Is Gun Extremism a Core Democratic Party Value?

[jpak]

Poll question: Is Gun Extremism a Core Democratic Party Value?

[AnOhioan]

1. The entire party? No A subset of the party,,,yep

[Taverner]

2. Look - I am all for gun rights, but this has not been, historically a Dem party value

It should be, because it is a perfect case of "erring on the side of freedom", which IS a Democratic Party value

But no, it isn't

[Drale]

4. Gun extremism should be a democratic value?

I don't think so. Gun extremist want to be able to carry a gun on a plane, to a sports game or a bar. There are some places guns should never be allowed EVER!.

[Taverner]

8. Um, supporting gun owner's rights is not extremism

You should be allowed to have a gun, carry it and if need be, defend yourself with it

I don't see why that is such a problem with so many

[Drale]

11. Guns should never ever be allowed at sporting events or in bars

Its just asking for trouble. Put a bunch of drunk emotional people in a small space and normally you might have a fight, now if people are carrying guns you have a shooting.

[eqfan592]

15. How about you cite some evidence...

...supporting the conclusion that legal concealed carry in bars has lead to an increase in shootings at such locations? Don't worry, we'll all wait....

[Drale]

18. I don't know why I keep allowing myself to be drawn into these irrational arguments

I have no "evidence" but I have seen on numerous occasions what happens when you combined alcohol and arguments especially about sports and its not pretty. I've seen a man stabbed because he did not agree with another man at a bar about a specific player on a baseball team. Not all facts are documented on the internet and personal experience is what makes us human. Just because you've never seen something do not dismiss it out of hand, I've never seen the surface of Pluto but I know its there.

[X_Digger]

21. Damn those "facts".. they keep getting in the way of your moral panics.

[billh58]

77. You may be right, but

since Hawaii is a "may issue" state, in actual practice very few carry permits are issued by the various County Chiefs-of-Police. Permits are mainly issued to private security company armed guards, who may only carry while on-duty, and in specific places. Concealed-carry permits are extremely rare, and are temporary even when issued by the Chief-of-Police in consideration of extreme and "unusual" circumstances.

A citizen may have as many registered guns in their home as they wish (estimated at around 1-million guns in Hawaii), unless there is a restraining order issued against them, and then their guns are confiscated. Public carry without a permit is a felony in Hawaii. Just because there is no specific law that prohibits concealed-carry in restaurants in Hawaii is most likely because it isn't necessary and is not the same as "allowing" it. On the bright side for gunners, however, Hawaii does have a Republican-sponsored "Castle Doctrine" law on the books but it is seldom, if ever, exercised.

http://hawaiirifleassociation.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=42&Itemid=47

[X_Digger]

86. Actually it is the same as allowing it..nulla poena sin lege

The default position in our system of government (really all western governments based on the principles of the enlightenment) is that which is not prohibited is allowed.

Actually, that map needs to be updated, OH recently changed over to allow restaurant / places that serve alcohol carry.

Every time in the past couple of years, we've seen the hang-wringing and panty-twisting 'oh noes, blood in teh streets' wharrgarble from the usual suspects (see TN, VA, OH.. a few more I'm sure I've forgotten).. yet it seems to never materialize.

The fact of the matter is, those who are likely to legally carry? Aren't typically the kind to get involved in a bar room brawl.

[billh58]

93. Okay, concealed carry

in restaurants which serve booze in Hawaii is legal, but non-existent, and therefore has no need to be outlawed. If public carry ever becomes legal in Hawaii (big IF) I have a feeling that our Democratic legislature would quickly pass several restrictions on its actual practice.

[X_Digger]

95. The let's compare to.. say, TX..

Where there are just shy of 500,000 CHL holders.

Also allows carry where alcohol is being served.

Somehow I don't see stories of those TX CHL carriers being involved in bar-room brawls. (And we have the DPS figures to back that up.)

