Senate rejects Universal Background Checks

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Lol, you flip flop a lot don't you? Weren't you just a few posts ago espousing on how accurate opinion polls are, especially at political outcomes? Speaking specifically to presidential elections.

If you can't maintain intellectual integrity in your debate you are a worthless shill here.

Are you serious? You compared opinion polls on an issue to opinion polls on a candidate. Then you compared the performance of a Senate vote to the performance of the electoral college. Apples to apples? Whether or not you support gun rights, you should be able to see the logical flaw there.

 

[HumblePie]

Are you serious? You compared opinion polls on an issue to opinion polls on a candidate. Then you compared the performance of a Senate vote to the performance of the electoral college. Apples to apples? Whether or not you support gun rights, you should be able to see the logical flaw there.

No. I stated how opinion polls period are a weak tool to be used. That they are not a fall back argument. I made that in reference to many ways of how polls and statistics are used. Even in medical or scientific "studies" those statistical trending data sets are used to guide them to tests that find the actual hows and whys of what the scientist is searching for. One doesn't do a single study medically speaking and stop there as the basis for all future decisions.

That is what seems to be bantered about here by those using this poll as the measuring stick for why the legislation should have passed. My argument was two-fold. The poll was flawed in many ways in its implementation. I've shown where those flaws are and why. The other part of my argument was the problems with using polls as a basis for an argument. Polls are great for a starting point for a debate, but to base your premise upon a poll, especially an opinion poll, is a horrible way to debate.

 

[marincounty]

I must have missed the referendum on guns. . . Because there wasn't one. This was not a ticket item for the Democrats. They ran on health care, entitlements and the economy.
They did not run on gun control.

Next election however will be a referendum on guns.

And it could be ugly for Republicans. If 80% of American voters are in favor of increased background checks and their local politician voted against it, the politicians could be in trouble.
Much like Mitt's 47% comments hurt him with women and people of normal means.
If there is another mass shooting right before the election, Republicans are toast.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Really? I just provided a link that prevented potentially 150k crimes with the current law and you think an expansion of that law would make things worse?


Just stick to personal attacks, hyperbole, and logical fallacies because facts and logic aren't your strong suite.

if by "crime" you mean the mere act of someone illegally owning a firearm by purchasing it through a dealer, then yes the system worked.

if by "crime" you mean someone ilegally owning a firearm purchased from a dealer and then committing a crime with said firearm, then that assumption is as valid as "1 copyright infringment = 1 lost sale" - there is absolutely no way of proving that that is true.

 

[IronWing]

Is Biden pouting?

I saw a bit of the press conference while waiting on take-out. Obama was pissed. I think it's the first time I've seen him pissed about anything.

 

[spidey07]

I saw a bit of the press conference while waiting on take-out. Obama was pissed. I think it's the first time I've seen him pissed about anything.

Then you haven't been paying attention to him. May great fuck be upon him and all those that support him. He's a lame duck now. He has been stopped thank god since the historic elections of 2010.

 

[ivwshane]

if by "crime" you mean the mere act of someone illegally owning a firearm by purchasing it through a dealer, then yes the system worked.

if by "crime" you mean someone ilegally owning a firearm purchased from a dealer and then committing a crime with said firearm, then that assumption is as valid as "1 copyright infringment = 1 lost sale" - there is absolutely no way of proving that that is true.

Then why did the question asked for proof in the first place if it can never be proved?

But I'm glad you see how ridiculous it is to ask for proof a law would work that hasn't been enacted and that requires a negative to be proven.


Lol

 

[spidey07]

Doesn't really matter much. There was a vote, it didn't pass and it will never pass. It would surely never pass the house.

Thank you Republicans. Thank you. I sent Mitch and Rand a sincere thank you E-mail today and promised Mitch more for his election campaign if he keeps up the fight against Obama.

His staff can look up my donations, I'm sure he knows I mean it.

 

[Incorruptible]

I saw a bit of the press conference while waiting on take-out. Obama was pissed. I think it's the first time I've seen him pissed about anything.

It's always good to see him pissed like that. It shows how much of an idiot he is

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

No. I stated how opinion polls period are a weak tool to be used. That they are not a fall back argument. I made that in reference to many ways of how polls and statistics are used. Even in medical or scientific "studies" those statistical trending data sets are used to guide them to tests that find the actual hows and whys of what the scientist is searching for. One doesn't do a single study medically speaking and stop there as the basis for all future decisions.

