siggie, your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance. I am not debating you. I am correcting you. I am not doing it for your benefit. I am doing it for the benefit of any reader who might make the mistake of believing you know what you are talking about.
You write, "I suspect that since you read something..." If I had only read one study of the subject, that would still be one more than you have ever read, but I happen to have made a study of it. On the other hand, you also began your original statement with the same silly phrase, "I suspect..." and now you wonder why your opinions are automatically dismissed! An opinion is only worth something when the opiner actually knows something about the subject. Since you know nothing about the subject your opinion is as worthless as your suspicions.
"The 2nd amendment says "WELL REGULATED" The founding fathers failed to define that." And the second clause of the second amendment says "shall not be infringed", but I notice very few people have that figured out.
Secondly, there is no need for a background check for a job. I got my last job w/out even so much as an employment application being submitted.
Lastly, polls are good for whomever commissions them. I do not believe that anywhere near 90% of the US populace believes we should have "enhanced" background checks for the purchase of buying firearms. When a background check fails to stop the next shooting, who or what will be your bogeyman?
MDT: Clean your own shotguns. I clean mine. (The only guns I own.)
Your 3rd influence "who is asking the question" was covered in "how the question was worded".
As to random sampling, I took several statistics classes in college and am well aware of the requirements of a "valid" poll. Do you think Bob was referencing a scientific poll?
I probably agree with most of what you say on guns. My problem is with the 'big government' types gradually yet relentlessly taking away our freedoms.
Oh and one more thing Siggie, in your first comment you said... "Polls are heavily influenced by two things. How the question is worded and how the question is interpreted." That is correct, you failed to mention a third, polls are also influenced by who is asking the question. A fourth would be is it random or not, that is why the online poll you cited is not really valid since it was not a "random sampling of voters"
Ok Siggie HERE is my position on guns since you apparently KNOW my position, I think that yes, you should get a background check on the sales of guns, retail, gun shows whatever. I NEED to get a background check to get a JOB, sometimes to access housing or whatever, so why should someone not need one when purchasing something that can blow my head off? Whats the problem if they have nothing to hide? What are they afraid of? The 2nd amendment says "WELL REGULATED" The founding fathers failed to define that. If we consider weapons available at the time, then we should all only be allowed muskets. I think the purchaser of the guns should pay for the background check. Why should I as a taxpayer pay for that background check? Can we AGREE that taxes are high enough?? As far as the cry that you shouldn't have to pay to access a right, well many on the right want Picture IDs for voting, and expect someone to pay to get an ID to use that right, whats the difference? As far as clip size, it really doesn't matter to me, if you need 20 rounds to hunt an elk, that doesn't make someone a bad person or a threat to me, just makes them a lousy sport hunter and maybe they should change hobbies, I seriously doubt that limiting rounds is going to make much difference in the large scheme of things, so I would not be in favor of that. As far as assault weapons, I really don't take a position on that, I don't see the thrill, but it doesn't matter to me. But maybe we SHOULD allow tanks and bazookas too, following the logic of gun advocates. The thing we ALL need to agree on is where the line is, at least we need to agree to disagree.
So, I think we disagree on needing background checks, and most likely agree that bans on assault weapons and rounds is not going to do much so why bother. Can we agree that everyone should have tanks and bazookas too? Know where I can buy one? I will be glad to get a background check and I will even pay for it. Why don't you come over and help me clean my shotguns, its way over due!!
MDT: stuck in the middle? Doubtful. You state "...never said what position I take." I believe you are making it quite clear.
And for clarification ...... As a Libertarian, I decry the loss of rights regardless of which party is responsible.
Funny you should mention "women's rights". I suspect you mean abortion? Is that a right? Before you get all 'high and mighty' and begin your lecture, I take the libertarian position on abortion. I have stated my opinion on the subject many times. 1st tri: okay. 2nd tri: subject to reasonable discussion. 3rd tri - only in the most extreme cases.
