Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment Second Amendment Poll

USA today has a vote on second amendment rights going on now. Vote?

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/11/beat-the-high-c.html

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

Yes: 97%

97% to 2%

The correct answer is "NO", of course, but I voted "YES", anyway. Hope it wasn't a trick question.

We were born with the individual right to bear arms. It is an inalienable right, given by our creator, not by the government.

about 8k votes (incl mine). wonder how many they'll get ??

They had a couple of polls like this right after the Virgina Tech shootings and when the results didn't pan out in favor of the Anti-gunners they were gone in a little over a day.

still at 97%

You know I would have thought there would be alot more response to this post or at least people that would read it and go vote in the poll? But then it shows why over the years the Anti's have kicked our collective buts. Go back to the Campfire and see how many people read the other posts and skipped this. An eye opener for sure.

In my opinion, the only thing standing in front of tyranny is a well armed citizen.

Walker - You are correct of course. The Amendments are to "clarify", I hope,..... "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Some don't believe in a Creator, and some are government, ugh!!!

Believe this is the group some of the Founding Fathers viewed as occasionally needing "refreshed" in those inalienable rights.

edited: to add occasionally, didn't want anyone to think I was instigating anything.

Considering that the Second Amendment was put inbto the Bill of Rights ten years before the Milita act, and that all the Milita Act did was codify what a "well regulated Milita" was, type of equiptment they should have on hand ammunition (or at that time amount of powder ball and Flint) food, knife, hatchet, blanket ect.It also made the distinction between the regulated and unhregulated milita. The regulated Milita had elected officers and had regular drills members were fined for missing drill. The regulated milita was every man in good health between the ages of sixteen and forty, the unregulated Milita was every one else.
Oh yes BTW the term "well regulated" did not mean by laws , or by Government approval. In those times "well regulated" meant working properly, as in every man had a rifle and one hundred rounds of ammunition, food for a week, a knife, cook pot, Hatchet, and a bed roll. They were ready to be on the move at a moments notice. The frontieer of the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth century was no place for a weakling or a fool who would rely on the charity of his neghbors. Each member of the Milita was expected to be able to take care of his own needs.
Militas were a main part of the armed forces of the United States until the end of the nineteenth century, TR's rough riders were essentially a milita unit for example, many of the military forces on both sides on the Civil War were home grown milita's, but that was pretty much the end of them then since a town or county that raised a milita was expected to equip and arm them and the officers were in many cases political apointees and generally incompetent.

But by giving the second amendment a good objective reading, it is plain that While a well regulated Militia is needed for the securaty of a free state, The Right of THE PEOPLE could not be infringed

98% YES at my vote.

Just voted - still 98% yes.

Voted....98%, thanks to you Ackleybee for posting this!

98% yes with 17558 votes tallied including mine! Thanks for posting the poll.

Up to 99%

Over 107 000 votes and 97 % of Yes !!!

With such "non PC" results, I am surprised that they let this poll go on...

Still at 97%.........somehow I am suprised its this lopsided.Pleasently suprised that is.

Amen! Amen! and AMEN!

Very specifically I remember documentaries about WWII and other U.S. wars where our enemies have feared us off of the battlefield.

Both Japanese and Vietnamese generals have stated - on the record - that it would be extremely COSTLY if not [almost] IMPOSSIBLE to invade and conquer the [u]nited 'States of America!'

I suppose the nazis knew these things too, but haven't heard any interviews conducted with them.

BTW, since the late 1950's and early 1960's there's been a deliberate effort by the U.N. to disarm the [private] world. There's even an aggreement between the USA and UN (signed during the Kennedy years) calling for the "complete and total disarmament of the United States.

Even militaries are eventually supposed to come under jurisdiction of the UN.

Talk about global tyranny!

I just voted but I don't always come back and say so. It will also help when it stays at the top where it is noticed.

yes 97% no 2% and undecided 1%