That is what seems to be bantered about here by those using this poll as the measuring stick for why the legislation should have passed. My argument was two-fold. The poll was flawed in many ways in its implementation. I've shown where those flaws are and why. The other part of my argument was the problems with using polls as a basis for an argument. Polls are great for a starting point for a debate, but to base your premise upon a poll, especially an opinion poll, is a horrible way to debate.

But the question is whether that poll is flawed or whether the vote was representative of public opinion. People cite 80% or 90%, but you're saying that support level is lower? Without a doubt a lot of lobbying money went into determining the outcome of the senate vote. But are you telling me the poll's totally flawed it's more like a 40/60 split instead of 90/10? Or is it more likely that senators did not vote with their constituents' opinions. I believe that it's the latter.

I'm not trying to say that they should re-vote, but I think there's no harm in admitting that the vote was certainly heavily influenced by lobbyists. Furthermore, if you insist that it's so flawed of a poll, how come multiple polls show the support for UBC to be so high? My question would be then what is wrong with the poll? And what would you do to actually understand public opinion of UBC? Furthermore, is it even possible to poll this issue?

 

[spidey07]

But the question is whether that poll is flawed or whether the vote was representative of public opinion. People cite 80% or 90%, but you're saying that support level is lower? Without a doubt a lot of lobbying money went into determining the outcome of the senate vote. But are you telling me the poll's totally flawed it's more like a 40/60 split instead of 90/10? Or is it more likely that senators did not vote with their constituents' opinions. I believe that it's the latter.

I believe it was the onslaught of calls, e-mails and letters from their constituents that swayed them. Notice the few democrats that voted no.

Voting for gun control is political suicide.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Then why did the question asked for proof in the first place if it can never be proved?

But I'm glad you see how ridiculous it is to ask for proof a law would work that hasn't been enacted and that requires a negative to be proven.


Lol

i should have expanded "proof" to "proof and/or logical argument". that's why i drew the analogy to media companies which claim that each instance of piracy is a lost sale.

there's neither proof nor logical argument to substantiate such a claim.

 

[fskimospy]

Lol, you flip flop a lot don't you? Weren't you just a few posts ago espousing on how accurate opinion polls are, especially at political outcomes? Speaking specifically to presidential elections.

If you can't maintain intellectual integrity in your debate you are a worthless shill here.

If you actually believe this you are a deeply stupid person... and I mean that.

Not one person in this thread that I've seen argued that opinion polls predicted US Senate vote outcomes. I know I didn't. That's an utterly illogical argument to make in the first place as the people being polled weren't the ones voting. If you can provide a single quote of someone making this argument, please provide it.

The argument you then tried to bring up was against the ability of scientific polling to predict electoral outcomes. Do you actually not understand why a poll directly measuring the people voting would have predictive power and one measuring people not voting would not?

Not only that, but lets look at your arguments against the one poll you decided was bad.

- You said 1,000 people was too small a sample size, instead arguing for a sample size of 100,000. (LOL)

- You then tried to attack predictive modeling by linking to an article about a guy who bet against predictive modeling and lost horribly.

- You said that the proportion of Democrats was too high as compared to the national average. This was wrong.

- Then you claimed they weighted based on party ID. This was wrong.

- You said the proportion of people from regions of the country were incorrect. This was wrong.

- You said they didn't provide methodology on how the poll was conducted. This was wrong.

And all as you tried to pass yourself off as some sort of expert because you worked a campaign phone bank. Do us all a favor and quit while you're less far behind.

If you genuinely can't figure out why polls of voters would be predictive for elections they vote in and polls of voters aren't predictive for elections they don't vote in, there's no helping you.

 

[tacosrcool]

The government should leave us citizens alone. Why should they ban guns and ammo? They can't ban paper and pens cuz that would violate our first amendment rights so why should that apply to guns and ammo? If one looks at history, every totalitarian government banned guns before they became overly oppressive and started shit. Germany, Cambodia, Soviet Union, Italy, etc. Shame that people don't care that the government tries to take away their rights and the biggest obstacle in the way is the 2nd amendment. Its the only way to fight an oppressive government and what better way to oppress ones' citizens than by taking their guns away.