In 2009, there were 0 instances of a CHL holder being charged with carrying while intoxicated- http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2009.pdf

[billh58]

96. Sorry, I changed

my post to be less argumentative. I am not making a point about "bar room brawls" and CCW holders. I was trying to point out that your map is just a tad misleading because of an agreement between the County Chiefs-of-Police, there are no private CCW holders in Hawaii. Therefore the issue of legally carrying concealed in a restaurant which serves alcohol in Hawaii is non-existent and moot.

Peace...;-)

[X_Digger]

99. Well, what few holders there are- can carry in restaurants that serve alcohol :) n/t

[eqfan592]

47. Sorry, but I worked as a bouncer for not a short period of time.

Suffice it to say I've seen a good deal of shit first hand as well. However, I also accept the fact that my personal experience alone is not always going to be representative of the whole of humanity, therefore I rely on science and statistical evidence to form my opinions on public policy issues that can be measured in such a way.

That is what makes your argument the irrational one, not mine.

[Taverner]

25. While I agree with you, the gun argument is not solved by this

I argue, for example, that machine guns, fully auto, should be legal to buy

And I do think CCW permits should be issued to non-law enforcement individuals

And many of them - make them the norm

[oneshooter]

62. What about a skeet match, or a trap match,

How about a IDPA or a silhouette match. A BPCR match or a Highpower Competition? All of these are sporting competitions that REQUIRE a firearm. Olympic Skeet and Trap, Small Bore Rifle, 22cal handgun and Biathlon are Olympic Sports. They also require firearms.
Are you trying to say that they aren't?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[RSillsbee]

64. Carrying a gun in a bar has been legal in Colorado

since Denver was Cherry Creek. Not a lot of blood in the sawdust here.

TYPO

[obxhead]

29. Or, gun extremism could be

screaming that all guns need to be outlawed for any and all reasons.

There are extremists on both sides of the argument.

[Drale]

48. Who said all guns should be banned

I never said anything of the such, but there are some places that guns do not belong.

[obxhead]

50. I was not accusing you of saying that.

I was simply pointing out extremism is not limited to favoring guns as some here (usually extremists) like to claim.

[Drale]

51. Sorry sorry sorry

I get defensive around the topic of guns because even though I'm not extremely anti-gun, I do believe in some gun control and apparently I'm spitting on the constitution with that idea.

[petronius]

55. You're not spitting on the Constitution - the vast majority of gun owners, and certainly

every pro-RKBA DUer in the room, supports a range of sensible firearms regulations. Unfortunately, a small number of vocal people have decided that the 'proper' liberal and Democratic position on firearms is far more toward the 'ban-them-all' end than is reasonable (a deeply authoritarian and non-progressive attitude in my opinion)...

[oneshooter]

59. I have carried a full automatic weapon on a jetliner before.

In fact I have done it twice. Once in 1970, and again in 1972. Load bearing gear and M-16 went into the overhead storage racks.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[RSillsbee]

65. It wasn't fully automatic ( M16A2)

but I did the same thing in '90

[gejohnston]

70. burst fire is not full auto?

Mine was checked but all of the army guys I was on the plane with had M-60s and SAWs as carry on.

[RSillsbee]

71. I guess it is

But to me full auto means I can empty the mag if I have to.

[PavePusher]

81. burst fire = full auto for the BATFE....

which is what counts in court.

Hopefully someday it won't matter.

[GreenStormCloud]

72. In the early 1970s M16s were all full auto capable. N/T

[RSillsbee]

75. I am aware of that but in the early '90s they weren't

Techincally they were but I don't consider 3 rounds to be 'fully automatic"

[gejohnston]

80. The A2s are still three round burst.

[GreenStormCloud]

103. Sorry, I misread your post.

I thought that you were saying that oneshooter's M16 wasn't full auto, but instead you were saying something different - that yours weren't. I regret the error.

[RSillsbee]

128. It's all good NT

[DissedByBush]

84. Once for me, 1990 & 1991

I love the pic I have with my rifle sitting against the back of an airline seat.

I figured I should take the photo because I'll never see that again.

[polichick]

3. "Gun extremism"?! You mean, are Dems sick and tired of innocents getting slaughtered...

