image
UPDATE: I’ve attempted contacting CNN countless times through email, Twitter, and via phone. Up to this point, they’re refusing comment.

It’s amazing how far the liberal gun-grabbing lefties will go to justify their agenda. Earlier today, CNN posted posted the poll (http://edition.cnn.com/index.html?mobile=0), “does the U.S. need stricter gun control?” Needless to say, their poll has some major issues, and some would say it’s downright sabotage!

The first problem, is that the poll is placed on CNN’s International Edition. It’s nowhere to be found on the CNN U.S. Edition! The U.S. Edition has the below section in the place where the poll is located on their International Edition!

No "stricter gun control" poll to be found!

No “stricter gun control” poll to be found!

Pardon me, but as an American, why would we care what foreigners think about our laws? The polls results were very heavily leaning towards “Yes,” until many gun-rights groups and social media pages began posting the voting link for all Americans to see.
image

In this image, the voting results start to slowly shift, as word about this poll spreads on social media.

In this image, the voting results start to slowly shift, as word about this poll spreads on social media.

The second major issue, is that many “No” votes are not being tallied. This was originally brought to attention by “The Truth About Guns” Facebook page. I initially had my doubts, so I began voting “No” from several different computers and mobile devices. Sure enough, the fans from “The Truth About Guns” are right on the money! Many of the “No” votes are not being counted!

It’s liberal lunacy at it’s finest, but it’s also somewhat reassuring. The liberal main stream media knows the only way to push their gun-grabbing agenda, is to lie and cheat! Sorry CNN, epic fail. Game, set, match!

RELATED AUDIO: THE INSANITY OF GUN FREE ZONES from BUZZPO RADIO, THE FASTEST GROWING CONSERVATIVE PODCAST.

Subscribe to BuzzPo Radio on iTunes

97 comments
Chris Want
Chris Want

"too many kids getting gunned down by idiots with rights legally buying guns"......But aren't all of these tragic incidents of which you speak generally happening in "GUN FREE" zones and carried out by criminals or mentally unstable persons who get firearms on the black market or by stealing them from family or friends?....So exactly how does more "GUN REGULATION"/"GUN CONTROL" put an end to that.

T. Waters
T. Waters

As a democrat I am not for tougher gun control. As s former law enforcement officer and U.S military, I believe in the 2nd amendment. This is one thing that the republicans have right. So to my fellow gun grabbing democrats back off!!!

Hal Gailey
Hal Gailey

You seem to misunderstand what the constitution is. IT gives nor imparts NO RIGHTS. What it does is enumerate the rights we already have that the government must not tread upon.

The right to bear arms is intrinsic to the human condition. The 2nd amendment merely illustrates a reason why the government must not tread upon it, not the only reason, not the most important reason, merely the reason most pertinent to put into a document enumerating the powers of a state formed with the assistance of armed citizens and rebelling against an empire that used force to impose its will an ocean away.

Tom
Tom

Once again, name calling when you have no real argument. Sorry, adults are trying to have a decent conversation here, go upstairs, there are cookies and milk waiting for you, and don't forget to say 'Thank you mommy' this time!

ProDriver
ProDriver

CNN does not stand for Crappy News Network.

It stands for Communist News Network.

Created by General Secretary Ted Turner.

Diazo
Diazo

This is the last and only country that is free. There is nowhere else to go to keep your freedoms and individual rights (no matter what you think is "best"). If you want to give up your freedoms in the name of security, then PLEASE go to a country that is better suited for you!

Vet
Vet

Doug, you need to study history a bit better. Read the writings of James Mason and James Madison. They wrote the bill of rights.

In The Federalist Papers #46 James Madison makes it clear why he wrote the 2nd amendment.

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it."

FedUpLibBS
FedUpLibBS

Shall NOT be infringed... to either, JOIN said MILITIA, or to ... PROTECT MYSELF from same!

Tango
Tango

LOL

"the 2nd Amendment does noy give individuals the right to own guns".

Right. It's the one Amendment in the first 8, all; of which deal with individual rights, which somehow doesn't apply to individuals. When you were communicating by séance with the "writer" to find out his opinion on the 2nd, did you ask him why he would have written it to guarantee the right to arms to a branch of the government, indeed, a standing army which the majority of the founders thought was anathema to the concept of freedom, having just thrown off the yoke of the British empire?

