Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Vintage Topic Archive (Sept - 2009)' started by SHOOTER Z, Jan 1, 2008.
Vote on this right now http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm
This is awesome!!! The question is this.
Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?
Out of 207367 total votes 97% say YES!!!
TAKE THAT YOU DUMBARSE GUN GRABBING LIBERAL ARSEHOLES!!!!!
how does "right to bare arms" translate to anything but the right to bare arms.
I guess its like the bible to some "smart" people...its open to interpretation, and the language they used back then isnt how its meant today....Right. Right is right, black is black, wrong is wrong, etc etc etc.
It alwalys boggles my mind that the 2percent that voted no, vote that way. Smart people.
*Grabs his gun and hs espresso machine and holes himself up in his room watching French Indie films from Jean Renno....he likes guns too*
J/k I know what you mean
What I want to know is: When the Amendment CLEARLY says "Right to Bear Arms", HOW THE F*** does someone think that it does NOT mean "Right to Bear Arms"???
I don't get people sometimes...
THAT'S WHAT IM SAYIN!
Those are the same people who think that words they find offensive should be banned from music, televisions NEED to have censor chips installed and that certian books should be banned from libraries and schools because they might contain stuff like Witchcraft, violence or homosexuality.
Also, these are the same people who thought Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings was full of "Pagan/Satanic" underpinnings and that children should wear helmets when playing soccer and not be allowed to "headder" the ball. :roll:
Voted, but the poll is from Nov. I wonder how close an eye USA today is keeping on it. They probably got frustrated after the first 100 votes were pro-2nd.
Why would they be fustrated? If anything it added fuel to a fire of the average American not being properly educated (another hotpoint in the media at the moment). The only reason you find so many anti-gun articles isn't because of the "liberal media", but because it gets a REACTION! Ratings sell, be it in news, print, video or a weblog. If they can push as many buttons as fast as they can, they'll sell it no matter what they think.
Besides, all news media is run by board and research focus groups comprised of thousands of people. There isn't some CEO sitting in a huge leather chair calling the shots like in the 1900's. If they can increase their hits on a webpage by 30% by posting sex scandal pics of the teletubbies, they'll do it!
Oh wait.....they already did.... :shock:
Most news organizations ARE liberal neo, thats why all you see is anti-bush, anti-rep. stuff, more gun control, etc. How come after it was found out that a bystander who happened to be armed stopped the potential church massacre you never saw it on the news again?
And you say its run by a board, but there is still a man in charge, he just has a board to see whats popular, if he wanted, he could completely disregard anything the board said and run whatever he wanted.
I think its a combination of both, guys. I think most media people are by nature somewhat liberal, but I also think that certain things sell newsprint: (1) scandal (2) horror stories, (3) conflict (4) controversy.
That's what you don't see all the articles (accept as rare human interest stories good for filling space in the Community pages) where someone helps a neighbor repair a barn, or some family takes in a homeless guy for the Christmas holidays, or somebody in the middle of June carries cold water to construction workers.
Good deeds don't sell, cause everybody looks at them and says "That's nice, but I'm not going to pay $1.50 an issue to read that", but a good fight, a conflict where everyone can weigh in with their opinion, that'll sell papers.
As much as I hate the liberal bent of most media today, they are neccessary:
Because if it wasn't for the liberals constantly attacking our rights, we wouldn't be stirred to action, called to arms, whatever you want to call it. If the anti-gun forces didn't advertise what theya re doing so much, it might be easier for them to quietly usurp our rights without us having a fighting chance.
I say, let them rave and rant on. As long as they're making noise, we know where they are; know what they're doing, and we can present a proper and powerful defense of our rights. It doesn't make reading the stuff any more pleasant, but at least its open and out there.
I love this poll though. It does show what the majority of their readership thinks, whether that's what their editorial board thinks or not.
It just shows that the pro-gun people are more active in showing it, which is good for us, because politicians know we're an extremely active group.
OK Now I know we all have a right to bear arms. BUT. Do we have the right to arm bears? :wink: You Decide!
As a non hunter of this crowd.....I vote no.
But it would make hunting bears more difficult, if that was enough challenge as it is...
Its great to see the high yes vote but really the gun grabbers don't care about people's opinion. They have an agenda and they are sticking with it no matter what. They have people from the United Nations on down who are working on this sort of stuff constantly and unfortunately they are NOT stupid people.
Oh no I thought it was the right to keep and arm Bears...Now I have to tell Yogi to give back the Howitzer :arrow:
It seems that yes is a popular answer at the poll