Poll: What should the government do to limit the availability of firearms?

Poll: What should the government do to limit the availability of firearms?

http://www.sfgate.com/news/

The question is flawed. It starts with the premise that guns are not limited too much already. Were I a lawyer in court, I'd object, saying that the question assumes facts not in evidence.

A better question would be, "What should the government do change the existing limits on firearms?" One of the choices could then be, "Remove existing restrictions in federal law and return the matter to the States." Instead, I must choose, like a large plurality already has chosen, "Nothing."

This is a perfect example of a push poll. It's goal is not to find out how the People want to limit firearms. It is to convince them that the decision to limit firearms has already been made and that they need to accept that decision. They are only being consulted on how to implement that decision.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

There is only one legal way, that is amending the 2nd.

This is something that cannot be left to the states, that would be like saying states can institute their own religion, ban free speech, etc.

As far as amending the 2nd..... Good luck with that one.:banana:

Jeff. State said:

There is only one legal way, that is amending the 2nd.

This is something that cannot be left to the states, that would be like saying states can institute their own religion, ban free speech, etc.

As far as amending the 2nd..... Good luck with that one.:banana:

Click to expand...

But this query should be "What COULD the government....?" not the "should" they have to fit your response of amending the constitution....

Jeff. State said:

There is only one legal way, that is amending the 2nd.

This is something that cannot be left to the states, that would be like saying states can institute their own religion, ban free speech, etc.

As far as amending the 2nd..... Good luck with that one.:banana:

Click to expand...

actually repealing the second ammendment would do nothing. As we are born with the God given right to keep and bear arms. The 2a simply protects it, with out it we still have this right. the bill of rights is redundant

Current numbers:

What should the government do to limit the availability of firearms?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More and more complete background checks for gun buyers
486 ( 15.6% )
Ban large-capacity gun magazines
671 ( 21.5% )
Nothing
1499 ( 48.1% )
Amend the Second Amendment
463 ( 14.8% )

Jeff. State said:

There is only one legal way, that is amending the 2nd.

This is something that cannot be left to the states, that would be like saying states can institute their own religion, ban free speech, etc.

As far as amending the 2nd..... Good luck with that one.:banana:

Click to expand...

Until incorporation, which is majorly responsible for the demise of our Constitution, States could, in fact, do all of the above. It was only their constitutions and their willingness to follow them that protected their citizen's rights. Also, if any one State became oppressive, folks could simply leave and follow the path to Liberty in another State. That kept the States honest.

Now it is the fed's responsibility, not the States' job to protect our rights. How's that working for ya?

When there is only one entity determining which rights will be protected and how, those decisions become arbitrary, and eventually will be made irreversibly incorrectly.

NO! It is the States' jobs to enumerate and protect our rights. That creates a marketplace of Liberty. When one State screws up royally, say California, honest folk will leave in droves and move to other States with better track records on Liberty, say Texas.

We must return to federalism.

"More and more complete background checks for buyers."

As with anything else leaning toward the liberal end of the spectrum, a disconnect from logical thinking is required.

"more and more complete"......

Once something is complete....how can it become MORE complete?

Is this like MORE pregnant?

MORE dead?

...or, in the case of this journalistic enterprise: MORE stupidest.

Jeff. State said:

There is only one legal way, that is amending the 2nd.

This is something that cannot be left to the states, that would be like saying states can institute their own religion, ban free speech, etc.

As far as amending the 2nd..... Good luck with that one.:banana:

Click to expand...

At least two of our Founding Fathers believed that the Bill of Rights was unamendable: Jefferson and Madision. And I strongly suspect George Mason and Patrick Henry felt the same since those two men are responsible for convincing Madison of the need of a Bill of Rights. Too bad the Preamble to the Bill or Rights did not specifically address this and state emphatically that these articles were beyond reproach and therefore, not subject to being amended.

Jeff. State said:

There is only one legal way, that is amending the 2nd.

This is something that cannot be left to the states, that would be like saying states can institute their own religion, ban free speech, etc.

As far as amending the 2nd..... Good luck with that one.:banana:

Click to expand...

Your first statement is completely true. The feds have no power to pass any gun laws whatsoever.

Your second is not. If the Constitution were to have been followed as intended, the States could and did have State sponsored religions. The 14th was never intended to have incorporated the Bill of Rights to the States. In all the debate in congress and the ratification debates in the States, not once was this aspect of the 14th mentioned. Only in the 1950s did this come about by SCOTUS as part of the biggest power grab in the history of the U.S. and possibly the world. Federal courts nor SCOTUS have any authority to "interpret or re-interpret" the Constitution.

SouthernBoy said:

At least two of our Founding Fathers believed that the Bill of Rights was unamendable: Jefferson and Madision. And I strongly suspect George Mason and Patrick Henry felt the same since those two men are responsible for convincing Madison of the need of a Bill of Rights. Too bad the Preamble to the Bill or Rights did not specifically address this and state emphatically that these articles were beyond reproach and therefore, not subject to being amended.

Click to expand...

The preamble to the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, or the Bill of Rights have no weight of law. None were present when these documents were signed. They were written afterwards and added, so it does not matter what they say.

Whatever anyone believed about unamendability, the reality is that nothing in the Constitution makes them so.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>