Legal Issues

Pew Finds Growing Public Support for Gun Rights

For the first time in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys, there is more support for gun rights than gun control. Currently, 52% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, while 46% say it is more important to control gun ownership.

Support for gun rights has edged up from earlier this year, and marks a substantial shift in attitudes since shortly after the Newtown school shootings, which occurred two years ago this month.

The balance of opinion favored gun control in the immediate aftermath of the Newtown tragedy in December 2012, and again a month later. Since January 2013, support for gun rights has increased seven percentage points – from 45% to 52% — while the share prioritizing gun control has fallen five points (from 51% to 46%).

Across many demographic and political groups, opinion has moved in the direction of greater support for gun rights since January 2013.

Today, about six-in-ten whites (61%) prioritize gun rights over gun control. By contrast, only about a third of blacks say this (34%) while six-in-ten (60%) say it is more important to control gun ownership. And Hispanics prioritize gun control over gun rights by a wide 71% to 25% margin.

Pew Poll Trends
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Dec. 3-7 among 1,507 adults, finds a shift in attitudes about whether gun ownership in this country does more to protect people or put people’s safety at risk. Graphic courtesy of Pew Research.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Dec. 3-7 among 1,507 adults, also finds a shift in attitudes about whether gun ownership in this country does more to protect people or put people’s safety at risk. Nearly six-in-ten Americans (57%) say gun ownership does more to protect people from becoming victims of crime, while 38% say it does more to endanger personal safety. In the days after Newtown, 48% said guns do more to protect people and 37% said they placed people at risk.

Partisan differences on this question, already sizeable in 2012, have widened over the last two years. As was the case in December 2012, a majority of Democrats (60%) say guns do more to put people’s safety at risk, while only about a third (35%) say they do more to protect people from becoming crime victims. By contrast, eight-in-ten Republicans say guns do more to protect people from becoming crime victims, up 17 points from 2012.

As in the past, Republicans support protecting gun rights over controlling gun ownership by a substantial margin (76% to 22%), and support for protecting gun rights is particularly high among conservative Republicans (83%).

However, a majority of Democrats say that it is more important to control gun ownership (69%) than to protect the right of Americans to own guns (28%). Liberal Democrats, in particular, prioritize controlling gun ownership (81% say this, while just 14% say protecting gun rights is more important).

Click here to download the entire report.

Tell us what you think about this report in the comment section.


The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (51)

  1. It’s a proven fact thAt gun control does not work , what about criminals how are they going to get guns from them .Look at the cities and countries that tried it

  2. I’m right there with you . Some of the in hear is downright moronic . Scarey thing is they really believe it . Back to building an AK and therefore I must be a communist. See what I did there ? I beat them to the punch .

  3. @ Jim Leffmann: While you may be the rare exception to the rule, you are not going to convince most of us here to change their views on liberals as being the overall driving force behind the anti-gun and gun-control agenda.

    It is not as if we woke up one day and decided to displace blame on some arbitrary group of individuals. Liberals have earned this label based on their heavily documented stance and repeated anti-gun actions.

    I can appreciate what you are trying to do here, I really can. But rather than attempt to use yourself as an example to implore us into adjusting our attitudes about the liberal agenda, maybe you should instead use your energy to convince your own fellow liberals of the truth they often defy despite logic.

    That truth being – the Second Amendment isn’t about the mindless right to own or collect a pretty gun. It is telling mankind we already have such inherent rights by birth. It solidifies that unalienable right for each man to defend their own free existence, and that no man in government is allowed to decree otherwise. That if such ever becomes the case, it shall be known as tyranny and that we have an obligation as citizens to rise up by all means available and overthrow such tyrannical behavior in government.

    This is a fact established and enumerated by our Constitution as ratified by the states and signed into law. Yet the average liberal is unable to comprehend the resolute and unwaverable magnitude of such things.

    But before they were ever labeled or self-proclaimed a liberal, they were simply people with thoughts. And as nature would have it, people with like-minded thoughts tend to attract one another and form groups.

    It is my firm belief that such traits can be classified and that certain social disorders are found to be more prevalent in one group over say another. The liberal groups which naturally form as a result, live in a kind of immature utopian fog-like state of fantasy.

