Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!

Government

Poll Results: Blaze Readers On Guns And The Second Amendment

Jan. 13, 2013 11:15pm Mike Opelka

Last week, TheBlaze invited you to participate in an online survey about guns, gun ownership, and the current debate about limiting or changing what is allowed by the Second Amendment. Our readers delivered almost 5 million responses to the 106 questions in the survey.

Before we break down some of the significant facts from this poll, let’s remind you of the make-up of a typical Blaze reader (statistics culled from last year’s poll that generated over 3 million responses).

100% believe in the right to bear arms
85% are at least 35-years
80% are homeowners
78% have children
76% are married
73% served in the U.S. military or have an immediate family member serving
71% of the respondents are male
66% own dogs (36% have cats)
63% have more than one gun
54% read more than 12 books a year
52% have taken a firearms safety class

If you take all of that data into account, the typical Blaze reader is a married man, a reader, over 35, who has a house, kids, dogs, and at least one gun. However, it should be noted that readership has expanded significantly since last year.

Last week, the typical Blaze reader (and many others) gave us some clarity on how they feel about the Second Amendment. We began our survey with 20 questions and then invited you to submit your own. In the end, we approved an additional 86 questions for a total of 106. Those questions triggered 4,876,394 responses.

The “most-agreed” upon question generated unanimous consensus. We asked, “Do you believe in the Second Amendment. Score – 100% YES.

Blaze Reader Poll Results: Guns and the Second Amendment in America

Image: Urtak.com

The overall feeling about why the Second Amendment was written by the Founding Fathers had a similar response, generating 99% agreement.

Blaze Reader Poll Results: Guns and the Second Amendment in America

99% Say “NO!”

There were many questions that generated some very strong responses. Each one of these had 99% “NO” response.

Will an assault rifle ban prevent violent crime?
Would you surrender your Second Amendment rights in exchange for a promise from the government to protect you from all harm?
Should the UN or any other foreign entity have any say about American gun rights or the Second Amendment?
Should a gun owners address be published?
Did you vote President Obama?

Before you think that the majority of those responding are card-carrying NRA members or concealed-carry permit holders, look at these two questions:

Image: Urtak.com

The polling giant Gallup has been surveying America on guns and the Second Amendment for decades. You might find it interesting to know that the majority of Americans agree with TheBlaze readers on the average citizen’s right to own a firearm.

Image: Gallup.com

The Gallup survey, taken just a week after the Sandy Hook massacre, showed a 2% drop in those who would call for a handgun ban. Support for banning gun ownership has actually decreased by 8% in the past decade.

Looking deeper into TheBlaze gun poll:

88% own a gun
75% have owned a gun for more than a decade and they have more than two guns in their home.
74% think that every home in America should have a gun.
72% of respondents have taken a firearms safety class. However, only 37% believe that gun buyers should be required to pass a basic firearms skills test prior to being sold a weapon.

Again, contrasting with the results from Gallup, at 88%, TheBlaze readers are twice as likely to own a gun as the rest of America.

Image: Gallup.com

According to Gallup, the last time America had more than 50% gun ownership was 1993 (it was 51% that year).

TheBlaze readers seem to be concerned that gun ownership could be at risk or become much more difficult in the very near future. Eighty-seven percent said they are “going to or (are) considering” the purchase of a firearm in the near future.

Image: Urtak.com

Among those taking our poll, there was also an overwhelming sense that some action by the Obama administration is inevitable.

91% believe that the President will use an Executive order to enact a gun ban if Congress will not
89% are worried that gun confiscation will be attempted before years end
98% say they will not willingly surrender their firearms if confiscation is ordered
64% have purchase ammunition in the past three months
45% have purchased a firearm in the past six months

A sizable number of gun-owning voters in TheBlaze audience are also very clear on how they plan to deal with politicians who vote to compromise the Second Amendment.

Image: Urtak.com

That’s a 97% “yes” to one of the “most-answered” questions in our poll. Members of the House and Senate up for re-election in the 2014 mid-terms would be wise to take note of voter sentiment in cases like this.

The survey also showed an overwhelming lack of interest in any form of government monitoring of firearms and firearm sales.

Image: Urtak.com

94% do not want gun sales monitored by the government.
96% also said no thanks to putting a tracking chip in guns
93% think the Feds do not belong at gun shows
83% oppose mandatory checkups on gun licenses like there are for driver’s licenses
76% don’t want gun show sales monitored by local police or governments

Our survey also confirmed what is probably expected of a group that strongly supports gun ownership:

99% believe that banning assault rifles will not prevent violent crime (In a separate question only 6% supported the reinstatement)
99% also believe that disarming law-abiding citizens will not reduce violent crime

What we found surprising is that Gallup’s recent survey on the possibility of reinstating a ban on assault rifles (taken after the Sandy Hook murders) showed no real increase in popular support for this action. A majority of America is still against such a ban.

Image: Gallup.com

The massive response to our poll proved what many on our editorial staff strongly suspected: TheBlaze audience is filled with staunch defenders of the right to “keep and bear arms.” And that right is also supported by members of our audience who do not own a gun.

On Tuesday of this week, Vice President Joe Biden is expected to meet with President Obama and present his suggestions for taking action on access to guns and the rights of gun owners in America. TheBlaze has reported that NRA President David Keene does not believe legislation that would ban assault rifles will pass. Keene is concerned (as are Blaze readers) that Mr. Obama will use the power of Executive Order to do whatever he wants to do on guns.

Related:

Biden To Give Obama Gun Recommendations

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (257)

okaaay
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 1:14am
51, white woman, absolutely for the right to bear arms, independent, Christian, conservative, white collar professional, 2 cats

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- BODYBAG
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 2:11am
  Ted Nugent – Paralyzed
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksPNOnpMJo4
  
  Ted Nugent: Obama’s gun-control plans ‘psychotic’
  Says disarming Americans akin to ‘engineering slaughters’
  http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/ted-nugent-obamas-gun-control-plans-psychotic/#XXmDiLrqhkvlSbJf.99
  
  “Obama’s dream already exists, and those are called gun-free zones, and that is where the most innocent lives are lost,” Nugent told Klein. “What kind of monster would want more of these?”
  
  “But the administration’s choice to create a study panel on gun legislation with Joe Biden and Eric Holder? That’s like hiring [notorious child killer] Jeffrey Dahmer to tell us to how to take care of our children,” Nugent said.”
- dogpatch65
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 9:05am
  Want to see how to defeat a liberal in an argument about guns? Last week, we had the spectacle of Alex Jones looking like a lunatic, but here’s a guy who makes his case without seeming nuts:
  
  http://markamerica.com/2013/01/14/how-to-defeat-liberals-in-arguments-about-guns-video-goes-viral/
  
  Report this comment
- old white guy
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 10:46am
  after reading the article i have to ask, who is gallup polling????
  
  Report this comment
- xyzzy
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 10:47am
  The interview referred to by DOGPATCH65 was absolutely awesome. CATO also has a very rational discussion on Weapons and the second ammendment: http://youtu.be/6swSM_nqCnk
  
  Report this comment
- muffythetuffy
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 10:54am
  WE MUTUALLY PLEDGE TO EACH OTHER OUR LIVES, OUR FORTUNES AND OUR SACRED HONOR.
  
  None of us want to leave our comfortable homes and life styles and go to fight to defend our Constitutional Right but we no longer have a choice. Others have done it for us, it is now our turn. Freedom and Liberty is the most expensive commodity on Earth and must be defended with Life itself.
  
  Report this comment
- smv803
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:03pm
  If Osama really believed in the absence of guns, why does he need to travel with a detailed, gun carrying squad? If he can carry, so can we. It’s that simple.
  
