A Rasmussen poll on the Second Amendment released March 5 had some good news and some bad news. Unfortunately, it was not surprising news for veteran gun rights activists.
The poll revealed that while 92% of identified Republicans who responded say the U.S. Constitution affirms an individual right to own a gun under the Second Amendment, only 64% of those who said they were Democrats believe that. They were even behind the 71 percent of respondents who claimed no political affiliation, while supporting individual gun rights..
Astonishingly, even after the Supreme Court ruled last June 26 in the case of District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller, 14 % of those answering the poll do not believe there is a constitutional right to own a gun. It would be nice to know where each of these fools live, so they could be mailed a map showing them routes out of the United States.
Eleven percent of the respondents aren’t sure about the right, according to the Rasmussen poll. Here is a sure-fire way to convince them. Open a halfway house in their neighborhoods for convicted sex offenders or drug addicts. These “uncertain” people will soon be stacked three deep at the nearest gun shop sales counter, with their checkbooks open.
In my most recent book with Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation called These Dogs Don’t Hunt: The Democrats’ War on Guns, we demonstrate why the Rasmussen poll contained no surprises. For some reason, far too many Democrats stubbornly resist the notion that there are ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, and that rights of “the people” are held by individuals, not state governments. The Bill of Rights is an all-or-nothing proposition, not a menu.
Most gun control fanatics consider themselves “progressives,” but in actuality, they promote repression of the most basic of fundamental rights, that of self-preservation. They don’t care for guns, and really don’t want people to have them.
Witness the District of Columbia municipal government. Since the high court ruled last year that the District’s handgun ban was unconstitutional, city leaders have begrudgingly had to formulate a law that allows citizens to once again legally arm themselves in their homes for personal protection. However, the authorities have made that just as difficult as possible, leading to this week’s lawsuit against the District by the Second Amendment Foundation and three Washington, D.C residents. My colleague, Mike Stollenwerk, writes about it here.
Progressives typically worry about the rights of guys like Ronald Keith Matthews, a crackhead who gunned down King County (WA) Deputy Richard Herzog in 2002, or they go after the rights of law-abiding gun owners after a killer with an illegally-carried pistol fatally shoots a minister during a church service.
Matthews was under Department of Corrections supervision (see this column), having been released from prison 11 days before he murdered Herzog with the lawman’s own gun. Terry Joe Sedlacek, the suspect in the killing of Pastor Fred Winters in Troy, Illinois on March 8 did not have a required Illinois Firearm Owners Identification Card, so he should not have had that .45 he used to shoot the minister.
If 36% of Democrats could figure out that law-abiding Americans have an individual right to own guns, and that people who kill cops and preachers shouldn’t have any rights…now that would be progress.
Insert photo caption or credit here
For more info: District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller
In addition to Mike Stollenwerk's current column, check out what my colleague Paul Valone has to say here.
Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:
- Austin: Gun control, Eric Holder, and racism
- Charlotte: Baiting liberals for fun and profit!
- Cleveland: Banning competition firearms
- DC: Wall Street Journal lapses into newspeak when it comes to guns
- Denver: Keep them guessing
- Los Angeles: John Longenecker interviews Oklahoma Senator Randy Brogdon on State Sovereignty, Guns Rights, and more
- Minneapolis: The first thing you do is drag him inside
- National: Tyranny is counting on ignorance
- Seattle: Prison releases, police cutbacks pose a danger to citizens
- St. Louis: When the order of protection . . . provides none
Comments
Especially after the Heller v. D.C. decision, how can anyone credibly argue that the Second Amendment does not protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms?
I guess democrats have more important things to worry about?
People hold all manner of cockamamie notions; some think the President is a Muslim, others that pollution does not harm our environment, some people would have you think that black folks are inferior, others do not believe in the right to abortion.
The Constitution and the Supreme Court both uphold your gun rights, as they do equal protection and the right to privacy, so really who gives a rat's wazoo what Democrats suppose?
