This sounds like how that bill which stated that we were signing on to an international agreement regarding access for the disabled was really about how the UN would have the right to dictate parental decision making, or something like that.
When one side of the debate sees nefarious intent, at a psychotic level, in every single issue, no debate can be had.
So where do I cash in my “nope, nuh uh, there were never any further plans, never” bonds when registration or confiscation do come to a floor vote or actually happen? I’m still waiting for my “no, this is just about keeping cigarettes away from kids, we’re not going to start banning unhealthy things wholesale” check from ten years ago, btw.
Have we banned cigarrettes? Have we banned any particular type of cigarrette? Have we confiscated cigarrettes? Have we done any of this at the federal level?
People said the NFA registry has been around for over 75 years without a whole lot of confiscating going on.
This doesn’t mean the anti-gun folks are just going to roll over and die, just like the GOA doesn’t roll over and die just because the the anti-gun folks want them to. I am not a constitutional law scholar but I believe we have the constitution on our side. Something that doesn’t apply to cigarrettes.
We will have to fight for our rights in court forever (everything fromn our right to vote to our right to our right not to have soldiers crash on our couch), but that doesn’t mean we turn our backs on legislation that might be a good idea in order to act as a moat around laws that are bad ideas. You may not think that this is a good idea, which is fine (I would ask you why you think its a bad idea), but don’t oppose it just to spite the anti-gun folks.
We’ll tell you when you read the fucking thread and fill in all the gaps you left in your strawmen.
I hope you didn’t take that from a conservative news source, as they say that about everything.
This is a bullshit statistic. I am sick of seeing it thrown it around. A recent Washington Post poll suggests that only 47% of the population was unhappy the bill was defeated.
What’s “bullshit” about it, exactly? That lots of people disagree with you?
And they could make it look like Jello started it.
Hey, a wonderful username/post combo. What is “bullshit” is that it is used to imply something which is not the case, i.e. 90% of the population wanted this bill to pass.
Well, that’s just fucking stupid. The 47% figure appears to be in response to the whole set of bills. Contrasting it with the support for the specific issue of universal background checks is deceitful.
Pretty persuasive? Of course, polls shows that an overwhelming majority of voters back Voter ID requirements.
But I seem to recall that didn’t move you at all.
You think public support means something only if you already agree with it.
No, bullshit is when you claim this:
… is the same as this:
Try again.
What you need is a “liberal hypocrisy!” smiley, save you a lof typing.
So THAT’S Obama’s plan–keep the economy in the grinder and then offer people (their own tax)money for their guns! Brilliant!
I’m off to spin that one into a glurge email. 
Whenever you or others raise this childish question, my answer has always been the same: Public opinion polls tell you what the prevalence of a particular opinion is in the population. No more and no less.
If you are persuaded on a topic simply by the opinion of the public, you are an idiot. I for one have never based my opinion on something upon the popular opinion of the public.
But your argument appears to be this:
a) Checking the background of all people who are buying a gun
is exactly the same as
b) Changing, in the months prior to a presidential election, the manner of documentation that people are required to show in order to cast a vote
Is it your position that those two things are identical, such that my stance should simply align with popular opinion in both cases? Really?
No, they’re obviously very different.
But since they are different you should adduce the reasons to support, or oppose, each. Massive public support is not a reason to support the Voter ID program, according to you, and it’s not a reason to support the background check provision either. There are either substantive reasons to take a position on each measure, or there are not. If you trot out the percentage of people that support background checks as a reason to support background checks, why can’t I trot out the percentage of people that support Voter ID?
Be consistent. You said, “If you are persuaded on a topic simply by the opinion of the public, you are an idiot. I for one have never based my opinion on something upon the popular opinion of the public.”
But you also said, “On the other hand, it isn’t rational if you actually support universal background checks. Which 90% of the population does.”
You seem to be uncertain about whether you are in fact persuaded on a topic simply by the opinion of the public.
Please highlight for me where I said that I was persuaded by public opinion.
Well, I’ll be darned! When they leave here, they are stuffed with brilliant insights and crunchy goodness! Have you tried pulling your head out and reading them again?
Fair point. I took as the implication of “Which 90% of the population does,” a claim that you regarded the 90% public approval as a persuasive data point.
Was I wrong about that assumption?
Yes, you were. Here’s the exchange:
Hentor is saying that since most people support background checks, broad opposition to background check legislation for the reason given is irrational. In other words, why would Joe Blow support background checks if, at the same time, he did not want to embolden gun control advocates by supporting background checks?