Gallup Poll: Only Two Percent Of Americans Rank Gun Control As Major Concern

President_Barack_Obama150px-shotgunactionPresident Barack Obama has made gun control a priority in 2016 and the latest area of confrontation with Congress. There is clearly a calculation that the public will support another area of conflict between the branches and the assertion of unilateral executive power. That is what makes a recent poll so interesting. Gallup found that “gun/gun control” ranked near the bottom of concerns for most Americans. How low? Try only two percent of those polled.

I was quite surprised by the poll frankly. Gallup said that citizens put gun control and issues 19th out of 23 problems facing the country. Equally surprising is that only 13 percent list the economy while 16 percent of those responding listed Government/Congress/Politicians. Immigration made it into the top four concerns. Moreover, wars were a dead last.

Guns came in just slightly above “lack of respect for each other” — a category that seems like Ned Flanders wrote it.

Honestly, I am perplexed by the results on all of these issues and it shows how disconnected our coverage and assumptions may be in the media from the actual populace. It is also a curiously indeterminate profile with no overriding concern that garners even a majority of polled individuals. Notably, other polls seems by Gallop in 2015 seem to contradict this low ranking.

Here is the actual poll: Gallop Poll

67 thoughts on “Gallup Poll: Only Two Percent Of Americans Rank Gun Control As Major Concern

  1. WAIT A MINUTE, JT! Are you saying the media and political establishment are out of touch w/ the people in this country??? Well, maybe that explains..well, EVERYTHING! I hope Congress hires you to take on this Imperial President in court again for usurping his power.

  2. What is distracting in this gun desth issue is comparing the UNITED STATES to individual countries and those countries’ methodology for counting incidents. How do France and Germany etc individually equate to all 50 States lumped together?

    Gun homicides, infant mortality rates are just a couple of examples. For instance, murders in England are not counted until conviction. Suspicion of foul play in gun death in US…counted in National stats. Now take a look at the low conviction rate in US.

    My Glock and Remingtons and hundreds of rounds haven’t gotten together and “hit” the town or painted it red. Waiting for the Chief Executive to weep over all the kids killed on the road in the last day. Executive order re. selling 1.5 ton killing machines without a license.

    By the way. Look up FBI data on death by knife. Soooo???

  3. The poll was of 1000 adults living in all 50 states, which strikes me as a sample entirely too small to be meaningful. Yes, I know they have all this scientific process whereby they select the 1000 as being representative of the opinions of 320 million people in ten or more age groups, a dozen or more ethnic groups, and half a dozen social strata, but that seems nonsensical to me. That’s like saying that eight selected people can tell you what the entire city of San Diego thinks. Nonsense.

  4. “Only Two Percent Of Americans Rank Gun Control As Major Concern.” Really?

    Gallop October 19, 2015
    Quarter of U.S. Voters Say Candidate Must Share View on Guns
    “More than one in four U.S. registered voters (26%) say they would vote only for a candidate who shares their views on gun control — about double the 11% to 15% who said this in the year after the 1999 Columbine High School massacre. The majority, 54%, say it is one of many important factors in their vote, while 17% do not see guns as a major voting issue for them.”
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/186248/quarter-voters-say-candidate-share-view-guns.aspx

  5. Since when has Obummer been concerned with what the people want? 70% of the people did NOT want Obummercare yet he went behind closed doors and shoved it down our throats. I have no clue how the American public could have been stupid enough to elect a one term Senator in the first place – and now – look at what this moron has done to our country!!! Well stupid is as stupid does – we are getting what we deserve.

  6. Polls and statistics are completely irrelevant. What people really need to do is wake up. My apologies to those who dislike hearing that, but if you will watch and learn from this video you’ll know that THAT is what will bring us together. NOT statistics or circular arguments.

