Neither of those quotes addressed my contention at all. Also, HR 308 is about banning long clips like the ones Loughner used to murder dozens of people earlier this year, and portraying that as ordinary gun control is disingenuous, at best. But you'd know all about that, now wouldn't you?
This is generally the extent of the pro-gun argument, though, right? Bring up some ridiculous and obvious conceit and spin it like it's a repeal of the Second Amendment?
"First they limit our use of fully automatic truck-mounted laser-sighted .50 cals with irradiated rounds and banana clips by keeping us from leaving them unattended near elementary schools, next thing you know they're taking away our hunting rifles! It's a slippery slope!"
I actually support gun rights and concealed-carry laws, but I'm not going to pretend the typically-Democratic arguments for limiting 2nd Amendment rights are in some way on the same level as the irrational and unsupportable anti-gay/anti-abortion legislation supported by the right.
I'm still trying to remember the police state that apparently existed from 1994 to 2004. In fact, I'm trying to think of a case where a person we would want owning guns was inconvenienced in the very slightest due to the awd.
Anybody wanting to own an AR-15 was inconvenienced in the slightest. A magazine restriction (which was part of the AWB) would also inconvenience me in the slightest.
Also, what I'm hearing a lot of is that the Democrats haven't said or done anything on gun control lately, and I think it's pretty obvious the reason for that is that they don't currently have the political pull to do it at the moment. As somebody who cares about the issue this doesn't impress me, because I'm quite confident that both the President and the bulk of the Democratic legislators would have no problem pushing through a new AWB, or several other significant anti-gun measures, if they knew they had the votes for it. The only thing that prevented this back when they had the majority were a handful of pro-gun Democrats in the House and Senate (and the threat of filibuster).
I think Mcdermott did a wonderful job explaining why centrist pro-gun voters have a hard time trusting the Democratic party to not enact future anti-gun legislation. Perhaps you could explain why they should feel comfortable now in voting Democrat despite the above examples indicating it remains part of their long term agenda. You cannot expect any voter to believe a platform of "dont worry, we do not have enough votes currently to violate your civil liberties, so vote for us so that we can have enough votes to do it!"
This. And yeah, you can lolsingleissuevoter all you want, but there are huge chunks of voters in every rural state who get pushed, at a base cultural level and from an early age, towards the Republican party by this. It turns every shooting range and every hunting trip into a damn GOP rally.
I mean, from what I can tell almost all the anti-abortion legislation and anti-gay legislation (and "legislation," since a lot of that is ballot initiatives) is happening at the state level. Why? Because Republicans have the votes to do it. Same way anti-gun legislation happens at the state level. Why? Because Democrats have the votes to do it. And while we're talking about inconveniencing in the slightest, I wanted to go shooting with a buddy the other day, being the last day before the range up here closes for a while (also potentially attributable to a Democratic official). I was thinking of buying a new .22 handgun to go plinking with. But oh, wait. Five day waiting period. Probably nothing any of you would shed any tears over, and honestly not a huge deal to me either. But I'll go ahead and file that under "inconvenienced in the slightest."
I've not bothered to do the research, but I strongly suspect that requirement wasn't put there by Republicans.
I mean, from what I can tell almost all the anti-abortion legislation and anti-gay legislation (and "legislation," since a lot of that is ballot initiatives) is happening at the state level. Why? Because Republicans have the votes to do it. Same way anti-gun legislation happens at the state level. Why? Because Democrats have the votes to do it. And while we're talking about inconveniencing in the slightest, I wanted to go shooting with a buddy the other day, being the last day before the range up here closes for a while (also potentially attributable to a Democratic official). I was thinking of buying a new .22 handgun to go plinking with. But oh, wait. Five day waiting period. Probably nothing any of you would shed any tears over, and honestly not a huge deal to me either. But I'll go ahead and file that under "inconvenienced in the slightest."
I've not bothered to do the research, but I strongly suspect that requirement wasn't put there by Republicans.
See, guns strike me as fairly unique in that "inconvenienced in the slightest" is generally treated the same as "completely and utterly banned" by single issue gun-rights people. You don't see car aficionados complaining that they can't do 120 in a school zone, or park on the sidewalk, but gun fans seem to froth at the mouth at the prospect of not being able to carry in a bar or a school or the prospect of having a waiting period or restrictions on a specific part.
It's hilarious/terrifying that the party that wants to limit who you can marry and your right to abortions, and decided that the government had the right to freely wiretap citizens, hold potential suspects without specific charges, deport brown people for not carrying papers, and torture whomever they like is the "party of freedom" because they support your right to pump hot lead out of a gun without restriction.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I was thinking of buying a new .22 handgun to go plinking with. But oh, wait. Five day waiting period. Probably nothing any of you would shed any tears over, and honestly not a huge deal to me either. But I'll go ahead and file that under "inconvenienced in the slightest."
I've not bothered to do the research, but I strongly suspect that requirement wasn't put there by Republicans.
I think we can all agree that small hurdles put in front of potentially dangerous or harmful procurements for safety's sake isn't the worst thing in the world. We mandate testing and/or licensure for driving permits and possession of harmful substances. The five day wait on a gun isn't a revocation of rights. As you say, it's a slight inconvenience.
I'm a gun owner, but I don't think the 2nd Amendment has any inherent assumption of ease or convenience of procurement without regard to the safety of others.
