Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Fast and Furious: Holder moves to appeal ruling | Main | EPA closes last primary lead smelter in US »

A problem with polling

Posted by David Hardy · 17 November 2013 10:59 AM

Dave Workman's article covers the only part of the seven hour U Conn. symposium that seems to be getting coverage: an Aggie law prof called for repealing the Second Amendment (and, the coverage leaves unmentioned, substituting an amendment saying that while States can do anything they want regarding guns, Congress can't do anything, anything, about weapons smaller than a tank).

He highlights a problem often seen in polling. At one point she asked how many in the room thought the legislative and judicial response to violent crime had been adequate, and not a hand went up. I think she took that as proof that every person wanted more gun laws, and for them to be sustained. I, on the other hand, didn't raise my hand because I thought Congress had passed many nonsensical gun laws and, apart from the Seventh Circuit, the lower courts had done a poor job enforcing Heller and McDonald. Without asking the details, the results of a poll can be quite misleading. President Obama would probably draw approval rating near zero if you polled pure Marxists, and President Bush II would poll badly among the Tea Party.

3 Comments | Leave a comment

Dave D. | November 17, 2013 1:46 PM | Reply


...Article 5, section one : Lets do it. Repeal the 2nd amendment. A vote of each house of Congress should commence this next spring. Get those bastards on record as to their true intent.

...Lets roll ! I want to know how each of them stand.

Greg in Allston | November 17, 2013 7:21 PM | Reply

If one doesn't ask the right questions then it usually doesn't matter what one gets for an answer. In this particular debate and many others, the questions are most often lousy and rarely get to the marrow. Emotion, blind bias, bad information and even worse analysis carries the day when no one can be bothered with logic, meaningful data and true root cause analysis.

fwb | November 17, 2013 9:45 PM | Reply

The problem with repealing the 2nd is that it doesn't repeal anything. See US v Cruikshank for more explanation.

The Rights enumerated in the Constitution preexist the Constitution and do not depend on inclusion in the list to exist. The 2nd grants nothing. The 2nd merely states that the Right exists and shall not be infringed, AT ALL, by ANY government. Barron was so wrong, having absolutely no grounds for the determination.

AND the 9th still exists.

The idea presented by this polling is exactly the kind of thinking those who opposed adding a Bill of Rights said would happen. As was recognized by those who created the Constitution, the federal government was not given power to legislate in any of the areas covered by the Bill of Rights. Those opposed said inclusion of the Bill of Rights would simply make folks THINK 1) the power existed and 2) that the Bill of Rights was necessary to keep Congress from legislating in areas for which no power was granted.

Leave a comment