CA: Poll: Would you Vote for Background Checks on Ammunition?

Ammoland ^ | 10 July, 2016 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

An online poll is running in the San Diego Union Tribune in California.  It is currently at 39% for and 60% against.   This poll is a little different in that it is about ammunition instead of firearms.  It is a clear Second Amendment issue, so it will be interesting to see how it goes.

Here is a link to the poll.

Online polls measure intensity. They are not scientific in sampling.  They measure how many people feel strongly enough to answer an internet poll about a particular issue.  They measure intensity pretty well.  It is common to see Second Amendment supporters outnumber disarmists on these polls by about 3-7 to 1.  If the issue is clearly worded, the numbers can go much higher.  I have seen clearly worded polls go as high as 20-1 for Second Amendment supporters.

This poll is not too bad, but it does not explain what the laws in question would actually do.  There is no explanation that a fee can be charged for the background check, that the laws involved are enormously wordy and complicated; that they have numerous exceptions; that the chances of them doing anything about crime is minuscule.  Here are the much simplified basics of the bill that passed the legislature.  It only goes into effect of the referendum fails to pass.

1.  All ammunition sales to individuals are required to be face to face and shall require a background check.  A long list of occupational exceptions, exceptions for concealed carry permit holders, law enforcement, etc. will not be required to process the background check, but sales will be recorded. Vendors may charge a fee of up to $10 per background check.

[marktwain]

There are 39% of uniformed people voting for more ineffective and expensive infringements on the Second Amendment.

[butlerweave]

sounds like a total waste of money they don’t have

[mylife]

They come up with million arguments to disarm us while they march along

[dynachrome]

Read the story and:

FREEP THIS POLL ***PING!***
FRmail me if you want to be added or removed from the Fearless Poll-Freeping Freepers Ping list. (multiple votes using multiple internetz devices are allowed!)
And be sure to ping me to any polls that need Freepin’, if I miss them.
(looks like a medium volume list) (gordongekko909, founder of the pinglist, stays on the list until his ghost signs up for the list)

Direct link to poll:
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/polls/2016/jul/would-you-vote-require-background-checks-ammunitio/

[mylife]

Lets have background checks for kitchen knives boots and rocks

Funny how Hillary blipped off the map and they call to disarm us once again

[Red Badger]

I would vote for background checks on politicians.............

[dynachrome]

This is a bit like the ban on selling or transferring “high capacity” magazines in Colorado. The cops don’t enforce it because no one knows when you bought that magazine, before or after the ban. Or if you drove to Utah or Nebraska and bought a bunch.

[rockinqsranch]

Personally don’t want any such thing as a background check to purchase ammo. Not afraid of anything other then leftist government keeping record of what I have purchased so they know what types of weapons I have. I’d rather not have them know what I own.

[left that other site]

I voted...the “NOs” are ahead, but not by much.

[jsanders2001]

Not just NO but HELL NO. No infringement at all.

[Mr. Mojo]

I wouldn’t even vote for background checks on a friggen cannon.

[mrmeyer]

Looks like the yes folks want violent “civil” conflict.

[mylife]

they keep going “poka poka” Looking for a conflict.

Don’t take the bait

[jsanders2001]

< I would vote for background checks on politicians.............

You got that right plus term limits and legislation that would prevent them passing exemptions to protect themselves on any laws they tried to pass. Also need more transparency on their financials on who their donors really are especially when special interest PACs are formed to conceal who the true donors are. A lot of specials interest groups pull some shenanigans using this tactic. The Oz curtain needs to be removed. We need to bring integrity back ino the political ring. If the John McCains and Mitch McConnells could be removed from office by a collection of enough voter’s signatures at anynime durin their term and then voters would be allowed to remove them from office for failing to perorm their duties and adhere to constitutional values they might actually do the will of the people again.

[Enterprise]

62% no.

[WENDLE]

I just went there and dropped the bome. 62% “no damned way” Ban terrorists— NOT GUNS!!

[Red Badger]

Repeal the 17th Amendment.........

[Persevero]

63% no now

[mylife]

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Ayn Rand

I could get jailed for taking a whizz in the woods

[jsanders2001]

This is just propaganda with manufactured results to push a narrative. Its omplete BS. When leftists go into activism mode to make “a big change” in their progressive gone to hell in a handbasket environment the first thing they do is introduce an idea that goes against the grain of “normal” by posting something about it online. Polls work because they are highly visible so they do the trick. The next steps are incremental to wear the people down until they accept their premise even thought its completely false. I get so tired of what this president brought to the people in 2009 - lies and deception to an unimaginable level. We can’t get him out soon enough.