Second Amendment

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


The proof is in my reply to macman above. Where is yours?




posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I do love showing your BS for what is it. So, lets continue, shall we?


Originally posted by TheFlash

www.reuters.com...


The poll surveyed 1,772 registered voters from January 30 to February 4

Yep, a full snapshot of what "the people want".




Originally posted by TheFlash
www.cbsnews.com...


This poll was conducted by telephone from January 11-15, 2013 among 1,110 adults nationwide.



Originally posted by TheFlash
www.newser.com...

Now, I love this one. They use the other sources sited above as their source. Talk about a circular argument.

ccording to a new New York Times/CBS News poll,


The poll was conducted with 1,110 adults using landlines and cellphones


So, while I do value the "opinion" of people, using 1100 as concrete evidence for your Anti-Gun rights Stance is pretty funny. Sad, as that is really all you have to stand on, but funny. While you state the country is not run on public opinion, yet cite polls that attempt to show public opinion as a push for for Unconstitutional gun laws.

Current polls show your polls are not only out of date, but more than likely skewed.

How about an article talking about just how clueless many American are on already existing laws???
theweek.com...

Nah, just go find another old poll, based on the opinion of 1100 people, and parade it around as truth.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 


www.pbs.org...

Ahhhhhhh..Seems like the PBS crowd has turned on you bro.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash
The second amendment give the "right to bear arms" to US citizens. It does not say anything about "guns". Spears are arms. Swords are arms. Clubs are arms. As long as citizens have the right to bear those items then they have the right to "bear arms", right? After all, the Amendment does NOT say that they can bear "any and all" arms. If that was the case, people would be allowed to carry flame throwers, RPGs and tactical nukes, right?

Sensible responses only please.



There is a categorical and legal difference between arms and ordnance. There are also things that overlap the two slightly and are covered in US law.

Arms are considered any weapon that could be used for personal defense that is man portable and non explosive, a personal weapon. To further specify, it also demands that the firearms are of a certain caliber or smaller, otherwise it falls into the definition of "ordnance". This includes, rifles, shotguns, handguns, spears, knives, spoons, clubs, computer keyboards, walking canes, crossbows, regular bows, baseballs, etc, you get the idea.

Ordinance is considered any weapon that contains or uses explosives (gun powder is not an explosive as it doesn't explode, but burns), is crew served or not man portable, is unusually destructive, or is a firearm of a certain caliber or larger (12.7mm or .50 inches in the US). Firearms above 12.7mm are considered cannon and therefore ordnance. Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, bilogical weapons, artillery, guided missiles, crew served machine guns with calibers larger than 12.7mm, etc. you get the idea.

There is a gray area between the two. Machine guns are firearms but also considered unusually destructive but are also man portable personal weapons that are 12.7mm or smaller in caliber. So machine guns fall in between the two. "Destructive Devices" are typically firearms that are over 12.7mm in caliber but are typically portable personal weapons, and therefore fall in between ordnance and arms. Things like 37mm grenade launchers and some automatic shotguns are considered "Destructive Devices". "Any Other Weapons" are weapons of eccentric mechanism that are hard to define as "Arms", "Machine Guns", or "Destructive Devices", but are personal weapons that are man portable. Things like shotguns sawed down to the size of pistols, stuff like that.

In the US is is nigh impossible for a citizen to purchase ordnance. Typically the only private entities that have access are the direct request of the Government to have access, things like military material R&D/manufacturing companies, defense consultants, or sometimes universities.

Machine Guns, Destructive Devices, and Any Other Weapons, require an intense background check by the ATF/FBI that usually takes 6 months or more and a $200 fee/tax. Also, in the NFA title two process, you, in some states, have to give up your right to deny search and seizure as part of the deal of owning these weapons.
It's not a walk in the park compared to just buying a rifle.

Finally, the fact that you want to classify arms by saying the constitution doesn't say "any and all arms" is a facile argument. The right to keep and bear arms means all arms by the very nature of it not being sub-classified or defined further.

It would be like playing a board game and saying "the rules don't say I can't, so therefore I can". Which would mean you could do whatever you wanted. No, you can only do exactly what the rules explicitly state, no more, no less. The same goes for the constitution and how the Government ought to behave regarding it. The US government can only do what the constitution says it can explicitly do, no more no less.

The biggest thing about firearms when it comes to peoples opinion, is that the majority are horribly uneducated about them and even worse, misinformed. Firearms, like anything else, require education (not indoctrination).
edit on 3-6-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-6-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-6-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by TheFlash
 





Unless I am mistaken, assault-type, semi-automatic weapons were 'not in common use at the time' that the Amendment was written.
I always love this argument.

You know what else wasnt in common use back then? twitter, facebook, television, mass media, mass communication....guess its time to start redefining free speech, too?


If the Supreme Court rules it. Are you insinuating that the Supreme Court of The United States of America as made such a finding regarding the First Amendment, with regard to 'common use at the time'? If so then please share the reference with us.


How hard is it for you socialist's to understand the very simple statement made in the constitution? it does not not need interpretation, it just needs to be followed. How hard is that?



