Everyone go vote no in this poll

>>28447655
>cnn
Hmmm.... No.

File: 1451786359548.jpg (148KB, 1161x1230px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1161x1230px

>>28447807
>I don't want to sway the polls

>>28447807
I can guarantee that none of the yes people have even applied for a fucking firearm.

>>28447655
Done, also voted again from my phone as well.

Heres what's gonna happen:
>a lot of no's
"Well, this informal poll we did just gives a very small glimpse into this hot debate"
>close % of no's and yes'
"The country is very divided on this topic!"
>more yes'
"Our poll shows many Americans support more gun control"

Its going to be disgusting either way

>>28449763
Poll is based on response bias, should be thrown out anyway.

I'm not a criminal, so I voted yes.

>>28449634
If it doesn't show their narrative, it won't even be shown at all.

>>28447655

Background checks are important.

>Muh rights, muh amendments

Cry moar, you shouldn't be what you are, failure.

>>28449979
>Forcing background checks on private sales

Really just vilifying people who already own guns.

Not like they can enforce it at all anyway.

Go lick more boots faggot.

>>28447655
Check'd

And voted

Ayyy more people are saying no.

>>28450511
>Implying there shouldn't be background checks on all firearms sales.

I forget 90% of you fucks think everyones trying to take away your legal guns and your rights. Granted some people believe no one should have guns except military and law enforcement. Half don't know how to stop the flow of ILLEGAL firearms, and if they force background checks on private sales all weapons have to go through an FFL which increases the chance of catching "Bad people" or Illegal firearms, and if you think Full auto weapons dont exist in the public eye, go to the desert where people are openly practicing and listen/watch for the fully automatic rifles because I guarantee you will hear or see more than one.

>>28449695
Why? You're clicking no for exactly what reason?

Obonga said most americans support more gun control.

>>28451778
Shut up libtard. Go back to /lgbt/

>>28451740

aww look at the widdle butthurt bootlicker :)

Get laid you fucking virginal sperglord.

>>28449877
Good.

>>28451787
I support proper gun control.
Should mentally Ill be able to own a fire arm?
Probably not, unless they are being seen by a doctor, or are limited to what they can own ex. Bolt action rifles.

Should felons be able to own firearms
Depends, what'd they do? If it's anything violent then no.

Should we have the bullet button? Not since we have limited mags.

I honestly don't know how I feel about 80% lowers, I feel like they should at least be registered.

heh, You can actually vote on this from a non american ip.

>>28451809
>Libtard because I'm asking your personal opinion on why you clicked no.
You're part of the problem
>>28451825

someone please explain how these new gun laws affect people who aren't convicted felons?

Last I checked I can still buy any gun / ammunition that I could have purchased a week ago

File: 1442283342164.jpg (25KB, 720x479px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 720x479px

>>28451825
aww wook at the widdle redneck scared of muh gubmint
go fuck something thats not your sister

>>28451740
When was the last time someone was murdered with a fully-automatic weapon?

>>28451904
it's been a law time thanks to the ban.

>>28449868
In my country background check 'passes' are at police discretion. Even if you don't have a criminal past there is an interview and if the police officer interviewing you does not like you or you do not bribe him you will not get a permit. If he is in a bad mood then you must bribe him to forget that you tried to bribe him.

In United States it would be similar but no chance of bribing unless you're a millionaire hahaha

>>28451881
Can't, I'm too busy fucking your mother.

>>28451931
>In United States it would be similar
that's not how it works in the United States

If you are not a convicted felon, if you don't have a warrant for your arrest, and you don't have a history of mental illness or domestic violence, you pass.

>>28447655
>expanded background checks
what an incredibly vague term. i cant see any way they could spin whatever result they get into whatever story they want. no not at all.

>>28451904
>Implying youd find out it was actually full auto anyway.
Why is this always a valid argument, why the fuck do you need a fully automatic rifle? There is litterally no need to have one.
>Muh milita
Yeah, No.
I dont even think law enforcement should have the fuckin things.

>>28451852
Background checks aren't effective against felons in the US, I still support requiring them in stores, in fact stores should do it even if they aren't required, however the only real deterrent against felons having guns is catching them and putting them in prison for having guns just like any other crime like fraud or child abuse.

Background checks in a store can actually stop someone from doing something stupid if they need a gun right that second and can't find a grey market or armslist way of getting one. It's just cheap insurance.

