Until former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley went full CSGV in a desperate effort to garner some media attention, gun rights have largely been absent from the 2016 presidential campaign so far. Still, a growing proportion of Americans believe that a candidate’s position on guns and gun control is important to their decision on who to vote for, and overall the majority seem to think that keeping the laws as they are right now is the right thing to do . . .
From the CNN Poll:
In June 2011, 22% of voters called gun policy an “extremely important” issue in their vote for president, that’s risen 20 points since to 42%.
I think Robert hit the nail on the head when he started TTAG — guns are the most important topic of our generation. The laws around guns and gun control are the most hotly debated topic of the time, and the candidates’ opinions on guns are a reliable litmus test of their beliefs and philosophy for concerned voters.
That’s not surprising. Neither is the growing sentiment that increased gun control isn’t the way to go.
Overall, 41% say existing laws make it too easy for people to buy guns, down from 56% saying so about a month after the shooting deaths of 27 people at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. About half, 49%, say current laws are about right, and 10% that they make it too difficult to buy a gun.
The majority of Americans (59%) now believe that current gun laws are either just right or still too restrictive. That’s a far cry from the constant chanting of Michael Bloomberg and his Everytown minions who claim that what we really want and need are more “common sense” “gun safety” laws. That’s probably because people have seen what they consider “common sense” and are sick and tired of the lies and disinformation.
That notion is backed up by the data (something Everytown somehow never bothers to do). While Americans appear to think that background checks are a good idea, the majority understand that more restrictive laws (making illegal activity more illegal-er) won’t do anything to stop “gun violence” or keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.
At the same time, many express doubts that expanded gun laws would be able to prevent those with mental health problems from buying guns (44% see that as likely, 56% unlikely), or that such laws would keep guns out of the hands of convicted criminals (42% say that’s likely, 58% unlikely). But most also say it wouldn’t necessarily make it harder for a law-abiding citizen without mental health problems to buy one, 57% say it’s unlikely to do that.
While that’s all good news for gun rights supporters, the person who makes out the worst in this poll is Barack Obama. The Democrats fault him for not doing enough about guns. The Republicans fault him for doing what he has against guns. He just can’t win, and that’s led to his current stellar 35% approval rating. With a solid 59% of Americans disapproving of his handling of gun-related issues, gun rights supporters have carried the argument.
I’m guessing we’re going to be seeing more discussion on guns and gun rights as we get closer to the election and the importance of that topic will only increase. While the ball has clearly been moved forward, whether most people see the importance of firearms freedom largely the same way as TTAG — personal liberty and self sufficiency versus government control and fascism — I’m not sure.
The 2016 Republican presidential candidate — whoever he or she is — will have a field day running against Barack Obama’s third term. If people weren’t so fed up, Trump, Carson and Sanders wouldn’t be polling as well as they are.
The Democrat candidate — whoever he or she is — can only run against the NRA. So there’s the battle, and it will be a total culture war with increasingly violent rhetoric by the Democrats.
I welcome it.
It’s not the candidates that are the problem. It’s all of their a-hole voters (albeit, some are merely notionary, others, dead).
If you live in a blue state you may be part of the problem. If you have a (D) after your name, are a liberal or a rino, the problem is PART-OF-YOU, you are permanently damaged POS, and your mother (one of your five fathers that wears the dress more often) owes us an abortion.
DON’T YOU DARE GIVE US ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR F’D UP POS CANDIDATES.
Whoa man, ad hominem much?
There are Democrats that don’t like the way their party is headed in general, and hate the automatic anti-liberty stance, but they aren’t one-issue voters and sometimes swallow a bitter pill to support someone who (claims to) mostly supports their values. Republican voters suffer from the same problem.
Frankly the way the parties operate now, Ted Kennedy would be ostracized from all but the Tea Party.
Whoa nuthin’.
Check your jersey color. That’s what team your on. If it came down to a civil war between the parties no one would give (nor expect from the other) a chance to peel it off [much less the time (then) to ‘fix’ their party]. You are f-ing a right it’s not a one issue vote (D)’s have been at leat marginally f’d since invented, and the majority if America’s woes are not just their fault, they are their wheelhouse / plank issues.
You f-ing go to hell.
And don’t throw out the Repub. /Ted Kennedy refrence we always get this “they’re just as bad /all the same sh_t” from (D)-libs around election time.
