A Pro Firearms Poll to Vote On.....
0
-
Looks like "strongly agree" is winning. 0 -
What are we agreeing or disagreeing with? The title of the article is a pro 2A statement. The question asks whether we agree with the opposing view.
So - if I check the ?strongly agree? with the LSM say that I?m for tighter gun control or that I believe that no laws would have prevented?
Gotta watch the wording on these things...0 -
The opinion piece you are reading is the "opposing view" authored by Alan Gotlieb of SAF.org. There are two parts. If you click on the "our view" link, it takes you to the opinion of what the rag of a publication USA Today has become, namely that they view the lives lost as yet another sacrifice on the alter of 2A worship and in favor of additional gun control. So, if you support Alan's opposing view, you would click the Agree or Strongly Agree options (depending upon your level of agreement, I guess).WearyTraveler wrote:What are we agreeing or disagreeing with? The title of the article is a pro 2A statement. The question asks whether we agree with the opposing view.
So - if I check the ?strongly agree? with the LSM say that I?m for tighter gun control or that I believe that no laws would have prevented?
Gotta watch the wording on these things...0 -
Mr. Perfect wrote:
The opinion piece you are reading is the "opposing view" authored by Alan Gotlieb of SAF.org. There are two parts. If you click on the "our view" link, it takes you to the opinion of what the rag of a publication USA Today has become, namely that they view the lives lost as yet another sacrifice on the alter of 2A worship and in favor of additional gun control. So, if you support Alan's opposing view, you would click the Agree or Strongly Agree options (depending upon your level of agreement, I guess).WearyTraveler wrote:What are we agreeing or disagreeing with? The title of the article is a pro 2A statement. The question asks whether we agree with the opposing view.
So - if I check the ?strongly agree? with the LSM say that I?m for tighter gun control or that I believe that no laws would have prevented?
Gotta watch the wording on these things...
That is not how I took it. My take is that since "no gun control would have stopped the shooting" argument, that the anti gunners are going for an all out gun prohibition and confiscation.
I OPPOSE THAT VIEW.
You all (ya'll) are playing right into their hands.
The argument should be: "If other workers were armed, this would not have happened".
The NRA is still selling all ya'll down the river, send them more money so the brass at the top can live the High Life.
Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation is falling right into the clever trap too. He should be screaming to ARM EVERYBODY to prevent these atrocities, if we are to believe that it really was a senseless act. When I hear about collusion, and see all the ones who colluded and how they are entrusted by the citizens, I have to wonder if the shooter was the bad guy or good guy given the fact of where he worked.
Unfortunately we won't ever get the truth, only what they want to feed us.
Never the less, parroting the mantra, "No gun law were broken", "More gun laws won't stop it", the next logical step then is for them to take away guns from law abiding citizens. Gun laws won't stop the alleged "senseless act of violence" so confiscation must happen.
If they had been properly trained and armed or maybe just armed, the "senseless" (or deserved) violence" may have been prevented.0 -
Well, you categorically misunderstand what was presented.mag00 wrote:Mr. Perfect wrote:
The opinion piece you are reading is the "opposing view" authored by Alan Gotlieb of SAF.org. There are two parts. If you click on the "our view" link, it takes you to the opinion of what the rag of a publication USA Today has become, namely that they view the lives lost as yet another sacrifice on the alter of 2A worship and in favor of additional gun control. So, if you support Alan's opposing view, you would click the Agree or Strongly Agree options (depending upon your level of agreement, I guess).WearyTraveler wrote:What are we agreeing or disagreeing with? The title of the article is a pro 2A statement. The question asks whether we agree with the opposing view.
So - if I check the ?strongly agree? with the LSM say that I?m for tighter gun control or that I believe that no laws would have prevented?
Gotta watch the wording on these things...
That is not how I took it. My take is that since "no gun control would have stopped the shooting" argument, that the anti gunners are going for an all out gun prohibition and confiscation.
I OPPOSE THAT VIEW.
You all (ya'll) are playing right into their hands.
The argument should be: "If other workers were armed, this would not have happened".
The NRA is still selling all ya'll down the river, send them more money so the brass at the top can live the High Life.
Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation is falling right into the clever trap too. He should be screaming to ARM EVERYBODY to prevent these atrocities, if we are to believe that it really was a senseless act. When I hear about collusion, and see all the ones who colluded and how they are entrusted by the citizens, I have to wonder if the shooter was the bad guy or good guy given the fact of where he worked.
