JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I remember when the Oregonian took a similar poll and ran much the same article. They made a mistake, though, that the Denver Post did not make. The Oregonian posted a link to the poll itself and it was easy to spot that the vast majority of the participants were in Portland and Eugene and the wording of the questions made it an obvious push poll.

I'd really love to see the specifics of the AP poll. I'd bet that it used similar tactics to get the result they wanted.
 
Note also that this was an internet poll. The internet is a big place. Where did they find people on it? I know if I am likely to see a poll than the people on the left are really unlikely to see that poll. Likewise if they take a poll on Huffington Post I am not even going to know there is such a poll.
 
Face it, the left will stop at NOTHING to try and "prove" that we NEED gun control! Nothing we say or do will change this! The problem I am seeing is that the left is pushing SO HARD, that it is starting to backfire on them, so (and they know this) they push even harder, trying to sway those on the fence! Again, nothing you or I will ever say or do can change this! All we can hope is people wake the hell up and vote the right way!
 
I suggest we take a cue from another poll - how about the continuously increasing numbers of NICS checks every single month as more and more and more people buy guns, including an awful lot of AR's. Seems that poll would contradict this POS.
 
Polling is just a scam to make it easier for the ruling class to issue their petty mandates.

The other problem with polling is that ignorant people have unjustified opinions. Most of the people polled are in this category, particularly in such areas as firearms. Why should their opinions matter at all? I will be armed and I don't care what ignorant people think about it. If the tyrants misuse polls to help pass laws, I will ignore those laws.
 
a poll responder who would like semiautomatic rifles banned states:

"...Huebner believes the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to protect themselves against the government, but not necessarily the right to possess any firearm they choose, especially when it comes to AR-platform long guns. Those types of firearms, she said, "just are not necessary. Nobody is using them to hunt deer."

She is partially correct, "nobody" (percentage wise) is using them to hunt deer...hmmm let me think on what other use they might have?


She's wrong all the way around.

In the first place there's nothing in the amendment about hunting.

Secondly, the wording is specific ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The purpose is to preserve and protect the STATE's freedom, not be used against the state.

And finally there's nothing whatsoever in there about which arms are to be borne.

Huebner =0 for 3
 
Remember the Coke vs Pepsi challenge back in the day! How many of us voted for Coke? but Pepsi supposedly won? All true 'Mericans know you don't mix Rum and Pepsi, You mix Rum and Coke, That's why you call it a Rum and Coke! Yea, poles really reflect the peoples thinking, NOT

But!!! On the other hand some people do like Pepsi with their Crown Royal...... lol I do......:p
To give you the truth of the matter I was a Rum & acoke bum for many years!!!;)
 
The "deer hunting" angle has nothing to do the the 2A, but they are wrong. There are several cartridges that can be used in an AR-15 platform that are very effective for deer. - 300 blackout, either of the 6.5 mm cartridges, 458 SOCOM for starters. The AR-10 by default already uses the most popular deer hunting cartridge.

5.56 is highly effective against deer...unless you want to eat it.:rolleyes:

Brutus Out
 
1009 out of 237 plus million voting age folks can sway public opinion on gun issues or anything else for that matter.

I understand sample rate and how polls work but it seems that the last batch of polls on elections and on other issues have not been what I would call reliable.

Statistically, it IS possible to represent 237,000,000 people with a sample of 1,009. However, most of the polling I have seen has used loaded terms - like "assault weapons", armor-piercing ammunition, internet sales, etc - which completely skews results.

An example to illustrate the difference might be these two questions:
1) Would you be in favor of a ban on ammunition that can penetrate bullet-proof vests worn by police?
2) Would you be in favor of a ban on the types of ammunition used to hunt deer?

These questions would yield VERY different results, and yet they are asking about the SAME ammunition.
 
Statistically, it IS possible to represent 237,000,000 people with a sample of 1,009. However, most of the polling I have seen has used loaded terms - like "assault weapons", armor-piercing ammunition, internet sales, etc - which completely skews results.

An example to illustrate the difference might be these two questions:
1) Would you be in favor of a ban on ammunition that can penetrate bullet-proof vests worn by police?
2) Would you be in favor of a ban on the types of ammunition used to hunt deer?

These questions would yield VERY different results, and yet they are asking about the SAME ammunition.

I do understand that how the question is asked determines the results more than the number of folks asked.

I just have a hard time thinking that asking 1009 folks from GfK's probability-based KnowledgePanel represents all of America. I do understand polling and sample rates and in this example 1009 has to be a minimum example size. I guess if it was 5 times that amount or 5045 I might buy it better.

Then how do you get on GfK's probability-based KnowledgePanel is it voluntary or solicited I guess I need to do more research just to find out.

It is just that I have seen so many polls lately that say one thing and the outcome totally went the other direction so I don't trust any of them anymore. Just look at all the poles on Trump according to the polls he would not make it past the first month and now he is the nominee for President.
 
I thought constitutional rights were not subject to polls or popular opinion. Guess times change. BTW, CeaseFire Oregon proposes to ban all semi-automatic guns/magazines that hold more than 5 rounds. It's on their website under 'Our Plan'
 
I thought constitutional rights were not subject to polls or popular opinion. Guess times change. BTW, CeaseFire Oregon proposes to ban all semi-automatic guns/magazines that hold more than 5 rounds. It's on their website under 'Our Plan'

Well Obama has said all along he want to fundamentally change America and with our 'living constitution' it is as easy as a using a pen and a cell phone.

I know, not funny.
 

Upcoming Events

Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Arms Collectors of Southwest Washington (ACSWW) gun show
Battle Ground, WA

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top