If you tell a lie often enough............
Obama: Replace Your Facebook Profile Pic with Gun Control Propaganda
Obama: Replace Your Facebook Profile Pic with Gun Control Propaganda
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
The propaganda machine is running at full throttle
- Thread starter copterdoctor
- Start date
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
I may have to make one that says "I am one of the Americans that realize that Nazi Germany had background checks for gun owners - right before they seized them all."
JayMcB
NES Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 22,347
- Likes
- 108,980
F
Finalygotabeltfed
92% of people in this country have never in history agreed on any one subject and they don't now either. The commies have got to go.
total. horse. shit.
i mean i know i associate with like-minded individuals, but not a single one of even my acquaintances will step on my rights because they know it's the guys like us who are always writing, demonstrating, and exercising our rights because they are theirs, too.
lawl sheepdoggin'.
i mean i know i associate with like-minded individuals, but not a single one of even my acquaintances will step on my rights because they know it's the guys like us who are always writing, demonstrating, and exercising our rights because they are theirs, too.
lawl sheepdoggin'.
Wait you were his friend on there? Shame on you
Sent from my Galaxy S 3 in an antis office just to feel rebellious
cbrxx
NES Member
Never really go on facebook, too many idiots posting dumb stuff all the time.
Plenty of libs as you can tell by their postings. Maybe thats why they are old friends, not current, haha.
I think I will replace my pic with one of Charlton Heston, rifle over his head, with the "from my cold dead hands" caption.
At least then the libtards will have to see it.
Plenty of libs as you can tell by their postings. Maybe thats why they are old friends, not current, haha.
I think I will replace my pic with one of Charlton Heston, rifle over his head, with the "from my cold dead hands" caption.
At least then the libtards will have to see it.
It was a CBS/NYT poll. "This poll was conducted by telephone from January 11-15, 2013 among 1,110 adults nationwide.Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones.".
It's smarter to question the phrasing of the question (was it a push poll? What do people think "Universal Background check" means?) than to question the statistical accuracy or legitimacy of the poll's randomness or sample size.
It's smarter to question the phrasing of the question (was it a push poll? What do people think "Universal Background check" means?) than to question the statistical accuracy or legitimacy of the poll's randomness or sample size.
92% of how many people polled? 12?![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
this where the hell did they get 92% from? that number is about as bogus as Barry's birth certificate
yup.
Is that for real? I only ask because its effing pathetic, even for those tools.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2013
- Messages
- 1,686
- Likes
- 1,084
If you are just going to make up statistics shouldn't the numbers at least look believable? You couldn't get 92% of Americans to agree that the sky is blue.
RockIt
Banned
One should not get sucked into an argument about whether 92% agree there should be universal or stricter background checks.
The argument is not about whether there is a majority of people who want them or not. A majority does not matter.
The argument is about background checks violating a person's rights. Rights are not about what the majority thinks they should be. If it were, then we would form up lynch mobs, hang people and save money on the judicial system.
As we all know, not everyone even agrees that a NICS check should be done. The argument against it is something to the effect of: "If the person is not dangerous enough to keep in prison, then they should be allowed to own a weapon to defend themselves."
The problem of background checks is similar to the situation in Massachusetts with the "suitableness" clause. The criteria of the check can be changed as time passes, leading to fewer and fewer people being able to acquire guns. In MA, a police chief can add a condition at his whim, and then someone will have to challenge it in a court to prove that it is "capricious or arbitrary". Imagine what this would be like on a national scale.
Do not argue "majority" discussions, they do not matter. Point out that we have basic rights that supercede any opinion the majority may have otherwise.
The argument is not about whether there is a majority of people who want them or not. A majority does not matter.
The argument is about background checks violating a person's rights. Rights are not about what the majority thinks they should be. If it were, then we would form up lynch mobs, hang people and save money on the judicial system.
As we all know, not everyone even agrees that a NICS check should be done. The argument against it is something to the effect of: "If the person is not dangerous enough to keep in prison, then they should be allowed to own a weapon to defend themselves."
The problem of background checks is similar to the situation in Massachusetts with the "suitableness" clause. The criteria of the check can be changed as time passes, leading to fewer and fewer people being able to acquire guns. In MA, a police chief can add a condition at his whim, and then someone will have to challenge it in a court to prove that it is "capricious or arbitrary". Imagine what this would be like on a national scale.
Do not argue "majority" discussions, they do not matter. Point out that we have basic rights that supercede any opinion the majority may have otherwise.
Golddiggie
NES Member
THAT should be a facebooger profile image...
I'm not on fb and don't ever plan on being on it. With all the crap on it, I don't see a reason to be there. I might change my LinkedIn profile picture to something pro-2A though...
