OK, I just woke up to news that there has been ANOTHER mass shooting in the US, this time in Dayton Ohio... 9 dead, 16 injured

[jehurey 3,277]

7 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

I don't think anyone is insinuating taking guns away, not yet anyway and that would be a violation of not only the 2nd amendment but also the 4th amendment. What is however being conveyed is that gun control laws can become so stringent and overbearing e.g. California that it becomes a near improbability to attain one whether for first purchase or subsequent purchases even if you're 100% eligible and clear via existing prerequisites from the FFL, FBI and ATF to purchase one. 

You don't have a problem when states pass anti-abortion laws so stringent that it practically outlaws abortion even though the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that its legal.

 

You are okay with states getting around and making something practically impossible.

 

So don't complain now..........you have condoned the practice of skirting the law with technicalities.

 

And secondly..........we can REPEAL amendments if enough people get sick and tired about the gun problem. Maybe you need to come to a compromise before its too late.

Edited August 6, 2019 by jehurey

[DynamiteCop 2,087]

2 minutes ago, jehurey said:

You don't have a problem when states pass anti-abortion laws so stringent that it practically outlaws abortion even though the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that its legal.

 

You are okay with states getting around and making something practically impossible.

 

So don't complain now..........you have condoned the practice of skirting the law with technicalities.

 

And secondly..........we can REPEAL amendments if enough people get sick and tired about the gun problem. Maybe you need to come to a compromise before its too late.

Abortion is not a constitutional amendment, it's backed by the constitution but extremely loosely and could be done away with by the swing of a gavel. I'm not even going to get into that mess but the point is you're trying to compare loose ratified additions to solidified rights which are the actual basis of an amendment themselves. 

 

The second amendment will never be repealed, frankly put even if it could be done by legislation the entire country would turn into a warzone. The only amendment we ever repealed was the 18th and there was little to no qualms from anyone about it being tossed out. 

[jehurey 3,277]

6 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Abortion is not a constitutional amendment, it's backed by the constitution but extremely loosely and could be done away with by the swing of a gavel. I'm not even going to get into that mess but the point is you're trying to compare loose ratified additions to solidified rights which are the actual basis of an amendment themselves. 

 

The second amendment will never be repealed, frankly put even if it could be done by legislation the entire country would turn into a warzone. The only amendment we ever repealed was the 18th and there was little to no qualms from anyone about it being tossed out. 

Its protected by the 14th Amendment. Try again.

 

the 2nd Amendment says to bear "arms" doesn't specify which type of arms.

 

See.........we can get lawyers to cut it down in a myriad of legal technicalities, if we'd like.

 

Don't worry about turning the country into a warzone........that's not your problem, we'll take care of it.

[DynamiteCop 2,087]

3 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Its protected by the 14th Amendment. Try again.

 

the 2nd Amendment says to bear "arms" doesn't specify which type of arms.

 

See.........we can get lawyers to cut it down in a myriad of legal technicalities, if we'd like.

 

Don't worry about turning the country into a warzone........that's not your problem, we'll take care of it.

The second amendment is iron clad, arms is already defined, it's been defined since its inception. Abortion is loose and could be abolished by the Supreme Court as it's not the actual basis of an amendment, the second amendment would need to pass through congress for repeal which is never going to happen.

 

They sit in extremely different positions on the totem pole. 

[Teh_Diplomat 2,054]

 You guys cant even get HEALTHCARE done, and you think removing the 2nd amendment (with a nihilist like Mitch McConnell) is possible.

 

How about you step up to the rest to the rest of the 1st world prior to discussing the rest of the issues that plague your country.

 

Because here's the thing. The rest of those countries are still grappling with their own economic, social, cultural, immigration issues, and they ALL provide healthcare to their citizens.

 

 

 

I want a new UN provision that prevents any American from talking shit about their superiority until they step up to the likes of Eastern European, and Latin American countries and provide a single payer healthcare system which would in fact - and here's the kicker; provide a all encompassing system for less than your currently pay...

 

Until then it's just going to be Kaz and Killzone smileys for any replies to the contrary.

[jehurey 3,277]

Just now, DynamiteCop! said:

The second amendment is iron clad, arms is already defined, it's been defined since its inception. Abortion is loose and could be abolished by the Supreme Court as it's not the actual basis of an amendment, the second amendment would need to pass through congress for repeal which is never going to happen.

 

They sit in extremely different positions on the totem pole. 

No........its an amendment.

 

And can you get a bazooka or a mine or an explosive? Nope........so we already HAVE DRAWN a line where we can restrict weapons.  The line can be moved.

 

Abortion is covered by the 14th amendment

 

Don't worry..............we're not looking to you for answer to constitutional questions. LOL

[DynamiteCop 2,087]

Just now, jehurey said:

No........its an amendment.

 

And can you get a bazooka or a mine or an explosive? Nope........so we already HAVE DRAWN a line where we can restrict weapons.  The line can be moved.