Forcing background checks on private transfers only helps if everyone in the community follows the law, and even then it only forces people to get grey market guns instead of armslist guns.

If it is the case, and I think it is, that almost all crime guns are grey market or bought off acquaintances than I don't see how universal background checks help.

On the other hand, universal background checks means there is no practical check on the creation of a registry other than the legal, not that I think we would make a registry in our current political climate, but being able to get guns without a background check means you are two degrees removed from registration instead of one.

>>28452047
This guy gets it.

I agree with you man, although some states let you take a gun home same day, I feel there should be at least a one or 2 day period before you can actually take the gun home for a would-be cool down period.

>>28451993
Without a gunners assistant, tripod/tracking bipod, high capacity magazine or belt etc a fully automaic gun is less effective for a mass shooting than a semi auto one.

With a true MG more death would be possible, but it would also be harder to get into position and harder to move around with.

Ultimately machineguns would only be good for spree killings on very dense crowds for killings lasting only a handful of seconds though admittedly they would be better.

>>28452083
You're retarded.
Take a fully auto M16, full battle rattle, lets say 4 mags 30 rds each.
If you don't think that will do more damage than a semi auto with full battle rattle and 4 mags 30 rds each you're an imbicile.

>>28452082
I'm fine with cool down period as long as people with permits are allowed to circumvent it.

I would trade the ability to carry without a permit for the requirement of a cool down period though.

When you think about it though, you should be able to get around a cooling off period by showing them you already have a gun.

>>28452113
Strange, all the veterans I know would disagree.

Not that veterans are always right, but I require more evidence than being called an imbicile

>>28452082
For what reason. They only found a cool down period decreases suicide in men 55+ years of age. Other than that very angery bob isn't gonna buy a new firearm to shoot someone.

>>28452122
Well if you have a permit you already gave more than the required info to federal agencys and what not so I like this idea. But I what I don't like about what you mentioned was being able to carry without a permit, UNLESS its open carry. If you OC you still need the wait, but if you CC then no wait, unless they created a voluntary permit for OC that voids the waiting period.
>>28452137
Compares a full auto M16 rifle to an acutal MG. You getting it yet?

>>28452167
Can you prove this?
I can't prove mine right now because on mobile but I seriously believe someone could become so angry they would go buy a small caliber handgun to shoot someone. I truly believe cool down periods help. But thats honestly opinionated.

>>28451740
In the desert? I'm pretty sure California is the only state with desert that doesn't allow MGs. Also you might be hearing the military firing machine guns. 29 Palms is in cali and I'm sure there are other bases where they do live fire. Just saying.

As a side note, we don't think people are trying to take our guns, we know they are. Might we overreact at times? Sure. But I think if someone kept stabbing you you'd start flinching the next time they came around.

>>28452324
Most states dont allow automatic firearms.
Not to be an asshole, but I know where I'm shooting and whats around me, where I shoot there are military bases.
And about the other half, that is what I meant, half are trying to outright ban guns but the other half doesnt really know what to do about the illegal firearms.
I've always said, the day they ban black guns I'm selling everything I own and buy as many as I can.

>>28451952
>that's not how it works in the United States
I didn't say that is how it works now. The poll says US should expand background checks and I said it would be similar if they did.

I was replying to somebody who said they voted yes because they aren't a criminal and I gave an example of how expanded background checks are used to enforce gun control against non-criminals.

>>28452376
I know most states don't allow full auto, I'm talking about states with desert. As in Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, etc. The Mojave area I guess. My understanding was that they do allow full auto.

Honestly, the only thing wrong with universal background checks is the threat of a registry. If there was an exception for close friends/family, and we got something in return (NFA, national CC, etc) I'd be fine with it. However, there's not enough variety in the answers to qualify my opinion, so I'll vote no.

>>28452376
>Most states dont allow automatic firearms.
Not true

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

File: 1452072498612.png (73KB, 255x289px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 255x289px

>55% no

>>28452425
Im pretty sure full auto is illegal in all of US....
although vegas has a company where they are allowed to take customers out with full automatic firearms.
>>28452453
>Using wiki as a reliable source.

>>28452656
Its legal in pa and Maryland, but not Delaware.

Also legal in Ohio. I know those from personal experience.

>>28452696
Thats really interesting.
>I'm not being sarcastic
How come they allow it there? What are the requirements to acquire one?

