Yeah, but the real question is, how was the question asked? Actually there are (at least) 3 problems with this.
One, as with any poll you can get the numbers you want by carefully crafting the question.
Two, most people who only get their information from the MSM believe there is this thing called a "gun show loophole." Even worse, they have no first hand experience with firearms or the firearms purchasing process. If they did, they would know we already have background checks! Duh!
Three, what they mean by "background checks" but almost certainly didn't ask specifically about (see #1 above) is "universal background checks." Which sounds hunky-dory but is worse than worthless. That notion would require a background check on all private firearms sales - not just sales from licensed dealers.
If you (lib lurkers) believe that would stop illegal firearms purchases you are stupid and naive. Yes that is mean, but true. If someone could pass a background check they would, and they'd buy a firearm from a licensed dealer rather than take the risk and pay the premium for getting one on the black market. But they can't, so they won't purchase from someone (commercial or private) that is going to require a background check.
If you think universal background checks will stop illegal arms sales you are a fool. Do you believe that passing a law requiring all private drug sales take place at a pharmacy with a Doctor's prescription would stop illegal drug sales? The notion of "universal background checks" is every bit as laughably stupid.
I don’t think you read my post, you meant to respond to someone else, or you didn’t catch that the italics is from the article, and what I was commenting on.
I’m curious as hell to know what I posted that was “lib lurker” worthy.