The position that you have chosen to defend is that the Dems have completely dropped anti-gun legislation from their platform, reversed course, and are now a pro gun organization.
Bull fucking shit. Not one goddamn person has claimed that.
Yeah, this pretty much sums up my view. Thats the great strawman Ive ever seen
Also, if the house bill is about extended clips for handgun and the like, good. We really don't need those.
The position that you have chosen to defend is that the Dems have completely dropped anti-gun legislation from their platform, reversed course, and are now a pro gun organization.
Bull fucking shit. Not one goddamn person has claimed that.
Yeah, this pretty much sums up my view. Thats the great strawman Ive ever seen
Also, if the house bill is about extended clips for handgun and the like, good. We really don't need those.
But Democrats have totally dropped anti-gun legislation. Settled issue. Right.
But yes, if you are an obsessive gun nut who considers the AWB to be a horrible thing, you're better off voting for the GOP. You're also not anywhere near a "median voter."
We are talking at the level Captain Carrot set, which is the Federal Level. Can you tell me any Anti gay, or anti abortion bills that have successfully been passed this year? As for the second, hate to break it to you but the "median voter" does not favor stricter gun control. Support for gun control is at an all time low, and continues to fall yearly. I mean after all, if you have any knowledge at all of firearms, or understanding of just how badly designed the AWB was it is really hard to defend
Like similar violent events in the past, the Arizona shootings did not generate greater support for tougher gun-control measures in general. But a majority - 57 percent - said they support a nationwide ban on high-capacity magazine clips such as the one the shooter in Tucson used.
Overall, 52 percent favor stricter gun-control laws, a number little changed in recent years and down from where it was after the 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech. Support for new restrictions on the sale of semiautomatic handguns is also down from what it was after the Virginia Tech incident.
About a third - 31 percent - favor a blanket prohibition on the sale of all handguns, except to law enforcement officers, which is comparable to public opinion after the Columbine school shootings in 1999 in Littleton, Colo., and lower than what it was after Virginia Tech.
Trying to paint the gun control positions of the NRA as "median" and "centrist" is a nifty rhetorical trick, but it doesn't actually describe the actual median or centrist American views on gun control.
Also, discussing issues that are primarily impacted on a state level by focusing only on federal legislation is a really silly standard to use.
The position that you have chosen to defend is that the Dems have completely dropped anti-gun legislation from their platform, reversed course, and are now a pro gun organization.
Bull fucking shit. Not one goddamn person has claimed that.
Yeah, this pretty much sums up my view. Thats the great strawman Ive ever seen
Also, if the house bill is about extended clips for handgun and the like, good. We really don't need those.
But Democrats have totally dropped anti-gun legislation. Settled issue. Right.
The position that you have chosen to defend is that the Dems have completely dropped anti-gun legislation from their platform, reversed course, and are now a pro gun organization.
Bull fucking shit. Not one goddamn person has claimed that.
Yeah, this pretty much sums up my view. Thats the great strawman Ive ever seen
Also, if the house bill is about extended clips for handgun and the like, good. We really don't need those.
But Democrats have totally dropped anti-gun legislation. Settled issue. Right.
So anything aimed at curbing more mass slaughters is anti-gun? Does requiring gun shows to run background checks on buyers also qualify?
The position that you have chosen to defend is that the Dems have completely dropped anti-gun legislation from their platform, reversed course, and are now a pro gun organization.
Bull fucking shit. Not one goddamn person has claimed that.
Yeah, this pretty much sums up my view. Thats the great strawman Ive ever seen
Also, if the house bill is about extended clips for handgun and the like, good. We really don't need those.
But Democrats have totally dropped anti-gun legislation. Settled issue. Right.
So anything aimed at curbing more mass slaughters is anti-gun? Does requiring gun shows to run background checks on buyers also qualify?
How is it that being reasonable on gun control basically has to boil down to "no rules, whatsoever, fascist" or you somehow have picked up the idiot ball. If the pro gun lobby would at least adopt the idea that maybe, we don't need a civilian populace that can legally obtain an AK47 without so much as a background check, we could find a workable middle ground that preserves both peoples rights and maintains a semblance of public safety.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited September 2011
Or at the very least, we should augment the 2nd Amendment to say, ". . . the right to bear doomsday machines," to really understand where our limits are on this kind of thing.
So anything aimed at curbing more mass slaughters is anti-gun? Does requiring gun shows to run background checks on buyers also qualify?
Well, now we're venturing into gun thread territory, but I'll answer anyway: I see zero problem with requiring background checks at gun shows, provided you can also craft that legislation such that it only applies at gun shows, and not for every single fact-to-face purchase between two private parties. Which several states have, I believe, managed to do.
The previous AWB was probably the poster child for stupid, knee-jerk bullshit anti-gun legislation crafted by latte-sipping bitches who don't know fuck-all about the things they are banning, including the "shoulder things that go up" (yes, the one time ever that I rooted for Tucker Carlson). The only part of that entire law that had any potential value was the magazine capacity restriction, which I don't support but (much like Dick Cheney) I can say maybe could possibly be considered to have some value. A ringing endorsement that was, by the way. It didn't get any stronger the second time somebody linked it, either.