>>28452737
Machine guns have to be registered, and the registries been closed since 1986.

This means that you have to buy a pre-1986 machine gun, which means that the machine guns on the legal market cost 10 times their actual market value.

Other than that, if you're in a free state, you just apply for a tax stamp and buy that shit.

>>28447655
Done,
Had mixed feels because I'd rather CNN get no attention but whatever, voted no.

File: tumblr_n12dib4S2F1runhyoo1_500.jpg (60KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x333px

>>28451993
>I dont even think law enforcement should have the fuckin things.

Hey, as long as Johnny Law can own it, I think I should be able to own it. If your delineation is "Automatic weapons for absolutely nobody, including the police" then I can appreciate that. I don't agree, but I appreciate where you're coming from.

>mfw I'd never use an Automatic weapon for anything other than fun because they're awful impractical

File: bootlicker.jpg (93KB, 495x700px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 495x700px

>>28451740
Don't tread on me, bootlicker.

>>28452780
I totally agree, if law enforcement can own it, I should be able to as well, I just dont think anyone but the military should own full auto anything. Give us all 50 bmg like utah and I'll take that trade.

>>28452656
>Im pretty sure full auto is illegal in all of US....
No. Not even close.

File: the eyebrows.gif (922KB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

922KB, 400x225px

>>28452113
>full battle rattle
>4 mags 30 rds
Sounds legit.

>>28452113
Nigga you dumb

>>28452855
>>28452844
>>28452825
Yet no one comes up with a counter argument.

File: Coolsplosion.png (697KB, 581x647px) Image search: [Google]

697KB, 581x647px

>>28452113
You mean imbecile, you mean imbecile?

>>28451918
>ban
No.

>>28451880
Seriously?
>How can tightening gun laws with extra steps and layers impact me buying them guise?

>>28452910
Because it's obvious to anyone who knows what they're talking about that you are retarded and making shit up using buzzwords
>full battle rattle
Stop watching discovery channel reruns faggot.

>>28452910
Because it's obvious you're retarded. 120 rounds of 5.56 fired in 3 round bursts would do exactly as much damage as the same amount fired in semi-automatic, at best. Realistically it would result in a lot of wild rounds going nowhere.
>full battle rattle
Stop watching discovery channel re runs faggot.

>>28451993
>why the fuck to you need a fully automatic rifle
>need
>NEED

File: the eternal honk.jpg (51KB, 434x500px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 434x500px

>>28451740

I'm getting the feeling that this poll is not going well.

>>28447655
There should be no laws against weapons at all. If you are in favor of any gun law and are a United States citizen you are a traitor.

>>28452113
Using semi auto fire is more efficient in a fire fight compared to going full auto for even burst fire.

I'm sure a lot of soldiers use Semi over Full auto or burst(if they are using the M16A4.)

>>28454041
what if I want to make it illegal to give guns to ISIS members?

>>28449877
So lets take a small piece of propaganda away from them.

File: Guns make pussies wet.jpg (25KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 460x276px

>>28447655
Took another gander at their poll, and they put in a new question, and it's completely loaded as fuck.
>Is tightening gun-sale requirements too tough a change?

File: I+have+this+one+_5ca800d09c9b8131e8079b6bc9265592.png (387KB, 801x527px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 801x527px

>>28454610

>>28452696
Maryland is kind of retarded. You can legally own a full-auto, suppressed SBR AR-15, but a regular AR is illegal.

>>28447655
Question is worded weird, didn't understand what it was asking.

>>28454610
>>28454665
Yeah I can't exactly telling they are asking if it's too tough to accomplish or if that is too tough on law abiding citizens.

It'll be interesting to see exactly how it's spun

>>28454610
Either response could mean yes

>>28454702
Considering it's CNN, I interpret that they want to spin it as:

>Yes
The NRA and republicans make it too hard to make common sense laws (bad). We need to change this.

>No
Americans support tightening gun-sale requirements

>>28454775
This is why I dislike JewNN.

>>28454775
That's exactly how I took it. We know they aren't neutral on firearms.

It's too bad CNN removed disqus and our ability to discus anything on their site. They can say anything and no one can question them.

>>28451787
>Obonga said most Americans support more gun control.
I support the type of gun control Obama has presented, and probably more. I own multiple handguns, long guns and CCW fwiw

>>28454610
wait, did they change the question part way though the poll?

