Those seeking to disarm the American people do not give a rats hind end about you or the victims of these senseless shootings. In the old days the murderers were tried and put to death. Today the liberals weep crocodile tears over these poor, misunderstood murderers and want to keep them in a fashionable prison for 6 or 7 years and let them run again. Should our liberals come out of their foolish state of dreams there would probably only be less than 12 more murders and the executions would result in the stark reality that this is what the murderer would be facing. None of THEM wish to be killed.
I literally have no idea what this poll is asking: "What do you think of the opposing view?"
Is it asking what I think about the view presented in this opinion piece, or about the "opposing view" of the view presented in this opinion piece.
A agree with the author's opposing view. Certain government elites want to achieve citizen disarmament, just like Maduro did, so that they can achieve the same level of oppression that Maduro did. I understand that the people's right to keep and bear arms is an obstacle to tyranny, which is why I will always oppose any effort by aspiring tyrants to abolish that right. I don't want my children and grandchildren to have to endure what the people of Venezuela are now experiencing.
The question/poll was not clear. I assumed the opposing view would have been for gun control since the title is for gun control. But the way the article is written leads me to wonder how many votes for gun control by stating they strongly agree.
Too many people aren't comfortable with guns and have no need for one so they want to impose their fears on others by outlawing them so they will feel better.
No law will stop violence. People who choose to kill will find a weapon; guns, knives, cars, bombs. Until we address the subject of violence in our society we will have problems. Right now we are addressing "things" instead of problems.
One other problem with the Australian gun bans/restrictions is that they now have to hire professional hunters to control the feral populations of European animals that are becoming a problem in many parts of the country.
We've all heard about the rabbit problem they had for a while but they've also got wild camels, horses and cattle that are uncontrolled as well as a large population of big kangaroos that are damaging the crop lands.
None of the laws the Virginia governor suggests would have prevented, helped, or even applied at all in this crime. The attacker passed several background checks, including a federal one for the suppressor. (He had two handguns, one of which didn't have one.) He bought them legally, one in 2016, one in 2018, not two in a month. They weren't stolen, they weren't "assault weapons". There is no indication a "red flag" law would have worked here, as everyone who knew him said there was no indication anything was wrong with him. It was already against the rules for him (or his victims) to carry a gun into the building. (Which, actually made things worse, since it took 8 minutes for the police to show up.) What HAS changed is that the governor thinks enough public sympathy is out there to pass more ineffective gun control, and divert attention from the blackface and KKK scandal he's in.
I agree with this opposing view. A gun is an inanimate object, a simple tool. Criminals, terrorists, gangsters, those who wish to do others harm all have ready access to these tools. The sophistication and span of criminal and terrorist networks, combined with years of lawmaking that erode the second amendment, lead me to the conclusion that those who would do us harm have more access to firearms than law abiding American citizens do. I find this odd, as the second amendment is there to guarantee the rights of law abiding American citizens. Gun rights are essential to our freedom, and gun control is a paradox. Eroding the rights of law abiding American citizens is not going to protect law abiding American citizens. However, the right to access to the same tools as those who would do us harm WILL help law abiding American citizens to protect themselves.
I agree with the premise that gun regulations will end In prohibition. I am against such prohibition. I had a very bad feeling about how to answer the poll question. From reading other comments here I would not trust the results of this poll no matter what they are.
The poll question is terrible. I agree with Mr. Gottlieb's opinion.
The opposing view question is confusing!! NOW if you are asking if I agree with Gottlieb The answer is "YES" The left wants us disarmed so we become docile and can not fight against the wrongs the left has in store for You and Me. Just look at HISTORY see how all the Coups, Take Overs, Invasions started you well fine it starts with "DISARMAMENT" !! Propaganda and turning people into "SHEEP"
Mr. Gottlieb's opposing view is correct. A firearm is a unfeeling, unthinking, and non-acting tool like a surgeon's scalpel or a motor vehicle. The issue has always been who controls the tools - the king, the despot, or we the people? We fought a revolution over this issue, and thankfully won. Why was no one inside the building armed so that the killer could have been opposed? Did all of those present inside the building voluntarily disarm themselves? If so, whatever possessed them to do so in the current environment?
Alan Gotlieb and the 2nd Amendment Foundation are the unparalled, strongest supporter of our 2nd Amendment than ANY O TD GANUZATION. This is precisely why I an aLIFE MEMBER and strongly encourage others to do so.
