Bill Gates challenging the NRA and will use his money to promote background checks

[TerryMathews]

Actually the 65% result was asking if the senate should have passed that bill or not. It takes a lot of balls to accuse someone else of lying when you're trying to tell someone that when people said "should pass this bill" they meant "should not pass this bill".

Your real complaint is that the poll didn't give you the response that you wanted. If you feel that you can come up with a better worded question please do so. My prediction is that it will be incredibly biased, hopelessly unwieldly, double barreled, or something else.

Way to completely disregard my point. I guess poll accuracy is only important when it says Eskimopie it is.

To your challenge I can see two possibilities that would produce significant and meaningful results:

#1-same questions as Gallup, prefaced with a yes/no " Are you familiar with the contents of SBxxxx?" And present the results of that tree down the yes branch as "Of respondents who identified as familiar with the contents of the Senate Bill, xx% supported expanding background checks"

#2-rewrite the questions to explain what the bill entailed as it was far more in depth than simply "expand background checks". That is an objective, the senate bill was a process.

The poll as written expressed support for the objective, you're claiming it supported the process.

To your last point, are you claiming the RNC has an animatronic Pelosi? Because this is pretty clear and not out of context: Nancy Pelosi Pass the Bill to find out what's in …: http://youtu.be/QV7dDSgbaQ0

 

[brycejones]

How about an abortion registry? $200 tax stamp before you can have an abortion?

lame strawman

 

[Newell Steamer]

lame strawman

I think we should be happy he didn't link abortion to the holocaust.

 

[TerryMathews]

One can interpret the well regulated militia language to mean registration.


registration is the low hanging fruit in the gun debate and most reasoned adults can have guns and wouldnt mind registering them.


wtf are you guys so afraid of? People knowing you have 400 guns in your basement? Me thinks thats a SMALL percentage of this debate that gets WAY too much attention.


I have six guns and I dont see a problem with this.


I am not a felon. I am not hiding my wages. I have a bank account.


Seems to me the people who are afraid of this have something to hide.

One can interpret abortion as murder as well. Unfortunately on both counts the USSC determined the law of the land differently.

I would have less of an issue with registration if the government had shown it would be responsible with the maintenance of the registry. It has not.

Letting the government create a gun registry at this point would be like handing car keys to a drunk person. You know they're going to behave badly.

 

[TerryMathews]

lame strawman

Why is that a perfectly legal way to restrict MG ownership but not abortion?

 

[michal1980]

One can interpret the well regulated militia language to mean registration.


registration is the low hanging fruit in the gun debate and most reasoned adults can have guns and wouldnt mind registering them.


wtf are you guys so afraid of? People knowing you have 400 guns in your basement? Me thinks thats a SMALL percentage of this debate that gets WAY too much attention.


I have six guns and I dont see a problem with this.


I am not a felon. I am not hiding my wages. I have a bank account.


Seems to me the people who are afraid of this have something to hide.

ahh they old I have nothing to hide so spy on me argument.

What happened to privacy? Why does government need to know what I own, and how much?

What problem are these personal background checks going to solve?

all those criminals on the streets are sure going to follow this law.

 

[fskimospy]

Way to completely disregard my point. I guess poll accuracy is only important when it says Eskimopie it is.

No, you said that my statement that people wanted to pass the Senate bill was a lie despite people clearly saying that they wanted the Senate bill passed. You were trying to accuse other people of lying while using incredibly tortured logic to reach your desired conclusion. You simply don't want to accept the results.

To your challenge I can see two possibilities that would produce significant and meaningful results:

#1-same questions as Gallup, prefaced with a yes/no " Are you familiar with the contents of SBxxxx?" And present the results of that tree down the yes branch as "Of respondents who identified as familiar with the contents of the Senate Bill, xx% supported expanding background checks"

Depending on how you word it, such a question generally gives you the opinions of extreme partisans who follow the news quite closely, not the general public. Since we want the views of the public, that's a bad idea.

#2-rewrite the questions to explain what the bill entailed as it was far more in depth than simply "expand background checks". That is an objective, the senate bill was a process.

So give me this wording.

The poll as written expressed support for the objective, you're claiming it supported the process.

I'm claiming that 65% of people said the Senate should have passed the bill it put up. That's a simple fact. No amount of twisting yourself into knots will change this.

To your last point, are you claiming the RNC has an animatronic Pelosi? Because this is pretty clear and not out of context: Nancy Pelosi Pass the Bill to find out what's in …: http://youtu.be/QV7dDSgbaQ0

I admit that I may have taken you incorrectly. Frequently when people describe Pelosi's statement they are saying that SHE did not know what was in the bill she was voting on, which is a fairly common lie. If you meant that the average citizen didn't have a good grasp of what was in the ACA, I would agree on that.

 

[fskimospy]

Why is that a perfectly legal way to restrict MG ownership but not abortion?

Because all rights are not required to be regulated in the same way, nor should they be.

 

[blake0812]

Honestly i'm all for it. The reason being that it's not because of the gun, it's the people who wield them. They're coocoo

 

[TerryMathews]

Because all rights are not required to be regulated in the same way, nor should they be.

RKBA is the most protected right in our constitution. Nothing else is presented as "shall not be infringed".

 

[TerryMathews]

No, you said that my statement that people wanted to pass the Senate bill was a lie despite people clearly saying that they wanted the Senate bill passed. You were trying to accuse other people of lying while using incredibly tortured logic to reach your desired conclusion. You simply don't want to accept the results.



Depending on how you word it, such a question generally gives you the opinions of extreme partisans who follow the news quite closely, not the general public. Since we want the views of the public, that's a bad idea.



