If those states feel they need to do something about that they can. That is over half the states in the union, I see no reason for the fed to dictate how they do things.
Have you not seen some of the proposals being floated? CA and their ban on removable magazines? Give you gun grabber an inch and you'll take a mile. Stop with the phony incredulity you hack.
How the fuck is a universal background check taking away your 2nd amendment rights? Do all the pro-gun people here want mentally unstable citizens owning guns? It's a fucking background check. Lighten up Francis.
Have you ever seen some of the gun nuts in P&N post? Some of them would never qualify as mentally stable.
Ohh I understand how polling is suppose to work. I also understand how easy it is to skew the data to whatever you like it to be. Even without intending to do so. Major polling places like Ramussen, Gallup, Pollster, and others have all been called out on doing that from time to time and have been caught fucking up too.
You said ban all guns, that's not the same as banning guns with removable magazines and it's also not something that is being pushed for universally across different states like voter ID laws.
So I'm sorry I don't see the equivalence, I understand the point though.
It's called a slippery slope, and it's been very slippery lately. States and federal government alike have been falling all over each other recently to have stricter and stricter gun laws. At some point, a complete ban will be brought to the floor. It's really just a matter of time.
That is of course assuming that Democrats don't get their asses kicked out of office in droves during the next election after these attempted shenanigans.
Oh really. It appears as if your argument is that pollingreport.com somehow oversamples urban areas. This is baffling to me, as pollingreport is actually a collection of polls done by other people. They don't sample anyone.
What you're really saying is that a collection of about half a dozen pollsters are all using biased samples. If this is the case, please provide me with the source for your information as this is really big news. CNN, CBS, ABC, Quinnipac, Pew Research, hell, even Fox News are all in on this conspiracy!
The check itself is mostly harmless. It's what it will lead to that's the issue. Universal background checks are unenforceable without registration, it would make sense for UBCs to pass, and then after the next mass shooting politicians point to their ineffectiveness and demand registration.
As for mentally unstable citizens getting ahold of guns, that's the reason we need better mental health reporting. Jared Loughner, for example, should not have been able to walk into a gun store and buy a Glock. He had an extreme and noted history of mental instability, and was actually suspended from his college over it.
So why were you against this bill? It specifically said no registration database? The current background check laws don't have a database and they have worked.
I said the poll in question was done with an oversampling of urban areas through landlines in a "random" fashion. I said places that do polling, and I mispoke with stating pollingreports.com does polling, in such a fashion is doing it in a very skewed manner.
I since went on to noting the EXACT org that did that particular poll and how. Even posted a link. Try to keep up.
As for polls, they are all biased. I don't ascribe to any of them. When you've taken enough math and statistic courses you'll understand that polls in some instances are good for guidelines, but nothing you should base major judgements upon. Ever.
Or should I do a poll of 1000 evangelical christians about if they believe evolution to be fact or a "theory" ?
It would be a random sampling of that group I assure you. I'll even toss in a "weighting" system as well that only I know. Do you see the point I'm trying to make here?
You mean the one where the survey asked, "Would you be in favor of laws enacted that prevented the deaths of young school children like what happened at Sandy Hook?"
That survey? The one that you look like a monster if you answer no, and if you answer yes the tabulation is that you are in favor of universal background checks and gun bans?
I call bullshit on that one.
Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online? 86 percent support, 13 percent oppose.
So why were you against this bill? It specifically said no registration database? The current background check laws don't have a database and they have worked.
Your link was to a standard polling methodology statement, nothing in it showed an oversampling of urban areas through land lines. I do not think you understand how scientific polling works.
This is a bunch of nonsensical statements. Evangelical christians are not the population being examined, residents of America are. Therefore polling 1,000 evangelical christians would in no way be a random sample. Weighting is done to adjust the population sampled to known demographic characteristics, in many cases urban rural included btw.
You realize that I do statistics for a living, right? (well I do policy analysis, but statistics is an enormous part of that) I'm interested for you to tell me exactly what I should learn about math and stats to be as well informed as you are on the subject.
Except the bill had a provision that said no registration database would be allowed. But keep shouting how ignorant you are.
You're arguing out of your ass on this one.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...ault-weapons-ban-gun-magazine-capacity-limits
I can't remember the last time 86% of Americans agreed on anything.
You just don't like what the polling shows and so you want to find a way to discredit it. I thought you were better than that. Apparently I was wrong.
I think its sad that we the people have to lose our fundamental rights just because a few lunatics commit acts of terror. Every time a tragedy happens in this country people are so quick to point fingers that we rush to create laws that would have done nothing to prevent these tragedies in the first place.
Yeah, and that would be great as long as the law remaind unaltered. After the next mass shooting, however far away it is, what would stop lawmakers from simply repealing that part of the law and passing registration in one go?
If an amendment to the Constitution is passed revising the 2nd amendment to stipulate no national registry, I might be more supportive.
Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online? 86 percent support, 13 percent oppose.
Do you think having a gun in the house makes it (a safer place to be) or (a more dangerous place to be)? 51 percent say safer, 29 percent say more dangerous.
The link was HOW the poll was conducted. 1,004 "random" phone calls to landlines.
I used to do those calls. I used to write the programs for those calls. I know how fucked up they are. I am speaking from experience here. Those calls are anything but "random" in how they are conducted. I've done campaigns on political polls. What have you done? You ever try cold calling a place like Florida? good fucking luck getting anything but massive amounts of cursing thrown at you over the phone when you call anyone "randomly" down in that state. Florida is literally the worst state to call for political opinions.
Anyhow, the point I'm making is I know the "system" that is being used. They are all done with an agenda. They are polls paid for 99% of the time by an entity outside the polling group with a vested interest in the results. More so with political polls than other types.
Again, if the call sample had been 100,000 with no more than 10 calls to given zip code instead of 1,000 without the lockout on zipcodes, it's by nature a FLAWED poll. Period.
Registration would come later. It would have to in order for background check on sales to work. It's the same play that has been applied before in many other countries.
So with the current background checks are you saying there is also a registry? Sorry I'm calling bs on your argument.
So with the current background checks are you saying there is also a registry? Sorry I'm calling bs on your argument.
popular by a biblical church survey.
Lol so your argument is that no laws should be passed because future laws may violate prior laws? Sorry your argument is illogical.
The supreme court has already stated that constitutional rights can be limited, there is also an existing background check law, has that been found unconstitutional yet? No it hasn't.