    ‪Common Core’s Communist Programming Exposed: Chinese Immigrant Speaks Out‬

  7. The poll doesn’t surprise me at all. I’m not concerned about gun control and none of my friends or relatives have expressed any concerns. In fact, the only people expressing concern are Obama and the media elites. The liberal media elites are concerned because they like to live in urban areas, such as NY and Washington, D.C., with access to nice restaurants, trendy shops and other amenities in places like Georgetown. But that puts them in close proximity to thugs with guns who prowl those yuppie enclaves looking for victims. So these folks, based on where they prefer to live, have a very realistic fear of gun violence. But everyone else, the other 90% of Americans who reside in small towns or boring suburbs or ranches in the West should not have their gun ownership rights restricted because the “talking heads” want to live in places like DuPont Circle where you pay $1 million for a townhouse but have to keep iron bars on the doors and windows. Really, if you want to be safe from gun violence, stay away from urban neighborhoods in NY, DC, Chicago, and other cities populated by “urban youth” because that is where the gun crime is, not in the rest of the country. Even if you were to somehow confiscate their guns, they will still rob and kill people with knives, as happened recently in D.C. when a passenger was murdered by an “urban youth” on a packed Metro train, stabbing him 14 times in front of stunned riders and then calmly walking off with his cell phone. Or the naive white Stanford girl who went to South Africa to volunteer and was hacked to death with machetes and her bloody pockets rummaged for money. Obama is in tears because drug dealers in South Chicago are killing each other, but as far as I’m concerned, good riddance. The gun violence by violent people who live in these ghettos is a unique situation and really has no impact on the vast majority of Americans.

  8. I am not surprised by this low number at all. Bloomberg’s astroturf “gun safety” organizations such as “Everytown” and “Moms Demand Action” have tiny memberships, so small that the published numbers are routinely inflated with people who have simply “liked” them on Facebook without joining or participating. Without Bloomberg money it is unlikely these organizations would continue to exist. “Gun control” is popular with politicians, particularly Democrats from urban areas that suffer drug-fueled violence, and with the media who are their uncritical allies. This, and cleverly worded polls, make it seem gun restrictions have more support than they really do. One out of every three firearms now in civilian hands were sold since Obama became President. Most Americans realize violent crime is way down from its peaks in the 1970s-90s, although the media is doing its best to convince us the statistics are wrong. (I believe that’s called fear-mongering.) Politicians from my part of the country understand that guns are a non-issue for their constituents, and that voting for many of the proposals is a quick ticket to unemployment. Most of us are far more concerned about jobs and this recession economy. (Yes, I know the recession officially ended. Try selling that in eastern Kentucky or the rural Midwest.) When it comes to safety, concerns about rogue states such as Iran, and the predictable results of having essentially unregulated immigration from Latin America trump guns; indeed, these very concerns may be adding to the gun sales figures. Only the media doesn’t get it.

  9. Most people don’t have any contact with guns and don’t worry about it. Obama needs to interrupt the conditions that have caused the US economy to be based on war, security, weapons, oil, hate, and fear. We need a positive and constructive foundation for our national economy, for example, basing it on renewable energy, on addressing learning disorders, on creating jobs consistent with modern culture – not factory jobs, but good-paying jobs where the young care for the elderly, where we employ people to clean up the horriffic destruction caused by industrial waste. Talk about government being a problem, we need a government that glorifies kindness and industriousness rather than one that glorifies violence and money.

  10. And Doglover, we need a government that will give us unicorns and lollipops.:)

    It’s likely that Obama inadequately communicated the importance of what he is doing. Essentially the people are not smart enough to “get it”.

  11. Obama is NOT the president, he NEVER was president

    Table of Evidence regarding Obama’s Forgery and Fraud of Identification
    http://www.BuenaVistaMall.com/Table-of-evidence-of-forgery-fraud-and-fabrication-in-Obamas-IDs1.pdf

    OBAMA is a black Hitler, Mass Murderer / Maimer, Torturer, Baby Killer, Warmonger, Supreme War Criminal, Forger, Fraud, Thief, Usurper, Pathological Liar, Psychopath, Wall Street Stooge, Zionist Lickspittle, Fascist, Nazi, Homosexual.
    Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen. He was never eligible for the office of presidency.
    Obama is one of the Biggest Criminals in World History.
    Obama should be Arrested for War Crimes, Innumerable Criminal Offenses.
    The U.S. justice system is corrupt.

  12. Obama Was Never Eligible to be President
    According to our Constitution Obama never qualified as a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ for the office of Presidency
    by Dr. Herbert W. Titus, counsel to the law firm of William J. Olson, P.C.

