Forget the 2nd Amendment, now the President wants to take away College Football

[kchsload]

So I watch Fox News...am I 'stupid' or misinformed? Or is it that there are plenty of stupid and misinformed people in our country, regardless of where they receive their news source? Just because students fail a college class doesn't mean that the course material isn't being delivered in a factual and effective way.

I don't know, do you watch Fox despite the fact that you're aware you're being misinformed? There are plenty on misinformed people on both sides, but why is it in both studies (the second one is below) Fox viewers scored the lowest?

Just because students fail a college class doesn't mean that the course material isn't being delivered in a factual and effective way.

You're right. But when a professor's students as a whole perform worse than those of other professors, there is a problem.

I get your distaste for ideological news sources (I hope you put the ones I've listed above into that bucket as well), but don't put your faith in polls either.

I dislike all cable news. Especially the ones that claim to be "fair and balanced" when it is overtly obvious it is not. I don't watch it, but at least MSNBC doesn't broadcast its programs under the guise of balanced news. Their viewers know they're getting a liberal bias but Fox viewers think they are getting a neutral view. Sans the misinformation aspect, I suppose this is my biggest problem with them, they're not what they claim so hard to be: balanced. I would have much less of an issue with Fox if they would just admit their programming is the mouth piece of the Republican party (much like MSNBC is that of the Democrats). Not saying people shouldn't watch it, but they should be aware of the product they are given.

The same could be said for pollsters. In this case, they sampled 612 people in NJ and claim this is representative of Fox viewers nationwide. I get your distaste for ideological news sources (I hope you put the ones I've listed above into that bucket as well), but don't put your faith in polls either.

I agree, I would have liked to have seen a wider sample of the population. However, the results of this survey back up another survey conducted by the University of Maryland in late 2010.

https://www.worldpubl...n_Dec10_rpt.pdf

...Furthermore, those who had greater exposure to news sources were generally better informed. In the great majority of cases, those with higher levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation. There were however a number of cases where greater exposure to a news source increased misinformation on a specific issue. Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that:

most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (8 points more likely)

most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)

the economy is getting worse (26 points)

most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)

the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)

their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)

the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)

when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)

and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

These effects increased incrementally with increasing levels of exposure and all were statistically significant. The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican.

There were cases with some other news sources as well.

Daily consumers of MSNBC and public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) were higher (34 points and 25 points respectively) in believing that it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending money raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates.

Daily watchers of network TV news broadcasts were 12 points higher in believing that TARP was signed into law by President Obama, and 11 points higher in believing that most Republicans oppose TARP. All of these effects were statistically significant.

Edited February 8, 2013 by kchsload

[LockheedFix]

I don't watch it, but at least MSNBC doesn't broadcast its programs under the guise of balanced news. Their viewers know they're getting a liberal bias but Fox viewers think they are getting a neutral view. Sans the misinformation aspect, I suppose this is my biggest problem with them, they're not what they claim so hard to be: balanced. I would have much less of an issue with Fox if they would just admit their programming is the mouth piece of the Republican party (much like MSNBC is that of the Democrats). Not saying people shouldn't watch it, but they should be aware of the product they are given.

Do you have any evidence to back up this statement? I have never seen a commercial on MSNBC that says they claim to be a biased source that represents only liberal views. They claim to tell the full story just like everybody else. Their hosts are just so hateful and full of vitriol that its readily obvious that they hate anyone that doesn't agree with them (of course so is Sean Hannity).

I think it's tough to get a good sample on how well informed MSNBC's viewers are because there are so few of them.

[338skybolt]

14 year old girl speaks on 2nd Amendment rights in NH Congress:

https://cowboybyte.com/18063/14-year-old-girl-speaks-on-2nd-amendment-rights-in-nh-congress/

Thought it was well said. Apologies if this is a re-post.

[kchsload]

Repeat after me: Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment! Nobody is taking anyone's guns away! No one is trying to repeal the Second Amendment!

[Grabby]

Load,

Are you on drugs, trying to be satirical, ignorant, or dumb?

[HeloDude]

Agree--either he is trying to make an actual point or doesn't know how to relay sarcasm effectively.

Either way, there are in fact people trying to take away our guns. Just look at a bill proposed by Dems in the Missouri State Legislature...just one example for you.