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
I do love showing your BS for what is it. So, lets continue, shall we?


Originally posted by TheFlash

www.reuters.com...


The poll surveyed 1,772 registered voters from January 30 to February 4

Yep, a full snapshot of what "the people want".



Clearly you have never studies Statistics. What do you think is required to actually ascertain what "preople want"? - actually going and asking very single person?



Originally posted by macman


Originally posted by TheFlash
www.cbsnews.com...


This poll was conducted by telephone from January 11-15, 2013 among 1,110 adults nationwide.



Yes, another poll based on the science of statistics. You should really take a course or something so you don't sound so uneducated.


Originally posted by macman


Originally posted by TheFlash
www.newser.com...

Now, I love this one. They use the other sources sited above as their source. Talk about a circular argument.


Ahhhhh, no. In order for the argument to be circular, the original sources would have to be pointing to this source.

So you and other people here seem to be against doing background checks for people who want to buy guns, is that it? You think that every felon, psychopath, ex-con and schizophrenic who wants a gun should be able to walk into a store and buy one without any background checks??? That is just insane.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


The proof is in my reply to macman above. Where is yours?


I have tried these things have you? Nope.... You cannot do them like the socialist think... You keep using low count polls driven by a socialist agenda... Ones worded in a way to ellicit a certain response given the socialist diven media.. That is not fact, only socialist fantasy.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


The proof is in my reply to macman above. Where is yours?


I have tried these things have you? Nope.... You cannot do them like the socialist think... You keep using low count polls driven by a socialist agenda... Ones worded in a way to ellicit a certain response given the socialist diven media.. That is not fact, only socialist fantasy.



So what percent of the population of the USA do you believe actually is in favor of expanded background checks and what do you base that number on?



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash


Clearly you have never studies Statistics. What do you think is required to actually ascertain what "preople want"? - actually going and asking very single person?

I sure have. Which is why I, and anyone knows that the telephone polling formula was valid when it was first put into place, and many have stated it is out of date.
Also, that statistics can be manipulated to reflect ones intended outcome.
If you want to try to peddle BS here, I suggest you dress the turd up a bit, before trying to sell it as a Prom Queen.


Originally posted by TheFlash

Yes, another poll based on the science of statistics. You should really take a course or something so you don't sound so uneducated.

If you want to rely on the opinions of 1100 people, to the outcome of YOUR thoughts, by all means, go right ahead. I had no idea that it would take so small a number of citizens for you to base an opinion on.
I bet I can come up with 1100 that also state the moon is made of cheese. I can use you as a poster boy for this "truth" then, right??




Originally posted by TheFlash
Ahhhhh, no. In order for the argument to be circular, the original sources would have to be pointing to this source.

As one of your sources did. Did you even read the crap you put up??


Originally posted by TheFlash
So you and other people here seem to be against doing background checks for people who want to buy guns, is that it? You think that every felon, psychopath, ex-con and schizophrenic who wants a gun should be able to walk into a store and buy one without any background checks??? That is just insane.

What does the 2 Amendment state?? There is nothing in it stating restrictions.

If you and other Anti-Gun Rights people want these things, why not gather your 1100 telephone buddies, making it 1101, and do it the right way, by amending the Constitution. Because after all, it shouldn't be too hard, right?? You have "90%" wanting it



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   




I thought in your thread opening post you wanted sensible replies only. I fail to see how calling someone ignorant and condescendingly telling them they need a dictionary for larger words meets your "sensible" criteria.

Edit: By the way, did you even read my previous post? You will find that your original post was countered quite adequately.
edit on 3-6-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-6-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   




Too funny, you attack my intelligence while I come after your inaction and over reactions... That tactic will fail on me, doing as such ruins ones credibility, thus hurting any cause you are promoting.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by TheFlash


Clearly you have never studies Statistics. What do you think is required to actually ascertain what "preople want"? - actually going and asking very single person?

I sure have. Which is why I, and anyone knows that the telephone polling formula was valid when it was first put into place, and many have stated it is out of date.
Also, that statistics can be manipulated to reflect ones intended outcome.
If you want to try to peddle BS here, I suggest you dress the turd up a bit, before trying to sell it as a Prom Queen.


Originally posted by TheFlash

Yes, another poll based on the science of statistics. You should really take a course or something so you don't sound so uneducated.

If you want to rely on the opinions of 1100 people, to the outcome of YOUR thoughts, by all means, go right ahead. I had no idea that it would take so small a number of citizens for you to base an opinion on.
I bet I can come up with 1100 that also state the moon is made of cheese. I can use you as a poster boy for this "truth" then, right??




Originally posted by TheFlash
Ahhhhh, no. In order for the argument to be circular, the original sources would have to be pointing to this source.

As one of your sources did. Did you even read the crap you put up??


Originally posted by TheFlash
So you and other people here seem to be against doing background checks for people who want to buy guns, is that it? You think that every felon, psychopath, ex-con and schizophrenic who wants a gun should be able to walk into a store and buy one without any background checks??? That is just insane.

What does the 2 Amendment state?? There is nothing in it stating restrictions.

