From a Quinnipiac University survey.
92% of respondents support expanding background checks to all gun sales. In households with guns, support was 91%.
I think GOP lawmakers better think long and hard about how they will vote on the background checks bill. They were quite tone deaf in the last election and that really didn't work out very well for them, did it?
11 comments:
What is the Constitutional basis for requiring universal background checks? Under what power can Congress enact this law?
I don't care if you and 99% of this country are too fucking ignorant to understand the question - the question is legitimate.
The problem I have in discussing Constitutional issues with folks like you, juris, is the same one I have in discussing the Bible. Your interpretation is the correct one and everyone else can fuck off. No thanks.
Perhaps we ought to do away with background checks all together, eh?
NMN-
You begin with your hubris (as most right wing douches do) by assuming that all liberals are naive idiots. That's why you asked the questions the way you did. Take the Constitution question, for example. If I answer "yes," you can then proceed on to the next phase of your trollness and "show me" how all the laws that liberals have passed violate the Constitution (gun laws, health care etc). By answering "no" (and one can, given how you worded the question), you can then accuse me of being a traitor or some other bit of psychotic nonsense. Of course, what's interesting here is how someone who believes so strongly in state's rights is taking such an absolutist position on federal power. What happened? But I really don't think you've thought it through that much. Nor have you likely thought about how things like a photo ID law or laws against gay marriage (two laws you do support) are in violation of the document that is absolute law, given the nature of those laws. So, your contention that the Constitution is absolute law rings completely hollow considering your previously stated ideology. That's why answering this question leads to more madness.
It's the same thing with Joe Biden (a Fox news like characterization of his statements), the tyranny question (any answer allows you to continue your trollness, recently proven when I gave you a percentage of the chances that tyranny would happen here), the false-truth question (again, I recently heard a 10 year old ask this question), the God telling humans to write question (framing, baiting, sophomoric and already answered), the militia question (dishonest and out of context as you left out the part about the federal government training militias), the parent-child question (again, dishonest with gotcha elements), the faith question (obvious and you are just being obnoxious here), the registration question (dishonest, half truths, panic mongering) and the ER question (I answer that we have to treat everyone, you say it's really the government's fault, then, I ask you if you would let people die, you ignore that and then spout latin or some dime store logic and the madness continues). Sadly, I have no doubt that even this engagement will perpetuate the psychosis.
Of course, the main reason why I won't answer your questions is because you're an asshole. You don't really want to have a serious debate on this stuff so you act like a 12 year old and frame the questions in a very childishly dishonest way. Everything is geared towards a "win" via semantics and traps. But that's what you conservatives are all about these days because you don't have anything to stand behind of your own. It's all about commentary or dissent...dysentery, if you will:)
You refuse to elaborate on your own questions and continue to answer my questions with more questions. That's why cowardly dickheads do, NMN. Usually, I don't go in for such personal and pointed statements directed at one person but it really does seem to matter to you what I think and write so now you and all the imaginary people that you think read the comments section (and are hoping to sway into the bubble) know where I am at.
All of this could change, however, if you do, NMN. No Boaz's 14 points.No answering questions with more questions. No more obsession with yours truly.
The question in the poll was 38. Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers? .
This is misleading. The more accurate question would be:
Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers knowing that they would be effectively worthless unless accompanied by nationwide gun registration?
The problem I have in discussing Constitutional issues with folks like you, juris, is the same one I have in discussing the Bible. Your interpretation is the correct one and everyone else can fuck off. No thanks.
Words mean things Mark. You have been absolutely schooled by NMN in what the bible says - so you ran off as soon as your bullshit was shown to be bullshit. Same same with the constitution. Besides, how could we possibly know what YOUR definition is WHEN YOU WON'T FUCKING ANSWER BASIC QUESTIONS DEALING WITH THE FUNDAMENTALS OF AN ISSUE????
Now your spiel blaming NMN for being childish is just..... childish.
You are intellectually bankrupt and will not defend your own argument. That is the take away of not only what NMN says - but from YOUR OWN WORDS AND DEEDS.
Your interpretation is the correct one and everyone else can fuck off.
No, I'm asking - what is the authorization? Or would you say there are NO limits to Congressional power? I rather suspect that is what you believe - at least when your fucking party has power. When the conservatives are in power - well, then, the Constitution imposes all kinds of limits on them, doesn't it?
