New Poll: support for gun control is not waning

[007]

LIBERAL IDIOCY... ^

 

[007]

 

[Avatar4321]

.
The NRA is proposing we put bullets and the guns that shoot them in our schools -- you know, like Columbine's armed guards -- you know, like Virginia Tech's police force -- you know, like Ft Hood's armed police -- you know, like several of the audience members at the Gabby Giffords shooting but-----but you have to wonder how does the NRA propose to know whether or not the armed school guards are not themselves likely to be "bad guys" -- you know, like the "Hillside Strangler" who was a paid guard when he started his killing spree.

Irony of ironies, to ensure schools aren't hiring "bad guys", the NRA is proposing background checks, testing, screening and training -- whoda thunk the NRA would expropriate the Brady Bill's position?
.

You seem to think it's a bad idea to keep our schools from being easy targets. Why?

 

[martybegan]

Whose rights are violated if the law requires you to prove you are qualified to buy a gun before you're allowed to buy a gun?

Whose rights are violated if the law requires you to prove you are qualified to buy a book before you're allowed to buy a book?

Nobody's. Stop reminding us how retarded you are and answer the question.

Its because you have no good answer to the retort.

And the reason your rights may be violated is once you add all sorts of "qualifications" to gun ownership, you are at the mercy of your local gun grabbing burecrat, who can decide then what "qualified" means.

Its amazing how progressives want to put individual people in positions of such power. Its like the hunger for some governmental nobility, to eliminate thier need to think about things.

 

[007]

Why no link to the poll?

Because it's a viewers poll of MSNBC

Failed "search engine" class didja?

I didn't think I would have to school y'all Republicans on how to use a search engine but I put a small link in the OP for the search engine challenged anyway.
As far as the methodology is concerned, it's in the link also but since Republicans probably can't find it either... How the Survey was Conducted

Far be it from me to call anyone stupid but when Republicans aren't smart enough to defend their own ideology, the typical Republican response is to go all - ad hominem on the messenger. Rightwingers are a strange, predictable lot.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sour...tiFLEzU19-x1fGLP62oZfB2A&ust=1365151622694075
.​

Every time there's contradictory information or polls from Fox News or some other conservative source, you LIBROIDS say... "FAUX NEWS LIES." Yeah, well, so does MSNBC. They're a bunch of commie ass, America hating, constitution hating, radical fucking shit stains over there at that garbage dump of a channel, and I don't believe anything THEY say either.

So go fuck yourself and your bull shit leftist poll.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why no link to the poll?

Because it's a viewers poll of MSNBC

Failed "search engine" class didja?

I didn't think I would have to school y'all Republicans on how to use a search engine but I put a small link in the OP for the search engine challenged anyway.
As far as the methodology is concerned, it's in the link also but since Republicans probably can't find it either... How the Survey was Conducted

Far be it from me to call anyone stupid but when Republicans aren't smart enough to defend their own ideology, the typical Republican response is to go all - ad hominem on the messenger. Rightwingers are a strange, predictable lot.

So since your response has been go ad hominem on people simply asking you to support your assertions, I suppose I can safely assume you are completely unable to defend your idealogy? Or do you somehow exempt yourself from your own standards?

 

[Avatar4321]

Well then, the rights of the minority should certainly be set aside if it be the will of the majority...right?

Pass.

Whose rights are violated if the law requires you to prove you are qualified to buy a gun before you're allowed to buy a gun?

You know, I have to laugh alittle at this.

You want people to prove they are qualified to to buy a firearm when the Constitution says we as individuals have the right to bear arms.

But you completely mocked the birthers when they wanted Obama to prove he is qualified to run for the office of President. (There problem wasnt asking, more that they didnt stop asking after everything was answered multiple times).

It's just amusing. We have to prove we are qualified to exercise our Constitution rights, which were endowed to us by our Creator, yet people shouldnt have someone running for office prove he's qualified for that or they are a nutjob.

 

[Oldstyle]

Well then, the rights of the minority should certainly be set aside if it be the will of the majority...right?

Pass.

Do you really not know that the Founding Father's purposely made it difficult for the "will of the majority" to take away the rights of the minority? How about if we enforce the gun laws we have in place now and add a new one for dealing with mentally disturbed individuals before we start scrapping constitutional rights?

 

[eflatminor]

Whose rights are violated if the law requires you to prove you are qualified to buy a gun before you're allowed to buy a gun?