" It did not officially become the law that people had a right until the supreme court over turned 6 previous ruling on the subject and gave people their precious right!"

Please, provide the rulings that stated this. Presser? Cruikshank? Miller? Explain please where the Court stated the right was a collective rather than individual one.

"you are nothing put a bunch of pathetic cowards who don’t give a damn about anything but yourselves".

Wow, name calling from behind your keyboard. You probably don't know that in nearly 2 dozen court cases since South v Maryland in 1856 the government has borne no affirmative duty to protect us. Those of us with guns aren't cowards, we're realists who understand that 9-1-1 owes us nothing if we are assaulted except a chalk outline and a ride to the morgue.

"The country has a serious gun problem and way too many kids are getting gunned down by idiots with rights legally buying guns..."

Wrong. The vast majority of "kids" getting gunned down are killed by criminals who bought the guns illegally (felony) or had their girlfriend / cousin / babymama buy it for them (felony) possess them illegally (felony) and used them to commit yet another felony, typically over drug or gang turf, and often against other gang members, and those criminal "kids" are often tried as adults.

"People with guns shooting other people is not the fucking answer to the problem!"

I don't consider people intent on causing great bodily harm or deadly injury to me or my family to be "people", and force is the only thing they recognize. The law abiding people with guns aren't the problem, the criminals who ignore the laws - and useful idiots that believe more laws against the people who follow them (the same as you) - are.

bpster
bpster

Who the heck still watches CNN as a reliable news source? I sure in the hell don't....

MDPatriot
MDPatriot

Is there any wonder what CNN stands for? Try "Communist News Network".

Chuck Kastel
Chuck Kastel

Last time i checked a chicago politician brought his dirty politics to the national stage and with the help of a complicit biased media stole the last election. So, if the Democrooks are so "honest" when it comes to election integrity, why are they putting up such a resistance to voter i.d. laws? Don't tell me its because they're racists who don't want blacks or low income citizens to vote. If you have to show i.d. to cash a check, board a plane, or buy liquor, then it shouldn't be a barrier to vote and insure election integrity.

Jemmy Booyah
Jemmy Booyah

What color shirt do I wear if I'm totally cool with you shooting the bad guy, but our mental healthcare systems sucks shirt?

James
James

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The writers were not talking about an established army when this was written. The Continental Army had already been formed and the militia was all able bodied men who were not in the Army. If you actually read the constitution, it acknowledges the militia as a complete separate entity from the military. Just because the government wants to change the definition of "militia" to fit their agenda does not remove the fact that the framers of The Constitution wanted the people to be freely armed.

Tom M
Tom M

Wow. You really need to read the Federalist papers instead of pretending that you did.

Brett Chambers
Brett Chambers

Wow, Douggie. You need to clean the spit off of your screen. Maybe then your spelling might improve a little.

You, apparently, have never actually read the Amendment. A militia is under local control, unlike an army, which is under federal control. The National guard is not a militia, because it too can be taken in under federal control.

The 2nd Amendment not only includes guns, but cannon, rockets, missiles, grenades and bombs. It specifically uses the term "arms" instead of guns. Why? So that the citizenry has the ability to resist an unlawful government and the means to do so.

Putting it in perspective, something you on the left have a hard time doing, the people that wrote the Constitution had just removed a government that they believed was unjust against unbelievable odds. They new the importance of the people being able to overthrow a tyrannical government. Thus instead of limiting that ability, they certified it in the Constitution.

But that will never satisfy the hoard that feels that they are smarter than a group of men that risked EVERYTHING to start this great country. Since most of you risk nothing yet demand everything.

Guess what, WE OWE YOU NOTHING!

Brett Chambers
Brett Chambers

Hey Joe.

You forget that the anti free thought, anti gun, anti God liberals are better than the rest of us mortals. So they see the Constitution as a living, breathing piece of paper that only has one amendment. But that amendment is subject to popular opinion of course.

The fact is, the left runs on cracked emotional gibberish instead of logic. They think that volume substitutes for intelligence and logic. They are incapable of understanding context, or recognizing truth. Thus the harebrained twisting of words to substantiate the illogical gut reactions that pass for argument with them.

But I like your point. Just because something didn't exist in 1774 doesn't mean it was precluded from the Amendment. The word :"Arms" was included purposefully. Otherwise they would have used "Flintlock" if they wanted to be specific.

