Congress, Media, Politics, Society

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”

  2. 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.”

  3. 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/

  6. 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.

    1. 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.

Comments are closed.