When it comes to understanding what the alt-left is doing politically, Laura Ingraham gets it better than most

[Coyote]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Yeah, she's just a simple entertainer who knows nothing about what's going on:

Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. Afterwards she earned a J.D. degree and then went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

In 1985, Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College. In 1991, Ingraham earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.[5]

In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.[7] She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After law school, in 1991, she served as a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[8] In 1995, she appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in connection with a story about young conservatives.[9]

In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to Renaissance Weekend.[10]

If she knows what is going on, then her track record of lies cant be excused by ignorance. It is deliberate.

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

A track record you say, can you name specific lies?

Sure.

She claimed that there is no scientific evidence to support social distancing as a means of inhibiting virus transmission.

She claimed that the 90% public support for background checks was debunked. Polls say otherwise.

She stated that Sotomayor “must choose between her "immigrant family background" and the Constitution. Her family is from Puerto Rico...US citizens.

The 90% support for background checks is a lie. The poll questions asked of the people responding to the poll are intentionally made to lie to the people....

Here is one of the surveys, I don’t see anything deceptive in the questions.

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/17054452/PPP-GunOwnersPollResults-11.17.15.pdf

they do not explain what Background Checks actually mean...so the people aren't responding to Background Checks, they are simply responding to words that sound good......

Background checks are pretty self explanatory. They are done for jobs, for loans, etc.

When you go on to explain exactly what people like you mean by Background Checks you will not get 90% support for the....which is the whole point in lying about them through poll questions.

And what EXACTLY do “people like me” mean by background checks?

 

[2aguy]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Yeah, she's just a simple entertainer who knows nothing about what's going on:

Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. Afterwards she earned a J.D. degree and then went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

In 1985, Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College. In 1991, Ingraham earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.[5]

In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.[7] She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After law school, in 1991, she served as a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[8] In 1995, she appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in connection with a story about young conservatives.[9]

In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to Renaissance Weekend.[10]

If she knows what is going on, then her track record of lies cant be excused by ignorance. It is deliberate.

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

A track record you say, can you name specific lies?

Sure.

She claimed that there is no scientific evidence to support social distancing as a means of inhibiting virus transmission.

She claimed that the 90% public support for background checks was debunked. Polls say otherwise.

She stated that Sotomayor “must choose between her "immigrant family background" and the Constitution. Her family is from Puerto Rico...US citizens.

The 90% support for background checks is a lie. The poll questions asked of the people responding to the poll are intentionally made to lie to the people....

Here is one of the surveys, I don’t see anything deceptive in the questions.

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/17054452/PPP-GunOwnersPollResults-11.17.15.pdf

they do not explain what Background Checks actually mean...so the people aren't responding to Background Checks, they are simply responding to words that sound good......

Background checks are pretty self explanatory. They are done for jobs, for loans, etc.

When you go on to explain exactly what people like you mean by Background Checks you will not get 90% support for the....which is the whole point in lying about them through poll questions.

And what EXACTLY do “people like me” mean by background checks?

The poll question lies by omission......they do not explain what "Background Checks" actually mean and what the goal is for getting those background checks put into place...

This is what you and the others will actually do when you bait Americans into supporting the words "Background Checks," and then switch what they actually do...and who they target...cause they don't target actual criminals....

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

“Universal” Background Checks
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge. The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation. Consider New York City.

In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.

Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations. Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.

 

[2aguy]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Yeah, she's just a simple entertainer who knows nothing about what's going on:

Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. Afterwards she earned a J.D. degree and then went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

In 1985, Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College. In 1991, Ingraham earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.[5]

In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.[7] She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After law school, in 1991, she served as a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[8] In 1995, she appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in connection with a story about young conservatives.[9]

In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to Renaissance Weekend.[10]

If she knows what is going on, then her track record of lies cant be excused by ignorance. It is deliberate.

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

A track record you say, can you name specific lies?

Sure.

She claimed that there is no scientific evidence to support social distancing as a means of inhibiting virus transmission.

She claimed that the 90% public support for background checks was debunked. Polls say otherwise.

She stated that Sotomayor “must choose between her "immigrant family background" and the Constitution. Her family is from Puerto Rico...US citizens.

The 90% support for background checks is a lie. The poll questions asked of the people responding to the poll are intentionally made to lie to the people....

Here is one of the surveys, I don’t see anything deceptive in the questions.

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/17054452/PPP-GunOwnersPollResults-11.17.15.pdf

they do not explain what Background Checks actually mean...so the people aren't responding to Background Checks, they are simply responding to words that sound good......

Background checks are pretty self explanatory. They are done for jobs, for loans, etc.

When you go on to explain exactly what people like you mean by Background Checks you will not get 90% support for the....which is the whole point in lying about them through poll questions.

And what EXACTLY do “people like me” mean by background checks?

and here....

Textual analysis of HR8, bill to "To require a background check for every firearm sale"

Summary

HR8 requires that loans, gifts, and sales of firearms be processed by a gun store. The same fees, paperwork, and permanent record-keeping apply as to buying a new gun from the store.
If you loan a gun to a friend without going to the gun store, the penalty is the same as for knowingly selling a gun to a convicted violent felon.

Likewise, when the friend returns the gun, another trip to the gun store is necessary, upon pain of felony.

A clever trick in HR8 effectively bans handguns for persons 18-to20.

The bill has some narrow exemptions. The minuscule exemption for self-defense does not cover stalking victims. None of the exemptions cover farming and ranching, sharing guns on almost all public and private lands, or storing guns with friends while on vacation. The limited exemption for family excludes first cousins and in-laws.


The bill authorizes unlimited fees to be imposed by
regulation.
-----
The narrowness of the self-defense exemption endangers domestic violence victims. For example, a former domestic partner threatens a woman and her children. An attack might come in the next hour, or the next month, or never. The victim and her children cannot know. Because the attack is uncertain—and is certainly not "immediate"—the woman cannot borrow a handgun from a neighbor for her defense. Many domestic violence victims do not have several hundred spare dollars so that they can buy their own gun. Sometimes, threats are manifested at night, when gun stores are not open.
-------

HR8 requires almost all firearms sales and loans to be conducted by a federally-licensed dealer. Because federal law prohibits licensed dealers from transferring handguns to persons under 21 years, HR8 prevents young adults from acquiring handguns. This is a clever way to enact a handgun ban indirectly.

HR8 would prohibit a 20-year-old woman who lives on her own from acquiring a handgun for self-defense in her home, such as by buying it from a relative or borrowing it from a friend.
-----

Exorbitant fees may be imposed by regulation

"(3)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this sub-section with regulations."

"(D) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1)."

Regulators may set a minimum fee, but not "a cap on a fee." The Attorney General is allowed to require that every gun store charge a fee of $30, $50, $150, or more. Even a $20 fee can be a hard burden to a poor person.

------
Family members

You can make a "a loan or bona fide gift" to some family members. In-laws and cousins are excluded.