...by people who think they need assault weapons?

[gejohnston]

24. factualy challenged are we not?

First, most murder victims are not innocent. Most murders in the US are criminal vs criminal

Second, you are assuming that target shooters, hunters, and farmers are redneck terrorists killing people. Not even close.

Third, what is an "assault weapon?" If you mean scary looking carbines, then you will be glad to know that all rifles combined are rarely used in murder. In fact, bare hands are used twice as often. "Assault weapons" are a subset of that.

So what was your point?

[derby378]

69. Ditto that

Gotta keep them on their toes - time for them to unlearn much of what they learned over the past 40 years about gun control, because we're regaining enough sense to realize the damage it has done.

[benEzra]

126. Please. Rifles are the least misused class of weapon in the entire country, per the FBI..

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

Total murders...........................13,636.....100.00%
Handguns.................................6,452......47.32%
Firearms (type unknown)..................1,928......14.14%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged)...1,864......13.67%
Edged weapons............................1,825......13.38%
Hands, feet, etc...........................801.......5.87%
Shotguns...................................418.......3.07%
Rifles.....................................348.......2.55%

Tell me again how rifle handgrips that stick out are such a crime problem in this country. And that includes all rifles combined, not just the modern-looking ones.

FWIW, I'm a competitive shooter (USPSA), and the gun I shoot (AR-15 platform) is the most popular civilian sporting rifle in the United States and has been for years. Bans aren't going to fly.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

63. +1 n/t

[krispos42]

6. Is anti-gun extremism a core Democratic Party value?

Push harder!

[jpak]

7. The unrec squad is busy

:D

[Howzit]

14. Thanks for the reminder

[obxhead]

30. Damn, almost forgot.

unrec :P

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[baldguy]

9. Democrats are in favor of people being responsable for their own actions.

Gun extremists aren't.

[RSillsbee]

68. How so?

Would you care to elaborate?

[gejohnston]

10. define gun extremism, or this is a serious straw man.

because I could just as easily say there is anti gun extremism in the party. I could say you are an example of anti gun extremeism.

[jpak]

13. The current GOP/NRA "all guns/mags everywhere by everybody all the time" Nanny State agenda

is my definition of gun extremism

for starters

yup

[eqfan592]

16. Then such a thing doesn't exist.

Because the NRA doesn't support such a position, nor does the GOP.

Now, if you want to find a true Nanny State agenda, I would recommend you take a good look in the mirror.

yup

[jpak]

22. You have not been paying attention

In every state where the asshole GOP has taken over, they have passed stupid gun laws that took away the freedom of the vast majority of Americans who don't agree with their stupid guns-everywhere-all-the-time-by-everyone-agenda.

and they don't want to live in a NRA Amerika where RW assholes too mentally ill to stand trial for mass murder can readily buy semi-auto handguns and 30-round clips (and yes, I said CLIPS) and use them to gun down Second Amendment supporting Democratic Representatives in Arizona

yup

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

36. And please explain how a mentally ill person was a "RW asshole".

What political ideals did he espouse that were RW? Cite your evidence, please...

[jpak]

42. Yeah, the RW asshole in question was a Progressive Kucinich Democrat

:rofl:

[gejohnston]

94. Really?

The only people I saw calling JL a progressive or lefty were right wing blow hards and Sarah Palin. I'm guessing he was none of the above.

[Howzit]

19. If I can't trust you with a 30 round semi-auto, then I can't trust you with a single shot.

If you are dangerous with one type of gun, you are dangerous with any type of gun.

If you don't trust me with a 30 round semi-auto then you shouldn't trust me with a single shot - but then you don't really trust anyone with any gun, do you?

[ileus]

78. hate to break this to ya, but gun rights and nanny state are exactly the opposite.

[Howzit]

12. Clever of you to not define what you mean by extremism. Now riddle me this:

jpak, you are most active on the guns and environmental fora. In both of these you support ideas that would effectively reduce personal access to guns and affordable personal mobility. On the surface this seems to indicate you are against individual freedom. Is freedom extremism a core Democratic value?