But yes, I realize that this forum is like 99% anti-gun echo chamber, so I'll drop it at that. Feel free to a few last-minute quips in on the matter, I don't care enough to respond. But yes, I am taking this entire line of discussion into consideration next time anybody tries to convince me that Democrats don't care about guns anymore. In that, at least, it had some real value.
How is this forum an anti-gun echo chamber? Honestly, you sound just like the bullshit conservative posters we get who bitch about issue X when the forum slaps them around on it for being silly.
The point is that it's not some huge anti-gun democrat restriction when Dick Cheney is like "yeah, it's probably not a terrible idea". Basically, how pro-gun are you demanding a group be before they aren't anti-gun?
Honestly, you sound just like the bullshit conservative posters we get who bitch about issue X when the forum slaps them around on it for being silly.
It's only 99%.
You know, if you take up a position that's on the 1% fringe of an issue, you really shouldn't be that surprised that 99% of people are more moderate on that issue than you are.
Dude, I've been in the gun threads here. I'm pretty comfortable saying that a vast majority of posters here are much more likely to join the Brady Campaign than the NRA. It's coo, though, we can still hang.
It's also not unexpected on a forum full of people that (including myself) tend to lean towards the liberal. Or are we pretending that's not the case anymore as well?
EDIT: This really is like, the one issue where I break pretty far from the herd around here, and I'm more than okay with that.
mcdermott on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
It's weird that most people regarding guns, like with motorcycles, don't seem to have much range between "teetotaler" and "nut."
Maybe there's a silent majority out there, like me. I own a gun, a very powerful and dangerous one. I don't need more than that one gun. I support legislation that will make it safer and more difficult for people with social/mental problems getting their hands on guns. I don't equate gun restriction with gun criminalization, much the same way I don't see restricting people from making booze or morphine without proper protocols as a problem.
The right to bear arms isn't the same as the right to be a dangerous asshole.
And I don't equate "having a bayonet lug" or "having a pistol grip on a rifle" with "being a dangerous asshole." But when fucking Democrats start writing anti-gun legislation, that usually makes up about 99% of it. The Shoulder Things That Go Up(TM).
But we forgive them for being stupid, uneducated about the things they're legislating, and passing laws out of knee-jerk reactionary bullshit rather than rational basis because...well, because they're our dumbasses, and because (for most of it) it's shit we don't care about.
EDIT: But, again, you think there aren't 4,000 voters in Missouri or a couple hundred in Florida for whom this wasn't a dealbreaker? Shit to consider, when you're talking politics. I mean, unless you think there's a stream of anti-gun Democrats in San Francisco who will suddenly start voting Republican.
EDIT: But, again, you think there aren't 4,000 voters in Missouri or a couple hundred in Florida for whom this wasn't a dealbreaker? Shit to consider, when you're talking politics. I mean, unless you think there's a stream of anti-gun Democrats in San Francisco who will suddenly start voting Republican.
It's not shit to consider when discussing the supposed ideological or political views of the median American voter, though.
I've already cited one poll showing that a majority of Americans favor stricter gun control laws, with a slightly higher majority favoring the return of the high-capacity magazine ban that was one of the few positive things in the AWB.
So yeah, there are certainly some predominantly rural voters who have a single-issue focus on gun control.
They're outliers who, thanks to the lobbying efforts of the NRA, already have a disproportionate impact on federal legislation.
So at best we've shown that the median voter doesn't give much of a shit about guns one way or the other. Which I can perhaps buy, on a national level. But the median voter in a majority of states probably does give a shit about guns, and in a positive manner. Which, unless you have a surefire way to abolish the Senate and the Electoral College, is...kinda important.
Plus there's the fact that the Democratic party is still more than willing (given the chance) to fuck over the half or so of the populace that, you know, thinks their plans on guns are bullshit. All for the benefit of the 10% of their party that actually gives a shit.
Also, what are we arguing here again? I'm willing to accept that the median voter doesn't care a whole lot about guns. Are you willing to accept that the Democratic party is anti-gun? Or are we still pretending they aren't, since they haven't tried to re-introduce the AWB this year? Because that's the only reason I originally came into this...the silly assertion that the Democratic really I promise for realsies doesn't care about guns. It's ludicrous.
So at best we've shown that the median voter doesn't give much of a shit about guns one way or the other. Which I can perhaps buy, on a national level. But the median voter in a majority of states probably does give a shit about guns, and in a positive manner. Which, unless you have a surefire way to abolish the Senate and the Electoral College, is...kinda important.
Uh, wait, you're taking a poll that says slightly over 50% of Americans want stricter gun control laws to mean that the median voter doesn't give much of a shit about guns one way or another? That's a rather unique spin.
Also, without state-by-state polling, it's hard to tell if the states where the majority of voters do want either fewer gun control laws are in fact electorally important. Wyoming and the Dakotas are probably big on gun rights, but will never influence a national election as much as New York and California will.
Plus there's the fact that the Democratic party is still more than willing (given the chance) to fuck over the half or so of the populace that, you know, thinks their plans on guns are bullshit. All for the benefit of the 10% of their party that actually gives a shit.
This depends on defining a ban on high-capacity magazines (which, to my knowledge, is the only gun control legislation being proposed by Congressional Democrats) as both "fucking over half or so of the populace" only for the benefit of 10% of the Democratic Party. Hey, let's spin it as inconveniencing a tiny percentage of legal gun owners in order to reduce the risk that high-capacity magazines pose to every single American. Isn't framing a debate fun?