[tac airlifter]

'kchsload'

You're an idiot. There have been numerous calls to repeal the second amendment, and even more to render it impotent by severely restricting the arms allowed. Additionally, there have been numerous calls to both take away existing arms and prevent the manufacture of new ones. Repeating a chant doesn't make it true, it makes you look like an ignorant zombie. Or just terrible at conveying sarcasm. Either way, that was an idiotic post.

[spaceman]

You're and idiot.

Edited February 28, 2013 by spaceman

[tac airlifter]

Ha! Got me; cheers.

[338skybolt]

Load,

Are you on drugs, trying to be satirical, ignorant, or dumb?

I believe all that was the echo through the forest of trees he's hugging.

[TreeA10]

https://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/23/gaining-momentum-now-42-gun-companies-have-stopped-selling-to-law-enforcement-in-anti-2nd-amendment-states/#

Looks like some of the gun and ammo companies have decided not to sell to law enforcement within states that impinge on the 2nd Amendment rights of their citizens.

Edited February 28, 2013 by TreeA10

[M2]

Ha! Got me; cheers.

No worries, I fixed it for ya since you said what I was going to say anyhow...

[kchsload]

Load,

Are you on drugs, trying to be satirical, ignorant, or dumb?

Sorry, had a Sean Hannity moment. Figured if I repeated it enough you'd believe too.

Either way, there are in fact people trying to take away our guns. Just look at a bill proposed by Dems in the MO State Legislature...just one example for you.

That's politicking, they knew there was a 0% chance of that bill passing ( It wouldn't pass in California). Same as when the MI Repubs proposed a bill that would make proposing any new gun control related bill a crime.

I believe all that was the echo through the forest of trees he's hugging.

The only sounds echoing in the woods I make are from the three dozen rifles in my home in the US.

Which of these blatant and tyrannical Executive Orders Obama singed are tying to takeaway our guns?

Gun Violence Reduction Executive Actions:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make itwidely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effectiveuse of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to developinnovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

[Grabby]

Load,

Ever heard the old axiom "How do you eat an elephant"?

Or, if you'd like another description of what these new EO's and proposed/enacted state legislations are regarding an eventual unarmed populous...

[HeloDude]

politicking, they knew there was a 0% chance of that bill passing ( It wouldn't pass in California). Same as when the MI Repubs proposed a bill that would make proposing any new gun control related bill a crime.

So just so I'm clear, we can't hold politicians to anything they say...even if it's something they propose in a bill, if according to a few/some/most it will never become law?

In that case, there should have been no backlash against Akin in the MO Senate race because him saying 'legitimate rape', etc doesn't really matter because it would have near zero chance of ever affecting any laws--is this correct? Same for the entire GOP--the majority of the party's politicians call themselves pro-life, and occassionally put up bills to deny abortion, but it really doesn't matter because since 1973, abortion rights have always been upheld--they have never been taken away.

Also, thank God folks in NY don't have to get rid of their 'pre-ban 1994 high capacity magazines'...oh wait, yeah, they have to get rid of them or become a criminal. Sure sounds like Dems coming for their guns, or at least gun magazines to me.

https://www.governor.ny.gov/2013/gun-reforms

Try again man...

Edited March 1, 2013 by HeloDude

[Fuzz]

Dianne Feinstein: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

Want to try that again? Or do we seriously need to list the several bills introduced at the state level?

[kchsload]

Load,

Ever heard the old axiom "How do you eat an elephant"?

Or, if you'd like another description of what these new EO's and proposed/enacted state legislations are regarding an eventual unarmed populous...

You keep looking out for that boogieman.

I would feel differently if there was a dictator or king sitting in Washington, but that's not the case. I don't understand this fear of government that Reagan popularized. I find it comparable to the Red Scare and McCarthyism of the late 40s and 50s. The citizens make up the government, as a member of the military you make up the government that you fear so much. If you don't like the decisions made in government you can vote those decision makers out and try anew. I have a much bigger fear of special interest groups backed by corporations.

So just so I'm clear, we can't hold politicians to anything they say...even if it's something they propose in a bill, if according to a few/some/most it will never become law?

In that case, there should have been no backlash against Akin in the MO Senate race because him saying 'legitimate rape', etc doesn't really matter because it would have near zero chance of ever affecting any laws--is this correct? Same for the entire GOP--the majority of the party's politicians call themselves pro-life, and occassionally put up bills to deny abortion, but it really doesn't matter because since 1973, abortion rights have always been upheld--they have never been taken away.