The issue that people are concerned about is not your ability to dress up in fatigues and shoot turkeys on the weekend, people want lower crime and safer streets. This dialog about gun rights is tired and does nothing to address the core problem. Can we get some fresh ideas from NRA members? Re-examine the war on drugs? Address poverty? Those our the sources of the crime epidemic. Address those issues and your gun rights well be secured against all those crazy lefties out there.
Jeremy:
While I agree that the dialogue about gun rights will not solve the crime problem, I must point out to you that the NRAs mission is to protect and defend the second amendment, and to train and advise US citizens in safe and competent shooting skills. While a robust second amendment coupled with responsible citizens willing to lawfully exert their authority can reduce crime, "crime control" simply isn't the NRAs issue.
Moreover, I have been following the gun control agenda for years. It has become perfectly clear to me that they pursue their agenda not to control crime, but to control guns. Even the so-called "violence prevention" groups often focus exclusively on furthering gun control. There are many effective methods to reduce crime without touching gun rights. Until anti-violence groups begin to advocate methods other than gun control, I will look at them as gun control groups and not violence reduction groups.
Carl in Chicago,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. As is typical with activist groups, they start with good intentions and somewhere along the way embrace a false premise and consequently, their ideology runs awry of logic. The anti-violence groups attack on gun ownership is a sound example of this. Another example I could offer would be MADD and their lobbying to raise the drinking age to 21 to curb alcohol related auto fatalities. The automotive statistics point to success, but at what cost? Increased teenage drinking, violence, and law enforcement costs.
Either side of the gun control debate can offer statistical evidence to support their argument regarding crime.
Getting to the NRA, their mission is to defend American's gun rights. That is fine and admirable. Though they have a marketing problem. To many city dweller types that have no relationship with firearms, the NRA represents a cocky rural population which appears to have a peculiar fetish with guns. They cannot relate to these people and they are put off by their demeanor: "from my cold dead hands". I believe this sort of "us or them" approach leads to emotional rather than rational examinations.
If we look at the politics of America as a naive outsider, we might be inclined to believe that a supporter of the ACLU would also be inclined to support the NRA. After all, is not gun ownership a civil liberty?
My suggestion regarding the NRA is to advance their policy goals by a less direct, defiant approach. Liberal voters have been raised with the understanding that gun availability correlates with increased crime, and the alternate viewpoint is offered by an organization which is entirely culturally inaccessible. One idea for the NRA is to move away from the approach of "you'll never get our guns" to a message that is more productive for urban dwellers and less confrontational. A discourse on addressing some of the root causes of crime is a subtle and productive reintroduction that might broaden the appeal of the organization and raise awareness about their core values.
I do think it's worth noting that while the decision to overturn the DC gun ban was a five to four vote the collateral finding that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right was unanimous by the court. Thus driving a stake through the heart of the whole "collective rights" argument much as the anti gun crowd would wish otherwise.
Fortunately the constitution also protects the rights of people who you disagree with so that they have every right not to need "a map showing them routes out of the United States."
It takes all kinds to make this country the great country it is. Denigrating those you disagree with (though also protected by our laws) does not make help make your case.
I was once part of the NRA, but it was similar attitudes (in their magazine) and their extreme partisanship that helped turn me away from them.
"Can we get some fresh ideas from NRA members? Re-examine the war on drugs? Address poverty? Those our the sources of the crime epidemic. Address those issues and your gun rights well be secured against all those crazy lefties out there."
Been saying the same thing for years now. How can you possibly address poverty with 40% dropout rates? Why bother finishing school or actually getting an education when the "safety net" programs are on equal footing with education? The "government will help me" mentality is the problem, and that is here to stay.
Until the lefties and the cult of government can acknowledge, let alone honestly assess the problems their pet projects are producing we can't do anything. They own the "education" system that indoctrinates the youth who then turn off and drop out to worship at the government alter. They own the media that glorifies crap, literally, that is of higher value today then history and thinking.
You want solutions? Cut hand outs, limit the government to a small fraction of the money they steal from us at gunpoint to fund these programs. It serves two wonderful purposes. It cuts a huge portion of wasteful spending and puts the value back into education so no more money is wasted there.
