especially since two of them lose half their population to Florida every October? One of them, New Jersey, is infested with organized crime?

given that New Jersey is one of the mismanaged and racist shitholes in the US, they have no business telling anyone anything. Most New Yorkers outside of NYC doesn't support the SAFE Act. Most of those in NYC are misinformed.

In just two sentences you manage to adhomenim one state and the citizens of another without a single item of support for either.

When I was at Travis AFB, CA , my boss was stopped more for driving while black in his two years in California than the previous ten years in Alabama. No, California didn't strike me as the open minded liberal paradise that the PR claims it is. When it comes to guns, most NYC residents are misinformed about the rest of the country.

"anti gun" debating techniques to see how they work. Really don't using them myself, but they seem to.

It doesn't mean that it is an imperative , let alone legal or ethical.

The nra has no more say over my constitutional rights as the AARP does over abortion issues.
Both are based on the constitution and decisions by the SCOTUS.
It seems to be the delusional belief that if there was no NRA people would line up to turn in every firearm they have. laugh laugh laugh.....

now about the ocean front property in north dakota.......

Oh, wait...

After all, they are breaking the law:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title8/html/USCODE-2011-title8-chap12-subchapII-partVIII-sec1325.htm

A proud progressive tradition...

I'm not violating any gun laws at all, sparky. I don't live in a state with gun registration (nor would I).

And no one who throws puerile insults from behind the safe anonymity of a computer screen should be calling anyone else a coward...

And if you want to claim civil disobediance stand up and DO it. Get hit with fire hoses and police dogs. Hiding in a closet with an unregistered AR despite the law isn't civil disobedience. It's cowardice. My name is Andy Shanks, I live in Arlington Texas.

As I said above (in very simple terms), I have nothing to protest. Perhaps you somehow missed the part where I said I have no registration/ban/confiscation laws to protest here in Oregon (and I very much doubt I ever will). You might consider addressing your insults of cowardice to someone to whom they, you know...apply.

Would I protest publicly if that somehow changed? You bet...and it wouldn't be the first time I've done something like that. Occupy Portland being the last time. Were you active in any of what was going on in 2012...?

I would love to know what it is. Facts are the friend of people in honest debate.

and large capacity magazines. A majority of owners chose not to (estimated, no way to get real numbers). Hence they are not 'law abiding' .

Dictators have been doing if for a long time. And I'm talking about history here. It a prime tactic. At least we are having a debate and representative voting. I don't like it or agree with it but it is what it is.

If given the chance, would you rat out a neighbor to enforce the law?

Do you believe that all laws must be obeyed without question?

Have you ever broken a law, or support people who break laws? For example, do you support amnesty for undocumented immigrants?

And with a C&R license.

I AM a law abiding citizen. How 'bout you?

...and insist that everyone you do business with do so as well?

If not, you're aiding and abetting immigration fraud.

Are you saying that I do not obey the law?

The New York results are not surprising. New York has a very liberal anti gun downstate and a much more conservative pro gun upstate. These figures approximately match these demographics.

New Jersey also has some of the most draconian gun laws in the country. Guns and New Jersey are not a good match.

The Virginia result seem questionable though, as they are far too close to NY and NJ. That tells me there's something more than is what apparent in a mere summary.

I'd be curious to see the exact wording of the poll, as how the questions are asked will influence the results.

Example:

Would you support a national gun registry to reduce gun violence

verses

Would you support a national gun registry as a step to confiscate all guns in the nation.

Ca also has strict gun control laws that have done nothing to stop the gun violence committed by the criminals.

I, for 1, would like to see a 50 state poll on this very question, and not just the big cities, include the rural areas of the nation also.
I suspect you'd see a different outcome of the poll.

I believe such legislation is a state's rights issue.

then it should apply to all states via federal law.

but I didn't see it elsewhere. 'Course what would one expect from the NRA other than fear mongering?

but so does MAIG and Brady. I will say the latter two is so over the top it is almost amusing.

disqualified. The fallacy of 'they do it so it's okay for us to do it' is not a defense nor a viable argument.

When the anti gun zealots have not have the provable facts and statistics to support their point of view.

there is a difference between false equivalency and pundits/ideologues trying to misuse the term to wave away their own hypocracy. The only possible false equivalency is that one is a grass roots organization headed by a board of directors of bat shit crazy guys. Of the other two, one is astro turf funded by a corporate foundation who puts the dis in dishonesty, the other is ran and funded by a right wing authoritarian who loses more members to the criminal justice system than the other two combined.

60% of their funding comes from the gun industry, not grassroots members. That organization acts counter to what the great majority of it's members want, for instance universal background checks. I might argue that MAGV is no more astroturf than the NRA but I won't because one organization is dedicated to what they believe is a common good, the other is solely interested in profit for it's true constituency.

