3 ms·

>despite supporting universal background checks, republicans are ideologically opposed to the type of politician that supports background checks. You don’t sou

>despite supporting universal background checks, republicans are ideologically opposed to the type of politician that supports background checks. You don’t sound like you know much on this topic. When the poll question is asked as: “Do you support background checks when purchasing a firearm to keep criminals from getting guns” the answer is high. When the question is more appropriately asked as: “Do you support the government requiring permission via an unrelated third party who has no obligation to comply before you are allowed exercise your civil rights?” A lot less support when the real question is asked. I don’t think that examples helps your argument in this case.

taurath 7y ago
You could frame a question your way and get “no” even more than the former would get a yes - at least the first example mentions firearms and background checks.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  Remind me... is it good practice to put the name of something in the actual definition of itself? You might not like it, but “universal background checks” are a tax on a right, a defecto national registry, a future ban option by simply denying all transfers of X type gun in the NICS system at any arbitrary time, and entirely unenforceable by default up until people start winding up with guns they couldn’t possibly have received legally over time, oh, and almost completely unrelated to crime as it does nothing for stolen guns, straw purchases, or existing illegal transfers which are the predominant ways criminals obtain weapons. You could also admit that no state that passed “UBC” style checks has seen a reduction in crime as an effect. I apologize for bringing facts to an emotional topic.
  - taurath 7y ago
    You're the one who seems emotional. Taxes exist on lots of rights, as do fines. Try to hold a rally in any town center without a permit. If being a gun owner who's registered not being a part of a well organized militia? Its interesting how you jump from extremely broad sweeping concepts into extremely detailed criticisms of proposals.
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      >Try to hold a rally in any town center without a permit. Nope. You are now not only misunderstanding 2A, but 1A as well. A government body can not require a fee for a protest that does not impact normal property function (traffic, police, park use) and that fee can not exceed the actual costs. Nor can a government deny an organization based on content grounds. This example is bad. If there are taxes on "lots" of other rights, and you used a poor example, I look forward to other examples to try and see your point of view. >If being a gun owner who's registered not being a part of a well organized militia? Well, because MILITIA means "any able bodied adult who can fight for defense of self or state", I am a member of the militia, and unfortunately so are you. The words you are looking for aren't "well organized" but the text of 2A is "well regulated" which according to Oxford 1800 means "Well training, in good working order". Not "lots of regulations" and not as you imply "well organized" like a milita requires a phone tree if someone's going to be out sick on war days. >Its interesting how you jump from extremely broad sweeping concepts into extremely detailed criticisms of proposals. It's interesting how when presented with ACTUAL EFFECTS of a proposal (try me on any of them and I'll school you) you chose instead to wholly believe the propaganda. Which is exactly what it is, I mean... Who could ever be against "Universal Background Checks"!? Those have to be good thing and can't possibly be a tax on a right, an avenue for defacto ban, unenforceable, and an unconstitutional restriction on the free trade of personal property covered under an explicitly enumerated right.
root_axis 7y ago
Your proposed wording is disingenuous partisan spin that encodes your own point of you into the question. Fortunately, even partisan polling organizations wouldn't waste their time with such a stilted questionnaire.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  The second wording reflects the indisputable reality of the proposal. But... please feel free to tell me why I’m mistaken. You can start with why the Federal Firearm License requirements make sense to only 1/2 deploy to citizens while preventing their access from the NICS system directly, that a citizen’s rights should be directly tied to a 4473. Then also please tell me why the compromise of the 1993/4 Brady Bill where private sales were EXPLICITLY protected in order to get the votes to pass - were only two years later called a “loophole”. I look forward to being educated on this topic.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    > reflects the indisputable reality of the proposal No, it reflects your stubborn partisan viewpoint which I'm uninterested in debating. https://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/continued-bipartisan-support-for-expanded-background-checks-on-gun-sales/8-12-2015-3-56-39-pm/ https://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/continued-bipartisan... The numbers speak for themselves. Unless you have some alternative polling data to show I am not interested.
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      >The numbers speak for themselves Except that’s exactly my point that you can’t argue. How about in Washington. I-594 required background checks. The NRA spent a lot of money fighting it - but was outspent by gun control groups over 14:1, 10:1 of that was Michael Bloomberg alone. You know results when it was actually put to a vote? 60/40. A far cry from the polling lie that 92% want mandatory background checks on all sales performed by a dealer for a fee who has no obligation to perform using a system that has no obligation to be online.

