The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Q: Do you think people should be allowed to carry guns in public?
a. Yes! The Second Amendment guarantees it.
b. No, it's too dangerous.
c. Only for self defense.

This isn't a new poll. It may have been around since 2014. It's also poorly thought out and the questions are uninformed (maybe intentionally). No, 2A does not guarantee the right to "carry guns in public". "Only for self defense"? As opposed to what - self offense?
Regardless, people have spoken. Any Democrats paying attention?
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-do-you- ... uns-public

Yep, the answers are wacky but still, 92% say yes?

Seems so, unless some dude spent the last year running scripts to break the results. 342,000 is not a statistical anomaly.

A bullshit poll stacked with votes from the 2A rabble which advertised the poll on all the 2A nutter sites.

I support concealed carry, but I don't think we will get there by discounting the concerns that many people have over the issue. This has to be an effort with a flawless implementation. A bunch of anarchist spouting openly seditious attitudes does not fill me with confidence.

beaurrr wrote:Yep, the answers are wacky but still, 92% say yes?

If I'd take such a survey would answer in the 92 percent.

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:A bullshit poll stacked with votes from the 2A rabble which advertised the poll on all the 2A nutter sites.

I support concealed carry, but I don't think we will get there by discounting the concerns that many people have over the issue. This has to be an effort with a flawless implementation. A bunch of anarchist spouting openly seditious attitudes does not fill me with confidence.

Do you have evidence to support your assertion of "rabble", "nutter", and "seditious anarchist" involvement claims? Or are you just aroused by the possibility that many disagree with your opinion?

Even if your claim of rigging is true, it says a lot about 2A supporters. As a group, they're passionate and politically/socially engaged on the issue - much more so than the disarmament enthusiasts, it seems - and this deserves attention. It's where the political power of the NRA really comes from. I'm quite sure the gun grabbers made an equal effort to counteract the "nutter's" participation and apparently came up with 16k out of 372k votes. Tell you anything?

begemot wrote:

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:A bullshit poll stacked with votes from the 2A rabble which advertised the poll on all the 2A nutter sites.

I support concealed carry, but I don't think we will get there by discounting the concerns that many people have over the issue. This has to be an effort with a flawless implementation. A bunch of anarchist spouting openly seditious attitudes does not fill me with confidence.

Do you have evidence to support your assertion of "rabble", "nutter", and "seditious anarchist" involvement claims? Or are you just aroused by the possibility that many disagree with your opinion?

Even if your claim of rigging is true, it says a lot about 2A supporters. As a group, they're passionate and politically/socially engaged on the issue - much more so than the disarmament enthusiasts, it seems - and this deserves attention. It's where the political power of the NRA really comes from. I'm quite sure the gun grabbers made an equal effort to counteract the "nutter's" participation and apparently came up with 16k out of 372k votes. Tell you anything?

Sure. Google the name of the poll and you'll see every 2A nutter site on the first page of the results.

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

begemot wrote:

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:A bullshit poll stacked with votes from the 2A rabble which advertised the poll on all the 2A nutter sites.

I support concealed carry, but I don't think we will get there by discounting the concerns that many people have over the issue. This has to be an effort with a flawless implementation. A bunch of anarchist spouting openly seditious attitudes does not fill me with confidence.

Do you have evidence to support your assertion of "rabble", "nutter", and "seditious anarchist" involvement claims? Or are you just aroused by the possibility that many disagree with your opinion?

Even if your claim of rigging is true, it says a lot about 2A supporters. As a group, they're passionate and politically/socially engaged on the issue - much more so than the disarmament enthusiasts, it seems - and this deserves attention. It's where the political power of the NRA really comes from. I'm quite sure the gun grabbers made an equal effort to counteract the "nutter's" participation and apparently came up with 16k out of 372k votes. Tell you anything?

Sure. Google the name of the poll and you'll see every 2A nutter site on the first page of the results.

And that's evidence of what? Of 2A supporters paying attention? How many of the 342K votes are from those sites? "Evidence" in not the same as speculation.

As an aside, you do get that some on this site find your language pretty insulting, right? In another thread, you claimed that your use of "rabble" was misconstrued but now you're tripling down with "nutter", "anarchist", "sedition". I suppose you don't give a shit. Ignore.

He missed using "teabagger", "ammosexual", and "penises of death". Gotta try harder to keep up...

begemot wrote:

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

begemot wrote:

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:A bullshit poll stacked with votes from the 2A rabble which advertised the poll on all the 2A nutter sites.

