“When it comes to gun control and the Second Amendment, Democrats and Republicans are deeply divided except for a few safety measures such as background checks on gun sales,” huffingtonpost.com reports, analyzing a Pew Research report released Friday. (Click here to read.) Pew examines the pew-pew views of Trump and Clinton supporters. The results aren’t surprising, but they are revealing.

(courtesy huffingtonpost.com)

Both candidates’ supporters favor “background checks for private and gun show sales” by a wide margin. Here are three reasons why the supposedly pro-gun Trump voters’ support for “universal background checks” (UBC’s) is irrelevant.

1.  “Universal background checks” are unconstitutional and illegal

America is a constitutional republic. All laws must conform to the United States Constitution. A background check — any background check — is an infringement on Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Think of it this way: should writers be subject to a criminal background check before they publish?

The Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1968 prohibits federal, state, and local governments from creating and maintaining any and all firearms owner databases. The current federal background check system (NICS) creates a paper record of all new firearms purchases from federally licensed dealers. As do various states.

Federal and state governments have permanent records of hundreds of millions of firearms transactions, including names and address, in the form of stored ATF form 4473s. This is in direct contravention of FOPA. (As are other federal firearms databases.) “Universal background checks” are illegal under current law.

2. Trump supporters who approve of “universal background checks” don’t understand the implications.

By stipulating that all firearms purchases and transfers (included in current UBC legislation) are subject to a background check, UBC’s create an even more comprehensive version of the aforementioned gun owner databases. Trump voters who support UBC’s fail to recognize the danger, as identified and countermanded by FOPA.

According to Pew, just 64 percent of Trump supporters reject the idea of “creating a federal database to track gun sales.” Yet that’s exactly what “universal background checks” do. How can you reconcile the two opinions? Ignorance.

3. Trump supporters who support “universal background checks” don’t support gun control.

According to Pew, 66 percent of Trump supporters reject both a ban on “high-capacity magazine clips” and a “ban on assault-style weapons.” This indicates that Trump supporters are against gun control, period. If they knew the potential impact of “universal background checks” on American gun ownership, it’s highly likely they wouldn’t support them.

But again, the Second Amendment is clear: universal background checks are unconstitutional, regardless of their popularity or [unproven] social utility.

74 Responses to Three Reasons Why Popular Support for “Universal Background Checks” Doesn’t Matter

    • At this point…all they need to understand is that Trump is NOT HILLARY. That part, at least, is not rocket science.

      • Well, Cliff, given Trump’s near daily flipflops and obfuscations, (see the Wall, deportations of illegals, Muslim ban, minimum wage, ending gun free zones, etc, etc, etc), I wouldn’t be surprised if that changed, too.

        Yup, it just happened. CNN is reporting that Trump is softening his stance on not being Hillary.

        • Hitlery has certainly not flipflopped on firearms at any time since 1992, which is about to be 25 years. No fear of that, if flipflops are your only concern. She also has not flipflopped on hiding her own crimes from the public, or being consistently incompetent in everything she has attempted, other than thieving and lying and getting people killed.

  1. It’s not so much as being a Trump supporter, but against the corruption HilLIARY stands on is rock solid. That and her repeated love of Australian gun confiscation from their little subjects, aka people.

    • So a Trump vote is a protest vote, now? Color me skeptical. If their constantly-espoused urgent desire to see Hillary denied at all costs was genuine, they would a) not be drawn to the single Republican candidate most similar to her in every way but the Y chromosome, b) support “safer bet” candidates with broad conventional support who could reliably beat her instead of demonizing & destroying their crucial support structure as “establishment” & chasing the risky wildcard, c) demand Trump be ditched before the convention since it was clear by then he was either not serious about his campaign or grossly incompetent, d) begin working seriously toward extra-electoral means of preventing Clinton’s inauguration or initiatives now that her victory is likely along with the loss of the senate (massive Trump-sized demonstrations at DC demanding her prosecution would’ve been nice, instead of falling on Trump Promises to go after her after his non-election, along with vows to purge various flavors of Republican representatives)

      • While much of what you say was true, the primaries and the convention are OVER. Trump is what we got and a vote for any other candidate in protest over the RNC sabotaging (again) the decent conservative Republican candidates is a vote for Hillary. No third party candidate in American history has ever won the presidency, not even Theodore Roosevelt.

        Teddy’s third party run, by the way, resulted in siphoning enough Republican votes that the Democrat presidential candidate won and also gave the House of Representatives to the Dems. Nice job, Ted. Watch where you swing that big stick.

        • Trump should just drop out. He has no chance of beating Clinton and at this point Trump is only taking votes away from Johnson. Johnson could easily beat Hillary in a one on one competition.

      • Put it this way- Bernie would have been the nominee if the DNC hadn’t decided to sabotage, and then him sell out (no opinion on good or bad, just on his chances in my view).

        The same types who wanted Bernie want Trump, but Trump actually won.

        That being said- I voted for a solid candidate with a good shot at beating Hillary.
        Now that he is out, I refuse to not show up, and I refuse to vote for Hillary. Plenty of young idiots will vote third party, and yes, that’s throwing away my vote since he cant achieve 15% in the polls anyway.

        I will say plenty of the young libs I know are liking every Gary Johnson post they see. Better he steal H votes….

  2. So many Trump voters don’t support gun control, except when their candidate breaks rank to support gun control policies. I don’t think “ignorant” is the word to describe them, but “obedient.”

    And people wonder why some of us think pols like him may actually be more dangerous than Democrats in the long run…not that there is likely to be a long run at this rate.

    • barnbwt,

      You hit the proverbial nail on the head, “… not that there is likely to be a long run at this rate.”

      If Hillary wins, the Supreme Court will have a civilian disarmament majority for at least 20 years. Even if we somehow elect someone to the White House in 8 years who supports our right to keep and bear arms, it will be too late to reverse any court decisions.

      And given the population trends, there is soon going to be a point where Republicans will never ever win any election to the White House again. Whether or not that happens within 8 years I am not sure. Either way, I am not willing to gamble with the U.S. Supreme Court.

      Speaking of the U.S. Supreme Court, what evidence do you have that Trump would nominate gun-grabbers to the U.S. Supreme Court? What evidence do you have that the Republican majority in the House and Senate (which would come with a Trump presidency) would confirm gun-grabbers nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court?

      • The SCOTUS is an undoubtedly important focal point, but keep in mind that Hillary would also have the chance to appoint untold numbers of U.S. Federal Court judges as well. That would make the chance of even getting to a Supreme Court hearing slim and none.

      • When Hilary is sworn in, Heller is gone.

        Twenty-five or so years later, we might have a shot at another Supreme Court lineup that would be willing to return us to the Heller standard, but I’m guessing it will take longer than that. In the meantime, there will be no SC-acknowledged right to bear arms.

        Sadly, because of where we are today, electing Trump is the only viable way to avoid this.

        Yeah, I would have preferred Cruz, or even several others, over Trump.

        But no one cares what I might prefer. Our choice is now between Hilary and Donald.

        I’d take Donald over Hilary, for reasons of gun rights, economics, immigration, and general all-around honesty.

  3. Up front: I don’t support background checks.

    Your contention that background checks are an infringement is open to debate. Your contention the shall not infringe prohibits any restriction on ownership. That is not what the 5Th Amendment says. It says that rights may not be infringed without due process of law. The prohibition on felons owning modern firearms is a denial of rights that meets the 5Th Amendment criteria, the prohibited person has been charged, tried, convicted and lost any appeals. That is called due process. If you think shall not be infringed is absolute than that means felons serving their sentence cannot be denied firearms which most of us here would agree is absurd. Given that someone who has forfeited their right to own a gun can be prevented from buying one that would imply that the means to indentify such persons, I.e., background checks, is constitutional.

    • I’d argue disarmament is cruel, if sadly not unusual, punishment. Hell, ex cons weren’t disarmed back when flogging was standard, yet see where we are today. The whole point of Clockwork Orange was to demonstrate how cruel it is to deprive someone of full agency (freedom of action) while subjecting them to the free world.

    • You seem to make a good argument, but I see a flaw in your logic.

      While the 5th Amendment allows for due process and punishment/incarceration, it does not and CANNOT permanently revoke a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right. All that happens is that for the period you are under sentence your rights are severely restricted. The same could be accomplished by locking you in a jail or prison and simply not allowing any firearms inside the walls. No firearms available, no guns for felons.

