It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Interesting Poll On Second Amendment

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:25 PM
USA Today has an interesting poll up. It asks "Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?"

Since this is an Internet Poll of readers on their website it is of course not an accurate polling but I find it interesting anyway because of how lopsided it is.

Link To The Poll

The numbers when I participated -

As you can see, the numbers are overwhelmingly yes to the question posed. That got me curious about other more accurate polls.

The next poll I found adds into the question the answer that it only applies to State Militia members.

Link to Poll at Gallup on the same issue. Taken March of 2008.

A solid majority of the U.S. public, 73%, believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns. Twenty percent believe the amendment only guarantees the rights of state militia members to own guns.

Still we end up with 73%, a huge majority of Americans, believing it does guarantee our right as citizens to possess guns for protection.

Next I find a Harris Poll that tells us again that Americans agree with the US Supreme Court on this issue.

Link to 2008 Harris Poll.

By 41 percent to 17 percent, a two to one plurality believes that the Second Amendment supports an individual’s right to bear arms agreeing with the Supreme Court. Interestingly, almost three in ten (29%) feel the Amendment supports both and 5 percent say neither;

Harris also delves into who favors stricter gun control and then separates it by Party.

As you can see the trend is toward a larger and larger number of people believing not only do we have the right but also that fewer and fewer believe there should be stricter control.

To further understand what these numbers mean to our politician friends, we need to look at just what percentage of voters are Republican, Democrat or vote Independent.

Source at Pew Research.

This tells us that approximately 37% normally vote Democrat, 36% Identify as Independent and Republican voters have dropped to 27% making the Independent vote the deciding factor in elections. The Independents lean 15% to the Democrats and only 10% to the Republicans.

Those who want stricter gun laws have shrunken to below 50% overall and to Even lower for Republicans by far. The Independents also are lower than the Democrats.

What I get from all of this is that this is not truly a party line issue. It also tells me those who are most against gun ownership reside in the Democratic Party but in no way represent the majority view even in their party of choice. It also tells me the trend is towards a stronger belief in gun rights today than a decade ago which means the younger voters are trending that way.

This also tells me that gun control advocates really don't have a leg to stand on in regards to their influence on politicians if they want to be reelected. It would be political suicide for even a Democrat to come out strongly against the Second Amendment. That boat just won't float.

Now that we have the recent Supreme Court Decision on the DC handgun laws coming out in favor of the traditional interpretation of the Second Amendment, our rights remain even more secure than before.

I think this also explains the confusion in Obama's stance on this. Democratic candidates and office holders are forced to not go to the extreme view of a small part of their party who seem to be the vast majority of those opposed to gun ownership. They also know if they go that way they stand to loose many Independents who now control the Political scene as nobody can win an office without most of their vote.

Obama is clearly playing both sides in this issue.

The Obama administration is raising the stakes in a fight over states' rights and firearm ownership by arguing that new pro-gun laws in Montana and Tennessee are invalid.

Source of above.

Barack Obama said Friday that the country must do "whatever it takes" to eradicate gun violence following a campus shooting in his home state, but he believes in an individual's right to bear arms.

Source of above.

From the above we see he is somewhat wishy washy in his view. Notice in the second quote he clearly stand on both sides

In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to DeMar's case, with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.

Governor Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill. On Nov. 9, 2004

Source of above.

Here we see him voting against the right for a person to use a gun to protect themselves against home invasion and of course the now Impeached Blagojevich ignores majority opinion along with Obama showing he does not truly care what the people want. He cares only when confronted. In other words he is a typical politician.

All of this gets me to wondering why a small minority of us are so scared of guns that they do not want anyone to own them? What feeds that paranoia? Why are they scared of an inanimate object? Why are they scared of law abiding citizens like themselves possessing a gun?

Some I think can be explained as parroting the views of their Parents. Often young people think and vote in their youth based on what they saw their Parents do and that is understandable.

