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.
(26 votes)
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I live in a place where the county sheriff actively advises citizens to arm themselves, where the state attorney general shows up to meet and greet folks at gun shows, and where the governor shows off his high power rifle deer hunting photos.
Half the state can shoot the eye out of a squirrel at 200 yards.
Just which of Obama's pussy neocons will he be sending here?
dupe
dupe
my mother in law is human excrement
Im going to continue to post the following in the hopes that people begin to see through the bullshit.
I have invested 30 yers and over 60,000 hours of research in the areas of constitutional law affecting this subject matter. It is my opinion the NRA is a FRAUD. They have very deep pockets and should have access to the smartest lawyers on the planet. Yet here we are. Nowhere or worse. Why? Because they continue to jump up and down on the second amendmet when that IS NOT the issue. Its a side issue.
Do you want your second amendment protections? Great. But be advised that RIGHTS mean NOTHING without a process of law to protect them. Its the PROCESS that has been displaced. Its the STANDING of the individual before the courts that has been STRIPPED. If any of you think that just because you walk into a court, that that court automatically SITS in a capacity in which it can hear your arguments?? If you do, Iv'e got a bridge or two to sell ya.
I will continue to try to condense the following analysis identifying the basis of the real issue.
Look at Obamas new executive orders affecting gun control. Cause and affect. We see the affect. We know it defies the second amendment. Yet WE THE PEOPLE find ourselves without constitutional/judicial remedy because no one outside of government understands the cause.
There is a logical explanation for this state of affairs grounded in foundational principles of constitutional law.
The fed is a government of enumerated powers. The federal license and regulatory authority within the context of executive authority at issue here, according the the USSC is an operation of the federal taxing power. Commerce powers applied to assist. Specifically, we are dealing with the power to apply an EXCISE TAX that involves the creation, movement, and sale of property moving in commerce. The Federal ACT at issue is the GCA of 1968 and amendments.
The FEDS have the power to tax the manufacture and sale (Dealing) of firearms. (Vendors/Purchasers). Manufacturers and dealers are, as a matter of law and fact, engaged in a licensed and taxable business/occupational privilege affecting the health, safety, and second amendment rights not possessed by the licensee. Not possessed means the activity or PRIVILEGE is NOT directly protected by the second amendment. Not directly protected because those engaged in the licensed/regulated activity lack STANDING to reach into the second amendment rights of the individual citizen as a MEANS to limit the powers of both FED and State (police powers) to regulate the privilege/ activity which is, again, distinct from the rights intended to be reached by the SA.
So the fed has the power to tax firearms. State police powers run concurrent (regulation of the business itself) but can and will be PRE EMPTED under the Supremacy Clause if and when they affect/ interfere with collection of the tax. The fed has the power to create an administrative agency (BATF originally part of the Dept of TREASURY) to collect the tax and make needful rules/regulations to insure the tax is collected at every step required by law. It can summarily (administratively) seize property (firearm) for non payment of the tax or violation of any of the rules necessary to collect the tax. WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THOSE POWERS IT MUST CREATE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE WITHIN THE STATUTES/ ADMINISTRATIVE RULES THAT HAS A SPECIFIC LEGAL MEANING FOR PURPOSES OF ENFORCEMENT.
So what you have here is SUMMARY administrative control over property subject to an EXCISE as it moves in COMMERCE between manufacturer and dealer subject to summary seizure and forfeiture laws all predicated on a PLENARY legislative power that the courts cannot and will not interfere with EVER. See the doctrine of separation of powers.
The problem here is that the LAW (GCA of 1968) now requires the citizen the fill out
BATF form (4473) before the citizen can buy the firearm. TRANSFER OF A
FIREARM is a condition precedent to MERE POSSESSION. For the purposes of DUE PROCESS and in full consideration and understanding of the context in which these powers are applied within the controlling ACT, mere possession via TRANSFER is distinct from constitutionally protected rights of property. The law, as written simply requires the property to be re transferred between DEALER and CITIZEN under the exact same plenary/summary powers as used between manu and dealer.
Do you think the courts of law and equity give two hoots who is subject to
these summary powers applied within this context along the chain of TRANSFER???
They do not. IN THE EYES OF THE COURTS, by your own signature as required by the federal act, the LAW requires you to admit that YOU are engaged in an activity that LIES BEYOND THE PROTECTIONS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. In law, its operates as a WAIVER. Refuse to sign the form? Leave the store empty handed and expect to be contacted by the local Canine unit.
The GCA of 1968 unconstitutionally EXTENDS the federal jurisdiction into an area of regulation it cannot constitutionally apply to because the SECOND AMENDMENT is NO BAR to its enforcement. This clearly VIOLATES the Due Process clause because it REMOVES the second amendments consideration from the jurisdiction of the courts..
THINK!! Do you think Obama and his government attorneys are stupid? Do you think they would
go DIRECTLY against the SA? Or would they look to the PLENARY/SUMMARY powers pre existing within the Federal ACT as a means to extend the ALREADY EXISTING legal framework (executive power) further into the chain of transfer?
The FEDERAL ACT created a LEGAL FRAMEWORK that (unconstitutionally) placed the citizen within the CHAIN OF TRANSFER. By doing so,the fed extended its jurisdiction and thus retains summary administrative control over the PROPERTY. The property can be seized and forfeited outside the protections of the second amendment based on plenary legislative powers that the courts cannot interfere with. EVER!!!!!! State police powers compound the problem in that their application is and will alway remains within judicial interpretation CONSISTENT with federal regulation of the PRIVILEGE. Hence, State police powers applied out of context take on a completely foreign meaning as distingushed from its application to purely fundamental rights. Obama KNOWS this and the judiciary knows this. NOT EVEN THE CONSTITUTIONS PROHIBITION ON EX POST FACTO LAWS CAN COME TO YOUR AID. If you do not believe me, google the name Charlie Pucket/firearm siezure
Now apply what I just told you to the LANGUAGE of the recent executive orders and ask yourself. HOW can Congress create a LAW and legal regulatory framework involving federal TAXING/COMMERCE power and its associated ACTIVITY to WE THE PEOPLE that as a matter of law and fact, have NO constitutionally recognized relationship to that PRIVILEGED ACTIVITY????
AND JUST WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT QUESTION HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT?? NOTHING. ITS THE FUCKING DUE PROCESS CLAUSE FOR FUCKS SAKE!!!! Interfering with PROPER due process ELIMINATES the second amendment issue altogether. Why the hell do you all think the USSC was split in the HELLER decision???? Because half the judges are stupid? really??? WRONG!!!
The question has NEVER been placed before ANY court in its proper context by an individual with STANDING to do so. Existing case law, INCLUDING the Heller decision suffers from the same common jurisdictional defects.
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?
For the billionth time, an ASAULT WEAPON is a sub-machine gun originally created by the Germans. Weapons that shoot one bullet at a time are called semi-automatic and have been around since WW1.
No matter what color the weapon is or what aftermarket accessories it might have, a single shot semi-auto is NOT an assault weapon.
Don't let the libtards control your speech.
Remember, Executive orders are NOT law. None of us have to do anything with regard to this piece of paper. Only Congress can create law, and in this area, not even Congress can create law because they're specifically banned from doing so.
Don't fall for this bullshit.