Whose rights are violated if the law requires you to prove you are qualified to buy a book before you're allowed to buy a book?

Nobody's. Stop reminding us how retarded you are and answer the question.

"Nobody's", eh? Wow. Now our resident central planner thinks we ought to require government approval before buying a book. Wow, just wow. I think some would find your suggestion, well, retarded. As in short bus retarded. As in the kid in the back of the short bus licking the window retarded.

But back to firearms. Whose rights are violated? How about the stalked woman raped while waiting for bureaucratic approval to own a means of protection? How about the inevitable mistakes in such a system that will deny a law abiding citizen their right...but hey, that 'no fly list' has worked out without a hitch. How about the idea of keeping a PERMANENT registry of names that we know damn well is the first step to confiscation? Good gawd, even the oh-so-rightwing ACLU is against the idea:

ACLU: Reid gun bill could threaten privacy, civil liberties | The Daily Caller

 

[Avatar4321]

Whose rights are violated if the law requires you to prove you are qualified to buy a gun before you're allowed to buy a gun?

Whose rights are violated if the law requires you to prove you are qualified to buy a book before you're allowed to buy a book?

Nobody's. Stop reminding us how retarded you are and answer the question.

So you honestly think our rights wouldnt be violated if the government said that certain people couldnt buy books and you had to submit to a background check before you could buy one?

Last time I checked, the First amendment protected our rights just as much as the Second. Why should a background check be alright for either of them?

 

[Oldstyle]

Remember the Obamacare debate, when opponents argued over and over that the slight majority or plurality of opposition to the bill that showed up in some of the polls proved that the bill should not pass because Americans didn't want it?

That was their BIG argument against Obamacare - that and that it was unconstitutional, lol.


Well, if the 90% support for universal background checks lost a full third of that support,

all the way down to 60%,

that would still be well above the numbers that the opponents of Obamacare insisted were a good argument against the bill.

So shut up. lolol

Ah...the big argument against ObamaCare was that it didn't do what it was supposed to do...lower the cost of healthcare. Liberals like yourself took advantage of a crisis and super majorities to pass legislation that will eventually lead to government controlled healthcare. It's why three years later, ObamaCare is STILL not popular. People with half a brain understand that it won't lower their healthcare costs but will affect the level of service that they receive...and not for the better...while at the same time pushing us one step closer to fiscal insolvency as a nation.

 

[eflatminor]

Well then, the rights of the minority should certainly be set aside if it be the will of the majority...right?

Pass.

Do you really not know that the Founding Father's purposely made it difficult for the "will of the majority" to take away the rights of the minority?

I think you've misinterpreted my statement. Of course I understand this. It's why I stated "pass".

How about if we enforce the gun laws we have in place now

Agreed. We don't and we should. There is direct correlation between gun violence and the lack of enforcement of existing gun laws. To whit:

Chicago, Los Angeles, New York Prosecuted Fewest Federal Gun Crimes - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

and add a new one for dealing with mentally disturbed individuals before we start scrapping constitutional rights?

Well first, I in no way stand for scrapping any rights. Secondly, if you have an idea for a new law dealing with unstable individuals that doesn't violate their rights, I'm all ears.

Personally, I think the best we can do is lengthen the sentences of VIOLENT criminals and put more cops on the streets. Its the only thing proven to reduce the rate of violent crime.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Whose rights are violated if the law requires you to prove you are qualified to buy a book before you're allowed to buy a book?

Nobody's. Stop reminding us how retarded you are and answer the question.

So you honestly think our rights wouldnt be violated if the government said that certain people couldnt buy books and you had to submit to a background check before you could buy one?

Last time I checked, the First amendment protected our rights just as much as the Second. Why should a background check be alright for either of them?

So it's unconstitutional to deny children the right to buy porn?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Remember the Obamacare debate, when opponents argued over and over that the slight majority or plurality of opposition to the bill that showed up in some of the polls proved that the bill should not pass because Americans didn't want it?

That was their BIG argument against Obamacare - that and that it was unconstitutional, lol.


Well, if the 90% support for universal background checks lost a full third of that support,

all the way down to 60%,

that would still be well above the numbers that the opponents of Obamacare insisted were a good argument against the bill.