[jpak]

17. I'm a gun owner

But I don't want to walk into my local restaurant and see a bunch of open carry teabagger yahoos swilling tequila

and I don't want to attend a high school football game with armed parents on both sides of the field

and I don't want to live in a stupid Castle Law State where some moran thinks he can wave his gun at me cuz he thinks I took his holy moran parking space

and I have no fear of the asshole NRA and no Democratic candidate should either

yup

[Howzit]

20. So you are for concealed carry then? Excellent!

Seriously, how often do CCW permit holders pull their guns to intimidate others?

Castle doctrine states you can blow me away if I kick your door in. Parking is not covered, so your point is moot: If you shoot me for parking in your spot I will come and haunt you.

[jpak]

23. May issue - with lots of hurdles

yup

[Tejas]

26. Sell your guns,

please, for the children.

[jpak]

33. Come and git 'em

:D

[Tejas]

54. What if I do?

[jpak]

121. You'd get cold and turn back

Texans can't handle Yankee "weather"

:rofl:

[gejohnston]

27. Like New York and California

where genuine need takes a back seat to wealth, race, and political connections. That is not a liberal value.

[RSillsbee]

67. Jpak fully supports HIS second amendment rights

just not your's

[NewMoonTherian]

97. I wouldn't go that far.

That suggests that he expects certain rights to be extended to him and not to the rest of the population. To his credit, I've never seen him espousing that position.

[RSillsbee]

98. The reason I say that

is because for all of jpak's rabid anti gun posting he occasionally admits that he owns guns. Therefore, even though it's wrong for you own guns it must be Ok for him to

[NewMoonTherian]

101. He cleverly skirts that...

by never stating outright that no one should own guns under any circumstances. What I gather from his posts is that it's ok to own a couple of guns. However, they must be of antiquated varieties, and you must be heavily monitored, and you mustn't be able to use them in any practical fashion for self-defense. He essentially paints an absurdly narrow definition of responsible gun ownership, derides any practice outside that artifice as extremism, and claims credibility on the grounds of being a gun owner.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

38. I don't want to live in a state where teabaggers can ride loud-pipe bikes and open carry guns

nope

[beevul]

46. Loud pipes save lives.

It appears that the gun issue isnt the only one you are woefully ignorant of.

[jpak]

53. Loud Pipes + Open Carry = Teh Stupid

yup

[PavePusher]

82. Maybe, if the cage driver is in a covertable with the top down.

But at road speeds, you generally can't hear a bike until it's in visual territory anyway.

And I love cursing out folks who wake me up with loud pipes going through residential areas. Friggen assholes and morans indeed, but no evidence linking all of them to "tea baggery".

[east texas lib]

52. The loud pipes ensure that you know that bike is there, even if it's in your blind spot...

I'm sure the biker community will be thrilled to know that riding = teabagging. Your blind spot keeps growing.

[gejohnston]

61. loud pipes?

Where do bikers come in?

How did tea baggers go from this


to this

[Howzit]

73. I get. it. loud noises scare jpak

Overly load exhausts my save lives but they also wake a lot of people who were asleep in their beds at the time.

Not cool

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

107. What exactly is wrong with OC? why don't you trust your countrymen?

[ileus]

106. You should't be so paranoid.

your first one is illegal and doesn't happen

your second one is illegal and doesn't happen

your third one is illegal and doesn't happen

and there's nothing to fear from the NRA to begin with.

[Atypical Liberal]

135. On your wants.

But I don't want to walk into my local restaurant and see a bunch of open carry teabagger yahoos swilling tequila

This is already illegal. Most of the country already allows firearms in restaurants that serve alcohol. What is the problem?

and I don't want to attend a high school football game with armed parents on both sides of the field

What about college foot ball games? Or professional football games?

and I don't want to live in a stupid Castle Law State where some moran thinks he can wave his gun at me cuz he thinks I took his holy moran parking space

Not sure what Castle Laws have to do with parking spaces. All Castle Laws say is that you have no duty to retreat when your life or property is threatened.

and I have no fear of the asshole NRA and no Democratic candidate should either

Then you are not a good student of history, nor are you a friend to anyone who organizes to collectively bargain for their rights.

