New Survey Crushes Republican Lies About American Support for Gun Regulations

president-obama-executive-action-gunsFollowing President Obama’s executive actions on guns Tuesday, Republicans have acted as if he just erased the Second Amendment and ordered that all guns be confiscated. From referring to it as “Obama’s gun grab,” to continued insistence by many on the right that the president doesn’t believe in the Second Amendment, I’ve rarely seen an overreaction of this magnitude. The reaction has gone well past typical political cynicism to flat-out propaganda. Nothing he did on Tuesday remotely comes close to any sort of “gun grab,” but that didn’t stop many on the right from insisting that Obama is coming to take their guns.



The truth is, all the president really did was slightly expand background checks to close a couple of the loopholes criminals could potentially exploit to buy or sell guns – something you would think most Americans would support.

Well, as it turns out, most Americans do support President Obama’s recent move on guns.

A new CNN-ORC survey showed that 67 percent of Americans, including 63 percent of households with guns, support the measures the president enacted this week.

What’s even more surprising is that 51 percent of Republicans who responded to this survey agreed with President Obama’s executive actions. I can’t recall the last time I saw 51 percent of Republicans agree with the president on anything – let alone an executive action on guns. This fact, in and of itself, shows how popular expanding background checks on guns is.

This survey also goes along with other polling data we’ve seen before that’s shown that 90 percent of all Americans support universal background checks that close loopholes that could be exploited by criminals.

Yet with the overwhelming majority of Americans supporting universal background checks, we can’t get this legislation through Congress because Republicans refuse to do anything. Hell, even when the vast majority of Americans – and over 50 percent of Republicans – support President Obama’s executive action on guns, nearly every Republican I’ve seen speak about this issue has condemned what the president did.

And why is that? Because the Republican party is bought and paid for by the NRA – an organization that’s basically just the lobbyist arm of the billion dollar gun industry – an industry that profits mightily from gun violence, fear-mongering and the lack of sensible gun regulations.



How millions of conservatives fail to recognize this con is astounding. Logically speaking, why would the NRA or the gun industry ever support any sort of sensible gun reform that would actually reduce gun violence? That wouldn’t even make sense. That would be horrible for “business.” It would be like big tobacco actively trying to get people to not smoke.

What this survey ultimately proves is what many of us have known all along. That the Republican party is nothing but a paid shill for the NRA and the gun lobby. Because when 51 percent of Republicans are supporting President Obama taking unilateral steps on background checks because the GOP-controlled Congress refused to listen to the 90 percent of Americans who want universal background checks, that shows you how out of touch Republicans are when it comes to common sense gun reforms.




Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • jonjstrine42

    I’ve said it before. Democrats are in favor of RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. Republicans are against it. Oh, they’re in favor of the “gun ownership” part. It’s the “responsible” part they oppose.

    • Jim Bean

      There’s a problem that’s not been mentioned and that is that Democrats are also in favor nonsensical gun control any time they can pull it off. It makes it impossible to work with them on the sensible stuff because they can’t be trusted.

      http://www.npr.org/2015/10/27/451202615/san-franciscos-last-gun-shop-calls-it-quits

      http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/11/news/economy/seattle-gun-tax/

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/va-attorney-general-mark-herring-delivers-blow-to-gun-rights-advocates/2015/12/21/d72ce3d0-a821-11e5-9b92-dea7cd4b1a4d_story.html

      • thud

        Virginia not recognizing concealed carry permits from other states is nonsensical? Taxing guns and ammo nonsensical? You don’t think cities or states should be able to regulate firearms within the limits of the 2nd? Who are you to tell them what’s sensible?

      • Jim Bean

        VA recognized those other state’s permits for many years without any detrimental outcomes. Therefore, the changes had nothing to do with gun violence/gun safety and everything to do with political shenanigans.

        A state singling out gun owners for higher taxes is not motivated by increasing revenue because a tax on chocolate (for example) would raise a lot more. They’re focused on punishing someone – in this case, perfectly law abiding people.

