TexasCHLforum.com

Very sharp!!!

srothstein wrote:I hope you all realize that the correct answer is no. It does not give the right to bear arms (or arm bears for the dyslexic). It guarantees the existing right will not be infringed by the government.

BTW, I voted yes since I know that this is not what the poll makers had in mind.

bpet wrote:I can't for the life of me figure out who would be idiot enough to include themselves in that stinking 1%.

Perhaps it was someone who read the question literally: the 2nd Amendment does not "give" individuals the right to keep and bear arms. It only recognizes that the right exists, and declares that Congress may not infringe upon it.

As something of a perfectionist, I would love to see the 1% go to zero even if only as a result of large numbers voting "YES" to the question. However, knowing CNN, they probably wouldn't make it zero even if it was less than 1/2 of 1%.

A perfectionist should know that it can never be 0%, no matter how many votes are cast in opposition. One single vote is greater than zero percent.

Just voted, thanks for posting the link.

Quote:
bpet wrote:
I can't for the life of me figure out who would be idiot enough to include themselves in that stinkin 1%.

Perhaps it was someone who read the question literally: the 2nd Amendment does not "give" individuals the right to keep and bear arms. It only recognizes that the right exists, and declares that Congress may not infringe upon it.

I would love to believe that you are correct and that an informed citizen realized the ambiguity and answered literally. However, I really don't believe it. Your point is well taken though! Hope you voted "YES".

Quote:
As something of a perfectionist, I would love to see the 1% go to zero even if only as a result of large numbers voting "YES" to the question. However, knowing CNN, they probably wouldn't make it zero even if it was less than 1/2 of 1%.


A perfectionist should know that it can never be 0%, no matter how many votes are cast in opposition. One single vote is greater than zero percent.

[/quote]

As "something of a perfectionist" I also understand that .005% is closer to 0 than it is to 1 and as long as results are going to be shown with fixed (whole number) resolution, should be shown with the rounded result. Not saying that CNN wouldn't/didn't round the results, I just doubt it. Then, there's your point - perhaps, only one person (the one who literally interpreted the wording) voted "NO" and forced the un-rounded results to 1%. I only wish I could believe you are correct, but I like the way you think.

bpet wrote:As "something of a perfectionist" I also understand that .005% is closer to 0 than it is to 1 and as long as results are going to be shown with fixed (whole number) resolution, should be shown with the rounded result. Not saying that CNN wouldn't/didn't round the results, I just doubt it. Then, there's your point - perhaps, only one person (the one who literally interpreted the wording) voted "NO" and forced the un-rounded results to 1%. I only wish I could believe you are correct, but I like the way you think.

How they chose to round the number would also have an influence. If they chose to always round up, in our case, the number would always be 1% even if there was only one vote against 28,00.

Choosing to round to the nearest positive integer would also have the same effect, rounding in the correct direction for values larger than one, but always to one in the case of one vs zero because zero is not an integer.

It's one way to demonstrate the old saying "Figure don't lie, but liars can figure." One percentage point is pretty much insignificant, particularly in a poll where the numbers seem to point at a very lopsided response.

Good point, and well stated!

The question is stupid, frankly. If it said, should citizens have arms?, etc...

Just seems redundant