New Gallup Poll – Americans Consider Government A Much Bigger Problem Than Guns

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

U.S. President Barack Obama is not just the world’s best gun salesman, he’s also the world’s worst gun control spokesperson.


Despite immediately politicizing every single shooting event in recent years by using his bully pulpit to lecture the American public on why citizens must give up their rights to feel safe, his message has fallen on deaf ears. Why?


Mainly because a man who consistently orders drone strikes on women and children all over the world, intentionally bombs a Doctors Without

Borders hospital into oblivion, and who launched more shady wars across the globe than George W. Bush, doesn’t exactly hold much credibility as a humanitarian pacifist looking to “save the children.”

– From the post: A Majority of Americans Oppose “Assault Weapons Ban” – Highest Number on Record

We learned the above just last month, which makes the latest findings on how Americans view gun control consistent with previously observed attitudes. Meanwhile, Nick Gillespie over at Reason explains the latest poll results from Gallup, and  highlights how Obama continues to force an alternative agenda on the American people:

The first major action taken by Barack Obama in 2016—a set of new gun-control measures mandated via executive order—is aimed at a threat that Americans don’t spend a lot of time worrying about.


In its latest survey of Americans, Gallup finds that “dissatisfaction with government,” not guns or even terrorism, tops the list of concerns:


Obama’s new actions against guns include expanding background checks; changing definitions of mental illness in a way that limits who is able to own guns; increasing the number of federal agents charged with tracking gun sales and crimes; and more.


Because violent crime, including gun-related crime and murders, is way down, gun-control issues don’t generally capture the public imagination the way that they would in a world of increasing murder rates. In the same Gallup survey that listed “dissatisfaction with government” as the top concern for each of the past two years, “guns/Gun control” was considered “the most important problem” by 2 percent of respondents, about the same who listed “lack of respect for each other” and pollution.


Yet Obama pushes forward with measures that even he acknowledges “will save few lives,” almost certainly more out of politics than an interest in dealing with the most serious problems facing the country.


Obama’s willingness to always pivot to issues that are not front and center, along with his willingness to expand the role of the state in virtually every aspect of our lives from health care to mass surveillance is surely a big part of the reason why people are consistently worried more about government than anything else. In this, of course, he’s had plenty of help from Republicans and his fellow Democrats, which also helps to explain another Gallup finding released this time last year: “In U.S. New Record 43% Are Independents.”

Now let’s look at the detailed breakdown from Gallup. It’s not even close, gun control barely registers.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
JamaicaJim's picture

That the US Government is corrupt is not the question. They are.

The questions are;



For the life me, I do not have those answers.

THAT is the issue; what can someone do?

Bilderberg Member's picture

Obama didn't get as choked up over the deaths of Seal Team 6....The families STILL wants answers, Mr. President!

Latina Lover's picture

Of course government is a much bigger problem than Guns.... you are more likely to be killed by your government than by a terrorist.


As for Obama's crocodile tears, if the mulatto messiah really cared, he would stop the sale of US weapons to terrorist states such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Ghordius's picture

it's a divisive issue. and a distracting one. meanwhile, the most powerful or dangerous (according to your persuation) person in the picture is the one without a gun

Latina Lover's picture

RE: Seal Team 6, here is what the elitists think of soldiers:

“Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”

? Henry Kissinger

Ghordius's picture

every and each one of the armed men on that picture is carefully selected for his propensity to catch a bullet for the man that is unarmed

you might want to stop, eventually, to be partisan or, better, to expect a partisan comment everywhere. I could not care less about gun laws in the US

but I agree with ZeroHedge on certain facts, and one of them is that Obama is the greatest gun salesman evah

meanwhile, those grunts have my respect. hell, I even like their ethos

NidStyles's picture

Every man woman and child should be competent with firearms. There is no excuse for being a victim. 

cordial savage's picture

Ease up on the paranoia.  Not everyone is going to be a victim if they don't become "competent with firearms."  We don't all live in the ever-violent world you live in.  When the time comes, we'll figure it out.  Until then, we're not going to live in a gun-lusting, fear-obsessed world.

The Left and the Right have both lost their shit on this issue.

KesselRunin12Parsecs's picture

I don't remember ever hearing about any 'mass shootings' at a gun show.

NidStyles's picture

There is nothing fearful or paranoid about wanting an armed and competent populace. 


The only people behaving in fear or paranoia are the ones that deny the right for self-defense and attack those that advocate the ability for all people of law-abiding status the ability and competency to defend themselves should the need arise. You are behaving in fear of an armed populace. You are paranoid of being around people whom refuse to be victims of any violent offender. 


An armed populace has nothing to fear or be paranoid about, because they can trust each other in mutual defense. It works in every region it's been tried. 


VinceFostersGhost's picture



10th Amendment bitchez........learn it, love it!

Save_America1st's picture

interesting timing of this type of poll when at the very same time the gov-scum are also trying to use negative opinions of government as a reason to ban us from owning our guns!


Americans Critical of Government Can Lose Gun Rights Due to Executive Order

Psychologists could diagnose conservatives, libertarians with "Oppositional Defiant Disorder in adults"


NidStyles's picture

The APA should be disbanded as well as use of the DSM discontinued. There is no scientific background for the validity of the conditions within the DSM, and the majority of them are simply considitions described by "experts", without any real standards or evidence. 


I have no issues with legitimate authority. My service record is essentially spotless. I have an issue with this current admin, and many of the people whose ego's are a bit too large for their role as public servants though. Would they presume to say that I have this "medical condition"? 

Dr. Spin's picture

The gun question can be answered pretty simply and within reasonable bounds of the constitution:  The people should be able to arm themselves to the level of the *****CIVILIAN POLICE******.  So, whatever the oinkers can have, we can have too.  Where they can carry, we can carry too. 

...and we DON'T need their permission to keep and bear arms.

Spoctor Din

The Wizard's picture

Administrative Law is unconstitutional, read and listen to Philip Hamburger, law professor

JR's picture

The polling agencies are our enemy. The reason they make these calls is to make their points. And gun control is one of them.

"Scratch the surface even lightly in almost any state and you will find influential Jews leading the movement to restrict the right to bear arms." --

Andrew Joyce, Ph.D. -  Jews and Gun Control: A Reprise

Ghordius's picture

ideally, that armed and competent populace ought to be able to shoot down a drone before it fires a hellfire, or stop a shell incoming from 10'000 yards and open counterbattery fire. ideally

look, I'm not trying to make fun of the thing, here. an armed populace restrains both crime and police, up to a certain point. it has some limited advantages

but your "It works in every region it's been tried" is simply false. if it's a team against you armed with crewed weapons, you are toast

in former Yugoslavia, it was the 120mm mortar shell coming from behind the hills that did the job. in many other places, it's a whole array of possibilities. try to do that in places where there is real violence, and you'll see the limitations of the modern personal weaponry

modern infantry only holds ground... as long as it is covered by more powerful weapon systems. the Minuteman with a real military value has gone the way of the armoured knight

NidStyles's picture

I am a retired Infantryman, and what you are saying is complete nonsense. 


Yugoslavia was unarmed. They had been disarmed by the socialists that occupied the territory beforehand. That's why the ethnic cleansing was possible in the first place, because the fucking UN was arming the homicidal maniacs. Along with our own president.


No one invades Switzerland, just like the Russians couldn't invade Finland. Because the people were armed and competent. 


You don't need to shoot down the drone, and that sort of thinking is foolish. The guy flying the thing has to sleep and eat. He also needs his head to be able to fly it. Modern Infantry doesn't hold ground, you have no idea what you are talking about. The Infantry doesn't hold ground, it recons and takes it. It moves forward. Holding the territory is the job of the MP's and support units. Infantry only advances. That is why our saying is "Follow Me".



Ghordius's picture

Nid, with all respect I can muster for a retired grunt, your assertions mix up several things. Can you give me any example of infantry taking ground alone against crewed/heavy weaponry? Or even holding ground against it, again, alone, without terrible losses, depending from the terrain? In your lifetime?

Encroaching Darkness's picture

Tanks are mobile artillery, with aspects of ancient cavalry. But even a modern tank, alone without infantry support, is a vulnerable target to satchel charges, IEDs, bazookas, etc. Infantry recons and holds the ground, supports the mobile armor and artillery, and patrols / observes the approaches to the army group. They can't stop everything, but tankers without artillery become "crispy critters".


Ghordius's picture

totally correct. without infantry, you achieve nothing. my argument is still about a completely different thing: infantry alone... is toast

and this was even true at the height of the Napoleonic wars, where you needed Infantry and Cavalry and Artillery to win the day against a reasonably equipped army

NidStyles's picture

Yes, because the Infantry couldn't simply take the armor and use it themselves. 

Miles Ahead's picture

@Nid: Yugoslavia was unarmed. They had been disarmed by the socialists that occupied the territory beforehand. That's why the ethnic cleansing was possible in the first place, because the fucking UN was arming the homicidal maniacs.

Scratching my head on this one (and I shampoo).  There's so much wrong with that diatribe that I don't know where to begin.

Start over; try rewriting that using words like Serbian, Croatian, Albanian, Bosnian. Then I'll be back to see if this thing gets any clearer.  Because I can't attack it like this; I mean, it's all so muddled in the one big word - Yugoslavia.

Good luck and God bless.

NidStyles's picture

What in the fuck do you think we were fighting against in Afghanistan and Iraq? Camel's spitting at us? They had everything from AK's to RPG's. We still kicked the shit out of them. We didn't have armor in Afghanistan, it was us walking everywhere or being dropped by heli's. 

What do you think the boys in every landing during WW2 and engagement were fighting against? Pickle throwers? You have no idea what you are talking about, and should honestly just shut the fuck up about it already.