[rurallib]

28. which side is extreme.

I am guessing each side believes the other is.

[gejohnston]

31. I define extreme as

repealing all current federal and state laws including National Firearms Act of 1934 and Pistol Act of 1927 at one end. Have not met any of those.

Wanting gun laws like UK, Jamacia or Austrailia at the other end of the spectrum.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

39. Defining core Democratic Party values on DU is not trolling

yup

[petronius]

43. That's true. But I was talking about what you do...

yup

:D

[jpak]

45. What I "do" is make Gungeoneers defend their philosophy

yup

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

83. If that's the best you can do.....

you are doing it wrong.

[Abq_Sarah]

91. While never having to defend your own

Yup.

[NewMoonTherian]

102. I must say you provide a valuable service.

Failing any meaningful contributions of your own, you do stimulate passion and help us to refine our discourse(those of us who can abstain from flaming you on a regular basis, that is).

[tortoise1956]

124. Really?

I would submit that your arguments are usually unorganized and scattered, making it both easy and difficult to refute. The easy part is finding the documentation that contradicts your position. The difficulty is that you rarely recognize or acknowledge the illogic of your stance, even when it has been disproved.

Yup

[Tejas]

57. I don't see your crowd of supporters.

Being as you are decreeing definitions out of the blue, I assume you are the leader.

[gejohnston]

34. If we are still the party of Jefferson, then yeah.

[Blown330]

40. I voted Unrec...

it's all the OP deserves.

[provis99]

87. once again showing how open minded the gun folks supposedly are.

:eyes: :puke:

[Blown330]

88. Guess you the irony...

...is lost on you. Seeing how close-minded the subject of this thread is and all. Oh, and hypocrisy...you got that down.

[eqfan592]

89. lol, my thoughts exactly. nt

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

44. Neither juvenile nor push

yup

[Tejas]

56. Quit being so defensive.

It's unbecoming.

[rrneck]

60. Bullshit. nt

[DWC]

58. Extremism in any form

is not a core value of Dems or Repubs.

unrec for bias in the extreme.

Semper Fi,

[Katya Mullethov]

74. If it is in the defense of liberty

It is not a vice .

[jpak]

122. LOL!!!!1

Series

:rofl:

[ileus]

76. I voted yes because it should be...It's our #1 right assuring all the others remain intact.

[aikoaiko]

79. The Brady Bunch fear mongering type of extremism is rejected across the country.

:bounce:

And becoming less a part of the Democratic Party every month.

[Abq_Sarah]

90. Did you mean the extremism of those who

Believe we're all just subjects of the government and can't be trusted to defend ourselves?

That's the extreme position.

For most of our history, gun control has been used to oppress certain classes of people. Gun laws were written to deliberately disarm entire groups based on race, ethnic group and political ideology, including union organizers. It's sickening to see many members of the Democratic party wholeheartedly embracing a position based on hatred and fear.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

100. This poll is based on a straw man premise

As such, it is a push poll.

[safeinOhio]

104. About 9 to 1 agree.

Time for the extremist to start moving to the center.

[X_Digger]

108. Riiight.. 49 people answered a question in a push poll.. therefore something should change.

Derp.

[safeinOhio]

109. Not a true "push poll"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll

A push poll is a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted, and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll. Push polls may rely on innuendo or knowledge gleaned from opposition research on an opponent. They are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning.<1> The term is also sometimes used inaccurately to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative. Push polling has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants,<2> and is illegal in New Hampshire.<[br />
More like the last part
"The term is also sometimes used inaccurately to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative."

[X_Digger]

110. "attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll."

Yeah..

Straw man as the premise of a poll is honest, right?

*snort*

[safeinOhio]

111. How does a simple question about opinion

try to alter view. It ask about their view.

Much more likely is....

