(courtesy cnn.com)

“The gun control group formed by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Monday will release a questionnaire it is going to ask federal candidates to fill out as it decides which ones to support in this year’s mid-term elections,” cnn.com reveals. “Bloomberg in April pledged to spend $50 million this election year to help support candidates who will back further gun control efforts and to combat the politically powerful National Rifle Association.” Click here to read the 10 questions in Bloomberg’s 2014 Gun Sense Voter Federal questionnaire, a document that reveals the civilian disarmament industrial complex’s anti-gun agenda and unlocks Mayor Mike’s cash. Or make the jump for the text and our instant analysis . . .

1. Do you agree: we can both do more to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and protect the rights of responsible, law-abiding people?

By italicizing the word “both” Bloomie’s anti-ballistic bully boys are sending a clear message: “we will be watching the way you vote.” Fair enough. The NRA scorecard is the model there. Obviously, the bit about protecting the rights of responsible law-abiding people is complete horseshit. As you might have guessed by the omission of the word “gun” in front of the word “rights.” Still, they’ve got to say that, don’t they.

2. Under federal law, anyone who buys a gun from a federally licensed dealer must pass a criminal background check, but the same person can end-run this requirement by buying a gun from an unlicensed seller, including from a stranger that the buyer met online or at a gun show. This loophole enables felons, domestic abusers, and other prohibited purchasers to buy guns with no questions asked. In the states that require background checks on all handgun sales, there are 38% fewer women shot to death by their intimate partners and 39% fewer law enforcement officers killed with handguns. Do you support requiring background checks for all gun sales (with reasonable exceptions such as for transfers between close family members and temporary transfers for hunting and self-defense)?

I’m amazed Bloomberg didn’t trot out ye olde debunked stat that [falsely] claims gun shows account for 40 percent of all firearms purchases. Instead of focusing exclusively on the so-called “gun show loophole” Bloomberg’s survey widens the kvetch to include “a stranger that the buyer met online.” Not new, but trendy enough.

The headline stat reveals a new front in the anti-gunners’ agenda: correlating women shot in domestic abuse cases and shot cops with “lax guns laws.” It squares Bloomberg’s bucks with the Democrats’ recently revived War on Women meme, and throws a bone to the Boys in Blue.

The parenthetical carve-out for universal registration – excepting transfers between “close family members and temporary transfers for hunting and self-defense” – is completely unworkable. What’s a “close family member”? How long is a “temporary transfer for hunting”? Or self-defense? Practical, no. Attempted political palatability, yes. Can you say “wiggle room”?

3. Federal law prohibits anyone from having firearms if they have been convicted of abusing their spouses, or if they are the subjects of active restraining orders taken out by their spouses, but not if they have been convicted of stalking or have been convicted of abusing their dating partners. The share of intimate partner violence that occurs in dating relationships has been steadily growing—and as of 2008, more domestic violence homicides were committed by dating partners than by spouses. Do you support a law that would prohibit gun possession by convicted stalkers and people convicted of—or, who after due process, are actively restrained from— abusing a dating partner?

Another “War on Women” play. In this one, Bloomberg’s aligning himself with California legislators crafting “gun violence prevention order” legislation (laws that are already in place in Connecticut and Texas). Politicians seeking to suck on Hizzoner’s proverbial tit have to agree to gun confiscation for anyone under a domestic abuse restraining order. That “after due process” bit? A rear guard action to forestall protestors pointing out that judges give out restraining orders like the Candy Man dispensing M&Ms.

4. Currently, federal law requires licensed gun dealers to conduct criminal background checks on all prospective gun buyers. Because websites that facilitate gun sales are not held to similar standards, unlicensed high-volume sellers use these sites to sell guns to a vast market of anonymous buyers without background checks—making it easy for felons and other dangerous people to buy guns from strangers they meet online with no questions asked. In fact, an estimated 25,000 guns are transferred to criminals with prohibiting records each year on one website alone, Armslist.com. This double standard makes it easy for prohibited people to get guns, and it gives unlicensed high-volume sellers who use websites like Armslist an unfair advantage over licensed gun dealers. Do you support legislation that would level the playing field by treating sites like Armslist as licensed gun brokers, and require a background check every time someone buys a gun through one of these sites?