  13. Evidence: Obama Funding War Crimes in 2005-2007
    More reasons Barack Obama should be in prison
    Obama was a War Criminal back in 2005-2007 voting War Funding for Wars of Aggression in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries.
    Upon entering the Senate in 2005 through April 2007 Obama voted for every war-funding bill that came before him. Obama, despite his anti-war rhetoric, cast at least 10 votes for war-funding bills. Funding a War of Aggression is a War Crime, each vote was a War Crime. Obama and co-conspirators are guilty in the deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. Some estimate as many as 1,500,000 Iraqis have died due to the US-led illegal war. Obama approved funds which were used to buy bombs and bullets to murder and maim tens of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan children – in your name. Anybody who supported or supports Obama has blood on their hands.
    Anybody that supports the Republicans and the Democrats are accomplices to murder – Gerald Celente
    http://www.BuenaVistaMall.com/WarFunding.htm

  14. Funny, a poll with 23 categories guns were tied with six other categories and 1% less than 6 others. So you can draw what form that? Obama is out of touch, Obama is Hitler, Obama doesn’t care about America, Obama is out to take your guns…… Wow.

    Since the anti Obama crowd has piped in their Fox News and Infowars views, let me try a couple. Americans are so accustomed to the death and carnage from wars, guns and violence that it no longer resonates as ‘important’.

    Americans must all have enough money, since only 2% found that to be a major issue. Yet, Most Americans can’t handle a $500 surprise bill http://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-americans-cant-handle-a-500-surprise-bill via @cbsnews

    Maybe you could add crime, guns and terrorism into one line since you can’t have terrorism or violent crime without guns for the most part. Yeah, that’s my conclusion. Guns, crime and terrorism thus equal 9% and now it’s a problem!

    Or let me then assume that Americans don’t care about children being killed accidentally by guns. ‘Over the past year, new studies and media reports have documented America’s extraordinary number of child-involved shootings. American children nine times more likely to die in gun accidents than children anywhere else in the developed world.’https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/09/deaths-of-children-are-the-most-devastating-effect-of-our-gun-culture-the-nra-has-no-idea-what-to-say-about-them/

    I can also assume Obama is doing a good job with the economy: ‘Although the economy and unemployment both made the top four this year, the average percentages mentioning them are down from 2014 and well below the levels recorded from 2009 through 2013.’

    And gun law was important during the fear month at 7% which would make this the 7th most important item using the high water marks of each.

    But by the crowd response on this site, it’s obvious that this is more about Obama than reality. Hey, did you know that Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate and that he is Muslim……

  15. This must have been a concern to Congress if they have spent some time talking about it. Granted, they failed to do their moral duty under the thumb of the NRA, a far right extremist organization as far as I am concerned, which forced Obama to take what action he can to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. I support the right of Americans to own guns, I own several myself, but everybody who owns guns should have them registered and be licensed to own them. This is no different than owning and operating a vehicle. You have to be licensed, your vehicle needs to be registered, and yes, people are denied a driver’s license for a multitude of reasons. Does this mean that someone can’t own a vehicle if they are not licensed and registered? No, but it is ellegal to operate the vehicle on public roads. You can find any number of examples similar to this, so why are so many people about the laws regulating the ownership of guns? I just laugh when people say they don’t want the governmnet to come and take away their guns. That is silly. All the government has to do is stop ammunition sales and that is that; they don’t have to take your gun. When you run out of ammo, that’s it. Even if they came looking for guns, do you know how many people will simply have “dropped it in the lake last year duck hunting” or “have it stolen” or simply “not know where it is”? This is ridiculous, Congress failed to do their job, Obama is doing what he can and what Congress should have done.

    As far as whether Obama is a naturalized American citizen, of course he is, if you believe all of the Republican candidates are naturalized American citizens. The fact that you are not physically born IN the United States does not disqualify you as a naturalized American citizen. Is Obama’s mother a naturalized citizen, yes, then Obama is a naturalized citizen, simple as that, no matter where he was born. but he was born in Hawaii.

    Is Obama a Muslim, no. Is Obama a Christian, no. Obama is an atheist.

  16. This is another example of how the issues are manipulated: take a select and small group, ask them a simplified question concerning a complex subject, and present the results to sell papers.

    The facts are that most Americans want gun ownership reform through some sort of controls. These bogus surveys stop the addressing of the problem by saying there is no problem. No problem then no reason for a candidate to risk his standings in the, guess what, polls.

    Guys like Bernie Sanders, who try to simply state who they are on the issues are in too small supply. They are seen by the simplistic and confused voters as aberrations and are pushed to the side. Guys like Trump who has all the answers are much easier to understand.

  17. Jeff, We have covered the difference between owning and registering a vehicle and owning and being forced to register a gun. There is no constitutional right to drive a vehicle. Driving is a privilege. Owning a gun is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

  18. Gallup is the gold standard in polling. They have no agenda but trying to find truth. When Gallup is being attacked by liberals or conservatives, you know they got nuthin’!!

  19. Leann Mcadoo is unusually beautiful and she has a wonderfully shapely figure. Alex Jones is less of a blustery fool than he seems!

  20. Nick,
    It would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic that so many people still believe that all rights and privileges come from government. These are the same knuckleheads that want MORE limits placed on citizens to equip themselves for self-defense but LESS limits on voter identification. The former weakens the rights of the law-abiding citizens and the latter weakens the democratic process. Both enable the progressive, administrative state to further destroy what remains of this constitutional republic.

  21. Talk about missing the point, Obama won’t face what citizens are relay concerned with like terrorism, the economy and our leadership in the free world.

  22. Tin “Obama is in tears because drug dealers in South Chicago are killing each other,”

    uh NO. He’s in tears because he applied something to his left eye from his left finger. Pay attention. It was only after he wiped away an imaginary tear that the left and only the left eye started watering. Apparently his right eye swipe didn’t take. Those were not tears of grief. Go to Youtube and look up Obama fake tears. You will probably not like each and every single video on a channel that features an Obama Fake Tears video but I would suggest you not “kill the messenger” just because they aren’t perfect. Obama has an agenda that’s not very pretty and he will do virtually anything to force it on us.

    This has been a public service announcement.

  23. john smith “Leann Mcadoo is unusually beautiful and she has a wonderfully shapely figure.” I had a feeling that more people would actually watch the video because of her and hoped that would be the case!.

  24. As for me I will defend my family. I can’t depend on the government. They want to disarm me and whose to say they won’t jail me for my opinions. Didn’t Hitler start with free speech? The next thing was the guns. I’m mighty tired of a tyrant that wants to take my rights away. The founding fathers warned of this…. But then I’m one of those crazy people that thinks the man in the White House is a closet Muslim. Like father like son. But I do think Michelle is a woman. LOL

  25. In fairness to this poll, there’s a difference between “major concern” and

    The call of the question was to name the single, most important issue facing the USA. When faced with having to only choose one, OF COURSE gun control is not going to be seen as the biggest issue by a vast majority. Congressional incompetence and impending economic doom seem to be ones that clearly trump gun control.

    Just because only 2% of Americans think gun control is the MOST important issue doesn’t mean that a greater portion don’t see the issue as highly important. I feel like the interpretation of this poll in this article is significantly misleading.

  26. Olly

    What’s laughable is taking the government out of the equation. Regardless of from where one believes one’s rights come from, they are protected and interpreted by the government, the common theme of the people. It is when a special interest, that stands to profit and is not representative of the people, dictates how our rights are interpreted and protected/or not, runs things that we have the oligarchy we have, nothing like what was intended when the whole thing started by those that started it, back in the day of ideals and not this sewer we are stuck with, from where ever one’s rights descend.

  27. isaac,
    As equations go, government is supposed to be the only known variable (constitutionally limited). The unknowns are the various entities outside of government tugging and pulling and basically trying to get government to do their bidding. I will never blame non-government entities for trying to get their way, they have always been expected to try; I blame government for giving it to them.

    What we have now is an equation that is void of known variables. The closest thing we have to knowing what government will do is knowing who controls government. We know it certainly is not the constitution and THAT is progressivism’s legacy.

  28. Professor Turley. I am sure that you know that Mr. Trump has once again raised the constitutional issue of “natural birth” in connection with the candidacy of Mr. Cruz. During last night’s news cycle a constitutional scholar on MSNBC explained why our citizenship laws are not “settled laws”. Only a few minutes later, on CNN, a worker for Mr. Cruz stated that the law upon which his US citizenship is based was “settled law”. When will you weigh in on this issue?
    I am also eager to hear your view as to whether the former slaves became US citizens after the adoption of the 13th or after the 14th amendment! And whether children born to slaves between the adoption of these amendments were or were not legally US citizens.

