Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

Chocolate

Chocolate
tragedies

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Frank Luntz? Really?




Pollster Frank Luntz, who has studied attitudes about gun control, said on Wednesday that he doesn’t “think the NRA is listening” to the American public in the wake of the massacre of 20 children at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school. 

 “The public wants guns out of the schools, not in the schools,” Luntz said on CBS’s “This Morning.” “And they are not asking for a security official or someone else. I don’t think the NRA is listening. 

I don’t think they understand most Americans would protect the Second Amendment rights and yet agree with the idea that not every human being should own a gun, not every gun should be available at anytime, anywhere, for anyone. At gun shows, you should not be able to buy something there without any kind of check whatsoever.”

Support for stricter gun laws at a 10-year high.


Republican Party on Gun Control

Freedom Group, a gunmaker ripe for an ethical takeover

h/t taospeaks

16 comments:

taospeaks said...

Forget public opinion, forget the NRA, this is the most brilliant idea:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/27/opinion/macintosh-gun-firm-takeover/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Even Capt. Fogg couldn't fault this one....

Rational Nation USA said...

Capt. Fogg should be on a Presidential commission (as the chair person) focused on resolving this issue. I shall no more, other than check out his comments at The Swash Zone with respect to this issue.

FreeThinke said...

There was a fat fellow named Luntz
Whose thick-wittedness ceaselessly blunts
His party's fond goals --
Brings them nearer the shoals.
Now ain't that the sickest of stunts?


~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

until we stop distorting what the 2nd amendment says, their will be no solution.

Rational Nation USA said...

What do you think it says? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thank you in advance...

Anonymous said...

It's not about what I think it says, or what you think it says. It's about what the founders, Madison, and the then Congress thought it meant.
Madison was in agreement with the 1792 "Uniform Militia Act." Defining what and who the militia was, which was a direct response by Congress to the 2nd amendment. There was no debate in 1792 that the 2nd amendment was talking about militias.

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

The language of the Second Amendment includes the words "well-regulated." Any consensus as to what these words mean?

Too bad about those 20 dead children who never lived long enough to know what "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" means.

Silverfiddle said...

The Heller and McDonald cases settled the argument over the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. It protects a personal, preexisting right.

They also recognized the right of governments to pass sensible laws. Banning a homeowner from having a gun in her house was ruled unconstitutional, while other laws were recognized as legitimate functions of government.

Dave Miller said...

RN... the right to bear arms... not every arm...

Dave Dubya said...

Of course the public disagrees with both the NRA and the Republican Party. But their "free speech money" backers talk louder in our politics.

The Right's war on democracy continues.

Rational Nation USA said...

Dave, please point to anywhere I have said "every arm." In fact I've been quite moderate in my position thus far. What may change that is if certain "looneys" run off the rails. You know who I'm talking about, right? The looneys who want a complete ban on firearms or just allowing flint locks and only then under police supervision.

Shaw Kenawe said...

As far as I can determine, no one commenting here has called for a ban on guns.

What we're looking for is proportionality--the right to own guns, but not being armed to the teeth with glocks and semi-automatic machines that are not used for hunting, except for human animals.

BB-Idaho said...

RN- "What may change that is if certain "looneys" run off the rails" They have, considering the
stretch the
NRA has done with 2nd Amendment...

Rational Nation USA said...

BB Idaho - I believe I addressed the loony right over at my site. Wayne LaPierre, and Ted Nugent are two who have ran off the rails.

Shaw - As to the left, well, I realize that those here are looking for proportionality, as am I. But there are those on the left who do advocate bans. My suggestion, just to remain balanced, is to work on them as well. As I have on the right.

Dave Miller said...

RN... I was just answering about the 2nd Amendment.

As to the looneys on the left, I am not real sure who you are talking about.

Outside of bloggers, in no position to do anything other than opine, can you name one person on the left with the stature of LaPierre or in a position in Congress to make policy that has called for an outright ban on arms or repeal of the 2nd Amendment?

yet there are many on the right, starting with LaPierre and extending deep into the congressional roles who are arguing for not a single restriction on arms.

Which side at the policy level seems more loony?

Shaw Kenawe said...

Good point, Dave.

Again, no one I know on the left is calling for a ban on guns. No one.

Restrictions? Yes.

We have restrictions on our 1st Amendments rights.

When a faction that represents the moneyed interests of the firearms industrial complex is intractable on every single proposal on gun control, we understand that they're NOT lobbying for more "freedoms" for Americans, rather, they're lobbying for more bottom line increases for firearms manufacturers.

And they ARE loonies, IMHO.