      Once you have served your sentence, however, you are back in the land of firearms again, whether FFLs or your local black market, and no amount of legislation is going to keep you from tooling up, or buying some Meth, or selling more crack.

      So, for the purpose of pretending that a NICS check will in any way prevent a significant number of felons or potential felons from obtaining a firearm you are willing to institute a Department of Pre-Crime at legal firearms point-of-sale. I contend that for EVERY purchaser of a firearm who must submit to this NICS their Second Amendment protected rights have been and must be infringed, for they have committed no crime. For every person who has been found guilty of a felony, or of being “insane”, and has served their sentence or supposedly been “cured”, the imposition of a continuing restriction of their 2A rights is unconstitutional, by your own argument. Due Process has been served, they have paid their legal debt for their crime/insanity, where is the Constitutional justification to continue infringing on their rights?

      Not to mention the camel’s nose. If the 5th Amendment trumps (no pun) the Second, or any other amendment, then Congress can pass any legislation they want making a thing illegal with the result of the loss of your Second Amendment protections FOR LIFE. Misdemeanor domestic abuse complaints, for example. Why not speeding 5 or more mph above the posted limit on an Interstate highway? What is the limitation on Congress once this genie is out of the bottle?

      “If you concede that the government the Second Amendment was intended to protect you from has the authority to create, maintain and enforce a list of person who, in the opinion of that same government, may not exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, HOW WILL YOU KEEP YOUR NAME OFF OF THOSE LISTS?” – Cliff H

      • I wish more people would see it this way. You’ve either served your sentence or you haven’t. Then entire system of “felony” is broken and only creates a criminal cycle by trapping people with the “felon” label. If their still such a risk to society we need to label them and give all their future employers a legal excuse to not hire them “sorry, no felons allowed” and strip them of their constitutional rights why are they even out of prison? The felon label just ensures they can’t reform and go back to school and get a “real” job because a large number of companies will insta-ignore them thanks to the felon label. So they go back to crime and we are stuck paying for it all over again (either directly or indirectly).

        People talk about “pre crime” like it doesn’t already exist. Any and all possession laws are exactly that, “pre-crime”. You haven’t done anything wrong, but you “might”. You “might” be a crazy killer so you can’t have a machine gun, you “might” get addicted so you can’t have those drugs, you “might”, well you get the point.

    • “Given that someone who has forfeited their right to own a gun can be prevented from buying one that would imply that the means to indentify such persons, I.e., background checks, is constitutional.”

      I can agree with that. However, I have *NOT* forfeited my righto own a gun, therefor enforcing background checks on *ME* is in fact unconstitutional. The solution is easy, forget the background checks, which accomplish nothing anyway, and enforce the damn law against possession by a convicted felon, lock the asshole up for life if necessary, but leave me the hell alone! The most recent ruckus is a 6-time loser, his last felony possession of a firearm by a felon, RELEASED ON PAROLE and wearing an ankle monitor, shot to death a woman walking her newborn in a stroller. Does anybody even have the balls to claim that guy would have been stopped if we only had universal background checks?

      Has anybody else noticed that the conversation from the grabbers is all about how desperately we need “background checks”, as if we do not already have them?

    • Dear Intellectually handicapped,

      1.) There is NO SUCH THING AS PRE-CRIME!
      2. ) MURDER IS A CRIME ! IT IS ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW!
      3 ). Hello ! “Due process ” means “I’m innocent till proven guilty in a court of law! ” Which means official charges have to be filed against me, investigation, arrest, court, and–adjudicated a criminal ! Then imprisonment! Not, “I’m guilty till proven innocent through a Universal Background because the government ordered me to sign a constitutional waiver to investigate gate me without charges, investigation and arrest…Because the government says it can somehow magically regulate my Constitutional rights, and in order for me to exercise some, or all of my Civil Liberties. I have to pay a fee, or a tax as well. To prove myself a good citizen to law enforcement —who are supposed to be guardians. Who are supposed to honor their oaths to uphold the US Constitution! And to the local, state and federal government! That is NOT a government by the People for the people ! That is Authoritarianism! ”

      4. ) The 2nd amendment is the law of the land! It “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! “

  4. It has nothing to do with being a Trump supporter or not.
    The general unwashed American public is as most here know is stupid.
    “Stupid is as stupid does.” These supporters of both candidates dont know the Constitution from a piece of wallpaper.
    The Dims want to be told what to do and when to breathe..
    The Repubs……who knows what they really do want?? I dont have a clue what they want.
    Worst and worst then bad what a choice.