  29. Four Supreme Court Cases Can’t Be Wrong
    4 Supreme Court Cases define “natural born citizen”
    IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN

    https://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/four-supreme-court-cases-cant-be-wrong

    CONCLUSION

    “Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

    “Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfill his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally.”

  30. Law abiding citizens, by definition, do not break the law with a gun anymore than they would break the law and kill someone with a knife.

    I agree with basic laws, such as keeping firearms safely stored where kids can’t get them, as a negligence issue, and preventing the mentally unstable or felons from having them. But CA has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. They couldn’t prevent San Bernardino. It couldn’t prevent a guy with no record from buying one and giving it to a fellow terrorist.

    Our government, unfortunately, was prevented by law from checking the social media account of the Tafshin Farook, which should have raised enough red flags to prevent her immigrating here on a finance visa. But our agents are overwhelmed as it is, and handicapped with such regulations.

    Our prisons are full of felons who illegally obtained firearms to commit crimes, mostly gang members. We already have laws that are supposed to prevent this, just like we have laws against murder and rape. But those crimes still happen.

    We have also proven beyond a reasonable doubt that mass shooters and terrorists choose soft targets. The only time they are stopped is by an armed police officer or citizen. And we have also seen an uptick in domestic terrorist attacks, from stabbings, beheadings, to shootings, indicating these will continue to increase. And yet, Obama et al are seeking to expand soft targets by disarming as many law abiding citizens as possible. The only people who follow gun laws are law abiding.

    Let’s say that a terrorist is chasing a lady down the street with an ax, to behead her. If this happened in Texas, where everyone is packing, that guy would be shot and the lady saved. If this happened in San Francisco, she would be so dead. Because the police cannot arrive on the scene in the seconds she has before he catches her. This actually happened in Oklahoma, where a terrorist decapitated one woman, and was literally in the process of beheading another when the COO of the company shot him. The victim, Traci Johnson, said she was one millimeter away from having her jugular cut. ‘He started slicing my neck. And got a hold of my face, and got a hold of my right index finger, and wouldn’t stop – and I’m screaming for help and didn’t think anybody was going to come around,’

    I watched security video footage from inside a French cafe that was sprayed with bullets by a terrorist with an illegal gun. Those patrons were ducks in a barrel. The owner fled down some stairs. He was unable to protect his customers. Do we remember the days when a bar owner kept things civil in his place of business with a shotgun under his counter? A fact of which his patrons were well aware? Do you recall the Korean business owners who guarded their stores with their firearms in full view? They were neither looted nor burned.

    I was protected because my father stopped a break-in by chambering a round. I and my husband have protected our son by shooting really big rattlers that got into our yard and were striking at our dogs, right where our son plays. My relatives eat quite well off of meat and game birds they hunt.

    A gun is a dangerous tool to be treated with respect. It does not turn its owner into a homicidal maniac. Stop blaming the tools and start blaming the people who use them. Fix our broken mental health system. Fund the FBI and CIA to monitor terrorists here and abroad. And harden up our soft targets. Instead of disarming the general population, we should save enough money in our budget to afford at least one armed guard at schools to convince would be kid killers to move on .

    And one final word. This gun control rhetoric focuses on “gun violence.” You will notice that it does not claim to reduce overall homicide or overall crime. Just homicide by gun. Personally, I care about reducing the crime rate, not reducing the use of any particular tool to commit a crime. What would it matter if the homicide rate stayed the same or increased, but we no longer had gun crimes?Proponents of gun control use phrases like “sensible gun laws.” The way it’s worded, who would appease “sensible” anything? But we already have extremely restrictive gun control laws in CA, and we still have gang shootings. Frankly, the only way to prevent any criminal from ever using a gun would be to make all guns illegal. So we’re not talking about “sensible” laws; we’re talking about repealing the 2nd Amendment. Because there is no other way to remove all guns from all criminals. And even then there would be a black market for them. Then we would return to the rule of the club, where stronger people could kill weaker people, and there would be not a darn thing they could do about it, because the police will never get there in time to prevent it. Such as the UK learned to its chagrin. Now home invasions are rampant because thieves know with certainty that the owners are unarmed and helpless.

    If we applied the same standard to, say, knives, that gun control proponents do to firearms, it would go something like this: Unless we can guarantee that no criminal will ever use a knife illegally, to commit a crime or harm anyone, then all knives must be banned. It does not matter that there are many legal uses for knives, and plenty of law abiding knife owners. Nope. They must be all banned because gang members and other criminals use them to hurt people.