Ladies and gentlemen, the questionnaire has left the building. Not only is Question #4 boring, it’s Question 2 all over again – only targeted directly at our dear friends at Armslist. In fact, this would be an excellent time for Armslist to sue the Mayor and his minions for libel. Meanwhile, ha! Bloomberg wants to shut down Armslist because he’s championing licensed gun dealers? Now that’s what I call chutzpah!

5. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is missing hundreds of thousands of records that would block dangerous people, including those with severe mental illness, from passing background checks when they try to buy guns. States are responsible for sending these records to NICS, but vary widely in their performance. Do you support an increase in congressional funding for the federal grant programs that help states submit their records?

Show me a politician who’s for increasing funding to any well-meaning government program and I’ll show you . . . a politician. What’s not said: NICS is a joke.

The FBI background check provision for new firearms sales prevents crime like the warning before porn prevents underage viewers. NICS is also a clear violation on the Second Amendment’s prohibition on laws that infringe Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. More than that, it creates a federal database of firearms owners, one that’s prohibited by law. Just thought I’d point that out.

6. People listed on the federal government’s terror watch lists are prohibited from boarding airplanes—but current federal law does not bar them from buying guns or explosives. Indeed, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office, people on terror watch lists bought firearms or explosives from licensed dealers 1,321 times between 2004 and 2010. Do you support legislation—drafted by the George W. Bush administration—that would close this “terror gap” by giving the FBI the discretion to block these people from buying guns?

Wow. A federal judge recently struck down the Department of Homeland Security’s “no-fly” terrorist watch list (not “lists” plural). Judge Brown ruled that the DHS’s list is unaccountable to the public and therefore unconstitutional. You would have thought Bloomberg would ditch his position favoring banning gun sales to Americans on the list – given Question 3’s insistence on “due process” for gun owners subject to domestic abuse restraining orders. But no.

In fact, Bloomberg’s questionnaire specifically asks pols to grant the FBI “discretion” to block gun sales to whomever it suspects of terrorism. Again, without transparency or accountability. What could possibly go wrong?

7. Under current law, it is difficult to prosecute and convict people suspected of trafficking illegal guns because the penalties for trafficking are small and violations are difficult to prove. In fact, the current penalty for gun trafficking is the same as for trafficking chickens across state lines. Do you support legislation that would create a strong federal gun trafficking statute with serious penalties?

A new law that’s tough on chickens and the causes of chickens? I mean, guns? Anyway, since when is it difficult to prosecute someone for something because the penalties are small? Tell that to vice cops. And if you’re really interested if the current law is too “lax,” click here to read the penalties (mostly a ten-year stretch, but life if a silencer or machine gun’s involved). Or click here to see the wide range of laws the ATF uses to prosecute weapons traffickers.

Bottom line: we don’t need more laws – or a more active Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (and Really Big Fires). But a new, “stronger” gun trafficking law sure sounds good.

8. In many mass shootings, including the 2011 shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, AZ, bystanders have been able to subdue perpetrators of mass shootings when the shooters stop to reload. Research from Virginia showed that the federal limit on high-capacity magazines in effect from 1994 to 2004 led to a 50% reduction in criminals being armed with high-capacity magazines— and when the law expired, the share of crime guns with such magazines doubled.Several states have enacted limits on the size of ammunition magazines. Do you support limits on the capacity of ammunition magazines?

Many mass shootings? How many? Which ones? The questionnaire’s clever wording makes it seem like the Giffords shooting’s exposition is the rule rather than the exception. Of course, mass shootings themselves are the exception to the rule; never mind gun trafficking statutes. What about a policy that keeps violent criminals off the streets? You might think Bloomberg included the Giffords shooting to scare pols but I couldn’t possibly comment.

Except to point out that the “research from Virginia” was conducted by the less-than-entirely-unbiased Washington Post in the immediate aftermath of the Newtown slaughter, approved by the equally-less-than-entirely-unbiased researcher Garen Wintemute. Without boring you with a full deconstruction of the data, here’s a sub-head from the story: “Effect hard to measure.” ‘Nuff said?

Nope. Regardless of the practical value of a ban on magazines holding more than a certain amount of ammunition on the crime rate (i.e. none), Americans want access to standard capacity magazines to defend themselves, or for fun. Under the Constitution, they have a right to buy these “high-capacity magazines” without local, state or federal interference.

9. Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia have child access prevention laws, which allow criminal charges for adult gun owners who fail to store their guns safely and keep them out of the reach of children. Do you support laws that allow a prosecutor to bring charges if a gun owner stores a firearm negligently, a minor accesses the gun, and harm results?