  Report this comment
- BarbieBabe
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:20pm
  I’m right there with you only 8 years older. No cats, sorry
  
  Report this comment
- Graphiterikel
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:25pm
  I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the debutant (ohwhoawhoaaaa)…she had a gun in da pink purse (ohhhwhoawhoa)..she had da conceal carry permit! Oh she shot me in self defense (ohhhwhoooOwwwcheee)…in a gun free zone….ohhhhowwcheeeee… I did limp from da debutant…ooooowweeeee! My apologies to Bob Marley. Nuf Sed! Graph.
  
  Report this comment
- frust@ted
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:32pm
  You can’t put too much weight in this poll, unless you are just looking at it as a poll where sampling is almost all conservatives.
  
  The telling question for me was 99% of the people polled did not vote for the president. Since the president won the election with more than 50% of the vote, that question should have been at minimum a 50/50 split.
  
  Not saying i don’t agree with much of the results, but the poll holds little value. To make one more example how much weight would you put in a poll about welfare if the only people that answered were welfare recepients.
  
  Report this comment
- DianeE1951
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:35pm
  Anyone hear about this from our government controlled media?
  
  On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It?s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!
  Now you’re wondering why this isn?t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?
  There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. Since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.
  Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week.
  Thought you?d like to know, all the US needs to know
  
  Report this comment
- red_white_blue2
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 1:31pm
  A woman with a Gun-now that’s sexy..smile!
  
  Report this comment
- Sgt_Rock
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 5:35pm
  @DOGPATCH…thanks for the link..that dude got schooled. Almost brought a tear to my eye we need more folks like Morgan to get busy.
  
  @DianeE1951…another story you don’t here is that the Clackamas Mall, in Portland shooter was confronted by citizen pulling a gun from his waist ban. The mere idea of being confronted by someone who was armed shut him down. He retreated to an alcove and shot himself. Who knows how many lives were saved. It ran in the Portland media and some national channels, but soon went quiet.
  
  Report this comment
- armyofnibiru
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 5:37pm
  only got to answer 2 questions before the sight locked up,the blaze always locks up on me.suprized i was allowed to speak today at all.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 5:45pm
  80% are owners…. 52% have taken a gun safety class….
  
  Report this comment
- sillyfreshness
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 8:09pm
  “the typical Blaze reader is a married man, a reader, over 35, who has a house, kids, dogs, and at least one gun”
  
  In other words, “racist terrorists” or “the enemy” in the eyes of our communist government.
  
  Report this comment
- tifosa
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:44am
  David Keene should be focused on his son, serving 10 years in prison for a gun crime. Go figure…
  
  Report this comment
tharpdevenport
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 1:12am
Thank goodness 100% believed in the right to bear arms.

We’re talking about a jackwagon-in-cheif whom, as told in an interview conducted by Mark Levin last year (I forget the guy’s name) when he met Barry in university/college (can’t recall which), Barry said, after thge guy introduced himself, “You’re the gun guy.”
“Yeah, I guess.”
And Barry/Obama said, “I don’t believe people should be allowed to own guns.”

This is a president who believes we shouldn’t be allowed to own gun,s has banned the re-importation of American owned guns from overseas, and has helepd covered up the Fast & Furious gun-running scandel; executive orders or some Bill pushed through Congress would be no water off his back. And if you think it couldn’t get threw the Senate, remember, Harry Reid says he’s going to change the rules this month (never mind that said changed rulescould be used against Dem’s in a Republican-held Congress…) and consider the illegal things the jackwagon has done, and Reid has done, they could do that, too.

It doesn’t matter if we still have rifles, handguns, or other types of non semi-automatic weaponry, what matters is that the right to bear arms of a GOD GIVEN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, and that the government denying those rights, eats away at the Constituion and means that Uncy Fedwal Gov’ment can GRANT you rights (how nice, right?), and they are no longer guranteed since they are no longer from God.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- raderby
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 3:04am
  You see, you have shown it without realizing it? Barry is not from God. Don’t know where from exactly, but anything that is God-given, the nummy seems to be against. Especially freedom.
  
  Report this comment
- Dismayed Veteran
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 8:50am
  The right to bear arms is more than a Constitutional Right. I believe it is the first prime right from God. It is the right to life.
  
  Report this comment
- kindling
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 9:43am
  You forgot Obama selling weapons to our enemies in Syria and getting AMERICANS killed as he sat and watched eating his lunch as if watching a video game.
  
  REMEMBER BENGHAZI!
  
  Report this comment
- Meathead41
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:23am
  The right to defend oneself is akin to the right to breath. Both enable life!!
  
  Report this comment
- Small World
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:29pm
  @KINDLING…also fast & furious .
  
  Report this comment
- wandamurline
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 2:52pm
  You know, I don’t see where an Executive Order can override the Constitution, do you? Where did the presidents get these EOs in the first place? I keep reading the Constitution and I can find no where in it that pertains to Executive Orders. Please tell me where it is. Executive Orders are nothing but paper and have absolutely no meaning….the states will fight any EO he tries to issue and should he try to skirt the Constitution, then We The People will need to start an impeachment process ourselves since the corrupt Senate will not.
  
  Report this comment
- 1oldmarine
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 5:23pm
  Definition of Gun control = Two hands at a moving target equal one shot one kill
  
  Report this comment
- macpappy
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 6:10pm
  wandamurline
  Unfortunatly youi just don’t know your Constitution: Section 3 of Article II
  Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.
  Not all EOs are created equal. Proclamations, for example, are a special type of Executive Order that are generally ceremonial or symbolic, such as when the President declares National Take Your Child To Work Day. Another subset of Executive Orders are those concerned with national security or defense issues. These have generally been known as National Security Directives. Under the Clinton Administration, they have been termed “Presidential Decision Directives.”
  Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President’s source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the “executive Power.” Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive
  
  Report this comment
Mindwerkz
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 1:10am
Ispy

Perhaps a little refresher, the wording is not “firearms” bur rather “arms.” Arms are defined as weapons and bear means to possess or present. Thus your right to possess weapons shall not be infringed. Tanks are weapons, RPG’s are weapons, bombs are weapons.

This does raise the interesting question of nukes. If you dont want me owning nukes, why do you want our gov to do it? Now I see the practicality of having them as a peace keeping measure, but then couldn’t that same argument be made of a peaceful citizen? I admit to being very uncomfortable about there being nukes in my neighborhood and instinctively wanting them restricted. On the other hand, they are no more dangerous than any other weapon in the hands of a sane man. This is all theoretical really as no one is going to grant citizens nuke privileges but technically we do have a right to them. Sticky situation indeed…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Lordchamp
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 1:40am
  True freedom is always sticky AND difficult to maintain but as Ben Franklin said:
  
  “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”
  
  When you choose to give up a freedom for a supposedly “safety” (it’s for the children), once that starts where do you stop it or is it just not better to never start in the first place?
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 4:20am
  ” On the other hand, they are no more dangerous than any other weapon in the hands of a sane man.”
  