Siggie, Typical name calling when you can not talk with intelligence........yes erosion of rights, womens rights by the religious right, unlawful wiretaps and loss of rights in the Patriot Act as done by the Bush administration, rights of other religions other than christian.... the list can go on from both the LEFT and the RIGHT. Its HELL being stuck in the MIDDLE with all of you. LEAN TO THE LEFT, LEAN TO THE RIGHT, STAND UP, SIT DOWN, FIGHT!FIGHT!FIGHT!
What a silly little man you are K. I hold only opinions and you hold only the truth?
I'll stick with your question - "How would you know."
I suspect that since you read something (no doubt written by one of your extremely liberal scholars), it is automatically true. You have proven yourself quite foolish and yet you seem to think you are something special.
On second thought, tech is too much for you, maybe you can engage the illiterate fat girls from the utility.
siggie, perhaps I am not interested in the topic of the federal government. Perhaps I am only interested in the historical topic, and in correcting the misinformation you gleefully spread.
To that end, I take issue with your characterization of my comments as my "highly prejudiced opinion on history." How would you know? In fact, your original comment begins, "I suspect that..." In other words, you are speculating. You speculate because you do not know. Since you do not know, you cannot demonstrate my remarks are erroneous or exaggerated.
I have studied the history, so, I do happen to know the truth. Nevertheless, since you are not interested in the truth, but only in "winning" the "argument" against a "liberal," you engage in the kind of trash talk more suitable for professional wrestling than a debate.
K: instead of cherry picking a specific in my comment and giving your highly prejudiced opinion on history, why don't you discuss the real issue? That is, the systematic erosion of our rights by the federal government. Perhaps you believe that the American people have too many rights and there should be more government control. Perhaps you believe, as Obama does, that the government is the answer to all things. Perhaps you fail to recognize that as the federal government gets bigger the rights of the American people get smaller. Perhaps you should go back to playing with tejontech. The problem is that he refuses to engage, unless you want to talk about religion.
siggie, the German people, like other Europeans, did not have any rights to begin with. America, was the first nation in history to begin its life with a definition of the rights to which its citizens were entitled. The German people had to fight tooth and nail against an entrenched aristocracy for every right they now enjoy. Far from being asleep during the Nazi takeover, the citizens overwhelmingly voted them into power with their eyes wide open, although, to be fair, they had been driven to despair by their collapsing economy.
Siggie, not speaking for anyone,never said what position I take, just if you ask for sources you should provide some, and you did, just outdated sources. But if you are speaking of current events, you should provide some CURRENT sources.
MDT: Since you seem to be speaking for Bob, all I can say is - you made my point.
Info wars poll is from Oct 2011, not very recent in light of recent events, CBS report is from 2010, new american is same poll as infowars poll, citing a gallup poll, the blaze poll is an online poll and fails at the test of a true scientific poll, mitchell poll is at least fairly current Jan 2013. The Rasmussen cherry picks to fill their agenda. At least you tried and did cite your sources siggie.
The point is --- any poll can say anything the pollster wants it to say.
Give 'em an inch and they will take a mile. Be very wary of any erosion of your rights. I suspect that the trusting Germans allowed their rights to slowly, but systematically be taken from them. When they awoke, Hitler had established a Facist state.
A brief internet search led me to the following report to gun control polls...
In fairness if siggie is going to ask where Bob has been looking for polls in favor of eroding 2nd ammendment rights, it is fair to ask siggie if he also can provide links to the "five that counter the claim." Both are entitled to their opinions, however if they are going to state "facts" it is fair to ask for their sources.
No surprise here. The Indy, in its untiring effort to be balanced, published three anti gun letters and no letters supporting the second amendment.
Mr. Sprenkle indicates that all the polls he has seen show 78% to 98% in favor of eroding 2nd amendment rights. Golly Bob, where have you been looking?
For every phony poll you put up showing support for the systematic erosion of our rights, I can put up five that counter the claim.
Polls are heavily influenced by two things. How the question is worded and how the question is interpreted.
stacy in WP: Loved your response to Miz Addy. It sounded just like something I would say.
Addy Hansen, a "highly intellegent person" doesn't need to say they are a highly intellegent person. Also, a highly intellegent person wouldn't follow the word "understand" with the word "know" in the same sentence as if they were different. In order for one to "understand", one would ipso facto already "know" as that is part of the definition of "understand".
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation