Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
...and...
CITATION NEEDED!
Or is it that you stopped quoting right before the part that would have contradicted your outrage?
those folks support "criminal" background checks, not "universal" checks as Danny claims.
The Tsarnaev kids were profiled and bugged during 2011.
Did it stop them?
So what are background checks going to do....
It is not about target shooting.
It is not about shooting burglars or muggers.
The Right to Bear Arms is about overthrowing the government if it grows arrogant and unresponsive to the Will of the People
The Power resides with The People.
Not the Government.
The People loan out driblets of Power to the Government as they see fit but the Power resides and remains theirs.
The Government should fear The People.
If The Government holds all military power and The People none those in the Government will soon become Tyrants.
Absolute Power Corrupting Absolutely, and all.
Universal background checks are different from criminal background checks.
Plus, LOL at large national sample size of 1,013.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz6WxGWdR…
This is right before he goes back to using apocalyptic language about the future of America and comparing local democrats to Judas, which is clearly not implying anything whatsoever.
There's also these gems, which Dan didn't include...
But again, clearly - clearly! - he's not implying the justified use of lethal retribution in this scenario, in this letter about guns and "traitors" and politicians as bullet backstops, and neither is the Benton County GOP by republishing this letter, written by the Benton County GOP Secretary's husband. Clearly.
How is it that I get called a radical when I still believe in the electoral process, and the so-called conservatives don't?
Walled Get Rule
Alder Glue Welt
Trawled Lee Lug
Delta Urge Well
Waled Leer Glut
See? Now back to normal and ... "well regulated". Easy!
You're quite the ignorant piece of shit, aren't you.
Your President is the one in bed with Terrorist Bombers.
Who was it again that bombed the Pentagon, US Capitol, New York City Police Department headquarters?
Osama Bin laden?
No. It was Obama's unrepentant terrorist pal Bill Ayers.
.
Here is your homework, dipshit: Compare and Contrast the number of people killed by Ayer's bombs to the Marathon Bombers death toll......
I don't think you know how statistical analysis works.*
Also, are you really laughing out loud, or are you STS (scoffing to self)?
*For the purposes of extrapolation, 1,013 is a pretty good sample size, so long as the data points were truly obtained in a random way. 1200 would be preferred, though.
(eyes roll)
Bear that in mind
while you sit in Shock and Awe
at Obama and Reid's
inept feckless clueless inability
to give 90% of the American people what they "support".......
We've disavowed the tactic of trying to bomb people back to the Stone Age since the 60s, but I highly doubt most people espousing armed rebellion against the country are willing to live in underground tunnels on handfuls of rice and bugs, either. It comes down to how far each side is willing to go, and I suspect the government is willing to go further, *and* has quite a lot more firepower.
Also, just to clear things up before the accusations fly, I mean "we" as the country and government as a whole. At no time am I referring to my personal beliefs on either side of the fence - I just keep getting this image of a few pampered chihuahuas picking a fight with a wolf pack.
As for the quote and link Dan provided. That "if they don't agree with you and do what you want just shoot them" attitude... well Osama would certainly buy into that.
Blind hate, you become what you profess to hate. Apparently the Republicans have gone there, they love America so much and are so pants pissing and shitting scared, they will advocate destroying the principals upon which it was founded.
Stuff from the same survey that Danny ignored:
(we never know if Danny is being intentionally dishonest or is just ignorant when he distorts the surveys and studies he touts on Slog. We have come to suspect the latter...)
The survey quizzed Americans on all nine points in Obama's recently released plan to reduce gun violence.
Criminal background checks got the highest support (but interestingly, support was lowest among Independents, lower than Republicans, even...)
The punch line comes from Gallup:
"Notably, Gallup asked a question last week that gauged Americans' immediate reaction to Obama's proposed plan as a package, and found only a slim majority, 53%, saying they would like their member of Congress to support it."