        When gun owners see these hijinks taking place, any chance they’ll ever trust or support a liberal mouthing the word “sensible” in relation to guns is not going to take them seriously.

      • thud

        So you think restrictions on drug dealers and mental patients carrying concealed weapons is unreasonable? That’s interesting.

      • Jim Bean

        “So you think restrictions on drug dealers and mental patients carrying concealed weapons is unreasonable?”

        I said nothing remotely resembling that. You obviously can continue your argument with me without my involvement, so I’ll move on.

        (Besides, that would be stop and frisk and I always supported that.)

      • thud

        It was in the link provided by you .You discounted their stated reasons for their actions and claim it’s all political and such.

      • Jim Bean

        What was in the link I provided was their admission that they had not identified any problem that needed addressing. From the link: {But Herring’s office could not say how many people are suspected of crossing into Virginia with concealed weapons to commit crimes.}

        I also know that Herring (D) sells gun control when campaigning for election/re-election. So when you can identify a political benefit and cannot identify social benefit, its safe to conclude its political.

      • thud

        Do you know the number of cases they have? You assume its few if any. I’m sure there’s some politics involved but there may actually be a benefit. There are quite a few folks out there that you and I both would not like to see with pistols in their pockets. States set their own rules for CC. If you want a national standard to over rule states then use the process. Otherwise it’s home rule.

      • Jim Bean

        The fight for national standards has been going on for a long time. Can you guess who is leading it?

        And, ironically, about a half million Virginians lost their right to carry in other states that use the reciprocal method. Course Herring knows they never voted for him in the first place so I’m sure he just smirks at that.

      • thud

        I’m sure there are pros and cons to it. Whats your take on it?

      • Jim Bean

        The core of the system for background checks in most states, is the NICS which is the data base for criminal records. I can’t say for sure if all states are using it but I can say that can’t be VA’s only complaint because I know PA uses it they still won’t accept PA’s.

        My take is it should be the standard for all states issuing and then all states should be required to accept it. If necessary, tweak it to include severe mental health issues.

        However, the mental health issue is a disaster in the making because the wider the net they cast there, the more people there are going to be who will avoid seeking help for mental health issues and then, instead of less nuts with guns, we’ll have more.

      • thud

        That’s a good point about the mental health issue and I’m sure that would happen but can you then say we need to let nutjobs carry guns so they get treatment? And perhaps if we addressed the costs of mental healthcare so it would not be ruinously expensive more people would get what they need. My wife works in a state facility and very few get there unless the law gets involved in some fashion. And folks are able to get a gun CC or not there being 300 million or so out there.I skimmed a few articles today and I don’t think all states use the NCIS. That would be a good base if a national standard were imposed. I’d think that it would be better if we could avoid that. Let regions set there own rules in that values are so different.

      • Jim Bean

        I think the only workable solution for the mental health issue is that a person has to be certified unfit to possess a firearm by mental health physician. But I suspect that isn’t going to be nearly good enough for the Left and that they are going to insist on the setting the bar so low for disqualification that it will discourage a great many people from seeking help.

      • thud

        There’s lots of deranged people who will never see anyone fit to make that call till after they tangle with the law. No easy fix for this one. Hey,I know! We could set up a new massive beaurocracy in Washington that….What,you laughing already?

      • Jim Bean

        🙂

      • Will

        Yes. The drug laws shouldn’t exist and those pushing gun laws would declare a person a “mental patient” merely for wanting a gun. Anyone whose mental state makes them too deranged to own a gun is too deranged to vote or not be committed.

      • thud

        So diagnosed mental cases and convicted drug dealers should be given CC permits? I don’t think so. But I agree that the drug laws need a lot of work. They tend to create criminals by incarceration. People come out hardened and can’t get jobs. You seem to be saying that preventing these cases from getting CC permits will be used as a way to remove all gun and voting rights. That’s a stretch. Did you catch what the new Kentucky Gov. did about voting for?

