Interesting PBS poll on gun control

[Derideo_Te]

So the NRA had trusted members like you all (how many times did the OP complete the poll) take this poll over and over and over to skew the results and make you all proud to be Americans. LMAO.

32k out of 34k Americans all agreeing on this issue eh.

You all do know that there is no monitoring of how many times someone answers the question. Right?

Did you notice that the poll was conducted by PBS? Did you know that their audience is 90% Liberal?

In which case how do you explain the results being the extreme opposite of "90% liberal"?

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Guess what. A poll like this is absolutely worthless. Any basic Stats course will tell you that.

Dick Cheney Shows How Low We Can Go
Michael Cohen, Boston Globe

• I Am Not Sorry the CIA Waterboarded
  Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal

• Get Ready for the Obama Boomlet
  Peter Beinart, The Atlantic

• Democrats' Southern Exposure
  Noemie Emery, Washington Examiner

• Hillary Clinton for Supreme Court Justice!
  Mike McCurry, RCP

See All Commentary & News Stories


Bloomberg 12/3 - 12/5 753 LV 46 33 Clinton +13
Quinnipiac 11/18 - 11/23 1623 RV 48 37 Clinton +11
Rasmussen Reports 6/14 - 6/15 1000 LV 50 37 Clinton +13
McClatchy/Marist 4/7 - 4/10 518 RV 54 39 Clinton +15
PPP (D) 3/6 - 3/9 1152 RV 51 40 Clinton +11
FOX News 3/2 - 3/4 1002 RV 52 36 Clinton +16
McClatchy/Marist 2/4 - 2/9 490 RV 56 39 Clinton +17
PPP (D) 1/23 - 1/26 845 RV 47 41 Clinton +6
Quinnipiac 1/15 - 1/19 1933 RV 50 35 Clinton +15
CNN/Opinion Research 12/16 - 12/19 950 RV 57 39 Clinton +18
PPP (D) 12/12 - 12/15 1316 RV 49 41 Clinton +8
Quinnipiac 12/3 - 12/9 2692 RV 50 37 Clinton +13
McClatchy/Marist 12/3 - 12/5 497 RV 57 35 Clinton +22
Quinnipiac 11/6 - 11/11 2545 RV 51 36 Clinton +15
PPP (D) 10/29 - 10/31 649 RV 50 33 Clinton +17
Quinnipiac 9/23 - 9/29 1497 RV 54 31 Clinton +23
Monmouth 7/25 - 7/30 850 RV 48 32 Clinton +16


Pretty much...

 

[Ernie S.]

So the NRA had trusted members like you all (how many times did the OP complete the poll) take this poll over and over and over to skew the results and make you all proud to be Americans. LMAO.

32k out of 34k Americans all agreeing on this issue eh.

You all do know that there is no monitoring of how many times someone answers the question. Right?

Did you notice that the poll was conducted by PBS? Did you know that their audience is 90% Liberal?

In which case how do you explain the results being the extreme opposite of "90% liberal"?

It's the way people feel. If you think a PBS poll is going to be noticed by such an overwhelmingly "Conservative" group in order to skew the results so far, there is no hope for you.

 

[Flash]

. Very few oppose it but would like it streamlined. I've waited up to three days for some federal drone to rubberstamp the transaction.

I oppose all background checks.

It is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and it is not legal that the government give permission to enjoy a right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

A background check also assumes you are guilty until proven innocent by the government and that is also against the Bill of Rights.

If we allow the government (led by assholes like Obama) to be the decider of what rights we can enjoy then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the paper it is written on.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So the NRA had trusted members like you all (how many times did the OP complete the poll) take this poll over and over and over to skew the results and make you all proud to be Americans. LMAO.

32k out of 34k Americans all agreeing on this issue eh.

You all do know that there is no monitoring of how many times someone answers the question. Right?

Did you notice that the poll was conducted by PBS? Did you know that their audience is 90% Liberal?

In which case how do you explain the results being the extreme opposite of "90% liberal"?

It's the way people feel. If you think a PBS poll is going to be noticed by such an overwhelmingly "Conservative" group in order to skew the results so far, there is no hope for you.

You don't see the cognitive dissonance in your posts? You accuse PBS of being "90% Liberal" and then you believe that 95% of the respondents support the exact opposite position?

Did you even bother to do any research for yourself as to what might be the cause of this massive discrepancy?

Of course you didn't because if you had you would have discovered literally thousands of links to gun fetish forums telling their members to go and skew the results by voting in that PBS poll.

Only reason I am not providing you with the links to those gun fetish sites is because that violates USMB rules but if you don't believe me I will send them to you via PM instead.

