The Washington Times, Should AR-15's Be More Heavily Regulated

No numerated rights shall be infringed.

 

As per the founding fathers, you should have no infringement on.......



..........flintlocks, as they intended.

 

Totally incorrect, they wisely didn't indicate any particular type of firearm when writing the Second, they wisely used the term arms fully understanding as firearm technology advanced, the term arms would cover any new firearm technology.

 

You and everyone else. The last one was on a hard-left platform and yielded very similar results.

Are you suggesting theres more pro-gun poll fraudsters than anti-gun poll fraudsters? Or maybe they're just better at it?

Or maybe these polls are actually more accurate than polling agencies who depend on repeat business from bias clients who stop paying when they don't like the results...

 

So not only do you feel the need to interfere with US politics, you are so deplorable as to want to skew poll results in your favor in a disreputable way. Bravo!

 

Many "flintlock" guns would be far more deadly if used in a terrorist attack than most modern military rifles and submachine guns.

 

Fake Polls and Fake Science are now common.

Pollsters have a better excuse than crooked scientists.
In the age of speech codes many Americans, especially those who oppose the political establishment hide their true opinions.

“Democrats are unique, however, in that a slim majority (53%) do not feel the need to self-censor. Conversely, strong majorities of Republicans (73%) and independents (58%) say they keep some political beliefs to themselves.”

CATO, Poll: 71% of Americans Say Political Correctness Has Silenced Discussions Society Needs to Have, 58% Have Political Views They’re Afraid to Share
By EMILY EKINS, 10/31/17.
https://www.cato.org/blog/poll-71-a...lenced-discussions-society-needs-have-58-have

 

The Left has been sculpting polls for a long time to get the results to support their various narratives. It’s one reason why they share their results but less often share their sampling methods, the presentation of the polling questions, and the numbers of those refusing to play. Many of their questionnaires that they do share are subtle studies in leading questions and ways to imply misleading context to key questions, or in some cases, leave the analysis of poll results open to biased interpretation.
One example cited frequently are the results of polls regarding establishing a universal background check... sounds good to many people on the surface, but when given what that would require to implement, seeking out and paying fees to FFLs, a continued denial of private citizens to access the NICS, and a requirement to repeal the federal law prohibiting a digital gun registration system and then establishing such a system, question results would different from the narrative. How do we know?... Every state implementing a registration system for just the nebulous category of “assault rifles” requiring compliance or facing potential criminal charges has met with less than 15% compliance rather than the numbers that would support a UBC and the 80-90% support that is claimed in poll results by GCAs. Reality matters far more than building a poll that is biased to support a narrative.
They hope publishing such poll number that support their narratives will convince increased numbers to join the supposed majority. But, it’s the same mistake the left made with the polling results that indicated a land slide for Hillary in 2016... and their strategy continues.

 

that means the government can arrest you for what you posted since computers didn't exist then-then the government can torture you by electrical shocks to your gonads since electricity didn't exist back then either and then the government can execute you with a cyanide gas because that didn't exist back then either.

want play stupid games with the bill of rights? both sides can do that

 

Weird

The results now read

Poll: Should AR-15s be more heavily regulated?
Yes 1393 98%
No
Unsure 194 14%

 

Yeah but the first does not reference militias

 

Did you miss the comas?

 

Oops! sorry!

 

No.

 

A clear demonstration of having nothing factual to add to the discussion other than you clear hatred for Americans, going forward anything you post will be considered as totally childish and quite immature.

One would think an adult could do better but I guess that is not possible for you to do.

 

More lies from the anti gunners.

No = 46658 (3283%)

 

Then surrender your computer and any other modern forms of electronic communication, as your rights to communication apply only to quill and ink. You are free to mail letters to others.

 

Will do, let me know which amendment covers those.

 

Polling is not just another political tool used by our crooked political class to raise money and by-pass the democratic process.

 

The first amendment.

 

Interesting, lol

 

From Mark Twain, possibly lifted from another
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics”... I would add polls.
It is easy to deceive people (and even yourself) with statistics. All the more when people, and this is most people, lack understanding of statistics. A great question to gauge someone’s understanding of statistics is to ask the following questions:
Given a coin has two sides, if flipped, is it possible to have results showing after 100 flips, of 1 heads and 99 tails? Out of 1000 flips, results of 999 heads and 1 tails? Do your previous results from flipping a coin (85 H, 10T) allow you to predict with some level of confidence, the results of the next flip?
As for polls... say for example, election exit polls, where each person is exiting is asked who they voted for, what factors can influence the results? How can you, as a fraudulent, poster stack the results? It’s really pretty easy.

If deception with statistics is easy, imaging how easy it is with opinion surveys. Question construction, order, respondent knowledge levels, loaded language, presentation, simple size, sample selection, differences in language interpretation, preparer’s assumptions, leading questions, context switching, and many other factors can influence results, and then there are the various interpretations that might be drawn from the results. Even those skilled in building surveys can have difficulty in removing their own biases in seeking to design relatively neutral surveys, much less those skilled in building surveys designed to skew results to fit a particular narrative.
It is particularly more difficult to do well constructed opinion surveys, than to use surveys for collecting facts, but even then it can be difficult to be sure the construct of a survey collects accurate facts.

Just as an aside, think about the following question and what an answer might, or might not tell you.
“Do you lie?”. How do you evaluate the answer?
Or a question by a woman. “Is what I am wearing make me look fat?” Then, ask of that question, if asked to a group of 100 men and a group of 100 women will the results of the group’s match?

So, back to the NYT question, “Should AR15s be more heavily regulated?”
What assumptions are inherent in the question? Does everyone responding knows what an AR15 actually is, does everyone responding know the current regulations in force, and does everyone has the same concept of what ‘more’ means.
Concealed by the way the question is posed, is the inherent bias of the question...it wouldn’t be asked if their wasn’t an assumption AR15s were benign objects.

What is being measured?
Are all respondents well informed?
Who is likely to participate in answering the question?

Politics aside, how many people that buy products from Amazon, or similar source, use customer review ratings to make a decision between products. Nothing can be misleading there, eh?

 

Most Americans who still participate in polls probably tell pollsters what they think the pollsters want to hear.