are people who believe that 13-15 billion years ago, all of the matter and energy of the universe sprang forth spontaneously from nothing, for no reason whatsoever and IN VIOLATION OF EVERY KNOWN LAW OF PHYSICS.

(Not to hijack my own thread or anything.)

[dmallind]

31. I'm sorry - what do we know of the laws of physics at that time? They do change ya know. NT

[TPaine7]

39. Nope. Laws of physics don't change--by definition.

I'm not a physicist (and neither, I suspect, are you) so I'll quote a relevant passage from a very eminent scholar who is:

There is, however, a second and more serious objection. Cosmology cannot predict anything about the universe unless it makes some assumption about the initial conditions. Without such an assumption, all one can say is that things are as they are now because they were as they were at an earlier stage. Yet many people believe that science should be concerned only with the local laws which govern how the universe evolves in time. They would feel that the boundary conditions for the universe that determine how the universe began were a question for metaphysics or religion.

The situation was made worse by the theorems that Roger {Penrose} and I proved. These showed that, according to general relativity, there should be a singularity in our past. {That's a reference to the big bang, for those who don't know.--TPaine7} At this singularity the field equations could not be defined. Thus classical general relativity brings about its own downfall: it predicts that it can't predict the universe.

Although many people welcome this conclusion, it has always profoundly disturbed me. If the laws of physics could break down at the beginning of the universe, why couldn't they break down anywhere? In quantum theory it is a principle that anything can happen if it is not absolutely forbidden. Once one allows that singular histories could take part in the path integral, they could occur anywhere and predictability would disappear completely. If the laws of physics break down at singularities, they could break down anywhere.

The only way to have a scientific theory is if the laws of physics hold everywhere, including at the beginning of the universe. One can regard this as a triumph for the principles of democracy: Why should the beginning of the universe be exempt from the laws that apply to other points? If all points are equal, on can't allow some to be more equal than others.

Source: Stephen Hawking writing in the book The Nature of Space and Time which he co-authored with Roger Penrose. The quotation is from Chapter 5, authored by Stephen and entitled "Quantum Cosmology." Here is a link to the text: http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Space-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0691050848/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279221410&sr=1-1 . The quote is on pages 75-76.

Believe it or not, I came to the same conclusion just using logic. I then looked to see if others had the same problem. It turns out that Einstein himself and many others since have grappled with the implications of general relativity--which was used to develop the big bang theory.

Everything we "know" about the universe--the red shift of receding stars, the expansion of the universe, the chemical composition of the clouds on Jupiter, the necessity of dark matter and dark energy, the mass of the sun, the internal nuclear processes of the sun and other stars, and on and on... is based on our premise that the law of physics are constant without exception.

When you take the core assumption of science--the unchanging laws of physics--and project backwards in time, you get a surprising conclusion. The assumption of the constant laws of physics leads inexorably to the conclusion that the law of physics were not always what they are now.

Stephen Hawking puts it mildly, he says that science "predicts that it can't predict the universe." That is a profound contradiction, a self-impeachment. In order to accept the big bang you have to accept this statement at face value:

We know that the laws of physics are constant--there are no miracles or other exceptions to the rules. Based on this framework, we expect scientific experiments to be repeatable, and we expect that the rules that apply on earth will apply in other star systems or other galaxies at the farthest reaches of the universe.

Based on this understanding, we can back calculate prior states of the universe until we reach a point where the rules of physics break down completely. Thus we know, based on the fact that the laws of physics are constant without exception, that the laws of physics are not constant without exception.

[dmallind]

40. Including in quantum state?

[TPaine7]

41. That's Stephen Hawking talking, not TPaine7

Read his third paragraph in the quote box. He's clearly accounting for quantum mechanics in his logic.

[GreenStormCloud]

59. The quantum state IS physics. N/T

[dmallind]

63. Yes - and behaves differently NT

[GreenStormCloud]

64. At the extreme micro scale it obeys the laws of physics for that scale.

It is still physics.

[dmallind]

65. Agreed - but again - behaves differently. And AFAIK we haven't framed all laws at quantum level yet

[GreenStormCloud]

66. Our understanding of physics is not yet complete. N/T

[shadowrider]

25. Americans believe that some gun control is needed. I Agree.

At 10 feet, I put 5 of 10 in the bullseye
At 12 feet, I put 3/4 of 10 in the bullseye
At 15 feet, I put 1 in the bullseye

I need more gun control

[county worker]

34. At 25 feet I put three in the bullseye. That was with a Ruger .22 single action.

I use to own 20 acres in the boonies and had a very good gun range in the back. I practiced a lot.

[zipplewrath]

4. majority thinks alot of things

Like that constitutional protections only apply to citizens.

It's not universally true, but they believe it.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Quick, someone tell me if this is a right or left biased poll source, I don't know

[X_Digger]

8. Light googling didn't reveal an obvious bias..

.. but it is a polling group I'd never heard of.

They do have some interesting polling in Canada re firearms.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/34528/canadians_call_long_gun_registry_inefficient

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/29602/handgun_ban_splits_views_in_canada

History of the Global Monitor

The Angus Reid Global Monitor began at the University of British Columbia in 2003, as an ongoing academic project from Dr. Angus Reid. Dr. Reid is a Canadian sociologist with four decades of experience in the field of public opinion research.

In 2004, the project was transferred to Dr. Reid’s company Angus Reid Consultants, and is now a component of Angus Reid Public Opinion, the public affairs practice of Vision Critical. The Angus Reid Global Monitor has remained an independent, non-partisan institute providing high-quality analysis and research for public dissemination and benefit.

