Reader Poll: Will Congress Pass New Gun Laws?

In the wake of the tragedy in Connecticut, many have called for new, more stringent gun laws. So, PoliticsPA wants to know: Do you think Congress will pass any in the coming session?  

Will Congress Pass New Gun Laws?


  • No. Politics will prevail. (69%)
  • Yes. This changed everything. (31%)

Total Voters: 595

Loading ... Loading ...

 

December 18th, 2012 | Posted in Congress, Front Page Stories, Poll, Top Stories | 17 Comments

17 thoughts on “Reader Poll: Will Congress Pass New Gun Laws?”

  1. Passing a gun law does not mean leaning to the left, children are neither left/right, they are getting killed at random, God forbid it would happen to anyone in congress & I wonder if they would say nothing & they would totally support the NRA!!!

  2. Charles says:

    How can anyone be opposed to semi-automatic handguns and rifles, and the contents of their loading magazines? The 2nd Amendment concerns common citizenry private-ownership militias, whose weapon and powder-store warehouses included canons. Current weaponry is semi-automatic handguns and rifles. It’s not about hunting or safety, it’s about the US Constitution and does it still exist in today’s USA.

  3. Maximus says:

    Bottom line…..evil will always found a way in our world. It can be expressed with explosives, deadly chemicals, firearms, airlines …the list goes on. Yes, we can implement INTELLIGENT controls to mitigate such expressions. But not in ways that weaken good peoples ability to defend against them. More gun control laws, along with the 20,000+ that already exist, will do little more than increase the criminals advantage over law abiding citizens.

  4. andy says:

    People need to learn what is meant by looking to the spirit of the law. Jefferson wrote “When people fear government its tyranny. When the government fears the people its democracy”. That statement made by one of our forefathers makes the spirit of the law very clear.
    All of you people who think making gun laws stricter will keep guns off the street simply need to look at the war on drugs. All you will do is keep the people obtaining them legally from having them. At the same time if a person who has mental issues received help then this could be solved. Maybe we should look at kids in schools who are bullying kids to the point they snap. I am not justifying any of the shootings and feel they are horrible; however, gun control will not keep it from happening. Look at people like the unibomber and the OKC bombing. All of the items used to make the bombs can be bought legally and locally. Are we going to make fertilizer illegal or how about gas?

  5. David B says:

    I am a avid Sportsman. I was a past owner of a sports store selling guns and fishing gear. Here is the problem that many of us gun rights advocates face. I personally don’t own a Military type gun. I have typical bolt action hunting rifles and shotguns. I never even put more than three rounds in a rifle to hunt. The fear is that if we give up assault rifles etc. what else will the anti gun people want. Most want America ro be gun free. Many of us rely on our guns to protect our family. Those that live in rural areas don’t have enough police to protect all. Most of the criminals that have done these mass murders never even had a past criminal record. There is no simple answer. I personally don’t care about assault weapons, most hunters and those that want to protect a family don’t. Many lawmakers are concerned with the same thing I am. They know that there are groups that want to do away with the 2nd ammendment rights. They realize that they are the last line of protection of these rights. Many were elected for this very reason. Criminals and those that do want to harm others will always be able to get guns. If guns were taken away, it wouldn’t be long before guns will become like drugs. smuggled in at great profit for criminals. Do we want criminals to be the only people with guns?

  6. Pam says:

    I find the idea that individuals be able to use these types of weapons to “protect against government tyranny” laughable considering our government has drones capable of killing remotely. I am not against people possessing guns but I am definitely against assault type weapons and large ammo clips. There is absolutely no reason for these types of guns to be available to the general population. Gun laws in the 1800s were stricter than they are now. We have gone too far in our protection of guns.

