Gun owners are in favor of more gun control...

[MD_Willington]

I think I stepped in this stuff one time at the park, yep smells the same...

POOP

 

[G36-UK]

Okay, so no registration, as that's not really a responsible solution. How about registration, with the following limitations:

-Voluntary only. Nobody is under any obligation to register.
-Registration does not expire. You don't need to renew licenses or anything.
-Single background check, equivalent of NFA 6-month check and $200 stamp.
-Includes "firearms licence", which counts as a go-anywhere CCW.
-licence also exempts you from all other background checks, meaning you can just plonk down $whatever (plus $20 tax stamp*), show your licence and go with your NFA item the very same day.
-something cool, like exemption to Hughes Amendment (or if legislation includes repeal of Hughes, then a toaster or something**.)

*I think paying $20 is fair, since you're not paying the $200 stamp anymore, and you don't have to wait six months.
**Can't think of any better ideas.

 

[Zen21Tao]

At least the kept "of the people" in their quotation of the 2nd Amendment on their home page. I have seen a number of instances where antis quote the 2nd without using these words and then try to argue the "right" is for the "state." I guess they had to keep these words though, to avoid being to obvious with their anti-gun agenda.


Also,
I won't question 'the validity' of the statistics because as others have said, it is manipulate your questions and sample group to produce a valid statistic to support anything you want. What I will challenge is the representativeness of their sampling group: For example, if I drew a sample from the following there groups, I would bet I could get at least 85% support for gun control:

Anti-gun hypocrites

While I hate to say it, there are a lot of "anti-gun gun owners." They are "anti-gun" first, hypocrites second and gun-owners third. They love to preach anti-gun nonsense yet their need for safety convinced them to own a gun. The first thing out of their mouth is usually "I have a gun, but I wish I didn't have to" or "I would love to see all guns banned so I wouldn't have to own mine."

Criminals

Notice they didn't say LEGAL gun owners. Of course criminals that illegal own firearms to assist them in their criminal forte would love to see everyone else's guns taken away.


Unknowledgeable or "just don't care" gun owners

As RNB65 pointed out, "gun owner" doesn't mean that the person is knowledgeable about firearms or facts and statistics the liberal media and gun-control groups try to hide or down play. Just being a "gun owner" also doesn't mean someone is passionate about their right to be one. Think about an 80yr old grandmother that has a Lorcin in her nightstand that has never been fired. She has it "just in case" and I would bet doesn't even pay any attention to the pro-gun/anti-gun debate. She continuously sees crimes on TV and people saying evil guns unlike the one she has is responsible for it. It is easy to see how she could fall into the trap of thinking we need certain levels of gun control and that they could be effective.


Also:

SAUL CORNELL: There is tremendous ferment in the field of Second Amendment scholarship and jurisprudence. Most, but certainly not all, scholars and judges think that the controlling precedent, U.S. v. Miller, favors a militia-based view of the amendment. This interpretation is often described as the collective-rights view, but I don’t think it makes sense to continue to talk about two camps in this debate. There are now at least three models for understanding the Second Amendment. Some view it as an individual right, others as a collective right, and some have rejected both of these views and have embraced a third view that might best be described as a civic right.

I love it. Anti-gun folks have put so much stock in the "collective rights" interpretation that has failed to withstand scrutiny time and time again. It is obvious, by the founders owns words and by numerous legal rulings, that the 2nd is an "individual right" not a "collective right."

So, rather than admit defeat they have to come up with a 3rd, 'not thought of until now', interpretation. I bet when you delve into this "civic right" you find an a right that appears in every aspect to be individual but is a right reserved for all of society... a "collective group of individuals" right I suppose.