You admit that there is a poll of NRA members supporting UBC but simply dismiss it. Got more than your personal world view to back that up?

it is a Frank Luntz poll and that MAIG paid for it.
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml

I said it was a push poll by Frank Luntz paid for by MAIG, you asked for evidence. I proved it. MAIG said they hired Frank Luntz. If the NRA, or the GOA, paid for a poll that said 87 percent of the people support repealing NFA, would you believe it? Or would you question the source? Thought so.
I notice that you never go after "anti gun" posters for personal attacks, every imaginable logical fallacy, and attacking the source. Why? That is all they have.

That said, if it is fair to point out that the NRA board of directors is made up of right wing ideologues, which they are, it is equally fair to point out that MAIG's mayors have a higher conviction rate of crimes ranging from bribery and brandishing a firearm to corruption, child porn, and sexual harassment than even congress. It works both ways.

that Frank Luntz was the pollster. You didn't cite any proof that it was a push poll. Adhomenim. Attack MAIG and Luntz but not the poll or the results. Because polling doesn't support your world view is insufficient evidence to ignore it.

Com'on you can do better than that. Stretch a bit.

In any other progressive forum, simply connecting Frank Luntz is enough evidence.
That said, if you look at the questions being asked, it really don't match what MAIG is trying to claim. Much of it is already current law and none of them match what MAIG is pushing either.

Did I miss something? Still, to attack a pollster instead of providing counter evidence is simple adhominem. Are there other polls out there to counter the MAIG poll? Let's see 'em. Do you have access to the poll questions to support the assertion of push polling? I wouldn't put such tactics beyond an advocasy group but like to see some evidence.

All that said 'because they do it we can too' is neither a defense nor a support for your position.

and another to take anything they say at face value.
Attacking them, although neither has a good reputation for honesty, is ad hominem in debates, I'll grant you that. Taking what they, or anyone else says, at face value is poor critical thinking. Luntz really isn't a pollster as much as he is a consultant for perception management.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/the-agony-of-frank-luntz/282766/

UTC NJ poll
Qunnipiac University poll
CBS/NYT poll

Sorry I haven't figured out how post links--do some work yourself, Google is your friend. I found only one poll that showed 40% support for UBC but you'd have to evaluate the nature of the questions in all the polls for yourself.

Are they all push polls?

or you can highlight what you want to link, press the link button and paste the link in the provided box.
I'm for UBC, although CO's mechanism is quite sucky. That said, I'm not naive enough to believe it will affect the fence or the street dealer that sells guns along with drugs. Preventing theft would do more.

legs and I need to preserved the thousands of photos stored on it 'til I find a suitable replacement. This thingy doesn't read Adobe flash or .PDF and didn't come with a user manual. Would dearly love to make things easy for ya' but Google 'polls universal background checks'.

and that is just regular people donating some change up to the next whole dollar. That's probably several thousand very small donations a month from individuals. Midway collects the funds, but the funds themselves come from their shoppers, regular people.

Individual amounts. They're getting you to pay for their lobbying efforts. The retailer gets the benefit of buyer's money not the buyer, therefore it's what the retailer wants that gets attention, not the buyer or NRA member.

Designed by the NRA and I have to admit pretty damn smart. Gotta admire the devious bastards.

and the retailer sends a check for several thousand $ who will the NRA pay attention to? Emily's list does the same thing. Bundling many small checks and delivering the total to candidates. Nobody goes through the checks to see who favors what. Emily's list garners the favor paid for NY individual doners.

You are right in that the round up program supports that NRA and the buyers know it. However polls indicate that what NRA wants run counter to what the membership wants. Like I said, brilliant move on the part of the NRA and I've got to admire them for it but you should admit fear mongering on the part of the NRA bilks it's members of money without true representation. You don't have of course, but I hope you think about it.

The donors support the mission and goals of the NRA. If they didn't, they wouldn't donate. No one is being "bilked" of anything.

I have a very hard time believing that people who choose to donate to the NRA, above and beyond their membership dues, are unaware of the NRA's stance on gun-control issues.

None. Round up programs are quite common in other things. Compared to AARP

and I opt out. It's entirely voluntary for each individual every time you order but somehow, the NRA was able to devise a money raising scheme and force it upon one of the largest private retailers in the industry. A retailer that doesn't even sell firearms, no less.

Sometimes I use the editorial 'you' and if I did so inappropriately please accept my apology.

Post #31

...most of whom "joined" by pressing the Like button on one of their Facebook pages
If Michael Bloomberg didn't fund MAIG/MDA, they'd disappear.

Which is totally acceptable.

Judging by his past statements, via the search function, that's exactly what he belives.