The Rude Pundit: Honor Veterans by Listening to Them About Gun Laws

[meegbear]

Back in April, when there was actually a chance that the nation might pass one or two immensely sane gun laws, a survey by Vote Vets and the Center for American Progress found that 91% of veterans polled supported universal background checks for gun purchases. Yep, the people who handled guns to, you know, defend the country thought that there was no problem in having that law. Shit, 74% volunteered that they "strongly support" it. Also, 61% favored banning high-capacity magazines and 58% said that we should ban military-style assault weapons like the kind they used when they were in the, well, shit, military.

So it makes sense that former representative and shooting victim Gabby Giffords and her veteran/astronaut/basic superhero husband Mark Kelly would reach out to veterans in their pursuit of strengthening gun laws in the United States. They have founded Veterans for Responsible Solutions, part of the the Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC. The list of founding members includes three brigadier generals, a major general, and the dreaded rear admiral. It is an organization whose existence seems entirely logical, entirely in line with what vets appear to believe about guns.

Of course, then, it's already being attacked by the savage dogfuckers of the right. The always charming Truth About Guns mocks, &quot It) is especially heinous considering all enlisted men and women must swear an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, whose Second Amendment prohibits any and all infringement on Americans’ individual, natural and civil right to keep and bear arms. Oh wait, wasn’t Kelly in the Navy? And didn’t Giffords swear the same oath before taking office?" Obviously, minimal gun restrictions are "heinous," a word one would think would be confined to gory gun massacres.

Over at Breitbart, writer and person who needs to buy a vowel, Awr Hawkins, does the usual thing for the glory whores trying to keep the dying light of Andrew from completely snuffing out: he says that Giffords and Kelly should address something published at Breitbart.

And while mostly you should never give a happy monkeyfuck what is said in the comment threads anywhere, this one in the New York Daily News just is amazing: "Enough already from that fraud Giffords, who was pro-NRA until she got shot." The Rude Pundit assumes that's supposed to be an insult instead of a "no shit" kind of statement. And then he assumes that the writer of it is a goddamned idiot.

Don't worry. There will be more bile and spit in the coming days because obviously these veterans are delusional, possibly suffering from PTSD or something that makes them susceptible to liberal ideas.

Oh, by the way, the NRA is practically fisting its own ass in honor of Veterans Day. Did anyone mention to them that the vets want the laws the NRA spends all its time and money fighting? That maybe one way for a gun owners' association to "honor" them is to listen to them?

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

[daleanime]

1. K&R....

[mountain grammy]

2. K&R

[gopiscrap]

3. Interesting

[DragonBorn]

4. I'd like to see the sampling size.

Most Vets I've talked to are against most forms of gun control with the exception of background checks.

[ieoeja]

5. You doubt the poll that says vets support background checks because most vets you know ...

... support background checks?

[DragonBorn]

6. No.

Just saying most vets that I know dont support most other forms of gun control such as the "assault weapons" ban, and a hi cap magazine ban. Background checks are almost universally accepted.

[ieoeja]

7. Then why did you ask about the sample size of a poll that said vets support background checks? n/t

[DragonBorn]

8. The poll states that Vets support other forms of gun control

not only backround checks. It says right there at the top of this thread

"Also, 61% favored banning high-capacity magazines and 58% said that we should ban military-style assault weapons "

I also asked about the sampling size nothing specific about background checks.

[Herbacious]

9. Ha, allright then.

I'd like to know more about this study.

Of course most vets favor background checks. Most people in the U.S. favor them.

My issue is with the stance on magazines and so forth. I have met *maybe* two or three veterans in my life who hold similar views. I keep in good contact with most of the Marines I served with via the Facebooks. I'd say ~60% or more have either posted pics of a recently purchased "Assault weapon" or made some sort of status update supporting current gun laws.

My personal experience is pretty distant from what this study shows. A small discrepancy wouldn't arouse suspicion. One as large as this certainly does.

As a veteran, I personally couldn't care less if a civilian (or veteran for that matter) owns an "assault weapon", provided they can pass a standard NICS check, and that they aren't otherwise legally prevented from doing so.

Flame on. Let the pizza jokes commence.

[Decaffeinated]

10. Smells fishy to me as well...

Current personal experience and common sense would say otherwise....