There ought to be a law! Oh wait, there is. Every state in these here United has laws that the state can use to punish a gun owner who fails to secure his firearm from a minor who uses the gun to commit a crime (which is also a crime). Not all of them have so-called “safe storage” laws. And for good reason. Gun owners in those states [rightly] fear that safe storage laws open the door to home inspections.

10. Historically, states have set their own laws for who may carry a concealed gun and where they may carry it in public. Many states require applicants to be trained in gun safety and do not grant concealed carry permits to teenagers or people who have recently been convicted of assault, battery, or stalking offenses—while other states have weaker standards and will allow individuals like these to carry in public. Some in Congress have proposed “national concealed carry reciprocity” legislation, which would create a new federal mandate forcing every state to recognize concealed carry permits from every other state, no matter how lax a state’s laws are. Do you oppose national concealed carry reciprocity, which would overturn state public safety laws and replace them with a lowest-common denominator standard?

It appears that Mayor Bloomberg’s anti-gun crusaders are afraid that national concealed carry reciprocity is a thing. And it just might be, if the Republicans take the Senate and the presidency. I guess the inclusion of a “down to reciprocity” question here lets politicians in states with “tough” civilian disarmament legislation play the fed/state rivalry card. “We don’t want Uncle Sam telling us how to run our state!”

This raises the most important question of all: how many pols will take Bloomberg’s money? Those who do run the very real risk of their opponents asking “Do you want Michael Bloomberg telling us how to represent our state?” (Note: that didn’t go down well in Colorado.) By opposing the NRA on the NRA’s turf – funding candidates who publicly support his anti-gun position – Bloomberg is playing someone else’s game. Which is just as well. Because he’s going to lose.

73 Responses to BREAKING: Mayor Bloomberg’s Pot of Gold Gun Control Purity Test Revealed

    • actually, I hope they wipe their a$$ with it and send it back in the postage pre-paid envelope. 🙂 Make him pay those postage to deliver the bad news.

    • I disagree. The libtards refuse to answer (account for their position) such surveys from the NRA etc.

      Conservatives should properly fill out this BS (we should have helped them), immediately release the survey to the public, and loudly trumpet their correct position on the Constitution. That they are right is a positive campaign issue, particularly in 2014. No need to hide.

    • Actually, I hope they answer all ten questions exactly the way he wants them to, take his money, then vote pro gun anyway. That would be the absolute best finger in the eye I could imagine.

      • No, even if they answer all these questions the right way, it doesn’t mean they get an automatic check in the mail. Also, if they fill it out, Bloomy has a document saying that they should have voted in one direction, but reneged on their “views.”

        If they send ANYTHING back, it should be a letter, short and sweet, saying that they will not betray the constitution, natural right to self defense, or their constituents.

        Besides, you can’t even answer these questions honestly. You answer one way, you are tearing away the rights of people that haven’t been convicted of a thing, answer the other and you are condoning abuse and the criminal underground. Unless you are already in his pocket, this is a lose-lose questionnaire.

        • I would be okay with it if they said “Yes, I lied to Bloomberg because I am tired of him attempting to mold the entire country into his concept and I wanted to teach him a lesson.” I am pretty sure most people would understand that.

  1. Talk about leading questions!

    I’m shocked there wasn’t a question like – “Guns kill kids. You’re against killing kids, right?”

    • I knew before reading that these “questions” were going to be in fact statements and (baseless) assertions.

    • I think this list was constructed using one of those Perk Books from Fallout, like “Lying: Congressional Style”, and “The Big Book of Science”, in this case, old Bloomie used “Facts: And How to Ignore them.”. The Perks are, +10 Ignorance, -10 Intelligence, -10 Speech, -10 Science, -10 Agility.

  2. “Bloomberg is playing someone else’s game. Which is just as well. Because he’s going to lose.”

    Boy, I hope that is true!

  3. “The gun control group formed by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Monday will release a questionnaire it is going to ask federal candidates to fill out as it decides which ones to support in this year’s mid-term elections,”

    Does CNN hire H.S. students as writers AND editors? Good lord, that’s some bad writing.

        • Why, it’s one o’ them ebil guns that commit crimes, dontchaknow? If it weren’t for those ebil crime guns, no one would ever commit a crime EVAR! /snark

  4. All Democrats should answer the questions honestly and post the answers on their campaign website and broadcast over social media!

