DimWit Politics

Dana Loesch Shreds Faulty Gun Control Poll by Progressives

 Breaking News

Dana Loesch Shreds Faulty Gun Control Poll by Progressives

Dana Loesch Shreds Faulty Gun Control Poll by Progressives
September 11
14:30 2019

A new poll conducted by ABC News and the Washington Post was just released, and what it reveals is extremely troubling, in that the pollsters had little or no actual knowledge of what they were talking about regarding the gun control debate currently raging in Washington.

Whether it’s by design or simply the fact that those individuals conducting this poll had a basic ignorance of firearms and little understanding regarding the correct terminology used in identifying certain firearm accessories. Moreover a lack of understanding on which gun laws is currently on the books, which obviously discredits the final results of the poll.

Gun rights advocates and experts within the field have long concluded there’s a reluctance within the zany world of gun control advocates to educate themselves in regards to using proper terms when discussing the issue of gun control, which is perhaps a clever ruse to fool the public.

Radio host and Second Amendment advocate Dana Loesch took to twitter to explain some of the issues with the ABC News/WaPo poll.

“I’ve never before seen a topic where a lack of education isn’t just encouraged but is seen as a virtue by leftist’s politicians and certain members of media. That’s not a convincing enough argument to engender trust in the proposed policies or reporting. Terms matter. Law is written based on certain terms. In some cases, certain terms are the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony,” Loesch told Townhall. “Regarding loading mechanisms: A magazine feeds a chamber and a clip feeds the (internal) magazine. In discussions about magazine bans and capacities, this is an important distinction. So one magazine is the limit but numerous clips are fine? I want to believe that these people are interested in actual solutions, but refusing to learn important terms and why those terms are important makes it hard to believe so.”

Indeed that seems to be the purposeful intent by gun control advocates, conflate the terminology by confusing the public, similar to the issue of immigration where open border advocates purposely conflate illegal aliens with law-abiding immigrants, who entered America legally.

The gun control issue follows the same pattern of conflating, misleading, and confusing the general public regardless of the facts.

In a series of tweets, Loesch explains where the ABC News/WaPo poll went wrong.

“This is one question. First of all, the terminology is incorrect (this matters for a couple of reasons) and who determined over 10 rounds means “high-capacity?” In some, that isn’t even standard, it’s below standard.”

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) September 9, 2019

“Anti-gunners have automatically assumed that more than 10 rounds designates a magazine as “high-capacity.” The number is extremely arbitrary. After all, how did they decide on the number 10?”

The Second Amendment aficionado also dispels a propagated myth that has been advanced by progressives, regarding gun shows and background checks

“One of the biggest misconceptions is that there’s a “gun show loophole,” that people who show up and purchase firearms at a gun show don’t have to go through a background check. Most people who sell at gun shows are Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs). Because they’re a business that has firearms continually coming and going, they have to conduct a background check on all buyers. It doesn’t matter if the buyer was found at a gun show or the person walked through their brick and mortar store. They have to go through the background check process.”

Moreover, regardless of whether the ABC News and the Washington Post poll is bogus or not.  They’ve already succeeded in what they wanted to accomplish by perpetuating a false narrative, that will eventually live and breath on social media, eventually reclaiming another generation of misinformed individuals.

About Author

Robert. A

Robert. A

Related Articles

3 Comments

  1. Bill P.
    Bill P. September 12, 19:08

    ‘…those individuals conducting this poll had a basic ignorance of firearms and little understanding regarding the correct terminology…’

    I’ve never understood this as an argument, seeming to serve only as a way for 2A advocates to bury their heads in the sand.

    For example, I had a gun enthusiast insist to me that “no one can talk about this issue if they think high-capacity magazines hold more bullets.” Apparently, you’re supposed to say “cartridges” instead.

    So you think that argument stops the other “side”? It’s pedantry. People know what their concerns are regarding firearms, and whether someone discharged a “bullet” or “cartridge” makes ZERO difference.

    Someone pulled the trigger, someone else died.

    That’s the nub. All the rest is sophistry.

    I strongly suggest realizing that the fact you’re an “expert” on firearms terminology impresses no one in this debate. In fact, it serves to make you seem haughty and indifferent to the human toll. Enough people support the RKBA that you don’t have to slog it out in the trenches with gun rights opponents.

    Stick to the cogent issues: we have the right to keep and bear arms, period. It’s not something granted by government and thus government cannot take it away. Focusing on criminals instead of weapons ought to be easy for even the uninitiated to understand.

    Ignore the background chatter, it only gives the other side the initiative.

    Reply to this comment
  2. Phil in TX
    Phil in TX September 12, 23:07

    @BillP, The point is that semantics matter as to how the laws are written. You are correct that the differences do not matter to the person that is shot, they still are shot either way. But, and this is a really big but, laws are written with specific language and must be so in order for them to not be declared “vague or confusing” to the courts, and then be voided bu the judiciary. At that point all the time and effort put into the law becomes wasted. And, in addition, the public can be confused by such laws which leaves them vulnerable to being charged with a crime that they did not intend to commit, simply because the law confused them. Terminology matters. AR-15 rifles are NOT “weapons of war” as the leftist gun banners claim. They continually conflate the terms magazine and clip. I believe that this is intentional to keep the general public misinformed, confused and fearful. This is what Dana is trying to point out. The gun banners are using the long established technique of lawyers, obfuscate and confuse.

    Reply to this comment

Write a Comment

Special Offer

Latest Comments

DrK

The press seems to be so committed to print only negative stories about conservatives that...

How come these people haven't been SUED into POVERTY yet? . . . It's ABOUT...

I think people get the idea that Republicans are against foreigners because we lock up...

Take a Look!

Don’t Miss This!

12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt Displaying 12174 - DimWit Politics - Display - 300x250 B - [WEB].txt.