md123
Ultimate Member
- Jul 29, 2011
- 2,005
Hit it
National Carry Poll by MSNBC
- Thread starter MACVSOGShoebox
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
91%, 283k votes.
The sphinx
Ultimate Member
Done. Currently at 93%
CypherPunk
Opinions Are My Own
- Apr 6, 2012
- 3,907
This seems like a no-win proposition to me.
Ignore the unscientific poll, and the results are reported.
Vote pro 2A, and the results are ignored, but MSDNC gets page hits and increased ad revenue.
Ignore the unscientific poll, and the results are reported.
Vote pro 2A, and the results are ignored, but MSDNC gets page hits and increased ad revenue.
echo6mike
Ultimate Member
Hit it anyway, Yes down to 92% with 251k votes.
Hit it!
mranaya
Task Force Sunny, 2009
I can at least say the word is spreading like wildfire on social media, to include Facebook and MDS. Whatever you think of Facebook, it is a way for the people to bypass mainstream media.
Respectfully,
rlc2
Active Member
92% yes at 345K votes
Still nothing, per my google fu, for "MSNBC gun carry poll"
at NYT, WAPO, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc.
No surprises.
I'd post a comment at Bloombergs Everytown, MDA, or TRACE agitprop outlets' Fakebook page with a link directing to the MSNBC, but then I'd have to wash all over with soap to get the slime off...
and they would ban it, like they do any pro2A feedback anyway.
Still nothing, per my google fu, for "MSNBC gun carry poll"
at NYT, WAPO, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc.
No surprises.
I'd post a comment at Bloombergs Everytown, MDA, or TRACE agitprop outlets' Fakebook page with a link directing to the MSNBC, but then I'd have to wash all over with soap to get the slime off...
and they would ban it, like they do any pro2A feedback anyway.
The running tally illustrates how puny MSNBC's online readership is, assuming that many of them are antigun. Presumably they pointed to this poll (when they opened it up) on one of their television programs, but their viewership is also tiny. Why would advertisers even bother.
6pack
MSI BOD Member
92% yes with 350,000 votes. Nice!
Maverick0313
Retired and loving it
I hit it. Rock and roll.
92%, 352K
WeaponsCollector
EXTREME GUN OWNER
Voted, 92% in favor of gun rights is surprising for MSNBC.
There are some pretty good responses in the comments there.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-do-you-think-people-should-be-allowed-carry-guns-public
This post is pretty good IMO... along with several others there.
Jeffrey A. Perkins 19 hours ago post #15
The language of the time used a mechanism called the preamble, which is what the first two phrases of the 2nd Amendment actually are. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." That's the preamble. Its purpose is to place what follows into the proper context, but we have to examine the words before we can establish their proper context.
Observance of the rules of war and accountability were heavily valued in the colonial era. Renegade bands of armed men who answered to no leader of conscience were not to be encouraged or allowed. The right to form a militia depended upon having leaders of conscience who would impose strict rules of behavior and warfare on its members. Hence the term "well-regulated." The lawful right to form militias is an admonition to the federal government that it is not the only body that is capable of standing an army, but with that right comes the responsibility to act lawfully. The right was conferred for the sole purpose of resisting tyranny and discouraging our national government from becoming despotic -- no other entity but our national government could threaten the freedom of the nation. External threats would be met by the standing army of the nation. Let me say that again -- militias were never intended to be used for national defense. Our government passed laws enabling it to create a standing army and navy BEFORE it declared its own independence form England. Militias were intended to empower citizens to rise up against its own government should it ever be required. There is your explanation of the preamble. Let's forge ahead...
"... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It would be impossible for a disarmed populace to stand as an army against the federal government. The lawful right to assemble a militia can only exist if the people who will constitute that militia are armed. That means the public -- the people -- of this country, when called upon to unseat a despotic government, can immediately take up arms and spring into action. The immediate requirement is demonstrated by the "keep and bear" phrase. It doesn't say "have access to arms." It says "keep and bear." That means in your home (keep) and carry (bear) on your person. There shouldn't be too much confusion about that language.
One last consideration -- the 3rd Amendment was written in response to the Quartering Act of 1774 which required colonists to house British troops on demand. How could a citizen possibly refuse to allow soldiers to take up residence in his home if he were not equally armed as the soldier himself? Simply, he could not. The 2nd Amendment guaranteed that our government could never be guilty of the transgressions perpetrated by a despot king.