    Nov headline: Bloomberg blames gun lobby for Democrat loss of Senate control.

    • HAHAHA, You know it will be said!

      “The NRA Blackmailed politicians, and clouded the judgment of voters…”

  5. I would toss this into a trash can. The questions are essays. They need to be short and focused. It’s total garbage.

  6. Mr. Farago…
    Thank you for TTAG. Enjoyable, informative, interesting and most enjoyable.
    Stay safe, well and healthy.
    As an old (?) 71 and retired licensed counselor, I do enjoy the banter and responses of your readers. Some are basic verbal gun fights. I also find the reviews very interesting .
    However, when there are two or three similar type weapons, would the reviewer go into more of a comparison – head to head – in features and benefits. So many new mini-pocket types are being introduced, it is becoming difficult to sort the model differences. It appears that the dollar differences do not equate to the actual operations and functions. You guys are pretty unbiased and it is appreciated.
    BTW, I’m a four-year AF vet (1964-1968), range plinker, CC holder in Texas. My carry is the S&W 9/Shield.
    Keep up the great work.

  7. “High-volume unlicensed dealers”? That’s already illegal as hell right there. Does Bloomie not know that? Or is he just hoping that Congressional candidate Dumbarse doesn’t know it?

    • He skipped the FFL step to make it seem like people are getting guns shipped to their door without real ID or accountability. Those retailers don’t run a background check because the FFL they ship to does before the customer can take possession of the firearm. It doesn’t matter if the retailer does not run a background check as long as the check is run somewhere in the process. Sounds like he just wants everyone to run background checks at multiple times in the process. That would add cost, time, and confusion to the buying process and I’m sure that’s his aim.

      • Backgound check or no, deliver via FFL or no–anyone that buys or sells more than, what, six guns in a calendar year? is a “dealer” per the Feds and without a license is operating illegally. Bloomie is doing more than “skipping” the FFL step here, he’s making out like masses of people are selling guns hand over fist without a license. Which they may be (certainly there are some), but they aren’t the ones advertising on the ‘Net.

    • “…this would be an excellent time for Armslist to sue the Mayor and his minions for libel.”

      … and I really hope they do.

  8. “Many states require applicants to be trained in gun safety and do not grant concealed carry permits to teenagers …”
    Which states DO grant concealed carry permits to teenagers? I cannot think of one.

    • using bizarre statistics, MDA counts anyone under 24 as a “child” – hence the US Gov’t should be indicted by UN for using child soldiers to fight wars

    • You understand by just reading over the questions that facts do not matter. The proper candidate which returns the most emotional answer void facts, reason and logic is the one they looking to endorse.

      This is why getting some the answers from politicians who answer these surveys will be telling.

      I would respect someone who does not like guns but would acknowledge that these questions are pure BS! At least then they would have some integrity as a person even though many would disagree with them.

      • Some politicians, like the crew from the [Formerly] Free State, Maryland, and other Socialist states will get a pass simply due to past activities.

    • Or to people “…who have recently been convicted of assault, battery, or stalking offenses…” Pretty sure these folks would be barred from even owning firearms according to federal law. So, no, they couldn’t carry. Even in a constitutional carry state.

      Unless, of course, they decided to ignore the law.

    • Which states DO grant concealed carry permits to teenagers? I cannot think of one.

      According to USACarry.com (http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_information.html), the following states issue to teenagers (i.e. 18- and 19-year-olds):

      Alabama
      Missouri (if active military stationed in MO)
      Montana
      North Dakota
      South Dakota
      Texas (if member or [honorably discharged] veteran of military, including reserves or National Guard)
      Vermont (no permits issued, but the minimum age to possess, without parental consent, is 16)

      (I didn’t click on every state link, just the ones that seemed “likely”. The above list may not be exhaustive.)

      • (Alabama doesn’t specifically mention an age in their “shall issue” statute. The requirement is “[not] prohibited from the possession of a pistol or firearm pursuant to state or federal law.” In Alabama, that’s 18).

        • the first time i went to arizona i saw on a news feed that the phoenix city council had just passed a new rule requiring youths under sixteen years of age who were carrying to have a note from their parent or guardian stating that it was ok. early nineties.
          “to whom it may concern: please allow my son to proceed to his destination in posession of his firearm. he is delivering hamsters today and must guard against rustlers.
          signed,
          juan epstein’s mother”

        • phoenix city council had just passed a new rule requiring youths under sixteen years of age who were carrying to have a note from their parent or guardian stating that it was ok. early nineties.