  5. The poll tax is not constitutional so why is the idea of this constitutional? It’s no like the government pays for the background check the person trying to exercise their rights do. Lets look at the debacle in Washington State where you can’t even let a friend hold your gun without a background check both ways.

    • Let’s not forget that the government cannot “pay” for anything. It’s our money, and always has been. The government has no money. It is the people’s money.

      • If it were the money of the people at large (taxpayers), rather than only the money of gunowners exercising their rights, those laws would come under a lot more scrutiny. As is, it costs government absolutely nothing to infringe its ass off.

  6. “Universal background checks” are unconstitutional and illegal

    Good luck with that, is there any court precedents in this regard? Do many judges simply ignore the law?

    Scream “unconstitutional” all you want then find me a judge who would agree. Liberal judges do not follow the law unless it is in the political agenda they wish to follow and all other laws can be ignored.

    • Pascal: Amen! Do many judges ignore the law? It might not be right, but it is. (regardless of what hitl’s husband says “is” is).

    • Judges used to was lawyers, and all lawyers attempt wherever possible to bend the black and white letter of the law to their own benefit. Once you have codified a crime in specific terms the lawyers and judges IMMEDIATELY begin looking for ways to parse, interpret, or find loopholes that benefit their agenda. Since the law, now written, is a solid and the interpretation is fluid, the lawyers and judges have the advantage.

      It all depends on what your definition of “is” is.

  7. Option polls are frequently worded to give the answer you want. Antis always want more.

    Even here in Australia the antis still want more control. Legal shooters here are the most law abiding people and usually great people to meet

    The antis are scared by the increasing number of legal shooters and firearms. Both officially now more than before the buyback.

    The other thing USA antis forget to mention is that government offered 200 percent or more for of the value of the banned “weapons” using tax dollars. I sold broken .22 for 5 times what I paid for it.

    But much better to oppose bans than to try to get it repealed

    • And speaking of inherent bias, I notice that the questions are worded as to “are you for this restriction” and then reported as the number in favor of restriction. This gives an unstated bias in favor of restriction since there is no corresponding number of those opposed given, that is left up to the reader to calculate in his head, if he bothers.

      The statement “Thirty-sIx percent of people are in favor of this” leaves out the important information that 73% are opposed.

  8. Robert,

    You forgot to include this:

    According to Pew, just 64 percent of Trump supporters reject the idea of “creating a federal database to track gun sales.” Yet that’s exactly what “universal background checks” do. How can you reconcile the two opinions? Ignorance.

    The reader needs to understand that universal registration (federal database of gun owners) is required to enforce universal background checks. The is simply no way to enforce UBCs without the corresponding database, or a record of the transaction.

  9. The subtext to this poll is that if you’re a serious 2A person be prepared for the fact that the mob wants your AR and “high capacity” mags.

    The truth is that this whole story is nonsense. We don’t live in a Democracy. We live in a Republic where the mob does not get to strip anyone of their rights simply by voting.

    • Although we do reside in a Constitutional republic, we ARE subject to the rules of raw democracy, wherein in certain situations The Mob CAN deprive others of once-certain rights merely by voting.
      At one point in our history, The Mob, using republican principles (a majority voting in a certain representative or series of same to ostensibly do its bidding) removed the previously-sacred right of some folks to own other folks in perpetuity (rights can be positive or negative, depending on one’s point of view).
      At a similar point in our history, The Mob voted in representatives that were, and still are, ready to draft willing, or unwilling, young people (males at this point, but times change. . .) to serve in the military, and perhaps even die most unpleasantly.
      At one later period in our history, The Mob elected representatives that deprived the entire country’s populace of the right to produce, distribute, sell, or imbibe alcoholic beverages, and was willing to pass laws to literally kill those who violated Prohibition. Luckily, The Mob came to its senses within a few years.
      It only requires that The Mob use the tools at hand, our Republican-system elections, to install the necessary congresspeople, senators, and presidents who can then remove any so-called ‘right’ that they choose; Once those necessary representatives are in office, they can thus write a plethora of new laws, using their ‘mandate,’ and so long as a compliant judiciary finds in their favor through careful, considered, learned and revisionist divining of the Constitution as THEY believe it to be, there is no limit to what they can do.
      The Mob gave us Obama. Have you forgotten?