It is an online poll that has zero value because it was effectively swamped by gun fetishists.

 

[Flash]

You don't see the cognitive dissonance in your posts? You accuse PBS of being "90% Liberal" and then you believe that 95% of the respondents support the exact opposite position?

Did you even bother to do any research for yourself as to what might be the cause of this massive discrepancy?

Of course you didn't because if you had you would have discovered literally thousands of links to gun fetish forums telling their members to go and skew the results by voting in that PBS poll.

Only reason I am not providing you with the links to those gun fetish sites is because that violates USMB rules but if you don't believe me I will send them to you via PM instead.

It is an online poll that has zero value because it was effectively swamped by gun fetishists.

I think the only thing really said was that the poll didn't give the Lib pukes at PBS the answer they were looking for.

If the Moonbats on some crappyt Left Wing forum like Democratunderground would have seen the poll first they would have swamped it with votes from the anti gun nuts.

I think the poll is worthless but it is amusing since it backfired on the Libs at PBS..

 

[Ernie S.]

So the NRA had trusted members like you all (how many times did the OP complete the poll) take this poll over and over and over to skew the results and make you all proud to be Americans. LMAO.

32k out of 34k Americans all agreeing on this issue eh.

You all do know that there is no monitoring of how many times someone answers the question. Right?

Did you notice that the poll was conducted by PBS? Did you know that their audience is 90% Liberal?

In which case how do you explain the results being the extreme opposite of "90% liberal"?

It's the way people feel. If you think a PBS poll is going to be noticed by such an overwhelmingly "Conservative" group in order to skew the results so far, there is no hope for you.

You don't see the cognitive dissonance in your posts? You accuse PBS of being "90% Liberal" and then you believe that 95% of the respondents support the exact opposite position?

Did you even bother to do any research for yourself as to what might be the cause of this massive discrepancy?

Of course you didn't because if you had you would have discovered literally thousands of links to gun fetish forums telling their members to go and skew the results by voting in that PBS poll.

Only reason I am not providing you with the links to those gun fetish sites is because that violates USMB rules but if you don't believe me I will send them to you via PM instead.

It is an online poll that has zero value because it was effectively swamped by gun fetishists.

I believe that 95% of the people polled on a PBS poll support the 2nd Amendment. No dissonance, no argument. Interestingly, your Liberal friends will point fingers at polls conducted by FOX News and call them bogus because of their audience, but now, when a poll conducted by a Liberal Media group comes up with results you didn't expect, you're so baffled you resort to words like fetish. How typically Liberal.

 

[Dante]

If only some of the gun-nuts here knew how many 'liberals' support firearms ownership

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

why don't you start a poll for libernuts who will vote a YES or NO on gun control AND believe in the Second Amendment as written without parsing it to pieces.

what world do you live in? start a poll and see how many other people live in that world

 

[peach174]

More than just conservatives are against gun control.
Attacking the polls (a well known political trick from both sides) is not going to change the facts.
All of the polls support more gun ownership
How current events might play into America s shift in favor of gun rights - Yahoo News
For the first time, a Pew survey found more support for gun ownership than gun control among Americans.
48% Pew
The shift in views makes for grim reading for gun control advocates, who, according to Pew, have lost support among every demographic except Hispanics and liberal Democrats.
Among African-Americans, Pew found a dramatic shift in opinion. A majority of blacks, 54 percent, now say gun ownership does more to protect people than to endanger personal safety. Two years ago, only 29 percent of black Americans held that view.

58% Rassmussen
53 Oppose Stricter Gun Control Laws - Rasmussen Reports trade
Gallup 73% Handguns Should Not Be Banned
53 Oppose Stricter Gun Control Laws - Rasmussen Reports trade

 

[Dante]

If only some of the gun-nuts here knew how many 'liberals' support firearms ownership

And who themselves own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, and defend the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

yep

 

[Dante]

If only some of the gun-nuts here knew how many 'liberals' support firearms ownership

And who themselves own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, and defend the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Typically those assholes run something like this:
"I'm a gun owner. I'm pro 2A. My guns arent a problem. But I support restrictions on those whackos who want <fill in the blank>
Those people are assholes and anti-gun. And that describes most liberal gun owners.

why do you get out of bed every day? just wonderin'

 

[The Rabbi]

If only some of the gun-nuts here knew how many 'liberals' support firearms ownership

And who themselves own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, and defend the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Typically those assholes run something like this:
"I'm a gun owner. I'm pro 2A. My guns arent a problem. But I support restrictions on those whackos who want <fill in the blank>
Those people are assholes and anti-gun. And that describes most liberal gun owners.

why do you get out of bed every day? just wonderin'

So I can pound ignorant assholes like you down into the ground. Happens every day.