    Bless their hearts, as they are well intended folk who actually believe the solutions of the world are simple. They believe that to stop mass shootings all one must do is proclaim a law banning all guns and the shootings will miraculously stop instantly. And they’d be absolutely 100% correct …if we could make every gun on the planet magically disappear with the wave of one presidential wand.

    This is what I mean when I define liberals as living in an “immature utopian fog-like state of fantasy”. Though we all wished it could be so simple, there are those of us that know the very nature of mankind simply will never allow it.

    And so on the other hand comes the groups of people that are better grounded in the hard cold realities we actually face each day. Such groups come together and generally tend to have a more conservative approach towards philosophically hammering out a path to success. In so doing they tend to rely on what has been proven to traditionally work and of course believe in stringent compliance with a system of strict laws rather than whimsically changing to the flavor of the day or knee-jerk responses to every little event as liberals so often do.

    Don’t get me wrong, we need the liberals. They are the Ying to our Yang which helps keep things centered. I would no more want to live in extreme conservatism either. So I prefer balance. But when one side gets the upper-hand, as it seems since Obama’ been in office, well that’s when we conservatives tend to step up our fight to restore balance again; thus the landslide mid-term victories.

    Because one of the most dangerous aspects of liberalism that simply will NOT be tolerated by us conservatives is their immature inability to understand that of all the things to dink around with, for the sake of everyone, you simply shall not mess with the Second Amendment; because it means more to EVERYONE’S freedom and vigilance against tyranny than just the right to own a pretty little gun.

    This is where the liberals, whether they realize it or not, should appreciate our Yang to their Ying.

    1. So, you purport to speak for “most of us here”? Can you show me how you have achieved this exalted position? Your diatribe further reinforces the divide that hampers progress in the matter of solidification of 2nd Amendment rights. You speak about “Liberals” as if they are a necessary evil. Cut the crap. You appear to be simply another person who seeks to emphasize a political divide in all matters, not just 2nd Amendment rights. Read the Patriot Act. Then tell me how we are on different sides of the aisle. Your political beliefs are apparent as portrayed by your words. Don’t hide your beliefs. State your biases clearly, right here for us all to see.

    2. @Jim Leffmann: Sure no problem. My 32+ years working with officials, senators, and congressmen in government gives me a fairly good sense of how various constituencies in general all spec out into grouped personalities which defines and shapes the very core of our political system and thus the outcome and effect of the laws given the varying degrees to which each is enforced… or not. All of which is dependent upon who is in power at any given moment in time. It is part of my government duties to study such things and provide formal prospectus to my superiors accordingly and for decision making.

      Nevertheless, while most liberals such as you think the Constitution is subject to interpretation thus allowing corrupt men to manipulate it to their advantage, conservatives on the other hand know the truth to be otherwise. Since the Constitution was never intended to easily or hastily be changed, liberals had to come up with a means by which they could circumvent the laws, and thus “Interpretation” was invented.

      As for my ability to speak for “most of us here”… my confidence stems from the fact that this is a gun forum, of which, without any scientific study can be accurately assumed by a reasonable person to be patronized by a majority of conservatives.

      But let’s get back to the core of the issue here, that being liberals and their “immature utopian fog-like state of fantasy” which lends to their ability to miss-interpret the Constitution as well as many other aspects of life.

      A great example is in your personal interpretation of my comments which you’ve asserted and allowed yourself to believe somehow has additional hidden meaning in my words, when there is not.

      I could not have stated my position more clearly. Yet somehow as a liberal you think there is more to read into than that which I have purely stated. There simply is not. So just like the Constitution, the words I have written are simple and require no interpretation at all. They are as they stand; nothing more, and nothing less.

    3. This reply will be short “G-Man” as it’s obvious that you don’t actually read and understand responses here unless they fit in to your narrow life view. I was an official working in the Department of the interior for 35 years. I retired with a noteworthy record of service to the people of the United States of America. If there was one thing I did not like about my job was that every year I had to take congressional aids down the Rogue National Wild and Scenic River. I found these trips to be nothing but another boondoggle paid for by the taxpayers, and handed out by members of both houses of congress like they were candy. Congressional aids aren’t on such trips to learn about the management of the Public Lands, but rather to have a three day paid trip down river to party. Good grief. I never met one aid that wasn’t a raging egotist impressed with their own perceived sense of “power and influence”. Guys like you give the U.S. Government a bad name, while you brag and spout nonsense, while competing with other aids to see who’s got the biggest balls.

