I know you’ll be shocked to know this…

But apparently the leftist gun-grabbing assgobblers in the media twist facts. The latest evidence of this comes in the form of a sniveling Washington Post editorial from a Philip Bump. Now, I don’t expect much from the Post as a general rule as far as objectivity goes, and no their token pet “conservative” Jennifer Rubin hardly counts. But this guy Lump Bump is amusingly biased. Hell, you could tell that just by his impressive resume of progtarded publications.

Philip Bump writes about politics for The Fix. He previously wrote for The Wire, the news blog of The Atlantic magazine. He has contributed to The Daily Beast, The Atlantic, The Daily, and the Huffington Post. Philip is based in New York City.

Well, gosh! We can certainly expect a balanced opinion from this drooling Lump Bump.


But I figured I’d take a minute and quickly show you just how Lump Bump uses mental acrobatics to achieve his goal, which is to somehow shame Congress into implementing more gun control.

His first few sentences alone should be instructive, and for the ignorant and those who have a clear political agenda, the gymnastics are par for the course.

A new poll from Quinnipiac University sheds more light on one of the more remarkable aspects of U.S. politics: Americans overwhelmingly support expanding background checks for gun purchases. Yet when the issue came up for a vote in the Senate last year, enough senators opposed a compromise proposal to expand background checks that supporters couldn’t overcome a filibuster. But why not?

In the latest survey, 92 percent of respondents favored “background checks for all buyers.”

Here’s the problem with the way the poll question is phrased and the way Lump Bump portrays it: we already have background checks for all gun buyers. Anytime you go into any store that sells firearms, the store is required by federal law to run a background check. Any licensed firearms dealer must run the check, which also can deny an individual a gun purchase on the recommendation of psychiatrists, mental health institutions and family members.

That is the current law. Any person wishing to purchase a gun will undergo a background check.

What we DON’T have is background checks for private transactions, which the hysterical gun grabbers will tell you comprise 40 percent of all gun purchases. That particular statistic, even though it is continuously trotted out by hoplophobes in an effort to push their agenda of basically outlawing private firearms transfers, has been discredited many times over.

First – it is already a felony for private sellers to sell a firearm to a person who they reasonably believe could not pass a background check. In other words, I’m not going to sell one of my pistols to a dude sporting gang colors and tattoos, who smells like weed, and has several bags of what appears to be coke strewn about the trunk of his car, OK?

And second – the “survey” on which this “40 percent” figure is based was conducted about a year after mandatory background checks became law. In other words, the vast majority of respondents likely purchased firearms before the Brady background checks became law. Additionally, this survey asked only 2500 people where they purchased guns. Talk about your tiny little samples!

Fact is we just don’t know how many firearms are purchased without a background check.  But we do know how criminals purchase their firearms – by their own admissions.

In 2001, the Bureau of Justice Statistics conducted a survey of state and federal prisoners in an effort to find out how criminals get firearms that they use in their crimes. Do you know what it found?

  • Only 18.4 percent of criminals purchased firearms from a retail store or pawn shop.
  • 1.7 percent got guns from a flea market or gun show, blowing that “gun show loophole” theory right out of the water.
  • The vast majority – 40.5 percent – got their guns from family and friends – whether paid for, borrowed, stolen or traded.
  • And another 30.9 percent got guns through the black market or other illegal means – theft, off the street, their drug dealer, etc.

For gun grabbers who are too stupid to understand what that means, let me put it simply: no existing background check, and no expanded background check will stop criminals from obtaining guns. Last year, Illinois governor Pat Quinn signed an ineffective and stunningly stupid law requiring expanded background checks be conducted for all gun purchases. I’m sure you’ve seen how well that law has worked in the warzone of Chicago, right?

And this brings me to the real point of this post.





Lump Bump claims in his steaming heap of bovine leavings that 92 percent of Americans support EXPANDING background checks, according to the latest Quinnipiac poll, but that’s just not true.

The poll asked a very general question: Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?

And the total reply was 92 percent in the affirmative. It asked nothing about EXPANDED background checks. The interesting part is the phraseology of the question, because it leaves the interpretation up to the respondent. Does the question ask about expanding background checks, or does it mean the already-existing background check system in which anyone who purchases a firearm must undergo a background check? It’s pretty convenient for Lump Bump to interpret the responses to suit his agenda when the question asked was vague enough to allow it.

Additionally, according to the poll, the nation is evenly split on the question of increased gun control. Expanding background checks does mean increased gun control, and exactly 50 percent of respondents want to see increased gun control. So it’s hard for me to believe that expanded background checks do not equal increased gun control in most people’s minds. And it’s hard for me to believe that at least 50 percent of the respondents weren’t voicing support for already existing background checks.

But Lump Bump wouldn’t let little things like facts stand in his way. The majority of Americans support expanded background checks, he whines, when thee research indicates no such thing. Why doesn’t Congress?

Perhaps because as power-hungry and disgustingly morally corrupt as most politicians are, they understand that alienating gun owners, who actually… you know… vote, might not be the best idea to further their careers.


7 responses

  1. No one has ever asked me a gun owner if I want “expanded back ground checks” what ever that means. As you have noted criminals don’t get their guns leagally (see my shocked face) because, wait for it,

    they are criminals.

    Philip is biased in New York City. There, fixed it for him.


  2. I generally believe that I hold my own pretty well, when arguing against those in the gun control cabal…but you have just made it far easier for me, as I can direct them to your well written post. Thank you for doing the work, and helping take back the phrase that the grabbers have tried appropriate – “common sense”. Next step…take back “gun safety”.

    I’ll be reblogging this tomorrow.


    1. Glad it was helpful. Use at will. 🙂


  3. Comments there seem to be shut off for that ‘article’. Color me shocked…..


    1. Oops, disregard, seems they’re just really slow to load. WTH?


  4. Well the take away I get from this is the following…
    1) The thing that should matter most is where criminals get their guns. Who cares where good guys buy their guns.
    2) The 18% from gun stores I assume is irreverent because I’m assuming they passed a NICS test before they became a criminal. So that 18% cannot be addressed.
    3) So the real number of matter is the 1.7% and who would argue that if BGC were mandatory for private sales that these 1.7% just wouldn’t simply move into the friends, family, and theft bucket. Of coarse they would.

    Therefore a bunch of new laws for no appreciable gain.


%d bloggers like this: