Interesting PBS poll on gun control

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And the thread fails as it's based on an online 'poll.'

 

[80zephyr]

You do understand that an assault weapons ban is "taking guns away" don't you?

I understand that you are an asshole. I understand that you suffer from irrational fear.
And I understand that the 14 guns in my house are in no danger from being taken away by anybody in government.
I understand that NO ONE who had a legal right to own a gun had their guns taken away from them since Obama was elected. I understand that Ronnie St Reagan himself was opposed to having assault weapons on the streets of America.

What I don't understand is why you gun nutters are so fucking whacked out claiming repeatedly that your guns are being taken away.from you. When you know that is a lie.

So then, a question. If Pelosi, Boxer, or Obama was suddenly made king, with unlimited power, do you believe they would take Americas guns away?

Mark

This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

Maybe. But, I am pretty sure we all know what they would do, don't we?

Mark

 

[frigidweirdo]

And the thread fails as it's based on an online 'poll.'

It just shows how the gun lobby will go get their people out to vote on anything to make themselves feel good.

 

[Iceweasel]

It just shows how the gun lobby will go get their people out to vote on anything to make themselves feel good.

PBS is a gun lobby?

 

[frigidweirdo]

It just shows how the gun lobby will go get their people out to vote on anything to make themselves feel good.

PBS is a gun lobby?

Are you really trying hard to be dense or what?

 

[The Rabbi]

You do understand that an assault weapons ban is "taking guns away" don't you?

I understand that you are an asshole. I understand that you suffer from irrational fear.
And I understand that the 14 guns in my house are in no danger from being taken away by anybody in government.
I understand that NO ONE who had a legal right to own a gun had their guns taken away from them since Obama was elected. I understand that Ronnie St Reagan himself was opposed to having assault weapons on the streets of America.

What I don't understand is why you gun nutters are so fucking whacked out claiming repeatedly that your guns are being taken away.from you. When you know that is a lie.

So then, a question. If Pelosi, Boxer, or Obama was suddenly made king, with unlimited power, do you believe they would take Americas guns away?

Mark

This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

No, it's a legitimate question.
You want to deflect because the obvious answer is Yes, they would move to confiscate guns in an instant.

 

[SwimExpert]

Gun control is the losingest issue in nationl politics. Every time the Dems try to run it, they end up losing elections.

No, balancing the budget is the losingest issue in national politics. Unfortunately. But gun control is a close second.

 

[The Rabbi]

Gun control is the losingest issue in nationl politics. Every time the Dems try to run it, they end up losing elections.

No, balancing the budget is the losingest issue in national politics. Unfortunately. But gun control is a close second.

I dont know any politician who ran on balancing the budget and lost because of it.

 

[SwimExpert]

Gun control is the losingest issue in nationl politics. Every time the Dems try to run it, they end up losing elections.

No, balancing the budget is the losingest issue in national politics. Unfortunately. But gun control is a close second.

I dont know any politician who ran on balancing the budget and lost because of it.

And that's why it's an even bigger loser. Gun control is a loser because nobody supports it. But balancing the budget is a bigger loser because those who "support" it end up abandoning it.

 

[Flash]

No, balancing the budget is the losingest issue in national politics. Unfortunately. But gun control is a close second.

That didn't keep that moron Obama and that idiot Biden from trying after Sandy Hook, did it?

 

[The Rabbi]

Gun control is the losingest issue in nationl politics. Every time the Dems try to run it, they end up losing elections.

No, balancing the budget is the losingest issue in national politics. Unfortunately. But gun control is a close second.

I dont know any politician who ran on balancing the budget and lost because of it.

And that's why it's an even bigger loser. Gun control is a loser because nobody supports it. But balancing the budget is a bigger loser because those who "support" it end up abandoning it.

Obviously people support it because politicians run on it and people vote for them.
Balancing the budget is a tough thing because it's pretty general while spending is always specific. So the constituency for this or that program is more vocal than those who want balance.

 

[SwimExpert]

Gun control is the losingest issue in nationl politics. Every time the Dems try to run it, they end up losing elections.

No, balancing the budget is the losingest issue in national politics. Unfortunately. But gun control is a close second.

I dont know any politician who ran on balancing the budget and lost because of it.

And that's why it's an even bigger loser. Gun control is a loser because nobody supports it. But balancing the budget is a bigger loser because those who "support" it end up abandoning it.

Obviously people support it because politicians run on it and people vote for them.
Balancing the budget is a tough thing because it's pretty general while spending is always specific. So the constituency for this or that program is more vocal than those who want balance.

So which is a bigger loser? An issue that has virtually no support? Or an issue that has substantial support, but still can't find a way to fruition?

 

[The Rabbi]

Gun control is the losingest issue in nationl politics. Every time the Dems try to run it, they end up losing elections.

No, balancing the budget is the losingest issue in national politics. Unfortunately. But gun control is a close second.

I dont know any politician who ran on balancing the budget and lost because of it.