      • Will

        That’s a direct result of the drug laws. Get rid of the drug laws and sellers would be law abiding small business owners no different from those who own bars or liquor stores. Also remember we have so many laws now your average person commits three felonies a day. In DC a man was convicted of a “felony” for having a musket ball. In NY you can get one for having eight rounds in a magazine.
        Regarding mental illness there are people who you wouldn’t want having firearms, cars or anything else dangerous without treatment but the anti-gunners are completely untrustworthy in helping. We’re talking about people who regularly claim having or wanting guns at all is a “mental illness.”

      • thud

        I don’t hold with extremists on either side of the guns issue. They won’t write good law. I’m of the opinion that local governments should have the power to regulate firearms as they see fit,within the adjudicated confines of the 2nd.If my town does or doesn’t want folks totin long guns on the street then why should they have to bow to someone on the other side of the continent? And the same with CC laws. I know there are some examples of countries that have done away with drug prohibition. And much as I would like to see it I think that There would be some adverse effects in the US. Perhaps we could get there in increments.

      • Will

        I can’t see legal drugs being any worse than what we have today.

      • thud

        When highly adictive drugs become easily available lots of folks like me might get a jones. Everybody knows the danger of cigarettes yet we have millions of dead and untold cost to society. So bad that cigarettes are heavily taxed and their use is regulated. Would smack fare better? Then there’s crystal,lord help us. How about krocodil? Yes, all things considered it might actually be better but there will be problems.

      • Will

        That didn’t happen a century ago when you could buy heroin in a Montgomery Ward catalog. Prohibition has actually seen more use.

      • thud

        Ever read “You Can’t Win” the auto biography of Jack Black? There were hundreds of drifter criminals who stole or grifted to support their habits. Would you give your children cough syrup with opium in it as was a common practice then?

      • Will

        And that’s no different from today.
        Whether children use is up to parents. Whether adults use is their choice.

      • Will

        Taxes are a way to keep the poor from engaging in a civil right.

      • thud

        And lots of other social engineering mischief.

      • FD Brian

        democrats want your guns as much as republicans want smaller government. It’s an easy thing to say to get votes, but it’s never going to happen.

      • Jim Bean

        I can’t find anything in your comment to contradict.

    • strayaway

      And it works so well as when at least three gun regulations were violated my the San Bernadino Muslim couple and the fact that Washington, DC with more gun regulations than in the Obama edict has a gun homicide rate 51 times that of Vermont’s and more than twice as high of that of any state.

      Rasmussen also did a survey (1/7/16). “Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Likely U.S. Voters say the government should only do what the president and Congress agree on when it comes to gun control. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 34% believe Obama should take action alone if Congress does not approve the initiatives he has proposed.” “A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 34% of Likely U.S. Voters believe laws regarding the ownership of guns should be the responsibility of the federal government. That’s down from a high of 38% in December. Slightly more (36%) believe gun ownership is a state government responsibility, while 18% say local governments should have the final say. Twelve percent (12%) aren’t sure.”

  • noah vail

    ther are NO people that run scared more than right wing republicans and fundamentalist christians…..i guess they just don’t trust jeezuz to protect them in spite of all their “prayers” to him…..

    • Jim Valley

      I have never seen a group of people as frightened by EVERYTHING as today’s conservatives. They remind me of a bunch of terrified schoolgirls running screaming from the thunder at a church picnic. What babies!

  • GimmeSomeTruth

    The Republicans depend on the “backfire effect” to instill fear among gullible Americans. By proxy, this “backfire effect” creates an atmosphere of paranoia and distrust. Does anyone remember back in 2009 the Republicans spreading the conspiracy theory that the President’s right hand was placed in the Quran while taking his oath of the Presidency?.. Amazing how a mind(if they have any) is a terrible thing to waste.

    • Jim Valley

      The process goes like this.

      1. Take an everyday, ordinary act by the president.
      2. Make up a dark, sinister conspiracy theory to explain the president’s action. Make sure it is the scariest, most horrible scenario you can possibly imagine.
      3. Believe that the theory you made up in #2 is the absolute truth.
      4. Overreact.