The family exemption vanishes if one family member pays the other in any way. If a brother trades an extra shotgun to his sister in exchange for her extra television, both of them have to go to a gun store. Their exchange will have all the fees and paperwork as if she were buying a gun from the store.

 

[2aguy]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Yeah, she's just a simple entertainer who knows nothing about what's going on:

Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. Afterwards she earned a J.D. degree and then went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

In 1985, Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College. In 1991, Ingraham earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.[5]

In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.[7] She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After law school, in 1991, she served as a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[8] In 1995, she appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in connection with a story about young conservatives.[9]

In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to Renaissance Weekend.[10]

If she knows what is going on, then her track record of lies cant be excused by ignorance. It is deliberate.

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

A track record you say, can you name specific lies?

Sure.

She claimed that there is no scientific evidence to support social distancing as a means of inhibiting virus transmission.

She claimed that the 90% public support for background checks was debunked. Polls say otherwise.

She stated that Sotomayor “must choose between her "immigrant family background" and the Constitution. Her family is from Puerto Rico...US citizens.

The 90% support for background checks is a lie. The poll questions asked of the people responding to the poll are intentionally made to lie to the people....

Here is one of the surveys, I don’t see anything deceptive in the questions.

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/17054452/PPP-GunOwnersPollResults-11.17.15.pdf

they do not explain what Background Checks actually mean...so the people aren't responding to Background Checks, they are simply responding to words that sound good......

Background checks are pretty self explanatory. They are done for jobs, for loans, etc.

When you go on to explain exactly what people like you mean by Background Checks you will not get 90% support for the....which is the whole point in lying about them through poll questions.

And what EXACTLY do “people like me” mean by background checks?

And this is the true purpose for Background checks....to put every legal gun owner at risk of breaking the law for normal activity with their legal gun...........any misstep and the government can turn them into felons.....for activity that isn't a crime, where they didn't shoot anyone or use the gun to break the law...

The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control

For example, Senate bill S.649 (2013), introduced by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), goes far beyond controlling the actual sale of firearms. Consider a case in which a woman buys a common revolver at age 25, and keeps it her entire life. She never sells the gun. But over her lifetime, she may engage in dozens of firearms transfers:

• The woman loans the gun to her sister, who takes it on a camping trip for the weekend.
• While the woman is out of town on a business trip for two weeks, she gives the gun to her brother.
• If the woman lives on a farm, she allows all of her relatives on the farm to take the gun into the fields for pest and predator control.
• If the woman is in the Army Reserve, and she is called up for an overseas deployment, she gives the gun to her brother-in-law for temporary safe-keeping. When she goes out of town on vacation every year, she also temporarily gives her gun to her brother-in-law.
• One time, when a neighbor is being threatened by an abusive ex-boyfriend who is a stalker, the woman lets the neighbor borrow the gun for several days, until the neighbor can buy her own gun.
• If the woman becomes a firearms safety instructor, she may teach classes at office parks, school buildings, or gun stores. Following the standard curriculum of gun safety classes, such as those required by the National Rifle Association, the woman will bring some unloaded guns to a classroom, and under her supervision, students will learn the first steps in handling the gun, including how to load and unload the gun (using inert dummy ammunition). During the class, the firearms will be transferred dozens of times, as students practice how to hand a gun to someone safely.

Under S. 649, every one of the above activities would be a felony, punished the same as if the woman had knowingly sold the firearm to a convicted violent felon. Here is the pertinent provision: “It shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter.”29
-----

While S. 649 has a few exceptions to the ban on transfers, not one of them apply to the situations described above:

• One can make a “bona-fide gift” (but not a three-hour loan) to certain close family members, not including aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, in-laws, or civil union partners.
• One can let someone else borrow a gun for up to seven days, but only within the curtilage of one’s house. Not on the open space one owns, and even a spouse cannot borrow a gun for eight days.
• One can leave a firearm to another in a written will. But on one’s deathbed, it would be unlawful to leave a gun to one’s best friend.
• One can share a gun at a shooting range (but only if the shooting range is owned by a corporation, not on public lands, and not at a shooting range on one’s own property).
• One can share a gun at a shooting match, but only if the match is operated by a non-profit corporation or the government — not a match organized by the National Rifle Association, and not a match organized by a firearms manufacturer.
• One can share a gun while out hunting in the field, but back at the hunting camp, it would be illegal to clean someone else’s gun.30

Even if there was no Second Amendment, the arbitrary rules of the various exemptions would make Senator Reid’s bill of very dubious constitutionality. As interpreted by the courts, due process requires that all laws have a legitimate purpose and at least a rational connection to that purpose.31

 

[2aguy]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Yeah, she's just a simple entertainer who knows nothing about what's going on:

Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. Afterwards she earned a J.D. degree and then went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

In 1985, Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College. In 1991, Ingraham earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.[5]

In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.[7] She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After law school, in 1991, she served as a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[8] In 1995, she appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in connection with a story about young conservatives.[9]

In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to Renaissance Weekend.[10]

If she knows what is going on, then her track record of lies cant be excused by ignorance. It is deliberate.

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

A track record you say, can you name specific lies?

Sure.

She claimed that there is no scientific evidence to support social distancing as a means of inhibiting virus transmission.

She claimed that the 90% public support for background checks was debunked. Polls say otherwise.

She stated that Sotomayor “must choose between her "immigrant family background" and the Constitution. Her family is from Puerto Rico...US citizens.

The 90% support for background checks is a lie. The poll questions asked of the people responding to the poll are intentionally made to lie to the people....

Here is one of the surveys, I don’t see anything deceptive in the questions.

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/17054452/PPP-GunOwnersPollResults-11.17.15.pdf

they do not explain what Background Checks actually mean...so the people aren't responding to Background Checks, they are simply responding to words that sound good......

Background checks are pretty self explanatory. They are done for jobs, for loans, etc.

When you go on to explain exactly what people like you mean by Background Checks you will not get 90% support for the....which is the whole point in lying about them through poll questions.

And what EXACTLY do “people like me” mean by background checks?

and more....you see........we know who you are...we know what you want.....we know that you will lie and use bait and switch to fool uninformed Americans to give you the power to ban and confiscate guns...

The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control

Although universal background checks may sound appealing, the private sale of guns between strangers is a small percentage of overall gun sales. Worse, the background check bills are written so broadly that they would turn most gun owners into criminals for innocent acts — such as letting one’s sister borrow a gun for an afternoon of target shooting.
----

Gun-control advocates often claim that 40 percent of annual firearms sales take place today without background checks. The Washington Post “fact-checker” has debunked that claim, giving it “Three Pinocchios.”14

The Post noted that the survey data used for the study on which the 40 percent claim is based are more than two decades old, which means they were collected prior to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System becoming operational in 1998.
The survey only polled 251 people, and, upon asking whether their gun transfer involved a federally licensed dealer — that is, a federal firearms licensee (FFL) — gave respondents the choice of saying “probably” or “probably not” in addition to “yes” and “no.”

---

But “acquisitions” is a much broader category than “purchases,” which is the term used by advocates for gun control. Gifts and inheritances between family members or among close friends are acquisitions, but not purchases. When the Post asked researchers to correct for that distinction, the percentage of firearms purchased without a background check fell to between 14 and 22 percent. The Post subsequently conducted its own survey of Maryland residents, and found that 21 percent of respondents reported not having gone through a background check to purchase a firearm in the previous decade.

-----

As a 2013 National Institute of Justice memo from Greg Ridgeway, acting director of the National Institute of Justice, acknowledged, a system requiring background checks for gun sales by non-FFLs is utterly unenforceable without a system of universal gun registration.16

For FFLs, enforcement of recordkeeping is routine. They are required to keep records of every gun which enters or leaves their inventory.17 As regulated businesses, the vast majority of them will comply with whatever procedures are required for gun sales. Even the small minority of FFLs who might wish to evade the law have little practical opportunity to do so.

In contrast, if a rancher sells his own gun to a neighbor, there is no practical way to force the rancher and the neighbor to drive an hour into town, and then attempt to find a FFL who will run a background check for them, even though they are not customers of the FFL. Once the rancher has sold the gun to the neighbor, there is no practical way to prove that the neighbor acquired the gun after the date when the private sales background check came into effect. As the National Institute of Justice recognized, the only way to enforce the background-check law would be to require the retroactive registration of all currently owned firearms in the United States. Such a policy did not work in Canada, and anyone who thinks that Americans would be more willing to register their guns than Canadians is badly mistaken.20

-----

 

[2aguy]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Yeah, she's just a simple entertainer who knows nothing about what's going on:

Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. Afterwards she earned a J.D. degree and then went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

In 1985, Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College. In 1991, Ingraham earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.[5]

In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.[7] She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After law school, in 1991, she served as a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[8] In 1995, she appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in connection with a story about young conservatives.[9]

In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to Renaissance Weekend.[10]

If she knows what is going on, then her track record of lies cant be excused by ignorance. It is deliberate.

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

A track record you say, can you name specific lies?

Sure.

She claimed that there is no scientific evidence to support social distancing as a means of inhibiting virus transmission.

She claimed that the 90% public support for background checks was debunked. Polls say otherwise.

She stated that Sotomayor “must choose between her "immigrant family background" and the Constitution. Her family is from Puerto Rico...US citizens.

The 90% support for background checks is a lie. The poll questions asked of the people responding to the poll are intentionally made to lie to the people....

Here is one of the surveys, I don’t see anything deceptive in the questions.

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/17054452/PPP-GunOwnersPollResults-11.17.15.pdf

they do not explain what Background Checks actually mean...so the people aren't responding to Background Checks, they are simply responding to words that sound good......

Background checks are pretty self explanatory. They are done for jobs, for loans, etc.

When you go on to explain exactly what people like you mean by Background Checks you will not get 90% support for the....which is the whole point in lying about them through poll questions.

And what EXACTLY do “people like me” mean by background checks?

and here is the real reason you want universal background checks...

As a 2013 National Institute of Justice memo from Greg Ridgeway, acting director of the National Institute of Justice, acknowledged, a system requiring background checks for gun sales by non-FFLs is utterly unenforceable without a system of universal gun registration.16

 

[Coyote]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Yeah, she's just a simple entertainer who knows nothing about what's going on:

Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. Afterwards she earned a J.D. degree and then went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

In 1985, Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College. In 1991, Ingraham earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.[5]

In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.[7] She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After law school, in 1991, she served as a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[8] In 1995, she appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in connection with a story about young conservatives.[9]

In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to Renaissance Weekend.[10]

If she knows what is going on, then her track record of lies cant be excused by ignorance. It is deliberate.

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

A track record you say, can you name specific lies?

Sure.

She claimed that there is no scientific evidence to support social distancing as a means of inhibiting virus transmission.

She claimed that the 90% public support for background checks was debunked. Polls say otherwise.

She stated that Sotomayor “must choose between her "immigrant family background" and the Constitution. Her family is from Puerto Rico...US citizens.

And more on the lie about Background checks...you still can't explain what background checks will do to actually stop criminals from getting guns.......since they avoid them by using straw buyers, who can pass any background check...or steal their guns...those are two things the poll questions don't tell the people responding to the polls....which is another reason the 90% number is a lie.

Other surveys from this year find that few Americans actually think that neither background checks nor gun control generally would be beneficial. In April, a Rasmussen survey found: “Only 41% believe more background checks will reduce gun violence.” In December, a Reason-Rupe poll found that by a 63 to 32 percent margin Americans don’t believe that tighter gun control “would not be effective in preventing criminals from obtaining guns.

Remember those claims that 80 to 90% of Americans wanted expanded background checks?: Well, no so much support for specific bills - Crime Prevention Research Center

UPDATE January 27, 2014: In a new national ad, former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords again implies that since 90% of Americans support background checks that means that they will support the legislation that she is pushing.

crimeresearch.org

I went and looked at the actual Reason poll survey (did you?) and boy talk about misleading questions! However in the three questions related to guns, it said nothing about background checks.

They do not provide a link to the Rassmuson poll so I can’t comment on that.

It is true that when specific policies are mentioned as opposed to generic ideas, support often drops...and is often where how questions are framed makes a big difference. Healthcare 2013 was a good example where individual components received wide popular approval, but the legislation itself not. Also a good how questions were framed influenced perceptions (this was evident in the poll by Reason).

The Pew Poll mentioned in your article was only on how people reacted to legislation being voted down....majority disappointed/angry. 47/39.

Reading the actual polls, as opposed to the spin some articles put on them is enlightening, particularly since it still does not debunk the claim that 90% of Americans support background checks.

 

[2aguy]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Yeah, she's just a simple entertainer who knows nothing about what's going on:

Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. Afterwards she earned a J.D. degree and then went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

In 1985, Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College. In 1991, Ingraham earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.[5]

In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.[7] She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After law school, in 1991, she served as a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[8] In 1995, she appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in connection with a story about young conservatives.[9]

In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to Renaissance Weekend.[10]

If she knows what is going on, then her track record of lies cant be excused by ignorance. It is deliberate.

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

A track record you say, can you name specific lies?

Sure.

She claimed that there is no scientific evidence to support social distancing as a means of inhibiting virus transmission.

She claimed that the 90% public support for background checks was debunked. Polls say otherwise.

She stated that Sotomayor “must choose between her "immigrant family background" and the Constitution. Her family is from Puerto Rico...US citizens.

And more on the lie about Background checks...you still can't explain what background checks will do to actually stop criminals from getting guns.......since they avoid them by using straw buyers, who can pass any background check...or steal their guns...those are two things the poll questions don't tell the people responding to the polls....which is another reason the 90% number is a lie.

Other surveys from this year find that few Americans actually think that neither background checks nor gun control generally would be beneficial. In April, a Rasmussen survey found: “Only 41% believe more background checks will reduce gun violence.” In December, a Reason-Rupe poll found that by a 63 to 32 percent margin Americans don’t believe that tighter gun control “would not be effective in preventing criminals from obtaining guns.

Remember those claims that 80 to 90% of Americans wanted expanded background checks?: Well, no so much support for specific bills - Crime Prevention Research Center

UPDATE January 27, 2014: In a new national ad, former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords again implies that since 90% of Americans support background checks that means that they will support the legislation that she is pushing.

crimeresearch.org

I went and looked at the actual Reason poll survey (did you?) and boy talk about misleading questions! However in the three questions related to guns, it said nothing about background checks.

They do not provide a link to the Rassmuson poll so I can’t comment on that.

It is true that when specific policies are mentioned as opposed to generic ideas, support often drops...and is often where how questions are framed makes a big difference. Healthcare 2013 was a good example where individual components received wide popular approval, but the legislation itself not. Also a good how questions were framed influenced perceptions (this was evident in the poll by Reason).

The Pew Poll mentioned in your article was only on how people reacted to legislation being voted down....majority disappointed/angry. 47/39.

Reading the actual polls, as opposed to the spin some articles put on them is enlightening, particularly since it still does not debunk the claim that 90% of Americans support background checks.

They support the words "Background Checks." Since they don't know what that actually means the 90% support number is meaningless...and a lie. Expose those same people to the truth of what Background Checks actually mean......and point out they require Gun registration, and then see what the people say in those polls...until then, the 90% number is a lie.

 

[Coyote]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Yeah, she's just a simple entertainer who knows nothing about what's going on:

Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. Afterwards she earned a J.D. degree and then went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

In 1985, Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College. In 1991, Ingraham earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.[5]

In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.[7] She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After law school, in 1991, she served as a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[8] In 1995, she appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in connection with a story about young conservatives.[9]

In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to Renaissance Weekend.[10]

If she knows what is going on, then her track record of lies cant be excused by ignorance. It is deliberate.

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

A track record you say, can you name specific lies?

Sure.

She claimed that there is no scientific evidence to support social distancing as a means of inhibiting virus transmission.

She claimed that the 90% public support for background checks was debunked. Polls say otherwise.

She stated that Sotomayor “must choose between her "immigrant family background" and the Constitution. Her family is from Puerto Rico...US citizens.

The 90% support for background checks is a lie. The poll questions asked of the people responding to the poll are intentionally made to lie to the people....

Here is one of the surveys, I don’t see anything deceptive in the questions.

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/17054452/PPP-GunOwnersPollResults-11.17.15.pdf

they do not explain what Background Checks actually mean...so the people aren't responding to Background Checks, they are simply responding to words that sound good......

Background checks are pretty self explanatory. They are done for jobs, for loans, etc.

When you go on to explain exactly what people like you mean by Background Checks you will not get 90% support for the....which is the whole point in lying about them through poll questions.

And what EXACTLY do “people like me” mean by background checks?

and more....you see........we know who you are...we know what you want.....we know that you will lie and use bait and switch to fool uninformed Americans to give you the power to ban and confiscate guns...

The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control

Although universal background checks may sound appealing, the private sale of guns between strangers is a small percentage of overall gun sales. Worse, the background check bills are written so broadly that they would turn most gun owners into criminals for innocent acts — such as letting one’s sister borrow a gun for an afternoon of target shooting.
----

Gun-control advocates often claim that 40 percent of annual firearms sales take place today without background checks. The Washington Post “fact-checker” has debunked that claim, giving it “Three Pinocchios.”14

The Post noted that the survey data used for the study on which the 40 percent claim is based are more than two decades old, which means they were collected prior to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System becoming operational in 1998.
The survey only polled 251 people, and, upon asking whether their gun transfer involved a federally licensed dealer — that is, a federal firearms licensee (FFL) — gave respondents the choice of saying “probably” or “probably not” in addition to “yes” and “no.”

---

But “acquisitions” is a much broader category than “purchases,” which is the term used by advocates for gun control. Gifts and inheritances between family members or among close friends are acquisitions, but not purchases. When the Post asked researchers to correct for that distinction, the percentage of firearms purchased without a background check fell to between 14 and 22 percent. The Post subsequently conducted its own survey of Maryland residents, and found that 21 percent of respondents reported not having gone through a background check to purchase a firearm in the previous decade.

-----

As a 2013 National Institute of Justice memo from Greg Ridgeway, acting director of the National Institute of Justice, acknowledged, a system requiring background checks for gun sales by non-FFLs is utterly unenforceable without a system of universal gun registration.16

For FFLs, enforcement of recordkeeping is routine. They are required to keep records of every gun which enters or leaves their inventory.17 As regulated businesses, the vast majority of them will comply with whatever procedures are required for gun sales. Even the small minority of FFLs who might wish to evade the law have little practical opportunity to do so.

In contrast, if a rancher sells his own gun to a neighbor, there is no practical way to force the rancher and the neighbor to drive an hour into town, and then attempt to find a FFL who will run a background check for them, even though they are not customers of the FFL. Once the rancher has sold the gun to the neighbor, there is no practical way to prove that the neighbor acquired the gun after the date when the private sales background check came into effect. As the National Institute of Justice recognized, the only way to enforce the background-check law would be to require the retroactive registration of all currently owned firearms in the United States. Such a policy did not work in Canada, and anyone who thinks that Americans would be more willing to register their guns than Canadians is badly mistaken.20

-----

I am not going to waste time chasing down your walls of assorted cut’n’paste. use your own words why don’t you? You have no clue on what I support if all you can do is throw in your pre-organized cut’n’paste spam.

 

[2aguy]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Yeah, she's just a simple entertainer who knows nothing about what's going on:

Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. Afterwards she earned a J.D. degree and then went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

In 1985, Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College. In 1991, Ingraham earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.[5]

In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.[7] She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After law school, in 1991, she served as a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[8] In 1995, she appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in connection with a story about young conservatives.[9]

In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to Renaissance Weekend.[10]

If she knows what is going on, then her track record of lies cant be excused by ignorance. It is deliberate.

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

A track record you say, can you name specific lies?

Sure.

She claimed that there is no scientific evidence to support social distancing as a means of inhibiting virus transmission.

She claimed that the 90% public support for background checks was debunked. Polls say otherwise.

She stated that Sotomayor “must choose between her "immigrant family background" and the Constitution. Her family is from Puerto Rico...US citizens.

The 90% support for background checks is a lie. The poll questions asked of the people responding to the poll are intentionally made to lie to the people....

Here is one of the surveys, I don’t see anything deceptive in the questions.

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/17054452/PPP-GunOwnersPollResults-11.17.15.pdf

they do not explain what Background Checks actually mean...so the people aren't responding to Background Checks, they are simply responding to words that sound good......

