Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
19 Pages123>»
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline wpr  
#1 Posted : Wednesday, February 17, 2010 6:07:41 PM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Posts: 12,352
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,752
Applause Received: 1,322

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%.


Quote:


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
"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." Chesty Puller



UserPostedImage

Sponsor
Offline zombieslayer  
#2 Posted : Wednesday, February 17, 2010 8:13:39 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

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. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline wpr  
#3 Posted : Wednesday, February 17, 2010 8:22:27 PM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Posts: 12,352
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,752
Applause Received: 1,322

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Heh. It probably got passed around to gunowners. I've met a lot of folks here who want to do away with it.


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.
"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." Chesty Puller



UserPostedImage

Offline Wade  
#4 Posted : Wednesday, February 17, 2010 8:36:07 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,768
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 630
Applause Received: 648

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Heh. It probably got passed around to gunowners. I've met a lot of folks here who want to do away with it.


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.


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.
None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Offline dhazer  
#5 Posted : Wednesday, February 17, 2010 9:43:59 PM(UTC)
dhazer

Rank: Pro Bowl

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2013Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2009PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2013

Posts: 3,898
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 45
Applause Received: 191

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.
UserPostedImage

Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be :)
thanks Post received 1 applause.
Cheesey on 12/18/2012(UTC)
Offline zombieslayer  
#6 Posted : Wednesday, February 17, 2010 10:02:54 PM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

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. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline MontanaBob  
#7 Posted : Thursday, February 18, 2010 3:25:51 PM(UTC)
MontanaBob

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Posts: 721
Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)
Location: near Missoula Montana

Applause Received: 56

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?
thanks Post received 1 applause.
DakotaT on 12/18/2012(UTC)
Offline Pack93z  
#8 Posted : Thursday, February 18, 2010 3:49:53 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Posts: 12,752
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 381
Applause Received: 1,022

Hmmm Holder reports to whom?

http://www.chicagotribun...0100212,0,1860230.column

Quote:
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."

[size=18]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."[/size]

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.

[size=18]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.[/size]

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.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline Wade  
#9 Posted : Thursday, February 18, 2010 4:56:27 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,768
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 630
Applause Received: 648

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Believe it or not? No argument from me.

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


Yep.
None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Offline Nonstopdrivel  
#10 Posted : Thursday, February 18, 2010 7:13:09 PM(UTC)
Nonstopdrivel

Rank: Hall of Famer

United States
Posts: 11,689
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Location: Germany

Applause Given: 364
Applause Received: 263

Good find, Shawn. I've been applauding President Obama for his gun policies for many months now.
UserPostedImage
Offline Formo  
#11 Posted : Friday, February 19, 2010 7:32:24 PM(UTC)
Formo

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,555
Joined: 8/12/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 215
Applause Received: 152

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Good find, Shawn. I've been applauding President Obama for his gun policies for many months now.


Wow.. Your arms must be tired and hands must be sore. That's a long time to be applauding ANYONE! lol

That was a great find.. I found it pretty funny, though, on the reasoning behind Obama's gun 'policies'. Politics, as usual.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Offline djcubez  
#12 Posted : Friday, February 19, 2010 11:47:49 PM(UTC)
djcubez

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Posts: 1,751
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 8
Applause Received: 13

I think the poll is also skewed by the phrasing of the question. I dislike guns and I would vote for better gun control but I also believe the 2nd amendment does give every US citizen the right to bear arms.
Check out my music webpage - Click Here
Offline Wade  
#13 Posted : Saturday, February 20, 2010 2:02:54 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,768
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 630
Applause Received: 648

Well, there is the interesting question whether the right "comes" from the Bill of Rights or actually exists even in the absence thereof.

But I'm assuming that's not the question anyone is asking about/commenting on.

Me, I'm one of those natural rights crazies. :)

(shrug)
None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Offline zombieslayer  
#14 Posted : Sunday, February 21, 2010 12:41:27 AM(UTC)
zombieslayer

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Posts: 9,919
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: San Francisco

Applause Given: 778
Applause Received: 495

Wade - Not so crazy. The Founding Fathers specifically mentioned that you are BORN with Rights, not Rights are given to you by the government.

The distinction is very important.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)

2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. Ted Thompson Mike McCarthy Aaron Rodgers
Offline Wade  
#15 Posted : Sunday, February 21, 2010 3:02:28 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Posts: 5,768
Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 630
Applause Received: 648

Originally Posted by: " Go to Quoted Post
Wade - Not so crazy. The Founding Fathers specifically mentioned that you are BORN with Rights, not Rights are given to you by the government.

The distinction is very important.


Oh, I agree, zombie.

Would we have a right to speak as we wish without the First Amendment?

Would we have a right to worship as we wish with it?

Would we have a right to assemble?

Would we have a right to due process?

I admire Madison and company immensely. But *they* did not give me the rights that matter. And neither did the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But, I imagine, very few Americans think rights are anything but "civil" anymore. Three generations of failure in constitutional and historical education add up.
None of the above. It wouldn't have been a wasted vote. Obama and Romney -- Those were the wasted votes.
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest (4)
19 Pages123>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Recent Topics
5m / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Dexter_Sinister

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Dexter_Sinister

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Dexter_Sinister

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Dexter_Sinister

3h / Random Babble / dfosterf

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Dulak

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / StoicFire

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / mi_keys

01-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

31-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

31-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

31-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

31-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann


Tweeter

Copyright © 2006-2014 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.