  Actually nukes could pose a threat sane or not sane…. If an accident happens with a nuclear weapon the affects are far worse than an accidental gun discharge…
  
  A gun discharge might miss and hit no one… A nuclear based accident could take our everyone in the town…
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents
  
  Also consider the average person does not know how to prevent a meltdown if it accidentally activates, not would they know proper maintenance procedures…
  
  Do hyperbole aside…
  
  Report this comment
- rpa49
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 5:04am
  Our politicians do not fear the citizens whatsoever. Just look at their flagrant overspending, their distain for the will of the people, and their willful disregard of our constitution, which they swore an oath to uphold. They start their service to us with a lie.
  So why don’t our politicians fix the budget, respect the citizens they come to Washington, D. C. to represent, study, understand, and uphold our constitution? Simple. They don’t fear us.
  What is it our politicians are suppose to fear about us? According to our founding fathers and the constitution our government is to fear becoming oppressive and tyranical because the citizens would rise up and disband a government not in accord with the constitution. How would the citizens rise up? With overwhelming numbers with arms.
  Are we capable of overthrowing our government with the arms we are currently allowed to possess? I think we could, but only if we had sufficient numbers willing to die. Actually, they would need to willing to be slaughtered endlessly until the government had a change in philosophical idealism. I don’t believe we would be able to sustain this amount of carnage. How do we compare with fully automatic weapons, tanks, armed drones, fighter aircraft, rockets, torpedoes, or bunker-busting bombs?
  Under the current situation we would need a political divide in our military in opposition to the political government. Without this mutiny there is no way we can match the firepower of the U.S. arsenal.
  
  Report this comment
- Friar-3Michael
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 9:48am
  The hyperbolic example of owning a nuke is often cited as a Reductio ad absurdum argument against gun ownership. The logical failing is the misunderstanding of the purpose of owning a weapon. It is not to cause as much destruction as possible; it is to put an end to aggression that threatens life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to insure the populous is armed should there be a need to call up a militia in times of national self-defense or to put down a tyrannical uprising that refuses to bow to the rule of law. The use of a nuke as a 2nd amendment weapon is tantamount to blowing up your house to prevent it from burning down. I just don’t see the Nuke as having a valid 2nd amendment purpose.
  
  Report this comment
- Bobj_1960
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 10:25am
  Just some FYI on your hyperbole.
  You can legal own tanks, jet fighters, flamethrowers, armored cars, and class 5 lasers
  With a class 3 license and tons of paperwork you can own fully automatic weapons, RPG’s, artillery shells, and anti-tank guns.
  Nukes are right out….would trust any of my neighbors with one anyway.
  
  Report this comment
- TEOTWASWKI
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 10:49am
  RPA 49 said “Our politicians do not fear the citizens whatsoever. Just look at their flagrant overspending, their distain for the will of the people,”
  
  That is not true, we don’t hold national elections for congressmen and senators. Congress critters have one objective…re-election, the ones who refuse to limit spending feel that their constituents want freebies more than restraints on spending.
  
  Report this comment
- ItchyTheClone
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:42pm
  Sorry, you will not be able to redirect my attention away from the real issue. Nukes were never on the table. This is a very clear demonstration of the tactic outlined by Mao, Engles and others. You change the conversation and try to get people to agree that their position is untenable by making it seem more extreme. I hope you enjoy your slavery. I will never comply.
  
  Report this comment
- VRW Conspirator
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:51pm
  regarding the “would you legalize RPG’s, tanks, and nukes?” argument…
  YES…but they are priced WAY outside most people’s price range…except for warlords that the US and UN tries to buy off with bribes to stop killing someone of a different tribe, race, color, or religion…
  
  I say…I should be able to build my own nuclear reactor and bomb…I have the knowledge, the degree, but not the means…there is a company that is trying to get license to build “backyard” nuclear reactors that come completely contained and last for 25 years..when it stops working they come and crack it open and sell you new fuel rods…well, why can’t I just build my own??
  
  They bury it in the ground, only the top sticks out, it is shielded by feet of concrete, the Navy has been running nuclear reactors in close relation to people for 60 years with NO deaths from radiation, NO leaks, and NO meltdowns. So, if I want to risk using my nuclear reactor to refine U into Pu and I can afford the market prices to buy weapon grade U…why not…we already use Public Funds to do it through “private contractors” with DoD contracts, why can’t I become one of those contractors??
  
  It is a stupid strawman anyway…nobody outside of a government or multinational corporation has the funding for U..and they control access to stop the CRAZIES from blowing up the world for their false god/ideology/politics/psycho delusions
  
  Report this comment
- 1oldmarine
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 4:11pm
  I’ll give up my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
  Charlton Heston
  
  I only regret that I have but one life to give to my country
  Nathan Hale
  
  Give me liberty or give me death
  Patrick Henry
  
  Live free or die for freedom
  Me
  
  As they say in Texas “You want my gun come and get it. Please try at least once Please”
  
  Report this comment
dirtypolitics
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:57am
After the results of this survey, President Obama will officially be pro-Gun. Wanna bet?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- frust@ted
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:28pm
  I’ll take that bet 99% of the people who voted in the Blaze poll didn’t vote for the President. He still won the election without all of those votes.
  
  This shows you how skewed this poll is.
  
  Report this comment
theKirt
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:54am
I love it when they pretend the 2nd amendment has something to do with hunting.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Haroldm1
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:53am
Webster’s Definition of Assault Rifle:

Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Light and portable, yet able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000–1,600 ft (300–500 m), assault rifles have become the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerrilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare. Widely used assault rifles are the U.S. M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Conservative Democrat
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:50am
And to finish:

5. Very few reasonable people are “stockpiling” arms and ammunition, I do not have to and many others are the same. I will not call a “prepper” crazy, but I am less apt to sell to them once I find out the person is a “prepper”. This is another of the mistruths floating around, yes, some people are very afraid of the government, and in light in what has been said by some politicians they should be.

6. You do know that if something is made illegal, it does not simply go away, right…please say yes or this whole thing is redundant. Making something illegal does nothing but make it unsafe, open to misuse and cause undue harm. I point out two examples:
“Prohibition (19 amendment) because it could not get 2/3 ratification in 14 years expired (21 amendment 1933).
“War on drugs” No amendment, just kind of started and as with all government programs never ended (as of this date)
However, what many people do not know is the fact is if you pay the right tax, and have enough money you can still get almost any drug you want.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- IspytheGov
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 1:14am
  I see that the character limit strike again, and I missed the follow on post.
  My Bad
  Bad Spy….
  
  Report this comment
- dublinthewagons
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 7:07am
  #5 you are less likely to sell to a prepper. With your smart A** attitude I wonder how you have any customers at all. You calme to have a class 7 & 3 license. Well goody 4 U. Can you spell anything that doesn’t have a big I and a little u? You state there are about 8 in the nation with your knowledge and skills. That is a false statement if I ever heard one. You sound like a pot bellied retired vet that attained the rank of E-5. Most likely air force. Sorry you didn’t get to go to west point, its not our fault its yours.
  Most prepers just want to be self sufficiant. May i as what is wrong with that.
  Everybody is their own individual and most have the capability to think for themselves.
  Be that the case let them own anything hey want & be held accountable for their own actions.
  
  Report this comment
- Unix
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 9:46am
  You have your license, you are knowledgeable of guns, but you are a dope when it comes to common sense! The 2A is designed to keep the gov’t in check by We The People. It is our sworn duty to overthrow a gov’t if it becomes overbearing/tyrannical…I am not saying we should do that now of course! That was the intent, and anyone reading in anything else to it is a fool and ignorant!
  
  Report this comment
Conservative Democrat
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:49am
Continues:

A “cop killer bullet is simply an armor piercing round and are strictly limited and regulated, Teflon bullets are also on the restricted list, or could you mean the “hydro shock” style bullet? Clarity is important.

3. Question, I thought schools were “Gun Free Zones” the simple act of taking a weapon onto school grounds is illegal. There may be a reason this person did not get the rest of his written “hit-list” is exactly because there was someone armed there to stop him. (I happen to know of the event you speak of). There are way more “stories” of a person STOPPED from shooting many than there are of “mass killings” but of course, the latter gets the national news coverage.

