There’s always a little bit of paranoia and distrust of people who want to do things to you “for your own good”.

That’s how most scams work, how most politicians get elected, how most goods are sold, how most programs are justified.

It behooves intelligent people to question the sales pitches given and to verify the supporting arguments are legitimate. It’s unreasonable to assume all people polled were elsewhere since we weren’t personally polled, but it’s not unreasonable to wonder how the polling took place or the exact wording of the questions.

I’ve known people who worked in polling and they noticed how slight changes in the wording of a question would flip the responses and the wording was carefully chosen.
Further, the sequence of questions changes the responses given.
If you ask people if they know police response times are such and such and then ask them if people should be forbidden to have weapons to defend themselves, they are less likely to favor disarmament of citizens than if you ask them if it is paranoid to distrust law enforcement and then ask if people need “assault weapons” to defend themselves.

If you mention times of rioting in which mobs swarmed houses and businesses and then ask if the number of rounds of ammunition should be limited, fewer are likely to agree than if you first mention some crazy person firing many rounds into innocent children.

It depends on the viewpoint and priorities.

It is especially interesting to call people paranoid for recognizing what has happened in the recent past may happen in the near future.

David for reasonable caution

Poll takers can and will cherry pick their respondants to get the answers they need for results they want. All of these – The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today and The Wall Street Journal are liberal rags pushing Obama’s anti-Second Amendment adgenda with no creditablity on this matter in my opinion.

Let’s assume the poll’s correct.

Gun nuts tell us assault weapons are defined as guns which can be set to one shot per trigger pull, a few shots per pull or full automatic with all ammunition fired as long as finger is pulled back.

Did the people polled mean those weapons or did they mean ugly weapons which look like assault weapons but are really just semi-automatic?

Or did they mean all semi-automatics guns of all kinds?

It’s interesting that 51% favor gun-control laws but 53% favor controlling how the guns can operate and 56% favor infringing the right to keep and bear certain arms.

So more favor gun control laws than favor gun control laws???

Regardless, it’s a majority with a margin of error which might make it not a majority, but let’s not quibble. A majority wishes to take away the rights of other people to keep and bear arms.

Assuming they’ll continue to feel that way, let’s do this legally by amending the Constitution to strike that restriction from the Bill of Rights as well as the 14th Amendment (and take away any other irritating rights while we’re at it).

We need to elect enough Senators and Representatives who don’t care about our rights to approve dropping our rights by 2/3 and state legislators to approve dropping our rights by ¾.

Then we’ll be safe from law abiding citizens.

David contemplating throwing out our rights