 

[ivwshane]

The government should leave us citizens alone. Why should they ban guns and ammo? They can't ban paper and pens cuz that would violate our first amendment rights so why should that apply to guns and ammo? If one looks at history, every totalitarian government banned guns before they became overly oppressive and started shit. Germany, Cambodia, Soviet Union, Italy, etc. Shame that people don't care that the government tries to take away their rights and the biggest obstacle in the way is the 2nd amendment. Its the only way to fight an oppressive government and what better way to oppress ones' citizens than by taking their guns away.

Who is trying to ban guns?

You freaken right wing nut bags and your straw man arguments! Just once it would be nice to have opposing views that based in reality and facts.

 

[Incorruptible]

Who is trying to ban guns?

You freaken right wing nut bags and your straw man arguments! Just once it would be nice to have opposing views that based in reality and facts.

You left wing nut bags need to shut up.

You don't want to ban guns? Not sure if serious

Here is your asshole diane feinstein

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRblw29I14U

 

[spidey07]

Who is trying to ban guns?

You freaken right wing nut bags and your straw man arguments! Just once it would be nice to have opposing views that based in reality and facts.

Obama and a crap ton of democrats.

 

[Incorruptible]

Obama and a crap ton of democrats.

This. That piece of shit and pathetic excuse for a human being obama would love to ban guns.

 

[spidey07]

This. That piece of shit and pathetic excuse for a human being obama would love to ban guns.

Truth be told he's the greatest gun salesman that ever lived. Just look at gun ownership and sales right before the election in 2008 till now.

One only needs to look at his statements, words, deeds and actions to understand. If you didn't, then you don't know what he is and are not paying attention.

I'm actually really grateful that Obama played his hand like this. He's sitting there with 3 kings thinking he's got this all wrapped up. Then the quad aces say FUCK YOU OBAMA!

 

[Incorruptible]

Truth be told he's the greatest gun salesman that ever lived. Just look at gun ownership and sales right before the election in 2008 till now.

One only needs to look at his statements, words, deeds and actions to understand. If you didn't, then you don't know what he is and are not paying attention.

Definitely agree with that. obama is so stupid and such a moron that he doesn't even realize this. Someone needs to let him know how much he has helped to increase gun sales and the piece of shit would be angry over it

I remember when he said some Americans were bitter and cling to their guns and religion. It looks like the people prefer their guns and religion over that horse-shit obama

 

[buckshot24]

Needless to say, your complaints against scientific polling were shit.

Are the questions themselves "scientific"? Is it at least possible to skew your results by asking questions in certain ways?

Scientific polling isn't determining how people actually feel about something its determining how people respond to a given set of questions. If the questions are skewed then the results are going to be skewed.

 

[buckshot24]

Who is trying to ban guns?

You freaken right wing nut bags and your straw man arguments! Just once it would be nice to have opposing views that based in reality and facts.

I wonder if you'd be this "precise" if the subject was stricter abortion laws.

Would you say "nobody is trying to ban abortions, they are just trying to make them more difficult to obtain"? I doubt you'd give those laws the leeway you're giving the gun laws.

 

[spidey07]

When the facts disagree with the liberal, the liberal will quickly deflect from the discussion in an attempt to steer it.

Don't fall for it. The Republicans in the Senate stopped Obama. That is the story, that is the victory, that is the glory.

Let the liberals run on this platform. Let them hang themselves. The liberal thrives on group think. Know your enemy people, know your enemy and defeat them. They are too fucking poor and too fucking lazy to donate to campaigns and contact reps and senators and the glorious NRA and SAF. Keep the battle going patriots.

 

[BladeVenom]

Definitely agree with that. obama is so stupid and such a moron that he doesn't even realize this. Someone needs to let him know how much he has helped to increase gun sales and the piece of shit would be angry over it

And crime went down. So he actually benefited from those increased gun sales. Increased employment in the gun and ammo industry, plus crime rates declined.

 

[ivwshane]

I wonder if you'd be this "precise" if the subject was stricter abortion laws.

Would you say "nobody is trying to ban abortions, they are just trying to make them more difficult to obtain"? I doubt you'd give those laws the leeway you're giving the gun laws.

The difference, you moron, is that I can point to literally 100's of abortions laws that have been passed or attempted to be passed in multiple states and by many republicans. How many gun ban legislations have you seen? 1? 5? 20? Yeah, not even close.

Just stay out of the conversation since we are now dealing with numbers, something you are horrible with.