Machado
Machado

In U.S. v. Miller the Supreme court stated that " the Militia is comprised of all Men between the ages of 16 and 60 and the weapons protected under the second amendment are the SAME weapons of a modern Army." That means, under the Federal governments OWN definition, an M16 and SAW are protected.

Barbara
Barbara

Doug. I own a gun. Several of them. I am NOT shooting people. I keep it for protection against people who will kill and find guns to kill. Whether there is a law where you couldn't carry guns or not. Most of the people that commit crimes don't care about the law anyway.

TJ
TJ

First, try reading the constitution again. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Which bit of that was unclear? Oh you mean the other bit before that. Study some history. Every man over the age of 16 WAS considered militia, and as such was bound to keep a rifle of the same quality as the standing army and enough powder and shot to be of use. WE ARE THE MILITIA!

Nextly, the Supreme court disagrees with you. so theres that bit of fail for you.

explain to me why most of these incidents occur in "gun free zones" or places the property owners have posted "no guns"? See, we as law abiding carriers tend to, get this, obey the law, and respect personal property rights. If its illegal for us to carry somewhere or the owner has stated they want a no gun zone, we shop elsewhere. read the FBI stats on areas with tight gun laws vs areas that are more in line with the Constitution. You'll see a funny thing...crminals dont like to operate where their victims can fight back. weird huh?

SO, what then is the problem? because it is not guns. I've been a gun owner my entire life and have yet to commit a crime with one yet, so guys like me arent the problem. which means that me owning a gun isnt the problem. So what then is the problem and as such what is the solution?

Lastly, do those of us who carry and are willing to intercede in these incidents if we are able, ok? Get a big red shirt with huge white letters that says "I OPPOSE CIVILLIAN GUN OWNERSHIP AND WOULD RATHER DIE THAN BE SAVED BY A 'GOOD GUY' WITH A GUN" so that we know a couple things. First is that its not worth our life trying to save you, nor is it worth our ammo. it'll offend you and hey, ammo's not cheap these days.

GFY

Lawman
Lawman

Doug Young and many fools like him believe there is a "gun problem" in America. The truth is there is a stupid people problem. There is a problem with morals and accountability. Guns aren't the problem but they are often used by criminals for unlawful purposes but they are owned by far more who possess and use them responsibly and lawfully. There are laws that hold people accountable for their actions, new laws will not change how some people choose to use a gun. Take it from this law enforcement officer who has served for over two decades. Most in law enforcement are gun advocates and strong supporters of the Second Amendment. There is no data kept by the federal government that shows how many crimes have been prevented by a citizen who lawfully used or displayed a gun to stop a crime from being committed but I know from real life experience that it is substatial.

Drew P. Balczak
Drew P. Balczak

Apparently Doug is confused Yet there is one accurate sentence in his diatribe. " the 2nd Amendment does not give individuals the right to own guns"

You are absolutely right Doug,

What the 2nd actually does do is to affirms ones inherited right to own firearms, because rights are not granted by our government.

Rights are inherited, our founding fathers created the bill of rights to control/limit our government, not the people.

This nation does not have a "Gun Problem" as you state, it has a violence problem. Outlawing guns will do nothing to stop violence, look to the city of Chicago for a cite. They have the toughest gun laws, yet the highest murder rate per-capita.

The way our founding fathers have designed things, is so the 2ns amendment is the teeth that defends the rest of our rights.

Gdubs
Gdubs

Doug you are either an idiot or a liar. No such statement by the framers exist.

Kevin
Kevin

Press Ctrl+F5 to force a full refresh, you will find it updates accurately (just on a delay).

Kevin
Kevin

It doesn't count "yes" votes immediately either. It's on a delay. Go ahead and try it, you'll find votes aren't counted immediately no matter which way you vote. It's not a conspiracy. The reason it swayed "no" after it was publicized is because more people in the US are now seeing it and voting no.