  31. Dutch:

    I looked at the poll. “Share their views on gun control” does not mean they favor gun control. For instance, protecting the 2nd Amendment is important to me. I also want states to report mental health patients to the instant database, and improve our mental health system so people can be taken off the street and taken care of, who need it. So I would be included in those figures, and yet I oppose even stricter gun laws than we already have here. We have enough gun laws in CA.

  32. Karen, the Founders did not ramble: “…shall not be infringed.”

    Statement: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,…”

    Amendment: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

  33. Patriot. Thanks for posting these four cases. However they do not seem to answer what my question is about. These four rulings confirm the change from colonies to states. A child born in a British colony was always a British citizen at birth by common law. I believe that children of indentured servants were included. Children of slaves and “Indians” were not included. When we became a nation that did not change fundamentally. A child born in a US state was an American citizen at birth by common law. I am certain that you know that US Supreme Court Rulings are not statutory but are common laws. The four rulings in essence left the original common law on this matter in place. The 14th amendment changed a common law to a statutory law. It does not state that only children born in the USA are American citizens at birth.
    What I am interested in can be illustrated by the life of John Quincy Adams who spent many years abroad as an official emissary of our nation. On several occasions he was accompanied by his wife who had a stillbirth in Moscow, Russia when John was there in an official capacity. As far as I know the stillbirth occurred on legal US “soil”. Their official residence. Now, assume that the birth had occurred on Russian soil and the child had survived. Would that child have been a US citizen at birth? And if that would be also the case for the birth of a child to all US parents “not on US soil”? Although our constitution does not state anything on that issue it does not seem to exclude such citizenship at birth. As far as I know there has never been a SC ruling on that issue. Am I wrong?

  34. John. What exactly did the writers of our Constitution mean here when they wrote “the people”? Individuals? Groups of individuals? I do not know the answer. Do you?
    When they wrote “we the people” they obviously meant “all of us here” that is to say a large group.

  35. Patriot. I forgot to mention an interesting case. When New Amsterdam was a Dutch outpost (of the West Indies Company) children born there were Dutch citizens at birth if their fathers were Dutch. When New Amsterdam became New York, a British colony did they remain Dutch or did they become British citizens?

  36. Dieter “What exactly did the writers of our Constitution mean here when they wrote “the people”? Individuals?” Yes, individuals. What else? Society? The Collective? The State? Remember it was all about individuals rights to free speech, due process, the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness etc. etc.

  37. Dieter Heymann

    “Professor Turley. I am sure that you know that Mr. Trump has once again raised the constitutional issue of “natural birth”

    _____

    Cruz, Rubio and Obama were not “born in the country of parents who are citizens.” They did not have TWO citizen-parents.

    Senators and Congressmen may be “citizens.”

    Presidents must be “natural born citizens.”

    ONE citizen-parent = citizen.

    TWO citizen-parents = natural born citizen.

    The American Framers and Founders were geniuses who recognized and understood the differences and wrote those differences into the Constitution with deliberation and precision.

    The Washington/Jay letter of 1786 raised the requirement for president from “citizen” to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” to foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.

    The Law of Nations defined “natural born citizen” as being “born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

    The Founders learned the definition of natural born citizen and employed the definition in the writing of the Constitution. The Founders knew exactly what they were doing.

    All presidents before Obama were “born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

    The authority of the Law of Nations is acknowledged in Article 1, Section 8.

    Ben Franklin wrote a letter to Charles Dumas saying that his personal copy of the Law of Nations was in heavy demand by the other delegates to the Continental Congress meeting in 1775.

    It is a “red-herring” to say that the Constitution does not “define” any particular word or phrase. The Founders and Framers obtained educations, including definitions which they employed, prior to writing the Constitution. Most words and phrases in the Constitution are not “defined” in the Constitution.

    The Constitution “revisionists” ignore and “interpret” the words and facts of the Constitution to pursue personal agendas of allowing non-natural born citizens to become President as acts of non-assimilation and “globalization.”