  7. Jillian says:

    There are two thoughts that are not being addressed in this debate.
    The first being that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution says that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
    I bring your attention to the phrase “A well regulated militia…” How many of the various murderers of our school children and other citizens are in any way connected to, “A well regulated militia…?” How many have gone through military training as well as screening for the purpose of handling such weapons? When one thinks of a militia, one thinks of the various National Guard organizations or the several branchess of the US Armed Forces. Buying an automatic or semiautomatic weapon and shooting at tin can, bottles and such like, out in the woods or behind barns does not constitute, by any stretch of the imagination, “A well regulated militia…”
    Hunters do not need automatic weapons for their puposes unless they are trying to create a dotted line in their quarry so they fold it for easier transport

    My second thought is supported by the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution, which states, ” The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” If one reads the Preamble to our Constitution, where it states, “We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” one gets the idea of what are the “other” rights retained by the people.
    Automatic weapons in the hands of people who are not a part of a “…well regulated militia…” do nothing to, “…insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the general Welfare…” and most certainly do not, “…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” We are allowing our “Posterity” to be killed off because of the inability to remove the greed of irresponsible gun sellers and purchasers as well as being incapable, for legal and administrative reasons, to filter out potential purchasers who, for reasons of mental instability, should not be allowed to purchase or handle guns.
    I am neither a hunter or a gun owner. I am not against guns or hunting. I am against ignoring the rights of all others who live, work and play around those that own guns.

  8. MAS says:

    Question is definitely biased! The question should be, “Should Congress pass new gun laws?”

    The answer would then be an easy ‘NO”!

  9. Greta says:

    The fact is the NRA is composed of half a dozen legal entities; some designed to run undisclosed attack ads in political campaigns, others to lobby and collect tens of millions in undisclosed, tax-deductible sums. This power has only been enhanced in the era of Citizens United, with large GOP donors in the last election reportedly funneling money to the NRA simply to use the group as a brand to pummel Democrats with nasty ads.

  10. JCS says:

    I echo the comments above that this is a loaded, biased question. Does there always have to be an angle? I hope I never see any editorials on this site against campaigns conducting push polls.

  11. Brad Kirsch says:

    It would seem to me that it is reasonable to assume that well-regulated militia includes the proper registration of all firearms that the Militia members possess and the proper registration and background checks of those that may be called upon by that militia to serve their communities in the event of a need for the militia to assemble.
    I base this opinion on the fact that The Supreme Court has determined that the Second Amendment allows individuals to bear Arms.
    The Second Amendment: As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
    “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

  12. Frank Chacko says:

    What everybody seems to be missing or ignoring for political purpose is the fact the Alan Lanza didn’t purchase any of the weapons he used to committ his attrocities. He murdered his mother to steal her weapons. No law outside of complete confiscation would have prevented this tragety. If it wasn’t Lanza’s mother who else would he had killed to steal his weapons?

  13. Tim Potts says:

    Individuals have a constitutional right to own guns. Individuals also have a constitutional right to delegate their defense to their governments because a core function of government is to protect the citizens. It is entirely within the rights of citizens everywhere to “insure domestic Tranquility, [and] provide for the common defence” (quoting the Constitution) by limiting access to weapons and empowering police and the military. We should be talking about those rights, too, and should not be deterred by the simplistic argument that law-abiding citizens should be able to get whatever weapons the mind of man can create. The Connecticut shooter was a law-abiding citizen until he pulled the trigger against his own mother with her own weapon.

  14. Paul Roden says:

    Maybe I am too cynical, but I can see a bill passing in the Senate, but not in the Tea Party controled House. How can anybody advocate assault weapons and large magazine clips? The problem is bigger and more complex than just gun safety. It is also the lack of support for mental health treatment and intervention. The lack of education and training in our society for resolving conflicts with nonviolent means. The media and entertainment industry glorifying violence on
    TV, movies and violent video games. On news media programing, violence sells because of the edict: “if it bleeds, it leads”. We need to have a national conversation about this, pass meaningful legislation and attack our violent society, which is the root cause of these tragedies. Simplistic solutions like arming teachers and administrators is not the solution to prevention.

  15. Sal nar says:

    Biased question, this site is quickly moving to the far far left.

  16. Bea Frank says:

    yea, “politics will prevail”. Kinda cynical, not that this business of politics doesn’t give us all plenty to be cynical about.

  17. Ben says:

    Um. Why ad the editorializing on a simple yes no question?

    I clicked no, not because of the stupid “politics will prevail” thing, but because gun ownership is a natural right that is protected by the constitution.

    So let my qualify my no vote:

    No. Because rights aren’t trumped by tragic incidents and public hysteria.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

pa-blog-ad-1b

×