Hello Everyone,
You know the first time we loose one of these stupid left-wing news polls it will be used against us!
So here’s another one, and please Vote “NO”.
http://www.newsvine.com/_question/2009/04/24/2728669-should-president-obama-push-to-permanently-reinstate-a-ban-on-assault-weapons
Voted “NO”.
No…it won’t. It’s not a scientific poll. It’s suspect to any one with half a brain and if anyone used it as proof of the American will, they would be laughed at. Why do you think Gallup, CNN, Rasmussen et al NEVER use such polling data?
Essentially it’s a way for “newsvine” to yank your chain and increase traffic to their site so they can charge more money for advertising.
The more you fall for these…even the ones you “win”…the more these polls will appear.
ANOTHER GOOD POLL ON THIS PAGE
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30389664
WASHINGTON - Campaigning before a church congregation on Chicago’s South Side one Sunday in July 2007, Barack Obama said an epidemic of big city violence was “sickening the soul of this nation.”
Among the potential cures, he said, was permanently reinstating a ban on assault weapons.
One-hundred days into his presidency, President Obama says it remains a goal. But it is one the White House has been forced to abandon.
Voices of agreement
President Obama and Vice-President Biden, “support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent,” the White House website declares. Shortly after taking office, members of the Obama cabinet added their voices of agreement.
At his first news conference as attorney general, Eric Holder said, “there are just a few gun-related changes what we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban.”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed the idea during her trip to Mexico in late March. “These assault weapons, these military-style weapons, don’t belong on anyone’s street,” she said.
But the fire has gone out of President Obama’s goal of restricting the availability of firearms. “I don’t know of any plans,” said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, to seek an assault weapons ban from Congress.
Attorney General Holder admitted as much when asked, during a recent session with reporters, whether he expected any push for a ban this year to curb the flow of guns from the United States to Mexico.
His answer could have come straight from the National Rifle Association: “I think what we’re going to do is to try to, obviously, enforce the laws on the books.”
Support evaporated
Congress imposed a ban on what it called assault weapons in 1994, outlawing the sale and importation of 19 military-style weapons, copycat models with similar features, and high-capacity ammunition magazines. In a compromise with Republicans, the Democrats who controlled Congress agreed to let it expire in ten years unless it was renewed. By 2004, with Republicans in charge, support had evaporated.
Democrats again control Congress, and a Democrat is once more in the White House, the same conditions that allowed the ban to be imposed 15 years ago. But the make-up of Congress is different, with little appetite for restricting gun ownership.
The Senate’s majority leader is a westerner, Harry Reid of Nevada, where gun control is political poison. And though the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, comes from the more liberal San Francisco, she has shown no enthusiasm for reviving the assault weapons ban because of opposition among her colleagues.
Sixty-five House Democrats wrote Attorney General Holder in mid-March, saying they “would actively oppose any effort to reinstate the 1994 ban” and predicting “a long and divisive fight” if the administration tried to push for one. Many of them represent rural districts, where gun control is no more popular than in Nevada.
By the time President Obama made his trip to Mexico, he conceded the battle would be futile. “None of us are any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy.”
“What we’re focused on is how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws,” he said.
Straw buyers
Enforcement of the nation’s gun laws is primarily the responsibility of ATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Its agents and inspectors check to see that gun dealers obey laws governing sales. They look for evidence of “straw buyers” – people legally entitled to buy guns who then sell them to criminals or others who don’t want any records tying them to a specific gun.
ATF says such buyers are responsible for a large proportion of guns that wind up in the hands of violent drug cartels in Mexico.
“These illegal purchases,” ATF’s William Newell told Congress last month, are “a key source and supply of firearms for drug traffickers.”
The best way to improve enforcement of existing gun laws, said one veteran ATF agent, is to put more badges on the street.
“Give us more people to inspect gun dealers, looking for straw buyers, in the states where the guns smuggled into Mexico are coming from,” he says.
The number of ATF inspectors has remained remarkably flat in the past two decades, while support staffing has grown in other federal agencies, including the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration.
ATF had 764 inspectors in 1990. It has 771 today.
The number of ATF agents has risen 32% during the same period, but it is a comparatively small agency. ATF has 2,441 agents today, compared to the FBI’s 13,040 and the DEA’s 5,235.