>>28454610
mfw CNN changed the question halfway through

>>28454925
Yeah they did. Take a look for yourself, it's what I green texted here >>28454610

Wait, am I retard? It seems to me that "yes" is the pro-gun answer.

File: 2016-01-06_20-25-20.png (284KB, 1058x623px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 1058x623px

>>28454983
and what was the original question?

>>28454925
What was the old question?

>>28454999
There is no pro gun answer

>this thread

you fucking retards better thank your lucky stars that gun ownership isn't dependent on a decent IQ score

>>28455025
>>28455039
I believe it was "Do you support more background checks?" or something to that effect.

Until I noted the change, it was ~40% yes, 55% no, ~5% dunno

>>28454999
they changed the question and flipped the responses.

everyone should sage this thread and instead move to this thread so that newfags don't get confused.
>>28455043
>>28455043
>>28455043
>>28455043
>>28455043
>>28455043

>>28452216
If they're that pissed why wouldn't they use a gun they already had?

>>28455064
then when the poll comes out they will say the second question was asked first and the first was asked second so it looks more librul

>>28455060
so instead of trying to rig an already rigrogged poll can we just call them out on it?

>>28455064
Please Stop

God made men out of clay, why did he have to make my gun brethren out of shit?

If Obama fired a smart bomb at /k/ it wouldn't hit anyone.

>>28455082
I have to wonder who in the fuck these people are polling.

posting in a fail thread

>>28455082
Best solution. Find some anon who screencapped the original and make a macro. Circulate it. Doesn't matter when it spreads, it will discredit their antics.

>>28455383
i hope at least one person did or still has it open. i realise this started out as a highly unscientific poll but this changing the question halfway through bullshit really pisses me off because you know they just did it and hoped no one would notice. then they will write a story or some shit on it and claim it's a totally unbiased, highly scientific poll that everyone should believe.

People are upset that they changed the question. Doesn't the current question make it seem like people are against gun control?
>Is tightening gun-sale requirements too tough a change?
>72.8 Yes.

>>28455383
OP is an idiot, it was always the same question

>>28452082
>be canadian
>get pal
>go to store look at guns
>select gun
>show pal and pay
>go home

some times they dont even look at my pal

not like it's the same thing though

>>28455502
No?
>>28455488

>>28447655
Thefuckers will probably not report it

>>28451950
Is she yours?

File: 1452132155274.jpg (215KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 2048x1536px

>>28455511
The post I was linking to was this picture. It got deleted. Hmm.

File: image.jpg (174KB, 2029x1342px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 2029x1342px

just a reminder

>>28455515
id rather they not report it if they can't be bothered not to rig their own polls.

File: Good job.gif (30KB, 372x375px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 372x375px

>>28455545
>>28455548
Great on both of you, anons.

>>28455545
>>28455548
based.

now let's add this >>28455025 to one of those.
It's pretty bad when you have to watch out for the government pulling shit and watch out for the press pulling shit.

>>28451740
>people practicing their rights to bear arms
>the government persecutes them for it so they have to do so in secret

I'll give you this one compromise. And it's actually a compromise, not me giving up something for you.

Give us full auto, suppressors and sbr's/sbs's at the same status as any normal gun.

No records may be kept of any BGC. 4473s and the like are banned. Any govt official caught keeping or using BGC data is banned from holding any governmental position.

In exchange we'll give you increased requirements for BGC including private sales, and mandatory safety/legal training for gun ownership, to be offered at high schools for students and by private companies for adults.

>>28455462
If you retards would pay attention, the numbers at the bottom reset.

File: 1434705581509.png (436KB, 994x931px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 994x931px

>>28455383
this! dos someone have the original question screen capped?

>>28455658
Here >>28455548

>>28452113
>4 mags
shit son


>select fire
The m16 has a semi auto mode for a reason

Show me a SINGLE clip of afghanistan or iraq battle footage where any US soldier uses his m16 in full auto for more than just suppressive fire. You'll be hard pressed to even find suppressive fire with an m16 because they use lmgs for that.

as has already been said, You dumb.

>>28451950
burn.

>>28451852
>80% lowers

So we should register all chunks of aluminum that are big enough to mill into a firearm?

So your car is effectively an incomplete firearm.