In summary -- the militia is a force to be convened in response to a tyrannical government, not in defense of the nation. Laws were passed for national defense before the 2nd Amendment was ever written and it was written in spite of those laws, denoting its uniqueness in purpose. Such a militia could not possibly exist if the people who were to fill its ranks were not properly armed. The further implication there is that the people are to be armed in similar fashion to the standing army, so as to be able to overthrow the despotic government. There is no requirement for service, but willing service is an implied responsibility to ensure the balance of power remains enough to discourage federal despotism.
So, the very notion of governments (local, state, or federal) "regulating" a militia is absolute lunacy on its face. Who would be doing the regulating? The very government the right was intend to hold in check? No. That stands in contravention to the very purpose of being able to assemble a militia of the people to stand in defense of their freedoms against their own government. This is how it was done, why it still applies today. and why it will always apply -- our freedoms were not granted by our government. Our government was tasked with protecting freedoms and should it fail, our people are to be so equipped that governmental protection of those freedoms is not necessary. Anyone who tells you any different is an enemy of freedom. Tell them I said so
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-do-you-think-people-should-be-allowed-carry-guns-public
This post is pretty good IMO... along with several others there.
Jeffrey A. Perkins 19 hours ago post #15
The language of the time used a mechanism called the preamble, which is what the first two phrases of the 2nd Amendment actually are. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." That's the preamble. Its purpose is to place what follows into the proper context, but we have to examine the words before we can establish their proper context.
Observance of the rules of war and accountability were heavily valued in the colonial era. Renegade bands of armed men who answered to no leader of conscience were not to be encouraged or allowed. The right to form a militia depended upon having leaders of conscience who would impose strict rules of behavior and warfare on its members. Hence the term "well-regulated." The lawful right to form militias is an admonition to the federal government that it is not the only body that is capable of standing an army, but with that right comes the responsibility to act lawfully. The right was conferred for the sole purpose of resisting tyranny and discouraging our national government from becoming despotic -- no other entity but our national government could threaten the freedom of the nation. External threats would be met by the standing army of the nation. Let me say that again -- militias were never intended to be used for national defense. Our government passed laws enabling it to create a standing army and navy BEFORE it declared its own independence form England. Militias were intended to empower citizens to rise up against its own government should it ever be required. There is your explanation of the preamble. Let's forge ahead...
"... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It would be impossible for a disarmed populace to stand as an army against the federal government. The lawful right to assemble a militia can only exist if the people who will constitute that militia are armed. That means the public -- the people -- of this country, when called upon to unseat a despotic government, can immediately take up arms and spring into action. The immediate requirement is demonstrated by the "keep and bear" phrase. It doesn't say "have access to arms." It says "keep and bear." That means in your home (keep) and carry (bear) on your person. There shouldn't be too much confusion about that language.
One last consideration -- the 3rd Amendment was written in response to the Quartering Act of 1774 which required colonists to house British troops on demand. How could a citizen possibly refuse to allow soldiers to take up residence in his home if he were not equally armed as the soldier himself? Simply, he could not. The 2nd Amendment guaranteed that our government could never be guilty of the transgressions perpetrated by a despot king.
In summary -- the militia is a force to be convened in response to a tyrannical government, not in defense of the nation. Laws were passed for national defense before the 2nd Amendment was ever written and it was written in spite of those laws, denoting its uniqueness in purpose. Such a militia could not possibly exist if the people who were to fill its ranks were not properly armed. The further implication there is that the people are to be armed in similar fashion to the standing army, so as to be able to overthrow the despotic government. There is no requirement for service, but willing service is an implied responsibility to ensure the balance of power remains enough to discourage federal despotism.
So, the very notion of governments (local, state, or federal) "regulating" a militia is absolute lunacy on its face. Who would be doing the regulating? The very government the right was intend to hold in check? No. That stands in contravention to the very purpose of being able to assemble a militia of the people to stand in defense of their freedoms against their own government. This is how it was done, why it still applies today. and why it will always apply -- our freedoms were not granted by our government. Our government was tasked with protecting freedoms and should it fail, our people are to be so equipped that governmental protection of those freedoms is not necessary. Anyone who tells you any different is an enemy of freedom. Tell them I said so
Hit it.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
Mini Hacksaw Small Enough for EDC or Your Pocket Survival Kit (2 Viewers)
- Started by Blacksmith101
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
Moving out of the PRM to the sunny freedom of Florida
- Started by johnsopi
- Replies: 2
-
