Lone Pirate, for personally volunteering to pound on doors demanding people's firearms.

Or would you prefer other people do the legwork?

After all....how hard could it be?

We were told majority decides for everyone? And the week before we were assured no one wants to confiscate guns? And the week before that promised no one says you can't keep a gun to hunt?

So since it appears gun control is based on a bundle of lies, why should gun owners support gun control?

Now it's YOUR move...

If not, then the depth of your convictions on this matter is a tad suspect...

Which I think generally has fairly liberal readers. And when you add in the 4% that said "only for self-defense" you get 96% in favor of some sort of public carry.

beevul: Interesting results, even for an internet poll. Discuss.

What a bizarre introduction. As if saying, look at the ludicrous results which can be gotten from internet polls when it comes to guns, aren't they interesting as all get out? let's discuss how fun for us it is to see such inaccurate results from our fellow gun owners.
Or, look at the extreme results from an internet poll which demonstrates how fanatic gun enthusiasts are when it comes to responding to anything related to guns.

This is an UNscientific internet poll, & several of your 'fellow gun enthusiasts' cite it as somehow being the gospel truth:

sarisataka: Wasn't it last week We were told majority decides for everyone? ... So since it appears gun control is based on a bundle of lies, why should gun owners support gun control?

Just reading posts: 92% (almost half a million votes) for "Yes!" (jto: WHEEEEE! with such a high sample size the margin of error must be miniscule!)

TeddyR: On MSNBC Which I think generally has fairly liberal readers. And when you add in the 4% that said "only for self-defense" you get 96% in favor of some sort of public carry.

The above 3 gun enthusiasts 1) merely prove they have such little understanding of what an internet poll is, & 2) evidently are completely ignorant of what the actual split on the issue is since they evidently don't read reputable relevant polls, and 3) must be so utterly gullible to believe that 92% to 96% of americans really support the inane conclusion that people should be allowed to carry guns in public, whether concealed or open.
An internet poll is unscientific since it is not random. Gun enthusiasts can vote more than once, indeed as many times as they wish depending on their access to a different computer or likely a different log on screen name (some limit to a computer). Gun owners tend to be quite intense regarding gun control & guns, & 'vote' at a far greater rate than gun control advocates & impartials, which generally produces bogus pro gun results.
Pfft, I voted twice myself, once from the library then again from a nearby community college computer room. Within 2 hours, with the same log on name.

Instead of makiing fools of yourselves by supporting this crappy unscientific internet poll & touting it as somehow meaningful rather than absurdly inaccurate, why don't you all elucidate yourselves on the matter? ccw does have ~5 to 4 majority support, but hardly upper 90 percentiles:

6/20-23/16 recent, tho a leading question: "Would you support or oppose encouraging more people to carry guns legally for use in self defense?" Support ...54 ...Oppose ....42 ...Unsure ...4

ABC/WaPo: 12/10-13/15 "Which of these do you think is a better way to respond to terrorism in this country: by enacting stricter gun control laws, or by encouraging more people to carry guns legally?" Options rotated
Stricter gun laws 42%, More people carrying guns 47%, Both 1%, Neither 8%

CBS: 4/5-12/10 ...in states where it is legal to openly carry a gun, should private businesses like stores and restaurants be able to prohibit customers from openly carrying guns in their establishments, or should those customers be allowed to openly carry guns into the stores and restaurants?" Should be able to prohibit 74%; Should beallowed to openly carry 21%; Depends 3%;

I don't think you all are complete dolts on this, maybe you just need a refresher course, perhaps being just 'memory challenged'. Reputable polls will have a qualifier such as this: CBS News/New York Times Poll. April 5-12, 2010. N=1,580 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

I'm sure all the other antigun folks who took the poll did too.



But the far superior in number anti-gunners had to be up early to catch the bus/do homework/thedogatemyexcuse and therefore couldn't do the same?



