Where do the American people really stand on gun control?

[Carl the Floor Walker]

Gun Control? Who? My gosh, is simple to look at the leaders of this Country, from Governors to Congressmen to Senators to the President of the United States and see very clearly where they stand as far as gun control and the 2A rights.
Laws of gun control are easy to see who is against the rights of the America Citizen. Not hard to figure out who votes for these people and supports them. Anti gun groups all across the US.
Power! Power to control those that legally support the 2A and the power to destroy with Domestic Terrorism with no consequences. A man or family now in some areas cannot even protect his own business from being burned to the ground, looted etc. And the majority of those states have leaders that are doing everything in that power to control the legal gun owners.
Domestic Terrorism is real and you cannot hide from it. The word "Terrorism" means TERROR/FEAR and citizens of the law abiding feel it. Law and order are diminishing rapidly.

They want to destroy the US Constitution 2nd amendment which is part of the bill of Rights. Why? because they may not really be anti gun, but they want the power that goes with the destruction of that right.

"The FBI defines Domestic terrorism as follows.
The definition for terrorism remains the same under the U.S. Code. It involves an act that is violent or dangerous to human life, where the act appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence government policy through intimidation or coercion".
Law and order, support for the Constitution vs Lawlessness and destruction of the Constitution. It is clearly defined.

[Pistoler0]

Originally Posted by Carl the Floor Walker

Gun Control? Who? My gosh, is simple to look at the leaders of this Country, from Governors to Congressmen to Senators to the President of the United States and see very clearly where they stand as far as gun control and the 2A rights.
Laws of gun control are easy to see who is against the rights of the America Citizen. Not hard to figure out who votes for these people and supports them. Anti gun groups all across the US.
Power! Power to control those that legally support the 2A and the power to destroy with Domestic Terrorism with no consequences. A man or family now in some areas cannot even protect his own business from being burned to the ground, looted etc. And the majority of those states have leaders that are doing everything in that power to control the legal gun owners.
Domestic Terrorism is real and you cannot hide from it. The word "Terrorism" means TERROR/FEAR and citizens of the law abiding feel it. Law and order are diminishing rapidly.

They want to destroy the US Constitution 2nd amendment which is part of the bill of Rights. Why? because they may not really be anti gun, but they want the power that goes with the destruction of that right.

"The FBI defines Domestic terrorism as follows.
The definition for terrorism remains the same under the U.S. Code. It involves an act that is violent or dangerous to human life, where the act appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence government policy through intimidation or coercion".
Law and order, support for the Constitution vs Lawlessness and destruction of the Constitution. It is clearly defined.

I am guilty of drifting off topic, I apologize.

As the topic asks a question about where American people stand on gun control, I have to say that most people I meet are not fully aware of the content and the meaning of 2A. And they do not reflect much upon it.

Most who opine against 2A base their argument on a cost vs benefit rationale that involves perceived notions of "public safety", but they overlook the fact that safety is not contemplated anywhere in 2A. As we know 2A is not put in the Constitution to enhance "safety" or public harmony. It is not there to protect the right to hunt or to enjoy firearms for sport either.

2A is there to guarantee freedom: "... necessary for the security of a free State".
The freedom to self defense.

And 2A does not contemplate nor does it care about a possible tradeoff between more freedom and "public safety". It is very possible that the framers understood that more gun violence could be a price to pay for that freedom.

I don't think that most private citizens who hold views in favor of tighter gun control want to "control us" or to gain more power. Politicians maybe, but not because they want to control us in a 1984 fashion, they just want to get re-elected to stay on the gravy train and so they go the direction that the political winds blows them onto.

But most of the American public are not savvy to this. They just make a connection: "gun crime is not desirable so tighten access to guns".

Maybe those who are well intentioned and against 2A would trade off freedom for "more safety", in that case, that would take a Constitutional change and repeal of 2A. But until that day comes, 2A says what it says: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

[5whiskey]

I don't think that most private citizens who hold views in favor of tighter gun control want to "control us" or to gain more power. Politicians maybe, but not because they want to control us in a 1984 fashion, they just want to get re-elected to stay on the gravy train and so they go the direction that the political winds blows them onto.

I do mostly agree with this. I actually do believe there is a grand conspiracy to disarm the American public by anti gun organizations. It is evident in their demonstrated incrementalism. They play the long game, and the ultimate goal is for the average Joe to own nothing short of maybe a shotgun. There are politicians who truly believe in these efforts and have downed the kool-aid, and there are some who embrace it for little more than the majority of the votes in their district. For most involved, I do believe it is based on sincere beliefs that this will save lives and prevent crime. In other words, for most it is not about a 1984 type government control scheme.

With that being said, when the AWB in Virginia was being discussed and thousands of protesters descended on Richmond with semi-automatic rifles... well we all know that there were some politicians and people in power who wrung their hands at the fact that American people would stand up like that. It worked, and a few people in power despised that it worked. Those are the ones who would like to see America disarmed for the sake of control, ala 1984.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 5Whiskey

There are politicians who truly believe in these efforts and have downed the kool-aid, and there are some who embrace it for little more than the majority of the votes in their district. For most involved, I do believe it is based on sincere beliefs that this will save lives and prevent crime. In other words, for most it is not about a 1984 type government control scheme.

Most large phenomena are more than one thing. I am sure that there have been significant numbers of people who genuinely believe that we need to address the dangers of

1. cheap Saturday night specials
2. assault weapons
3. 50BMG sniper rifles
4. angry people who might hurt someone
5. people who drink under any circumstance
6. "hate speech"
7. bullet proof vests/body armor
8. bump stocks
9. arm braces
10. going outside without a mask on

That someone with ambition can make a career out of manipulating those concerns into growing state power gets you to a very large state even if that weren't the goal anyone had in mind.

[Tom Servo]

It is evident in their demonstrated incrementalism. They play the long game, and the ultimate goal is for the average Joe to own nothing short of maybe a shotgun.

You're more right than you might know. This is from Nelson "Pete" Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc, which later became the Brady Campaign:

The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition–except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors–totally illegal. (Richard Harris, “A Reporter at Large: Handguns,” New Yorker, July 26, 1976, p. 58.)

Notice the year: 1976.

For the longest time, their goal was to ban handguns. The public never warmed to their agenda, so in 1989, they invented the concept of assault weapons. From the horse's mouth:

Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.

They are absolutely playing a long game.

[mk70ss]

For law abiding, American citizens, with no felony criminal record……there should be no restrictions whatsoever for gun ownership.

[RandyC]

On the good side, as of today it doesn't appear Biden is ready to take on the gun lobby. He's apparently going to nibble around the edges hoping to thread the needle with voters with "makes sense" decrees that will do absolutely nothing to curb "gun violence" yet seem that he is doing something.