Our bipartisan gang-rape Senators are trying to force a vote next week on the proposed package of new rights infringements despite the troubling fact that there is still no actual Senate bill filed.
I guess we have to pass it so we can see what’s in it.
But that lack of information isn’t stopping pollsters trying to claim support for the “bill.” Republican pollster Neil Newhouse alleges that 84% of gun-owning Americans support the imaginary-to-date legislation.
Oh, really? Let’s take a look at that poll. I see a few problems.
To start, they only polled those stupid enough to admit to a random, anonymous caller that they have at least one firearm in the home. But it’s much worse than that.
Respondents in the telephone portion of this survey were called from a national list of registered voters, and respondents in the online portion were drawn from a national panel of registered voters.
The caller might be anonymous, but anyone foolish enough to participate wasn’t. They started with a list of names and phone numbers of specific identified voters. Participants just told strangers who can match their “Yes, I have portable valuables in the house” answers to names and physical addresses.
Gee, what else did the pollsters ask about?
Do you have a large screen television?
Do you own easily pawned jewelry?
Do you own a nice laptop computer?
What time do you leave your home for the day?
So now we’ve limited that 84% to a pool of gullible fools.
As always in these things, the polling questions are a mess.
A mandatory waiting period on all purchases of semi-automatic guns, like the AR-15, by people under 21, so that everyone who purchases a semi-automatic gun must wait a certain number of days before taking the gun home.
That wording is going to mislead known fools into thinking that’s only a waiting period for AR-pattern firearm purchases. As best I can tell from press releases — lacking an actual bill to review — that it would apply to all centerfire semi-automatic firearms.
Then they could ask what other Constitutionally [used to be] protected rights they think should be restricted to those over 21.
Should the exercise of free speech be limited to those over 21?
Should voting be limited to those over 21?
Should the right to a trial and jury of your peers to be limited to those over 21?
Moving on…
Requiring background checks on all gun sales, including between strangers at gun shows and online. Gun sales between family, friends and hunters would be exempted from background checks.
Nothing I’ve see suggests any exemption for friends and hunters is in the deal. But even if they were exempted, I’d much rather see the question phrased differently. “Requiring background checks on all gun sales, including between strangers at gun shows and online. The check would require seller and buyer to travel to a licensed firearm dealer, and complete a form 4473 giving the ATF your name, address, gender, birth date, and race, creating a permanent searchable record of your purchase. During the waiting period, the dealer would take physical possession of the firearm. After the waiting period is complete, only then would you return to the dealer to obtain the property for which you already paid. Oh, and you have to pay extra for this dubious privilege.”
Next.
Increased funding for states to implement and strengthen so called “red flag” laws, which gives family or law enforcement a way to petition a judge to temporarily remove guns from someone who is exhibiting violent or unstable behavior.
Nope. Current law already allows that. What “red flag” laws do is expand the pool of people who can request removal, and — wait for it — do so without giving the accused a hearing — and the opportunity to face his accuser — before the taking.
I’d ask that: “Increased funding for states to implement and strengthen so called “red flag” laws, which violate federal law on due process, and the TRUAX Supreme Court ruling, to ensure that gun owners do not get a court hearing before their property is stolen.”
And the return of the “boyfriend loophole.
Prohibiting any person from purchasing or owning firearms who has been convicted of domestic violence against their boyfriend, girlfriend, spouse or significant other.
Perpetuating the lie. As phrased, that is already what the Lautenberg Amendment did decades ago. This new bit slips in the alleged “boyfriend loophole;” what closing that loophole really does is to expand the definition of boy/girlfriend from a significant romantic relationship to he picked me up in a bar for a one night stand thirty years ago. I’d probably mention that this specifically includes minor misdemeanor offenses, not just felonies.
The remaining questions pertain to school security, notably armed guards.
Support increased funding for public schools to have armed security guards on school property.
Aside from the curious omission of private school security, I’d suggest that’s insufficient. Given the notable lack of police action at Columbine, Parkland, and Uvalde, they should slide in some penalties for cops who don’t do anything but treat the event like a unscheduled coffee break.
Ah, well. I’m just dreaming. Short of winning lottery jackpot, and commissioning my own national polls, we will never see an honest victim disarmament poll.
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, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options) |