[KansasVoter]

7. And that means a lot of different things to different people........

Long guns in the home? Hand guns on the street? Stupid poll. Most dems I know are fine with guns at home. CC is another story.

[X_Digger]

10. So it's "stupid" because it didn't ask the question you were looking for?

Perhaps you should contact them and see if they plan on polling your question any time soon.

While you wait for them to respond, check out these other polls-

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/recent-shootings-gun-control-support-fading.aspx



And the support for stricter gun control is only going down..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/index.html

Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.

[Glassunion]

11. What do you feel is the issue with CC?

I personally do not have an issue with it, and in fact I do carry.

I'm just wondering as to what harm on society or any other reason you feel that CC should not be allowed.

[TPaine7]

12. There's nothing stupid about the poll. It addresses the

militia rights/collective rights/state's rights theory in public understanding.

Hopefully the belief that to "bear arms" means to carry a gun from the family room to the bedroom will meet a similar fate. Of course the term "bear arms" includes carrying handguns "in the street." We'll have to wait for another poll to see what people think about that.

Hopefully after a few years and a few Supreme Court cases, we'll be back here with you rationalizing similar stats on "hand guns on the street."

B-)

[GreenStormCloud]

13. A strong majority of the populace of 41 states strongly believes in it.

That's how many states have shall-issue CC.

In some states Democrats lost some good people over the issue. In fact, Ann Richards vetoed CC in Texas. Bush used that as a campaign issue and defeated her. Then he used Texas as a springboard to the Presidency. Thank you anti-RKBA people for giving us 8 years of G W Bush.

Other governors have seen their vetoes overridden by their state legislatures.

[Hoopla Phil]

22. As I remember it she vetoed it twice. Once was a law

coming from our legislature and the other was a state wide referendum.

[proteus_lives]

19. Most Dems I know are fine with CC.

So are the Repugs, the independents and the misc.

[Katya Mullethov]

23. Shoot much skeet ?

Different crowd I gather .

[Travis Coates]

24. Skeets don't taste very good

they're kinda tough

[shadowrider]

26. You need sauteed butter and onions

with a touch of BBQ sauce. Boil them forever before sauteeing.

[Pullo]

28. don't forget the bacon! n/t

[Katya Mullethov]

48. Not allowed in Chicago an-eeeee-mo

https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/About%20CPD/Firearm%20Registration/Unsafe-Roster-final.pdf

Bacon Arms and Bacon Mfg Co . ....sez right there . Also note the obscure firearms considered antiques under federal law. Guns like the "Defender", "Swamp Angel", and "Tramps Terror" were cheap single-action .22 and .32 rimfire revolvers with spur triggers, made in the late 1800s, and were commonly known as "Suicide Specials".

Over the last 30 years or so, they have become quite collectable, and their value has risen accordingly. In the 1960s they could be had for less than $25 apiece for them. Nowadays it's not uncommon to find them selling at prices in the $300 - $450 range.

Their inclusion in Chicago's banned list only shows the total ignorance of the Daley administration.

[proteus_lives]

30. I never have.

Personally, I think he's projecting about his crowd.

I would give skeet-shooting a chance.

[Statistical]

37. Kinda unlikely one shoots skeet if they are unfamiliar with the fact that rifles have safeties.

Pull - click - damn
Pull - click - damn
Pull - click - damn

Hey I think my "skeet blaster" is broken.

[slackmaster]

21. Your reasons to oppose concealed carry are not rational

There is no factual basis for opposing it.

[MisterBill45]

15. I'm not sure

The antis are quite right to point out that poll numbers don't mean a given opinion is right. They don't.

I just wish they would use the same standard of reasoning when it comes to the rest of the questions about guns.

[TPaine7]

16. Oh, I never meant to imply that popularity makes our position right.

The OP is about the national opinion, about the political environment.

Being popular is not what make us right. The individual rights position is right now no less than it was when scholars and academics were laughing at it and less people believed in it.

[MisterBill45]

17. Lol

That comment wasn't directed at the OP really. It was a snark about the antis' double-standards.

[slackmaster]

20. That means 19% of us are misinformed, misguided, or stupid

:nuke:

[shadowrider]

27. Or

they're Democrats running for re-election wondering why they ain't winning.

:evilgrin:

[GreenStormCloud]

29. Of that 19%, 10% had no opinion, only 9% said it wasn't an individual right. N/T

[Statistical]

32. By 9:1 ratio Americans have rejected the "collective rights" nonsense.

Terrible news for the gun-grabbers.

"How dare the people open there eyes and accept plain English reading of the Constitution".

Reminds me of the catholic church in 1600s. Got pissed off because people translated the Bible into English (and other languages). That combined with the printing press allowed people for the first time to read it themselves (and thus didn't need the church's interpretation). The horrors of Christians reading the word of God.

[GreenStormCloud]

35. Outstanding observation! 9:1 indeed. Love it! N/T

[Euromutt]

55. About bloody time, too

Where else but with the RKBA has anyone ever posited in a democratic society that a "right" could belong only to a group but not to the individual members of that group? Is it okay to persecute individual members of a religion for being members of that religion, as long as you don't persecute all adherents of that religion simultaneously? Is it okay to inflict unreasonable searches and seizures of persons and effects of individuals, provided you don't do it to everybody (or at least, not at once)? Is it okay to only let individuals vote if there is a sufficiently large turnout at the polls?

I think my point is clear: the very notion of a "collective right" is ridiculous on its face. It's a transparent attempt the deny the existence of a right without actually denying it.