Also, what are we arguing here again? I'm willing to accept that the median voter doesn't care a whole lot about guns. Are you willing to accept that the Democratic party is anti-gun? Or are we still pretending they aren't, since they haven't tried to re-introduce the AWB this year? Because that's the only reason I originally came into this...the silly assertion that the Democratic really I promise for realsies doesn't care about guns. It's ludicrous.
No, the median voter cares about guns enough to want stricter gun control laws. The Democratic party being "anti-gun" is 100% dependent on what you define as being "anti-gun". Such as defining efforts to ban high-capacity magazines as "re-introducing the Assault Weapons Ban."
So at best we've shown that the median voter doesn't give much of a shit about guns one way or the other. Which I can perhaps buy, on a national level. But the median voter in a majority of states probably does give a shit about guns, and in a positive manner. Which, unless you have a surefire way to abolish the Senate and the Electoral College, is...kinda important.
Uh, wait, you're taking a poll that says slightly over 50% of Americans want stricter gun control laws to mean that the median voter doesn't give much of a shit about guns one way or another? That's a rather unique spin.
Depends on how the poll is set up. But yes, I'd assume that a fair percentage who answer "yes" to that question don't give much of a shit, as do a fair percent that answer "no." Also, that "favor stricter gun control" number varies anywhere from 40% to 60% in recent years, depending on whether any shootings of politicians, celebrities, or schoolkids have been in the news lately. If your position on that question is largely dependent on what the nice anchorman has told you this week, and if that position changes just as quickly when a relatively short amount of time passes, then I'd say that qualifies as "don't give much of a shit." And since we're talking about 40% to 60%, that probably includes the mythical "median voter."
EDIT: Then you get into the issue of the "median voter" not even understanding what he's talking about when responding in a poll, such as not knowing the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, what an "assault weapon" is, or thinking that a barrel shroud is a "shoulder thing that goes up."
So at best we've shown that the median voter doesn't give much of a shit about guns one way or the other. Which I can perhaps buy, on a national level. But the median voter in a majority of states probably does give a shit about guns, and in a positive manner. Which, unless you have a surefire way to abolish the Senate and the Electoral College, is...kinda important.
Uh, wait, you're taking a poll that says slightly over 50% of Americans want stricter gun control laws to mean that the median voter doesn't give much of a shit about guns one way or another? That's a rather unique spin.
Depends on how the poll is set up. But yes, I'd assume that a fair percentage who answer "yes" to that question don't give much of a shit, as do a fair percent that answer "no." Also, that "favor stricter gun control" number varies anywhere from 40% to 60% in recent years, depending on whether any shootings of politicians, celebrities, or schoolkids have been in the news lately. If your position on that question is largely dependent on what the nice anchorman has told you this week, and if that position changes just as quickly when a relatively short amount of time passes, then I'd say that qualifies as "don't give much of a shit." And since we're talking about 40% to 60%, that probably includes the mythical "median voter."
EDIT: Then you get into the issue of the "median voter" not even understanding what he's talking about when responding in a poll, such as not knowing the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, what an "assault weapon" is, or thinking that a barrel shroud is a "shoulder thing that goes up."
So then there's no point in trying to divine the actual will of the electorate because even if they do respond with a specific opinion, you somehow just know that said opinion is based on apathy and ignorance?
Then the entire question of "the median voter" is pointless because they're all ignorant morons.
So at best we've shown that the median voter doesn't give much of a shit about guns one way or the other. Which I can perhaps buy, on a national level. But the median voter in a majority of states probably does give a shit about guns, and in a positive manner. Which, unless you have a surefire way to abolish the Senate and the Electoral College, is...kinda important.
Uh, wait, you're taking a poll that says slightly over 50% of Americans want stricter gun control laws to mean that the median voter doesn't give much of a shit about guns one way or another? That's a rather unique spin.
Depends on how the poll is set up. But yes, I'd assume that a fair percentage who answer "yes" to that question don't give much of a shit, as do a fair percent that answer "no." Also, that "favor stricter gun control" number varies anywhere from 40% to 60% in recent years, depending on whether any shootings of politicians, celebrities, or schoolkids have been in the news lately. If your position on that question is largely dependent on what the nice anchorman has told you this week, and if that position changes just as quickly when a relatively short amount of time passes, then I'd say that qualifies as "don't give much of a shit." And since we're talking about 40% to 60%, that probably includes the mythical "median voter."
EDIT: Then you get into the issue of the "median voter" not even understanding what he's talking about when responding in a poll, such as not knowing the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, what an "assault weapon" is, or thinking that a barrel shroud is a "shoulder thing that goes up."
So then there's no point in trying to divine the actual will of the electorate because even if they do respond with a specific opinion, you somehow just know that said opinion is based on apathy and ignorance?
Then the entire question of "the median voter" is pointless because they're all ignorant morons.
Ah, cynicism!
No, there are still ways to measure both apathy and ignorance.
But that takes more work, and makes for shitty blurbs in USA Today articles.
And yeah, the "median voter" is an ignorant moron. Mainly because the median American is an ignorant moron.
Neither of those quotes addressed my contention at all. Also, HR 308 is about banning long clips like the ones Loughner used to murder dozens of people earlier this year, and portraying that as ordinary gun control is disingenuous, at best. But you'd know all about that, now wouldn't you?