Also, thank God folks in NY don't have to get rid of their 'pre-ban 1994 high capacity magazines'...oh wait, yeah, they have to get rid of them or become a criminal. Sure sounds like Dems coming for their guns, or at least gun magazines to me.

https://www.governor....013/gun-reforms

Try again man...

Not saying I support it. I'm just calling it out for what it is. There is a difference, however, in asinine comments made by a man and a unified proposal by a party that reiterates their stance.These proposals always start off extreme to provide barging room for a more moderate and common sense law. Again, not my stance, this is just how politicking is.

That's NY's stance, the 2nd Amendment still stands. I own several 30 round mag capable weapons, in all honesty I really don't need a 30 round mag for shooting paper nor home defense (12 gauge). I know I've seen it on this board before, If you don't like the laws in that state, you're more than welcome to move to a state who's ideals are more in sync with your own.

Edited March 1, 2013 by kchsload

[HeloDude]

That's NY's stance, the 2nd Amendment still stands.

Ahh...so since you seem to have it all figured out (regardless if you're a 2nd Amendment 'supporter' or not), let me ask you: When does the 2nd Amendment no longer 'stand'? If they come back and ban magazines to 5 rounds will it still stand? What if they ban bolt action rifles--still stand? Will it still stand if they only allow single round shotguns? When in your wisdom is the line drawn?

I own several 30 round mag capable weapons, in all honesty I really don't need a 30 round mag for shooting paper nor home defense (12 gauge).

That's great--but who says I have to follow your same home defense set-up? By your argument, I could say that guys don't need vasectomies because they could just use condoms. Or are we talking about personal choices and freedoms/liberties here?

I know I've seen it on this board before, If you don't like the laws in that state, you're more than welcome to move to a state who's ideals are more in sync with your own.

So States can now violate The Constitution?...as long as I can move to a different State that doesn't, then it's cool, right? So Montana can ban access to Facebook because 'hey, you can move to a State that doesn't...or maybe they can limit you to only 5 posts a day, as long as I can move to a State that won't limit my number of posts? Maybe a State can have limitations to the 13th Amendment, as long as people aren't slaves the entire day...besides, the poor guys can move to a State that follows the 13th Amendment, so all is good, right?

I'm very interested in reading your insightful replies...

[Day Man]

you're more than welcome to move to a state who's ideals are more in sync with your own.

unless, y'know, you have orders there...

[Fuzz]

Unconstitutional is fucking unconstitutional, regardless if it is in Albany or Dallas. Not liking new taxes or traffic laws ect. Is reasons you mentioned to vote with your feet if you don't like it, however you are garunteed your Constitutional rights anywhere on American soil, and its not up for debate.

[kchsload]

Ahh...so since you seem to have it all figured out (regardless if you're a 2nd Amendment 'supporter' or not), let me ask you: When does the 2nd Amendment no longer 'stand'? If they come back and ban magazines to 5 rounds will it still stand? What if they ban bolt action rifles--still stand? Will it still stand if they only allow single round shotguns? When in your wisdom is the line drawn?

When "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" is infringed upon. Limited access to 30 round mags doesn't infringe upon that in my opinion.

Not sure what your personal reason for owning weapons is, but mine is not in preparation to fight the government But let's say for a minute that the damn near impossible has come true, there is a dictator in The White House trying to take our guns. Just how are those people that you would be fighting against? The US military? The same military of individuals that you and I make/made up???? Hmmm.... Take it a bit farther, if we need a militia to protect ourselves from a tyrant, well then, I want the best equipment available to fight the mighty US military and law enforcement that are going to come after my guns! After all what's the point of a militia if it can't even compare to a potential adversary? Therefore I want A-10s, M-1 Abrams, Patriot Batteries.etc to at least allow my militia to have a fighting chance! And dammit, this is all outlawed! Shit, that must mean my 2nd Amendment right is being tramped upon!

Common sense limits don't equal violations of rights. When, in my opinion, these limits go past common sense I start to write my Representatives.You obviously have different and more sensitive to change opinions than I do.

Or are we talking about personal choices and freedoms/liberties here?..