4. No one is advocating the overthrow of the government, what we are angry about is the WAY the president made his statement of executive order, it may be just old Joe shoving his foot in his mouth again, but that is dangerous when it comes to a Constitutional rights. No one ever said “everyone no matter what should have weapons, we all understand there has to be, and here is the magic word “REASONABLE REGULATION OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS” You do make some valid points, mental disorders, unless well regulated should be a disqualifying item, problem is when I do a NICS check it does not look at past mental illness because the ACLU declared it was unconstitutional as being medical records. There is a question on the application, but it says involuntarily committed to a mental h

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Lordchamp
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 1:15am
  Ummm No I do not realize there needs to be ANY gun laws. What does “shall not be infringed” mean? To me it’s plain, simple English, like it or not. It’s the ACTUAL and CONSTITUTIONAL law of the land.
  
  All others are strictly unconstitutional no matter how you try to justify and rationalize them. They totally are against the Founders intent. They too spoke in plain English.
  
  “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man”. Thomas Jefferson
  
  “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Thomas Jefferson
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 9:33am
  A “cop killer bullet is simply an armor piercing round and are strictly limited and regulated, Teflon bullets are also on the restricted list, or could you mean the “hydro shock” style bullet? Clarity is important.
  
  Incorrect. Hollywood and the media deemed hollow point ammunition to be “cop killer bullets” (as if they only kill cops?). They incorrectly think that they penetrate kevlar. This happened after Winchester released the Black Talon cartridge. They thought the Lubalox coating helped the round slip between the fibers. The ban on Teflon coated rounds was tied to that, but the Black Talon was not coated in Teflon, and Teflon was there to help keep debris from scarring the barrel, not for defeating armor. It wouldn’t help anyway, the whole point of a hollow point is to mushroom and expand when it his soft tissue, which it also does when it hits kevlar. FMJ ammunition is more likely to make it through kevlar than JHP.
  
  Report this comment
Conservative Democrat
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:47am
Continued from previous post:
1. For clarity nothing was banned, it was taxed, [NFA 1938] if you want them you can still get them, but there is a large tax and some serious background checks as well as many hoops to jump in and out of. I happen to have a class 07 FFL with a SOT class3. This allows me to make, buy, sell and rebuild fully automatic weapons. I know of about 8 people personally who own “Tanks” or Armored vehicles and two of them with operating main guns (102mm), pay the appropriate tax get the things you want (with a very clear background). Automatic weapons built after 1986 are non-transferable.

2. Not to sound petulant but they are Magazines, a clip is what they used to load bolt-action rifles and some semi-automatic rifles like the M1 Garand’s. A magazine is loaded INTO the weapon and designed to facilitate the placement of ammunition into the chamber automatically. So a magazine, in your opinion should have how many rounds? 5, 8, 10, 12 how many? Take into consideration the ability of the owner as a marksman and the conditions of use. Personally I prefer the 1911 .45 cal. government model (only eight rounds (7 plus 1 in the chamber) a good short action bolt-action rifle or a M14 style. speaking of a M14 would you consider that an “assault weapon”? Even if it was semi-automatic? A “cop killer bullet is simply an armor piercing round and are strictly limited and regulated, Teflon bullets are also on the restricted list, or could you mean the “hydr

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Dismayed Veteran
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 8:47am
  Conservative
  
  I believe the M14 is designated a battle rifle rather than an assualt rifle. The M14 fires full power rifle ammunition versus the M16.
  
  Report this comment
- TEOTWASWKI
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:21am
  1. For clarity nothing was banned, it was taxed, [NFA 1938] if you want them you can still get them, but there is a large tax and some serious background checks as well as many hoops to jump in and out of. I happen to have a class 07 FFL with a SOT class3. This allows me to make, buy, sell and rebuild fully automatic weapons.
  
  Ugh …no you can’t make new automatic weapons and sell them to just any one only military or LEO but yes older grandfathered automatic weapons can be sold to public but they usually cost several thousand because there is a finite supply.
  
  Report this comment
- Wolf
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:30am
  “…Dismayed Veteran
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 8:47am
  Conservative
  
  I believe the M14 is designated a battle rifle rather than an assualt rifle. The M14 fires full power rifle ammunition versus the M16…”
  
  So the .223 isn’t a ‘full power’ round, but the 7.62×51 is? Really, now- let’s get another definition cleared up: “What does ‘full power’ mean?”
  
  To use cars as an anaolgy: “Is the Corvette the only American made car with a ‘full power’ engine, as compared to the Volt or a Focus?”
  
  People who talk about ‘full power’ ammunition don’t understand ammunition case capacity or bullet weight. To say the .223 isn’t a full power round is rediculous, just as saying the 7.62×51 (M14 round) is a full power round.
  
  Report this comment
- Dismayed Veteran
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:32pm
  Wolf
  
  I trained on the M14. It fires a 7.62 NATO cartridge (.308 Winchester). I trained on the M16A1. It fires the lighter 5.56 mm NATO cartridge (.223).
  
  The US Army Ordnance labled the M14 a battle rifle, not me. US Army Ordnance labels the M16 an assault rifle, not me.
  
  Then there is the practical test. During my time in the Army, the first demonstration of the M16 to Basic trainees was the testicle test. To prove that the M16 had minimal recoil, a Range Instructor would place the **** of the stock to his testicles and fire a magazine on full auto. The trainees would then do the same.
  
  If you did the same thing with a M14, you would be singing soprano for a couple of days.
  
  Report this comment
- Dismayed Veteran
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:36pm
  Wolf
  
  An adder. I didn’t say the M16 5.56mm cartridge is not a lethal round. Its beautiful utility is the tumbling effect and greater wound path.
  
  Report this comment
- TEOTWASWKI
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 4:43pm
  Wolf said “People who talk about ‘full power’ ammunition don’t understand ammunition case capacity or bullet weight. To say the .223 isn’t a full power round is rediculous, just as saying the 7.62×51 (M14 round) is a full power round.”
  
  I think you are the one confused, a 223 is a .22 cal. center fire and is close to the bottom power wise of all center fire rounds. The .308 produces about 2800 foot pounds of energy while the .223 about 1300 pounds.
  
  Report this comment
- Wolf
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:17pm
  Dismayed- my tenure with Uncle was 64-72, so I’m well aware what calibers both rifles are. 7.62×51 is .308 caliber and .223 is basically a .22. But that does not mean one is a ‘full power’ load. You’re missing the pont: ‘power’ is reletive to the load. A ‘full power’ .308 can be made a ‘low power’ load by a number of factors in loading the round. Same with a .223. So to claim one caliber is ‘full power’ and another is not ‘full power’ is comparing apples to bananas. Or a Corvette to a Volkswagen. Regardless the caliber, the ‘full power’ for that caliber is what it is, not comparing it to another round.
  
  FYI: a 7.62×51 is a ‘low power’ .308 Winchester, since you want to use that kind of terminology. Reason being: a 7.62×51 military round is loaded to a reduced charge/CUP compared to the .308- which is why you can shoot 7.62×51 in your .308 civilian rifle, but cannot shoot civilian ammo in your military rifle: higher pressure, ergo: ‘full power’ loads.
  
  Report this comment
Conservative Democrat
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:45am
SCD, the following is a post I made on another site:
1. We do not allow people to own an Abrams tank, or even a machine gun. Those were banned from ownership back in the days when gangsters used them.
2. High capacity clips. They are not necessary for the public. They are for the military. Cop killer bullets? No! Eliminate those from the public. Assault weapons those are for the military. Not for the public
3. As for adding cops or armed security at schools, that is no guarantee that it solves the problem. Two kids were shot in school in California yesterday and that school had armed cops on duty.
4. But I never considered trying to overthrow the government because a majority of the people voted them in twice
5. The answer is not stock piling an arsenal to overthrow that government, but to offer policies that people want. Elections matter.
6. If he did not have access to the ammo, he could not fire the gun and those people would be alive today. Same thing at Sandy Hook. One handgun against a guy with 100 rounds of .223 ammo and body armor does not have much of a chance.
_________________________________________________________________________________

My retort taken in the above order:

see ext page

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GONE_SOVEREIGN
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:58am
  CD: I agree to the last sentence in your post. “One handgun against a guy with 100 rounds of .223 ammo and body armor does not have much of a chance” Exactly! One handgun against a tyrannical government wouldn’t be fair, would it? Nuff said.
  