All I said was that the result was interesting. So how about instead of making yourself look like a fool in failing to attribute sentiment to me which I did not express, you just don't attempt it. Or, do continue, and I'll continue to shine a bright light on it. Your call.


I was thinking it demonstrates the fanatical anti-gunner and how they tend to have nothing good to say when it comes to responding to anything remotely pro-gun, up to and including attempting to falsely attribute viewpoints to others, that they have not expressed about this poll. Your interaction and comments about me alone in this thread are factual proof for all to see.

beevul: But the far superior in number anti-gunners had to be up early to catch the bus/do homework/thedogatemyexcuse and therefore couldn't do the same?

I already addressed this in the very post you replied to: >>> "Gun owners tend to be quite intense regarding gun control & guns, & 'vote' at a far greater rate than gun control advocates & impartials, which generally produces bogus pro gun results."

beevul: All I said was that the result was interesting. So how about instead of making yourself look like a fool in failing to attribute sentiment to me which I did not express, you just don't attempt it.

Except I didn't do that. I didn't attribute you or your OP to endorsing the bogus poll results, just the 3 responders that I cited. I clearly noted "The above 3 gun enthusiasts...", specifically to exclude you from the poll believers, even though you were apparently glowing with satisfaction over posting fraudulent poll results.
But I can generally see through ruses, well enough the power of suggestion ruse & the clever wording creating self exoneration by their authors.

I clearly wrote this explicity to you, thereby excluding you: "This is an UNscientific internet poll, & several of your 'fellow gun enthusiasts' cite it as somehow being the gospel truth"

So why don't you practice what you hypocritically preach, & stop attempting to to attribute sentiment to someone else which they didn't express to begin with.

beevul: Or, do continue, and I'll continue to shine a bright light on it. Your call.

Your bright light just blew out in your face.

In general, if one group has more intensity, they vote more, than a group with relatively low intensity who doesn't, the result isn't 'bogus', its a reflection of the sad reality of the side of the issue that you are on.

I can see how you'd prefer to characterize it as 'bogus' though to preserve the illusion.




So your answer is a 'I didn't do it' note, in which you continue to do it.



Like say..."apparently glowing with satisfaction", is that a good example?

beevul: In general, if one group has more intensity, they vote more, than a group with relatively low intensity who doesn't, the result isn't 'bogus', its a reflection of the sad reality of the side of the issue that you are on

That is one of the stupidest interpretations of the accuracy of internet polling I've ever read. No surprise to me it comes from you.
Your reasoning above would be valid at a reputable regulated poll, but utterly invalid for an unregulated internet poll, where people can vote as many computers or screen names as they possess. You are losing this thread as worse as ever, with every post you make.

beevul: I can see how you'd prefer to characterize it as 'bogus' though to preserve the illusion.

Here you are indeed defending the bogus poll, the junk science garbage which you posted in an OP.
Now I can justifiably lump you in with sarisatka, the odd named 'just reading posts', & teddyR, as making fools of yourselves by defending this unscientific concealed carry internet gun poll.
(Note: Not to infer I didn't think you a fool previously.)

I previously wrote: even though you were apparently glowing with satisfaction over posting fraudulent poll results.
beevul: So your answer is a 'I didn't do it' note, in which you continue to do it

As pathetic from you as usual. Try to bedazzle readers with irrational BS rather than any reasoned argument.
Now I can even remove the word 'apparently' - which disproves your claim in itself - since you have now defended the bogus poll by your comment just above, denying it as bogus. You are indeed glowing over fraudulent poll results.

beevul prior post: All I said was that the result was interesting.

You can't say that any longer. You contend that the poll is NOT bogus:
beevul wrote: I can see how you'd prefer to characterize it as 'bogus' though to preserve the illusion.

beevul: I was thinking it demonstrates the fanatical anti-gunner and how they tend to have nothing good to say when it comes to responding to anything remotely pro-gun, up to and including attempting to falsely attribute viewpoints to others, that they have not expressed about this poll. Your interaction and comments about me alone in this thread are factual proof for all to see.