Background checks are pretty self explanatory. They are done for jobs, for loans, etc.

When you go on to explain exactly what people like you mean by Background Checks you will not get 90% support for the....which is the whole point in lying about them through poll questions.

And what EXACTLY do “people like me” mean by background checks?

and more....you see........we know who you are...we know what you want.....we know that you will lie and use bait and switch to fool uninformed Americans to give you the power to ban and confiscate guns...

The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control

Although universal background checks may sound appealing, the private sale of guns between strangers is a small percentage of overall gun sales. Worse, the background check bills are written so broadly that they would turn most gun owners into criminals for innocent acts — such as letting one’s sister borrow a gun for an afternoon of target shooting.
----

Gun-control advocates often claim that 40 percent of annual firearms sales take place today without background checks. The Washington Post “fact-checker” has debunked that claim, giving it “Three Pinocchios.”14

The Post noted that the survey data used for the study on which the 40 percent claim is based are more than two decades old, which means they were collected prior to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System becoming operational in 1998.
The survey only polled 251 people, and, upon asking whether their gun transfer involved a federally licensed dealer — that is, a federal firearms licensee (FFL) — gave respondents the choice of saying “probably” or “probably not” in addition to “yes” and “no.”

---

But “acquisitions” is a much broader category than “purchases,” which is the term used by advocates for gun control. Gifts and inheritances between family members or among close friends are acquisitions, but not purchases. When the Post asked researchers to correct for that distinction, the percentage of firearms purchased without a background check fell to between 14 and 22 percent. The Post subsequently conducted its own survey of Maryland residents, and found that 21 percent of respondents reported not having gone through a background check to purchase a firearm in the previous decade.

-----

As a 2013 National Institute of Justice memo from Greg Ridgeway, acting director of the National Institute of Justice, acknowledged, a system requiring background checks for gun sales by non-FFLs is utterly unenforceable without a system of universal gun registration.16

For FFLs, enforcement of recordkeeping is routine. They are required to keep records of every gun which enters or leaves their inventory.17 As regulated businesses, the vast majority of them will comply with whatever procedures are required for gun sales. Even the small minority of FFLs who might wish to evade the law have little practical opportunity to do so.

In contrast, if a rancher sells his own gun to a neighbor, there is no practical way to force the rancher and the neighbor to drive an hour into town, and then attempt to find a FFL who will run a background check for them, even though they are not customers of the FFL. Once the rancher has sold the gun to the neighbor, there is no practical way to prove that the neighbor acquired the gun after the date when the private sales background check came into effect. As the National Institute of Justice recognized, the only way to enforce the background-check law would be to require the retroactive registration of all currently owned firearms in the United States. Such a policy did not work in Canada, and anyone who thinks that Americans would be more willing to register their guns than Canadians is badly mistaken.20

-----

I am not going to waste time chasing down your walls of assorted cut’n’paste. use your own words why don’t you? You have no clue on what I support if all you can do is throw in your pre-organized cut’n’paste spam.

You asked what was meant by Background Checks.....I gave you exactly that in great detail exposing you and the other anti-gunners and your Background Check Bait and Switch..........and now, having been exposed, you use the rules of Dodge Ball...

Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive and Dodge.

 

[2aguy]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Yeah, she's just a simple entertainer who knows nothing about what's going on:

Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. Afterwards she earned a J.D. degree and then went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

In 1985, Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College. In 1991, Ingraham earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.[5]

In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.[7] She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After law school, in 1991, she served as a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[8] In 1995, she appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in connection with a story about young conservatives.[9]

In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to Renaissance Weekend.[10]

If she knows what is going on, then her track record of lies cant be excused by ignorance. It is deliberate.

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

A track record you say, can you name specific lies?

Sure.

She claimed that there is no scientific evidence to support social distancing as a means of inhibiting virus transmission.

She claimed that the 90% public support for background checks was debunked. Polls say otherwise.

She stated that Sotomayor “must choose between her "immigrant family background" and the Constitution. Her family is from Puerto Rico...US citizens.

The 90% support for background checks is a lie. The poll questions asked of the people responding to the poll are intentionally made to lie to the people....

Here is one of the surveys, I don’t see anything deceptive in the questions.

https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/17054452/PPP-GunOwnersPollResults-11.17.15.pdf

they do not explain what Background Checks actually mean...so the people aren't responding to Background Checks, they are simply responding to words that sound good......

Background checks are pretty self explanatory. They are done for jobs, for loans, etc.

When you go on to explain exactly what people like you mean by Background Checks you will not get 90% support for the....which is the whole point in lying about them through poll questions.

And what EXACTLY do “people like me” mean by background checks?

and more....you see........we know who you are...we know what you want.....we know that you will lie and use bait and switch to fool uninformed Americans to give you the power to ban and confiscate guns...

The Costs and Consequences of Gun Control

Although universal background checks may sound appealing, the private sale of guns between strangers is a small percentage of overall gun sales. Worse, the background check bills are written so broadly that they would turn most gun owners into criminals for innocent acts — such as letting one’s sister borrow a gun for an afternoon of target shooting.
----

Gun-control advocates often claim that 40 percent of annual firearms sales take place today without background checks. The Washington Post “fact-checker” has debunked that claim, giving it “Three Pinocchios.”14

The Post noted that the survey data used for the study on which the 40 percent claim is based are more than two decades old, which means they were collected prior to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System becoming operational in 1998.
The survey only polled 251 people, and, upon asking whether their gun transfer involved a federally licensed dealer — that is, a federal firearms licensee (FFL) — gave respondents the choice of saying “probably” or “probably not” in addition to “yes” and “no.”

---

But “acquisitions” is a much broader category than “purchases,” which is the term used by advocates for gun control. Gifts and inheritances between family members or among close friends are acquisitions, but not purchases. When the Post asked researchers to correct for that distinction, the percentage of firearms purchased without a background check fell to between 14 and 22 percent. The Post subsequently conducted its own survey of Maryland residents, and found that 21 percent of respondents reported not having gone through a background check to purchase a firearm in the previous decade.

-----

As a 2013 National Institute of Justice memo from Greg Ridgeway, acting director of the National Institute of Justice, acknowledged, a system requiring background checks for gun sales by non-FFLs is utterly unenforceable without a system of universal gun registration.16

For FFLs, enforcement of recordkeeping is routine. They are required to keep records of every gun which enters or leaves their inventory.17 As regulated businesses, the vast majority of them will comply with whatever procedures are required for gun sales. Even the small minority of FFLs who might wish to evade the law have little practical opportunity to do so.