This is generally the extent of the pro-gun argument, though, right? Bring up some ridiculous and obvious conceit and spin it like it's a repeal of the Second Amendment?
"First they limit our use of fully automatic truck-mounted laser-sighted .50 cals with irradiated rounds and banana clips by keeping us from leaving them unattended near elementary schools, next thing you know they're taking away our hunting rifles! It's a slippery slope!"
I actually support gun rights and concealed-carry laws, but I'm not going to pretend the typically-Democratic arguments for limiting 2nd Amendment rights are in some way on the same level as the irrational and unsupportable anti-gay/anti-abortion legislation supported by the right.
I'm still trying to remember the police state that apparently existed from 1994 to 2004. In fact, I'm trying to think of a case where a person we would want owning guns was inconvenienced in the very slightest due to the awd.
Anybody wanting to own an AR-15 was inconvenienced in the slightest. A magazine restriction (which was part of the AWB) would also inconvenience me in the slightest.
So you have to buy a slightly different model of rifle and magazine. I mean a real world inconvenience, where you weren't able to do something because you couldn't get the gun you wanted. In other words, I want a material inconvenience rather than whining about how put out you are because the you want green pipes in your walls while the government has banned the dye used to make pipes green.
Neither of those quotes addressed my contention at all. Also, HR 308 is about banning long clips like the ones Loughner used to murder dozens of people earlier this year, and portraying that as ordinary gun control is disingenuous, at best. But you'd know all about that, now wouldn't you?
This is generally the extent of the pro-gun argument, though, right? Bring up some ridiculous and obvious conceit and spin it like it's a repeal of the Second Amendment?
"First they limit our use of fully automatic truck-mounted laser-sighted .50 cals with irradiated rounds and banana clips by keeping us from leaving them unattended near elementary schools, next thing you know they're taking away our hunting rifles! It's a slippery slope!"
I actually support gun rights and concealed-carry laws, but I'm not going to pretend the typically-Democratic arguments for limiting 2nd Amendment rights are in some way on the same level as the irrational and unsupportable anti-gay/anti-abortion legislation supported by the right.
I'm still trying to remember the police state that apparently existed from 1994 to 2004. In fact, I'm trying to think of a case where a person we would want owning guns was inconvenienced in the very slightest due to the awd.
Anybody wanting to own an AR-15 was inconvenienced in the slightest. A magazine restriction (which was part of the AWB) would also inconvenience me in the slightest.
So you have to buy a slightly different model of rifle and magazine. I mean a real world inconvenience, where you weren't able to do something because you couldn't get the gun you wanted. In other words, I want a material inconvenience rather than whining about how put out you are because the you want green pipes in your walls while the government has banned the dye used to make pipes green.
Anyone who competes in service rifle competition was materially harmed. And there are people that make their living by winning competitions or gunsmithing that were harmed to a more significant degree. A bayonet lug is not in any way a reasonable way to define an "assault weapon". How many people are killed each year by bayonets? Do you honestly think that banning bayonet lugs has saved any lives? What a bayonet lug does do is add weight to the front of the rifle and therefore can be used to make it more accurate.
Am I a crazy gun nut in favor of no gun legislation whatsoever for pointing out that making bayonet lugs illegal saves no lives (that I know of) and does in fact harm the livelihood of a number of people?
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
So you have to buy a slightly different model of rifle and magazine. I mean a real world inconvenience, where you weren't able to do something because you couldn't get the gun you wanted. In other words, I want a material inconvenience rather than whining about how put out you are because the you want green pipes in your walls while the government has banned the dye used to make pipes green.
One of the firearms I own does not physically have magazines that carry under 10 rounds. They do not exist. The lowest it goes is 50. Besides the entire argument is silly, of the top 5 firearms used in the commission of crimes before the last "high capacity" ban none had a magazine capacity over 9. I think 8 was the highest.
Gallup is the oldest and one of the most respected pollsters in the country. That doesn't mean that its results are inarguably correct, especially when the difference between 44 and 52 isn't really all that large - they're both pretty close to half.
Yes, one is one of the oldest and most respected pollsters in the country showing 44% and trending down on a yearly basis. The other is an e-survey of yahoo and abc news readers. Gallup shows the majority of people (54% vs 44%) do not favor stricter gun control measures. Are you really defending an e-survey over the Gallup results?
The poll was conducted by telephone Jan. 13 to 16 among a random national sample of 1,053 adults, including users of both conventional and cellular telephones. The results have a margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
Yes, one is one of the oldest and most respected pollsters in the country showing 44% and trending down on a yearly basis. The other is an e-survey of yahoo and abc news readers. Gallup shows the majority of people (54% vs 44%) do not favor stricter gun control measures. Are you really defending an e-survey over the Gallup results?
No, there are two polls cited in the first article I linked. The one that includes the three results I quoted is a Washington Post-ABC News poll and has nothing to do with Yahoo News.
I guess what I am taking away from this is that you feel Gallups numbers are wrong, and have been for some time due to them trending downwards on a yearly basis and that ABC/Yahoo news obviously have ran a much more accurate poll also with their numbers trending downward. If that is the result you want to mentally massage the numbers to get, there is not much i can do to convince you.
Detharin, it would be great if you ever admitted that you were wrong instead of pretending you never said stuff like "It's an internet poll of news readers" and "People are saying the Democrat Party is pro-gun".