    4. @ Jeff Leffmann: Thank you for exemplifying my point regarding the immature liberal mind. Yours just allowed you to write an entire response based on some point of contention that only exists in your head; and you did it with an absurd air of undeserving confidence and superiority I might add. Why can’t you libs ever realize what fools you look like to the rest of normal society and try to act more dignified?

      It appears it is you rather than I whom “do[se]n’t actually read and understand responses”. Apparently you’ve read into my words again, as your liberal mind has allowed, and thusly decided I am a senator’s aide. Yet nowhere did I write anything for you to have gathered such a misguided conclusion.

      Nevertheless, your liberal debility allows you to care less, and thus embarrassingly proceed to launch an entire tirade based on this most incorrect of assumptions.

      Have you no dignity? Did you ever consider what an idiot you would look like writing all that drivel only to be proven wrong about what you presumed my profession to be? Nope, of course not; and that is one of the prime examples that separates the liberals and all their knee-jerk reactions from the rest of the reasonable people in society.

      As I’ve already stated, it is for this very reason a liberal’s mental instability leads them to interpret the Constitution anyway they see fit at any given moment of the day. It is also why liberals constantly add all these ridiculous half-baked feel-good do-nothing laws atop all the existing unenforced laws. And yet despite the embarrassment that should make a normal person very aware of their clown-like existence, you persist; so completely unaware that you are the poster child that represents exactly what most of us find so wrong with the liberal elements of the system.

      No Leffmann, I am not a simple senator’s aide and never purported to be. I said I work “with” not “for” such officials in government. You’d have to look much, much higher up the chain before discovering who I am.

      However, it should make you feel at home to know I did sign off on various aspects of policy change that led to the DOI’s implementation of the Office of Law Enforcement and Security after the 9/11 government restructuring. At the same time my expertise went into the many decisions that ultimately structured the Department of Homeland Security as well. Maybe that will get you closer to knowing who I am. Besides, you asked first and then turned it into a d*ck measuring contest not me.

      Oh, and one more thing… while serving as VRM Field Support for BLM could be considered noble, please refrain from pumping it up as though you defended your country as I have in several tours of combat.

    5. OK Mr. G-Man. My tenor will now change. You boggle my simple liberal mind with your awesome power! We must all bow to your “inside the Beltway” prowess and superior skill and fortitude. Did you get a nut off while showing everyone how cool you are and how wimpy I am by cherry picking stuff available online about my career? Hey BLOWHARD! Why don’t you tell us what YOU really do in the government other than blow political smoke out of your ass? I’ve been there and worked there G-Man. I know how that place operates. I was in touch weekly with my DC counterpart when I went back to peaceful field work. He kept me informed of mystery employees like you causing the usual troubles for those who actually implement the policies formed by idiots who have no inkling of what they’re writing. Anything you’ve described in your chest thumping autobiography can be attributed to someone who carried a document from the Interior building to congressional staff offices. If you’re an elected official then admit it. Your screen name here is pretty stupid anyway. I don’t really give a shit who you really are or which right wing-nut you work “with” rather than “for” in your most powerful and honorable chain of bullshit uncles and aunts and cousins that get freebie jobs for some bloated member of congress. My original point was to not lump people together. I’m a liberal gun owner and supporter of 2nd. Amendment rights. The two aren’t mutually exclusive no matter how you try to disprove it. So start typing Mr G-Man. Show us once again how superior you are and how much of an idiot liberals like me are. Don’t just bullshit us either. Tell us who you are, what you “do” and how liberals cannot be 2nd. Amendment supporters. PROVE IT!

    6. @ Jim Leffmann: Not in any particular order, but I shall address some of your musings:

      1.) Anyone that writes this – “I don’t really give a shit who you really are…”, in the same paragraph with this – “Tell us who you are, what you do…”, just simply needs to put their keyboard away. You were done long ago and just hadn’t realized it yet.

      2.) Along the same vein of liberal insanity I find you to be an amusingly paranoid character… first you tell me a story revealing your career and then attack me for knowing official terminology even though it is my job to know such things. Just trust when I say I am intimate with the internal workings of many Executive Enforcement Departments such as the DOI. More intimate than I care to remember as I have attended funerals of the fallen across many an agency over the years; especially those serving along the southern border.

      3.) It is not what I write that proves how much of an idiot liberal you are, but rather it is what you write in response that has done so.