In contrast, if a rancher sells his own gun to a neighbor, there is no practical way to force the rancher and the neighbor to drive an hour into town, and then attempt to find a FFL who will run a background check for them, even though they are not customers of the FFL. Once the rancher has sold the gun to the neighbor, there is no practical way to prove that the neighbor acquired the gun after the date when the private sales background check came into effect. As the National Institute of Justice recognized, the only way to enforce the background-check law would be to require the retroactive registration of all currently owned firearms in the United States. Such a policy did not work in Canada, and anyone who thinks that Americans would be more willing to register their guns than Canadians is badly mistaken.20

-----

I am not going to waste time chasing down your walls of assorted cut’n’paste. use your own words why don’t you? You have no clue on what I support if all you can do is throw in your pre-organized cut’n’paste spam.

Yes...typical left winger....I explain it without links...and you accuse me of lying....I use links, and you say it's just cut n Paste.....you doofus. Everything people need to know about background checks and the anti-gun bait and switch is in those links...so you need to ignore them.......

 

[busybee01]

If the Democrats are so well funded and well organized, then WHY are they turning their BHAZ spots into "hellholes?"

BTW - Ingraham had no proof of anything just her OPINIONS which mean nothing, prove nothing and show nothing.
You played right into her conspiracy fantasies and listening to "entertainers" like her, means you will NEVER understand what is really going on.

View attachment 353850

If you can explain what these protesters in Washington want, go ahead, your guess is as good as any. Fox News have reporters on the ground, they are getting information.

As I said, they break of CHAZ. The big donors are probably pissed that Trump didn't take the bait and attack the well funded mob in Seattle, so, they say "let's go right to his door and MAKE him act!"

They do it on federal land for what purpose? They want the videos and representation that Trump is a tyrant. They want to compare him to some 1960's strong armed leaders and police. He simply has to let the security do their job, he need not lift a finger.

As I said, this paints them worse, not Trump. More than that though, it's not as if Trump doesnt care, it's that he has to let them operate their jurisdictions, he can't be master of all things.

Trump is the big loser in all of this, Voters are seeing Trump for what he is. A thug. People are seeing the real Donald Trump and are rejecting him.

Yes....Trump is the thug....

The democrat party is burning, looting and killing people for last 3 weeks using their terrorist groups antifa and black lives matter...

But Trump is the thug.......

You guys are really vile....

The majority of protests have been peacefuol. Trump has been threatening federal troops and of course tear gas was used against peaceful demonstrators for a cheap photo op.

 

[Dragonlady]

She knows what is going on. These are all very well funded and organized protests and it is totally political. I suggest Trump play this smart, talk to intelligent people who understand the politics of all these protests. These groups have an agenda, and it is to hurt Trump in 2020.

Let THEM be the bad guys. Winning in 2020 is far more important than playing into their hands. Hold those to account whoever who is funding this. If they attack churches, or other places of worship, arrest and charge with hate crimes, go after their funding sources.

As my dad used to say when I was a kid regarding fighting: "they start it, you finish it". Do it methodically and with calculation, because you can be sure as hell that they are.

After a 2020 victory, THEN you go after these Marxist SOB's and their benefactors.

You can blow out a candle, but you can't blow out a fire. Once the flame begins to grow, the wind will take it higher.

Right now, the USA is South Africa and the Republican Party are the National Party of South Africa. No one is funding the uprising. This is a groundswell of public support to equality and an end to police brutality and murder of citizens.

This isn't just happening in the USA, just as calls for justice in South Africa came from all over the world.

 

[busybee01]

He's abdicated his responsibility.

Incorrect ...
The city mayor's have a police force and the governor's have their state national guard. They need to step up and use them to protect their citizens from mobs of rioters and looters.

Yep.

Local law enforcement is more than adequately outfitted to the point of militarization, at least that's some of what the protestors are saying, and the states have their national guard troops. If they wanted to stop any of this they could. They don't want the bad optics of those actions undertaken by their order on the 6 o'clock news.

If Trump did step in and, for instance, send in troops, he'd be castigated for it. He was roundly criticized for even the suggestion of calling in troops to quell the riots.

Here in Illinois, our esteemed Governor and Mayor of Chicago publicly said “He should stay out of our business".

In Illinois this is 100% on local government. They told Trump in no uncertain terms to piss off, while they sat and watched it burn.

Similar situation in Seattle, where the dumbass mayor referred to CHOP as "The Summer of Love", then stood back and let these loons do whatever they wanted, only now taking action after, very predictably, things went to total shit. Their bed. They can sleep in it.

Perhaps, but they are creating a political environment for the election. In spite of this all going on in blue cities and states, watch how they try to pass the blame to the President. "Look at all the protests and riots under President Trump!!!!" That's what we're going to hear, if they aren't hearing it already on CNN and like.

Sometimes I think they are allowing the burning down and destruction of their areas for that reason. Every one of these Mayors and Governors know if they call the President for assistance, he will have their cities back to near normal in less than 48 hours. So why don't they? Because it would make them look like the failures they are, and Trump the hero that moved in to save the day.

I was telling a relative that the democrat party pulled the trigger on these riots about 3 months too early......had they ordered antifa and black lives matter to burn, loot and kill closer to the election, it would have helped them more because it would have given Trump less time to deal with it....and less time for Americans to think about who was doing the burning, looting and killing....

As you can see, the left wing asshats here on U.S.messageboard are still trying to say that it is the Trump supporters who are going to cause trouble.......as the democrat party burns, loots and kills.........

I really think they were trying to time it with the Durham report that was supposed to be out by the beginning of summer. Now Barr announced it will be towards the end. Not to worry though, they will pull off some other stunt like another impeachment or something.

Just another abuse of the DOJ.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

He's abdicated his responsibility.

Incorrect ...
The city mayor's have a police force and the governor's have their state national guard. They need to step up and use them to protect their citizens from mobs of rioters and looters.

Yep.

Local law enforcement is more than adequately outfitted to the point of militarization, at least that's some of what the protestors are saying, and the states have their national guard troops. If they wanted to stop any of this they could. They don't want the bad optics of those actions undertaken by their order on the 6 o'clock news.

If Trump did step in and, for instance, send in troops, he'd be castigated for it. He was roundly criticized for even the suggestion of calling in troops to quell the riots.

Here in Illinois, our esteemed Governor and Mayor of Chicago publicly said “He should stay out of our business".

In Illinois this is 100% on local government. They told Trump in no uncertain terms to piss off, while they sat and watched it burn.

Similar situation in Seattle, where the dumbass mayor referred to CHOP as "The Summer of Love", then stood back and let these loons do whatever they wanted, only now taking action after, very predictably, things went to total shit. Their bed. They can sleep in it.

Perhaps, but they are creating a political environment for the election. In spite of this all going on in blue cities and states, watch how they try to pass the blame to the President. "Look at all the protests and riots under President Trump!!!!" That's what we're going to hear, if they aren't hearing it already on CNN and like.

Sometimes I think they are allowing the burning down and destruction of their areas for that reason. Every one of these Mayors and Governors know if they call the President for assistance, he will have their cities back to near normal in less than 48 hours. So why don't they? Because it would make them look like the failures they are, and Trump the hero that moved in to save the day.