 

[Dante]

If only some of the gun-nuts here knew how many 'liberals' support firearms ownership

And who themselves own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, and defend the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Typically those assholes run something like this:
"I'm a gun owner. I'm pro 2A. My guns arent a problem. But I support restrictions on those whackos who want <fill in the blank>
Those people are assholes and anti-gun. And that describes most liberal gun owners.

why do you get out of bed every day? just wonderin'

So I can pound ignorant assholes like you down into the ground. Happens every day.

Why aren't you off fighting in a righteous war instead of wasting your manly talents on an anonymous internet message board?

 

[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

 

[Dante]

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

 

[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 ******* 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

 

[80zephyr]

Anyone can sue anybody over anything at all. That is what America so great, dontcha know?

Gun manufacturers make dangerous products that don't come with safety stickers all over them like every other product that can injure and kill people.

Isn't the whole purpose of guns to defend the rights of the people?

Why do you want to deny these people their god given right to sue whomever they like?

Fine they can file their lawsuit.


Bushmaster should NOT Be required to respond or hire an attorney to defend itself.


.

Loser pays the winner's legal expenses would stop a lot of frivolous lawsuits.

Doesn't work that way in this nation. Both sides pay their own costs and can ask the judge to rule that they be compensated. However most lawsuits are settled out of court and each side picks up their own costs.

Bushmaster is stuck between a rock and a hard place with this one. It has a precedent of settling which makes it hard to stand it's ground in this instance because that question will have to be answered and that is not an answer that will reflect well on Bushmaster. The public sentiment is with the plaintiffs irrespective of the merits of their case. If Bushmaster tries to contest this case it risks not only bad publicity for itself but for the entire gun manufacturing industry. And if it loses then it sets a really bad precedent for the industry. From Bushmaster's POV this is a lose-lose scenario. The smart move is to settle and have the settlement sealed.

No, the smart move is to fight it or they'll be on the hook every time someone misuses their product. Even Michael Jackson came to understand you have to fight these assholes or the lawsuits will never stop. I'm sure Bushmaster has attorneys who are smarter than you which I estimate to be not very difficult.

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.

There will be no settlement. The law is quite clear in this case. It is a frivolous lawsuit. End of story.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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.

Back that up. And don't use settlements outside of court as "evidence".

Was BP held directly liable? How about Exxon?

How about drug manufacturers?

Alabama Supreme Court Holds Again That Plaintiffs Who Use Generic Drugs Can Recover From Brand-Name Manufacturers

Interesting case because the original brand manufacturer is being held held for a misrepresentation of what ended up in a generic drug.

The courts hold car manufacturers liable for defective products even if they didn't actually make the part that failed.

No industry is exempt except for the firearms. There are no legal grounds for exempting an entire industry from litigation.

When you look at this from the SCOTUS viewpoint they have to decide if Congress has the power to exclude an industry from the law. The 3rd branch of government takes a very dim view of any infringement on it's own powers. In my opinion the SCOTUS will rule this law unconstitutional since Congress does not have the power to exempt industries from being subject to the law of the land.

And? Gun manufacturers have been sued for defective guns. In this case, the gun WAS NOT defective and worked as advertised.

So, the firearms industry is not exempt from those regulations.

Should Ford be held liable if some nut jumps a curb and kills 20 schoolkids with one of their pickups?

Mark

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Back that up. And don't use settlements outside of court as "evidence".

Was BP held directly liable? How about Exxon?

How about drug manufacturers?

Alabama Supreme Court Holds Again That Plaintiffs Who Use Generic Drugs Can Recover From Brand-Name Manufacturers

Interesting case because the original brand manufacturer is being held held for a misrepresentation of what ended up in a generic drug.

The courts hold car manufacturers liable for defective products even if they didn't actually make the part that failed.

No industry is exempt except for the firearms. There are no legal grounds for exempting an entire industry from litigation.

When you look at this from the SCOTUS viewpoint they have to decide if Congress has the power to exclude an industry from the law. The 3rd branch of government takes a very dim view of any infringement on it's own powers. In my opinion the SCOTUS will rule this law unconstitutional since Congress does not have the power to exempt industries from being subject to the law of the land.

And? Gun manufacturers have been sued for defective guns. In this case, the gun WAS NOT defective and worked as advertised.

So, the firearms industry is not exempt from those regulations.

Should Ford be held liable if some nut jumps a curb and kills 20 schoolkids with one of their pickups?

Mark

I't s an idiotic argument. The gun worked perfectly. Bushmaster did everything legally and by the book. But they had no control over Adam Lanza and where he pointed his stolen gun.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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 ******* 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.