Only if the the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments violate my right to buy leaded gasoline or purchasing a car requires insurance. Isn't it my right to choose which gasoline I want to use? Leaded has more power, I want that one! But the oppressive gov't is infringing upon my right to fill up my car how I please! To top it off, they also require me to buy insurance! That's right! The oppressive gov't is telling me that I have to spend my own money on my car! And if a 12 year old wants to work in a factory 16 hours a day, why shouldn't he? But no! Washington has once again taken away his right to choose! Tyrants!!

So States can now violate The Constitution?...as long as I can move to a different State that doesn't, then it's cool, right? So Montana can ban access to Facebook because 'hey, you can move to a State that doesn't...or maybe they can limit you to only 5 posts a day, as long as I can move to a State that won't limit my number of posts? Maybe a State can have limitations to the 13th Amendment, as long as people aren't slaves the entire day...besides, the poor guys can move to a State that follows the 13th Amendment, so all is good, right?

You're personal opinion is that NY has violated the Constitution. Not the courts or others. If you want to live in a state where the gun laws a more lax, you're free to go to TX. Don't want to? Go to NY. States are free to create laws as long as they don't contradict federal ones. Federal law reigns supreme.

I look forward to your passionate insight...

Edited March 1, 2013 by kchsload

[Vetter]

Jesus fucking Christ. Where do these people come from?

Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to buy leaded gas? It doesn't. Therefore, regulate it all you want (10th amendment disagreement aside). Where does it say in the Constitution that my right to bear arms shall not be infringed? The Second Amendment. See the difference there numb nuts?

Edited March 1, 2013 by Vetter

[kchsload]

Where does it say you have to right to buy 30 round mags? An Ar-15 with a 10 round mag is just as much keeping the right to bear arms as a 30 round mag is.

Edited March 1, 2013 by kchsload

[tac airlifter]

When "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" is infringed upon. Limited access to 30 round mags doesn't infringe upon that in my opinion.

Common sense limits don't equal violations of rights. When, in my opinion, these limits....

You didn't answer his question. At what point does magazine capacity limitations infringe upon our right to bear arms? You don't think 30 is the limit. What about 10? What about 7? What about limits on semi-automatic weapons that even have a detachable magazine? You started this discussion with an immature ranting paragraph about how no one is coming to take our guns.... Etc. Some people feel otherwise based on existing and proposed laws which render, in our opinion, the 2A impotent; want to discuss that? Answer the questions posed on the actual topic- attempting to equate magazine limitations you view as reasonable with limitations on private ownership of A10s is intellecually dishonest; no one feels infringed by not owning one. If your argument hinges on the phrase "common sense" then you need to define what exactly you mean by that.

If you want to have a grown up talk, why don't you answer the actual questions posed to you? Your opinion on what you need for self defense is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

Where does it say you have to right to buy 30 round mags? An Ar-15 with a 10 round mag is just as much keeping the right to bear arms as a 30 round mag is.

Where does it say i don't? You think these limits are acceptable, I disagree with you; why is your opinion any more valid than mine? And what about a 7 round limitation? 5? What about no detachable magazine? Should the federal government ban pistol grips and barrel shrouds? How about we call your 12 gauge an assault weapon and restrict everyone to double barrel shotguns? What is reasonable, and what do you mean by common sense regulations? Personally I think the NFA is reasonable and existing controls on automatic weapons are reasonable. Why don't we start from there and drop the whole "you want an A10 and Patriot missile battery" bullshit?

Ultimately the courts will have to provide some more specific guidance. Until then, you are incorrect in thinking there aren't legislators out there who want confiscation and a total ban. I'm glad you feel comfortable sheepishly laying down your rights to use standard capacity, 30 rounds magazines. While you are free to give up your own rights, you aren't free to fuck with mine.

Edited March 1, 2013 by tac airlifter

[TreeA10]

Tac Airlifter, I want an A-10!!! Not sure my neighbors will approve and I can't afford the gas but it would look cool in my driveway.

Regarding bans on magazines, etc. I'll agree to whatever limitations are placed on the POTUS, FLOTUS, VPOTUS, and SOH security details, including what is in the escorting Suburbans. If they don't need it for their safety and well being, then I don't need it. But if the experts deem a particular weapon or capability important, I don't see why my familys safety is inconsequential and entitled to less security.