I don't care if you have any respect for me. You opinion is quite literally meaningless on almost everything I've read you post about. That you think you can speak as an authority on anything about combat is quite fucking amusing. 


As it was stated before, none of us would be alone. There are 100+ million firearm owners in the US, and if every man woman and child were competent with the firearm, they would be within trained militia status easily within two months. If I needed to, I could build an entire regiment within six months. An army within a year. Every single experienced Infantryman can do this, as it's part of our training to learn how to train others. 


Ghordius's picture

"That you think you can speak as an authority on anything about combat is quite fucking amusing"

well, no, I do not spend time here talking about my qualifications. how to prove them, here? I just try to build up a logical argument

no, armor in Afghanistan was not needed nor useful. even the Soviets used more gunships and airstrikes. but again, you yourself write "They had everything from AK's to RPG's"

and against that... little, you used only rifles and handguns? meanwhile, the boys in every landing during WW2 did not have naval guns behind them and airstrikes to call in?

yes, you can build several regiments within six month. no, I would not like to watch what happens if you encounter modern combined arms units. I watched enough such encounters

mumcard's picture

Tanks, drones, aircraft, all need maintenance and fuel.  If you can disrupt the maintenance you disable the billion dollar baby.  Also, they all have families.  Sure there is a button, but someone pushes the button and everyone has soft spots.

undertow1141's picture

(wink) and us Marines look back and say "Follow me" to you grunts.

NidStyles's picture

Hey, that lasts until you guys run into real resistance. 

ThanksChump's picture

It's a fascinating topic. Discussions of revolution or civil war tend to dredge up images of storming the capitol. Armed clashes, etc. That's art, advertising, and media nonsense. It's messy and creates parking issues.

You only need to quietly remove the enemy group's supporters, and cripple infrstructures. If someone knows it happened before you finish, you did it wrong.

I'm just glad that violence is neither necessary nor called for, and I hope it remains so.

Dr. Bonzo's picture

I guess the Iraqi resistance didn't get the memo and the Afghans had that day off in class.

Tell you what did stop the resistance. Massive pallets full of fresh shrink-wrapped cash. That shit seems to work every time.


Ghordius's picture

Afghans were getting their asses whipped... until they got "Stinger" missiles against "Hind" armoured gunship helicopters 

FIAT CON's picture

Exactly like the picture above. Why doesnt Obutthead have to worry about protection is because all of the citizens around him are armed!

SamAdams's picture

Nobody died at Sandy Hook:

This is a good read.  There are some kook writings toward the end of the book, but most of it is substantial.

TeamDepends's picture

Shout it loud and proud! NOBODY DIED AT SANDY HOOK. That is the TRUTH. If you can't handle it you are a child, no matter what your age.

cordial savage's picture

Do they even have ammo present at those Mensa gatherings?

TeamDepends's picture

Says the IDIOT who can only use harsh language to defend himself.

KesselRunin12Parsecs's picture

Give it a try & find out for yourself Einstein (note: Einstein was only 165)

Croesus's picture

"Gun control" is a non-issue...

The political crowd is determined to disarm the public...I say, let them! Let them pass a law, outlawing the private ownership of firearms, on the "What if" possibility that it might stop a random shooting or 3. 

The people enforcing the new laws, won't even make it through the ghettoes. 

The people creating the laws, won't make it through the week. 

Americans love guns. They will not stop loving them. 

Guns made America possible, and the suggestion that Americans give up their guns, should serve as further proof of just how "disconnected-from-reality" most politicians are.  


noless's picture

From :

"The Administration is proposing a new $500 million investment to increase access to mental health care.

The Social Security Administration has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to include information in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm for mental health reasons.

The Department of Health and Human Services is finalizing a rule to remove unnecessary legal barriers preventing States from reporting relevant information about people prohibited from possessing a gun for specific mental health reasons."

No specifics listed, but I'm guessing "undue paranoia involving government officials" and "prone to accepting, expressing conspiracy theories" will make that list.

Bunghole's picture

If they outlaw guns, your gun/ammo collection will be the best investment you ever made.

I'll be selling .45 acp for $5/round.

El Hosel's picture

Oops, according to our poll it looks 1 of 8 choose to be the victim. That should indicate a landslide victory for Trump, there is no excuse for not voting Trump.

Vlad the Inhaler's picture

The government is bad, and Trump wants to be leader of the government, so...

El Hosel's picture

Trump wants to be the winner of the biggest pissing contest on the planet, why wouldn't he? Vote Trump.

mumcard's picture

I think I'll withdraw my consent to be governed by any of these corrupt clowns instead.

RedDwarf's picture

Your first sentance is truth.  Every man, woman, and child should be competent with firearms.  The second sentence is rubbish.  Just because you have a firearm and know how to use it does not mean you can guarantee not becoming a victim and that you have 'no excuse' if you become one.

hannah's picture

ghordius - hitler had body guards that would take a bullit for him...does that make them heros also? the sec service is just another problem that needs to go away...with all of big fed gov...