  Report this comment
- IspytheGov
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 1:07am
  1. We do not allow people to own an Abrams tank, or even a machine gun. Those were banned from ownership back in the days when gangsters used them.
  
  Um you would be wrong on point 1 machine guns are allowed by paying the very high tax stamp, and people do a few tanks I know a guy that has a working Sherman.
  
  2. High capacity clips. They are not necessary for the public. They are for the military. Cop killer bullets? No! Eliminate those from the public. Assault weapons those are for the military. Not for the public
  
  It seem that here again you are mistaken no where in the 2nd will you fine the word need, and no weapon can assault any one by its self, laws of physics an object at rest stays at rest. and no body armor can handle a standard 30-06 but round made for that purpose are restricted to law enforcement.
  
  3. As for adding cops or armed security at schools, that is no guarantee that it solves the problem. Two kids were shot in school in California yesterday and that school had armed cops on duty.
  
  Lets see the president kids oh yeah 11 heavy armed men.
  
  4. But I never considered trying to overthrow the government because a majority of the people voted them in twice
  5. The answer is not stock piling an arsenal to overthrow that government, but to offer policies that people want. Elections matter.
  
  4 is ok but as for stock piling its a free market and you can define my need.
  6. One word “Reloading”
  
  Report this comment
- iampraying4u
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 4:36am
  I love my 223 handgun
  
  Report this comment
- dublinthewagons
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 7:17am
  #4 is a truly idiotic statement.
  Some of you just stand there and let a snake keep biting you.
  I was not bit the first or second time. That guy is not the government. He is a freedom and American capitalist hater with a dictators ego.
  
  Report this comment
- Southern1
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 8:27am
  CD – First I hate it when people make blanket statements about how everyone agrees with this point or that, how their position is supported by all. Speak for yourself, if others agree it is their right to do so as it is their right to disagree. We have the right of Free Speach but that does not give you the right to speak for others.
  Second, I don’t think that I could support the overthrow, attempted overthrow, or any action to change (fundamentally transfrom) our country. I do however wish to support and protect the country I love and the principals in which it was founded, the principals that made the US the greatest country that ever existed and likely to exist. This is a responsibility that we should all should take very seriously. What you think I need or do not need is irrelevant, and in the context of the Bill of Rights and the 2nd amendment, it is a Right given to me by God and protected by the Constitution. IF people disagree, enough people, there is a method to address this, the amendment process for the Constitution. Simply have enough States agree with what you think I need or do not need and then we can talk. Until that happens, the Right and Responsibility of the 2nd Amendment is there for the people.
  
  Report this comment
- PROUD_2B_American
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:06am
  I guess, all these know it all people, never had to PROTECT themselves in a disaster!
  
  I GUESS none of them ever had to lay in the pitch black darkness, on their roofs, protecting their property from gangs of vandals and looters for DAYS!
  
  Scared for their lives, scared for their loved ones, and just DAMN SCARED of losing THEIR LIVES to monsters running free, destroying their neighborhood and taking what they WANT.
  
  MANY OF US DID during the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew!!!
  
  AND I CAN ASSURE everyone; there is NO extra feeling of security, having a 30 round magazine in the weapon! ALL you do all night, is try and remember if you still have 7 or 10 or what ever in the magazine, WHILE HOPING the extra 30 round mag in your pocket will be enough to survive until the National Guard comes in… a few days later.
  
  MANY OF US LIVED THROUGH THAT, and that was what I would consider a small geographical disaster
  
  THERE SEEMS TO BE no viable reason for a high volume magazine! UNTIL you’re alone, scared, and defending yourself and your loved ones. The weapon STILL goes “Click” when that 30 round Magazine is empty
  
  THEN there is a viable reason for more “high volume magazines” and to hell with what ever the “know it all, gun control people” think.
  
  OUR WEAPONS ARE TO PROTECT US, until help comes.
  
  God help us all, when it doesn’t
  
  Report this comment
RIGHTNOTLEFT
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:43am
I own a “DEFENSE” rifle, period…….

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
EllieR
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:35am
Somehow I missed this poll…
We women are too busy. :)

Anyway, count me in: married, >35, professional, conservative, registered Independent, never even considered voting for Dear leader; against gun control, bought MORE guns and ammo last week because my husband and I strongly believe that they will be needed pretty soon.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:45am
  These people are bold…http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/13/sen-schumer-asks-gun-retailers-to-stop-sales-as-congress-debates/
  
  Report this comment
- YOURSENSEI
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 9:19am
  Mr or Ms ELLIER,
  
  This is what you must know:
  
  You women are to busy because it takes you forever to do anything.
  
  It is so.
SarahBeALightInTheDarkness
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:35am
Wow, I didn’t realize that a 20-something female like myself was such a minority among Blaze readers.. I recently read through the most recent Field & Stream magazine & it was pretty amazing. Great stories guys tell around the campfire, that sort of stuff. Well, it seems the websites geared to men have more substance, I suppose. Well, except for those…. photographic… websites geared toward men..

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- klopnuts
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 2:24am
  we have no idea what your talking about, all men just read the articles on those sites and in those publications. ;)
  
  Report this comment
- SarahBeALightInTheDarkness
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 8:59pm
  lol i bet ;)
  
  Report this comment
GoodStuff
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:30am
The media created the phrase “assualt rifle”. The term is not used by the military, police, or civilian gun-owners. It is a scary-sounding word created solely by the media to control the narrative.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Victoriaautmors
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:46am
  It is the actual definition of a particular type of rifle designed for battle at short to medium range with a particular set of characteristics. “An assault rifle is a selective fire (selectable among either fully automatic, burst-capable, or, sometimes, semi-automatic modes of operation) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine” It wasn’t invented by the media, just mis-used as none of they talk about are capable of full auto fire. Either way it is a media deception.
  
  Report this comment
- CloudWilliam
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:25am
  Sorry… the term assault rifle (Sturmgewehr) was originated by Germany during WW2. By definition, the US M1 Carbine was he first assault rifle, which by definition has selective fire (semi auto or full auto), detachable magazine, and an ntermediate size cartridge
  
  Report this comment
Chancellor
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:23am
I don’t believe a word the Government says! Most government Officials can’t even clean a gun let alone tell what a “Assault Rifle” is!

My rights are Guaranteed through the Constitution……Not Executive Orders or random law enforcement!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- doranKSCA
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 2:42pm
  My rights were granted by God and only enumerated in the Constitution.
  
  Report this comment
- AmericanFightingMan1
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 5:01pm
  Roger, unalienable right from our Creator.
  
  Report this comment
Flashydave
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:23am
Assault weapon? Doesn’t that make an M1 rifle we used in WW2 an assault weapon since we used them to free Europe and Asia? Isn’t any weapon used in a crime an assault weapon because that’s what your doing? And I would bet Mario Huomo in NY would need 10 shots to kill Bambi.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- IspytheGov
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:29am
  My point exactly, we loose if we adopt the language of the left, so don’t.
  
  Report this comment
- Dismayed Veteran
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 8:52am
  Actually the M1 and M14 are battle rifles not assualt rifles.
  
