I guess that may be true as most of the anti gun crowd think all guns look scary.

 

But unless I read it wrong semi auto shotguns and lever action rifles are also listed. I need to go back and read it again to see what the requirements were for owning a handgun, but I believe most of those would be banned also. The most hilarious part of this proposal and the 1994 proposal is wanting to ban anything that has a bayonet lug.

Look at the beginning of the section that lists shotguns and lever action. It says guns that are exempt....

This bill literally has no shot.

 

The thing that is lost in the discussion is that the Democrats had both houses and the White House and didn't pass any gun control law.

 

Do you know why? There were many democrats who knew a majority of the people in their districts didn't want it.

Oh and bayonets too, because tons of bad guys use those.

That's because of all of the "drive-by" bayonetings.

That's because of all of the "drive-by" bayonetings.

 

Before long they will be after our pocket knives.

Look at the beginning of the section that lists shotguns and lever action. It says guns that are exempt....

 

I'll have to look it over on a PC screen, too much to read to read it in a phone and understand it all.

What is considered young ? I'd say a majority of people I know under the age of 40 own a gun. That is democrats and republicans both.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?_r=0

 

I believe this is the article the cartoon is pulling from.

Something needs to be done, but this is (pun intended) overkill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?_r=0

 

I believe this is the article the cartoon is pulling from.

 

The article basically refutes it's own claims. It admits there are surveys showing ownership from 35 to 52%and that Gallup shows a much larger household ownership. This specific author just happens to hold more credence in the University of Chicago research over all others . It also happens to show the lowest household ownership and steepest decline. I wonder why it would take the survey furthest from the mean ? Wouldn't fit an agenda would it ?

Not a chance. None of it.

The article basically refutes it's own claims. It admits there are surveys showing ownership from 35 to 52%and that Gallup shows a much larger household ownership. This specific author just happens to hold more credence in the University of Chicago research over all others . It also happens to show the lowest household ownership and steepest decline. I wonder why it would take the survey furthest from the mean ? Wouldn't fit an agenda would it ?

 

Maybe, but from the expert opinion below the author went with the most thorough poll.

 

“There are all these claims that gun ownership is going through the roof,” said Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. “But I suspect the increase in gun sales has been limited mostly to current gun owners. The most reputable surveys show a decline over time in the share of households with guns.”

Maybe, but from the expert opinion below the author went with the most thorough poll.

 

“There are all these claims that gun ownership is going through the roof,” said Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. “But I suspect the increase in gun sales has been limited mostly to current gun owners. The most reputable surveys show a decline over time in the share of households with guns.”

 

Who defines reputable , how do you define it. Is Gallup not reputable? What is the agenda behind the research of this John Hopkins proffesor.

 

You can't speak of scientific study and then make a claim " I suspect current gun sales are by current owners" and have nothing to confirm that. The articles intent is obviou . They received the conclusion they wanted.

 

Why not list the numbers from Gallup which they admit are much higher?

Who defines reputable , how do you define it. Is Gallup not reputable? What is the agenda behind the research of this John Hopkins proffesor.

 

You can't speak of scientific study and then make a claim " I suspect current gun sales are by current owners" and have nothing to confirm that. The articles intent is obviou . They received the conclusion they wanted.

 

Why not list the numbers from Gallup which they admit are much higher?

 

Neither poll fits the agenda that gun ownership is growing.

This bill literally has no shot.

 

The thing that is lost in the discussion is that the Democrats had both houses and the White House and didn't pass any gun control law.

 

Do you know why? There were many democrats who knew a majority of the people in their districts didn't want it.

You're correct. The bill has no chance to pass. However, what the bill does do is establish a base line for lawmakers in future elections. In other words, it puts people like Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., and other Northeast Republicans between a rock and a hard place, since anti-gun sentiment is much stronger in blue states than in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

So in other word politics is why Barry and the boys and girls of the left didn't do this at the same time they were destroying the free market health care system?

I've been asked on phone surveys in the past if I owned a gun or had one in the house, pretty sure I told them no.

 

I'd guess a lot of gun owners aren't comfortable possibly having their name on a list of gun owners. That could possibly skew the numbers lowers as more and more people have a distrust of Washington (founded or not) and their ability to protect our 2nd Amend rights.