@ 15 - With a sample size that large your margin of error is going to be around 3%. But here's a link that will do the calculation for you:
http://americanresearchgroup.com/moe.htm…
Or if you don't trust them, you can do the math yourself. Here's the formula:
E = zα/2/(2√ n)
More stuff from the survey Danny didn't read:
"Gun Laws Not Necessarily the Priority"
The survey also asked which approach should be chosen to prevent future shooting like Sandy Hook.
More than TWO to ONE (65% vs 30%) Americans favored "School Security Measures" over "Laws on the Sale of Guns and Ammunition"
Americans see through the HomoLiberal's hysterical bullshit, it would seem.
and 90% just ain't what it used to be.....
margin of error in the study @8 is 4%
Well-regulated modifies the word "militia" not the phrase "right to bear arms."
In those days, regulated meant organized. And militia referred to military groups like the National Guard or the Minutemen. In the days of the revolution, many arms were held and stored by the public in times of peace.
So, the amendment basically says in light of our need for organized armed groups, the government shouldn't restrict the right to bear arms.
...
To put it another way: "The young puppy needing to go bathroom in the rain, a raincoat and umbrella are needed for walkies." The adjective "young" does not modify raincoat or umbrella.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I strongly support gun regulation. However, as an American citizen I do respect the Second Amendment. As such, I strongly believe @ 25 has a right to his guns if he is a member of a well regulated militia. In modern terms, that would be the Reserves. So, if I may:
Join up or shut up.
It will be interesting to see if the US military is willing to fire on American Patriots.
To see how many American soldiers realize their loyalty and duty is to The People and not to The Government.
And to see who in the wide world would be willing to help the American Patriots in their struggle against Tyranny.
Two losers in Boston seemed to keep the Government hopping for a week.
One Hundred Million?
Or, to quote Homer Simpson "Anybody can make up statistics to prove a point. Forfty percent of the people know that."
let us fix that for you:
"That "if they don't agree with you and do what you want just shoot them" attitude... well Obama would certainly buy into that. "
Certainly would, and certainly does.
Your boy Obama is the only one in this conversation who kills on a whim.
"an"
bombing "an" abortion clinic
1/10
which is worse?
doubletapping a bunch of kindergarteners or blasting them from a drone?
is it OK to murder little brown children?
Your President is a murderer.
and the blood won't wash off your pasty pudgy greasy mitts, either...
you are very welcome
In statistics, you're dealing with diminishing returns. It's not feasible to poll the entire country so statisticians take a random sample of the population. By sampling more people, they can get closer to a truly representative number but would it be worth the cost? Say that by sampling 10,000 people rather than 1,000 people, their margin of error would drop from around 3% to around 1%. Is narrowing the margin of error by two points worth spending 10 times the resources?
So instead, a statistician might decide that they want a maximum of a 5% margin of error and that they want to be 95% sure that their margin of error is not more than 5%. They will use those numbers (plus the size of the population) to determine how big their random sample needs to be.
The catch is that the sample has to be truly random. If you want to know what brand of chocolate people prefer and the only people you ask are people standing in a Godiva store, your sample isn't really random. And I suspect that's what happens with political polls, probably sometimes unintentionally and probably sometimes on purpose.
Danny's heroes at the ACLU are fighting government efforts to interrogate Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
Why do Danny and the ACLU hate America and love cold blooded killer terrorists? (other than Obama, that is...)
@13: You might want to take a couple of moments to reflect on how the US Constitution works - every time a 'rural redneck' dies off, the ones who are left behind have proportionally even more power in our system. The more that leftists crowd tightly into urban areas, the more chance there is for the Senate to swing in a distinctly un-urban direction.
You guys might want to send some pioneering lefty settlers into flyover country before it gets out of hand...
no no.
keep them packed in tight.
we'd hate for Kim's nukes to miss any...
"Pot, take special care when accusing the kettle of quote mining."
I showed that Dan left off the very next sentence that contradicted the one he quoted.
So you can accuse that guy of having badly thought out rhetoric.
But you cannot, as Dan attempted to imply, accuse him of advocating shooting politicians.
