Turns out there is such a thing as a stupid question.
(CNN) – The chief of a powerful gun owners group said Wednesday he doesn't trust the methodology of polls showing an overwhelming number of Americans favoring universal background checks on gun sales.
Nearly every national survey released over the past several months has shown a large percentage of Americans support increased background checks. The latest, a CNN/ORC International poll released Wednesday, showed 86% of those questioned favoring some form of background checks that are not currently required by law for gun sales.
The CNN survey, along with the previous polls, found no real partisan divide, with very strong support for the checks from Democrats, Republicans, and independents.
Those figures, however, weren't enough to convince Pratt.
"Your polls are hokum," he said, explaining that polls of gun owners groups, like Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association, show only small support for increasing background checks. Gun Owners of America has 300,000 due-paying members, per its website, while the larger National Rifle Association has 5 million. Both reflect a small percentage when compared to the overall population.
"When you ask the people involved, maybe we have a reason to suspect how these polls are put together," Pratt said.
At the core of his opposition was the potential for the federal government to keep a registry of gun owners, which he declared unconstitutional.
"The background check is national gun registration," he said. "And all that's on the table right now is to make that more comprehensive gun registration scheme than we've already had."
Sen. Pat Toomey, the Pennsylvania Republican who played a key role in negotiating a deal on expanding background checks, will receive backlash from gun groups, Pratt argued.
"He ought to be held politically accountable, and the way to do that is in the primaries," he said, adding his group was "looking for a viable candidate."
Toomey is up for re-election in 2016.
First, a disclaimer.
I concede the point that this, and, for that matter, any, online essay that uses both the words gun and control assumes that a sizeable section of the readership will drop out and move on to Nick Searcy's Facebook page just as soon as the aforementioned words are linked together.
To those who take pride in their inclusion in that demo, thanks for stopping by. And please give my best to Nick.
Meanwhile, Mr. Pratt's observation piqued my interest...
"I'm not sure I believe any polls at this time. I don't think they know how to ask the right questions," .
Okay, here's a question.
If I accept the premise that a background check is tantamount to a national gun registration (and, for the moment, I'm only accepting that premise for the sake of this piece, not necessarily because I agree with what I am also thinking might be a little Chicken Littling on Pratt's part), then, what possible reason could I have for objecting to my name appearing on such a list?
My name appears on lots of government registration "lists" of things that I possess and/or own.
My car, first and most obviously.
My house.
The list, like the beat, goes on.
Every time I read the kind of assertion that Mr. Pratt is prattling here, I get the suspicion that, once again, there's a message hidden in the spoken message and it goes a little something like this:
SPOKEN..."We object to a national gun registration list because it is an infringement on our individual rights...(HIDDEN... we object to the government knowing how many guns we have and where we keep them because we are convinced that the government is gearing up to come to our house in the dead of night, confiscate every single one of our weapons, including, but not limited to the AK-47 and AR-15 that we feel fundamentally necessary for our rabbit hunting needs and drive away into the darkness, leaving us defenseless against the homicidal maniacs who have free access to whatever weapons they need and/or want as they have no regard for laws or simple sanity for that matter").
First of all...puh-leeze.
That kind of psuedo survivalist paranoia deserves its own three page spread in the next edition of the DSM-IV.
And that kind of paranoia accomplishes nothing but spreading the fear it breeds.
Fear which breeds ignorance which breeds more fear which breeds more paranoia.
And the wheel on the short bus goes round and round.
Not to mention discrediting any real, reasonable and/or sensical contributions passionate gun advocates might be trying to add to the conversation.
But, I digress.
My original question has to do with Mr. Pratt's original perspective on questions.
And, tell you what, Lar.....let's make a deal.
I'll accept your premise that background checks constitute a national registration list, if you'll accept my premise that the mere existence of a list poses no threat to anyone's right to bear arms.
Agreed?
Okay, then, please answer my question.
What possible problem would I have with it being public knowledge that I own guns?
Seems to me that if, as you fun, zany zealots rant rhetorically, the primary purpose of said ownership is assuring my ability to secure family and possessions, then I'd want as many people as possible to know that I'm packin.
And yard signs and door stickers are all well and good, but when it comes to getting the word out, nothing beats a big ol' nationally available list.
Unless, of course, you need to be unlisted.
Which just sort of automatically, if unfairly, makes people suspicious that you have something to hide.
Hmm.
Do you, Larry?
How's that for "the right kind of question"?
No comments:
Post a Comment