Getting under your skin am I? good, it's nice to see truth twisting con artists (like donald trump) squirm away while attempting to extricate themselves from their own stupidity.

Did you even read what other posters said after I checked you? Seems you are spitting in the wind, or rather BS'g into it.

tortoise: He didn't say it was a scientific poll, just that the results were interesting... But I agree with you that there's nothing remotely scientific about this poll.

sariakta: My first question was rather tongue in cheek, I am familiar with how internet polls work.

Misrepresenting what I said, I mean. When I said "the result isn't 'bogus', its a reflection of the sad reality of the side of the issue that you are on", I wasn't referring to the poll result. I was referring to the result of one group having more intensity than another. The astute reader will notice and take into context, the words at the very beginning of my sentence: "In general". To the honest (and the literate), the words "in general" denote quite a different meaning than "when it comes to internet polls":





Misrepresentation Fail.



Here, NO I AM NOT. When I said "I can see how you'd prefer to characterize it as 'bogus' though to preserve the illusion", the key word was "it". Using the word "It", I was referring to the result of one group having more intensity than another, and the things that leads to. It isn't bogus, even though you hate it.



Please take 'Introduction to Beginning Reading Comprehension' and get back to me.



Squirm away? ROFL. I'm not the one that made a regular habit of hiding my responses to individual posts in generic thread replies which don't show up to the person you're responding to.

You are not capable of making me squirm away. My will is stronger than yours.



I'm not sure you should give advice about reading, given the problems I've demonstrated that you have in that department.

beevul, trying to wiggle out of his gaffe on internet polls: Misrepresenting what I said, I mean. When I said "the result isn't 'bogus', its a reflection of the sad reality of the side of the issue that you are on", I wasn't referring to the poll result.

Here is the sequence from the above thread:

I wrote, clearly referring to the OP's unscientific internet poll: Gun enthusiasts can vote more than once, indeed as many times as they wish depending on their access to a different computer or likely a different log on screen name (some limit to a computer).

beevul replied, clearly referring to internet polls: But the far superior in number anti-gunners had to be up early to catch the bus/do homework/thedogatemyexcuse and therefore couldn't do the same?

I replied: I already addressed this in the very post you replied to: >>> "Gun owners tend to be quite intense regarding gun control & guns, & 'vote' at a far greater rate than gun control advocates & impartials, which generally produces bogus pro gun results."

beevul asserted: In general, if one group has more intensity, they vote more, than a group with relatively low intensity who doesn't, the result isn't 'bogus', its a reflection of the sad reality of the side of the issue that you are on.

I wrote: That is one of the stupidest interpretations of the accuracy of internet polling I've ever read.

beevul trying to wiggle out of his unscientific gaffe: Misrepresenting what I said, I mean. When I said "the result isn't 'bogus', its a reflection of the sad reality of the side of the issue that you are on", I wasn't referring to the poll result.

Baloney mr tap dancer. I wasn't misrepresenting what you wrote. In context we were discussing your internet poll OP & internet polls as being unscientific. That gun owners do respond inordinately is what contributes to making internet gun polls unscientific.

beebul: I was referring to the result of one group having more intensity than another. The astute reader will notice and take into context, the words at the very beginning of my sentence: "In general". To the honest (and the literate), the words "in general" denote quite a different meaning than "when it comes to internet polls":

Translation: Egads, I've been boomeranged by my own contradictory nonsense. I must dazzle readers with BS to extricate myself from this mess of my own making - my own pro gun side won't care, & they won't know the difference anyway.

beevul: Im not sure you should give advice about reading, given the problems I've demonstrated that you have in that department.

There you have it readers - beevul telling readers that tortoise & sari's remarks on beevul's OP shouldn't be considered, simply because JTO is quoting them.
You are delusionary - you haven't demonstrated that I cannot read & comprehend; what you have proved is that you are a truth twisting con artist.
Just like donald trump.

