Don't Believe Them!

To anyone who has been a gun-owner for any length of time, there are two memes that are repeated ad-nauseum by people who would seek to curtail the expression of your 2nd Amendment right:

  1. "We don't want to TAKE your guns."

  2. "We just want common sense regulations."

Corollary to these two claims is this one: "70% of NRA members agree that we need universal background checks". I want to dismiss this last one right up front. That claim was never made by the NRA. The NRA NEVER CONDUCTED ANY SUCH POLL!!! It is based on a fake poll published by then New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the biggest enemies of the 2nd Amendment in the country, and arguably a person who disregards much of the rest of the Constitution as well. That "poll" was really a repeat of numbers obtained from a small sampling polled by Frank Lunz, a repubican pollster (and just one reason why the reader should disabuse him or herself of the notion that the republican party is, by default, conservative....it's not), which he performed for Michael Bloomberg's group MAIG (Mayors Against Illegal Guns). A significant number of MAIG's member mayors quit the group after discoving its extremist anti-gun bias, and a significant number of the remainder have themselves been indicted and convicted of various financial and drug crimes..... so read on with anticipation, and a lump of salt for MAIG's claims...

For some truth about this poll, read THIS LINK, but here is the relevant quote from it: 

As noted in a January 2013 fact check by our colleagues in Washington, Republican pollster Frank Luntz’s organization, Luntz Global, conducted a May 2012 poll of 945 gun owners nationwidehalf of whom were gun owners who were "current or lapsed" members of the National Rifle Association and half of whom were non-NRA gun owners. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.  [all emphasis mine...]

Let's unpack this for just a minute.... A republican pollster, known to be a "moderate" (the liberal mainstream media's code word for a repubican the liberal media approve of), does a survey of 945 gun owners, FOR an organization that is seeking to ban private ownership of anything except perhaps a revolver. Per Wikipedia, there are approximately 112.6 guns for every 100 residents of the United States in 2014 (SOURCE) with a population at time of this writing of 318,892,103 (SOURCE), with 45-53 million households having guns (SOURCE), in a nation of 117.5 million households (SOURCE)..... and Frank Lunz wants us to believe that a sample of 0.000296338477% of the population is representative enough to draw national policy conclusions of major significance. That's right.... 2.96 ten-thousanths of the population.... and on that sample, we're proposing to curtail a constitutional right even further. That's such an arbitrary statistic that it is little different from deciding national policy based on whether or not a single wino in Prague has the clap. But for a moment, let's limit this to strictly what NRA members think. NRA has 5 million members as of May 2013 (SOURCE). That sampling of 945 would equal 0.0189% of the membership.....hardly representative, even if all 945 respondents were NRA members.....but they're NOT!

According to Frank Lunz, half of this sampling of 945 people—473—were either current OR lapsed NRA members. Now, can we just cut the crap? If you have NOT kept your NRA membership current....for whatever reason....you do NOT speak for the NRA. Your opinions are no longer representative of NRA. And for any journalist or pollster to begin with the premise that such a person does speak for NRA is a blatant exercise in intellectual dishonesty. It's like if you had quit the republican party (like I did)....you can continue to express opinions about the party (I do); you can continue to offer what you think the party should do (I do); but if you're no longer a member, you CAN'T claim to speak on behalf of the party (I don't). But let's be generous and say that all 473 current and lapsed members are representative of NRA..... remember that 2.96 ten-thousandths of the population who represent 0.0189% of the NRA? It's now 1.48 ten-thousandths of the population, and only 0.00945% of NRA membership (because the other half of the 945 never were NRA members) who supposedly "represent" how NRA members think. You can get much better odds than that in Vegas any day of the week, in a town where the house always holds the advantage.

Apparently, in addition to hating guns, gun-grabbers must hate math. They must be products of a Common Core education.

For the NRA's official position on "universal background checks", click HERE. When one examines how the question about universal background checks was asked in Lunz's poll, you can plainly see how the respondents were steered into the results desired. The explanation can be found  HERE.

"The question was whether they would support "A proposal requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns."

People could easily have assumed that "all sellers" meant licensed dealers at gun shows. Clearly, that question is not about "universal background checks.""

Whenever a pollster becomes honest enough to ask the question correctly, we'll get an honest sampling. In the meantime, DON'T BELIEVE THEM.

 Vote in our Poll: Universal Background Checks

Vote in our Poll: Gunshow Loopholes

 

PrintEmail

1000 Characters left