How many gun owners support 'Universal Background Checks?'

I thought it was supposed to be, like, 90% or something. Well, this perfectly unscientific poll seems to suggest otherwise, by a landslide. Moreover, by another landslide, most support loosening current restrictions.

http://gunssavelives.net/polls/poll-as-a-gun-owner-do-you-support-universal-background-checks/

Again, perfectly unscientific, but, still interesting to me that there would be such a large margin.

All polls are taken with a desired result, many factors of all polls can be manipulated to obtain that result.

I considered that but also consider that the poll questions are directed specifically at gun owners. So, gun oriented websites are likely a decently correct venue, though I would concede that some gun owners may not frequent a site focused on gun rights, especially if they somehow support increased gun control. I don't know that much about the website in question.

I just figured that there would have at least been a little more even distribution. Usually I see polls like this not because I frequent the website hosting the poll but because someone has shared the poll on another website, and antis do it just as much. So, I would have expected a group of gun control advocating gun owners to distribute the link through their ranks to try and bolster the support for ubc but that doesn't seem to have happened.

I don't support ANY background check. They just make it harder for the law-abiding to buy a gun. They don't accomplish anything to keep guns out of the hands of those who will use them for evil purposes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

I don't support ANY background check. They just make it harder for the law-abiding to buy a gun. They don't accomplish anything to keep guns out of the hands of those who will use them for evil purposes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

Another point of agreement. +1

But he supports banning segments of society from their right, and that leads to those very same background checks.

WalkingWolf said:

But he supports banning segments of society from their right, and that leads to those very same background checks.

Click to expand...

What segment?

Daylen said:

What segment?

Click to expand...

Odd that you would bring that up when you spend so much time cheering for him. Don't you think it would be wise to actually have read his posts?

In the thread you stuck your nose in he made it clear he supports disabilities for illegal and legal aliens to firearm ownership. He has also argued the state has the authority to put disabilities to rights on felons. THE VERY PURPOSE OF THOSE BACKGROUND CHECKS, he claims he is against.

There are no federal disabilities to purchase and possession of antique firearms, and there are no federal background checks to purchase them. The disabilities he supports clearly leads to those checks, and in that he is not honest, or very ignorant. You pick.

You have been a member for 3 years, and you have no idea of what each member supports or does not. It seems you are just trying to be relevant by leaping on the coattails of another member. IMO you have picked the wrong member, or you should at least do some research.

Daylen said:

What segment?

Click to expand...

meh. If he asks a legitimate question or makes a legitimate comment about what I write, I will address it. His posts, as they stand now, warrant no answer from me.

Folks, if you want to know what I think, ask me, and I will tell you. If WW has a question or a comment, all he need do is post it like an adult, and I will respond on topic.

Moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

The ****** still cannot answer honestly for his remarks. The fact is he supports the very disabilities that the background checks are supposedly for. Without those disabilities the background check is worthless. He wants you to believe he is against them to save face, but in truth he is for those disabilities and their enforcement.

WalkingWolf said:

Odd that you would bring that up when you spend so much time cheering for him. Don't you think it would be wise to actually have read his posts?

In the thread you stuck your nose in he made it clear he supports disabilities for illegal and legal aliens to firearm ownership. He has also argued the state has the authority to put disabilities to rights on felons. THE VERY PURPOSE OF THOSE BACKGROUND CHECKS, he claims he is against.

There are no federal disabilities to purchase and possession of antique firearms, and there are no federal background checks to purchase them. The disabilities he supports clearly leads to those checks, and in that he is not honest, or very ignorant. You pick.

You have been a member for 3 years, and you have no idea of what each member supports or does not. It seems you are just trying to be relevant by leaping on the coattails of another member. IMO you have picked the wrong member, or you should at least do some research.

Click to expand...

Illegal aliens are not a segment of society, they are criminals at best invaders at worst.None of those lead to background checks, what leads to background checks is the federal government wanting to stick its nose into everything.

I'm not leaping on anyone's coattails, or picking sides or any other sort of drama. I don't know anyone's positions on here other than in fairly vague terms because I don't care. Such is irrelevant.

eye95 said:

If you wish me to engage you on-topic, please make rational adult posts. If you continue to choose not to do so, I will simply call you on it, reserving on-topic replies for the many posters here who do make rational adult posts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

Like who? What thread doesn't degrade to this? It's like a broken record. Is it impossible for OCDO to have a lighthearted, friendly laugh at a super one-sided poll without having 2 pages of calling people asses and saying we'll move on but not actually doing it?

stealthyeliminator said:

Like who? What thread doesn't degrade to this? It's like a broken record. Is it impossible for OCDO to have a lighthearted, friendly laugh at a super one-sided poll without having 2 pages of calling people asses and saying we'll move on but not actually doing it?

Click to expand...

LOL! Sorry for my part in it, but I can't stand bullies who think they can bully ON THE INTERNET, others into submission. Yes I have been poking the bully with a stick, he must not get it, I am glad that some of you understand how silly this whole thing is.

I keep waiting for the Mods to step in and put a stop to it, hoping is more the word. God knows "somebody" is probably punching the poo poo out of that triangle.