      • IIRC, one of the amendments you discussed was approved by a vote of “decided on the field of battle”, not by voters.

        • No, not really.
          The Emancipation Proclamation was an arbitrary and probably UnConstitutional act by an elected President acting imperiously under his assumed war powers following the battle of Antietam (September 17th, 1862) in which Union forces achieved a quasi-victory (something that Lincoln needed very badly, so as not to appear to be acting out of desperation in freeing slaves held only in the seceding states). Before, and long after this battle, the Union was still losing virtually every fight–up until July 1863.
          The 13th Amendment was passed by the Senate in April, 1864 and the House in January, 1865 while the war was still ongoing, and not ratified until December of that year. There was no popular vote on this subject, only the exercise of the republican system once again resulting in elected officials making the change. One wonders what an actual popular vote might have concluded. . .
          What actually was decided ‘on the battlefield’ was the right of states to secede from the Union–not slavery; Lincoln often argued that he would be happy to accept the restoration of the Union WITH slavery, if that was what it would take short of war. At any point short of the ultimate victory of April 1865, if the war had been concluded with a ‘draw’ or with European intervention, slavery would still have existed until Congressional and Senate action took place to demolish it. The abolition of slavery was merely a by-product of Confederate defeat due to the power of Northern Abolitionists in government, and had there been more Northern Democrats (arch reactionaries and Southern sympathizers, by and large) slavery would’ve survived the war handily.
          Not much changes, does it?

      • They are completely incompetent to do anything about that! If you want something done badly and incompetently and with massive cost overruns have the government try to do it! Look at the unbelievable mess that Canada made of their gun registry before they just threw in the towel. On this side of the border, how good a job does the ATF do with keeping track of all those machine guns that are supposedly registered? I will give you a hint, never, ever loose your tax stamp paperwork!

        On the subject of Universal Background Checks, most of the Republicans that get asked that question think we already have them because they have heard endlessly about the NICS checks that are done by FFLs, hell for that matter, I bet a quarter of Democrats think the same thing. If instead of asking the stupid Universal Background question they asked: “Would you support requiring a father to have to do a background check on his adult daughter before giving her one of his guns for her own protection?” Only Hillary or one of Bloomberg’s ilk would say yes to that!

      • Rusty is right there. I think that this is one of those times when technology is moving a lot faster than the govt can. We are near the point where you will be able to build a durable lower receiver with off the shelf equipment and software, finishing a firearm with parts you can buy over the Internet. (I am talking the next step beyond finishing 80% complete lower receivers). Ultimately, they will figure that out, and realize that they need to also regulate the parts market, but by then, I expect that many critical parts will also be available for easy home manufacture.

      • They can make it illegal, but they can’t stop it.

        And they can’t confiscate a ‘ghost gun’ that they don’t know even exists.

  10. First, it just an assumption that we are still a Democratic Republic under A Constitution. We have a legally elected president that has illegally proclaimed himself federal dictator, but he’s still in office. Let one go, the rest will follow. I would not count on The Constitution lasting very much longer at the current rate. Where we are now took years for socialists to get too, they are stronger now than they have ever been. The coming years will be a matter of tearing down The Republic and rebuilding from whatever the personal agenda of the next president/dictator might be. Hillary has already won, we all know what she is, we know where she is going, we just don’t know how vicious she’ll be to get there.

  11. Missed the most important reason support for UBCs doesn’t matter:

    On the issues priority list, UBCs and gun control in general rank anywhere between 90 and 100 out of 100 issues total.

  12. So, ah, is your position that 100 friendly visitors from Saudi or another ally should be able to come on over on student visas, purchase rifles and standard magazines with cash, and go on about whatever business they may be about with a cheery wave?

    Or should there be a background check to confirm citizenship?

    Maybe if they pull out a printed birth certificate of some type that’s close enough ?

