Yet another Pew survey. In some respects, you could see this one as a little optimistic on the individual rights front.

At first glance. It purports to show that “gun policy” is a low priority for Americans. But not so fast.

As usual, I have a problem with Pew’s methodology.

When interviewers reach someone on a landline phone, they randomly ask half the sample if they could speak with “the youngest male, 18 years of age or older, who is now at home” and the other half of the sample to speak with “the youngest female, 18 years of age or older, who is now at home.” If there is no eligible person of the requested gender currently at home, interviewers ask to speak with the youngest adult of the opposite gender, who is now at home.

I’ve addressed this plenty of times; it is biased by design to unrepresentively sample younger — more likely left-leaning — potential voters. The only time that sampling method is acceptable is when the purpose of the poll is to gain the views of that specific demographic. Pew weasels their way around that bias by claiming

This method of selecting respondents within each household improves participation among young people who are often more difficult to interview than older people because of their lifestyles.

BS. Their selection of 25% landline and 75% cell phone already biases the poll away from older folks, who are more likely to use landlines. By piling the youth selection on top of low landline sampling, they guarantee that there will be a pronounced youth bias.

But another bias shows up in the questions, which should surprise no one who does more than accept a media report about a poll.

Now, I’d like to ask you about priorities for President Trump and Congress this year. As I read from a list, tell me if you think each should be a top priority, important but lower priority, not too important or should it not be done. (First,) should be a top priority, important but lower priority, not too important, or should it not be done? What about.[INSERT ITEM]?: should this be a top priority, important but lower priority, not too important, or should it not be done?]

Note the how the issues are framed in the questions.

• Strengthening the nation’s economy
• Taking steps to make the Social Security system financially sound
• Dealing with the problems of poor and needy people
• Strengthening the U.S. military

Not merely “the economy,” but “strengthening” it. “Strengthening” the military. But when we get to firearms…

• Dealing with gun policy

Just “dealing;” not “make it more restrictive,” or “make it less restrictive. From the party breakdown, I think we can see that “gun policy” now only means “restrictive.”

• Republicans: 25%, a minority, consider it important.
• Democrats: 66%, a majority, consider it important.

Thanks to the leftstream media and whoring pollsters, the only “gun policy” that can be considered by right-thinking people is more victim disarmament. Respecting constitutionally “protected” rights is wrong-think now; and everyone knows it.

Now is the time to reclaim “gun policy” from the violence-enabling victim disarmers. “Gun policy” is how best to protect human rights… to defend ourselves, our families, our communities. “Gun policy” must be about deterring criminals misusing firearms to commit crimes, and punishing them appropriately when they do. The only acceptable “compromise” in “gun policy” is picking the most appropriate methods of doing that. Compromise certainly is not give and take between victim disarmers on how extensively they violate the human rights of innocents in this round of abusive proposals.

When victim disarmers start throwing around “gun policy,” “commonsense gun laws,” and “gun safety,” demand they tell the truth for freaking once in their shabby, pitiful lives. Demand they explain why they take firearms from the innocent, while at the same time make it harder to prosecute real crimes, and block tougher penalties for criminal use of a gun. And the felons who somehow get punished? Democrats want the criminals’ rights restored before they even complete their sentences.

I repeat: Gun policy is protecting the rights of the innocent, and it is important.

Protecting known criminals while attacking the innocent is violence-enabling victim disarmament, and it must end.

---

Added: I meant to mention the Firearms Policy Coalition, because:

“‘Gun policy’ is how best to protect human rights… to defend ourselves, our families, our communities.” We agree. That’s why we chose @gunpolicy for our username.
— FPC
“FPC is YOUR team fighting for YOUR individual liberty. #1A #2A #14A “

FPC is an excellent example of taking it back. And note their emphasis on more rights than only the Second Amendment.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal. (More Tip Jar Options)