USAToday poll, Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?

[GreenStormCloud]

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

Current results: 9,451,389 votes, 97% Yes, 3%No.

I will be the first to admit that online polls are far from scientific, especially when the same person can vote more than once. However, when you get that many votes and the results are that lopsided I do think that it shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the 2A does confer that right.

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[mitchtv]

2. the real question

does it confer the right to bear any kind of weapon anywhere?

[GreenStormCloud]

4. Very few claim that it does.

The 1934 Gun Control Act established a very reasonable standard.

[demosincebirth]

5. I'd, definitely,say no.

[SteveM]

8. The Second does not "confer a right," it recognizes a right...

You will find equivalent language addressing other rights within the Amendments.

The Second does not specify or give language as "any kind of weapon" anymore than it provides specificity to "press" or "speech."
The context of "arms" at the time of the Second's drafting was a weapon suitable for military service and not tied to some technology frozen in time -- like the printing "press." Such a weapon was seen as designed for infantry use; that is, designed to be carried in and fired with one or both hands. In other words, you can own a fighter jet or tank, but these are subject to regulation as these weapons did not fit the context of what "arms" meant at the time.

As to anywhere, this is a matter for state regulation, and the states are bound by the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment.

[redgiant]

23. A few radicals do believe that...

It's my belief that *most* gun owners are okay with "reasonable" restrictions. For example, most willingly or grudgingly accept that fully-automatic weapons are essentially prohibited/strictly regulated. Ditto, heavy armament and destructive devices. There have been some well-publicized feuds within the gun owner community regarding issues like semi-automatic "assault rifles" such as the AR15 and AK47 family of weapons. Jim Zumbo, a hunting sports writer, incited a *huge* reaction when he wrote against the use of such weapons for sporting purposes and their ownership. You never saw someone have their hat handed to them so quickly, and he promptly became enlightened.

A few years ago, I encountered a fellow who was convinced that the only thing that stood between him and ownership of a fully armed F-16 jet was enough money and the need to fill out a lot of paperwork. Thankfully, his degree of delusion is pretty damn rare and, essentially, harmless.

[ileus]

DU this poll

[SteveM]

3. Glad to see the numbers, but I quibble with "give individuals"...

The Amendments do not use language which "gives" rights. The "negative" approach to itemizing these rights means that Congress recognizes these rights as pre-existing; hence, not to be abridged or infringed.

[Kennah]

6. Agreed. Should have been "Does the Second Amendment protect an individual right to bear arms?"

[GreenStormCloud]

12. Agreed. N/T

[rl6214]

7. 97% Yes 2% No

Oh the backlash, just what the majority of US citizens want

[nichomachus]

9. Right, because so many of that paper's readers are constitutional scholars

Pffft. Stupid poll.

[ManiacJoe]

10. In this case, 6th grade reading skills should get you by.

:shrug:

[DonP]

13. Maybe not, but our President is, and he said the same thing

Does that make him stupid too?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

21. So you have to be a student of Prokiev before you comment on The Disco Duck?

[krispos42]

25. Yet, when there's a poll of people asking them about specific gun-control measures...

...the opinions of people that are clueless about guns are weighed just as much as somebody who shoots weekly.


Or look at something like the "Ground Zero Mosque" ginned-up controversy.

[ManiacJoe]

11. That poll has been kicking around since November 2007

according to the URL...

[jody]

14. Polls about unalienable/inalienable rights that do not depend upon the Constitution for legitimacy

are interesting because it gives the anti-gun crowd a chance to demonstrate their abysmal ignorance of rights that are natural and inherent in every sovereign individual.

[GeorgeGist]

15. I think ...

you tea kettle is whistling.

[iverglas]

16. oh give me a break

Google the url

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

3000 results

How freeped was that thing?

highroadrage (if I may borrow an old friend's euphemism for a site not to be inked here) says:
"USA Today Please VOTE!"

The one other search result I looked at said: "Vote before the Commie Libs pull it!"

:eyes:

[beevul]

18. Yeah...I'm sure the brady bunch and their zombies didn't vote "no".

Amirite?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[S_B_Jackson]

20. The 2nd Amendment doesn't GIVE anything. It recognizes a PRE-EXISTING right of US citizens

A point which, sadly, most in the press no longer seem to recognize.

But yes, the 2nd Amendment does recognize, affirm, and prohibit from infringement the individual right of US Citizens and legal, resident aliens to bear arms.

[iverglas]

22. so only 3% got it right?

Sad. All that effort, and so few gun militants actually said their piece ...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. Very sad...

...and all too common that publishers, journalists, pollsters and survey writers... for that matter, much of the popular media, propagate such mis-communication.

But did only 3% get it right? Phrased as it was, the reader is left with trying to understand the POV of the author. From there, three choices are apparent:
1) choose yes because you believe the intent was to say the 2A protects the individual RKBA
2) choose no because you want to be grammatically precise and don't mind having your beliefs misrepresented
3) close the site and have a cold spring water.

Let's face it, when asked to choose heads or tails as many will pick either and a small percentage will be undecided. Despite the lack of three sided coins, there will always be a misguided media outlet objecting to that third group's being underrepresented.