Bill Agans
Bill Agans

are u really that stupid? the supreme court didn't give us the right to keep & bear arms. it's a NATURAL right granted by our creator. maybe u need to actually read the 2nd amendment. we have the 2nd to defend ourselves & our freedom from a tyrannical government & it SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. if u don't understand the part of "shall", it means the same thing as "must". that means u have the right to protect urself, & family, & ur property from those who wish to impede on ur rights to life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness.

chadk
chadk

Militia is not government controlled or affiliated. .. the supreme court has twice reaffirmed since 2008 that the Second amendment does indeed guarantee a law abiding citizen the right to own firearms. This is all verifiable doing three quick little searches on the web. It takes a person to pull the trigger, so calling it a gun problem is simply hoplophobia and foolish. When someone gets killed in a DUI accident--drivers fault. When there's a bombing---bomber's fault.Then ssuddenly there's a shooting and it's an inanimate objects fault......nonsense

allhaileris
allhaileris

The country has an even bigger problem with drunk driving. Drunk drivers murder 15% more people than are murdered with ALL TYPES of firearms combined. Those are lives that could be saved if we simply banned alcohol. If you weren't such a bandwagon jumping fool, (and actually cared about saving people from needless death) you'd clammer for an alcohol ban. 53% of murders are committed by African-Americans, who comprise only 13% of our population. Until we can talk about that, and solve that, no meaningful progress can be made in your war. When you control for minority gang killings there is nothing alarming about the US murder rate, and no reason to go around violating our constitutionally protected right to own and carry firearms. We have that right so we can form militias. (...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...)

Stephen Johnson
Stephen Johnson

At one point there were over 1000 votes on the no side

2A lover
2A lover

First off you need to read the second amendment." A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." With that said we don't have a militia we have what is considered a STANDING ARMY a True Militia is made up of volunteers and train every once in awhile and don't have dozens of bases spread across the country. Albeit our military personnel haven't been used against the people ( except for a few rare occasions when someone with a itchy trigger finger opened fire on college protesters) and a few other instances (if you need dates and how many died ill provide them) now to the point about THE PEOPLE since the first part of the second amendment was backhanded like the elites in D.C. wanted the part about the people bearing arms is oh so important because IF OUR MILITARY WAS EVER USED AGAINST THE PEOPLE we would have the means to protect and defend ourselves. You can't win this argument your wrong but yet you love all your other rights so LEAVE MY 2A RIGHT ALONE. If we're going debate this I intend to lay it all out there prove you wrong and convert you in the process because a standing army is and always will be a threat to FREEDOM.

Nat
Nat

Why would any one with two functioning brain cells watch and endorse the communist news network? Looks like only a select few actually watch. All agenda all the time is the cat call for "news" today. This poll speaks VOLUMES about democrat view of voting in the US as the ends always justify the means for those willing to win by hook and crook.

Tionico
Tionico

That most recent spate of mayhem, in Isla Vista, California, was carried off in what is an essentially gun free cuonty. The sheriff of Santa Barbara County refuses to allow any of his subjects the right to carry arms in public. Further, that state have some of the most restrictive anti-gun laws in place, which torment and restrict the law abiding, yet do nothing to prevent mass murder: universal background checks, ten day waiting period, full registration, NO provate sales, one gun purchase per month maximum, ten ruond maximum capacioty magazines, and restrictions on ammunition purchases. The murderer in this case got his three handguns by fully complying with ALL those laws. Then, the laws "preventing" him from carrying loaded weapons in public outside his home, carrying them concealed upon his person, and transporting them in a vehicle upon the public roads, workd REAL WELL, didn't they? He complied with every law as he carefully equipped himself for his "day of vengeance", then broke every law put in place to prevent his spree...... meanwhile, everyone else in the county was disarmed, per their Sheriff (who needs recalled, or at least dumped in the next election) so had no means of stopping this guy's rempage.

And the Ruling Elites want to pass a new batch of "common sense" gun restrictions? STOOOOPID people,m wake up... it aint the chunks of steel and plastic that kill, its the morally depraved perpetrator who holds them that kills. Get it right. Suppose one of his three room mates had been armed..... the perp never would have sliced up his second victim. And none of the rest of his spree could have happened.

Jim Thorp
Jim Thorp

You need to study your history a bit closer. Look up the defining terms of 'militia' from the 1780s in the US. Take away the nutjobs, how many mass shootings would have happened in past 20 years? You might be focused on the wrong issue...