FU
Ted kennedy was a huge liberal di<k, abuser of booze and women and his F-head liberal evil blue house of (D) bag constituents kept wasting our representatives time trying to figure out the commie sh-t he was up to, much less counteract. He came from a tiny blue state, full of POS (D) bags. FU for him, and all y'all. Keep your pissant little stupid blue state sh_t to yourselves.
Somebody had too much coffee today….
Probably booze…
Unfortunately, this is the most sensical Joe R has been in the last few weeks I’ve sen his comments.
Don’t mind Joey. He’s usually too busy writing his own unpublished book that he frequently cites as a source.
Thanks Grinder, now THAT’s an ad hominem attack.
Whew, at least he didn’t call me wrong.
And yes, the publishing has been an arduous task. It took nearly two years to negotiate “permissions” and receive licensing for just the materials cited. However, it has a 2012 copyright date and has finally been converted to Kindle format.
Don’t let me ever catch you reading it.
Real, real low odds of that happening, Joe.
Joe, do you do children’s parties by chance?
Again, at least I’m not wrong.
Kids parties? Sure, but tell your ma to stop callin’ me.
Don’t hold back Joe, let all your feelings out. Even though I sort of agree with you, I still see some shades of gray in the world. Society isn’t binary where everything is either right or wrong, black or white, with no middle ground on any issue allowed. North Korea tries to operate that way where “dear leader” knows what is best and the rest of the world is not only wrong but must be destroyed for disagreeing.
That’s like saying ‘a hole in the condom is tolerable, if we can pick where it is.’
No, it isn’t all black & white, until it is. You want to say when that’ll be, but, even if allowed, you could not guarantee that for anyone.
I’m saying that small problems are what topple everything eventually. You want to see how long we can hold out before anything happens, I want to be able to look you in the eye and tell, with a fair amount of certainty, that you don’t.
I believe this is one of the few instances when asking “u mad bro?” is actually appropriate.
Joe, you aren’t suppossed to take the whole bottle of pills at once.
You guys going to send Obama a t-shirt? Best firearm salesman to date, bar none.
TL;DR?
41% of Americans polled are REALLY stupid
Newsflash
99.9999998% of Americans are never polled.
Silence from this group does not equal consent, silence is what the firing squad gives you a little of, before giving you an eternity of ut. [TERMS, J.M. Thomas, R., 2012]
Check our math, .00000002% of Americans is .73 people. Obviously more than three quarters of one person was polled. How do you even pole less than a whole person?
I think you are even off one decimal. I was off two. Edit feature to posts has been removed.
The right to bear arms is an enumerated, protected, individual right, no matter what you, I, or Michael Bloomberg would like it to be.
I’m not sure it matters overmuch why someone sees the 2A as important, so long as the importance is recognized.
The candidate is less important than what the winner will be able to do….. Several of the Supreme Court Justices are old. They can retire or die in the very near future. The next president will have the ability to ‘load the Court’ with judges of a certain tendency. Wouldn’t you like that tendency to be towards freedoms? The next election is extremely important. Even if you have to write in ‘deez nuts’ on your ballot, it is extremely important that you vote.
‘deez nuts’ is not going to be selecting a Supreme Court Judge
And that’s a shame
Actually, we should support Deez Nuts’s candidacy. If you care so little about your governing body that you would actually vote for Nuts (I-Internet) then I want you to vote for him instead of who you think the most politically correct candidate might be. Because it’s probably a freedom hating liberal.
I believe Hillary will pull out nomination and if Republican are smart, for a change, they will run negative, but true, political ads where the Red phone is ringing and she sleeps (or passed out) though Benghazi attack . A few ads with film footage of her comments on need for more gun control. I understand we may have to hold our nose to vote for the Republican candidate but think back to 2008, was sitting on hands really better than the 2nd. term for current community organizer?
Here’s a Hillary quote you can believe in:
“What difference at this point does it make?”
~Hillary Clinton to Senator Ron Johnson, January 23, 2013
Of course, the ‘it’ was the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and CIA security operatives Tyrone Woods & Glen Doherty: all tortured and murdered while Hillary and Obama ‘sat on their hands’; ignoring the calls for assistance from the Consulate during the terrorist attack in Benghazi on the evening of September 11, 2012.
MEH-as I watch bits and pieces of the repub “debate” I realize how few of them I trust about GUNS. Obviously NO dumbocrats(or I-socialists) but damn the Donald ain’t one of ’em…at least the Cubs are winning…
#HILLARYFORPRISON 2016
20% off with a bottle of colloidal silver and Super Male or Super Female Vitality!