Once again, you've doubled down on a misrepresentation. I was NOT clearly referring to internet polls. I was referring to the fact that anti-gunners have available to them, all the same options/tactics as pro-gunners, whether its an internet poll or not.

Jimmy the fail.



Maybe that's what YOU were talking about, but you don't get to decide for me, what I was talking about. Kind of like how you don't get to decide for me whether I own a gun or not.

Too bad so sad.



Methodology is what makes polls scientific or not, not the respondents.

That gun owners respond at a far greater rate pace and magnitude than gun control zealots is a fact, and in general, there is nothing unscientific about that.

You sir, are in a minority, like all "strict gun control" pushers and the banners that stand behind them, are. Pissing and moaning about an internet poll isn't going to change that, I'm afraid.


Too bad so sad.



Um, I haven't told anyone anything one way or another, about anyones remarks in this thread, except yours.

You've graduated misrepresentation 101, and have entered the realm of making assertions in other peoples names, a different but equally disgusting form of misrepresentation.

Congratulations on entering "beginning advanced misrepresentation 101".



Oh but I have. You can deny it all you want, but fortunately your denials do not dictate reality.

The only one here, twisting and spinning like a trump, is you.


P.S. A week, and that's the best you can do? Maybe take a month next time.

beevul: When I said "the result isn't 'bogus', its a reflection of the sad reality of the side of the issue that you are on", I wasn't referring to the poll result. I was referring to the result of one group having more intensity than another. The astute reader will notice and take into context, the words at the very beginning of my sentence: "In general". To the honest (and the literate), the words "in general" denote quite a different meaning than "when it comes to internet polls":

What are you talking about if not polls? you talking about elections? referendums? this argument started due your posting an unscientific internet poll & then touting it.
Your above argument is invalid overall. If there is one group having a higher intensity than another group, it does not necessarily mean the high intensity equates to a majority. 'High intensity' could win in an election if low or disinterested turnout, but might not win in a scientific reputable poll which is randomly selected & scientifically representative.

beevul: Methodology is what makes polls scientific or not, not the respondents. That gun owners respond at a far greater rate pace and magnitude than gun control zealots is a fact, and in general, there is nothing unscientific about that.

Beevul's above is mostly nonsense. Scientific polls require both proper methodology & randomly selected respondents.
Gun owners in a properly conducted poll will not be able to respond at 'a far greater rate pace & magnitude'. Duh.

beevul: You sir, are in a minority, like all "strict gun control" pushers and the banners that stand behind them, are. Pissing and moaning about an internet poll isn't going to change that, I'm afraid.

You, are delusional. Gun control efforts in general have a slight to strong majority in most reputable polls which I have seen.

Failing previously, here you are asking a question I have already answered, in yet another poor attempt to ascribe to me, sentiment I did not author. To people who are fluent in English and who don't try to misrepresent the sentiments of others, this answers the question you asked:

When I said "the result isn't 'bogus', its a reflection of the sad reality of the side of the issue that you are on", I wasn't referring to the poll result. I was referring to the result of one group having more intensity than another. The astute reader will notice and take into context, the words at the very beginning of my sentence: "In general". To the honest (and the literate), the words "in general" denote quite a different meaning than "when it comes to internet polls".



Here, the astute reader will notice that jimmy implicates me, backhandedly, of making an argument. He implies that I argued that "high intensity equates to a majority", which is something I haven't argued, and he knows this full well - if I had made that argument, he'd have quoted it.



Spoken as if I said otherwise, and I didn't.



It isn't nonsense, jimmy. What makes polls scientific, is methodology. What determines scientific selection of poll respondents, is methodology.

You're just typing to type, or you feel the need to be perceived as authoritative about something today or something...




