Americans' Positive Perception Of NRA Soars As Obama Escalates Gun-Control Agenda
Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
When pollsters asked people three decades ago how they felt about the National Rifle Association, 27% said they strongly supported the gun lobby. By last month, that share had grown 38%, an 11-point increase. Meanwhile, the share that didn’t side with the NRA declined.
By an 8-point, registered voters in the Journal/NBC survey last month said they were more concerned that the government would go too far in restricting gun rights than that it fail to do enough to regulate access to firearms. When adults were asked the same question in 1995, the greater fear was that access to firearms was too widespread.
In July polling, the Journal/NBC survey found that 43% of the public had a positive image of the NRA and 32% a negative one—a more favorable view than the public held of the Supreme Court or either political party. By a 15-point margin, political independents, also viewed the NRA more positively than negatively.
– From the Wall Street Journal article: Rising Support for NRA Stymies Obama
Love guns or hate guns, one thing is becoming perfectly clear. The American public’s perception of guns and the NRA is moving in the exact opposite direction of Barack Obama’s message and agenda.
To hear Obama speak, you’d think the NRA is simply using boatloads of money and propaganda to thwart the impassioned gun control desires of the American public. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. First, let’s take a look at some powerful charts from the Wall Street Journal.

As you can clearly see, the numbers regarding NRA support have virtually flipped over the past thirty years. This is also consistent with a recent ABC News poll which showed for the first time that a majority of American are against an assault weapons ban. From the post, A Majority of Americans Oppose “Assault Weapons Ban” – Highest Number on Record:
A majority of Americans oppose banning assault weapons for the first time in more than 20 years of ABC News/Washington Post polls, with the public expressing vast doubt that the authorities can prevent “lone wolf” terrorist attacks and a substantial sense that armed citizens can help.
Indeed, while the division is a close one, Americans by 47-42 percent think that encouraging more people to carry guns legally is a better response to terrorism than enacting stricter gun control laws. Divisions across groups are vast, underscoring the nation’s gulf on gun issues.
Now here’s another chart from the same Wall Street Journal article, which is even more compelling.

Although Democrats hate the NRA (the same group that supports Hillary for President despite admitting she’s untrustworthy), Independents show strong support. Why is this important? Because according to a recent Gallup poll, a record 43% of Americans identify as Independents.
From Gallup:
PRINCETON, N.J. — An average 43% of Americans identified politically as independents in 2014, establishing a new high in Gallup telephone poll trends back to 1988. In terms of national identification with the two major parties, Democrats continued to hold a modest edge over Republicans, 30% to 26%.
Since 2008, the percentage of political independents — those who identify as such before their leanings to the two major parties are taken into account — has steadily climbed from 35% to the current 43%, exceeding 40% each of the last four years. Prior to 2011, the high in independent identification was 39% in 1995 and 1999.
The recent rise in political independence has come at the expense of both parties, but more among Democrats than among Republicans. Over the last six years, Democratic identification has fallen from 36% — the highest in the last 25 years — to 30%. Meanwhile, Republican identification is down from 28% in 2008 to 26% last year.
Now here’s the chart. There’s a well defined bull market in Independent-identifying Americans:

Finally, let’s end this post with some excerpts from the Wall Street Journal article from which the previously highlighted charts were pulled:
When pollsters asked people three decades ago how they felt about the National Rifle Association, 27% said they strongly supported the gun lobby. By last month, that share had grown 38%, an 11-point increase. Meanwhile, the share that didn’t side with the NRA declined.
That is just one measure of the challenge that has forced President Barack Obama to sidestep Congress and put in place new gun regulations through executive action. Mr. Obama knows through hard experience that lawmakers have little appetite for passing tougher gun laws. Polling shows that skepticism is rooted among the broader public, as well.
So there you go. King Obama sees political trends he doesn’t like, knows that Congress can’t do anything about it because the public doesn’t want it to, so he does it by himself by executive decree.
As I noted on Twitter the other day:
Yeah, then this will flip once Trump is elected, and Obama supporters will suddenly discover the Constitution: pic.twitter.com/O6x0U8cA0B
— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) January 6, 2016
Now back to the WSJ:
By an 8-point, registered voters in the Journal/NBC survey last month said they were more concerned that the government would go too far in restricting gun rights than that it fail to do enough to regulate access to firearms. When adults were asked the same question in 1995, the greater fear was that access to firearms was too widespread.
But as Mr. Obama seeks any small patch of common ground, one of the most powerful forces he must deal with is skepticism of any new laws—even the widely backed expansion of background checks. A majority in Gallup polling said background checks would have little or no effect in reducing mass shootings. And a majority believed the country would be safer if more people carried concealed weapons—a finding in tune with the NRA’s contention that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.’’
While support for the NRA skews Republican, it is not exclusively Republican. Some 41% of political independents rate themselves as highly supportive of the gun lobby, more than twice the share that doesn’t support the group, December’s Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey found.
In July polling, the Journal/NBC survey found that 43% of the public had a positive image of the NRA and 32% a negative one—a more favorable view than the public held of the Supreme Court or either political party. By a 15-point margin, political independents, also viewed the NRA more positively than negatively.
“The gun lobby may be holding Congress hostage right now, but they cannot hold America hostage,’’ Mr. Obama said in announcing his new gun regulations. But in going up against the NRA, he is working against a force that is not only powerful but popular among many in the country.
Substitute “the American public” for “the gun lobby,” and you’ll find out what’s really irking King Barry.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -



If the law leads down the path you describe, fuck the law. This is the same strategy the White Housenigger uses when a law gets in his way. Ignore it, or treat it as merely advisory.
The moment an individual begins to focus on details of an issue before understanding the fundamentals... they are toast. Their thoughts mean nothing.
In this case, some of the fundamentals are:
So-called "law" is 100% fiction.
So-called "state" is 100% fiction.
So-called "nation" is 100% fiction.
So-called "government" is 100% fiction.
The so-called "constitution" is old ink smeared on an old piece of parchment.
-----
Think about this. PLEASE.
A pack of human predators gather in a building. They sit around a big table. They talk to each other. They smear ink on parchment. They leave.
Before their meeting, what existed was humans, ink, parchment.
After their meeting, what existed was humans, ink, parchment.
NOTHING new popped into existence.
It is true that some of the ink was removed from the bottle and smeared on the parchment. But that is nothing more than change in the location of some ink.
THAT IS ALL.
No "government" popped into existence.
No "nation" popped into existence.
No "law" popped into existence.
NOTHING POPPED INTO EXISTENCE.
And so, those fictions are fictions... they do not exist.
If you (or they) write down "Santa Claus is an old man in a red suit in a toy factory at the north pole who hops on his flying sleigh pulled by flying reindeer once per year to deliver gifts to good boys and girls all over the world"... that does not create an old man, or a red suit, or a toy factory, or a sleigh, or reindeer, or anything else exists.
In exactly the same way, if you (or they) write down statements about "government" and "nation" and "law"... that does not create anything, and nothing new exists.
Thus, this and virtually all topics that modern humans discuss are absolutely, completely, utterly and totally INSANE. And they are insane in the most fundamental way possible... inability to distinguish real from fiction AKA exists from nothing AKA existence from nonexistence AKA is from is not. This form of insanity is indeed the form of insanity visualized by the cliche example of an insane human being trying to catch non-existent butterflies flying around and near his head.
Which means, at least 99.99999% of humans are insane in the most fundamental way possible. They spend most of their time and effort taking actions based upon the false assumption that these and thousands of other outright nothings (fictions) exist (are real)... including killing each other, chasing after each other, throwing each other into cages, and endless other outrageous actions. All because they assume thousands of their mental-units that refer-to nothing... actually refer-to something. And not only "something", but the "most important somethings that guide their lives".
-----
But, let's assume the above (obviously correct) expose is simply too surreal for you to deal with. Let's think in a more conventional way about that process... where a few [dozen] humans sit around a table, smear ink on parchment, then leave.
Can ANYONE in their right mind seriously believe and claim any valid and legitimate basis exists for a few [dozen] human beings to assert that "every human being for hundreds or thousands of miles must accept and obey whatever claims and demands the words formed by the smeared ink on their parchment state"? And everyone born for eternity must also?
Seriously. Think about that. Consider how flaming insane that is.
Who the hell do these humans think they are, anyway?
Seriously. Think about that.
Who could advocate this?
Any sane individual?
And notice this. If this few [dozen] humans can smear ink on paper and make such claims, then any number of other few [dozen] humans can smear ink on paper and make other claims. The claims and demands on all these ink-smeared pieces of parchment will certainly contradict each other... but by definition they are equally valid (or invalid) because they were created by the same kinds of existents/creatures (humans) in the same manner.
Obviously they are equally invalid.
Plus... how insane must creatures be to actually believe that smearing ink on parchment can create ANY obligations on millions or billions of human beings who had absolutely no part in smearing that ink?
If you are one of those who actually believe this (as opposed to just feeling very uncomfortable that you've been played for a dupe in such a crazy way your entire life), I must point out something.
A few [dozen] of us took those same actions, created the "empire of the universe", appointed me "emperor of the universe", and gave me "authority" to obligate every entity in the universe in any way I decide. Thus you and everyone else are a "citizen" of my domain, and must obey. My first, primary and standing order for you is...
GET REAL
Which means, you are hereby freed from recognizing or obeying any so-called "authority". Except me, of course. So henceforth your only obligation is... wake up, get sane, get real. Now go have fun for a change!
The further you look into history,the farther you can see into the future.....who said that years ago??
When is the Excutive Order supposed to be coming out?