  Report this comment
- TEOTWASWKI
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 11:39am
  Vet says………”.Actually the M1 and M14 are battle rifles not assualt rifles”
  Flash suppressor, detachable magazines bad bad rifles LPL .
  
  Report this comment
GONE_SOVEREIGN
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:17am
WOW, the stats started slowly changing in 08, go figure!

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
IspytheGov
Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:13am
And really everyone quit using the word “Assault” it is a verb and implies action taken a rifle is a rifle, although you could assault some one with any rifle, single shot bolt action, we don’t call them assault Bow’s now do we but I have read the new where an Assault was committed with a bow.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Sensible_Centrist_Democrat
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:19am
  It is also a noun (e.g. She was charged with assault) and a proper noun when used in the context of “Assault Rifles”
  
  Report this comment
- IspytheGov
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:25am
  Again no rifle commits the assault, an action only a person using it to assault another, the term was made up in 1998 by an anti gun group, prior to that it did not exist but the AR platform has been with us from the 60′s.
  
  Report this comment
- Sensible_Centrist_Democrat
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:31am
  Plenty of times new terms are created which don’t fit the exact definition of the term’s original use.
  
  Report this comment
- GONE_SOVEREIGN
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:43am
  @ISPY: Good point! And while we’re banning words, I have a couple of words/phrases I would like to see removed as well. “Moving forward” or “forward”, and another is “at the end of the day”. I’ve heard that crap so much it makes me want to vomit! It seems that the left said it so much that everyone says it now. I’m not saying that you have, and I’m not trying to jack your post. It just seemed that since we’re banning words it was a good time to put in mine! ;-)
  
  Report this comment
- OlefromMN
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 6:06am
  Professor Plum did it in the Study with an Assault Candlestick.
  
  The left does love their silly word games don’t they?
  
  Report this comment
- Unix
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 9:42am
  All you lefties, do you even know what AR means? Armalite Rifle…go suck an egg!
  
  Report this comment
ReallyDeserveBetter
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 11:59pm
Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it! Some things in life will only offer you up one chance to be the the difference or the statistic!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
nojoke
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 11:55pm
Molon labe!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- AlphaDave
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:44am
  Amat Victoria Curam
  
  Report this comment
- sbenard
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:54am
  My thoughts exactly! Molon labe!
  
  Report this comment
woodyee
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 11:45pm
Let’s stop using the term “assault weapon” Blaze.
Please.
In the first place, there is no such thing.
In the second place, it is a phrase used by propagandist mass media to deceive, and I know the Blaze does not want to be associated with neither propaganda or deception.
Thirdly, were the term to be properly definitive, it would define any and all instruments which could be used by one person to harm another. For example, an attack upon one person by another using a knife, a fork or a spoon would define any one of those instruments as an assault weapon – an assault knife, assault fork, assault spoon.

As another example, if I were standing in your driveway READING this aloud in the direction of your house, you would either send your assault dog after me, open your garage door and drive your assault car at me, or run out of your house in your pj’s and come after me with your assault baseball bat. Either way, you would have used an assault weapon. Are we clear on that?

Please. Drop the term.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
thekuligs
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 11:43pm
I am 29 and a girl ;) I am suprised only 71% of readers are male honestly. I think more women read than comment.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SendTheMeteors
  Posted on January 13, 2013 at 11:50pm
  And white.
  
  Report this comment
- Ragnars Repos
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:11am
  Feel better now, stm?
  
  Oh yes, like a good commie stooge, SENDTHEMETEORS can’t wait to corral by skin color.
  
  “Too many white dudes in what place–there ought to be a law!”, she thinks.
  
  I bet she could tell the difference between all sorts of animals. But as a collectivist she struggles to grasp the difference between animals and humans.
  
  I’m sure that’s just my “white” way of thinking though, right comrade?
  
  GFY
  
  Report this comment
- Ragnars Repos
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:17am
  “Too many white dudes in one place…
  
  Report this comment
- ChiefGeorge
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:18am
  Is being White a Crime now? I guess so according to STM. Self loathing at its best. The MSM in all its forms has made you this way.
  
  Report this comment
- missdagnytaggart
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:34am
  I’m 26/white/woman/divorced/kid/dog/rents. Yikes I sound like I ought to be an Obama voter by my demographic info.
  
  Report this comment
- thekuligs
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:36am
  You guys didn’t know it was a crime to be white? My father is hispanic, and my mother is Irish. Think my white relatives disliked my parents biracial family? Oh think again, it was my hispanic relatives who didn’t like me because I was a “white” girl. Oh but white men are the only racists out there =/
  
  Report this comment
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 7:57am
  SENDTHEMETEORS, And white? Seems that you have not rubbed that white off the face in your avatar. Oh yeah, seems like you are a regular here as well. You certainly do fit a good part of the mold here don’t you?
  
  Report this comment
- GPS-Tech
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 10:22am
  @kuligs
  Had that same problem with SOME of my family members growing up. Now that most of their sons and daughters are married to whites they got their payback. Even my nieces and nephews are mixed hispanic/white.
  
  Report this comment
- GPS-Tech
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 10:23am
  @crater face AKA meteor
  Change your picture, no one wants to look at your ugly face.
  
  Report this comment
- CatB
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:00pm
  @MISSDANG .. I was in almost the same age and situation when Reagan was elected .. and I voted for him … Those who voted for Carter or BHO .. lack something .. a brain and logical thinking. ;-) Both are commies .. through and through .. that is NOT the world we want to leave our children.
  
  Report this comment
fastgen1
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 11:38pm
Wow, what happened to the lefties, I guess they agree with the blaze on this one. If I was a congressmen who voted to take peoples guns, I guess re-election would only be part of my worries.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- phil1765
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 3:18am
  Sensible_Centrist_Democrat
  Why does the typical lib always go to the so you think you should own bombs or tanks or nukes arguement? Have you honestly heard anyone arguing for this? You call yourself a centrist but you use the same idiotic uninformed arguements that every hard core progressive moron uses.
  
  Report this comment
Sensible_Centrist_Democrat
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 11:33pm
Interesting survey, but some of those questions were extremely leading.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Sensible_Centrist_Democrat
  Posted on January 13, 2013 at 11:41pm
  For example,
  “Will an assault rifle ban prevent violent crime?”
  “Would you surrender your Second Amendment rights in exchange for a promise from the government to protect you from all harm?”
  
  I’m not a big “gun control” guy, but no legislation would completely strip people of their second amendment rights “in exchange for a promise from the government to proctect you from all harm”. Handguns, rifles, and shotguns would still be legal. The principles of the 2nd amendment for self defense would not be substantially eroded. This question seems to be inviting a specific answer.
  
  Also, using the phrase “prevent crime” is also misleading. Nothing will prevent crime, but things can inhibit crimes / criminals. I’m not saying gun control would be effective, but this question is framed with the intent of eliciting a specific answer.
  
  Report this comment
- CatB
  Posted on January 13, 2013 at 11:54pm
  Many of the questions were submitted by those taking the poll. They were not submitted with regards to how “fair” they are.
  
  Report this comment
- CONTUMACY
  Posted on January 13, 2013 at 11:57pm
  SCD-in your opinion what are the differences between an ar-15, an assault weapon, and a semi-automatic rifle???
  
  Report this comment
- The_Almighty_Creestof
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:03am
  CatB…true…I tried to ask:
  
  “Who would you rather have watch your back during these times…Yosemite Sam (Y) or Elmer Fudd (N)?” but as I was not signed up, I could not get it on the list : )
  
  Report this comment
- Sensible_Centrist_Democrat
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:04am
  The article says the Blaze ‘approved’ all the polling questions.
  On a side note, most people — even those who support gun control measures — usually believe that the second amendment gives individuals a right to own a gun. Gun control measures don’t have to eliminate one’s right to own fire arms.
  Support for gun control and a belief that the second amendment gives an indivudal the right to bear arms are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
  
  Report this comment
- banjarmon
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:05am
  What part of the Second Amendment do you not understand?
  The right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!
  