Like I said a few posts back, work on your reading comprehension, so that you're able to actually respond to what I said, rather than just the parts you're capable of deciphering on your own. I'm feeling charitable though. I've underlined the parts you seem to be having trouble with:

You sir, are in a minority, like all "strict gun control" pushers and the banners that stand behind them, are. Pissing and moaning about an internet poll isn't going to change that, I'm afraid.

Like I said, take a month.

He didn't say it was a scientific poll, just that the results were interesting...

But I agree with you that there's nothing remotely scientific about this poll. To me, the interesting part was to find that many pro-2A votes on MSNBC. That speaks to either a pretty effective word-of-mouth network, or more pro-2A liberals than people seem to think exist. I honestly have no clue which of these are correct, or if it is due to something else completely...

is not a really progressive action.

My first question was rather tongue in cheek, I am familiar with how internet polls work. But if it showed support for gun control it would be taken as absolute gospel by your "fellow control enthusiasts".

Do you care to comment on the other two, more pertinent, questions I posed?

Funny thing...one never seems to see those un-scientific internet polls show any anti-gun majority.

We keep being told that the control minded outnumber gun owners. e.g. 90% want more gun control etc.

But all those folks never seem to be able to show up for protests, at election time and based on this, are too lazy to even bother voting in an online poll.

donP: We keep being told that the control minded outnumber gun owners. e.g. 90% want more gun control etc.

DonP still up to what he does best, misleading with subtle lies.
That 90% is for one particular proposal, background checks, not gun control in general.
Gun control advocates would likely support that bg check measure near 100%, since the 90% figure includes most all of the pro gun element as well (any other issue is just stupid from donP).
See how you made a fool of yourself donP? you limited that 90% to 'control minded', when it included pro gun & indy minded as well.
Support for gun control is generally about 55 to 60% amongst americans overall, adults.

donP But all those folks never seem to be able to show up for protests, at election time and based on this, are too lazy to even bother voting in an online poll.

Again with the stupid, the misleading lies. We did just fine at election times, defeating pro gun candidates john mccain & mitt romney, even GWBush in the popular (your heroes it appears, since dems generally vote gun control candidates).
Laziness has nowt to do with it either. Most rational people would not want to waste time on an unscientific internet gun poll, which mainly feeds the egos of under educated gun nuts.
But you & your buddy beevul & a few others keep right on wasting your time on unscientific internet polls, thinking they actually prove something nice about guns & assault rifles.

sarisataka: Taking things out of context is not a really progressive action.

I used the obligatory dots, 3 of them, to demonstrate there was text in between what I excerpted, nor did I try to misrepresent with what I excerpted. I don't need post the entire first amendment to cite 'freedom of speech'.
Your first sentence about 'majority decides' appeared to agree with the OP poll results which showed a 92% majority support for allowing ccw & open carry.

sarisatake: I am familiar with how internet polls work. But if it showed support for gun control it would be taken as absolute gospel by your "fellow control enthusiasts".

Baloney conjecture. Most all fellow democrats would suspect a faulty sampling.
You are 'familiar with how internet polls work', yet you didn't mention that in your reply to lone pirate, who wrote:

lone pirate, facetiously: 1. Just more proof that we need to repeal the 2A and confiscate every gun in civilian hands
your reply: Wasn't it last week We were told majority decides for everyone? And the week before we were assured no one wants to confiscate guns? And the week before that promised no one says you can't keep a gun to hunt? So since it appears gun control is based on a bundle of lies, why should gun owners support gun control?

There was NO disagreement with what lone pirate wrote - it appeared you were agreeing with lone pirate's facetious post that the OP internet poll was some kind of inverse pro gun 'proof', & tacking on your additional pro gun opinion.
So by your reply to lone pirate it is sequitur you were concurring to the misleading poll results, moreso since you didn't challenge them. There is no other logical interpretation that I see, unless you agreed with other posters who thought he/she was serious.

sarisatak: Do you care to comment on the other two, more pertinent, questions I posed?

Your questions are specious. No serious democrat gun control proposal wants to confiscate all guns, nor deprive hunters of being able to hunt.