 

Abortion is covered by the 14th amendment

 

Don't worry..............we're not looking to you for answer to constitutional questions. LOL

You're not getting this son, something which is protected under an amendment is not the same as something which is the basis of and is an amendment. 

 

One can be done away with by the Supreme Court, the other needs to pass through congress to happen. 

[jehurey 3,277]

3 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

You're not getting this son, something which is protected under an amendment is not the same as something which is the basis of and is an amendment. 

 

One can be done away with by the Supreme Court, the other needs to pass through congress to happen. 

Can you buy a bazooka or explosive, yes or no?

 

Because if you can't we already have the ability to restrict weapons from you.

 

You don't even understand how polling works.............what makes you think you understand constitutional philosophy?

 

Its not unlimited, sweetie.

Edited August 6, 2019 by jehurey

[DynamiteCop 2,087]

Just now, jehurey said:

Can you buy a bazooka or explosive, yes or no?

 

Because if you can't we already have the ability to restrict weapons from you.

 

You don't even understand how polling works.............what makes you think you understand constitutional philosophy?

 

Its not unlimited, sweetie.

So I'll take this as I'm right and your only tactic is to dance, thanks. 

[jehurey 3,277]

1 minute ago, DynamiteCop! said:

So I'll take this as I'm right and your only tactic is to dance, thanks. 

Who is the one that has avoided a simple Yes or No question three straight times?

 

Because that's the one who is dancing.

 

Good to see you're not completely stupid and know when to run away.

[James Skywalker 528]

What about all the murdering of animals? Psycho killing and eating everywhere. Examples of cannibals where these consumed animals are considered human like Bill the Bull. 

[Teh_Diplomat 2,054]

2 hours ago, Optimus Jim said:

What about all the murdering of animals? Psycho killing and eating everywhere. Examples of cannibals where these consumed animals are considered human like Bill the Bull. 

We can't cannibalize animals like Pigs, Cows, and/or Poultry; stop that.

[bhytre 2,753]

12 hours ago, JONBpc said:

To be fair,  nobody is concerned about the shootings tho unless it's an incident like these 2 .

 

There are shootings everyday in the US with kill counts making these incidents small .

 

And nobody talks about it , cares about it or speaks on gun violence then . Why ?

 

 

Libtards' favorite game is to gather ammo to only demonize white people that's why

Also on the front page of CNN of all places:

 

Jefaggoty hbr, always wrong  

 

[Hot Sauce 2,735]

10 hours ago, DynamiteCop! said:

you expect me to believe out of a 330 million populous that any relevant data could be surmised from a poll of just over 1,000 people you're out of your god damn mind. 

You have zero idea how statistics works.

[DynamiteCop 2,087]

18 minutes ago, Hot Sauce said:

You have zero idea how statistics works.

Repeating this over and over doesn't make it true. I know how they work, I find no faith in ones with a sample size this small and so should everyone else. 

[Teh_Diplomat 2,054]

2 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Repeating this over and over doesn't make it true. I know how they work, I find no faith in ones with a sample size this small and so should everyone else. 

They are statistics; no faith is required here.

[DynamiteCop 2,087]

Just now, Teh_Diplomat said:

They are statistics; no faith is required here.

They're not a 'statistic', it's a poll. 

[Teh_Diplomat 2,054]

25 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

They're not a 'statistic', it's a poll. 

 

 

[Hot Sauce 2,735]

16 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

I know how they work

Repeating this over and over doesn't make it true.

 

17 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

I find no faith in ones with a sample size this small and so should everyone else. 

Like I said, you have zero clue what you're talking about.

 

A sample size of 384 is enough to derive accurate polling data on a population of 300,000 with a margin of error of 5%. It's also the same sample size needed to derive accurate polling data on a population of 300,000,000,000 with the same margin of error because sample size has a diminishing return on polling accuracy that quickly approaches irrelevance. The mathematics behind it are completely solid and you believing otherwise is just feels over reals.

 

What you could object to is the methodology, but Gallup is one of the best pollsters around.

[DynamiteCop 2,087]

2 minutes ago, Teh_Diplomat said:

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Hot Sauce said:

Repeating this over and over doesn't make it true.

 

Like I said, you have zero clue what you're talking about.

 

A sample size of 384 is enough to derive accurate polling data on a population of 300,000 with a margin of error of 5%. It's also the same sample size needed to derive accurate polling data on a population of 300,000,000,000 with the same margin of error because sample size has a diminishing return on polling accuracy that quickly approaches irrelevance. The mathematics behind it are completely solid and you believing otherwise is just feels over reals.

 

What you could object to is the methodology, but Gallup is one of the best pollsters around.

Statistics hold intrinsic value because they are built and based upon recorded and documented events to bring you to a number. A poll even in light of confidence percentages and random selection can turn up starkly different results each time its run. The reasons polls are run is because of the inability to attain broader results from the populous to reach a solidified conclusion which means verifying confidence accuracy is an impossibility, it's speculated accuracy. As I said I understand how they work, I understand the methodology, I place very little faith in it.