It’s no accident that the size of ATF’s inspections force has remained flat. The NRA has successfully fought efforts to expand inspections, claiming that licensed firearms dealers have been harassed.
“Despite its crime-fighting mission,” a recent report from the Congressional Research Service dryly observed, “ATF’s business relationships with the firearms industry and larger gun-owning community have been a perennial source of tension.”
If new agents are hired, says the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre, “You need to make sure they’re directed to go after the bad guys, because owning firearms is a right in the United States, and what you don’t want to do is harass law abiding people.”
The NRA is on a roll. The Supreme Court ruled last year that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right of gun ownership, not merely the right of organized militias to arm themselves.
Unless the mid-term election brings a substantial change in the composition of Congress, an assault weapons ban has little chance of becoming law under Barack Obama, and ATF will not be able to count on a larger force of agents and inspectors.
Gun control, once considered a soccer-mom issue popular in suburban America, is again radioactive.
We’re on a roll! 55% voted right :D- 40% voted WRONG :mad:
5% were dumb enough to make it known they’re clueless… :rolleyes:
If the results are enough to annoy even a single “anti”…for me its worth the few seconds it takes.
It doesn’t annoy them, it annoys you…and antis are making a buck off your vote…thereby encouraging them to continue putting up similar polls.
But by all means… knock yourself out. I genuinely hope it makes you feel better.
Doesnt annoy me.
I was obviously talking about the “antis” reading the poll.Not the ones putting it out.
From what i hear internet ad revenue is pretty meager.I doubt my hit is doing much damage(them much good).
Taking it seriously from either side(of ours,antis aside) is kinda silly if you ask me.
Voted
34.3% YES
60.8% NO
4.9% MAYBE
The “Royal” you.
Voted no, but most likely MSNBC will manipulate the results to show Americans want a new AWB. The last poll, what grade would you give Obama, showed him getting an F rating by a huge margin, then all of a sudden the A rating had the most votes.
EXACTLY! This is the reason NO ONE uses theses polls. Any script kiddy with an IP spoofer can vote a million times. Statistically these are about as worthwhile as day-old diapers. Why do you think think they post a big disclaimer about the poll not being “scientific”. If it’s not scientific…what’s the freakin point? When was the last time anyone saw a news report that credited polls like this with demonstrating how people feel? If you ever see an anti use one of these polls…laugh right in their face and call them a moron for the reasons stated above…you’d be more correct then they.
Seriously all you’re doing is letting your chain get yanked by anti-gun outlets who are counting on pro-gunners to boost their revenue through a pavlovian response. You’re enabling their stupidity.
A freshman stats class would explain a lot of this better than me but from a statistics perspective these polls are flawed for a host of methodological reasons.
Internet polls are mostly ignored by the original posters because they aren’t getting the results they want.
However, if they do get the results they wanted…they are then taken on the speaking circuit and shown to the ‘rest of the world’ to help advance their issues.
As of about 10 minutes ago, the no’s have it with over 70%. The pro AWB crowd will gloss over this poll as another failed attempt to gather talking points. They do like the fact that media’s like MSNBC, CNN, and ABC are continuing to bring up the AWB and what now President Obama said on his campaign tour. They (the media) realize that age old addage…‘if you keep telling a lie long enough, people will start to believe it’!!!
The media and the anti groups are never going to give up…PERIOD!!! We as a group of gun owners are going to be fighting this for the rest of our lives. I just hope that our children continue to fight the fight!!!
After all we are talking about the flying pig MSNBC which for some unGodly reason are so pro-left it is sickening.
I’ll bet Archie Bunker is rolling in his grave.
I agree w/ Gutshot these polls do generate $$ for these sites. Its still nice to see results in our corner, at least it is ‘scientific’ until payrolled personel get ahold of it.
Michael
I’ve never seen these polls used by a credible source.
If you can point one out, I’d be happy to ridicule them publicly for being a fucktard.
Done! We are at 71 % now…
Just cast my vote! Some the the yes votes comments are just plain silly.
21.9%
74.3%
3.8%
That an interesting poll set-up that could be used to measure a lot of factors.
Voted NO
interesting results… hmm
I am starting to agree with you more and more on this. Seems as though votes are really what influence policy, not the theoretical combination of these polls.
And maybe those NRA cards addressed to government officials that we diligently send out and get generic replies to. Bet they get quite a few of them these days.