I was telling a relative that the democrat party pulled the trigger on these riots about 3 months too early......had they ordered antifa and black lives matter to burn, loot and kill closer to the election, it would have helped them more because it would have given Trump less time to deal with it....and less time for Americans to think about who was doing the burning, looting and killing....

As you can see, the left wing asshats here on U.S.messageboard are still trying to say that it is the Trump supporters who are going to cause trouble.......as the democrat party burns, loots and kills.........

I really think they were trying to time it with the Durham report that was supposed to be out by the beginning of summer. Now Barr announced it will be towards the end. Not to worry though, they will pull off some other stunt like another impeachment or something.

Just another abuse of the DOJ.

Nobody would know what abuse of the DOJ is better than a leftist.

 

[Coyote]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Yeah, she's just a simple entertainer who knows nothing about what's going on:

Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. Afterwards she earned a J.D. degree and then went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

In 1985, Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College. In 1991, Ingraham earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.[5]

In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.[7] She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After law school, in 1991, she served as a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[8] In 1995, she appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in connection with a story about young conservatives.[9]

In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to Renaissance Weekend.[10]

If she knows what is going on, then her track record of lies cant be excused by ignorance. It is deliberate.

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

A track record you say, can you name specific lies?

Sure.

She claimed that there is no scientific evidence to support social distancing as a means of inhibiting virus transmission.

She claimed that the 90% public support for background checks was debunked. Polls say otherwise.

She stated that Sotomayor “must choose between her "immigrant family background" and the Constitution. Her family is from Puerto Rico...US citizens.

And more on the lie about Background checks...you still can't explain what background checks will do to actually stop criminals from getting guns.......since they avoid them by using straw buyers, who can pass any background check...or steal their guns...those are two things the poll questions don't tell the people responding to the polls....which is another reason the 90% number is a lie.

Other surveys from this year find that few Americans actually think that neither background checks nor gun control generally would be beneficial. In April, a Rasmussen survey found: “Only 41% believe more background checks will reduce gun violence.” In December, a Reason-Rupe poll found that by a 63 to 32 percent margin Americans don’t believe that tighter gun control “would not be effective in preventing criminals from obtaining guns.

Remember those claims that 80 to 90% of Americans wanted expanded background checks?: Well, no so much support for specific bills - Crime Prevention Research Center

UPDATE January 27, 2014: In a new national ad, former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords again implies that since 90% of Americans support background checks that means that they will support the legislation that she is pushing.

crimeresearch.org

I went and looked at the actual Reason poll survey (did you?) and boy talk about misleading questions! However in the three questions related to guns, it said nothing about background checks.

They do not provide a link to the Rassmuson poll so I can’t comment on that.

It is true that when specific policies are mentioned as opposed to generic ideas, support often drops...and is often where how questions are framed makes a big difference. Healthcare 2013 was a good example where individual components received wide popular approval, but the legislation itself not. Also a good how questions were framed influenced perceptions (this was evident in the poll by Reason).

The Pew Poll mentioned in your article was only on how people reacted to legislation being voted down....majority disappointed/angry. 47/39.

Reading the actual polls, as opposed to the spin some articles put on them is enlightening, particularly since it still does not debunk the claim that 90% of Americans support background checks.

They support the words "Background Checks." Since they don't know what that actually means the 90% support number is meaningless...and a lie. Expose those same people to the truth of what Background Checks actually mean......and point out they require Gun registration, and then see what the people say in those polls...until then, the 90% number is a lie.

They don’t know what it means? Really? I certainly do.

Quinnepiac is highly regarded for polling...here is there 2013 poll questions (19-22) - they target specific ideas. 88% support increased background checks. That is the timeframe for Laura‘s remark.

QU Poll Release Detail

Clinton, Christie Lead The Pack In Early Look At 2016, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; 88% Support For Universal Gun Background Checks

poll.qu.edu

By an 88 - 10 percent margin, including 85 - 13 percent among voters in households with guns, American voters support background checks for all gun buyers. Voters also support 54 - 41 percent a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons and back 54 - 42 percent a nationwide ban on the sale of ammunition magazines with more than 10 rounds.

 

[2aguy]

She knows what is going on. These are all very well funded and organized protests and it is totally political. I suggest Trump play this smart, talk to intelligent people who understand the politics of all these protests. These groups have an agenda, and it is to hurt Trump in 2020.

Let THEM be the bad guys. Winning in 2020 is far more important than playing into their hands. Hold those to account whoever who is funding this. If they attack churches, or other places of worship, arrest and charge with hate crimes, go after their funding sources.

As my dad used to say when I was a kid regarding fighting: "they start it, you finish it". Do it methodically and with calculation, because you can be sure as hell that they are.

After a 2020 victory, THEN you go after these Marxist SOB's and their benefactors.

You can blow out a candle, but you can't blow out a fire. Once the flame begins to grow, the wind will take it higher.

Right now, the USA is South Africa and the Republican Party are the National Party of South Africa. No one is funding the uprising. This is a groundswell of public support to equality and an end to police brutality and murder of citizens.

This isn't just happening in the USA, just as calls for justice in South Africa came from all over the world.

Wow....you post some stupid things but that is really one of the most stupid things you have ever posted...

The only institutional racism in this country is found in the democrat party...the party of racism, violence and hate........the democrat party terrorist groups, antifa and black lives matter are burning, looting and killing, and you have the testicles to claim the Republicans are the racists?

How the F**k walk upright with balls that big? The core groups of the democrat party are racist...the leaders of the democrat party, bill clinton and barak obama are racists and have friends and allies of the worst racist backgrounds....

The democrat party is burning, looting and killing, in majority black neighborhoods......and you have the balls to call republicans racist....you really are vile.

 

[busybee01]

He's abdicated his responsibility.

Incorrect ...
The city mayor's have a police force and the governor's have their state national guard. They need to step up and use them to protect their citizens from mobs of rioters and looters.

Yep.

Local law enforcement is more than adequately outfitted to the point of militarization, at least that's some of what the protestors are saying, and the states have their national guard troops. If they wanted to stop any of this they could. They don't want the bad optics of those actions undertaken by their order on the 6 o'clock news.

If Trump did step in and, for instance, send in troops, he'd be castigated for it. He was roundly criticized for even the suggestion of calling in troops to quell the riots.

Here in Illinois, our esteemed Governor and Mayor of Chicago publicly said “He should stay out of our business".

In Illinois this is 100% on local government. They told Trump in no uncertain terms to piss off, while they sat and watched it burn.

Similar situation in Seattle, where the dumbass mayor referred to CHOP as "The Summer of Love", then stood back and let these loons do whatever they wanted, only now taking action after, very predictably, things went to total shit. Their bed. They can sleep in it.

Perhaps, but they are creating a political environment for the election. In spite of this all going on in blue cities and states, watch how they try to pass the blame to the President. "Look at all the protests and riots under President Trump!!!!" That's what we're going to hear, if they aren't hearing it already on CNN and like.

