President 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
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.
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.
Mia Marie Pope & Dr. James David Manning out Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama as a cocaine-smoking, pathological liar, gay prostitute.
https://youtu.be/CzkUnuB2Wlw
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Zionist Liar Ted Cruz, as Obama, is Not a Natural Born Citizen therefore he is Not eligible for the office of presidency.
@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
Dieter,
People = Citizens = Criteria-Meeting Voters = The Represented = Ourselves And Our Posterity
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.”
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.
PATRIOT; Every single day I go to http://www.birtherreport.com/ Are you aware of whistleblower Dennis Montgomery and the Arpaio case?
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?
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.
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?
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.”
Wow! My earlier post was way too rambling. No more multitasking while composing a post!
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.