I support concealed carry, but I don't think we will get there by discounting the concerns that many people have over the issue. This has to be an effort with a flawless implementation. A bunch of anarchist spouting openly seditious attitudes does not fill me with confidence.

Do you have evidence to support your assertion of "rabble", "nutter", and "seditious anarchist" involvement claims? Or are you just aroused by the possibility that many disagree with your opinion?

Even if your claim of rigging is true, it says a lot about 2A supporters. As a group, they're passionate and politically/socially engaged on the issue - much more so than the disarmament enthusiasts, it seems - and this deserves attention. It's where the political power of the NRA really comes from. I'm quite sure the gun grabbers made an equal effort to counteract the "nutter's" participation and apparently came up with 16k out of 372k votes. Tell you anything?

Sure. Google the name of the poll and you'll see every 2A nutter site on the first page of the results.

And that's evidence of what? Of 2A supporters paying attention? How many of the 342K votes are from those sites? "Evidence" in not the same as speculation.

As an aside, you do get that some on this site find your language pretty insulting, right? In another thread, you claimed that your use of "rabble" was misconstrued but now you're tripling down with "nutter", "anarchist", "sedition". I suppose you don't give a shit. Ignore.

I believe I said that my use of the term rabble didn't apply to this particular site but there were plenty of examples around.

And yes, I do find many sites full of nutters, openly contemptuous of the U.S. Government who would best be described as anarchists. They openly preach sedition and in some fairy tale from the fifth dimension, attempt to call themselves patriots cloaking themselves with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- the very instruments forming that Government.

I believe it is good to question our Government which doesn't always get everything right. Politics being what it is, no one ever gets fully what they desire legislatively. But being a former Federal Employee fairly high up in the Civil Service, and having spent most of my career faithfully serving the American Public both in the military and the Civil Service to the best of my abilities, I find such people unworthy of respect and contemptible. I took my Oath of Office seriously and with very few exceptions, so did the others I worked with.

If you find the situation in DC unacceptable, quit sending people there as your representatives with no ethics and mainly interested in breaking the Government by any means possible.

If you don't fall into that category, you shouldn't feel offended by any of the terms I used because the people of which I speak are plainly evident. And if you find that this terminology does indeed describe you, please do me a favor and ignore me because I have nothing to say to you that you would find affirming.

I'm kinda surprised MSNBC doesn't bother to put a "this is not a scientific poll" label on these. An opt-in response like this doesn't really mean anything other than that carry supporters are way more enthusiastic than carry opponents in replying to this poll and/or way more aware of its existence. Which is interesting, but it's not useful in estimating AT ALL what proportions of the population actually have these attitudes.

That said, I do think it's likely that the results of the 1980, 1994 and 2014 elections were significantly affected by the opposition of independent voters (and the "Reagan Democrats") to the urban Democrats hard-on for gun control. If the Teabaggers weren't rabidly devoted to making the R's nominee a racist, Dominionist lunatic and trying to suppress their own vote if they fail in that, I'd bet on it being important next year, too. But between probably getting 8% of the Latino vote and the predictable "legitimate rape" gaffes, they'll probably shoot themselves in the foot.

It's the broad-brush language that turns me off. I'm pretty firmly in the 2nd amendment "absolutist" (your term) camp. I don't find much agreement in your approach or your perspective. I've heard it and don't agree with it. Some here might I don't. I also believe in all the amendments and your voice is yours to use and I have no say in it. I can object to the broad categorization of people in this forum and outside of it. Links are appreciated to support statements. Service or not does not increase or decrease the value of your comments. Just my perspective.

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:
I believe I said that my use of the term rabble didn't apply to this particular site but there were plenty of examples around.

He did indeed clarify that folks. Little bit of slack, and maybe next time he will find a different word

I fall into the Yes! category of this poll. Having said that, it's a ridiculous poll and only makes the news source that presents it out to be a bunch of buffoons. The wording is loaded; the phrasing is loaded; the sampling is self-selected, etc. It doesn't help our cause to have people (even important newspeople ) using claptrap such as that 'poll' to say anything. It carries about as much weight as Kim Jong-un claiming that 98% of North Koreans voted for him.

Huff. (end rant)

Inquisitor wrote:

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:
I believe I said that my use of the term rabble didn't apply to this particular site but there were plenty of examples around.

He did indeed clarify that folks. Little bit of slack, and maybe next time he will find a different word

Mob.

sikacz wrote:It's the broad-brush language that turns me off. I'm pretty firmly in the 2nd amendment "absolutist" (your term) camp. I don't find much agreement in your approach or your perspective. I've heard it and don't agree with it. Some here might I don't. I also believe in all the amendments and your voice is yours to use and I have no say in it. I can object to the broad categorization of people in this forum and outside of it. Links are appreciated to support statements. Service or not does not increase or decrease the value of your comments. Just my perspective.