Sometimes I think they are allowing the burning down and destruction of their areas for that reason. Every one of these Mayors and Governors know if they call the President for assistance, he will have their cities back to near normal in less than 48 hours. So why don't they? Because it would make them look like the failures they are, and Trump the hero that moved in to save the day.

Sometimes I think they are allowing the burning down and destruction of their areas for that reason.


You don't have to think it sometimes...this is exactly what they are doing...

Before the riots there were polls showing Trump was over 40% approval in the Black community...... so, in order to change that, the democrats ordered the riots......they were simply waiting for an event and they chose the Floyd killing. They ordered out their antifa and black lives matter terrorist groups in an organized and coordinated attack in the democrat cities they control......

Expect more of this before the election...

Trump has never had 40% support in the black community. The Democrats ordered nothing. You are the animals who need to be put down.

 

[shockedcanadian]

She knows what is going on. These are all very well funded and organized protests and it is totally political. I suggest Trump play this smart, talk to intelligent people who understand the politics of all these protests. These groups have an agenda, and it is to hurt Trump in 2020.

Let THEM be the bad guys. Winning in 2020 is far more important than playing into their hands. Hold those to account whoever who is funding this. If they attack churches, or other places of worship, arrest and charge with hate crimes, go after their funding sources.

As my dad used to say when I was a kid regarding fighting: "they start it, you finish it". Do it methodically and with calculation, because you can be sure as hell that they are.

After a 2020 victory, THEN you go after these Marxist SOB's and their benefactors.

You can blow out a candle, but you can't blow out a fire. Once the flame begins to grow, the wind will take it higher.

Right now, the USA is South Africa and the Republican Party are the National Party of South Africa. No one is funding the uprising. This is a groundswell of public support to equality and an end to police brutality and murder of citizens.

This isn't just happening in the USA, just as calls for justice in South Africa came from all over the world.

Let me know when it hits Canada and the TPS, OPP and RCMP have their covert agents defunded.

Canada is already a few decades behind, the U.N rejected us last week as a constant reminder of how little the world respects us.

If we don't fix the Creepy Covert Canadians in Canada, this sharp decline will continue with no end in sight.

 

[2aguy]

I have no clue, but I doubt an "entertainer" like Ingraham has a clue, or even wants one.
Try listening to reporters and gathering facts, instead of rumors, innuendo and conspiracies.
FOX actually has real journalists, but it also mixes in these "entertainers" who care nothing for the truth. They only care about their ratings, and will say anything to keep their ratings high. Of course that is what has gotten many of them in trouble and fired.

True, President cannot be master of all things, and yet Obama was blamed for all things that went wrong, and got little credit for anythign that went well. LOL

Yeah, she's just a simple entertainer who knows nothing about what's going on:

Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration in the late 1980s. Afterwards she earned a J.D. degree and then went on to work as a judicial clerk in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York and then for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also worked for the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in New York City.

In 1985, Ingraham earned a B.A. from Dartmouth College. In 1991, Ingraham earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law.[5]

In the late 1980s, Ingraham worked as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration for the Domestic Policy Advisor.[7] She also briefly served as editor of The Prospect, the magazine issued by Concerned Alumni of Princeton. After law school, in 1991, she served as a law clerk for Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York and subsequently clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She then worked as an attorney at the New York-based law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[8] In 1995, she appeared on the cover of The New York Times Magazine in connection with a story about young conservatives.[9]

In 1996, she and Jay P. Lefkowitz organized the first Dark Ages Weekend in response to Renaissance Weekend.[10]

If she knows what is going on, then her track record of lies cant be excused by ignorance. It is deliberate.

Fact-checks | PolitiFact

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

A track record you say, can you name specific lies?

Sure.

She claimed that there is no scientific evidence to support social distancing as a means of inhibiting virus transmission.

She claimed that the 90% public support for background checks was debunked. Polls say otherwise.

She stated that Sotomayor “must choose between her "immigrant family background" and the Constitution. Her family is from Puerto Rico...US citizens.

And more on the lie about Background checks...you still can't explain what background checks will do to actually stop criminals from getting guns.......since they avoid them by using straw buyers, who can pass any background check...or steal their guns...those are two things the poll questions don't tell the people responding to the polls....which is another reason the 90% number is a lie.

Other surveys from this year find that few Americans actually think that neither background checks nor gun control generally would be beneficial. In April, a Rasmussen survey found: “Only 41% believe more background checks will reduce gun violence.” In December, a Reason-Rupe poll found that by a 63 to 32 percent margin Americans don’t believe that tighter gun control “would not be effective in preventing criminals from obtaining guns.

Remember those claims that 80 to 90% of Americans wanted expanded background checks?: Well, no so much support for specific bills - Crime Prevention Research Center

UPDATE January 27, 2014: In a new national ad, former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords again implies that since 90% of Americans support background checks that means that they will support the legislation that she is pushing.

crimeresearch.org

I went and looked at the actual Reason poll survey (did you?) and boy talk about misleading questions! However in the three questions related to guns, it said nothing about background checks.

They do not provide a link to the Rassmuson poll so I can’t comment on that.

It is true that when specific policies are mentioned as opposed to generic ideas, support often drops...and is often where how questions are framed makes a big difference. Healthcare 2013 was a good example where individual components received wide popular approval, but the legislation itself not. Also a good how questions were framed influenced perceptions (this was evident in the poll by Reason).

The Pew Poll mentioned in your article was only on how people reacted to legislation being voted down....majority disappointed/angry. 47/39.

Reading the actual polls, as opposed to the spin some articles put on them is enlightening, particularly since it still does not debunk the claim that 90% of Americans support background checks.

They support the words "Background Checks." Since they don't know what that actually means the 90% support number is meaningless...and a lie. Expose those same people to the truth of what Background Checks actually mean......and point out they require Gun registration, and then see what the people say in those polls...until then, the 90% number is a lie.

They don’t know what it means? Really? I certainly do.

Quinnepiac is highly regarded for polling...here is there 2013 poll questions (19-22) - they target specific ideas. 88% support increased background checks.

QU Poll Release Detail

Clinton, Christie Lead The Pack In Early Look At 2016, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; 88% Support For Universal Gun Background Checks

poll.qu.edu

By an 88 - 10 percent margin, including 85 - 13 percent among voters in households with guns, American voters support background checks for all gun buyers. Voters also support 54 - 41 percent a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons and back 54 - 42 percent a nationwide ban on the sale of ammunition magazines with more than 10 rounds.

You keep lying.......they have no idea what background check means or the bait and switch you guys plan if you ever get universal background checks....

and here is the real reason you want universal background checks...

As a 2013 National Institute of Justice memo from Greg Ridgeway, acting director of the National Institute of Justice, acknowledged, a system requiring background checks for gun sales by non-FFLs is utterly unenforceable without a system of universal gun registration.16