Mark Levin & Gallup - 2nd Amendment

Mark Levin is a talk show host, and more importantly, a Constitutional Attorney. Here is his point of view on the current effort to limit the 2nd Amendment. An interesting listen ~



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/11/levin_i_can_barely_contain_my_fury_at_what_is_going_on_in_this_country.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I love Mark Levin and what he says, but his voice just irritates my ears quite often. He has a biting sense of humor.

True. I started listening to Mark Levin about 2 years ago. At first, his voice grated on me. It was tough to get past it. But, the content of his message is so thorough and informative, I don't even notice it now. I appreciate his commitment to the Constitution and the founding principles of this country. His opening comments are a powerful clarion call.

Gallup on the 2nd Amendment ~



Gallup: Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?



------ Yes - No - No opinion

2012 - 24% - 74% - 2%

2011 - 26% - 73% -- 1

2010 - 29% - 69% -- 1

2009 - 28% - 71% -- 1

2008 - 29% - 69% -- 2

2007 - 30% - 68% -- 2

2006 - 32% - 66% -- 2

2005 - 35% - 64% -- 1

2004 - 36% - 63% -- 1

2003 - 32% - 67% -- 1



2012 Gallup poll taken 1 week after the Sandy Hook massacre

I'm assuming the "Yes" response correlates with should not be a law, while "No" is should be a law?



Answering "Yes" or "No" to a question asking "Should" or "Should not" seems odd.

Ddawg wrote:
Gallup on the 2nd Amendment ~



Gallup: Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?



------ Yes - No - No opinion

2012 - 24% - 74% - 2%

2011 - 26% - 73% -- 1

2010 - 29% - 69% -- 1

2009 - 28% - 71% -- 1

2008 - 29% - 69% -- 2

2007 - 30% - 68% -- 2

2006 - 32% - 66% -- 2

2005 - 35% - 64% -- 1

2004 - 36% - 63% -- 1

2003 - 32% - 67% -- 1



2012 Gallup poll taken 1 week after the Sandy Hook massacre

Doesn't this indicate that 24% are ruling the 74%? Isn't the tail wagging the dog? Is the government of the government or of the people?

SpiffCoug wrote:
I'm assuming the "Yes" response correlates with should not be a law, while "No" is should be a law?



Answering "Yes" or "No" to a question asking "Should" or "Should not" seems odd.

I agree, Gallup worded the question kind of weird. They are asking 2 questions in 1 sentence. It would have been simpler and clearer if Gallup asked: "Are you for a law that bans handguns - answer "Yes." Or, are against a law that would ban handguns, answer "No." It's the same question mashed into one sentence. Kinda confusing.



But, with their question, used every year, a "Yes" means you want a law that would ban handguns. A "No" means you do not want a law passed that would ban handguns.



It's an interesting tracking of public opinion on the topic. Most interesting to me is that 1 week after the Sandy Hook shooting, the highest polling of folks not wanting handgun laws passed was registered.

Mark Levin has as much commitment to the constitution as his current talking point permits. He likes the 2nd amendment but hates the 4th. Look at his positions on NDAA.

jvquarterback wrote:
Mark Levin has as much commitment to the constitution as his current talking point permits. He likes the 2nd amendment but hates the 4th. Look at his positions on NDAA.

Mark Levin hates the 4th Amendment? Meaning, he is for unreasonable searches and seizures?

Ddawg wrote:

Mark Levin has as much commitment to the constitution as his current talking point permits. He likes the 2nd amendment but hates the 4th. Look at his positions on NDAA.

Mark Levin hates the 4th Amendment? Meaning, he is for unreasonable searches and seizures?

So is he for or against the NDAA. I'm guess he is against it, and rightfully so.

I'm all for banning guns, It's just too costly in terms of lives. I'm also all for getting rid of blowhards like Levin and Maddow.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I look forward to that blessed time when swords will be turned into plowshares. Until that time, I am hanging on to my figurative sword so I can defend the lives of myself, my family, and others who may need help.



However, I think some regulation is in order--as I posted elsewhere, I don't think most reasonable people would question laws banning our citizens from walking around with handgrenades, RPGs, Claymore mines, etc. However, the regulations should not infringe on the rights of the people to be sufficiently armed to defend itself against a tyrannical government--or the local gang banger. The second amendment wasn't just for home defense, but really for defense against tyranny.



So, in my opinion, the Constitutional question should be, does this law infringe the ability of the people to defend itself against the armaments of this Government, if it resorted to tyranny? If the answer is yes, it should be declared unconstitutional. If not, it should be constitutional.

cornhole153 wrote:
I'm all for banning guns, It's just too costly in terms of lives. I'm also all for getting rid of blowhards like Levin and Maddow.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Great. Then you don't believe in the 1st Amendment and free speech. Bueno. You're brilliant - not.



Eliminating the 2nd Amendment completely? You are again consistently not supporting the U.S. Constitution. Priceless. But, you are consistent in your desire to take away peoples rights.



In 1 post, you want to toss both the 1st and 2nd Amendment's into the trash-heap. Any other brilliant advice?

Cougarfan87 wrote:




The second amendment wasn't just for home defense, but really for defense against tyranny.