What is my perspective and what parts do you not agree with?

Are you really going to make me go through some of the relevant sites and find you examples of anti-government postings expressing sedition? Tell you what, you go to the sites and search on the terms BHO, FBHO, Zero, Kenyan Houseboy, or Hussain and we can start there. Though that would be only a beginning.

And this is different from how the left treated GWB...how? Seen any books on how to assassinate a President lately? How about a movie about an assassination starring an actor who looks an awful lot like the currently sitting President? A former vice president screaming about how the currently sitting President "played on our fears"?

The shoe pinches a lot when it's on the other foot, eh?

rascally wrote:And this is different from how the left treated GWB...how? Seen any books on how to assassinate a President lately? How about a movie about an assassination starring an actor who looks an awful lot like the currently sitting President? A former vice president screaming about how the currently sitting President "played on our fears"?

The shoe pinches a lot when it's on the other foot, eh?

The only forum I liberal leaning site I am a member of is DailyKos and I don't remember see any messages proposing that he be assassinated. A lot of variations of him being a dim bulb. A lot of comparison of Cheney to various forms of evil and a shriveled heart. I would have called out any poster that advocated assassination.

My suggestion that you look for those terms were not about Obama specifically, but as pointers to threads where you'd find seditious speech. They usually went hand-in-hand with talk about Obama.

I'm not sure which movie you were referring to -- which one was it?

Normally, I would say such polls are bullshit.

However, this poll shows the exact reason gun control is a losing proposition for Democrats.

Let's say that if you did a scientific poll, the numbers would come closer to 50/50.

So why would this poll be biased? Because of a motivation gap. Pro 2A people are highly motivated to vote on that issue, while anti 2a people are not.

This is another part of the motivation gap that I think is going to bite HRC in the rear in November.

senorgrand wrote: This is another part of the motivation gap that I think is going to bite HRC in the rear in November.

Likely true. Between motivating the opposition, and de-motivating 30% of her base, she had better figure out some magic on getting people to the polls.

And dems don't get very motivated to vote AGAINST someone. If they did, they would have tossed GWB in 2004.

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

rascally wrote:And this is different from how the left treated GWB...how? Seen any books on how to assassinate a President lately? How about a movie about an assassination starring an actor who looks an awful lot like the currently sitting President? A former vice president screaming about how the currently sitting President "played on our fears"?

The shoe pinches a lot when it's on the other foot, eh?

The only forum I liberal leaning site I am a member of is DailyKos and I don't remember see any messages proposing that he be assassinated. A lot of variations of him being a dim bulb. A lot of comparison of Cheney to various forms of evil and a shriveled heart. I would have called out any poster that advocated assassination.

My suggestion that you look for those terms were not about Obama specifically, but as pointers to threads where you'd find seditious speech. They usually went hand-in-hand with talk about Obama.

I'm not sure which movie you were referring to -- which one was it?

"Death of a President" (2006) Since I don't know how to do re-directs of "do-not-links", I'll just leave this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_ ... 2006_film)

shinzen wrote:

senorgrand wrote: This is another part of the motivation gap that I think is going to bite HRC in the rear in November.

Likely true. Between motivating the opposition, and de-motivating 30% of her base, she had better figure out some magic on getting people to the polls.

Why bother? Trump has so many groups pissed off at this point Hillary just need to let the waves engulf her. She might save some money and get Black Lives Matter to dog Trump a little more and get him to stick his foot in it some more.

rascally wrote:

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:

rascally wrote:And this is different from how the left treated GWB...how? Seen any books on how to assassinate a President lately? How about a movie about an assassination starring an actor who looks an awful lot like the currently sitting President? A former vice president screaming about how the currently sitting President "played on our fears"?

The shoe pinches a lot when it's on the other foot, eh?

The only forum I liberal leaning site I am a member of is DailyKos and I don't remember see any messages proposing that he be assassinated. A lot of variations of him being a dim bulb. A lot of comparison of Cheney to various forms of evil and a shriveled heart. I would have called out any poster that advocated assassination.

My suggestion that you look for those terms were not about Obama specifically, but as pointers to threads where you'd find seditious speech. They usually went hand-in-hand with talk about Obama.

I'm not sure which movie you were referring to -- which one was it?

"Death of a President" (2006) Since I don't know how to do re-directs of "do-not-links", I'll just leave this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_ ... 2006_film)

I never saw it. I'll have to look for it out of curiosity.