No, there are two polls cited in the first article I linked. The one that includes the three results I quoted is a Washington Post-ABC News poll and has nothing to do with Yahoo News.
So yeah, confirmation bias is go!
They were comparing their results to an ABC News-Yahoo News survey taken just before the massacre. Which is were I made the original error. Did you have anything more to add other than you feel your numbers are more accurate than Gallups? Arguing which polling data is not an discussion I am going to engage in. The numbers speak for themselves, I feel Gallup is more accurate, you disagree. Even their data is polling downwards so even if it was "almost half" in a year or two it likely will not be.
I guess what I am taking away from this is that you feel Gallups numbers are wrong, and have been for some time due to them trending downwards on a yearly basis and that ABC/Yahoo news obviously have ran a much more accurate poll also with their numbers trending downward. If that is the result you want to mentally massage the numbers to get, there is not much i can do to convince you.
I'm not disputing the accuracy of the Gallup poll results, since I have absolutely no evidence to support that.
You, on the other hand, are completely misreading an article and using the mere mention of the word "Yahoo" to assume that a completely different poll must be a highly inaccurate online poll and thus suspect, even though the statistics I cited weren't even from that poll and were from a traditional, randomized telephone survey.
So yeah, I'm the one "mentally massaging the numbers".
I would suggest that taken in the context of other polls on the issue that the Gallup poll results seem more like an outlier than a median.
What's more interesting is the disparity between support for stricter gun control laws in the abstract as opposed to support for a specific gun control law such as the Assault Weapons Ban or the specific proposed ban on high capacity magazines. While support for a generic and undefined "stricter" gun control law seems on average to garner an average of 50% support (sometimes more, sometimes less), support for those specific gun control laws is much higher overall.
This is especially interesting (well, to me) since the only actual gun control law being actively promoted by the Democratic Party is a ban on high-capacity magazines.
Detharin, it would be great if you ever admitted that you were wrong instead of pretending you never said stuff like "It's an internet poll of news readers" and "People are saying the Democrat Party is pro-gun".
I already admitted the error on who made the poll. Second Perhaps you could finally explain why they should feel comfortable now in voting Democrat despite the above examples indicating it remains part of their long term agenda. You cannot expect any voter to believe a platform of "dont worry, we do not have enough votes currently to violate your civil liberties, so vote for us so that we can have enough votes to do it!" which really is the crux of the argument. If you are not going to do that, we really do not have anything more to discuss.
Detharin, it would be great if you ever admitted that you were wrong instead of pretending you never said stuff like "It's an internet poll of news readers" and "People are saying the Democrat Party is pro-gun".
I already admitted the error on who made the poll. Second Perhaps you could finally explain why they should feel comfortable now in voting Democrat despite the above examples indicating it remains part of their long term agenda. You cannot expect any voter to believe a platform of "dont worry, we do not have enough votes currently to violate your civil liberties, so vote for us so that we can have enough votes to do it!" which really is the crux of the argument. If you are not going to do that, we really do not have anything more to discuss.
The position that you have chosen to defend is that the Dems have completely dropped anti-gun legislation from their platform, reversed course, and are now a pro gun organization.
I have challenged you twice on this, and you have failed both times to produce any evidence that anyone has claimed the Democratic Party is pro-gun. And I'm betting you'll ignore it again, but just in case it gets through this time: Show one person in this thread who has honestly said the Democratic Party is pro-gun.
Posts
Anybody wanting to own an AR-15 was inconvenienced in the slightest. A magazine restriction (which was part of the AWB) would also inconvenience me in the slightest.
Also, what I'm hearing a lot of is that the Democrats haven't said or done anything on gun control lately, and I think it's pretty obvious the reason for that is that they don't currently have the political pull to do it at the moment. As somebody who cares about the issue this doesn't impress me, because I'm quite confident that both the President and the bulk of the Democratic legislators would have no problem pushing through a new AWB, or several other significant anti-gun measures, if they knew they had the votes for it. The only thing that prevented this back when they had the majority were a handful of pro-gun Democrats in the House and Senate (and the threat of filibuster).
This. And yeah, you can lolsingleissuevoter all you want, but there are huge chunks of voters in every rural state who get pushed, at a base cultural level and from an early age, towards the Republican party by this. It turns every shooting range and every hunting trip into a damn GOP rally.
I mean, from what I can tell almost all the anti-abortion legislation and anti-gay legislation (and "legislation," since a lot of that is ballot initiatives) is happening at the state level. Why? Because Republicans have the votes to do it. Same way anti-gun legislation happens at the state level. Why? Because Democrats have the votes to do it. And while we're talking about inconveniencing in the slightest, I wanted to go shooting with a buddy the other day, being the last day before the range up here closes for a while (also potentially attributable to a Democratic official). I was thinking of buying a new .22 handgun to go plinking with. But oh, wait. Five day waiting period. Probably nothing any of you would shed any tears over, and honestly not a huge deal to me either. But I'll go ahead and file that under "inconvenienced in the slightest."
I've not bothered to do the research, but I strongly suspect that requirement wasn't put there by Republicans.
See, guns strike me as fairly unique in that "inconvenienced in the slightest" is generally treated the same as "completely and utterly banned" by single issue gun-rights people. You don't see car aficionados complaining that they can't do 120 in a school zone, or park on the sidewalk, but gun fans seem to froth at the mouth at the prospect of not being able to carry in a bar or a school or the prospect of having a waiting period or restrictions on a specific part.