Really? Listening to the Left, I thought the 2nd Amendment was for duck hunting and shooting tin cans. :bug: ;) :lol: :lol:



P.S. I agree with you.

cornhole153 wrote:
I'm all for banning guns, It's just too costly in terms of lives.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I'm all for banning alcohol. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning cars. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'll all for banning all peanut products. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning plastic bags. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning hammers. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning knives. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning airplanes. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning vaccines. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning ladders. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning electricity. It's just too costly in terms of lives.



According to the President and Vice President if we can save even one child's life, then these actions are both worth it and necessary.

SpiffCoug wrote:

I'm all for banning guns, It's just too costly in terms of lives.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I'm all for banning alcohol. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning cars. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'll all for banning all peanut products. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning plastic bags. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning hammers. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning knives. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning airplanes. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning vaccines. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning ladders. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning electricity. It's just too costly in terms of lives.



According to the President and Vice President if we can save even one child's life, then these actions are both worth it and necessary.

Stop it Spiff. All that logic makes me dizzy. I have an agenda, and I can't let the facts get in the way. :whistle:

Ddawg wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:
I'm all for banning guns, It's just too costly in terms of lives.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I'm all for banning alcohol. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning cars. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'll all for banning all peanut products. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning plastic bags. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning hammers. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning knives. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning airplanes. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning vaccines. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning ladders. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning electricity. It's just too costly in terms of lives.



According to the President and Vice President if we can save even one child's life, then these actions are both worth it and necessary.

Stop it Spiff. All that logic makes me dizzy. I have an agenda, and I can't let the facts get in the way. :whistle:

Yes, because it's logical to look at the cost and totally ignore the benefits. For example, guns kill more people in Utah than cars. Ban guns and a small portion of the population can't spend a couple weekends in the hills shooting things and would make extremists feel more insecure about the gov taking over. Ban cars and the economy crumbles and life as we know of completely changes.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

And then we can assign cornhole to be the arbiter of how we should all be able to spend our weekends. Then we can have other people in the government make all the economic decisions for us.



How about we just give up all our rights, freedoms and money to the State and they can tell what we can do, how much of our labors we can keep. Where we can live, what we can drive. We can even have them distribute our food so we don't have to worry about any of that!

cornhole153 wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:

I'm all for banning guns, It's just too costly in terms of lives.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I'm all for banning alcohol. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning cars. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'll all for banning all peanut products. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning plastic bags. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning hammers. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning knives. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning airplanes. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning vaccines. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning ladders. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning electricity. It's just too costly in terms of lives.



According to the President and Vice President if we can save even one child's life, then these actions are both worth it and necessary.

Stop it Spiff. All that logic makes me dizzy. I have an agenda, and I can't let the facts get in the way. :whistle:

Yes, because it's logical to look at the cost and totally ignore the benefits. For example, guns kill more people in Utah than cars. Ban guns and a small portion of the population can't spend a couple weekends in the hills shooting things and would make extremists feel more insecure about the gov taking over. Ban cars and the economy crumbles and life as we know of completely changes.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Further, cornhole, so what you are saying is there are instances where a certain of number of deaths is permissible?



We have to ban guns because they kill people. Because the benefits to having guns doesn't outweigh the one life we could save. But we can't ban cars, or alcohol or other deadly things because their benefits sufficeintly outweigh the lives that could have been saved.



I'm so glad we have great people like President Obama, Vice President Biden and cornhole153 who are able to differentiate between these difficult questions. They know which things should be banned to save even one life and which things shouldn't and let even one person die.

SpiffCoug wrote:

Ddawg wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:
I'm all for banning guns, It's just too costly in terms of lives.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I'm all for banning alcohol. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning cars. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'll all for banning all peanut products. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning plastic bags. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning hammers. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning knives. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning airplanes. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning vaccines. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning ladders. It's just too costly in terms of lives.

I'm all for banning electricity. It's just too costly in terms of lives.



According to the President and Vice President if we can save even one child's life, then these actions are both worth it and necessary.

Stop it Spiff. All that logic makes me dizzy. I have an agenda, and I can't let the facts get in the way. :whistle:

Yes, because it's logical to look at the cost and totally ignore the benefits. For example, guns kill more people in Utah than cars. Ban guns and a small portion of the population can't spend a couple weekends in the hills shooting things and would make extremists feel more insecure about the gov taking over. Ban cars and the economy crumbles and life as we know of completely changes.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Further, cornhole, so what you are saying is there are instances where a certain of number of deaths is permissible?



We have to ban guns because they kill people. Because the benefits to having guns doesn't outweigh the one life we could save. But we can't ban cars, or alcohol or other deadly things because their benefits sufficeintly outweigh the lives that could have been saved.



I'm so glad we have great people like President Obama, Vice President Biden and cornhole153 who are able to differentiate between these difficult questions. They know which things should be banned to save even one life and which things shouldn't and let even one person die.

The cost benefit analysis for guns doesnt seem that difficult. We give up a type of recreation and some percieved protection from criminals and the government and in turn many lives are saved and we don't have to suffer through another Sandy Hook.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">