          As I understand the Vermont statutes, that’s pretty much the current rule in VT. Under 16, you need parental consent.
          http://www.atg.state.vt.us/issues/gun-laws.php

  9. I signed up for their email list, because I want to know when they’re gonna be in my town demonstrating. I’ll go, get my free t-shirt, and wear it to the range to go shooting. But when you sign up, one thing becomes very clear: their 1 million “members” are just people like me who signed up to their email list. That is not the same thing as the millions of people (like me) who open their wallets and have money over to the NRA to be an *actual* member of a true grassroots organization. Which reminds me..

    Their emails also beg for donations, constantly, supposedly to help them build a “grassroots” organization to counter the NRA. Didn’t Bloomberg just give them $50 million? Yet they need $15 from Sally Soccermom? Also, you don’t “build” a grassroots organization by throwing $50 million at it. Or, for that matter, campaigning to infringe on other peoples’ rights.

    Oh, and I really hope no pro-gun politician validates their little questionnaire by actually filling it out. Their silly questionnaire should be met with roaring silence from pro-gun politicians.

    • Bloomberg did not give them $50 million. The money is what he plans to spend in the mid-term and other elections. Just like he did in NYC when he created the Health Board that was just before the weekend smacked down by the NY High Court to the point it should not even exist and all previous regulations it created are now void, Bloomberg is simply buying votes for something that is unpopular but he believes he can ram through without anyone complaining about.

      A not about the survey, so much for “just wanting background checks”

    • From what I’ve seen for the donation, your supposed to write a check to Everytown (was ‘Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ until just recently). The donation is NOT tax deductible.

      Why not? So they can hide their finances about who is getting paid for what? Why the whole shell-game with the mergers (MDA into MAIG into Everytown) to hide having to file public documentation.

      I would think donating members would have a right to know where their money is going.

    • I almost liked his Facebook page just so I could post up a comment saying DOUCHE!! But then I saw that only 869 people liked his page. I’m not about to give him a round 870. The number of people who like his page should tell you about his popularity.

  10. I believe as responsible citizens in town hall meetings we should ask candidates if they filled out the questionnaire, and if they did, for them to make it public.

    • CORRECT!

      Transparency should start at the local level. Lord knows it doesn’t go any higher any more.

  11. Fantastic. Once the grades come in from this survey we’ll know which politicians are in favour of gun control under the guise of “Won’t someone think of the children”.

    As an aside those questions are just ridiculous. I’m glad that someone else took the time to debunk each one of them. That level of distortion, fact twisting, and misinformation is just breathtaking in it’s scope and audacity

  12. Question #2? “In the states that require background checks on all handgun sales, there are 38% fewer women shot to death by their intimate partners ”

    They have been getting a huge amount of mileage on that statement. Here’s some background: It was for one year only (2010) and excluded NY state. In addition, it needs to count crimes in the millions in order to get a whole number to display (most crime statistics are crime/100,000). In other words, they are measuring the difference between ant hairs, for one year, minus one of the more densely populated state/city (NY city) to arrive at the conclusion. What about 2011, 2012? Or anything before 2010?
    Anyone know a good list of state background check laws? Specifically for hand-gun background check requirements? My gut tells me that stat is a roll of the dice conclusion, and I’d really love to be the one to disprove it.

  13. I really thought a proposed assault weapons ban would be in that list. I’m kind of disappointed with Bloomberg’s group. They’re not going all in.

    I guess banning guns gets too many voters to the poles to oppose them.

    • Funny you should mention the AWB. I just received the latest reply to my gripe from “Big Babs” Milkulski that contained this gem:

      BS in front…
      “That is why I believe that we must take a substantive look at various proposals to strengthen background checks and get assault weapons off our streets. This includes reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban and limiting the use of high capacity ammunition. I have also continually supported extending required background checks at gun shows to help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals. Your views will be helpful to me as we further consider this issue.”
      …More BS and kiss goodbye.

      So it’s not dead in Democratic Dreamland after all.

      • “This includes reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban and limiting the use of high capacity ammunition.”

        What is high capacity ammunition, and where can I buy it?