It's hilarious/terrifying that the party that wants to limit who you can marry and your right to abortions, and decided that the government had the right to freely wiretap citizens, hold potential suspects without specific charges, deport brown people for not carrying papers, and torture whomever they like is the "party of freedom" because they support your right to pump hot lead out of a gun without restriction.
I think we can all agree that small hurdles put in front of potentially dangerous or harmful procurements for safety's sake isn't the worst thing in the world. We mandate testing and/or licensure for driving permits and possession of harmful substances. The five day wait on a gun isn't a revocation of rights. As you say, it's a slight inconvenience.
I'm a gun owner, but I don't think the 2nd Amendment has any inherent assumption of ease or convenience of procurement without regard to the safety of others.
Yeah, this pretty much sums up my view. Thats the great strawman Ive ever seen
Also, if the house bill is about extended clips for handgun and the like, good. We really don't need those.
But Democrats have totally dropped anti-gun legislation. Settled issue. Right.
Again, citation really fucking needed.
Trying to paint the gun control positions of the NRA as "median" and "centrist" is a nifty rhetorical trick, but it doesn't actually describe the actual median or centrist American views on gun control.
Also, discussing issues that are primarily impacted on a state level by focusing only on federal legislation is a really silly standard to use.
How's that bill doing again?
Even Dick Cheney is anti-gun! http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/cheney_okay_with_limiting_high-capacity_magazines_in_wake_of_giffords_shooting_video.php
Those damn Demo ... wait a minute.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Well, now we're venturing into gun thread territory, but I'll answer anyway: I see zero problem with requiring background checks at gun shows, provided you can also craft that legislation such that it only applies at gun shows, and not for every single fact-to-face purchase between two private parties. Which several states have, I believe, managed to do.
The previous AWB was probably the poster child for stupid, knee-jerk bullshit anti-gun legislation crafted by latte-sipping bitches who don't know fuck-all about the things they are banning, including the "shoulder things that go up" (yes, the one time ever that I rooted for Tucker Carlson). The only part of that entire law that had any potential value was the magazine capacity restriction, which I don't support but (much like Dick Cheney) I can say maybe could possibly be considered to have some value. A ringing endorsement that was, by the way. It didn't get any stronger the second time somebody linked it, either.
But yes, I realize that this forum is like 99% anti-gun echo chamber, so I'll drop it at that. Feel free to a few last-minute quips in on the matter, I don't care enough to respond. But yes, I am taking this entire line of discussion into consideration next time anybody tries to convince me that Democrats don't care about guns anymore. In that, at least, it had some real value.
The point is that it's not some huge anti-gun democrat restriction when Dick Cheney is like "yeah, it's probably not a terrible idea". Basically, how pro-gun are you demanding a group be before they aren't anti-gun?
It's only 99%.
This argument is just as stupid when you say it as when anyone else does.
You know, if you take up a position that's on the 1% fringe of an issue, you really shouldn't be that surprised that 99% of people are more moderate on that issue than you are.
It's also not unexpected on a forum full of people that (including myself) tend to lean towards the liberal. Or are we pretending that's not the case anymore as well?
EDIT: This really is like, the one issue where I break pretty far from the herd around here, and I'm more than okay with that.
Maybe there's a silent majority out there, like me. I own a gun, a very powerful and dangerous one. I don't need more than that one gun. I support legislation that will make it safer and more difficult for people with social/mental problems getting their hands on guns. I don't equate gun restriction with gun criminalization, much the same way I don't see restricting people from making booze or morphine without proper protocols as a problem.
The right to bear arms isn't the same as the right to be a dangerous asshole.
But we forgive them for being stupid, uneducated about the things they're legislating, and passing laws out of knee-jerk reactionary bullshit rather than rational basis because...well, because they're our dumbasses, and because (for most of it) it's shit we don't care about.
EDIT: But, again, you think there aren't 4,000 voters in Missouri or a couple hundred in Florida for whom this wasn't a dealbreaker? Shit to consider, when you're talking politics. I mean, unless you think there's a stream of anti-gun Democrats in San Francisco who will suddenly start voting Republican.
It's not shit to consider when discussing the supposed ideological or political views of the median American voter, though.
I've already cited one poll showing that a majority of Americans favor stricter gun control laws, with a slightly higher majority favoring the return of the high-capacity magazine ban that was one of the few positive things in the AWB.
So yeah, there are certainly some predominantly rural voters who have a single-issue focus on gun control.
They're outliers who, thanks to the lobbying efforts of the NRA, already have a disproportionate impact on federal legislation.
Plus there's the fact that the Democratic party is still more than willing (given the chance) to fuck over the half or so of the populace that, you know, thinks their plans on guns are bullshit. All for the benefit of the 10% of their party that actually gives a shit.
Also, what are we arguing here again? I'm willing to accept that the median voter doesn't care a whole lot about guns. Are you willing to accept that the Democratic party is anti-gun? Or are we still pretending they aren't, since they haven't tried to re-introduce the AWB this year? Because that's the only reason I originally came into this...the silly assertion that the Democratic really I promise for realsies doesn't care about guns. It's ludicrous.