So if you want to show that I'm wrong then you're going to have to show where that guy really was advocating that people shoot politicians.
Otherwise, you're wrong and the guy is not advocating that people shoot politicians.
Sweep all the stats into one big pile and I suspect the violence rates aren't much different for big cities then for small towns. The population is just spread out more in rural areas so you don't notice it as much.
@49 your phrasing is a bit inaccurate but of course the ACLU is moving to insure Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is afforded his rights and due process. Thats the fucking point of protecting ones rights and civil liberties. The ACLU is a "well regulated militia" protecting us from governmental tyranny.
Yes, because there were a lot of polls done by people who didn't give a single waft of shit about proper statistical practices (such as getting as close to a truly random sample as possible). There were, however, many polls that were pretty damn close. The thing about the pre-election time was that the nation was split so evenly that the difference was within the margin of error. In fact, Obama only won the popular vote by a narrow margin of a few percent. It was the electoral college where he cleaned up.
I will repeat here what I said earlier. It is not bullshit if you get a random sample. The proportion of sample size to population size does not affect the validity of a poll or study. It's called extrapolation, and it works in statistical polls as well as in many other aspects of research.
Really, it is something we should not wait until college to teach. It does not require any math skills higher than algebra, and I hear people too often who write off statistics because they don't get it.
The ACLU also defends the rights of anti-gay Christian students to wear anti-gay T-shirts to school. They care about everyone's civil rights, not just the rights of those who agree with them.
No matter what Tsarnaev did, he is an American citizen. We cannot set the precedent of revoking a citizen's rights.
That the Gallup poll didn't post how many of each segment of the population it talked to is worrisome to me. Normally they post, in their full report, things like "number of females/males", ages, or political leanings. They didn't post numbers though. Just percentages.
"We cannot set the precedent of revoking a citizen's rights."
We sure can't.
It's already been set.
That horse is out of the barn and slaughtered in cold blood.
Anwar al-Awlaki.
American Citizen.
Murdered by Barack Obama.
Without ever even being charged with a crime.
Barack-Judge-Jury-and-Executioner-Obama. Your President.
please define "anti-gay" in the context of your post.
Thank you.
The ACLU is the Secular Humanists Clergy forcing their State Religion on the citizens of the Late Great US of A.
I think we agree on this part, true randomness is excruciatingly difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. There are certain things that could skew it. There is the famous example of phone polls calling an election for the candidate favored by the wealth, who were the only ones who could afford phones at the time. A pollster who cares about significant randomness must call upon segments of the population in a manner that does not tend to select for or against particular demographics.
But this isn't really necessary for randomness is it? If a poll is set up in a way to minimize the selectivity of the sampling, then this is not necessary. Also, when they give those numbers, they don't always tell you the proportions of those demographics.
Besides, if you go around actively selecting to fill in a quota of demographics, then you do not have randomness.
Most pollsters post their demographics not because they filled their statistical scorecard but to show how their polls might be skewed.
Like if this poll was randomly 60% women between the ages of 20-35. Or 80% Democrats. A well-randomized poll would lean closer to the makeup of America even though it would probably not match exactly.
Rather than not understanding statistics, I'm skeptical of people. And statistics like 91% make me even more skeptical.
So your reasons for not trusting the poll are because you do not trust Gallup, and they are not mathematical?
We do not make laws by public opinion poll.
The genius of out system is not that it responds to the whim of the mob and the fad of the moment but that it moderates and slows down the process to allow cooler heads to prevail.
The Senate is doing exactly what it is intended to do.
Obama and his fuckwad supporters are 12 year old boys who can't figure out how to pleasure a lady and decide vagina's are stupid anyway and turn gay.
The Senate will moan and coo if you know how to stroke her.
Obama doesn't.
He is too impatient for big boy sex.
He will just wack off while pouring over his latest Kill list.
P O L L S T E R S A R E S H Y S T E R S.
Feel better?