      4.) “Your Mom’s screen name is pretty stupid too” -It is my sincerest hope that last statement helped you see how truly immature and juvenile you really are – but probably not.

      5.) Just because you think you support the Second Amendment does not make it so. What you actually support is your own personal twisted view and perception of what you think the Second Amendment should stand for, but in reality your selfish liberal DNA robs you of the ability to even come close to comprehending its true intent, as instantiated by the Founding Fathers – without modern interpretations of any kind.

      The words are simple, “…shall not be infringed.” So unless you are prepared to profess before everyone here that you renounce any law that has ever been written that controls any aspect of guns in any way, then you are a hypocrite to say you support the Second Amendment.

      It is impossible to have it both ways, but liberals illogically believe they can. So go ahead and you “PROVE IT!”

  4. Your right and I apologize. When I say not to let gun banners divide us by race, religion, and political beliefs, I did it by labeling all Liberals as gun banners and I was wrong. We all have one common belief that we need to stay united on. Don’t add more laws, get rid of the bad ones like the NY Safe Act and just enforce the ones that help, like the ones covering criminals using guns, instant checks and must issue CHL permits. No system is perfect but I think the laws in Texas and other southern & western states have the right mix of laws promoted by the NRA. Statistics prove criminals in areas of high gun ownership rarely break into homes with residents inside. I think it’s around 10%. NY Safe Act area homes are 20% or higher. The UK is over 50%! That is an obvious pattern. Another misleading advert that is very effective ( it once fooled me) is the one that shows 5 handgun deaths in the UK per year versus 30,000 in the USA. It’s a true fact but misleading. Nearly the same murder rate in both countries but different murder weapons. If you prefer being stabbed, clubbed or choked to death over being shot with a handgun, then the UK gun ban is for you. But, your odds to be murdered (5 or 6 homicides per 1000 people- more or less) is the same in white areas of both countries. The UK may be a little under us (I don’t recall the exact figures) but not by a whole lot. That has a lot to do with in the EU, the social safety net (socialismo) Is bigger And that tends to lower some types of crime. But, you got a big risk of being robbed in bed at night without anyway to protect yourself. In Canada, the police in Sarnia, Ontario use to recomend leaving your wallet, purse, watch and jewelry on your kitchen table at night. This way the burgler would not go into your room (hopefully). It makes crazy lawyer sense I guess but for most it circles back to why we all share the same belief here. All of us want a weapon to protect ourselves, we want to keep our wallets and don’t want criminals walking all over us or a super oppressive government ever taking over.

    1. I appreciate your understanding. Thank you. I agree with your observations entirely. We must all set aside those portions of our deeply held personal beliefs, that stand in the way of a unifying front against Gun Control Advocates. We must work towards an absolute reckoning of our long held right to keep and bear arms. It is not unreasonable (in my opinion only) to modify the 2nd Amendment to eliminate the confusion the existing wording causes the Supreme Court to flip-flop upon its interpretation. It must be concrete and absolute in its meaning. As far as I’m concerned, the Second Amendment should read (somewhat): The right of all United States Citizens, who demonstrate adherence to the Constitution of the United States, properly established federal laws enacted through Congress, and all applicable local laws under which like citizens therein all abide to, shall be guaranteed the right to possess and carry with them, at their discretion, firearms or other contemporary weapons suitable to protect themselves, and their loved ones, from assault or tyranny.. These rights shall not be infringed, except by individual exceptions identified by an existing State of the Union, and properly encoded and established to be in concordance to the laws governing the United States Government in its entirety…… OK. This is just a start. HOWEVER, the right to keep and bear arms needs to be clarified and established by the Federal Courts to ensure infinite applicability. We have a real sweet deal as US citizens. We have the right to own weapons capable of defeating most criminals, and , if necessary, to defeat tyranny of any current government. Remember Folks, we are still under the full auspices and controls of the current iteration of the Patriot Act. Everyone must read at least a synopsis of this act. If you do, you will see how your Constitutional rights have already been curtailed, (Heaven forbid) under a Republican Administration, and later reconfirmed by a Democratic Administration. The Federal Government already has the legal means to appropriate your home, your belongings, and imprison you and your family without recourse. You don’t believe me? Read the Patriot Act!

  5. What a bunch of confused malarkey I’m seeing here. I think it’s great that people are finally realizing that the 2nd Amendment is a right that very few other country’s afford their citizens. As the world gets smaller and populations get bigger, the country with the most dangerous abilities wins, period. I’m a Liberal, and a gun collector. Guns are the foremost player in all recent (500 years) developments in history. Having a big stick means carrying it to protect you and yours. Liberalism and gun ownership are not mutually exclusive folks! I am a mix of Euro/Native Amer. lineage. NOBODY is going to cancel my 2nd Amendment rights. Especially those who see Native Americans as a blight on society, or welfare hogs. Those people, I invite to my house and show me how tough you are. Get real folks! The world and all of its foibles are all about who has the money and power. Hang on to your weapons, even if it means burying them in your backyard. They’re your ONLY equalizer.

  6. Some of you writing here are wrong. I am white and I have lived and worked in South Texas all my life. It is 97% Hispanic and very conservative with respect to gun ownership and our constitutional rights. There is no sense alienating the coming majority in many states like Texas. There is plenty of data to prove that once southern Hispanics are at rates of 55% or more in an area they are conservative at the same rate as Sourhern Whites. If you really want to keep our gun rights, sell it as everyone’s right to self preservation. Don’t let the liberals drive wedges in our group. They are playing us gun ownning majority as fools with their divide and conquer tatics. To stay the majority, we need every freedom loving, American of whatever race or color. Let’s stay focused on the real enemy, liberals who insist on taking our rights away.

    1. Please Folks, don’t lump all liberals as gun haters. That is simply not the case. If I were to say that every conservative was an anti-government radical, trying to take away all of the government’s roles as defined by our constitution, people would be indignant. Perhaps the proper way to discuss protection of 2nd Amendment rights should be to emphasize action against politicians and others that have actually indorsed gun control, rather than making broad based declarations against individuals because of their political leanings. Every one of us is unique in our views. I’m a liberal gun collecting 2nd Amendment advocate. Don’t label me as a gun control proponent.

  7. There is one area that we need to be addressing to prevent future gun control. Hispanics, generally more conservative than liberal, have either come from countries that completely ban guns or are influenced by the liberal Latin media. We need to fight back by advertising and recruiting Spanish speaking pro gun personalities to promote our cause. Do your part, if you know a Hispanic person at work or have a friend or neighbor, invite them To go shoot! Get them involved!

  8. Blather, Blather Constitutipn which one we talking about, and when talking of racism lets not forget mysogyny at time of final passage of Revised and thrashed Articles of Confederation.
    Since nation officially got whupped in 1812 no person of color within North America could trust a white man with a gun.
    Once they had the red skinned about genocided and the blacks turned yes master don’t beat me or whip m” and ” What’s the world coming too, them Ni….s got guns, lynch em; then Us went on a worldwide Safari by shooting
    pigmented peoples.
    Cops see a well armed whiteman Ar mags and a pistol with clips, “Oh he is just just demonstrating open carry”; You see a black man with anything larger than a pen knife you and cops know he is a thug and terrorist, and if he don, t drop fast enough dead for resisting arrest.
    The Chinese , American indigenous nations, Latinos’ of California and other western states, Hawiai and Japanese on Islands still remember tales of white men with guns, as do the brown skinned Texican Decendents.
    Gun owners pretty much excluded any race but white from their cults, and
    now we wonder why no pro gun minoritys?
    Well gun lovers wil still have pigments for targets, our constan wars means world is full of them.
    Join military for active , but become part of militarized US police Forces or any alphabet security/ justice agency, active or retired , , they will always have access to guns.
    Seems in many ways we gun owners have cut our own throats, and the glee of words and voices expecting to shoot rampaging pigments does not aid our cause.

    1. Their is one undeniable fact that you overlook!
      Through out history brown skin people have murdered more people (especially brown people) than white people! and brown skin people continue to murder more people than white people today! just look in your own back yard Chicago!

    2. Confused gun control activist at work people. Know your enemy and pray for them to see the truth. Stay strong, Protect the flock = Hunt the wolf!

  9. i work very hard in fact and own my own company . If you had half a brain you could have figured that out with a click of a button . But you appear to not be smart enough and would rather make blind unsupported accusations like most others on this thread and in your tea party .