And that's why it's an even bigger loser. Gun control is a loser because nobody supports it. But balancing the budget is a bigger loser because those who "support" it end up abandoning it.

Obviously people support it because politicians run on it and people vote for them.
Balancing the budget is a tough thing because it's pretty general while spending is always specific. So the constituency for this or that program is more vocal than those who want balance.

So which is a bigger loser? An issue that has virtually no support? Or an issue that has substantial support, but still can't find a way to fruition?

An issue that politicians who support it find themselves out of a job because of that support. That would be gun control.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Looks like Liberal PBS didn't get the answer they were looking for.

Poll Would you support more restrictive gun laws in your state PBS NewsHour

Yes. Increased regulations on firearms are necessary to prevent another tragedy like the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary. 6.52% (1,906 votes)

No. Laws like this unnecessarily punish lawful gun owners and will do little to prevent mass shootings. 92.48% (27,020 votes)

Unsure. It's important to keep the weapons out of the wrong hands, but this may not be the solution. 0.99% (290 votes.

This doesn't make any sense.

There is not one single leftist that is against the 2nd amendment.
pbs is a leftist mouth piece
Therefore the only conclusion is that a group of Constitution supporting Americans told all their friends to vote in this poll as many times as possible.

Leftist hate the Constitution and really hate the 2nd, so the poll is bs

hate? you do know an awfully lot about hatred

leftist display it here everyday

so yea, I see a lot of it

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Looks like Liberal PBS didn't get the answer they were looking for.

Poll Would you support more restrictive gun laws in your state PBS NewsHour

Yes. Increased regulations on firearms are necessary to prevent another tragedy like the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary. 6.52% (1,906 votes)

No. Laws like this unnecessarily punish lawful gun owners and will do little to prevent mass shootings. 92.48% (27,020 votes)

Unsure. It's important to keep the weapons out of the wrong hands, but this may not be the solution. 0.99% (290 votes.

This doesn't make any sense.

There is not one single leftist that is against the 2nd amendment.
pbs is a leftist mouth piece
Therefore the only conclusion is that a group of Constitution supporting Americans told all their friends to vote in this poll as many times as possible.

Leftist hate the Constitution and really hate the 2nd, so the poll is bs

hate? you do know an awfully lot about hatred

leftist display it here everyday

so yea, I see a lot of it

terrible --



to live in such a small world

 

[The2ndAmendment]

That'll teach them for not using trickery and double talk in their poll question.

I think they asked this as plain as possible in order to get a straight answer from the American public. They themselves (the politicians) wanted to know whether or not "gun control" is a landslide winning or landslide losing issue.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Gun control is a loser as far as political issues go. That is why nobody runs on it and that is why no extreme gun control measures are going to be signed into law.

Which begs the question: Why are nutters so obsessed with the issue?

You answered your own question. Although there are no "extreme" measures being signed into law (except New York Safe Act), there are the yearly incremental measures being signed into law. When accumulated over several decades they add up to a very extreme measure.

And they will keep accumulating.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That'll teach them for not using trickery and double talk in their poll question.

I think they asked this as plain as possible in order to get a straight answer from the American public. They themselves (the politicians) wanted to know whether or not "gun control" is a landslide winning or landslide losing issue.

"The politicians" didn't ask anything, the NPR website did.

And they did it for the Web traffic, not because they give any credence to the results.

 

[jon_berzerk]

If Bushmaster decides to fight this in court what happens?

The MSM gets to display the faces of 20 innocent children and a beloved school teacher to the nation for weeks on end. It can show the grief stricken parents, how they are coping with the loss of their children, interviews with siblings, etc, etc.

Explain how that is going to help the firearms industry and the NRA in the perception of the public.

Smart attorneys will advise Bushmaster to agree to a sealed settlement. The alternative is a PR nightmare.

You are basically saying the media runs the country. Bushmaster followed the "smart" attorney's advice with the DC sniper case and now they're in the crosshairs again. And will be every time some lawyer decides to milk the cash cow.

It a good argument for reform, it's wrong for an innocent party to have to pay and it would cut a lot of this crap out. But of course lawyers write the laws.

between the 2002 sniper case and now they have a buffer

a law that limits liability

they should fight it

Partisan laws like that will be tested for constitutionality. The precedent for manufacturer liability has been proven in the courts on countless occasions. Trying to exempt a single industry will fail because it must either apply to all or none.

The precedent for manufacturer liability

for products that fail

now if the bushmaster was blowing up in peoples faces

then there maybe a liability suit

certainly not for some whack job going crazy with one

 

[Two Thumbs]

That'll teach them for not using trickery and double talk in their poll question.

I think they asked this as plain as possible in order to get a straight answer from the American public. They themselves (the politicians) wanted to know whether or not "gun control" is a landslide winning or landslide losing issue.

"The politicians" didn't ask anything, the NPR website did.

And they did it for the Web traffic, not because they give any credence to the results.

are you truly saying that they wouldn't have trumpeted it had it gone the other way?