  14. Wow that was a long read. Would EVERY candidate bother to peruse that? My guess is no…

  15. This questionnaire is one slick propaganda piece . The Bill Paying Billionaire’s dollars are dangled in front of money hungry politicians to ensure they pay attention to it. It will widely disseminate anti civil rights talking points crafted to appeal to liberal sensitivities. The distortions and fabrications it contains are destined to be repeated endlessly in the echo chamber they call the “national conversation for commonsense gun restrictions”.

  16. In general, the “Questionnaire” is telling whoever fills it out how Bloomberg wants them to think about gun control. Number 4 is just a flat, misleading LIE and I agree with the other comment that says Armslist.com should sue Bloomberg for libel.

    Many Candidates just ignore this kind of stuff when sent out by Pro-gun Groups, so I expect many will do the same for Bloomberg. Candidates don’t like a “written commitment” that might interfere with them saying what they say to get elected, then doing whatever they want once in Office.

  17. Those who do run the very real risk of their opponents asking “Do you want Michael Bloomberg telling us how to represent our state?”

    This is the tactic that many 2A candidates should use in November. Bloomberg is not likable and even in NYC won his last election by a narrow margin over an unknown opponent with no money. He’s Napoleon with billions who carries politicians around in his pocket. Who wouldn’t hate that?

    • DiBlasio was not “unknown” in NYC by any stretch of the imagination. His main platform consisted of “I’m Not Bloomberg” and “Look at MY Bi-racial Family. He ran on the New York Daily News Party. It was a pretty much a sure thing because everyone else was dirtier, since they’d been in NYC politics longer.

      But the joke is on NYC – he’s a bigger Socialist than Bloomie, but without the cash. The ghosts of Tammany Hall are ROFL.

  18. “Many states require applicants to be trained in gun safety…”

    Hogwash! Show me a state that actually trains anyone to handle guns safely. There might be one but every training regime I’ve ever seen was 95% gun laws + 5% hitting the broad side of a barn.

    Now that I think about it that could be quite a long course: Which guns? All guns? Just the ones I own? Any action I’m likely to encounter? Every gun ever made? What about weapons retention? Intervention techniques for knuckleheads I see at the public ranges? Do I need an extra safety endorsement/course to do my own reloading? This might take a while.

  19. Hmm. Maybe we should get pro-gun candidates to lie, I mean answer in the obviously correct manner, to get his money, then use that money to run ads against Bloomberg-style gun control, while stating that their views have “evolved.”

  20. The answer to all ten questions: “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.”

  21. I think I will enjoy watching Bloomie waste his money.
    Though 50 million is a drop in a swimming pool when your worth an estimated 34 billion.

    • Years ago, when faced with tax liabilities due to malfeasance by his business manager, Willie Nelson is reported to have responded, “Sixteen million isn’t much if you say it fast.”

      And then there was FarmAid…

  22. And of course the Demanding Moms climb on the Mighty Midget’s bandwagon:

    TAKING ON THE NRA
    How Pro-Gun Control Is Your Candidate?
    A mom group fights the NRA with its own weapon.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/07/moms-gun-control-group-looks-to-midterm-elections-with-nra-style-questionnaire.html

    The story changes with the storyteller. Or maybe because the media just can’t help but lie about everything? You really can’t tell the players without a scorecard any more.

  23. I was bored so I wrote my own:

    1. Do you agree: we can both do more to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and protect the rights of responsible, law-abiding people?

    Who are dangerous people? Who decides who are dangerous people? Am I dangerous because I have a gun? When does a once dangerous person become a law-abiding person? When a gang-banger buys a gun out of the back of a trunk among a pile of guns stolen from regular joes, pawn shops, and police trunks – what legislation is going to “prevent” that? If they are willing to steal from people – what would they care about some law that says they are not allowed to possess a firearm? In fact, if “both” of us were to legalize it, they wouldn’t have to buy from the back of a car filled with stolen guns, instead they could buy from a dealer and you could at least have their form 4473 on file at the dealer. Also, the guy he bought it from would have a get a real job instead of breaking into people’s houses and harming their occupants. Two birds – one stone.

    2. Do you support requiring background checks for all gun sales (with reasonable exceptions such as for transfers between close family members and temporary transfers for hunting and self-defense)?

    No. According to MDA, a law-abiding gun owner can become a criminal at any moment. So accordingly, what background check would catch that? Also, the provided exceptions are extremely vague and will be up to the interpretation of bored ATF officials with handcuffs – so No on that as well.