File: 1448674692228.jpg (103KB, 885x1260px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 885x1260px

>>28455545
>>28455548
thanks based bras
I'm going to /r/ requesting the newer and older question be put together in single pic, ill offer pics of smexy girls, if this thread is still up ill post it here for you guys.
wish me luck

>>28455651
it's embarrassing, I never admit to being a gun guy

>>28455783
I noticed it. The newer question is still more patronizing.

>>28454041
This.

>>28454135
Then you need to have a conversation with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama because they have both been directly supplying ISIS for a long time.

>>28455794
you are going to CNN, asking /k/ to go there as well, have no understanding of what you are seeing or voting on. it's fucking embarrassing. overzealous retards ruin the integrity of the whole gun community.

File: Nice try, CNN.png (521KB, 1012x1620px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 1012x1620px

>>28455770
This good enough?

>>28455832
Saved

>>28455832
and if you wait until tomorrow you can add a third picture, then a fourth the next day and so on.

good job boys.

>>28455832
yes, saved
already made post on /r/ thou, ill be nice and give 'em tits anyway

File: Janet Hasson Libitch.jpg (17KB, 307x315px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 307x315px

Have fun

This thread is a gigantic train wreck that is still crashing

File: Guns.jpg (564KB, 992x1032px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 992x1032px

>>28447655

What?

File: 1448168922120.gif (280KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 250x250px

>>28455832
>i voted no on the second one
son of a bitch i can't read can't i

File: ElaborateRuse.jpg (54KB, 500x338px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x338px

THEY CHANGED THE QUESTION!!!

File: james-clarkson.jpg (39KB, 429x429px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 429x429px

The question doesn't make any sense.

It has no goal.

It serves no purpose.

It's nonsense sprinkled with misunderstood buzzwords.

>>28456024
That was not the question I was asked at ALL. WTF CNN.

>>28456088
Five bucks they change the question to "Should there be a new AWB?" but keep the yes no results.

>>28451740
>Half don't know how to stop the flow of ILLEGAL firearms, and if they force background checks on private sales all weapons have to go through an FFL which increases the chance of catching "Bad people" or Illegal firearms
Here's the thing, though: if someone is buying a gun illegally, they can just find someone who is selling a gun illegally and not need to worry about extra background checks being mandated by law. Someone buying a gun illegally almost certainly knows what they're up to, and so aren't going to walk into a gun store for a background check. Making it illegal to sell without jumping through extra hoops doesn't do anything to stop people from being lazy except for punishing them after the fact, if ever. The prohibited person still has the damn gun.

>>28455601
>mandatory safety/legal training for gun ownership
too far. You can't license a right.

>Is tightening gun-sale requirements too tough a challenge?

This... fucking, what?

Wait why are we voting no? I dont understand this question.

>>28456659
>nonesense sprinkled with misunderstood buzzwords
You just explained all of televised news in America. You deserve a cookie.

>>28456803
God damn they changed the question, read the thread.

This thread needs to be taken down. just sage it. Also this is >>>/pol/

>>28456751
that is why the EO is calling for new tech like micro printing that would help identify a weapon better than a sn that could be scratched off. it also is calling for mandatory reporting of lost or stolen weapons.

accountability senpai

>>28456803
they didn't like the polls answer so they changed it to be ambiguous so they can spin it anyway they want

>>28456895
microstamping doesn't last through firing, let alone deliberate destruction or even just replacing the firing pin. Scratching off a serial number is already a felony. Mandatory reporting is unenforceable: "I don't shoot very often, I had no idea it was missing!" or "I had it in my bag on a fishing trip, didn't even think to look for it after I got the bag back into the boat!"

>>28456939
>microstamping doesn't last through firing, let alone deliberate destruction or even just replacing the firing pin.
that is why it is calling for research into 'new' technology 'like' micro stamping...

>>28456895
All of that "forensics" shit is fantasy television garbage. It's so rarely used as to be laughable. There is a small amount of use at the federal level, but NO small police can do that kind of work, no states or agencies can afford to or be reasonably assured of accurate results.

It's pipe dream buzzwords that mean nothing to people in the know. You don't catch people with striations, you catch them with their own stupidity.

>>28447655
>http://www.cnn.com/partners/ios/pages/poll/
What a loaded fucking question. There is no /k/ answer.
Abort... Abort...

>>28452113
>what is the north hollywood shootout
>four full auto rifles
>no kills
>???????????????