USA Today 2nd amendment rights poll. Please vote

[Hot_Sauce]

President Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, has already said this is one of his major issues. He does not believe the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms. This takes literally 2 clicks to complete. Please vote on this gun issue question with USA Today. It will only take a few seconds of your time. Then pass the link on to all the pro gun folks you know. Hopefully these results will be published later this month. This upcoming year will become critical for gun owners with the Supreme Court's accepting the District of Columbia case against the right for individuals to bear arms.



Here's what you need to do:



vote on this one. It only takes a second.





The Question is:



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



Click on the link below and PLEASE vote.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm






This should be at a 100%! IMO

 

[shuckins]

voted yes!

 

[UTvols186]

Absolutely it does

 

[hdroadglide]

it's nice the poll shows what the people think. of course the gov't is so much smarter than the great unwashed, our opinions don't really count.....

 

[njstone]

If it doesn't, then what on earth is that amendment for?

 

[SailorAg]

The answer is undoubtedly yes. The Second Amendment exists to protect us from a tyrannical government. Without firearms, the citizenry will have little physical means of defending itself.

 

[smokinghole]

nt. Without firearms, the citizenry will have little physical means of defending itself.

That's the whole point of them working towards trying to take them away. Don't trust either political party because they both want want power and will pass or ban anything to keep power. I trust our whole government as much as the boyscouts would trust a troop with Barney Frank.

 

[elderboy02]

Voted.

 

[KINGLISH]

Yes yes yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[bigbwalls]

Voted yes.

 

[iCraig]

Voted yes, of course.

 

[melena]

Fortunately, the current Supreme Court does not agree with Mr. Holder.

 

[BagfullofPings]

Voted yes.

 

[smokinghole]

When is that poll from? The URL would lead me to believe it's from Nov 2007 which would make voting somewhat pointless.

 

[Cigar Cowboy]

Eric Holder is a moron.

I also think this says a lot about Obama's judgement.

Holder is the same idiot that failed to prosicute these guys:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU"]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]

 

[Jwrussell]

When is that poll from? The URL would lead me to believe it's from Nov 2007 which would make voting somewhat pointless.

I'm all for posting these kind of things up, but this does appear to be a very old poll. Not only that but when I clicked back on the link it let me vote AGAIN. Kinda pointless.

 

[Farani]

Even if this was a new poll, you do realize that it means nothing because it isn't a scientific poll, right? Polling small amounts of people means that the small amount of people who answer need to be representative of the population to be a useful poll. Informal polls like this are not representative! Thus, bias creeps in. It's just random, unknown people voting. Whoopie, doesn't mean that it's representative of the population. Thus my deep seated hatred for consumer reports and anything about autos they do!

 

[criollo]

I believe in following original intent: muskets.

 

[Vegan702]

I voted no since this was a useless poll.

 

[SuprHasan]

this was a useless poll.

Ditto that.
It would be impossible to answer this poll as it currently stands. There is not enough information to make an informed decision.