    3. Do you support a law that would prohibit gun possession by convicted stalkers and people convicted of—or, who after due process, are actively restrained from— abusing a dating partner?

    Anyone can get a restraining order against anyone. I would not call that “due process.” So No. Having someone strip me of my rights because they didn’t like me is not appealing.

    4. Do you support legislation that would level the playing field by treating sites like Armslist as licensed gun brokers, and require a background check every time someone buys a gun through one of these sites?

    Armslist connects buyers with sellers by means of a classified Ad. Just because you don’t like guns and Armslist has a lot of traffic for transactions, doesn’t mean that armslist should be responsible for the ads that are posted any more than a common newspaper, or autotrader. Does autotrader facilitate vehicle registration when someone buys a car they found in their flyer? This is actually what you are asking. Furthermore, attempting to regulate such is completely unenforceable. Don’t believe me? Check out “http://thepiratebay.se/”

    5. Do you support an increase in congressional funding for the federal grant programs that help states submit their records?

    No. I don’t want to pay for that. In fact, I would like to pay less and pocket more, that way I could take that pocketed money and put it back into the economy instead of passing it to governing bodies to inefficiently provide me services I don’t want at high cost.

    6. Do you support legislation—drafted by the George W. Bush administration—that would close this “terror gap” by giving the FBI the discretion to block these people from buying guns?

    No. Anyone can be put on the terrorist list depending on the whim of the FBI guy providing the nomination. Did you talk back to a government agent recently? Shouldn’t have done that, now you can’t fly and after this proposal you can’t hunt, or defend your family against intruders. Might as well put a gag in my mouth so I can’t speak, cut my fingers off so I can’t type, and burn any religious books I might own while you are at it.

    7. Do you support legislation that would create a strong federal gun trafficking statute with serious penalties?

    How many guns are considered “trafficking?” 1? 5? 20? How is this going to address those gangbangers driving around with stolen guns in their trunks? If they don’t care about driving around with stolen guns, they probably don’t care about moving stolen guns.

    8. Do you support limits on the capacity of ammunition magazines?

    I do. I think the lower limit on magazine capacity should be extended. I don’t want a hunting rifle with 3 cartridges. Come-on. I would prefer at least 10 or 20 or even 30. I won’t be using 30 – probably just use one, but the others are there if I need them. I think the lower limit on imported firearms should be extended as well. I think the lower limit on imported rifles should not be 5 rounds (sporter configurations) but ship with a drum. It only takes a second to change mags, but i’m lazy. A drum would just be great.

    9. Do you support laws that allow a prosecutor to bring charges if a gun owner stores a firearm negligently, a minor accesses the gun, and harm results?

    So if a juvenile delinquent breaks into my home and has a negligent discharge with my firearms I would have charges brought against me? No, I don’t support that.

    10. Do you oppose national concealed carry reciprocity, which would overturn state public safety laws and replace them with a lowest-common denominator standard?

    The lowest common denominator you are referring to is a permit. Why not? I can drive my car in New York and I am not a resident there. Since the right to drive a car is not a constitutionally protected right – I would expect I may need a license/permit. Why should I need a license or permit to make use of the right to keep and bear arms. Do I need a license to be Catholic or Jew?

  24. What kind of bullcrap is this with demanding that sites like Armslist be labeled as gun dealers? You cannot acquire any gun through those websites without it going through a background check, because it must go through an FFL. The only way you could get it without a federal background check would be if you went directly to the person to get the gun in person, in which case the website has nothing to do with the sale except for maybe advertising purposes.

    As for the terrorist watch list, that is too arbitrary. No one’s rights should be taken away just because they are put onto some terrorist watch list.

  25. “In many mass shootings, including the 2011 shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, AZ, bystanders have been able to subdue perpetrators of mass shootings when the shooters stop to reload.”

    Of course, in the Giffords shooting, the shooter used a 33 round magazine, so the point on limiting magazine size seems a little strained.

  26. The composition of this poll is complete asshattery. The only question posed plainly is the first one and that is designed to be the foot in the door– That if you can accept the initial ‘yes’ everything else will seem likewise palatable. The fact that every other question from that point forward requires signifigant framing instead of simply asking the question should tell you how much BS is going on here.

    And then there’s the simple, overriding fact beyond all of the seemingly innocent proposals: We don’t trust you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *