Washington Post Letter: Clinton’s Lie About Gun Sales Without Background Checks Doesn’t Matter

“In his Oct. 18 Fact Checker column, “Clinton’s claim that 40% of guns are sold at gun shows and online is based on outdated data,” Glenn Kessler upbraided former secretary of state and current Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for misspeaking about gun background checks, citing two of our surveys, from 2004 and 2015, to support his contention,” anti-gun rights researchers Deborah Azrael and Matthew Miller write at washingtonponst.com. “Our most recent survey, which has not yet been published, shows that Clinton’s larger point was right: Approximately 40 percent of gun transfers do not involve a background check.” Larger point. Gotcha. Here’s more . . .

The column, although correct, was a distraction from Clinton’s key message that in a country in which 90 people a day die by gunfire, all gun transfers should involve a background check. Based on our most recent survey, among the estimated 50 million-plus guns most recently acquired, roughly 20 million are in the possession of people whose legal right to have them is unknown.

Are these guns more likely to be misused? Stolen? To make their way into underground markets? We suspect so, but there are no data that speak to the issue — in no small part because of a lack of federal funding for gun research. Clinton’s willingness to call attention to the unregulated transfer of firearms — whatever their source — directs attention toward the year-to-year toll of firearms, an issue she is right to insist that each of the presidential candidates address.

If you’re fighting to degrade and destroy Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, the ends justify the means. And that means lying. In case you didn’t know.

comments

  1. avatar scooter says:

    Facts don’t matter? Hmmm… must make arguing flawed logic easier, huh?

  2. avatar mike oregon says:

    True believers, you gotta love the complete lack of morals or decency, the willingness to do whatever it takes in the name of the cause. No claim to grandiose, no emotion un-manipulated and no sacrifice(for someone else to make) is to much.

  3. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

    1. avatar Juanito ''Johnnie'' Ibañez says:

      “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
      ~Joseph Goebbels, Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda (Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda) for the Nazi Party (1933-1945)

  4. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Her indictment can’t come soon enough. Then hopefully, people will see what a whack job ol’ Bernie is.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      You’re dreaming (about the indictments). Just like people who, for 7 years, have been talking about how Obama is going to be impeached.

      The only way to beat these people is to not let them into office.

  5. avatar Another Robert says:

    I’m sorry, but this “internet sales” crap just bugs the hell out of me. In real terms, you can’t sell or buy a gun over the ‘net like you can sell or buy an I-tune or a digital book; the best you can do is to arrange a potential sale or buy. You can’t even “buy” a gun like you can buy shoes, despite Erica Soto-Lamb’s flagrant lie to that effect, as you cannot simply contact the dealer, give them a credit-card number and a shipping address, and wait for your items to arrive by mail or parcel delivery. And even as Kessler admits that “many” gun-show sellers are FFLs, he fails to note that pretty much all actual dealers that sell over the ‘net actually only deal with FFLs as intermediaries. The “gun-show loophole” is finally being slowly revealed as the sham that it is. Wish they would do the same for the “Internet loophole”.

  6. avatar Benzo says:

    …and Cruz (or was it Rubio?) said the mainstream media is Hillary’s SuperPAC. He must be a racist! Oh, wait…

    1. avatar Benzo says:

      Not “racist”, “sexist” – I was still using the term that elected the last liar.

  7. avatar Out_Fang_Thief says:

    How many times….how many ways can you possibly say “THIS WOMAN IS A SHAMELESS LIAR!!!!” before it finally manages to sink in? The ‘Benefit of a Doubt’ express left Prevarication Station back in Arkansas years ago. It seems to me that the only people who could ever be inspired by Mrs. Clinton, are other equally shameless liars.
    Hmmm? If this is the case, then how far up to our balls in liars, are we….?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I think we are up to our necks at this point.

    2. avatar Bob says:

      ” It seems to me that the only people who could ever be inspired by Mrs. Clinton, are other equally shameless liars.”

      I think “other equally shameless liars” pretty well describes the main stream media today.

  8. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    From the Washington Post

    The column, although correct, was a distraction from Clinton’s key message that in a country in which 90 people a day die by gunfire, all gun transfers should involve a background check.

    So, how many people have to die every day from sexually transmitted diseases before we pass a law mandating that people undergo background checks prior to transferring or purchasing sexual intimacy products?

    1. avatar Ing says:

      To sum up: Ignore those facts. Don’t let the truth distract you. Keep marching toward our glorious goal!

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        To sum up even further: Kneel Peasant!

  9. avatar dh34 says:

    HRC doesn’t always lie. It’s only when her lips are moving.

    Clintonistas are a cult. And like any cult they fanatically justify and defend their beliefs. Some would say, sort of like a terrorist organization.

    1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      You’re giving her too much credit. I’m sure she’s capable of lying by nodding or shaking her head, winking, smiling. Probably sneezing. Definitely farting.

  10. avatar James says:

    Hopefully people now see the evil we are up against. Yes evil. By any means necessary only leads to one place. Totalitarianism, by propaganda or force or combination thereof.

  11. avatar Mk10108 says:

    This entire subject is a thoughtless mind f@&k deflection maneuver. Silly thought that “government” will locate, close with and confiscate 300 million law abiding citizens armaments, while 15 million illegals remain in the country and release tens of thousands felons while currently restricting lawful self defense shows how comical people who work in our government have become.

  12. avatar Bobiojimbo says:

    Why must it always be federal funding? Why must taxpayers pay for this research? If it is such a safety issue, that affects all of us, and the research would benefit all of, surely they could petition private businesses and raise the funds through charity. After all, what big businesses wouldn’t love their names attached to research that could save thousands?

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      You would think that a certain anti-human-rights former mayor would be willing to put a few million of his billions of dollars toward this kind of research, as he’s always gassing on about how concerned he is about people being killed with guns.

      The fact that he doesn’t tells me all I need to know about the confidence the anti-gunners have that the results of such research would be in their favor.

  13. avatar gsnyder says:

    There is an active effort by left progressive networks to rewrite the Bill of Rights and Constitution. They want the USA to become a different Country, believing they know better than the Originators what the USA is. They are not about progress. As I watch over it becomes more and more clear the USA could divide and or be involved in a full scale civil war. The one’s with firearms, and the ones without.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      The divide really isn’t over guns. It’s not about “people with guns” vs. “anti-gun people”. The divide is about people who value the individual over the state vs. those who believe that the state is more important than the individual. Individualism vs. collectivism. It so happens that the gun issue breaks rather neatly along similar lines, but it really isn’t about the guns.

      When they say “gun control” what they really mean is “people control”.

  14. avatar Chief Master says:

    “…roughly 20 million are in the possession of people whose legal right to have them is unknown.”
    Hate to break it to you, but–unless they are in prison–their legal right to have guns SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

  15. avatar CRF says:

    Facts don’t matter when you have an agenda.

  16. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    So “fact checker” means “opinion columnist?” Good to know.

  17. avatar New Chris says:

    There is a difference between a thoughtful philosophical thinker and an idealogue which is too often glossed over.

    A philosophical thinker uses evidence to formulate a theory, then tests that theory to determine if it is valid or invalid.

    An idealogue starts with a conclusion and then dismiss all counter evidence, only choosing the data which supports their predetermined position, with no possibility for an antithesis or null hypothesis.

    A Feminist will always see a patriarchy, a Communist will always see a bourgeoisie, the extreme left always sees a villainous right and the extreme right always sees a villainous left, the religious will always see a deity.

    Idealogues are passionate but insincere when it comes to solving problems. Idealogues are bigots, that is, people who maintain a biased position without regard to counter evidence.

    Before we can resist Idealogues, we must first purge ourselves of our own biases.

  18. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    “…. in a country in which 90 people a day die by gunfire, all gun transfers should involve a background check…”

    Ok, I’ll bite. WHY? After all, it seems that the current background check does nothing but divert resources that could be better used elsewhere.
    Don’t “should” on me and I won’t “should” on you, as in you should stop making silly statements with no basis in fact.

  19. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    “Facts all come with points of view, facts don’t do what I want them to”, said David Byrne, and every anti-gunner ever.

  20. avatar Dave says:

    The truth is, anytime a gun grabber uses statistics to back up their views and ideals, the statistics themselves are compiled to give a specific data point. All other data is discarded and/or concealed to disguise their only objective which is to ‘prove’ their point So, when some schmuck says any percent of anything means guns are bad, THEY DON’T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT WHAT THE STATISTICS ACTUALLY SAY.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email