Some though are truly scared of these inanimate objects. Their paranoia even reaches the level they can not see the incredible intellectual dishonesty of thinking it is smart to deny guns to good people while guaranteeing that only criminals will posses them.

I see a gun as an inanimate object, a tool that can cause no harm unless misused. A gun is only dangerous when in the hands of a criminal or in case of an accident.

In the hands of a law abiding citizen it is three things in my mind:
1- A form of protection against criminals and home invasion.
2- A popular form of recreation in target shooting or trap shooting.
3- A means of obtaining food through hunting.

None of those things should threaten anyone who is thinking clearly. None of them pose a risk to anyone.

At his point people will generally bring up accidents which is terribly disingenuous. A car is far more dangerous in that regard and I don't hear people saying they want cars outlawed.

The saying that guns don't kill only criminals do is an intellectual fact and yet those who are opposed purposefully ignore that. Why is that?

I've come to think the the true roots of the anti-gun crowd is pure fear and paranoia based on faulty logic. I think that is why support of gun ownership is the majority view no matter what political party. If you look at the facts honestly you could say those who are scared of guns have a Phobia of sorts.

I started this thread to get peoples opinion on just why this very vocal minority are so paranoid of guns in the hands of decent people? What causes it and how can these irrational fears be overcome?

I'm also interested in peoples opinions as to why politicians who claim to represent constituents tend to side with tiny minorities even in their own party risking their own careers?

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:41 PM
Very nice thread, Blaine! S&F

I suppose a central point to all this is that guns are already extremely regulated to the point, frankly, that they really mean nothing anymore relative to the original point for which they were intended. Which imho, was to prevent the federal government from becoming so powerful that the people had a recourse against them if all else failed.

But of course now, with all the developments in technology, and all of those resting in the hands of the elite few, and not instead in the hands of the decentralized states, as the Constitution intended- what do guns really mean anymore relative to a military that is so powerful, and sometimes so blindingly obeying? The answer: NOTHING.

Perhaps this may help explain why more and more Americans are favoring less strict gun control, once they stop to think about it, and wake up from the deep slumber that television and the MSM keeps them under.

But what I would really like to see is the decentralization of this military power back to the states, for sure. And less militarization of the police. No, make that total demilitarization of the police. And more observance of Posse Comitatus. State National Guards might be ok, but a central one, under the control of a few, no way- unless this country is invaded. I think that's the way it was meant to be, no?

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:42 PM
Nothing unexpected here. This has been the trend for years.

People are not as dumb here as we have seen in "other" countries in the world where it is "illegal" to defend yourself or your property. We have seen enough examples in the UK to leave a lasting impression of why we would be fools to agree to loose the "fundamental" human right of self defense and join the "victims".

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:52 PM

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
But what I would really like to see is the decentralization of this military power back to the states, for sure. And less militarization of the police. No, make that total demilitarization of the police. And more observance of Posse Comitatus. State National Guards might be ok, but a central one, under the control of a few, no way- unless this country is invaded. I think that's the way it was meant to be, no?

You Sir, are correct.

I approve this product/service.

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 04:42 PM
reply to post by TrueAmerican

Sorry I did not get back sooner. Work, work, work.

One thing that helps me sleep at night is the knowledge that whenever the American People have been pushed, they wake up. Once again we are seeing them awaken and this is part of it.

This morning I watched Chavez giving his advertisement for the movie South of the Border and ignoring the fact his audience knew he had just eliminated the last vestige of the Free Press and is currently using the schools to indoctrinate children while fights rage in the streets. It reminded me of just how great our system really is.

For all its flaws and for all our mistakes it is still unmatched on this planet. Part of that is surely that we are secure in the knowledge that the government can only manipulate us so far. This system that is so often criticized is still one of the best we as humans are capable of devising.

The Militia is us. You, me and our neighbors and it always has been.

