Open Carry March on Washington DC July 4th

[Khadgar]

What is it with gun nuts and their inability to comprehend polls and surveys?

I could hold a poll on Stormfront asking if whites are the master race then post it here but would you accept it as fact? Polls are always problematic. Unrepresentative samples and biased question phrasing are the two biggest issues and they're common as all hell.

Also, if the public goes against the constitution, that doesn't necessarily make it right. The US was never intended to be ruled through tyranny of the majority.

You know, when you're rejecting a poll showing something has 90% support you're not fighting against a statistical fluke, you're fighting against gravity and you're armed with nothing but two pinion feathers and fervent hope.

[The Emerald Dawn]

It what now? Seriously?

I think there were like two sequels, a spinoff, a sequel to the spinoff and a "reunion".

...wow. It's become like the "National Lampoon" series, then?

[Choronzon]

Oui. He didn't do the necessary legwork.
Sorry TED... I couldn't resist...

(ಠ_ಠ)

Heh.

Hehe.

Hehehehe.

I see what you did there.

[Mike the Progressive]

poll after poll after poll, performed all over the country, with very simple wording, has shown that background checks have more support than APPLE FUCKING PIE.

In fairness, the only support I saw for apple fucking pie was some movie that came out, like, 15 fucking years ago.

To be fair, it wasn't the apple that was fucking the pie. But there was apple pie and it was being fucked.

But I digress. As to the topic, I think background checks were the least we should have done. And while most Americans favored it, if they don't to the degree of un-electing those who opposed it, that's their choice.

[Irredento]

I could hold a poll on Stormfront asking if whites are the master race then post it here but would you accept it as fact? Polls are always problematic. Unrepresentative samples and biased question phrasing are the two biggest issues and they're common as all hell.

Also, if the public goes against the constitution, that doesn't necessarily make it right. The US was never intended to be ruled through tyranny of the majority.

You know, when you're rejecting a poll showing something has 90% support you're not fighting against a statistical fluke, you're fighting against gravity and you're armed with nothing but two pinion feathers and fervent hope.

The second part of my post deals with the possibility that the polls are accurate. It doesn't make them right.

[Algonquin Ascendancy]

Oui. He didn't do the necessary legwork.
Sorry TED... I couldn't resist...

(ಠ_ಠ)

[Ensiferum]

What is it with gun nuts and their inability to comprehend polls and surveys?

I could hold a poll on Stormfront asking if whites are the master race then post it here but would you accept it as fact? Polls are always problematic. Unrepresentative samples and biased question phrasing are the two biggest issues and they're common as all hell.

Also, if the public goes against the constitution, that doesn't necessarily make it right. The US was never intended to be ruled through tyranny of the majority.

Yet it's okay for it to be ruled by a tyranny of the minority?

[Samuraikoku]

Also, if the public goes against the constitution, that doesn't necessarily make it right. The US was never intended to be ruled through tyranny of the majority.

What in the Emperor's name has people not supporting gun crazy people with loaded rifles in the street have to do with the Second Amendment?

[Khadgar]

You know, when you're rejecting a poll showing something has 90% support you're not fighting against a statistical fluke, you're fighting against gravity and you're armed with nothing but two pinion feathers and fervent hope.

The second part of my post deals with the possibility that the polls are accurate. It doesn't make them right.

Well hate to tell you this, but the hurdle to amending the constitution takes a lot less than 90% approval.

Oui. He didn't do the necessary legwork.
Sorry TED... I couldn't resist...

(ಠ_ಠ)

I'm ashamed to admit that made me burst into giggles. Horribly inappropriate giggles.

[The Emerald Dawn]

(ಠ_ಠ)

Hehe.

[Bottle]

Yes. I've heard a whole lot of straw men and false equivalency but nothing suggesting that anything about the Second Amendment is racist.

Maybe because no one has said the Second Amendment is racist at all?

Yep, and here's another thing I'd like to see quoted by the person claiming it.

Please, someone quote where anybody in this thread has said the 2nd Amendment is racist. Or that anybody who supports the 2nd Amendment is racist. Or that supporting the 2nd Amendment is racist.

[Irredento]

I could hold a poll on Stormfront asking if whites are the master race then post it here but would you accept it as fact? Polls are always problematic. Unrepresentative samples and biased question phrasing are the two biggest issues and they're common as all hell.

Also, if the public goes against the constitution, that doesn't necessarily make it right. The US was never intended to be ruled through tyranny of the majority.

Yet it's okay for it to be ruled by a tyranny of the minority?

No, it's preferable for it to be ruled by three branches with each never quite gaining more power than the others, ensuring fairness for all.

The Supreme Court can stop two men from voting to steal the possessions of a third and I like it this way.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Yet it's okay for it to be ruled by a tyranny of the minority?

No, it's preferable for it to be ruled by three branches with each never quite gaining more power than the others, ensuring fairness for all.

The Supreme Court can stop two men from voting to steal the possessions of a third and I like it this way.

