http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-do-...Lzy9dRvYsBfffMCyK3lLTpom2eo89oSkvupIPbkY

Well, i tried, but msnbc won't recognize that I've whitelisted them. They still think I'm blocking their ads.

So fugg em, back on the blocked ads list.

Geno

At the bottom of that pop up window you can click "continue without supporting this time", it's in small gray print. Running at 46% for absolutely, it's guaranteed in the 2nd amendment vs. 53% for no, it's too dangerous.

Got that too, but there is an opt out on the bottom. 46% in favor 3280k votes

Done. 1.5 Million YES, 1.7 Million NO.

You can not trust them to post the truth.

Thanks guys, I found that gray area.

Geno

That poll couldn't possibly be anywhere close to accurate. So much of their tiny audience is anti-gun, and even if tons of gun owners get on there and vote in favor of it, do you really believe MSNBC is gonna report stuff that goes contrary to their agenda ? Hammerdown nailed it down in a previous post.

That’s a fact Jack!

Didn't go there, but if the thread title accurately reflects the question actually being asked, it is deliberately vague. Some people will think it refers to open carry, but others will think it refers to ANY carry, including concealed.

Pro-gun people might vote "No" thinking of open carry. Anti-gun people will assume it asks if anyone should be allowed to have a gun at all. Either way, it is weighted to "No" as the anticipated answer.

47% yes. 53% no.

Yep. Badly phrased, and likely on purpose.

46% yes-53% no
But it's a commie site ,so really it's not "that" bad.
Bad enough ,but I would think it would be way more lop sided.

You misread it. The 1% for "only for defense" is actually another percent for yes. Total yes, then, is 47%.

Precisely.

L.W.

Not only can you not trust them to post results that "disappoint" them, you can't trust their polling sample either.

When they get results they don't like, a poll will be buried.

Why anyone watches the MSM at all anymore is a complete mystery to me.

ok...

Tell the 1.7 million to come get the guns from the 1.5 million.

On the "it's too dangerous" theme, can anyone here post some accurate data showing the differences in "danger" (gun crime rates, etc.) between a free and open carry state like AZ and restrictive places like DC, or other places that do not allow carry?

I'm blocking their ads and they still let me enter the poll.

Like the local cop told me.....

You should carry a gun everywhere.
All the criminals do.

A BOT conducting data mining. Your on a list that will be sold. The proceeds will be used to fund activities for gun control.

should it be legal to carry a gun from the living room to the dining room

WTF does "only for self defense" mean anyway?

Is there any other reason to carry a gun?

The 2'nd is not about hunting deer or pheasants. It is about defense from enemies of the state, foreign and domestic.

Those who made up the three choices were obviously retarded. "Only for self defense" obviously makes no sense, as if some people don't want you carrying for range trips, hiking to hunting areas, etc., but would be okay if it were for self-defense.

They ran the same poll mid-September last year. The initial results were 93% in favor of carry in public with over 800K votes in the first 24 hours. The survey went off line for about 10 days. When it resurfaced, it was ~55% against public carry. Over 1 million additional votes against during the 10 day period, and less than 25,000 additional votes for. Not sure if they put it up on DU? Or where? But it was obvious they were manipulating the vote to fit their agenda because they did not like the initial showing...

that's what ya call a pole vault

Open carry is legal most states

According to the Brady bunch

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/guns-in-public/open-carry/

Maybe for offense???

Kinda dumb to be asking the question 30+ years after CC went mainstream with no negative effects.

Besides, MSNBC never engages in honest endeavors so it's useless to even participate in any of their polling schemes.

Didn't read the article. But I don't much like the idea of open carry in crowds or public places. If someone has bad intents you would be the first target. Also with the statistics on officers being shot with their own weapon it's not too good an idea to make your weapon visible and available. I carry holstered on my belt at the farm or in the woods but concealed in town or church. That way no one knows and therefore they don't feel bothered.