So give me this wording.



I'm claiming that 65% of people said the Senate should have passed the bill it put up. That's a simple fact. No amount of twisting yourself into knots will change this.



I admit that I may have taken you incorrectly. Frequently when people describe Pelosi's statement they are saying that SHE did not know what was in the bill she was voting on, which is a fairly common lie. If you meant that the average citizen didn't have a good grasp of what was in the ACA, I would agree on that.

You're right, I don't accept the results. The survey was flawed and did not capture the results you claim it did.

I don't have time to write a proper Gallup-style set of questions now. If I have time tonight I'll work on it.

 

[fskimospy]

RKBA is the most protected right in our constitution. Nothing else is presented as "shall not be infringed".

It is no more protected than any other right. Additionally, if you wanted to go play word games speech is almost certainly a more protected right. "Abridged" is generally used in a more benign sense than "infringed".

Regardless, an you provide a legal basis for such a claim that the 2nd amendment has preferential status?

 

[fskimospy]

You're right, I don't accept the results. The survey was flawed and did not capture the results you claim it did.

I don't have time to write a proper Gallup-style set of questions now. If I have time tonight I'll work on it.

I eagerly await the results.

 

[TerryMathews]

Regardless, an you provide a legal basis for such a claim that the 2nd amendment has preferential status?

Can you provide one that says abortion has preferential status?

 

[fskimospy]

Can you provide one that says abortion has preferential status?

I don't think it does. Again though, all rights do not need to be regulated identically, nor should they be.

Again, do you have any basis for your claim?

 

[glenn1]

One can interpret abortion as murder as well. Unfortunately on both counts the USSC determined the law of the land differently.

I would have less of an issue with registration if the government had shown it would be responsible with the maintenance of the registry. It has not.

Letting the government create a gun registry at this point would be like handing car keys to a drunk person. You know they're going to behave badly.

Do we require private party car sellers to get a background check on the buyer to ensure they have drivers license, have passed "driver safety" classes, and don't have drunk driving convictions? Or require the sale to be brokered via "licensed automotive dealer"?

If not, then why? It's the same principle.

 

[manimal]

ahh they old I have nothing to hide so spy on me argument.

What happened to privacy? Why does government need to know what I own, and how much?

What problem are these personal background checks going to solve?

all those criminals on the streets are sure going to follow this law.

1. Knowing how many guns there are and who has them so they dont end up in on the streets or in the hands of someone with serious mental issues issues is acceptable to a majority of the country. Why do you hate the country so much?

2. The background checks will prevent people who shoudlnt have the guns from having them. It will also prevent guns from getting into the hands of terrorists. Why do you love terrorists so much?

3. Just because problems are hard and arent completetly easy to fix doesnt mean its not worth doing. By your arguments and positions we would still be serfs and living on a Kings or a Dukes land. Why do you hate freedom so much?


Just applying your pretzel logic to the above problems.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm claiming that 65% of people said the Senate should have passed the bill it put up. That's a simple fact. No amount of twisting yourself into knots will change this.

And how many people actually read the bill?

If Gallup asked this question:

"Do you support a law requiring you to go to a licensed gun dealer and pay a $50 fee to transfer a gun to a family member?"

Do you think 65% would support it?

 

[TerryMathews]

I don't think it does. Again though, all rights do not need to be regulated identically, nor should they be.

Again, do you have any basis for your claim?

Only insofar as RKBA is a explicit right and abortion is a derived right.

 

[fskimospy]

Only insofar as RKBA is a explicit right and abortion is a derived right.

You said it was the "most protected" right in the Constitution. That means it supersedes all other rights, explicit and implied. I'm not aware of any legal basis for this idea.

Additionally, are you saying that derived rights are regulated under different standards than explicit rights? What is the basis for this?

 

[TerryMathews]

You said it was the "most protected" right in the Constitution. That means it supersedes all other rights, explicit and implied. I'm not aware of any legal basis for this idea.

Additionally, are you saying that derived rights are regulated under different standards than explicit rights? What is the basis for this?

A-again, no other right is stated as "shall not be infringed". Dismiss it all you want, but words have meanings.

B-abortion is derived from a woman's right to privacy in meeting with her doctor. If the laws regarding that privacy were altered that right might very well evaporate.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Hmmm The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) in place and required for the purchase of guns from federally licensed gun dealers.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

 

[glenn1]

I don't think it does. Again though, all rights do not need to be regulated identically, nor should they be.

Again, do you have any basis for your claim?

What is your justification for regulating this right differently (apart from you being afraid of firearms)? Again, why not background checks for automotive purchases? Or any other dangerous object that could be used somehow to create mass terror / casualties?

 

[Knowing]

Wow, now the NRA has someone who can actually outspend them...LOL Let us see how this goes..

Bloomberg outspent the NRA something like 7:1 and still lost. Money only correlates with winning; and I would venture at certain levels strengthens your opposition.

 

[fskimospy]

A-again, no other right is stated as "shall not be infringed". Dismiss it all you want, but words have meanings.

Are you saying that such language makes it a privileged right? Again, what is the legal basis for this?

As long as we're talking about words having meaning, why is a prohibition against being "infringed" a stronger protection than one being "abridged"? I would think if anything it would be the other way around.

B-abortion is derived from a woman's right to privacy in meeting with her doctor. If the laws regarding that privacy were altered that right might very well evaporate.

This is factually incorrect. Her right to privacy and abortion comes solely from the constitution. Changing other privacy laws has no effect on it whatsoever.