taurath 7y ago

You could frame a question your way and get “no” even more than the former would get a yes - at least the first example mentions firearms and background checks.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
Remind me... is it good practice to put the name of something in the actual definition of itself? You might not like it, but “universal background checks” are a tax on a right, a defecto national registry, a future ban option by simply denying all transfers of X type gun in the NICS system at any arbitrary time, and entirely unenforceable by default up until people start winding up with guns they couldn’t possibly have received legally over time, oh, and almost completely unrelated to crime as it does nothing for stolen guns, straw purchases, or existing illegal transfers which are the predominant ways criminals obtain weapons. You could also admit that no state that passed “UBC” style checks has seen a reduction in crime as an effect. I apologize for bringing facts to an emotional topic.
- taurath 7y ago
  You're the one who seems emotional. Taxes exist on lots of rights, as do fines. Try to hold a rally in any town center without a permit. If being a gun owner who's registered not being a part of a well organized militia? Its interesting how you jump from extremely broad sweeping concepts into extremely detailed criticisms of proposals.
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    >Try to hold a rally in any town center without a permit. Nope. You are now not only misunderstanding 2A, but 1A as well. A government body can not require a fee for a protest that does not impact normal property function (traffic, police, park use) and that fee can not exceed the actual costs. Nor can a government deny an organization based on content grounds. This example is bad. If there are taxes on "lots" of other rights, and you used a poor example, I look forward to other examples to try and see your point of view. >If being a gun owner who's registered not being a part of a well organized militia? Well, because MILITIA means "any able bodied adult who can fight for defense of self or state", I am a member of the militia, and unfortunately so are you. The words you are looking for aren't "well organized" but the text of 2A is "well regulated" which according to Oxford 1800 means "Well training, in good working order". Not "lots of regulations" and not as you imply "well organized" like a milita requires a phone tree if someone's going to be out sick on war days. >Its interesting how you jump from extremely broad sweeping concepts into extremely detailed criticisms of proposals. It's interesting how when presented with ACTUAL EFFECTS of a proposal (try me on any of them and I'll school you) you chose instead to wholly believe the propaganda. Which is exactly what it is, I mean... Who could ever be against "Universal Background Checks"!? Those have to be good thing and can't possibly be a tax on a right, an avenue for defacto ban, unenforceable, and an unconstitutional restriction on the free trade of personal property covered under an explicitly enumerated right.

root_axis 7y ago

Your proposed wording is disingenuous partisan spin that encodes your own point of you into the question. Fortunately, even partisan polling organizations wouldn't waste their time with such a stilted questionnaire.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
The second wording reflects the indisputable reality of the proposal. But... please feel free to tell me why I’m mistaken. You can start with why the Federal Firearm License requirements make sense to only 1/2 deploy to citizens while preventing their access from the NICS system directly, that a citizen’s rights should be directly tied to a 4473. Then also please tell me why the compromise of the 1993/4 Brady Bill where private sales were EXPLICITLY protected in order to get the votes to pass - were only two years later called a “loophole”. I look forward to being educated on this topic.
- root_axis 7y ago
  > reflects the indisputable reality of the proposal No, it reflects your stubborn partisan viewpoint which I'm uninterested in debating. https://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/continued-bipartisan-support-for-expanded-background-checks-on-gun-sales/8-12-2015-3-56-39-pm/ https://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/continued-bipartisan... The numbers speak for themselves. Unless you have some alternative polling data to show I am not interested.
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    >The numbers speak for themselves Except that’s exactly my point that you can’t argue. How about in Washington. I-594 required background checks. The NRA spent a lot of money fighting it - but was outspent by gun control groups over 14:1, 10:1 of that was Michael Bloomberg alone. You know results when it was actually put to a vote? 60/40. A far cry from the polling lie that 92% want mandatory background checks on all sales performed by a dealer for a fee who has no obligation to perform using a system that has no obligation to be online.