  38. @Hildegard
    I am aware of Arpaio, not Dennis Montgomery
    I see at birtherreport Ann Coulter is taking the correct position on Natural Born Citizen to stand out from all the liars… Cruz, NY Times, Harvard, usual gang of idiots.
    @Dieter
    Don’t know on your question of citizenry

  39. Pew Research Center
    In July, 85% of the public – including large majorities of both Republicans (79%) and Democrats (88%) – favored making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks. There also was substantial bipartisan support for laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/05/5-facts-about-guns-in-the-united-states/?utm_source=Pew+Research+Center&utm_campaign=e2124accef-Weekly_Jan_7_20161_7_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3e953b9b70-e2124accef-399901761

  40. The devil is in the details. This prez and many liberal Dem politicians want a national registry of all guns and universal checks is a back door way to get that. We remember Obama’s comment when he didn’t think anyone was recording about white people “clinging to their guns.” Anyone who trusts Obama is a chump! You get the truth when someone doesn’t think anyone is recording. I’ve been doing that for over 3 decades.

  41. Dutch:

    “In July, 85% of the public – including large majorities of both Republicans (79%) and Democrats (88%) – favored making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks. There also was substantial bipartisan support for laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns.” I agree with that. CA law already covers both of those instances.

    Sadly, most states do not follow the law and report data on mental health exclusions to the instant background check database, undermining its effectiveness. In addition, it is quite difficult to get anyone committed against their will nowadays. You hear about all the red flags that went on for years with some of these shooters, but family members and other observers were helpless to do anything about it.

    Most Americans do not want the 2nd Amendment repealed, or for gun laws to be more restrictive on law abiding citizens. But most also agree that the mentally ill should not have access to firearms. That is why they are already excluded via Federal Law from the instant database check. Domestic abusers and convicted felons are also already prohibited by Federal Law from owning firearms.

    CA requires passing a test, a waiting period, and a background check on all sales. Private parties must go through a registered firearm dealer. However, if Bob decides to sell his gun to Steve without a background check or registration, although this is illegal, there is nothing physically preventing him from doing so. No bubble will spring out and enclose him to prevent him from doing so. That’s the difficult hole to plug. Criminals can always get guns on the black market.

    I do agree with you that there are states that do not require background checks at gun shows. Although this does not prevent illegal black market gun sales, I still do not want to make it any easier on criminals. CA does not have this problem, however.

    The emphasis should be fixing our broken mental health care system, breaking the gangs, and tracking terrorists.

    What well meaning politicians need to realize is that, by definition, it is not the law abiding citizen gun owners who are the problem. It’s the criminals and the mentally ill. And they don’t just use guns to hurt people. Every time there is one of these mass shootings, like in San Berdu or Paris, there is a run on gun sales. The public responds by wanting to be able to protect itself, not by wanting to become more helpless. Because criminals and terrorists will always have access to a weapon.

  42. It will be interesting to see whether the murder rate goes up or down in Texas with the open carry laws and whether the crime rate goes up or down also

  43. Bruce – since concealed carry has always been legal in TX, I suspect that open carry will not increase firearm ownership. The same people who had concealed carry will just openly carry.

    The most commonly voiced concern about the Texas open carry law is that people wonder if someone walks in with a gun on their hip if they are there to rob the place, or just carry on with their day. But with concealed carry, people walk around armed every day, you just don’t see their firearm. They have to pass a background check and demonstrate proficiency in shooting. The police oppose open carry because they anticipate false alarm 911 calls. I can certainly see how that would be a problem, and am interested to see how it works out. It’s the perception rather than the reality of danger, because the same people who were licensed to carry concealed are now allowed to cary openly. They were always armed, you just didn’t see it.

    Open carry is allowed in most states. Interestingly, Texas banned open carry to prevent African Americans from going armed after the Civil War. Because they might have objected to the KKK lynchings. They were barred from even touching a weapon during the nightmare of slavery, too. Being disarmed did not work out too well for them.

  44. The second amendment was written into the Bill of Rights following both Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. Washington was very concerned about the nation not having any means of standing up to these armed rebellions. That’s why the second amendment is about the expressed need for an armed militia, and the rights of individuals to become part of said militias and bear arms on behalf of the state. NOT the other way around.

    Gun fetishists and ammosexuals would have you believe otherwise, but there is not one shred of evidence to substantiate the NRA’s bought-and-paid-for advocacy on behalf of the arms and munitions industries.