Who among us potg would not call gun control “very important ” to how we vote? I think it is reasonable to assume those answering in the affirmative to this question would be be proportional to those saying they vote for or against a candidate based on gun control: about 10 to 20 percent.
Polls show most folks think we don’t need more laws. I think guns are a hollow issue for most this cycle and this talk is just early election chatter.
The kicker is that most Right-leaning voters won’t bend on the pro-gun stance, where most left-leaning voters are too lazy and stupid to care that much about anything except their free stuff.
So that’s how I’m gonna roll? I was going to vote for someone who doesn’t deny science, or basically says fuck off to us middle class. But hey, apparently, since I’m a Democrat I get a bunch of free shit! I just wish my ammo were free, and maybe some free guns, but hey, at least I don’t spend my salary on anything, since everything is free! Ignorance helps them decide us, btw.
So you were going to vote for someone who would deny you your 2A right. Got it.
The only Democrat I would even entertain the thought of voting for is Jim Webb. Mainly because he believes in the 2A as it was written. Unfortunately the man doesn’t have a snowballs chance in hell to make it.
Democrat? Statists, part of those that are either the powerless, helpless and dependent and want others to pick up their slack, or control freaks that want to tell others how they should, eat, drink and think and feel that most people are too emotional and immature to run around with pointy objects or loaded firearms, and try to make laws accordingly.
Democrats/statists/socialists. This way of thinking is not new. Call them what you will, but the way they believe has been the norm at the end of and the cause of most of civilizations collapse into dark ages for most of recorded history.
Just because the Democrats currently in power are Statists doesn’t mean the Republican party doesn’t have its fair share as well. That’s why guns are such an important issue, they tell the true love or hate of freedom that a candidate truly possesses.
No disagreement there. Most Republicans= statist as well.
With Bush the Younger as president, we still continued massive government growth, and he gave us the Patriot (abomination) Act. Nuff said.
At least with most democrats, they are honest about wanting the Nanny State .
The Repubs on the other hand talk small government, then when given the chance, more of the same, bigger and more intrusive government.
If you are an American citizen the Constitution should be important to you. Those candidates who seek to speak out against our liberty and Rights are, not in the right mindset. Sorry.
I look at politicians like Michael Bloomberg and what he tried to do as mayor of New York city. Making laws like what size Pepsi you are allowed to buy. Forbidding the National Guard from patrolling the streets after hurricane Sandy so only his “highly trained” police force were armed on patrol. Endorsing “stop & frisk” as a fine way to stop crime in the streets and even PUBLICALLY saying he didn’t care what the 4th Amendment said about warrentless searches. His abuses of power are too many to list all of them, but he represents a lot of what is wrong with many of today’s politicians. He and too many others feel they know MORE than the rest of us what is good for us, how we should live, what kind of medical care we deserve, what clothing our kids are allowed to wear, what we should be allowed to eat. what we can and cannot drive, etc. I don’t car what letter they put after their name, if they walk like a Bloomberg, talk like a Bloomberg, then I ain’t voting for them. If they walk like a Pelosi, talk like a Pelosi, than I ain’t voting for them. If they walk like a Schumer, talk like a Schumer, then I ain’t voting for them.
Time for a veteran to be President. The 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution so the people could protect themselves from a corrupt government. That is why it says “shall not infringe” so we can have what the government has to prevent a Holocaust. I believe the people should have what the government has including machine guns. The only gun control law there should be is that criminals can’t have any firearms. Thanks for your vote, pass the word. mrpresident2016.com
As a 21-year vet myself, I’m not sure I’d want most general officers as president. They tend to prefer control instead of freedom – which makes them modern liberals. That insufferable douche Honore, for example, helped come up with the idea to disarm citizens after Katrina.
I don’t need a President Wes Clark or Colin Powel treating me like they treat privates. (I don’t mean they are mean or disrespectful to privates. It’s that they treat privates as man-children who can’t be trusted to be responsible, and need to have every decision made for them).
I will hold my nose and vote for any Republican who is reasonably pro-gun, even if it is a retarded Tea Party member.
I’d even for a pri-gun democrat over an anti-gun republican, if such a democrat (and unicorns and bigfoot) existed.
But Trump cannot be trusted, and if he wins the nomination i will probably stay home.
Comments are closed.