    • Actually, as most anyone here could tell a dim witted Hillary supporter, any Saudi who is a resident (the so called green card) can walk into any FFL, and legally purchase an AK or AR complete with a dozen or more normal capacity magazines and a case of ammo.

      Student visa, not so much…

      • I Meant to write “tourist visa” but it seems student worlds as well?

        So are you suggesting I dim witted in general but was correct in this issue, such that your point is…

        • I’m suggesting that you can neither read nor write. If you meant “student visa works” rather than what you wrote, that is contrary to what he said. A student (or tourist) visa will not allow you to buy a gun from a dealer. Only a green card holder can purchase a gun from a dealer (with a background check).

          Lurk somewhere else if you can’t make sense.

        • >> A student (or tourist) visa will not allow you to buy a gun from a dealer. Only a green card holder can purchase a gun from a dealer (with a background check).

          You’re completely wrong, and I say that as someone who purchased several dozen firearms here in US before getting his green card.

          “Non-resident aliens” can absolutely purchase guns. Now, unlike residents, they need a legitimate reason to do so, and having a hunting permit from one of the states is considered legitimate reason, among other things. You don’t actually have to hunt – just have the permit. Then you check the appropriate boxes on 4473, show that hunting license to the dealer (and they make a copy), and then you wait for a day or two because your check is guaranteed to be delayed… but once it’s through, the gun is yours.

    • It’s more useful to think in terms of what powers the government is allowed to have than it is in terms of hypothetical and implied outcomes. And, no, the gov is not allowed to do anything it wants or needs, as many extreme leftists (no idea if this includes you) believe.

      There are entire classes of actions that are prohibited for the federal gov, universal background checks for gun purchases are included, as well as restricting ownership by firearm type.

      There are plenty of illegal avenues of procurement for any saudi students that the restrictions would be aimed at. There is no justification for restricting everyone else to be found here.

  13. Ummmm… these are the “new republicans” Trump promised you. If you are a recent 2a convert like me, think back to when you came around; did YOU know a registry was illegal? Or that UBCs would necessetate one? He’s given us something to work with here; fresh minds! After straightening them out on 2a, next lesson is Austrian economics!

    • >> next lesson is Austrian economics!

      You do realize that the reason why these people are all voting Trump all of a sudden is because they want a handout? They are not opposed to government handouts per se, they just believe they all go to the wrong people (who didn’t “deserve” them) – while they’re the right hardworking people, so they should be getting all that stuff instead.

      You might as well try to preach freedom of movement to them.

  14. Only one reason needed

    The question(s) asked are to achieve the result. Therefore the whole thing is a fu<king lie, the people spreading it are FU<KING LIARS.

    • I decided (relatively recently) to pay no attention to poll results unless they include the question which was asked, verbatim. Because answering “no” to the question “do you think that children should be murdered in their first grade schoolrooms by an assault machinegun with a 30-round-spewing clipazine even before the shoulder thingie goes up?” can equate to “polls show 98% of NRA respondents support outlawing all firearms.” We know they lie, why do we pay any attention before they prove a poll is not a lie?

  15. The Gun Owners Protection Act was signed in 1986, not 1968, the same legislation that barred new machinegun ownership making 30 year old antiques worth more than your average car or house for that matter with the super rare ones.

    One of the most useless acts ever. We lost our machine guns to a law that New York, New Jersey, and Maryland routinely ignore arresting gun owners traveling through them whether by automobile or no fault of their own with a flight diverted to one of their termini. New registration schemes were passed in the 90’s with the passage of the AWB and more so after the Sandy Hook shootings. Not a peep from anyone saying they were violating FOPA with them.

    Heller did not really do anything either especially the whole “reasonable regulation” nonsense. The most subjective, open-ended phrase their can be in regard to gun rights. The states that already heavily restricted ownership said, “Okay, we see our restrictions as reasonable thus no change necessary”. Except for D.C. and Chicago by force of the Courts, the anti-gun states doubled down on gun control especially after, again, Sandy Hook. Don’t get me started with the whole “dangerous and unusual” moniker which has been applied to “assault weapons” which every court to date has upheld their bans citing the same language from Heller.

    We were played.

