Dispelling the 90% Canard

Since when do 90% of Americans agree on anything?  Yet somehow, a push poll stat has wormed its way into the debate over firearms.

The problem with polls are that you can force a desired outcome from them. And both sides of any debate are capable doing such a thing.

However, this particular CBS News/New York Times Poll has garnered attention because it has been oft repeated by the President and many others trying limit our 2nd Amendment rights.

So, what did this poll consist of? The only question asked of 1110 adults nationwide was:

Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?

That’s it. No nuance; just an answer in search of a question.

So, for the record, we do have the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. It was signed into law over 19 years ago. It “requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before a firearm may be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer…”  It also established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (aka NICS).

The only exception to this federal rule is private sales of firearms. That is, if I wanted to sell my privately, legally owned firearm to anyone else legally elligible to own a firearm. If I suspect or know that someone cannot legally posess one (like my neighbor with multiple felonies), I am prohibited from selling it to them.  If unlawful activity were to occur as a result of that individual obtaining that firearm, it would inevitably point back to me, and I would face federal charges. Some states, themselves, prohibit private sales without background checks.

I think its safe to assume that the majority of Americans gun owners are responsible, and feel their government should trust their discression when it comes to private sales.  Or, perhaps they don’t desire to pay a premium for a brand-new firearm from a dealer. So, they seek out folks they know in their community, or someone they can establish trust with, to purchase the type/make/model of firearm the desire for less than they’d pay at a formal dealer.  And, again, the majority of Americans feel they should be treated as adults to make these decisions.

To that end, what the poll DIDN’T ask was…

 “Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all sales, including private sales of guns (aka private property) ?”

I think we would be seeing some different results with this improved wording. So, I think we can speculate that the pollsters in question knew that such a phrasing would not obtain them the results they wanted.  I mean, hell, I’d have a difficult time saying “no”… though in the back of my mind I would immediately question, “do they mean private sales, as well?”

Follow-up questions, encapsulating the consequences of such action, would have shaped a different outcome, as well. Questions about filling out a 4473 or other FFL-type paperwork and paying a small ransom just to file and verify said information through NICS. These are the kinds of things that most folks oppose.

If there was a way to check, leave zero paper-trail/footprints, and cap costs to what the transaction of information actually costs (few dollars at best), I think you might find more support.  However, you’d have to do something to overcome the current level of distrust you, the politicians, this tact has exacerbated.

Worse, though, was the language of the Machin-Toomey bill. I’ll let Professor Volokh explain.  For TL;DR types…

The result of the disparity is “pro-gun” provisions which are actually very strong anti-gun provisions: The supposed ban on federal firearms registration authorizes federal gun registration. The supposed strengthening of FOPA’s interstate transportation protection exempts two of the worst states (the reason why FOPA was needed in the first place), and provides any easy path for every other abusive state to make FOPA inapplicable.

Anyway, folks ought to stop throwing this figure around. It’s not remotely representative, the response was decidedly shaped by the question, and as a result, when many hear it mentioned, they tune out.  It’s a subtle way of saying, “I’m not prepared to work with you on our rights”.

I am broken…

for Newtown. Good God…

Police reported that 27 people, including 20 children and six adults were killed in Newtown, Ct., after a lone gunman opened fire during the school day Friday, NBC News reported. The gunman died at the scene.

Updated [12/15]: Information is coming fast and furious. Not everthing seems to be correct (i.e. the monster killed his own mother at their home); looks like the nutter may have used an AR-pattern rifle

Orr reports that authorities found two guns on the gunman’s body, a Glock 9 mm pistol and a Sig Sauer pistol. A Bushmaster assault rifle was found in the vehicle, Orr reports.

Meanwhile, a law enforcement official says authorities found more guns inside the school than the initial two that had been reported. The official would not say what type of guns were found but says all the weapons were being traced by state and federal authorities. The official was not authorized to speak to reporters about the investigation and spoke only on condition of anonymity.

A law enforcement source told CBS News’ Pat Milton that casings (spent shells) from a .223 semi automatic rifle were found inside the school.

I’m sure we’ll know more once the flood of speculation slows.
In the meantime, please pray for this community.

Steyn on Fluke

Thank you, Mark, for putting things in perspective

“No, the most basic issue here is not religious morality, individual liberty, or fiscal responsibility. It’s that a society in which middle-aged children of privilege testify before the most powerful figures in the land to demand state-enforced funding for their sex lives at a time when their government owes more money than anyone has ever owed in the history of the planet is quite simply nuts.”

In fact, there’s nothing that screams, ‘setup’ like the faux-hearing that Pelosi created to hear this “testimony” of hers in the first place, followed by her her interview on The View, insisting that the likes of Media Matters for America is a spectacular, unbiased source.  That’s just insulting.

