Page 1 of 2
USA Today Poll on 2nd Amendment
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:31 pm
by The Marshal
Click on link and vote...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquest ... up5895.htm
[EDIT]
{Doh. I didn't check it when I pasted it. Thanks for the heads-up.!}
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm
by philbo
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:44 pm
by stevie_d_64
Out of 25152 votes so far...
99% "yes"
1% "no"
0% undecided
Absolutely pathetic people!!!
/sarcasm
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:11 pm
by Wildscar
Thats like asking if the First Amendment give individuals the right to speak their minds?
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:15 pm
by bpet
Well, I voted. But now I can't for the life of me figure out who would be idiot enough to include themselves in that stinking 1%. 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%.
.....let's see
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:22 pm
by texasag93
Let's see if they publish the results or if it goes into the 'not worth publishing' circular file.
texasag
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:59 pm
by FightinAggieCHL
We might be able to attribute the 1% of "No" to a misclick.
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:01 pm
by jbirds1210
Voted...Thanks for the link.
Jason
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:03 pm
by Keith B
bpet wrote:Well, I voted. But now I can't for the life of me figure out who would be idiot enough to include themselves in that stinking 1%. 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%.
Maybe they were dyslexic and thought it said 'The right to arm bears.'
My vote still kept it at 99%
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:28 pm
by AFJailor
Keith B wrote:
Maybe they were dyslexic and thought it said 'The right to arm bears.'
That made me laugh in real life...gj
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:39 pm
by tboesche
voted. Still 99%
Voted
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:45 pm
by USMC-COL
Voted. Still at 99%.
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:39 pm
by srothstein
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.
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:59 pm
by stevie_d_64
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.
Sharp! As usual Mr. Stephan!!!
But seeings how that has worked so well for us so far...Thats why I was a bit sarcastic this morning...
I'm telling you guys...This is that issue that has finally come up and will be a major issue next year in the campaigns...
I'd call my Reps and tell them that its these two issues plus the Fair Tax initiative thats going to be the winning issues they need to latch onto and talk about at great length...
The first two are illegal immigration ENFORCEMENT, not amnesty/reform or a workers program or a path to citizenship garbage...
The second is how important the 2nd Amendment opinion that is coming by the Supreme court is that it is an individual right, and that infringements like the D.C. ban is so wrong its not even funny anymore...
They do these issues, and that will be a very successful message to tel to their constituents...
Seems to me the media is preparing us for some spins on these issues very soon with polls like this...USAToday/CNN are notorious for doing so...
It'll be very interesting to see how they present this if they do at all...
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:41 pm
by frankie_the_yankee
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.
Correct as usual Stephan. (Emphasis added.)
But isn't ironic that the court that wrote that statement went on to say that the 2A didn't apply to the case at hand? (Wasn't it Presser v Illinois?)
That court, if I am not mistaken, refused to use the "priviliges and immunities" clause or the "due process" clause of the 14th amendment to "incorporate" the 2A so as to bind the states.
As a result, gun owners have been wandering in the desert for the last 120 years.
And Heller won't help because DC is a federal district where the 2A would apply directly, so there's no need to incorporate.
Didn't mean to hijack the thread.