  This does NOT restrict NOR specify the type of arms to be used or not used.
  Bear Arms, again dose not say anything about the size or type of arms one can bear whither it be on your side or shoulder or in a mule drawn wagon or in an 18 wheeler.
  This Right gives the people the means to protect themselves from a tyrannical government!!
  One day soon Oath Keepers may be protecting you ****!
  
  Report this comment
- Sensible_Centrist_Democrat
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:08am
  To be honest with you, I could not tell you the difference. I have never owned a gun and don;t really know much. But with saying that, I don’t really support new “gun control” measures. The amount of time, effort, money, ect to get the legislation passed / implemented would not be worth it.
  
  Report this comment
- IspytheGov
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:09am
  Did you even read what to typed? “The principles of the 2nd amendment for self defense would not be substantially eroded.” so do you think it would be ok to not substantially eroded the first? fourth? tenth? just where dose any eroding stop?
  
  Report this comment
- Sensible_Centrist_Democrat
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:16am
  ISPY:
  I’m just not sure the second amendment gives individuals a right to own any weapon they want. Do people have a second amendment right to own hollow point bullets, grenade launchers, tanks?
  
  Report this comment
- woodyee
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:16am
  You’re merely a troll. How in your grossly self-aggrandized mind do you purport to know ANYTHING about how future legislation will affect our people’s 2nd Amendment Right?
  
  “I’m not a big “gun control” guy,” but you’re a little gun control guy.
  
  “but no legislation would completely strip people of their second amendment rights” – prove it. ANY infringement diminishes the Right.
  
  “in exchange for a promise from the government to proctect you from all harm”. That is what is promised when the people are told by anti-gun fanatics that only the military and police should have guns; to depend on 9-11. When the social studies and history books of grade school children are written to reflect the same fallacy.
  
  “Handguns, rifles, and shotguns would still be legal.” Bolsch! Rifles are the items being proposed in legislation! That is what the British told it’s people – then they took the rifles; then the handguns; finally the shotguns (20thCentury).
  
  “The principles of the 2nd amendment for self defense would not be substantially eroded.” ANY ban is an erosion of one’s ability to defend against danger from next door to tyrannical government. What part of “shall not be infringed” confuses you?
  
  Get lost, troll…or come back when you’re armed with an IQ higher than a rock’s.
  
  Report this comment
- MisterSarcastic
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:19am
  I think both of the ‘leading’ questions you cited had a clear cut yes or no answer. How is that leading?
  
  Report this comment
- woodyee
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:19am
  And furthermore, the 2nd Amendment is the ONLY Amendment cast in stone with the words “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.
  
  Ahh, you learned something today. Why, it’s a merkle!
  
  Report this comment
- Sensible_Centrist_Democrat
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:29am
  @Mister:
  The answers to a question don’t determine if it is leading or not. The wording of the question does this. Will an assault rifle ban prevent crime? The obvious answer is no — nothing can ever prevent crime.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Almighty_Creestof
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:30am
  @ banjarmon
  
  The antigunners focus on the part about “militia” and “well regulated”…they have no problem with law enforcement and the military “keeping and bearing” arms…and the may not have a problem with citizens having arms as long as they are “well regulated”…as in a 50 page evaluation test, you can only have shotguns and rimfire, etc.
  
  Report this comment
- Mindwerkz
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:38am
  SCD
  
  Hollow points are extremely common and typical hunting rounds. Banning them would be idiotic as you risk over penetration and leave you with significantly more dangerous rounds. Never heard those tossed in with “banning” comments before so you may want to tell your friends exactly what they are.
  
  As for tanks et al… If you understand the point of the 2nd, which is to defend against tyranny, and read the words of the drafters, where is there any question? Clearly I was intended to have “uninfringed” access to each and everything our military has. The real problem here is that we have a standing army at all. Re-funding it every few years is just a cheap way of short circuiting the constitution.
  
  The point is, yes, I legally have access to each and every thing the Gov has. Now the real question is if you dont want me to have it, why do you want them to have it? I dont hear any yells for disarming the Army.
  
  Report this comment
- IspytheGov
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:44am
  To you point about tanks and stuff, I would say no as written the 2nd is clear about bear and carry, I believe the terms them selfs place the limit on what the people, as no one could bear a tank, also I would concur that an RPG is not a firearm, that being said the words “Shall not be infringed”are very clear and that any federal legislation baring the ownership of any bearable firearm is unconstitutional, we may agree that full autos should be restricted, but that would require an amendment to add that langage to the 2nd.
  
  Report this comment
- Sensible_Centrist_Democrat
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:49am
  @mind:
  So from your point of view, there should be no legal impediments to citizens owning bombs? It should be legal for me to create a bomb which could blow up a small town and kill countless people?
  That would be a scary thought, considering that our enemies could legally buy massive bombs in our country and then use them against us.
  You don’t think Al-Qaeda or others would try to use that against us?
  
  Report this comment
- Mindwerkz
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:59am
  You skimmed right over the point. I am allowed to have anything the Gov does, so if you arnt ok with me having it, why are you ok with them having it?
  
  Logically you would want no one to have bombs right? Or do you trust a faceless bureaucrat more then your neighbor or yourself? Granted this is simply fear based thinking, but why do I scare you when a group that can hurt you a whole lot more than me dosent?
  
  Report this comment
- Sensible_Centrist_Democrat
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 1:12am
  But the second amendment doesn’t give you a constitutional right to have any weapon the government has. You do not have a constitutional right to have nuclear weapons. This should be so obvious and beyond debate — but for some reason you cannot see that.
  
  I do trust the military having “large bombs” more so than private citizens. Individuals having massive stockpiles of bombs and other WMDs (legally) is not guaranteed by the second amendment, and in fact would be a scary place to live.
  
  Report this comment
- Mindwerkz
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 1:26am
  SCD
  
  You didnt answer my question. Of course you trust the government more then your neighbors, the question is why?
  
  The nuke issue is not beyond debate and perhaps I shouldn’t have used gov weapons as a limiting factor as it goes well beyond that. Infact my right to arms, which is not defined in any way, is stated as that which shall not be infringed. I get the gov weapons relation from subsequent definitions and arguments where it was defined by such as Madison and Jefferson. Madison, as the author of the bill of right, has a particular insight as to what it means and its intent. However as written there are zero limitations on the weapons I am guaranteed as a right. It is not that I will not see it, it that unlike you, I will not create it out of whole cloth based upon fear. The 2nd says I am allowed weapons and that that right cannot be infringed. The 9th says that if it isnt specifically delegated to the fed, it belongs to me. Thus as it is not specifically delegated, and rather expressly prohibited to infringe my arms, I have a right to everything and anything I can get my hands on. Now you dont want this to be true so you reject it. However your rejection of reality has no reflection on its exsistance. This works both ways, there is no legal right to tax my income, however my rejection of such a right does not stop them from arresting me if I dont pay. It is a strange world we live in.
  