Unfortunately we won't ever get the truth, only what they want to feed us.
Never the less, parroting the mantra, "No gun law were broken", "More gun laws won't stop it", the next logical step then is for them to take away guns from law abiding citizens. Gun laws won't stop the alleged "senseless act of violence" so confiscation must happen.
If they had been properly trained and armed or maybe just armed, the "senseless" (or deserved) violence" may have been prevented.0 -
Mr. Perfect wrote:
Well, you categorically misunderstand what was presented.mag00 wrote:Mr. Perfect wrote:
The opinion piece you are reading is the "opposing view" authored by Alan Gotlieb of SAF.org. There are two parts. If you click on the "our view" link, it takes you to the opinion of what the rag of a publication USA Today has become, namely that they view the lives lost as yet another sacrifice on the alter of 2A worship and in favor of additional gun control. So, if you support Alan's opposing view, you would click the Agree or Strongly Agree options (depending upon your level of agreement, I guess).
That is not how I took it. My take is that since "no gun control would have stopped the shooting" argument, that the anti gunners are going for an all out gun prohibition and confiscation.
I OPPOSE THAT VIEW.
You all (ya'll) are playing right into their hands.
The argument should be: "If other workers were armed, this would not have happened".
The NRA is still selling all ya'll down the river, send them more money so the brass at the top can live the High Life.
Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation is falling right into the clever trap too. He should be screaming to ARM EVERYBODY to prevent these atrocities, if we are to believe that it really was a senseless act. When I hear about collusion, and see all the ones who colluded and how they are entrusted by the citizens, I have to wonder if the shooter was the bad guy or good guy given the fact of where he worked.
Unfortunately we won't ever get the truth, only what they want to feed us.
Never the less, parroting the mantra, "No gun law were broken", "More gun laws won't stop it", the next logical step then is for them to take away guns from law abiding citizens. Gun laws won't stop the alleged "senseless act of violence" so confiscation must happen.
If they had been properly trained and armed or maybe just armed, the "senseless" (or deserved) violence" may have been prevented.
Really? How so?0 -
No Stinking poll. Gun owners already know the right answer. 0 -
I explained the poll up above. If you still don't understand how USA today's opinion pieces work, I can't help you.mag00 wrote:Mr. Perfect wrote:
Well, you categorically misunderstand what was presented.mag00 wrote:
That is not how I took it. My take is that since "no gun control would have stopped the shooting" argument, that the anti gunners are going for an all out gun prohibition and confiscation.
I OPPOSE THAT VIEW.
You all (ya'll) are playing right into their hands.
The argument should be: "If other workers were armed, this would not have happened".
The NRA is still selling all ya'll down the river, send them more money so the brass at the top can live the High Life.
Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation is falling right into the clever trap too. He should be screaming to ARM EVERYBODY to prevent these atrocities, if we are to believe that it really was a senseless act. When I hear about collusion, and see all the ones who colluded and how they are entrusted by the citizens, I have to wonder if the shooter was the bad guy or good guy given the fact of where he worked.
Unfortunately we won't ever get the truth, only what they want to feed us.
Never the less, parroting the mantra, "No gun law were broken", "More gun laws won't stop it", the next logical step then is for them to take away guns from law abiding citizens. Gun laws won't stop the alleged "senseless act of violence" so confiscation must happen.
If they had been properly trained and armed or maybe just armed, the "senseless" (or deserved) violence" may have been prevented.
Really? How so?0 -
Not asking for your help. Just asking how you came to your idea that I mis understand anything and what it is you feel I mis understand.Mr. Perfect wrote:
I explained the poll up above. If you still don't understand how USA today's opinion pieces work, I can't help you.mag00 wrote:Mr. Perfect wrote:
Well, you categorically misunderstand what was presented.
Really? How so?
But when you can't come up with an answer, I understand.
0 -
A simple review of the difference between what you say the poll is about and what I say it is about should suffice. I see no need to further rehash it an additional c&p.mag00 wrote:
Not asking for your help. Just asking how you came to your idea that I mis understand anything and what it is you feel I mis understand.Mr. Perfect wrote:
I explained the poll up above. If you still don't understand how USA today's opinion pieces work, I can't help you.mag00 wrote:
Really? How so?
But when you can't come up with an answer, I understand.
0 -
The article by Mr. Gottlieb is well written.
Problem is the publisher USA has twisted it and made it confusing to the pro gun voter.
Seems comon that fake news left slants things thier way. Its a shame.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
11 comments