    There are numerous OTHER polls showing that Americans favor more legislation and action regarding weapons sales, insurance, access, etc. This is clearly an outlier and if you read the exact questions, you can see why.

  45. Anyone hear of Gavin Debecker’s book “The Gift of Fear and Other Survival Signals that Protect Us From Violence”? It’s a must read book in my opinion.
    http://www.amazon.com/Other-Survival-Signals-Protect-Violence/dp/0440508835/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1452289920&sr=1-1&keywords=the+gift+of+fear

    “Amazon.com Review: Each hour, 75 women are raped in the United States, and every few seconds, a woman is beaten. Each day, 400 Americans suffer shooting injuries, and another 1,100 face criminals armed with guns. Author Gavin de Becker says victims of violent behavior usually feel a sense of fear before any threat or violence takes place. They may distrust the fear, or it may impel them to some action that saves their lives. A leading expert on predicting violent behavior, de Becker believes we can all learn to recognize these signals of the “universal code of violence,” and use them as tools to help us survive. The book teaches how to identify the warning signals of a potential attacker and recommends strategies for dealing with the problem before it becomes life threatening. The case studies are gripping and suspenseful, and include tactics for dealing with similar situations.

    People don’t just “snap” and become violent, says de Becker, whose clients include federal government agencies, celebrities, police departments, and shelters for battered women. “There is a process as observable, and often as predictable, as water coming to a boil.” Learning to predict violence is the cornerstone to preventing it. De Becker is a master of the psychology of violence, and his advice may save your life. –Joan Price ”

    Gavin Debecker isn’t thrilled about the American ‘gun culture’ but at the same time would not want to prohibit a person having the means to defend themselves. What he does advocate is the gun’s equivalent of a ‘child proof cap’ – more safety features.

  46. Dieter,

    CNN had a discussion last night regarding Trump’s suggestion that Ted Cruz is not qualified to be president because he was born in Canada. Jeffrey Toobin was on the show to answer that question. He said that anyone born of an American citizen, even while on foreign soil, is a U.S. citizen. Thus Cruz is a citizen because his mother was a U.S. citizen. Similarly, John McCain is a U.S. citizen, although born in the Panama Canal Zone, to American parents. And George Romney (Mitt’s father) was qualified to run for President despite being born in Mexico, because his parents were American citizens. Toobin said that there has never been a court case testing this provision, but on its face it is valid law. And BTW, Obama would be a citizen regardless of birthplace, whether Hawaii or Kenya or anywhere else, as his mother was an American citizen born in Kansas.

  47. Tin – McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone when we leased it, so it was American soil. Children born in embassies are okay. I am queasy about Romney and Obama. Not sure they would hold up to a court challenge if you had the ‘real’ birth certificates.

  48. Israel did 9/11
    Former Director of Studies, Professor at U.S. Army War College Dr. Alan Sabrosky; It is 100% certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation period.”
    The 9/11 Commission Report is a 571-Page Zionist Lie
    The U.S. military knows Israel did 9/11

  49. Veterans Ministry; ” For instance, murders in England are not counted until conviction. Suspicion of foul play in gun death in US…counted in National stats. Now take a look at the low conviction rate in US.”

    I highly recommend you read this report from The Skeptical Libertarian regarding just how much more violent the UK is than the U.S.

    By the Numbers: Is the UK really 5 times more violent than the US?
    http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

  50. Patriot : You and everyone here interested in the Constitution must read the article WHY OBAMA CANNOT BE IMPEACHED. Here’s an excerpt: http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/321969/#xuPG22FluJEWWzmY.99

    “Rage continues to build across this country over the obvious forged birth certificate Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama, released April 27, 2011, as do calls for his impeachment. However, Obama cannot be impeached.

    Let me quote *Dr. Edwin Vieira, who wrote about this back in December 2008 before Obama was “sworn” into office:

    If Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but a usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because a usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.

    If Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President,” he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the chief justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.

    Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242.”

    The bottom line is that impeachment can only apply to a legitimately elected president. If he is impeached all the laws he’s signed will stand, if he’s convicted, they will all be immediately made null and void.

    WHO IS DR. EDWIN VIERA?
    http://www.vlrc.org/authors/105.html

    “Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

    For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. He is also one of our country’s most eminent constitutional attorneys, having brought four cases that were accepted by the supreme Court and having won three of them.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s