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.
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.
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.
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.
If you have a wife, a girlfriend, and a roommate involved in a armed situation, a felony is the least of your problems. 🙂
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”?
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.
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.
Indeed. That dihydrogen monoxide is some very powerful shit. And don’t get me started on those poor suffering women.
Dihydrogen monoxide is fatal in nearly 100% of cases when inhaled. Prolonged exposure is provably fatal in 100% of cases.
Ignorance is strength.
one hundred million children are killed by bats every second
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
Dihydrogen Monoxide is responsible for the destruction of billions of dollars of our country’s infrastructure each year.
The molecule is a small V; properly, it’s hydrogen hydroxide.
100 percent fail to see what the real purpose of gathering such information is, and it ain’t addressing crazies or determined criminals.
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.
Since we’re dispelling ignorance here…that’s a CHERRY pie 😛
Well what does “universal background checks” really mean?
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.
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.
That’s the whole point.
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.
If you have a wife, a girlfriend, and a roommate involved in a armed situation, a felony is the least of your problems. 🙂
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”?
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.