4 ms·

Your proposed wording is disingenuous partisan spin that encodes your own point of you into the question. Fortunately, even partisan polling organizations would

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.

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.