Education is the only way up and out. Until that becomes the value nothing changes.
I would like to point out to Jeremy that prior to the 1960's, the NRA was primarily the world's foremost marksmanship and firearms safety training organization. The leadership was caught asleep at the switch by the political anti-gun surge late in that decade following the assasinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK. The passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act with the acceptance ofn the NRA leadership forced the members to re-take control of the organization in what is referred to as "the Cincinatti Reforms".
Since then we have experienced an interesting thing. Whenever the anti-gun crowd refers to "reasonable compromise" or "reasonal reform", they are always talking about us giving up some of what they left us with after our last attempt at meeting them at some "reasonable" half way point. They never entertain any notion of rolling back any of their gains, even if they have proven to be ineffective. In short, we have tried being resonable. It got us nothing and only empowered our opponents. That, my friend, is where the "from my cold dead hands" position came from, out of total frustration with the past results with being "reasonable".
"Molon labe!" -- Leonidas, King of Sparta
The Persians had demanded the 300 Spartans and their allies lay down their arms. Leonidas' response cannot be exactly translated. Ancient Greek is not even similar to modern English. The gist of it is, "having come (after our defeat), you may take them". In other words, "Come and get them!"
Could be that YOU are the only ones trying to make this an issue! Thing is people still get guns to kill people and it will still happen no matter what stupid laws you pass - maybe YOU just don't get that? Try talking to people that actually live in areas where kids get killed for no other reason than they are walking down the street.
Put your wasted efforts into gang control or drug control and then, just maybe gun control will be more that the joke it is now!
This practice of saying people are either Republican and there fore pro-gun or Democrats/Liberals and therefore anti-gun is dumb and counterproductive. The first thing you need to somehow get into your head is that not everyone votes on one single issue. Yeah, shocking isn't it? Secondly there are plenty of Democrats and yes, even "liberals" what ever you define that to mean that are pro-gun. Check the NRA's member statistics as proof. I voted for Obama and am proud of it after 8 ruinous Bush years. I am also a combat disabled Marine Corps veteran with 13 years in. So I'm really, really, tired of blowhards like you trying to define people like me. You are doing damage to the very cause you claim to care so much about.
Terry
I do not care if you are a Republican or Democrat. Lib or conserviatve. The thing everyone of us AMERICANS must realize is THAT WHEN ANY OF OUR RIGHTS outlined in the Constitution are threatened they all are threatened. As AMERICAN citizens no mater what your politics are. IT IS TIME wake up to whAt people is our goverment are doing, They are getting out of control. We should not have to ask permission to excercise our Constitutional Rights, to say what we want , own a gun, or to try to earn more money with out haviing to share it with the Bums who have chosen not to earn it themselves. I know there are many pro-gun Dems, But what about the ones you are voting for, What do they think of YOUR RIGHTS. Many of them could care less about your rights. There are some republicans that are the same way.
To all: Before you vote someone into office Be sure where they stand on all your rights, As Amercicans we should not compromise on any of them
I can give you a fresh idea. Get rid of the politicians that have been in office more than 10 years. These people think they are royalty. They do as they please and you and I pay for it. They have their own retirement since they are too good for social security. We get screwed every day by these people and yet we still elect them over and over. The only thing they are afraid of is the SECOND AMENDMENT.
kirk g: what you do not understand, is the difference between self-defense and attacking. You and your anti-freedomite slime friends are attackin us. At some point, we will snap into an inexorable self-defense mode- an you will find it a little loud to hear yourself complain that we no longer want your treason trash.
Jeremy- city or country- folks exposed to the basic concepts should be able to cogitate to the same conclusion: there is no logic or righteousness behind the evil schemes to disarm the innocent, while ignoring rampaging criminals.
The truth is that none of the 14percenters actually believe that gun control stops crime. Quite the contrary: they love the fact that it facilitates crime, because that makes them feel like big tough criminals themselves. Even though most of them couldn't survive five minutes alone outside a coffee house, they love to pretend that they are part of the Big Bad Underclass. It's sort of a Village People thing.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!