Further, that she crys that she is being shut out by Rush Limbaugh. Being on all the talk shows she’s been on, I guess that irony is lost on her. Even more suspect is the personal phone call she received from the President.

And the curiosity continues now that she is being represented by SKDKnickerbocker, who has among its Washington Managing Directors, former Obama White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn.  You remember her and the ‘flag@whitehouse.gov’ snitch line, Attackwatch, her regular meetings with former Media Matters president Eric Burns, etc.

But Media Matters insists that’s all hogwash, and it may well be… after all, embedded plays are perfectly ok for Democrats. They’re only cardinals sins for everyone else… it’s all about intentions, after all (and the great pavement that they make on the road to hell).

Mark’s close says it best.

Almost every matter of the moment boils down to the same story: The Left’s urge to narrow the bounds of public discourse and insist that “conventional wisdom” unknown to the world the day before yesterday is now as unquestionable as the laws of physics.

Unbiased journalists conspired to quash stories on Jeremiah Wright

From the Daily Caller — the JournoList listserv strikes again… read it all:

It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself.

The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos.  Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”

Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists.

According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

But it was [Spencer] Ackerman [of the Washington Independent] who had the last word. “Kevin [Drum — then of Washington Monthly], I’m not saying OBAMA should do this. I’m saying WE should do this.”

Pathetic, outrageous, but I’m not all that surprised.

And the defense of the indefensible continues to this day.

Defending the Indefensible

I enjoy reading Mediaite occasionally, but they have a few, blindly-democrat-water-carrying columnists there.  Take Colby Hall’s latest column for instance

Congressman Loses Cool To Students With A Flip Cam, But Comes Out The Hero?

No he’s not a hero. He’s a jerk. But…as is always the case, there is more to the story.

The democratization of communications technology is generally lauded as a great advancement for civilization. But during a time of heated partisan divide — caused, in part, by a Balkanizing landscape of opinion media — well, one wonders if we really want an army of aggressive college kids accosting public servants until someone eventually loses their cool.

Etheridge’s actions are only partially defensible. He need not have gotten physical with the students who asked him the provocative question regarding his support of the “Obama Agenda”

The YouTube video is published under an account titled TonyManization, and even more damning is that the faces of the individuals asking the Congressman questions are blurred out.

Which brings us back to Etheridge’s response. Yeah – he comes off as a jerk, but…when in Rome.

Good Lord, Colby. The Congressman’s actions, regardless of affiliation, are indefensible.  Yet, that these citizens dared ask him, a Democrat, a question, it is deemed, “provocative,” that they blurred out their own faces is, “damning,” and Etheridge’s actions are, by your reason of deduction, “partially defensible.”

Incidentally, here is the video in question — hopefully YouTube doesn’t go gutless and try to remove it as they often do when Democrats are the target of any questioning or scorn:

Mediaite: chain up your little lapdog/part-time sockpuppet and find someone else to do some real analysis.  I understand that you generally lean “left,” but I’d recommend not leaning too far “idiot.”

UPDATE: Congressman apologizes

This came out about an hour ago… which contains the Congressman’s official statement:

Washington, DC, Jun 14 – U.S. Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-Lillington) released the following statement on the viral video which appeared on the internet today:

“I have seen the video posted on several blogs. I deeply and profoundly regret my reaction and I apologize to all involved. Throughout my many years of service to the people of North Carolina, I have always tried to treat people from all viewpoints with respect. No matter how intrusive and partisan our politics can become, this does not justify a poor response. I have and I will always work to promote a civil public discourse.”

Good on you Congressman; just keep it in your pants next time.

Contessa Brewer disappointed NYC bomber not with TEA Party

Brian Maloney has an audio snapshot of Contessa Brewer (MSNBC) as a guest on the Stephanie Miller show:

Transcript:

CONTESSA BREWER (7:06): I mean the thing is is that and I get frustrated and there was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country because there are a lot of people who want to use this terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry.
And so there was part of me was really hoping this would not be the case that here would be somebody who is not the defined. I mean he’s accused he’s arrested you know I don’t want to convict him before it’s time to do so. He’s the guy authorities say is involved. But that being said I mean we know even in recent history you have the Haitari(sic) militia from Michigan who have plans to let’s face it create terror.
That’s what they were planning to do and they were doing so from far different backgrounds then what this guy is coming from. So, the threat is not just coming from people who decide that America is the place to be and you know come here and want to become citizens. Obviously this guy did.
Sorry to disappoint, Contessa, and glad you feel you can so easily convict other groups (Hutaree militia) who have done nothing.  Not to defend a fringe, non-representative element like them here, just pointing out the irony.  Your reaction was predictable, but the public running of your mouth was a pleasant surprise.  Thanks, Love!