If you and other Anti-Gun Rights people want these things, why not gather your 1100 telephone buddies, making it 1101, and do it the right way, by amending the Constitution. Because after all, it shouldn't be too hard, right?? You have "90%" wanting it


[snip]
Okay - so if you have studied Statistics then tell me what degree of confidence a sample size of 1100 people is when taking such a poll.

Regarding a circular argument, let me try to explain it again - in shorter words for you. In order for an argument to be circular both sources would have to refer to each other. Get it? A circle. Round. Here - there - back again. Get it now?

Also you failed to answer my question as to what sample size you think would be required to get an accurate estimate for the poll.
edit on 3-6-2013 by TheFlash because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-6-2013 by elevatedone because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-6-2013 by elevatedone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 


Ugh, this thread is getting pretty bad. I'm going to have to call a mod over here in a moment. You guys are debating the nature of debate rather than making pointed positions to form an argument. What's worse, is that you, TheFlash, specifically asked the posters in this thread to be sensible. Not only are you getting way OT in your own thread, but are saying defamatory remarks by basically calling them stupid over debating the nature of debate. That is not "sensible".

edit on 3-6-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I only have 2 AAS and am working on my BA that is of course because I have a 115 IQ and enjoy reading so I guess you believe I am anti intellectual now.
When in fact I am anti progressive as I have stated before. Progs just hold the higher hat in academia and lawyers they are DOMINATED by sciopathic leadership. Which one is YOUR claim to fame?
I'm guessing you are young ,20 -30 ,college is your only claim to fame so already you worship statistics.
How much of a failure in debate are you anyway?
Make YOU OWN points factual not slogan throwing I have a secret weapon called AGE and experience so I doulbt I was in the poll ,in the large population group that the particular poll was taken from.We can continue to destroy your opinion if you wish.
But I don't see you learning outside your "demographic" anytime soon.
.
edit on 3-6-2013 by cavtrooper7 because: finished my point



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheFlash

(sigh) You're not the sharpest tool in the shed are you pal?

Ahhh...you mad bro??? I guess you really are into group think that all it takes is a sampling of 1100 people to base your life on.





Originally posted by TheFlash
Okay - so if you have studied Statistics then tell me what degree of confidence a sample size of 1100 people is when taking such a poll.

When did I state I studied it in a college setting?
Being in the field I am in, I understand it and have worked alongside many people in the field enough to know that statistics can be manipulated by how the question is phrased, who you are asking, and can come down to asking after large events, like I don't know, Sandy Hook?? Seems that your arguing points were around that time frame. Geez, can't be that the sampling was poisoned due to that?? Nah, 1100 people march on and set the precedent for everyone else.


Originally posted by TheFlash
Regarding a circular argument, let me try to explain it again - in shorter words for you. In order for an argument to be circular both sources would have to refer to each other. Get it? A circle. Round. Here - there - back again. Get it now?

*sigh* yes, I do understand that point. As one article stated they have 90% wanting it, they sourced one of the other arguments. Now, is it a fully circular argument from the 3 articles you put forth?? Guess not, when looking at the poll used for the total. I do find it funny that almost all 3 articles use the same verbiage and phrasing as the others. SO.....CIRCULAR as they go round and round suing the same crap...

Originally posted by TheFlash
Also you failed to answer my question as to what sample size you think would be required to get an accurate estimate for the poll.


Oh, I get it. You want laws written based on polling......How very......Progressive of you.

I don't rely on polling of people to craft my thoughts and views in the same many you allow yourself to be pointed to in life.

Have a vote on it. Put it on a ballot nationally. I would love to see those results.

But, like any other Progressive pushing for the Anti-Gun Rights crap, you would love want nor suggest a thing, as you know it would fail miserably. So, you rely on polling of 1100 by phone. Or, internet polling on the Huffington Post.


I do love how you glossed right over the PBS poll put up, to counter your polls.
edit on 3-6-2013 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   




You are the one arguing with gun owners, just the opening thread is an arguement to be had. Reading socialist propaganda and interpretations of the constitution does not prove a thing, other than that socialists will continue to make sensless arguments over anything that scares them. I could not imagine living in such fear over others. All i have done is call you out on facts besed off of experience rather than propaganda, just because the experience of life fails you, it doesn't mean others should feel the fear that socialist try to use to push their agendas. displacing your fears into laws is weak and shows the cowardice of the socialists. }acts not propaganda. experience, dont fantasize.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TheFlash
 


Hey, since we're playing the 'statistics' game:

Gun Control Poll: 62 Percent Want Senate to 'Move On'

www.usnews.com...

Americans are more narrowly divided on the issue than in recent months, and backing for a bill has slipped below 50%, the poll finds. By 49%-45%, those surveyed favor Congress passing a new gun-control law. In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in early April, 55% had backed a stricter gun law, which was down from 61% in February.
www.usatoday.com... rong/2103419/


Currently, support for stricter gun control laws stands at 47 percent today, down from a high of 57 percent just after the shootings. Thirty-nine percent want those laws kept as they are, and another 11 percent want them made less strict.
www.cbsnews.com...





top topics
 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join