  16. Two words: dihydrogen monoxide.

    Or perhaps a three-word example? “End women’s suffrage.”

    Find a catchphrase, run it by a focus group of the ignorant, and pretend it’s a basis for policy. “Universal background checks” is a good one for that. They never ask “should people have to do paperwork and pay fees twenty times during an afternoon to teach their nephew to shoot at the range?”

  17. Most of the people polled are ignorant of what the actual laws are in the first place and the questions and methodology are loaded to lead to the “proper” response.

  18. I automatically discount surveys that talk about high capacity clips. Or, really much of anything that uses “clips” instead of “magazines”. If they can’t get the terminology right, then you can probably expect that it a seriously flawed survey. How many respondents realize that the Dem proposal to ban people from the no-fly list provided no due process rights to get off the list? (And that they blocked the Republican bill because it did provide for Due Process). That an unnamed bureaucrat could put you on the list accidentally, and you could never own a gun again? Or that closing the so called gun show loophole typically means a background check for any transfers, including to family and friends, and even for a minute or two. How much different would the answers to the last question (assault style weapons) be if the question were instead about modern sporting rifles, or rifles utilizing modern materials and technologies? The point is that they used deliberately misleading wording and terminology to get the answers they wanted.

  19. Here’s the Compromise the anti-gunners would accept if they simply cared about public safety.

    1. We agree to Universal Background Checks, which means strict criminal liability for a private sale that leads to a crime.
    2. They agree that *all* background checks (including at gun dealers) will no longer include ANY records kept of a purchase, and will be nothing more than a phone call or internet check to determine is a certain drivers license number is held by a prohibited person. Just like liquor purchases. No Form 4473. The system will be available to *everyone* (so you can check your babysitter, or gardener, or anyone else you can get to reveal their DL #), so that the fact of a check is not evidence of buying a gun.

    If they accept this, then they really care about background checks. If they refuse, then they plan to confiscate your guns and eventually enact tyranny and genocide.

  20. Agreed the UV

    the UB Checks are Unconstitutional but it probably will become law because the Supreme Court has never upheld anything about the Second Amendment and it is they who dictate law not the Constitution no matter what the Constitution says or means in plain English. The Supreme Court rules according to popular opinion and has done so many times in history. It looked the other way when 100,000 innocent Japanese Americans were put in U.S. Concentration Camps in WWII losing their businesses and homes and jobs. It looked the other way when there were laws that prevented interracial marriage. It looked the other way when there were laws that prevented minorities from voting, or eating in Whites only restaurants, or drinking from Whites only drinking fountains just to name a few. The Supreme Court is corrupt, disingenuous, obscene and a complete joke when it comes to Constitutional rights.

    The California Courts this year ruled that concealed carry was not a right because it threatened them and their henchmen and “The Ruing Elite”. It then with a straight face refused to rule on “open carry” letting prior laws stand and it therefore made an end run around the Second Amendment totally destroying it. The Supreme Court this year ruled that the modern gun bans after the Sandy Hook Massacre were Constitutional and that States could ban any and all weapons at will, again completely trashing the 2nd Amendment.

    So please do not quote your Constitutional rights, you have none and never did. You only have the rights the dictatorial Supreme Court grants you after you crawl across the floor on your face and lick the dirt from their boots.

  21. I’d trade universal background checks and even licensing for a repeal of nfa. Hell I’d probably vote most of my gun rights away and live as a felon with an ar buried under the floor boards if I thought we could get a significantly better president than Hilary or Donald.

    • Great, so long as you remember that if you make that trade, you will *get* UBC and very restrictive licensing, lose most of your gun rights, without any effect on NFA and still leaving you with Hillary or Donald. That is how such “compromises” have ALWAYS worked with such people.

  22. Only slaves ask permission to their masters to bear arms. Turns the right into a franted privilage. We dine fine without background checks for years. It also violates our 4th amedment rights too.

  23. All stripper clips should hold 10 rounds or less; if you need to load a 30 rd magazine, you’ll need at least 3 stripper clips to do it!

  24. “Trump supporters who approve of “universal background checks” don’t understand the implications.”

    As we learned from Obamacare, once the vote is in, screw what you understood or didn’t understand before you cast the vote, you’re stuck with it.

Leave a Reply

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