"The term is also sometimes used inaccurately to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative."

Perhaps you could show us some famous push poll that is similar in it's question to this one. One that offers no false information like the famous McCain's black baby push poll. Now that is an example of a push poll. So, where are the agreed on ones like this one?

[gejohnston]

112. it does not define gun extremism

What is extreme? Extreme in what direction? I don't happen to think repealing Jim Crow and anti-union organizer laws from 100 years ago is extreme since there is no evidence of there being a problem. repealing all of the current federal laws, as opposed to tweaking, I would call extreme.


The Uniform Pistol act of 1927 was stupid and pointless.

[safeinOhio]

114. define extreme?

extreme |ikˈstrēm|
adjective
1 reaching a high or the highest degree; very great : extreme cold.
• not usual; exceptional : in extreme cases the soldier may be discharged.
• very severe or serious : expulsion is an extreme sanction.
• (of a person or their opinions) advocating severe or drastic measures; far from moderate, esp. politically : their more extreme socialist supporters.
• denoting or relating to a sport performed in a hazardous environment and involving great physical risk, such as parachuting or white-water rafting.
2 < attrib. > furthest from the center or a given point; outermost : the extreme northwest of Scotland.

1 reaching a high or the highest degree; very great ---- or those on DU that reach for the highest degree of gun rights.

1 reaching a high or the highest degree; very great ----or, in as an opinion about gun rights as it relates to the majority of DU members..See results of this poll of DU members.

2 < attrib. > furthest from the center or a given point; outermost ----or as to the views of a majority of DU members.


Those that argue against ANY restrictions on handgun ownership or purchase without background checks, those that think the 2nd applies to carrying a concealed weapon in ANY location with no restrictions. Those that think the 2nd gives people the right to open carry anywhere at any time. Those might be considered extreme by the majority of DU members. On the other hand, bans on legal citizens from owning a firearm to protect themselves and family would also be extreme. Both ideas are at the extremes of the issue as debated on DU.

As to jim-crow and union rights, those are different issues that a majority of DU members agree on and have nothing to do with(straw man) this poll and it's results.

[gejohnston]

118. sort of

As to jim-crow and union rights, those are different issues that a majority of DU members agree on and have nothing to do with(straw man) this poll and it's results.
Reread what I said and carefully this time.
That is the origin of most if not all of the local gun laws you are defending. That was the point. That is not unique to the US. Europe's gun laws came about after WW one during the red scare. They didn't give a shit about criminals or a more civilized society or common sense, they already had lower crime rates. They were more concerned Amy Goodman getting a gun than Jared L.
Canada was afraid of immigrants.

In the context that I put it, it is not a straw man.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

132. By your definition, even the NRA is not extreme.

The NRA does support a number of restrictions supported by due process and has even helped lobby & promote for such laws. And never have I heard them advocate for people (even only qualified persons) being able to carry guns "anywhere at ane time".

The reason people often use this misrepresentation of the NRA is that it specifically paints the NRA as extremists and makes them easy to denigrate. This is because extremism of any kind is socially viewed (even if illogically) as a negative attribute. Few things that are socially acceptable are "absolute" and an extremist view could certainly be viewed as an absolutist stance. So the simple use of "extremism" without any other qualifier in this poll certainly serves to alter the outcome. It is a push poll. The author of such a poll is either extremely unskilled at polling (a moron) or being dishonest by using words that have socially negative predispositions. Even more laughable, and telling, is the vague undefined use of a specific polar concept like "gun extremism".

In fact, due to the rarity of acceptable extremism of any sorts in society, the implications of such a poll question as stated in the OP are useless as the poll question can do nothing to indicate that its converse is true or false. To illustrate - just because gun extremism is not a core democratic value does not indicate that is the core value of any other political ideology which lies left or right of "Democrat"... or even that democratic values and gun extremism are mutually exclusive. Said otherwise, even aside from debating the fairness in using the unqualified term "extremesim", it's a stupid poll.

This "poll" and its creator are a joke.