The question is designed to trick people into answering the way the pollster wants them to answer. Read carefully folks! I agree; "No law on the books now, or that has been proposed, would have prevented the Virginia Beach tragedy."
USA Today so characteristically framed the question in a way that's impossible to understand, hanging up most folks as the comments show. Their English is much better than that! They are SO anti-rights it's stunning. The bottom line issue is missed -- government cannot legitimately or pragmatically "ban" guns because the guns are there to shoot the infringers, when push comes to shove, a point folks have forgotten. If enough people took a stand when the Germans got rolling it would have at least given them pause. Democrats are pushing America to the same point, while calling the Republicans the totalitarians and painting mustaches on the heroes.
I agree with Alan Gottliebs article.
The article IS the Opposing View. The poll is "do you agree with the opposing view?" Simple.
Just look at London's problem with "knife violence" now. Why is it so hard for them to grasp that the tool is immaterial, its the person who is violent. Now they are trying to ban any and all knives, even kitchen knives. I guess you can't expect much from a country that doesn't consider self defense an inalienable right. If someone attacks and tries to kill or harm you your required by law not to use excessive force. IE, if Mike Tyson tries to beat an old man to death and the old man shoots him he could be tossed in prison.
I guess if you consider criminals a big part of your voting block it makes sense to protect them. It is the party trying to give children, prisoners, and non-citizens the right to vote.
The sub-title of the article is "American gun control movement has become a gun prohibition crusade: Opposing view".
With that being said, I think it's safe to assume that with the polling question asking, "Do you agree with this opposing view" you are actually answering, "Do you agree with the author?"
...…..The title is literally followed with the words OPPOSING VIEW.
Attention to detail folks.
Alan is spot on. Look at countries like England and Australia with draconian restrictions on gun ownership. Their gun violence problem, and violence in general, are not reduced to zero.
Their real accomplishment is disarming the millions of law abiding people who need a means of self defense in the face of criminal violence
Ambiguously worded poll question. Am I agreeing with this opinion piece or "the opposing view"?
The question is ridiculously ambiguous. Voted "strongly agree" because I agree with the author of the article and the title is "opposing view".
I agree with most of the above comments. What is the "opposing view"? It is already against the law to kill. What new law will stop a person that wants to kill from killing? If not a gun then a knife or a vehicle or a whatever.
Actually, one lawcould have prevented this. Outlaw gun free zones.
Unclear question. Needs reworded with more detail. I am against more gun laws and attacks on the 2nd Amendment. Look at any place that does not allow guns and there you find people being murdered.
Sorry, but I find it impossible to vote on the poll as I cannot understand what I am voting for or against.
As stated before this poll is not specific enough to answer accurately or confidently. Do I assume the paper that published this does not agree it and is therefore anti gun and onboard with the people wanting to strip gun rights. Or is the opposing view simply the one reffered to in the article.
Given how the mainstream media and anti gun rights groups have been known to twist polls in the past, I wouldn't put playing a dirty like this past them. Then using the results to say gun owners support rights repeal.
I find it extremely upsetting that the MSM consistently works to destroy the 2A, which will in turn destroy their freedom of speech. The 2A protects the 1A, not the other way around.
This question is confusing, need to reword the question on the poll, won't vote until then
And the guy didn’t stop until someone showed up with a gun (The police) so what would a rational person infer from this?
This poll title needs to reworded.
The title of the article is "American gun control movement has become a gun prohibition crusade: Opposing view"
meaning that this is his opposing view. Which I voted as Strongly agree with his article and his opposing view . At least that's how I see it.
What is meant by the opposing view?
Since I 100 percent agree with Alan Gottleib, then i assume the opposing view is contrary to his.
Therefore, I pressed strongly disagree,
But nobody else has?
I have a feeling this poll is intentionally phrased in this way so it can be twisted to fit their narrative.
hahahahahaha great poll question
So gun rights would be strongly agree. Gun control would be strongly disagree.
If you look at the header of the article, the anti-gun control is the opposing opinion.
Please Clarify what you mean by opposing opinion.
Need to clarify what you’re polling
The title of this poll is a little ambiguous. "What do you think of the opposing view". Do you mean what do I think of Alan Gottliebs opinion, or the opposing view to his op ed? In other words do I agree with Gottlieb, or not? I fully and absolutely agree with Gottlieb. 99.9 percent of gun owners are chill. It's this .1 percent that will be dangerous to society no matter whether we do or don't have guns.