  Report this comment
- Sensible_Centrist_Democrat
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 1:45am
  To your main question: I trust the military with weapons that I wouldn’t trust private citizens with because any logical person would want their country’s military to have the weapons needed to protect against invasions. If citizens could buy any weapon they wanted, potential mass murderers could easily obtain WMDs. Instead of going to a school and shooting kids, the Sandy Hook killer could have driven a massive bomb and blown up the entire school. WMD arent intended for private citizens; they are weapons of war. I do not want just anyone having these weapons — but the military needs them in order to protect us ( I do have issues with our foreign policy but that is a separate debate )
  
  On an asid You say there is no legal right to tax your income: “AMENDMENT XVI
  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
  
  Also, rights are not absolute. Even the conservative Antonin Scalia noted this about the second amendment: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” (District of Columbia v Heller )
  
  There are limits on the first amendment. I cannot say anything I want to at any
  
  Report this comment
- jeffersonian1776
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:31pm
  @Socialist_Democrat, I didn’t know there was an issue at hand with people using the 2nd Amendment to protect their right to make a bomb that could blow up the whole town. Is this happening somewhere I don’t know of, and are people using the 2nd Amendment to guarantee their right to make a nuclear weapon somewhere here in the U.S. as well? I didn’t know we were under this threat? Do you get scared when you are next to a policeman carrying a gun? Should our law enforcement be able to carry guns? A policeman who has no duty whatsoever (according to several Supreme Court rulings) to protect you or me, they are not supposed to be altruistic where they value your or my life over their own, the law of the land says so? So who will defend your life in the event that something bad happens? I want the same weapons that the police have because we are both fighting against the same criminal elements in society. I hate t see what such laws will cause in the case of fully automatic weapons making their way across the border, but if it’s during this administration’s term you can bet that evrything will be peachy fine in the eyes of what the main stream media would feed us. Sort of like the homelessness rate, do you hear how that has skyrocketed under Obama compared to past Republican administrations? No, didn’t think so. When Reagan was in office, that’s all they seemed to report on. Remember when Bush was in? You heard about the Afghan/Iraq death toll everynight, not so much current
  
  Report this comment
- Sensible_Centrist_Democrat
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 7:14pm
  It is pretty funny how hostile the Blaze’s users are. I openly stated that I am not a big fun control advocate– e.g. If I was in congress I would spend zero minutes on the issue and wouldn’t vote in favor of The bill. Yet, Jeffersonian calls me a “socialist” (is that how you debate people with opposing views– resort to childish name calling) and another user stated I have a lower IQ than “rocks”.
  Secondly, I brought up bombs because multiple users here stated the 2nd amendment gave people the right to own any weapon they want– any weapon the government/ military have. I took this point it its logical conclusion to show its absolute stupidity. A constitutional right to own nukes? It shows the obvious flaw in that extreme position, which only a few users here probably believe.
  
  Additionally, how is banning specific weapons but leaving the mass majority of guns legal, make individuals relinquish their ability of self defense and rely solely on government. Handguns, shotguns and many rifles aren’t giving you the ability to protect yourself?
  
  And Jeffersoanian, I don’t know how to respond to your last political ramblings.
  Maybe less as hominen attacks and more civilized discussion would be better for your cause. Just because someone has a different point of view than you does not make them a socialist and an idiot.
  
  Report this comment
- jeffersonian1776
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:13am
  @SensibleCentristDemocrat, I got your name tight this time, sorry about that, guess I’m just used to socialist people on here trying to argue their points against mine. Which begs the question, you did not take up any of my points on why the public should have the same things the police have. Why do many on the left, don’t know about you personally, but many resort to wanting the state to somehow place certain values on specific groups’ lives over those of another, through legislative conundrums, without their knowledge or conscience of even doing so.
  Also, You reverted to attacking my intelligence. I guess I don’t know the difference between calling someone a socialist and atacking one’s intelligence. But I digress
  
  Report this comment
- jeffersonian1776
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 11:24am
  SensibleCenristDem, I will take up your argument though, the question you raised here:
  you said, “Additionally, how is banning specific weapons but leaving the mass majority of guns legal, make individuals relinquish their ability of self defense and rely solely on government. Handguns, shotguns and many rifles aren’t giving you the ability to protect yourself?”
  First of all, look at Obama’s past record, before he was president, specifically regarding handguns, and een somertime rifles and shotguns–moreover, study Obama’s history on the DC vs. Heller decision on the DC handgun ban, as well as the Chicago gun ban. He des not believe one should own a firearm fr self-defense, even if you are a battered woman who has a dagerous stalker ex-huband who threatens to kill you, that’s a fact. In California, someone can own a gn fo self-defense if they hae a court order claiming they have a stalker, or violent ex-spouse, ec. Obama did not support Illinois adopting a law similar to California’s o the grounds that it would erode current said gun bans. He has a dismal record that he cannot hide from and the NRA’s attorneys know all of it.
  Obama thinks the 2nd Amendment only protects an individual’s right to hunt, and let’s just say for the sake of the argument that is what the 2nd Amendment applies to only. Even if did, still, where does he get the absolute authority to use the Executive Office to make his own laws outside of Congress to force change?
  
  Report this comment
- jeffersonian1776
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 11:41am
  @Sencible, I hope this now applies to your guy’s talking point of “it’s passed the time to sit down and have a civilized discussion on sensible gun laws.”
  People are scared because of Obama’s dismal record on the 2nd Amendment, Look at it yourself. He does not believe in the right to own a gun for whatever reason, unless you are a higher-up-the-intellectual-government-ladder, where politicians such as himself believe their lives are more valuable than the rest of us. I see no other way to explain it. Them, and law enforcement. Remember, although the police cars have “To Serve and Protect” on their cars, they have no moral duty to defend you, protect you, or anything else that would altruistically place a value on your, mine, or whoever’s life, above that of their own life. So, their cars might say that and may give you comfort, but the Supreme Court’s law of the land says different, and every law enforcement officer knows they have no moral duty to defend you or protect you.
  All “sensible gun laws” do is leave thou helpless against the criminal element in our society who do not live and play by the same rules as thou.
  
  Report this comment
- macpappy
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 6:16pm
  You just don’t get it. The reason we are given the right to keep arms is to keep the Government from becoming tyranical. Tyranical……say it slowly, spell it out….now do you see. It is the government rules, regulations, and such other ideals of progressive control that the second admendment was crafted for.
  You, and your ilk are trying to take away the second admendment, or at least whittle down the right to bear arms as much as possible becasue you realize that the only way your political dreams will ever be realized is by force. Force will be met with force as long as the citizens have theirs arms.
  
  Report this comment
- Sensible_Centrist_Democrat
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 7:20pm
  @Jeffersonian:
  That’s the great thing about being a sensible centrist: I don’t have to blindly follow my party’s president on every issue. He may not be a fan of guns, but he will ditch the ideo of substantive gun control laws once he realizes that it is a losing battle.
  
  Report this comment
Pontiaku
Posted on January 13, 2013 at 11:30pm
100% believe in the right to bear arms? What, none of the liberal trolls on here voted?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- missdagnytaggart
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:36am
  Encinom must have been busy that day
  
  Report this comment
- Frederick_Douglass_Republican
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 8:12am
  What you’re missing is the true hypocrisy of the commie lib. They want everyone else subjected to gun control but not them. After the commie rat Ted Turner and his commie rat girlfriend/wife/(gag me) Hanoi Jane had their ranch house broken in to while they were away they gave the police a list of stolen items. Among the items were two AR15′s. His and hers AR15′s. A cop or reporter said “I thought you were against people having those!” to which Hanoi commie rat Jane replied “we don’t think other people should have them”. Exactly. The commie rats want theirs and have them, but don’t think anyone else is due the liberty or trust to have them. They are the American Bolsheviks. And they can go to h e l l
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on January 14, 2013 at 12:29pm
  May have been via email, or subscribers.
  
  Soros won’t subsidize deep spy operations
  
  Report this comment
- macpappy
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 6:19pm
  No, it’s just a bull crap poll that means nothing. A case of the right pulling your chain and expecting you to believe everything they tell you. I dislike it when the right tries to mislead me as much as I do when the left does.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.