wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
14 years ago
I got the following email and thought I would post it here. When I was at the site there had been 5.7 million votes cast and 97% were "yes". I find it interesting. I didn't think it would be much more than 70-75%.




Subject: US Today Poll on Gun Ownership

Obama's new Attorney General, Eric Holder, has already said this is one of his major issues. He does not believe the 2ndAmendment gives individuals the right to bear arms. This takes literally 2 clicks to complete. Please vote on this gun issue question with USA Today. It will only take a few seconds of your time. Then pass the link on to all the pro gun folks you know. Hopefully these results will be published later this month. This upcoming year will become critical for gun owners with the Supreme Court's accepting the District of Columbia case against the right for individuals to bear arms.

The Question is:

"Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?"

USATODAY.com - Quick Question 


UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
14 years ago
Heh. It probably got passed around to gunowners. I've met a lot of folks here who want to do away with it.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
14 years ago

Heh. It probably got passed around to gunowners. I've met a lot of folks here who want to do away with it.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



I am sure it did get passed around to hunters & NRA people. But there has to be people who oppose guns that read the paper online. They are not voting for some reason.
I just found it interesting that the number in favor was so large.
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
14 years ago

Heh. It probably got passed around to gunowners. I've met a lot of folks here who want to do away with it.

"wpr" wrote:



I am sure it did get passed around to hunters & NRA people. But there has to be people who oppose guns that read the paper online. They are not voting for some reason.
I just found it interesting that the number in favor was so large.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



My seat-of-the-pants guess is that its the demographic of the readership. USA Today readership is skewed more to lower education level, conservative, etc, than the national average. On the other hand, those who opposed guns tend to be higher ed, less conservative, etc. on average.

I, too, am surprised that the number is quite as large, though.

On the other hand, I also think that the "mainstream reporting" (from CNN to NYTimes to old networks) has long underestimated the number of people who subscribe to the "individual right" reading. In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of another question where the mainstream media so frequently gets the percentages of "popular belief" so wrong.

I would love to see Pelosi and company try to get rid of the 2nd Amendement. IMO you'd see a bigger transformation of Congress than you saw in the Reagan years.

I keep hoping that one of my students is interested in taking the question on.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
dhazer
14 years ago
If they get rid of the 2nd amendment, what would be next the right to free speech? We are slowly becoming a communist nation believe it or not.
Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be 🙂 (PS, Zero should charge for this)
UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
14 years ago
Believe it or not? No argument from me.

We're turning from a nation of can do people to please help me government people.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
MontanaBob
14 years ago
Try to get rid of that out here in Montana. Take away our home, car, wife or whatever, but don't even think about our guns, dogs and pick-up trucks. Ain't gonna happen here Charlie. LOL
Anyone for a Weenie Roast?
Pack93z
14 years ago
Hmmm Holder reports to whom?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0214-chapman-20100212,0,1860230.column 

Among the many groups that opposed Barack Obama's presidential race, few were more certain or vehement than gun-rights organizations. "Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history," the National Rifle Association announced. "Obama is a committed anti-gunner," warned Gun Owners of America.

So it's no stunner that after a year in office, the president is getting hammered by people who have no use for his policy on firearms. The surprise is that the people attacking him are those who favor gun control, not those who oppose it.

Obama's record on this issue has been largely overlooked except by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which recently issued a report card flunking Obama on all seven issues it deems important. Said President Paul Helmke, "If I had been told, in the days before Barack Obama's inauguration, that his record on gun violence prevention would be this poor, I would not have believed it."

Had he listened to the candidate in 2008, he would have believed. At a September campaign rally in rural Virginia, Obama declared unequivocally, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away. .. There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away."

The Brady Center must have hoped he was being less than honest. And he was: He had no intention of pushing those "common-sense" laws he had previously favored. On the list of issues for which Obama is willing to put himself on the line, gun control ranks somewhere below free trade with Uzbekistan.

So he has proposed nothing in the way of new federal restrictions on firearms. Even the "assault weapons" ban signed by President Bill Clinton and allowed to expire in 2004 has no visible place on Obama's agenda.

Not only that, he's approved changes that should gladden the hearts of gun-rights supporters, a group that includes me. He signed a law permitting guns to be taken into national parks. He signed another allowing guns as checked baggage on Amtrak. He acted to preserve an existing law limiting the use of government information on firearms it has traced.

Still, the NRA is not rushing to recant. A spokesman admits the president has signed some provisions it favors, but notes that they were attached to legislation he wanted, making them hard to veto. Says Andrew Arulanandam, "He has disappointed us with his appointments," particularly Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, neither a darling of the shooting set.

But those are petty matters given Obama's overall refusal to do anything to advance gun control. On this issue, he took such a strong, clear position during the campaign that he has no room to maneuver. That was not accidental. It was deliberate the equivalent of burning his ships to eliminate the option of retreat.

In terms of actual policy, rather than his previous record, Obama is a long way from being anti-gun. This is not because he has fond memories of sitting in a deer stand as a lad in Hawaii or of talking shotguns with Dick Cheney. It's because his mother didn't raise a fool.

Like some other Democrats, he may recall that in 1994, after banning "assault weapons," they lost the House for the first time in 40 years. Obama knows that anyone who staunchly favors banning guns won't vote Republican no matter what. But some independents who are protective of their weapons may vote Democratic if that issue is off the table.

Off the table is exactly where he intends to keep it. Last year, 65 House Democrats (including Jerry Costello and Debbie Halvorson of Illinois) wrote Holder vowing to "actively oppose" any effort to restore the assault weapons ban. The president has enough trouble getting legislation that enjoys overwhelming support in his party. He is not about to pick a fight with centrist Democrats over gun control.

Opponents of gun control should not rely on Obama's innermost sentiments on the subject. He obviously doesn't cherish the right to keep and bear arms. But for those who favor Second Amendment rights, here's the nice thing about having such a canny politician in the White House: He doesn't have to.


"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
14 years ago

Believe it or not? No argument from me.

We're turning from a nation of can do people to please help me government people.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



Yep.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago
Good find, Shawn. I've been applauding President Obama for his gun policies for many months now.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (20m) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (20m) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (20m) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (28m) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (29m) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (49m) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (2h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (2h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (2h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (2h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (3h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (3h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (3h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (3h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (3h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (3h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (3h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (3h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (3h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Zero2Cool (3h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (3h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (3h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (3h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (3h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (3h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Zero2Cool (3h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.
packerfanoutwest (3h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in
packerfanoutwest (3h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker
packerfanoutwest (3h) : if bucs win out they win their division
beast (3h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
packerfanoutwest (4h) : falcons are already ahead of us
beast (4h) : Packers will get in
beast (4h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen
packerfanoutwest (4h) : they still are in the playoffs
packerfanoutwest (4h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7
Zero2Cool (5h) : We can say it. We don't play.
Mucky Tundra (7h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints
Mucky Tundra (7h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games
Mucky Tundra (7h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.
buckeyepackfan (7h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.
Mucky Tundra (16h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan
beast (17h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings
bboystyle (17h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in
Mucky Tundra (20h) : Or ties, but let's be real here
Mucky Tundra (20h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses
Mucky Tundra (20h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch
buckeyepackfan (20h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?
Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks
Zero2Cool (21-Dec) : I'm not beating anyone. I stinks.
Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : rough injury for tank dell. guy can't catch abreak
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.