J.James (@trojanboy123)
J.James (@trojanboy123)

"the 2nd Amendment does not give individuals the right to own guns" wow the derpt is strong with you..... Who is the right of the people referring to if its not referring to THE people????? it cant be any one else considering it uses an . to clarify the militia AND the people. and another retarded statement is this statement that there is some sort of gun problem in America and some how children are being gunned down you any one with some sort of rights to gun any one down???? I don't now were you get your whacky ideas from But there is not that many children being gunned down in America its pretty rare and dont even make the top 10 list of preventable deaths of children. WAY more children die from being left un attended in bath tubs then they do from any form of murder. 3 times more kids die from bee stings AT SCHOOL then have been shot to death. and more kids have died from bike accidents. and these so called people guning down kids cause of some right is way nuts no were does any one in the us have a right to just go randomly gunning any one down. Thats called murder. you twitt.and last I checked murder is not legal any ware in the us nore has it ever been a right. EVER nore do law abiding citizens ever go and commit murder with out with out a gun. BTW 3times more murders in the us are committed with fists and hammers then by guns. and gang bangers killing each other which make up more then 1/2 of all gun murders DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO KILL ANY ONE nore do most of the gang bangers that have guns legally own or posses a fire arms. Or are even intelligent to know what the constitution is or what a right is. Nore do they care. same as liberal scum dont care that in essence gun laws basically guarantee that ONLY criminals get to feel they have a right to carry a gun and commit murder knowing that no law abiding citizen is going to be allowed to have a gun or legally allowed to defend them selves. Criminals don't follow the law or care if its legal or not to have a gun. BUT they know most law abiding people do follow the law. Hech the very reason any place that does have a so called gun problem are ONLY in places that guns are not legal. Like Chicago Detroit and DC.

Tionico
Tionico

That pesky Second does not GIVE any right to anyone. It merely names, then guarantees, the right to arms to the people: "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. Second, "militia" means simply the local people of a given area to provide for their own security. Third, the Constitution prohibits the standing army you think that Ammendment is talking about. There IS NO established army with rules and such. READ the history of the War for Independence... you will be shocked to see how yuo have been lied to. Further, the SCOTUS did declare, in a case about 1875, that the Second Article of Ammendment is not what confers the right, that the right does not arise from, nor is it depend upon the Cnstitutioin, and it predates that Document. "The law" is the Constitution, and the courts can't change that.

And please don't forget... it was a bunch of "stupid farmers with their squirrel guns" that launched the War for Indeendence, and continued it until General Lord Cornwallis signed the treaty at Yorktown and loaded his troops onto some ships and took them back to England.

Goodguy with a gun
Goodguy with a gun

What the hell is a Doug Youngs??

Let me just start by saying your 100% wrong and speaking out of your ass. Have you EVER read the preamble to our constitution??? our bill of rights is just a piece of paper codifying our NATURAL (or god given depending on your views) rights, that every man woman and child are entitled to. So when you say " writer of the 2nd Amendment said so when he wrote it" your just another liberal who is to (pick one) Ignorant, lazy, or willing to lie about the truth to make your point seem a littleeee less devoid of logic, reason, or quantifiable data.

NEXT, the second amendment SPECIFICALLY uses the word militia, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms", not standing army, or government (there are separate documents on that). And your opinion on "stupid people running around shooting each other" is entirely irrelevant and unfounded because the vast majority (over 3 mil firearms estimated conservatively) of firearms and their owners have/ will never use them in a crime. We dont have a gun problem! we have a problem with violence period, but the media only runs stories that push their anti gun agenda, lets not make it into something its not..

But im just an idiot with a few guns...

David Prewett
David Prewett

HEY,DUMBASS,those people were not legal gun owners,if you check it out before you make STUPID remarks you might realize that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

J Mill
J Mill

Probably the vote tally is cached and only updates every several minutes.

Doug
Doug

Read the preamble to The Bill of Rights and you will see the amendments are additional restrictions upon the federal government. The Bill of Rights does not "give" you your rights. You had them long before governments were ever implemented. Get your facts straight.

michaelzwilliamson
michaelzwilliamson

BTW, this "pathetic coward" is an immigrant who served 6 years Army, 19 USAF, with two combat deployments.

Where exactly have you served your country?

michaelzwilliamson
michaelzwilliamson

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."."

- See more at: http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/why-the-assault-weapon-ban-failed-and-a-new-one-would-too#sthash.iAFgGTFm.dpuf

Go stand in the corner with the Klan and the gay bashers.

Vet
Vet

My kinda Democrat! :D

Trackbacks

  1. […] the post about a CNN gun control poll. Turns out they have been busted trying to fix the results. CNN Caught Red-Handed Sabotaging Gun Control Poll! | BuzzPoBuzzPo Not surprising. Reply With […]