[HKGuns]

This one needs some input from you politically minded gun owners.

http://www.vote.com/vote/60340936/index.phtml?cat=4075633

[EghtySx]

Looks like we are behind so far.

[Remington788]

57% yes and 43% no, we are behind.

[R.H. Lee]

Hey! We're in the minority. Doesn't matter. We've got the guns. :evil:

[bg]

I'm ashamed to say it but in my state it's 60-40 yes and in my district its 61 to
39 yes..Commies ! 92399 is the zip

[Standing Wolf]

Signing up to vote in a vote.com poll guarantees you'll be inundated in spam, spam, and more spam.

[4v50 Gary]

Bump.

[beerslurpy]

Cut and paste the link, just in case.

[jnojr]

Hit it...

[El Rojo]

Signing up to vote in a vote.com poll guarantees you'll be inundated in spam, spam, and more spam.Seriously. No way in heck am I putting my e-mail on there. If I am really wanting to, I might put my hotmail address on there. Usually for things like that I use dog@hotmail.com. That guy must hate me whoever it is.

[EasternShore]

There is a link just below the registration to remain annonomous (I can't spell). As for fake email's Glad to know I am not the only one doing that :D poor hotstud@hotmail.com must hate me, but with an e-addy like that you gotta expect certain things... :p

[birdv]

slug bug blue

[HKGuns]

You don't have to...you can vote anonymously. Look at the bottom.

[Zundfolge]

Oh boy ... talk about Push Polling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_polling)

here's your choices:

YES!
Over 40 terror suspects were able to buy guns last year because data from background checks is not shared with counterterrorism officials. Gun purchase records are destroyed within 24 hours. Stop enabling terrorists and tighten gun background checks!

NO!
The right to bear arms is an essential constitutional freedom for all U.S. citizens. Retaining gun purchase records violates privacy rights of law-abiding gun owners everywhere. Don’t tighten gun background checks!

the "Over 40 terror suspects" part is a lie, being on the "terrorism watch list" doesn't mean you are a "terror suspect", it just means you may or may not be loosely connected to someone who may or may not be loosely connected to a terrorist group (or you gave money to CARE and paid with a check).

How about "NO! ... being on a government watch list is not a felony conviction."


But then again, what do we expect. If you look on their about (http://www.vote.com/category/4075633/about_us.phtml) page you find this:
WHO IS BEHIND VOTE.COM?

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann. The funding of the site comes from Dick Scruggs and Steve Bozeman.

[Selfdfenz]

Done
Our side is still under water.

The way the questions are composed stinks. Bias City.

S-

[joeoim]

Overall yes 56% no 44%

Colorado yes 43% no 57%

My District yes 27% no 73%


Had they stated the cost to taxpayers,to implement new changes, instead of the 40 "suspected terrorests", the overall results might be reversed.


Joe

[mbs357]

Voted.
YES! (3,750)

(56%)
NO! (2,958)

(44%)

[HKGuns]

Its getting closer, come on, keep hitting it guys.

[Michigander]

Yes! (4,213) (56%)


No! (3,348) (44%)

[OutPhaze]

Signing up to vote in a vote.com poll guarantees you'll be inundated in spam, spam, and more spam.

You don't get any spam if you use a fake email address like, lets say....YeahRight@usa.net :D :D

[MikeK]

Still losing.

Signing up to vote in a vote.com poll guarantees you'll be inundated in spam, spam, and more spam.

I used my real E-mail address there years ago and get about 4 E-mails a year from them. No other spam that I can detect as a result of registering there. Probably better to use a fake address anyway.

[Bear Gulch]

Still 56 tp 44

[yorec]

Don't have to enter any address at all - there is a link below that allows you to skip that part. "If you would like to remain anonymous click here to view results."

YES! (4,540) (56%)
NO! (3,616) (44%)

[2400]

Still 56% to 44%, keep voting guys.

[Selfdfenz]

Does it seem strange to anyone but me that this poll seems stuck on the same numbers?

Funny to me also is the total vote hasn't eclipsed 10K yet?? Since Friday no less!

S-

[EghtySx]

I was noticing that too. Every other poll we hit quickly goes in our favor. Something smells fishy about this one. After seeing who made it up it's no surprise though.

[nygunguy]

I voted no. But honestly I would love to have tighter background checks IF they were tightened with honest intent. There is absolutely no reason in this world that an instant, complete and accurate background check can't be done on each firearm purchase. They don't have to keep purchase records for more than 24 hours because the checks could be instant, just like a credit card authorization.

Here in NYS we [the taxpayers] have been forced [by our State government] to spend 16 million dollars over the last 4 years on our COBIS system. It hasn't solved a single solitary gun crime. The fools that we put in office want to spend even more. If even a fraction of that were put into improving the NICS system they'd prevent more crimes than they could ever hope to solve. Heck, just spending 500K per year on NICS would be enough to continuously improve the system and not affect good honest people at all.

But, then again, here in NY it's not about protecting the rights and safety of honest citizens; it's about the methodical erosion of our rights.

[EghtySx]

As you said, it's not about preventing crime. If it were, we would punish criminals instead of letting them out and punishing everyone.

[Nightfall]

Voted