POTUS couldn't take away people's guns with a three year head start and rocket boots.

On what planet do you think that any gun control is going to be done by the executive?

[Khadgar]

No, it's preferable for it to be ruled by three branches with each never quite gaining more power than the others, ensuring fairness for all.

The Supreme Court can stop two men from voting to steal the possessions of a third and I like it this way.

POTUS couldn't take away people's guns with a three year head start and rocket boots.

On what planet do you think that any gun control is going to be done by the executive?

On Bizarro world. Where the president is actually an elected king.

[Samuraikoku]

On what planet do you think that any gun control is going to be done by the executive?

Tau. *nods*

[Ensiferum]

Yet it's okay for it to be ruled by a tyranny of the minority?

No, it's preferable for it to be ruled by three branches with each never quite gaining more power than the others, ensuring fairness for all.

The Supreme Court can stop two men from voting to steal the possessions of a third and I like it this way.

So it's perfectly okay for the Supreme Court to hand pick the president even though he didn't win the election? It's okay for the legislature to gerrymander districts to ensure seats? But if the president does anything it's a "tyranny of the majority". Seems like you're just jealous of his power.

[Khadgar]

No, it's preferable for it to be ruled by three branches with each never quite gaining more power than the others, ensuring fairness for all.

The Supreme Court can stop two men from voting to steal the possessions of a third and I like it this way.

So it's perfectly okay for the Supreme Court to hand pick the president even though he didn't win the election? It's okay for the legislature to gerrymander districts to ensure seats? But if the president does anything it's a "tyranny of the majority". Seems like you're just jealous of his power.

Considering he's managed to get fuck all done in the last five years I don't see much power.

[Mike the Progressive]

No, it's preferable for it to be ruled by three branches with each never quite gaining more power than the others, ensuring fairness for all.

The Supreme Court can stop two men from voting to steal the possessions of a third and I like it this way.

So it's perfectly okay for the Supreme Court to hand pick the president even though he didn't win the election? It's okay for the legislature to gerrymander districts to ensure seats? But if the president does anything it's a "tyranny of the majority". Seems like you're just jealous of his power.

At least for Bush v. Gore it really wasn't that simple.

[Choronzon]

So it's perfectly okay for the Supreme Court to hand pick the president even though he didn't win the election? It's okay for the legislature to gerrymander districts to ensure seats? But if the president does anything it's a "tyranny of the majority". Seems like you're just jealous of his power.

Considering he's managed to get fuck all done in the last five years I don't see much power.

Thats just what the lame stream media wants you to think. Obama has turned us into a one party dictatorship through shadow legislation that you don't even know about!

[Ensiferum]

So it's perfectly okay for the Supreme Court to hand pick the president even though he didn't win the election? It's okay for the legislature to gerrymander districts to ensure seats? But if the president does anything it's a "tyranny of the majority". Seems like you're just jealous of his power.

At least for Bush v. Gore it really wasn't that simple.

True, the recount was inconclusive anyways as it depended on what type of recount they chose and what was counted as a vote. However, in the grand scheme of things the Supreme Court used powers it didn't have. It ensured a tyranny of the minority. Those in power got to choose who got power and that is just wrong.

[Khadgar]

Considering he's managed to get fuck all done in the last five years I don't see much power.

Thats just what the lame stream media wants you to think. Obama has turned us into a one party dictatorship through shadow legislation that you don't even know about!

I don't want to know dammit, if they find out you know you end up in a FEMA concentration camp.

[Irredento]

Well, I have to go lynch me some negros and attend today's KKK meet for now, but I'll jump back into this conversation later.

It's been pretty depressing to see that of the two people defending your constitution, one of us is a foreigner, and I hope the 10:1 liberal:conservative ratio will have improved a bit by the time I get back but, this being NS, I won't get my hopes up. Have fun in the meantime, comrades.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Considering he's managed to get fuck all done in the last five years I don't see much power.

Thats just what the lame stream media wants you to think. Obama has turned us into a one party dictatorship through shadow legislation that you don't even know about!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrZ7CHJlshY

[Ensiferum]

So it's perfectly okay for the Supreme Court to hand pick the president even though he didn't win the election? It's okay for the legislature to gerrymander districts to ensure seats? But if the president does anything it's a "tyranny of the majority". Seems like you're just jealous of his power.

Considering he's managed to get fuck all done in the last five years I don't see much power.

He had a beer summit. He pretty much passed NATO leadership over to France for Libya and Mali. He got the U.S. out Iraq for the most part. Other than that...not much.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Well, I have to go lynch me some negros and attend today's KKK meet for now, but I'll jump back into this conversation later.

It's been pretty depressing to see that of the two people defending your constitution, one of us is a foreigner, and I hope the 10:1 liberal:conservative ratio will have improved a bit by the time I get back but, this being NS, I won't get my hopes up. Have fun in the meantime, comrades.

It's a bird, it's a plane, it's SUPEREDGY!