Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Poll: Majority of Gun Owners Oppose Sotomayer Nomination

New Poll data shows that the majority of gun owners, independents, and small business owners oppose the Sotomayer Judicial Nomination. My question is why did 30% of the gun owners polled support her Nomination? Perhaps party loyalty is blinding some of them due to the fact that 84% of the Democrats polled support her nomination, while roughly 50% of US households own guns.

Update 1: For any gun owners currently finding themselves in support of the Sotomayer confirmation, please watch this short excerpt from her testimony before the Senate and perhaps you'll consider a position change. If not I guess you only consider your ownership of guns to be a Government Granted convenience rather than a fundamental right.

13 comments:

Cactus Mark said...

Gun owners tend to obey the law and not re-write it based on emotion. Damned us all to hell.

CustomRifleGuy said...

Its not the law obeying citizen, to worry about but we should look at this the same way the liberals look at gun control,
Is she a liability or safety?

Dustin said...

For any gun owners currently finding themselves in support of the Sotomayer confirmation, please watch this short excerpt from her testimony before the Senate and perhaps you'll consider a position change. If not I guess you only consider your ownership of guns to be a Government Granted convenience rather than a fundamental right.

Anonymous said...

Cactus Mark--
They tend to obey the law until they walk into a university classroom and mow down 31 innocent people, or when when they go on a sniper rampage and kill 11 innocent people, or when they throw bombs and ambush a school and kill 10 innocent people. They're little times like that when gun owners tend to break the law.

Anonymous said...

Cactus Mark--
They tend to obey the law until they walk into a university classroom and mow down 31 innocent people, or when when they go on a sniper rampage and kill 11 innocent people, or when they throw bombs and ambush a school and kill 10 innocent people. They're little times like that when gun owners tend to break the law.


These few instances are but a small percentage of the law abiding yet mentally unstable people that own guns. His actions should not disqualify me from owning a gun. I have a right and the government will only take my AR-15, SKS and Colt .45 from my cold dead hands and I guarantee I will take out some of those that try to take them from me.

Kelly said...

I thought the hedging was particularly interesting in light of the fact that the question wasn't whether we had a constitutional right to keep and bear arms but whether we had a right to "self defense." As far as I am concerned, the right to self defense is a fundamental human right and not a "legal" question at all. Why couldn't she answer the question?

Kelly said...

Response to Anonymous:
The school shooting example you gave spoils your theory because nobody is legally permitted to carry a firearm on campus. That very prohibition is the reason large numbers of people can so easily be slaughtered. As we can see from your example, somebody intent on doing harm doesn't give a crap that the law prohibits him from carrying a concealed weapon. If you really want to understand the issue, you should look into some shootings where the crazed gunman intent on mass murder was met by a single armed citizen. Those outcomes illustrate why we should all be armed.

Anonymous said...

Please Kelly...enlighten us on all the stories where a valient person carrying a gun took down a crazed gunman intent on killing as many people as possible.

I can think of one actually. Sandpoint, Idaho. Crazy man goes runs through town on a shooting spree killing 4-5 people. Valient man with a handgun comes running out to stop him and...whoops...he also takes one in the head. Dead.

You will never convince me that showdowns in the street is the best way to protect citizens.

Dustin said...

Anonymous: Take a look the self defense label - you may find some of them interesting, such as guns used for self defense every 13 seconds in the US, or the attempted Mass Shootings at a Bar stopped by a CCW permit holder, the mass shooter at a church stopped by Jeanne Assam, as well as other examples.

I could be killed when facing off against an armed murderer attacking my family, but I'd gladly take those odds over facing him or her with a broomstick.

Jeff Perren said...

I've lived in Sandpoint, ID for 7 1/2 years and I never heard of the incident to which Anonymous refers. It's a relatively small town and I'm sure I would have heard if it happened in that time frame.

Anonymous is almost certainly making it up.

Dustin said...

Glad to hear it Jeff. Until Anonymous gives us a link to the story it is probably safe to presume you are correct. Even if such a story exists, FBI statistics prove it is better to fight back than to offer no resistance. You might get hurt defending yourself or your family, but you are even more likely to be killed if you offer no resistance due to the fact that the attacker would rather not leave a witness behind after he or she takes what he or she wants - your life, your body, your dignity.

Jennifer Anderson said...

I really needed the information like that, I don’t think so I have to go anywhere for further information when I’ve got all info at one place. airsoft guns uk

jhon said...

Naturally a coffer defalcation is acceptable to be the best frequently acclimated agency of accouterment money for circadian business. However, for companies that cannot accommodated the demands of their bank, a merchant banknote beforehand may be a applicable solution. A lot of businesses that do not authorize for apart or anchored coffer loans may account abundantly from this adjustment of borrowing.
check cashing costa-mesa