When they do step in I hope they for once make it clear what the quote function is for, and that anybody that calls people a ass has no business whining about being insulted.

Ooops I see the mods did finally step in, hopefully we can all get back on track.

Daylen said:

Illegal aliens are not a segment of society, they are criminals at best invaders at worst.None of those lead to background checks, what leads to background checks is the federal government wanting to stick its nose into everything.

I'm not leaping on anyone's coattails, or picking sides or any other sort of drama. I don't know anyone's positions on here other than in fairly vague terms because I don't care. Such is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Rights are God given not government and has nothing to do with borders. Privileges are a different story, and rights are not and never will be privileges even though some fools pass laws to turn them into privileges. It is not constitutional to bar a "criminal" from self defense or the tools, and grant privileges to subjects that are willing to kiss the statists ass.

So when did God give us the right to have firearms? When they were invented? Why didn't he give them sooner? Why didn't cave men have them?

As far as the poll goes.... listen it's a PRO GUN website. As you can see from this forum and ANY other PRO gun forum, they are against any and all restrictions. It's a biased result. And not a very good picture of the whole country or all gun owners.

All rights are god given, including the right to bear arms, which btw is any arm, including firearms. Sorry if that is not conducive to a particular agenda. Nope not sorry, get over it. To paraphrase the words of God~Sell a cloak to buy a sword.

Primus said:

So when did God give us the right to have firearms? When they were invented? Why didn't he give them sooner? Why didn't cave men have them?
...

Click to expand...

A person has the inherent right to live because the person is alive. If a person has a right to live then they must have the right to protect their life, otherwise the person does not in fact have a right to live. If a person has a right to protect their life then they must have the right to a means of defending their life. Finally if a person has a right to live and subsequently has a right to a means of defending their life, then they have a right to the best means or to be more specific arms. If arms are restricted then a person's right to procure the most effective means of self defense has been infringed. However, society can choose to infringe upon rights all it wants, it just has to make sure that basically everyone is ok with it and put the power to do so in the constitution.

Daylen said:

A person has the inherent right to live because the person is alive. If a person has a right to live then they must have the right to protect their life, otherwise the person does not in fact have a right to live. If a person has a right to protect their life then they must have the right to a means of defending their life. Finally if a person has a right to live and subsequently has a right to a means of defending their life, then they have a right to the best means or to be more specific arms. If arms are restricted then a person's right to procure the most effective means of self defense has been infringed. However, society can choose to infringe upon rights all it wants, it just has to make sure that basically everyone is ok with it and put the power to do so in the constitution.

Click to expand...

Well said, I can understand that explaination and agree with most of it.

My issue is the statement "right to live because we are alive". I guess. It's a concept developed by society and man. I bet even just 1000 years ago that concept wasn't around. As societies became more evolved someone came up with that idea. They can then assign it to whoever want. My point was we weren't born with that on day 1 of existence.

Also, another curve ball. To do with the "rights" and concepts given to us. So we have (and AGREE) on the concept of the right to live. If you went right now to mountains of China and found some nomadic herder and asked him about that. What do you think he would say? Or, if you went to the .gov controlled portions of China, would the laborers who make 10 cents a day agree? My point isn't to knock anything or any idea. My point is to show that ALL of these concepts and ideas were GIVEN to us. Even the guys posting on this forum. Think back to the first time you heard about Natural rights. Were you sitting in your bedroom and it just hit you? Were you born with that idea and as soon as you could speak you utterd the concept? No. Someone somewhere PASSED the idea to you and when you heard it you liked it and agreed with it, as do I.

Crazy other question along this thought. If these rights are bestowed on us just because we are born. Does it apply to non-humans? (think about it before anyone goes off the deep end). If so, does that mean cows have a right to live? (I'd say no) If NOT, then why are cows different then humans? Since we are saying that the right to life is bestowed upon your birth (by god or whoever/whatever you point to).

Daylen said:

A person has the inherent right to live because the person is alive. If a person has a right to live then they must have the right to protect their life, otherwise the person does not in fact have a right to live. If a person has a right to protect their life then they must have the right to a means of defending their life. Finally if a person has a right to live and subsequently has a right to a means of defending their life, then they have a right to the best means or to be more specific arms. If arms are restricted then a person's right to procure the most effective means of self defense has been infringed. However, society can choose to infringe upon rights all it wants, it just has to make sure that basically everyone is ok with it and put the power to do so in the constitution.

Click to expand...

A person has a inherent Right to steal food in order to Live, correct?

Just curious...

WalkingWolf said:

All rights are god given, including the right to bear arms, which btw is any arm, including firearms. Sorry if that is not conducive to a particular agenda. Nope not sorry, get over it. To paraphrase the words of God~Sell a cloak to buy a sword.

Click to expand...

Can you please cite the place where God have us these rights? I mean literally God himself. Not Moses, not John or the Apostles. But God himself. Do you have this document that he wrote that lists these rights? Finally, if someone is an Athiest do they get the rights? I ask this, because I know some believe that according to scripture Athiests or even other religions don't get squat.