Someone grabbing for my gun during a momentary lapse of attention,(ever spilled coffee?), is reason enough not to advertise a sidearm on your pocession. Why would you want to advertise to the bad guys anyway?

Agreed, NO open carry for me until EVERYONE open carry's.

"Only for self defense" is an ignorant response. How could you legislate and enforce such a law?

"Honest officer, it's for self-defense." How would you prove otherwise?

"Only for self-defense. "

Not if you want to say "most Americans are in favor of prohibiting firearms in public."

Regardless, it counts as a yes for carry in public. Its likely purpose for being added was to sow confusion, and to split the yes vote. It clearly didn't work very well, since very few chose it.

It is not about enforcing up front, but rather an extra charge after the fact. Something else for leverage when the perp is looking at plea options.

I think it is dumb, but I do see some value.

I just wish some of the idiots would realize they are not doing our side any good by carrying...

It is not about enforcing up front, but rather an extra charge after the fact. Something else for leverage when the perp is looking at plea options.

I think it is dumb, but I do see some value.

I just wish some of the idiots would realize they are not doing our side any good by carrying...

I carry concealed everywhere I go. I know if I was a bad guy fixing to do some harm I would want to take out the open carries first.

Jim

I love the way folks here are funding MSNBC. Hell, the clicks this forum alone gives CNN probably keeps them alive.

Legal or not, open carry is bad PR.

Which one of these would be first?

Too bad, it isn't very common, so common that it is expected in everyday life everywhere we go.

An armed society tends to be a polite society

I fail to see how question #1 and #3 are exclusive from each other. Those that chose #2 probably don’t need to be carrying in the first place.

no

I think that poll, if not crafted correctly, will give skewed results.

I'm for open carry as a right, but would never do so myself. Concealed carry provides a tactical advantage, the element of suprise.

The right to open carry is handy if you bend over in Walmart and someone sees the tip of your weapon, panics, calls 911, etc. You are protected.

To have that right and to openly exercise it by brandishing multiple weapons in public does indeed make a point. People tend to be afraid of guns anyway and doing so just increases their anxiety and distrust. It does make a point, but what point is it making...

Sheeple are spooky enough without making'em even crazier.

And, displaying weapons gives perps a free shopping experience with just one shot to the back of your head. All those free guns and no paper work... Talk about hitting the Jackpot... BTW, be carrying your best, most expensive stuff...

Just my take on it.

DF

I don’t know about any long term PR affects, but imo, it does put the carrier at a tactical disadvantage.

I saw all that in VA recently.

Reminds me of your O'Reilly Autoparts store scenario as you formulated an operational plan to relieve them of some cash.

As I recall, you'd take out bubba with the big open carry pistol with a quick shot to the head to neutralize him and set the tone for what was to follow.

Perps may not be professionals, but they're practical and would likely do similar.

Like my lawyer buddy says, his clients have the right to remain silent, just not the ability to do so...

Just 'cause we have the right, doesn't mean we shouldn't exercise some tactical sophistication and foresight.

DF

I heard you the first time ( ) but that makes no sense. There are already a bunch of laws on the books that add to the charges when a firearm is used in the commission of a crime, with stiff penalties. And they apply in both public and private spaces.

It's just an ignorant-ass question from MSNBC.

That's where you sound the retreat, and re-group. Then look for an easier target.

It is legal to carry in public. Laws to the contrary are unconstitutional. With that being said, i agree concealed carry is generally preferable to open carry in most situations. I almost always carry a concealed weapon. It does require some adjustments to the way you dress. I wear a belt to hold my holster up and suspenders to hold my pants up but have to wear the suspenders under my shirt now.. My shirt covers my holster.

Years ago, I got a call from Gallup pollster about the Clinton impeachment. I answered their questions. Next day I get another call from them. Basically the same questions, but worded differently to elicit particular responses....... don't trust polling.

2nd row on the right. And, BTW, anyone would be an idiot to pull anything there. Certain death to the bad guy is why it was so peaceful.

Jim