Incendiary Image of the Day: Universal Background Checks Edition by Robert Farago | Mar 30, 2013 | 19 comments facebook twitter linkedin email [h/t DrVino] comments DaveL says: March 30, 2013 at 10:02 Any time you see a poll showing clear support for some technical concept outside the regular experience of most people, remember that “ending women’s suffrage” and “banning dihydrogen monoxide” also tend to poll quite well. Reply Chuck in IL says: March 30, 2013 at 10:07 Indeed. That dihydrogen monoxide is some very powerful shit. And don’t get me started on those poor suffering women. Reply Matt in FL says: March 30, 2013 at 10:14 Dihydrogen monoxide is fatal in nearly 100% of cases when inhaled. Prolonged exposure is provably fatal in 100% of cases. Reply Greg in Allston says: March 30, 2013 at 10:21 Ignorance is strength. Reply Jake says: March 31, 2013 at 13:31 one hundred million children are killed by bats every second Reply WebPawn says: March 30, 2013 at 10:21 Dihydrogen Monoxide kills ten people a day! Yet there is no effort to ban or control this obviously sinister substance. For the children! http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html Reply John Fritz says: March 30, 2013 at 11:01 Dihydrogen Monoxide is responsible for the destruction of billions of dollars of our country’s infrastructure each year. Reply Russ Bixby says: March 31, 2013 at 19:15 The molecule is a small V; properly, it’s hydrogen hydroxide. Reply GS650G says: March 30, 2013 at 10:26 100 percent fail to see what the real purpose of gathering such information is, and it ain’t addressing crazies or determined criminals. Reply Pantera Vazquez says: March 30, 2013 at 10:35 Polls-they don’t mean squat. so you pick 100 people, 500 people, give them a question, with the ramifications of the response included and the response will likely be different. Question- do you support background checks which would indicate criminal history of potential purchaser, and keep these folks from guns?-Oh heck yes. Now rephrase the question-Do you support universal background checks where the government would keep records potentially providing a list for confiscation?-oh hell no. Now either one of these questions can then be presented in the press as-Do you support background checks for gun purchases? The reader of the the report is none the wiser as to how those polled were manipulated. Reply daveR says: March 30, 2013 at 10:57 Since we’re dispelling ignorance here…that’s a CHERRY pie 😛 Reply gabba says: March 30, 2013 at 12:14 Well what does “universal background checks” really mean? Reply Accur81 says: March 30, 2013 at 12:32 The complete elimination of any and all private firearms sales, and therefore the elimination of any “grandfathered” firearm from being inherited by any surviving family member. Each and every firearm transaction whatsoever would involve taxes, fees, paperwork, and records in order to be legal. Gun grabbers want this, and they want it badly. Reply m11_9 says: March 30, 2013 at 13:42 transaction or transfer can be about any firearm movement from one hand to the other. It will be damn easy to get a felony in a few states soon. Reply Accur81 says: March 30, 2013 at 15:28 That’s the whole point. Bill in IL says: March 30, 2013 at 16:03 Some of the more radical antis have proposed the registration will be individual. Meaning once you transfer a firearm, it is yours and only yours. Meaning I can’t let you borrow my .338 win mag for that once in a lifetime Alaska bear hunt. My friend with a 9mm can’t try out my .40 S&W at the range. If my wife and I had a matched set of 1911’s, if one of us accidentally picking up the wrong serial number pistol out of the case at the range, we would be guilty of a felony. If I was on a business trip and my wife, girlfriend, room mate tried to defend against a home invasion with one of my firearms, they would be arrested. m11_9 says: March 31, 2013 at 19:12 If you have a wife, a girlfriend, and a roommate involved in a armed situation, a felony is the least of your problems. 🙂 Yellow Devil says: April 1, 2013 at 17:15 I don’t get it. Is the ad saying that 92 plus an additional 3 more percent do not know even know what they “support”? Reply Scott says: April 7, 2013 at 03:40 Not exactly. It is saying that 95% of 100% of the people who answered this question do not know what this means. 95% of the 92% of people who said they support universal background checks don’t know what this means and 95% of the 8% who are against universal background checks don’t know what this means. The point is that the details of the subject are not commonly known. Reply Write a Comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.