If asked if you were an "abortion extremist" or if "abortion esxtremism" is a core democratic value... what would you answer?

[X_Digger]

115. The terms used..

If I asked, "Should murder of unborn children be illegal?" -- of course you'd see that as a push poll question. It's framing the debate in terms favorable to your opinion, terms that presuppose the conclusion you want to draw. (The previous question uses two of them.. murder is already illegal, and fetuses are not children.)

Asking an irrelevant question-- irrelevant because it gauges an opinion that few, if any, seriously hold-- is just as disingenuous.

[safeinOhio]

116. Straw man

Poll has nothing to do with abortion.

[X_Digger]

117. It's an analogy..

Here, I'll help..

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy

[safeinOhio]

119. straw man

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.<1> To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.<1><2[br />


create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"),

[eqfan592]

120. Thanks for the def.

But given that it doesn't apply in this situation, I fail to see the validity of it. He did not create the illusion of anything. He made a comparison of this push poll with another to help underscore HOW this was a push poll. This does not equate to setting up a straw man in any way, shape or form.

[X_Digger]

123. I didn't set up a false argument. You need to learn to *apply* those terms better

I explained how a push poll uses loaded terms to presuppose the argument.

A 'poisoning the well' fallacy, if you will. (Feel free to look that one up, dear.)


By focusing on 'extremism' (however vague that term may be), jpuk is trying to set the terms of the debate by starting from a default position, a false choice between whatever the hell he considers extremism-- and everything else.

You really should study more. Your regurgitation of concepts you clearly don't understand only embarrasses yourself.

[tortoise1956]

127. no straw man

I would say he was trying to demonstrate the the poll was intentionally slanted using emotionally loaded terms and phrases. He responded with an example that substituted one set of loaded terms for another. In that sense, it was a logical comparison, not a straw man.

[safeinOhio]

129. Thank you for your opinion, but,

I'm still going with

"create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"),"

[tortoise1956]

130. You need to complete the definition...

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

The poster presented a similar question, phrased in much the same way, to support his argument. I would say that he is right, based on the definition below:

A push poll is a political campaign technique in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll. In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted, and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll. Push polls may rely on innuendo or knowledge gleaned from opposition research on an opponent. They are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning. The term is also sometimes used inaccurately to refer to legitimate polls which test political messages, some of which may be negative. Push polling has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants, and is illegal in New Hampshire.

No straw man, just demonstrating why the question in the post would be a textbook example of push polling. The only difference is that it wasn't a telemarketing-based poll.

[safeinOhio]

131. Are you stating, in so many words, that the DU

community is dumb and stupid to fall for a "push poll", 9 to 1?

good luck.

[SteveM]

105. Don't know, haven't asked my .357 about its politics or party affiliation. nt

[Ragnarok]

113. Gun extremism is a loaded description.

Grow up. Now, if we are talking about Second Amendment rights in terms of owning MOST types of guns, even the ones that freak ignorant people out, and carrying them in public for defense if desired... well, it should be one of our core values. The Republicans would lose at least 25% of the rank and file instantly if we came out strongly in support of CCW, quit harping on banning scary looking weapons for law abiding citizens, and quit with the stupid run around the end legislation (like banning gun ranges in Chicago to make it difficult to even get a permit to own one, let alone ever carry one). That last one is just sleazy and creepy. I'm in Minnesota and most Republicans I know make less than $75k a year, and are Republicans only because we did an awesome job for the majority of the last two decades of letting everyone know we have a huge hard on for banning guns. I've owned suppressed weapons, short barreled shotguns and current have several short barreled rifles. Come for those again, and even I'll vote Libertarian.

[benEzra]

125. Nope. Neither is anti-gun extremism.

FWIW, ownership and use of non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed NFA Title 1 civilian small arms under .51 caliber (plus shotguns) by mentally competent adults with clean records is hardly "gun extremism."

:eyes:

[Atypical Liberal]

133. define "Gun Extremism"?

What is "Gun Extremism"?

[ileus]

134. Anything less than a total ban...