  10. Speaking of Christians , JESUS CHRIST you’re a specials kind of stupid . So you’re telling me the GOP and United states government can’t get to the bottom of a fake birth certificate? Clearly you have more resources than they do . And yes I agree muslim is not a race . Thank you for reaffirmimg my point . You’ve got two guys with dark skin and as the previous poster wrote they were both muslim . I own more guns than you have reading comprehension and the truth is no one is coming to take them away . You need to get off the NRA Koolaid man .

  11. With the way things are happening in this country…people calling for dead cops, protestors causing problems in our cities and streets, etc….its not a wonder that pro gun percentage isn’t higher, i do believe gun ownership is higher…republic/democracy issue….Lets see, if i remember right it starts out…I pledge allegiance to the REPUBLIC of the united states of America….theres no democracy in it…

    1. Actually the original version starts out: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

      Just saying.

  12. Personally, I think a lot of people miss the point when it comes to polls. Polls are beneficial only wherein a democrracy is the governmental entity in place and majority rules. Point in fact: Ours, is a constitutional republic, wherein our officials are elected by the public to enact laws, but only within the framework of the Constitution, which is the primary law of the land. For many years now, liberal-minded folk in our land have been trying to “convert” our system to a democracy, often erroneously claiming our America to be a democracy. After the last Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked, “What kind of government have you given us, Dr. Franklin?” He replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” The only way to keep it, in my mind, is to refuse to be intimidated by the purposeful liberal campaign to alter our governmental system to one where 50.0000001% of the people can tell the others what they can and can’t do.

    1. The claim that a republic is not a democracy is simply wrong. A republic is a specific form of democracy. A republic is a form of representative democracy wherein elected officials are given a specific scope of power, as opposed to pure democracy wherein every issue is decided by a majority vote of the People. But in both cases democracy means that the People rule, as opposed to a monarch etc.

      The model of limited government we have in the US is very much a democracy, in that we the People decide most issues for ourselves OUTSIDE the scope of government. We rule ourselves mostly by making our own decisions except on those few specific roles we have reluctantly granted to the government by necessity, not by allowing the majority to decide for us.

      Essentially every time you spend money, for example, you are making a decision that would otherwise be decided by the whole of the People in a pure democracy. Our form of limited government puts a very high degree of power in the hands of individuals to decide for ourselves.

      I think what you really mean is that leftists (they are not “liberal” by any rational use of the word) want to undermine the limited aspect of our form of government, so the government tells individuals how to live our lives (so long as the leftists get to control the government, that is).

    2. The argument continues over republic versus democracy and the third element of contention has even been discussed, that of whether or not the United States has descended into oligarchy. My point is that the Founders of the Nation never intended for this to be a democracy, hence, Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution states unequivocally, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of government . . .” Historical comments from Madison, Franklin and others exist to support their abhorrence of being governed under a pure democracy, which may loosely be defined as mob rule. The simple fact is that, under the Constitution, we were to have a republic, not a democracy. James Madison, writing in the Federalist Papers, No. 10 (1787) said it best: “Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths… A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.” Whether or not the years have intervened in such purpose and changed what was intended for us has, unfortunately, become debatable. I shudder to think where we would be today if it were not for the existence of the Constitution, which, purposefully, omits the word democracy entirely.

  13. Possible good report (for lawful firearm owners) on Ghost Guns.

    I mean by good, it exposes the reality non-serialized illegal fully automatic firearms are coming from the underground, NOT from any Gun Show, private sale, online sale, etc. It so-to-speak calls bullshit on the loophole/universal check propaganda. And to think I saw the report on NBC!

  14. Watching the disaster in Ferguson, where businesses were destroyed as law enforcement stood around and watched, changed many minds.

    1. Wow , way to raise your hmd when someone called out DipShit ! Neither are Muslim . I understand that your narrow mind can’t distinguish the muslim race from color of skin and since I have no crayons and construction paper I’m not even going to try to examine it to you but I can assure you there is a big difference. Now please do the rest of us a favor and go play on the freeway .

    2. Agreed he is an IDIOT and I’m sure he’s not an officer, maybe he works in one. Wait I take it back, he probably doesn’t work.

    3. The first “un modified” document of our “president’s” origin states that he was a foreign student from Indonesia his name is really Barry Soetoro and his religion /ethnicity stated Islamic. All of the birth documents that he provided have been proven by ALL the top experts to be FAKE and bad fakes using multiple fonts. Oh and by the way Muslim is not a race! O.M.G. you are funny. I guess I belong to the Christian RACE.