So shut up. lolol

Ah...the big argument against ObamaCare was that it didn't do what it was supposed to do...lower the cost of healthcare. Liberals like yourself took advantage of a crisis and super majorities to pass legislation that will eventually lead to government controlled healthcare. It's why three years later, ObamaCare is STILL not popular. People with half a brain understand that it won't lower their healthcare costs but will affect the level of service that they receive...and not for the better...while at the same time pushing us one step closer to fiscal insolvency as a nation.

If you want to deny that opponents of Obamacare used the polls to argue against it then do so directly,

and briefly.

 

[eflatminor]

Nobody's. Stop reminding us how retarded you are and answer the question.

So you honestly think our rights wouldnt be violated if the government said that certain people couldnt buy books and you had to submit to a background check before you could buy one?

Last time I checked, the First amendment protected our rights just as much as the Second. Why should a background check be alright for either of them?

So it's unconstitutional to deny children the right to buy porn?

Way to move the goalposts. Pathetic.

Children can't vote either. That's not unconstitutional. We're talking about adults here. Now go ahead and explain how it okay to require government approval before buying a book. You didn't qualify your previous statement with 'children', so don't do it now. Defend your statement or admit your idiocy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Whose rights are violated if the law requires you to prove you are qualified to buy a book before you're allowed to buy a book?

Nobody's. Stop reminding us how retarded you are and answer the question.

So you honestly think our rights wouldnt be violated if the government said that certain people couldnt buy books and you had to submit to a background check before you could buy one?

Last time I checked, the First amendment protected our rights just as much as the Second. Why should a background check be alright for either of them?

The Court reaffirmed the already established right to deny guns to felons and the mentally ill in DC v. Heller.

 

[eflatminor]

If you want to deny that opponents of Obamacare used the polls to argue against it then do so directly,

and briefly.

I was an am an opponent of Obamacare. I NEVER used polls to argue against it because unlike you, I understand the will of majority does not override the rights of the minority.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well then, the rights of the minority should certainly be set aside if it be the will of the majority...right?

Pass.

Do you really not know that the Founding Father's purposely made it difficult for the "will of the majority" to take away the rights of the minority? How about if we enforce the gun laws we have in place now and add a new one for dealing with mentally disturbed individuals before we start scrapping constitutional rights?

How is "mentally disturbed" defined? Would any of these*** define who should not own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun?

*** Abnormal - 5 axes of DSM-IV

Who decides who is "mentally disturbed"? An elected official (Sheriff, for example); a Psychiatrist?

Would any of the recent mass killers have been defined as "mentally disturbed" prior to their crime; and if such a finding were codified in law, what are the implications?

Seems to me that to single out the mentally ill is a greater evil and more subjective than to require everyone who wants to own, possess and have in their custody and control a firearm to go through a background check, and said check be good for a limited time. Which is why I believe gun owners need to be licensed and licenses should require renewal every x amount of years and revocable for cause (any crime of violence, terrorist threats, drug trafficking, criminal street gain activity, etc.).

 

[martybegan]

Nobody's. Stop reminding us how retarded you are and answer the question.

So you honestly think our rights wouldnt be violated if the government said that certain people couldnt buy books and you had to submit to a background check before you could buy one?

Last time I checked, the First amendment protected our rights just as much as the Second. Why should a background check be alright for either of them?

The Court reaffirmed the already established right to deny guns to felons and the mentally ill in DC v. Heller.

In both cases a court has to determine you are a felon, or mentally ill. Thus due process must be followed before your rights are restricted, just as only a court can determine you can go to prision.

Everything progressives are proposing is prior restraint, restricting your rights not based on YOUR actions, but on someone else's criminal behavior, or POTENTIAL criminal behavior by someone else or yourself.

 

[tinydancer]

Why no link to the poll?

Because it's a viewers poll of MSNBC

Failed "search engine" class didja?

I didn't think I would have to school y'all Republicans on how to use a search engine but I put a small link in the OP for the search engine challenged anyway.
As far as the methodology is concerned, it's in the link also but since Republicans probably can't find it either... How the Survey was Conducted

Far be it from me to call anyone stupid but when Republicans aren't smart enough to defend their own ideology, the typical Republican response is to go all - ad hominem on the messenger. Rightwingers are a strange, predictable lot.

.​

A request for a link is not outrageous nor is it because we can't google oh snotty one. USMB rules require that you link.


Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/annou...8-usmb-guidelines-of-conduct.html#post6790048