When a government can not trust its people with weapons it is clear the government is the problem. They don't trust us because they are bad people who can not be trusted. They fear us. They don't fear us because we are bad. They fear us because they are bad and they know the things they do are so bad we could one day turn on them and rightfully so. They are becoming nothing more than an organized crime mob.

The power of weapons is in never having to use them. The fact they exist in the hands of good, decent people is enough. Only in the hands of bad people are they a danger and people are waking up to that fact. Good people will always make up the vast majority of citizens in our society.

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 04:51 PM
reply to post by infolurker

As I watch the Big Brother State grow and grow in the UK I worry. I know the trends there tend to hit us here before long. The camera's everywhere, not being allowed to defend themselves even though they are not criminals. It boggles the mind that the people of the UK have not dealt with it in no uncertain terms.

We can only hope we learn form what is occurring there and that our friends in the UK wake up.

[edit on 9/24/2009 by Blaine91555]

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 04:55 PM
I still find it amazing this is still an issue that is argued, The antis just cant see past the word militia and understand there are 2 clauses in the 2A, Not only that but its very easy for antis to argue the meaning of something when they IGNOR what the very people who created the document said about it...

The anti argument always hinges around two points, one being, its outdated, or two being that it was intended for the militia.

Their first point is an opinion not supported by history, And their second point has no foundation whatsoever once you actually READ WHAT THE FOUNDERS SAID IT WAS AND WHO IT WAS INTENED FOR

I've posted their quotes time and time again on this board so I wont bother doing so again but simply put the 2A was intended for every able bodied citizen.

It protects the individual right to bear arms as well as protects the right to assemble in times of unrest, as the Militia of these states.

WE, not the national guard, ARE the Militia

[edit on 24-9-2009 by C0le]

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 05:11 PM
reply to post by C0le

In the end it is a matter of what is right and what is wrong. Clearly a government that disarms its citizens out of fear is a bad government or they would have no fear.

It certainly does not take a law degree or a genius to see what was intended.

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 07:30 PM
i'm not a gun guy, but with the way things are, i'm more and more a fan of the second amendment.

i think control should be strict in the sense that they shouldn't be selling them to insane people, felons, etc - but they can't deny civilians the right to own them and not cops, the army, etc.

posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Donnie Darko

i think control should be strict in the sense that they shouldn't be selling them to insane people, felons, etc - but they can't deny civilians the right to own them and not cops, the army, etc.

There are plenty of existing laws regarding behaviour. My copy of the Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed". To have to fill out forms asking for permission to purchase a hunk of metal is an infringement. A background check is not only an infringement it is an insult. To have to pay for this background check is a further infringement. There should be no restriction on the tool, just the improper use of it.

posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 07:21 PM
reply to post by Donnie Darko

I fully agree with not allowing felons and the mentally ill to own guns. Most rational people do.

The problem is there is a tiny minority who are very vocal that want guns outlawed for everyone. I'd like to know the real reason for it but if you ask one of them they just get upset and start spewing lies about guns and gun owners. I don't think they have a real reason.

Remember the Brady Bill? Most State laws were already stricter than that but they lied and did it just to take States Rights away. I was in Idaho at the time where most people own guns and many hunt and target shoot. They had to lower their requirements to deal with the new law. Shhhhhhhhh, you're not supposed to know that.

As soon as this medical care issue is over they will be after guns. Guns will be outlawed. Hunting will be outlawed. Not fishing though as the left is in love with eating fish with their favorite wine. They will hypocrite out on that one.

[edit on 9/25/2009 by Blaine91555]

posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 07:37 PM
reply to post by LuFri

I think your problem must be the State laws where you live. I've never had to pay for a background check? I've purchased in three states. You just fill out a simple form. They enter it into a computer and five minutes later I walk out with my purchase. Whatever issues you are having must be a state law or charge?

If your a convicted Felon, you can get your rights back if your non-violent. I have two friends that did exactly that and they buy guns legally now. No problems. They did their time. The key here is violent. Nobody wants violent criminals to have guns unless they are insane.

top topics


log in