@67 I don't trust polls, I don't ever quote polls, I don't try to speak for other people. And, anybody who quotes polls are either gullible or trying to pull one over on you. Sometimes polls are good, but they almost inevitably skew to whatever point is wanting to be made. This can be massaged or manipulated and the skewing methods can be hidden away. It's not that they're not mathematical. The math scares me not. The humans? They're fallible. Very very VERY fallible.
8/10
4/10
Again, I repeat: is there a systematic error here that could overturn these results. The size of this systematic error would need to be about 40%, which is insanely large. And with a MOE of 4%, this systematic error would need to be an order of magnitude larger than it. The only plausible way that could occur is outright and massive fraud.
So, here is what I'm asking: if another poll by a different reputable polling group finds support greater than 60%, will you apologize to this forum? You may want to do an Internet search before you answer this question. I will give you the citations if you are stupid enough to say 'yes'.
Polls can be useful if used in a meta-analysis. Nate Silver uses them a lot in his predictive stats. I wouldn't trust a single poll either, better to use them in conjunction with each other.
Stop putting words in my mouth.
However, if you can find another poll or two that say support is at 90%, I will admit admit that maybe I'm out of touch.
I just find it EXTREMELY unlikely that 90% would vote for ANYTHING. Nevertheless something as diversive as gun control.
I find it very unlikely that 90% of the population would support criminal background checks for all gun sales.
I suspect this would be an outlier poll.
Just curious.
In general, to all the "polls don't mean anything, sample size is small" people - yes, the sample size was small, but there have been many polls, and if you pool them together (again, remember Nate Silver) you get a clear, statistically significant result - more than 80% of Americans favor expanded background checks.
@Dan - to be accurate, the headline needs to be "data suggest that support for universal background checks in the united states is near 90%". A poll produces an estimate,not the actual value. There's a big difference.
Even the CBS News sheet is better than the Gallup poll sheet. Although, one easily notes that the questions regarding the background checks are "released separately"?
Basically, the polls say 53% want stronger gun laws, but high 80s just want the gunshow loophole closed. And, in my understanding with most of the universal gun check laws, they (before being gutted) would make the background checks stricter and more thorough with cooperation between national agencies and state agencies. Which half the population doesn't want. They just want to close the gun show loophole.
2. um, the Senate. Small states. Inequality of voting power. Your vote in Wyoming is 45x stronger, more powerful than my voate in California. We do not have a Democracy.
3. The Democrats could easily fix the filubuster thing, lack the balls to do it.
4. on the other thing every senate vote should come with the population totals of the number of folks repped by the ayes and the nayes. We'd find quite often, a 10% minority IS blocking change.
5. The rules are well known, yet we mostly believe we have some kind of democracy, when clearly we don't.
Must have struck a nerve.
Look at the polls. Even the Gallup poll. My facts came straight from them. Only 53 percent want stronger gun laws. Double check. Go on. I'll wait.
We are a republic; not a 'democracy'.
Here we had been thinking that an understanding of how answering to your constituents and desire to keep the job at all costs were driving politicians, and it turns out all along it's The Money. You'll have to forgive the oversight, we're a bunch of stupid, fat, redneck gun fellators, and no match for Barry and Mikey and Di and Organizing For Action.
Oh well, constitutional rights were fun while they lasted. You know what - make this even easier - how about you stop letting us vote? So goddamn messy letting the Lesser Ones have a say in their own lives...
Does everyone remember when Fox News and nearly every conservative pundit refused to believe Nate Silver's projections about the 2012 election? They swore any poll that did not have Romney and Obama in a dead heat (or Romney winning by a wide margin) was not only woefully inaccurate, but partisan and corrupt. So who won the general election? Who won the Electoral College? Who is the president now? Remember Karl Rove running around the Fox set like a moron? Any of this sound familiar?
@100: Yep, you hit the nerve that goes off in the presence of smarmy, self-satisfied assholes who have a worldview that extends precisely as far as the radius of their smarmy group of friends who think and act exactly the same way.
Who else do you feel free to look down upon from your enlightened pedestal, Highness?