Uh, wait, you're taking a poll that says slightly over 50% of Americans want stricter gun control laws to mean that the median voter doesn't give much of a shit about guns one way or another? That's a rather unique spin.
Also, without state-by-state polling, it's hard to tell if the states where the majority of voters do want either fewer gun control laws are in fact electorally important. Wyoming and the Dakotas are probably big on gun rights, but will never influence a national election as much as New York and California will.
This depends on defining a ban on high-capacity magazines (which, to my knowledge, is the only gun control legislation being proposed by Congressional Democrats) as both "fucking over half or so of the populace" only for the benefit of 10% of the Democratic Party. Hey, let's spin it as inconveniencing a tiny percentage of legal gun owners in order to reduce the risk that high-capacity magazines pose to every single American. Isn't framing a debate fun?
No, the median voter cares about guns enough to want stricter gun control laws. The Democratic party being "anti-gun" is 100% dependent on what you define as being "anti-gun". Such as defining efforts to ban high-capacity magazines as "re-introducing the Assault Weapons Ban."
Fun fact...the last person in Congress to actually reintroduce the AWB was a Republican.
Depends on how the poll is set up. But yes, I'd assume that a fair percentage who answer "yes" to that question don't give much of a shit, as do a fair percent that answer "no." Also, that "favor stricter gun control" number varies anywhere from 40% to 60% in recent years, depending on whether any shootings of politicians, celebrities, or schoolkids have been in the news lately. If your position on that question is largely dependent on what the nice anchorman has told you this week, and if that position changes just as quickly when a relatively short amount of time passes, then I'd say that qualifies as "don't give much of a shit." And since we're talking about 40% to 60%, that probably includes the mythical "median voter."
EDIT: Then you get into the issue of the "median voter" not even understanding what he's talking about when responding in a poll, such as not knowing the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, what an "assault weapon" is, or thinking that a barrel shroud is a "shoulder thing that goes up."
So then there's no point in trying to divine the actual will of the electorate because even if they do respond with a specific opinion, you somehow just know that said opinion is based on apathy and ignorance?
Then the entire question of "the median voter" is pointless because they're all ignorant morons.
Ah, cynicism!
No, there are still ways to measure both apathy and ignorance.
But that takes more work, and makes for shitty blurbs in USA Today articles.
And yeah, the "median voter" is an ignorant moron. Mainly because the median American is an ignorant moron.
Cynicism all up ins.
So you have to buy a slightly different model of rifle and magazine. I mean a real world inconvenience, where you weren't able to do something because you couldn't get the gun you wanted. In other words, I want a material inconvenience rather than whining about how put out you are because the you want green pipes in your walls while the government has banned the dye used to make pipes green.
I am sorry i trust Gallups numbers more than an ABC News-Yahoo News poll. You 50%+ number is inaccurate. Try 44% and dropping.
Am I a crazy gun nut in favor of no gun legislation whatsoever for pointing out that making bayonet lugs illegal saves no lives (that I know of) and does in fact harm the livelihood of a number of people?
One of the firearms I own does not physically have magazines that carry under 10 rounds. They do not exist. The lowest it goes is 50. Besides the entire argument is silly, of the top 5 firearms used in the commission of crimes before the last "high capacity" ban none had a magazine capacity over 9. I think 8 was the highest.
Poll numbers are not inaccurate simply because you think they are.
Look, a whole bunch of poll numbers, which overall shows an even split on gun control laws and a much less even split in support for the assault weapons ban.
No, there are two polls cited in the first article I linked. The one that includes the three results I quoted is a Washington Post-ABC News poll and has nothing to do with Yahoo News.
So yeah, confirmation bias is go!
They were comparing their results to an ABC News-Yahoo News survey taken just before the massacre. Which is were I made the original error. Did you have anything more to add other than you feel your numbers are more accurate than Gallups? Arguing which polling data is not an discussion I am going to engage in. The numbers speak for themselves, I feel Gallup is more accurate, you disagree. Even their data is polling downwards so even if it was "almost half" in a year or two it likely will not be.
I'm not disputing the accuracy of the Gallup poll results, since I have absolutely no evidence to support that.
You, on the other hand, are completely misreading an article and using the mere mention of the word "Yahoo" to assume that a completely different poll must be a highly inaccurate online poll and thus suspect, even though the statistics I cited weren't even from that poll and were from a traditional, randomized telephone survey.
So yeah, I'm the one "mentally massaging the numbers".
I would suggest that taken in the context of other polls on the issue that the Gallup poll results seem more like an outlier than a median.
What's more interesting is the disparity between support for stricter gun control laws in the abstract as opposed to support for a specific gun control law such as the Assault Weapons Ban or the specific proposed ban on high capacity magazines. While support for a generic and undefined "stricter" gun control law seems on average to garner an average of 50% support (sometimes more, sometimes less), support for those specific gun control laws is much higher overall.
This is especially interesting (well, to me) since the only actual gun control law being actively promoted by the Democratic Party is a ban on high-capacity magazines.
I already admitted the error on who made the poll. Second Perhaps you could finally explain why they should feel comfortable now in voting Democrat despite the above examples indicating it remains part of their long term agenda. You cannot expect any voter to believe a platform of "dont worry, we do not have enough votes currently to violate your civil liberties, so vote for us so that we can have enough votes to do it!" which really is the crux of the argument. If you are not going to do that, we really do not have anything more to discuss.