Prove me wrong - that you aren't just a partisan whore - and describe some principles involved here.
And I'm not the one who has a problem with the Bible - you are.
The problem I have in discussing Constitutional issues with folks like you, juris, is the same one I have in discussing the Bible. Your interpretation is the correct one and everyone else can fuck off. No thanks.
We could say the exact same thing:
"The problem I have in discussing Constitutional issues with folks like you, Markadelphia, is the same one I have in discussing the Bible. Your interpretation is the correct one and everyone else can **** off."
The big difference? We can point to what the guys who wrote the Constitution said about their reasoning. We can point to dictionary definitions about the meanings of words. We can give rational, evidence based arguments in favor of our positions. We can answer questions you ask of us. (Though I sometimes choose use the Socratic Method in response to loaded questions.)
You won't. Or can't. (Doesn't matter. The result is the same.)
(Note: At least one of the questions I keep asking Mark was to establish basic facts with Mark which was necessary as part of an answer to a question Mark asked which I wanted to answer. But by refusing to agree to basic facts, Mark frequently makes it impossible to give appropriate answers. See Juris' question about the Constitutional basis and Mark's response to it.
After a quick search: Oh, right. It's the oldest question in the list.
What makes you think God is UNABLE to do what mere humans can do—get someone to write what they want written (ghostwriting)? (125 days and counting — actually more than a year, but I'm limiting the count to this specific wording.)
Remember this? I'm actually quite anxious to give a detailed explanation of how salvation does work, but A) it's off topic, and B) it's pointless to look at what God's Word has to say without first establishing that it is God's Word.)
You have been absolutely schooled by NMN in what the bible says
Ah, GD...usually when someone has to say this, it means the opposite is true:) It's not a surprise, really, given how insecure you and NMN are in your views. Hence, the repeated refusals to leave the bubble of the comments section of a blog. Now that I think about it, though, isn't that really all you guys have left? With your radical and somewhat dangerous views, you'll never be in charge of anything again. I feel fortunate to be able to provide you with a place where you can pretend to feel superior in your ever shrinking world:)
And I think it's time we dispensed with the Bible issue once and for all. I think it's possible that I am wrong about the Bible. I think it's possible that NMN is wrong about the Bible. He, however thinks he is 100 percent accurate and I am wrong (at least, that's what he says on here. I suspect otherwise:)) which makes his question about God and man writing the Bible quite pedestrian.
The problem isn't on the God side. It's on the man side:)
The problem isn't on the God side. It's on the man side:)
That much is true.
You said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;
above the stars of God
I will set my throne on high;
I will sit on the mount of assembly
in the far reaches of the north;
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.’
— Isaiah 14:13–14
In case you missed my point, that is what YOU do.
And I think it's time we dispensed with the Bible issue once and for all.
Words Mean Things, Mark. And not whatever meaning you invent, but the generally agreed upon meanings reflected in dictionaries.
Oh, I forgot, that's Standard Response #8:
The "Humpty Dumpty" response. He simply asserts that your words mean what he says they mean. Thus, no matter what you write, it means that he is correct. This is also known as the "We don't need no stinking dictionary!" response.
Maybe we just start treating YOUR words like YOU treat words:
usually when someone has to say this, it means the opposite is true
Why don't you like good barbeque?!? There's nothing better than a hunk of pork smoked for hours and hours slathered with an excellent spicy sweet barbeque sauce with a side of fresh cole slaw. It's delicious!
As I said in my previous comment, it's possible, being the flawed human that I am, that I am wrong about the Bible. It's also possible that you are wrong, NMN. And it's possible that the people who wrote the Bible were wrong about more things than time has shown them to be. Now, you don't have a problem pointing out that I could be wrong. In fact, you insist that I am. Yet, those last two...well...we do have a problem with that, don't we?
It is possible that you are wrong about the Bible?
Is it possible that the people who wrote the Bible are wrong about more things than history has shown to be?
Oh hey, funny how that happens...
What Happens When You Poll Real Gun Owners?
Background checks were also unpopular with those surveyed. Results show that two-thirds of respondents oppose background checks on private gun sales – even if the government was required to destroy all records of the background checks.
Background checks were also unpopular with those surveyed. Results show that two-thirds of respondents oppose background checks on private gun sales – even if the government was required to destroy all records of the background checks.
Post a Comment