USA Today poll - 2nd Amendment rights

[montezumaz]

The Question is:
"Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?"

USATODAY.com - Quick Question

 

[Vegetaman]

97% Yes
2% No
1% Undecided

3,666,600 total votes.

 

[CordWood]

Old poll that keeps resurfacing.

 

[Amici]

Yet another reposting of a poll that was shut down MONTHS ago.

Note the "2007/november" in the address.

Read, THEN post.

 

[5Wire]

Yet another reposting of a poll that was shut down MONTHS ago.

Note the "2007/november" in the address.

Read, THEN post.

It's still counting. Vote again!

 

[samIam]

Total votes now 3,678,944
Looks like its still going up.

 

[Amici]

And still POINTLESS, as it's almost 2 years old and USA Magazine is no longer interested in the results.

 

[5Wire]

And still POINTLESS, as it's almost 2 years old and USA Magazine is no longer interested in the results.

Who cares what USA Mag thinks as long as we're interested in the results? None of those polls mean anything anyway. I like to see the numbers fall the way they're falling.

Vote again!

 

[Amici]

The numbers are "the way they're falling" because no-one is responding except those reacting to re-posts of an obsolete link.

NO-ONE cares what the poll's results are because it is 22 months old and ignored by its creator.

 

[Zilmo]

Yikes!!

 

[5Wire]

The numbers are "the way they're falling" because no-one is responding except those reacting to re-posts of an obsolete link.

NO-ONE cares what the poll's results are because it is 22 months old and ignored by its creator.

And you know this how? Those responding can still pick yes or no. It's not a big deal awreddy, as I posted.

 

[Amici]

And you know this how?

1. I can read the date in the link; and

2. The results - obviously only people still responding to threads like this are voting, as the results in valid polls are now-where near as skewed.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

 

[5Wire]

1. I can read the date in the link; and

2. The results - obviously only people still responding to threads like this are voting, as the results in valid polls are now-where near as skewed.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

I get the date part. The poll itself wasn't valid to begin with. How do you know what is shown is skewed? Why are you making a fuss?

 

[Amici]

Why are you making a fuss?

YOU'RE the one flagellating the equine corpse.

 

[bmhiii]

.... flagellating the equine corpse.

Now that's humorous....

 

[5Wire]

YOU'RE the one flagellating the equine corpse.

Nice line, but I repeat: Who cares what USA Mag thinks as long as we're interested in the results? None of those polls mean anything anyway. I like to see the numbers fall the way they're falling.

Vote again!"

I see you have no explanation of how you KNOW the numbers are skewed or what makes a valid poll. Sounds like you have inside info. Tell us.

 

[Amici]

I see you have no explanation of how you KNOW the numbers are skewed or what makes a valid poll. Sounds like you have inside info. Tell us.

I see you have little grasp of logic and critical analysis. Let me spell it out for you, one little bit at a time:

1. The poll is clearly dated November, 2007.

2. This was the time period in which Parker/Heller was going before the USSC.

3. That case is now settled and the purpose for which the poll was posted is long gone.

4. This link has been posted - and reposted - and REreposted - on every firearms forum I've seen.

5. The poll now shows that 97% of respondents think the Second Amendment secures an individual right.

6. NO valid poll has ever shown that egregiously one-sided a response to that question (or any OTHER firearms-related "hot topic" poll I can think of).

The only conclusion which LOGIC - as opposed to your blind enthusiasm - supports is that the 22-month old link is being hit ONLY by people like you. Hardly a valid sample.

So, if you want to engage in mental masturbation by hitting a dead poll, do so. If you want to encourage others to hit it in the delusion that it actually means or achieves something, you can do that also.

But don't think such silliness will be deemed a substitute for reason - or REAL action.

 

[MagnumM56]

It is all academic since Heller,. Boy I was sweating that one while it was pending

 

[5Wire]

Here's a fisk for ya, you need to chill.

I see you have little grasp of logic and critical analysis. Let me spell it out for you, one little bit at a time:

1. The poll is clearly dated November, 2007. Irrelevant, responses have continued since then, both pro & con. (Cf: 10 commandments)

2. This was the time period in which Parker/Heller was going before the USSC. Also irrelevant, the poll is the poll is the poll. (See response to 1, above.)

3. That case is now settled and the purpose for which the poll was posted is long gone. Also irrelevant, the poll is the poll is the poll. Why the poll existed is not an issue.

4. This link has been posted - and reposted - and REreposted - on every firearms forum I've seen. Also irrelevant, the link is still active, otherwise pros & cons would not continue to accrue.

5. The poll now shows that 97% of respondents think the Second Amendment secures an individual right. What's your point?

6. NO valid poll has ever shown that egregiously one-sided a response to that question (or any OTHER firearms-related "hot topic" poll I can think of). What's your point? Who said the poll was valid? Certainly not me.

The only conclusion which LOGIC - as opposed to your blind enthusiasm - supports is that the 22-month old link is being hit ONLY by people like you. Hardly a valid sample. Now that's really a dumb thing to say. Validity is not my issue, it seems to be yours. You have no idea who continues to click pro or con. If you do, prove it.

So, if you want to engage in mental masturbation by hitting a dead poll, do so. If you want to encourage others to hit it in the delusion that it actually means or achieves something, you can do that also. Poll is not dead, or pros & cons would not continue to accumulate. Besides, there's no such thing as bad publicity. If some anti 2nd Amendment wonk follows the link, they could reconsider their position and it cost me nothing but a click. Not clicking helps nothing.

But don't think such silliness will be deemed a substitute for reason - or REAL action. I'll go along with the silliness part, it is silly and totally whimsical on my part (or other whimsical folks) to "vote" again, as I posted. So what?

 

[5Wire]

It is all academic since Heller,. Boy I was sweating that one while it was pending

I'm with you on that, and it was still too close for comfort.