    4. What? Distinguish the Muslim race from color of skin? “Muslim” isn’t a race, it’s an adjective used to describe a person of any race who adheres, or purports to adhere to, the tenants of Islam. Your comment shows your ignorance on two fronts: Obama has at the least deep ties to Islam inherited from his father, and you think Muslim is a race of people.
      And then you have the gall to tell someone else to go play on the freeway.

    5. I believe Officer was distinguishing the difference between dark skin and Muslims . Not stating they were the same . As the post above call both men Muslims aparently because of their dark skin . I can assure you and as senator mcain pointed out our president is not a Muslim and neither is the new surgeon general .

  15. Another long one, but worth the read:

    This breakdown in percentages shows an extreme contrast in opinion by race. This should be alarming to anyone if for nothing else it reveals how racially divided Americans really are in an Obama administration that falsely claims progress towards making things otherwise.

    And to add insult to injury, I use the term Americans loosely given that the 70% of anti-gun Hispanics polled probably are not… legal Americans that is.

    The science behind such a high anti-gun percentage among Hispanics residing in the U.S. is as follows:

    Unlike the U.S., the majority of countries throughout Latin America have strict and zero tolerance gun laws and very few rights. This of course would have an impact on the culture and opinion of those raised in such countries. That anti-gun-opinion-embedded-culture stays with Latinos as they migrate into the U.S. both legally and illegally in untold millions.

    Now consider that once upon a time the U.S. enforced laws that required immigrants to study, meet standards, and pass a test to become Americanized – which forced them to learn the Constitution. But since Obama did away with all that nonsense, these folks cling to the teachings of their homelands. And thus their anti-gun opinions remain with them, ultimately embedded in the new America as it changes the political landscape for the future and our entire country as we once knew it.

    It’s bad enough all the mentally ill progressive liberals that we’ve allowed to infiltrate our education systems whom now openly advocate and celebrate burning our flag and pissing on the Constitution, but with the additional massive influx of uncontrolled illegal immigration Obama has added, well there is really no turning back now.

    So what do these numbers really indicate? As I’ve stated already, it indicates a serious growing racial and cultural divide of the likes never seen before. With such uncontrolled immigration that doesn’t allow for proper and lawful cultivation through naturalization, the remaining diversity becomes so immense that it can only implode into disaster or civil unrest.

    As indicated by the Pew result numbers it cannot be argued which race has the correct and most defensible understanding of the Constitution that enumerates our right to bear arms as the Founding Fathers intended.

    As such, when it comes time to take up arms in the final and ultimate prevailing defense of our Constitution, it is unfortunate that Obama and his ilk will have made certain the line in the sand will have been drawn along racial indifferences due to his lack of proper immigrant indoctrination to the true American way of life.

    1. Multi culturalism is the main problem we have as you stated. There’s is a culture of NO, yet our Constitution says YES! We must constantly fight and stand firm for our rights.
      Obama and his ilk will not stop until they have control over all of our rights.

    2. What a bunch of horse puckey! A bunch of you folks are letting your true feelings open up for public view. It appears, through your writings, that you believe that: the duly elected President of the United States is; 1. A Muslim; 2. Not a citizen of the United states, and; 3. The duly elected President of the United States is also a racist. Now why don’t you all march down to the nearest Federal Courthouse, and petition the Federal Court to declare Obama’s election as President of the United States of America, as null and void. Otherwise, why don’t you all stop spouting crap like this and work towards a common ground course of action to verify in every way, our right to Keep and Bear Arms. This Muslim/Fake Citizenship/Black Racism crap is making some of you sound like the old and obsolete stereotypical Southern haters, of times past. Is that how some of you Folks really feel? If it is, then admit it openly and stand up for your true beliefs. Do it here so we all can see. Otherwise, quit looking here for support of belief’s that have no place in our American melting pot. If you don’t approve of the ingredients of the melting pot, then jump now and shout your protests for all of us to hear. Let’s set it straight here. Our President is a Christian by his own declaration as is his family, by their own declarations. It is also nobody’s business what religion he is, as our Constitution does not require a declaration of religious affiliation as a prerequisite for election to national office. So, come up with a constitutional defense against our duly elected President, or keep your ideals strictly identified to yourselves. Don’t imply, state your feelings directly and definitively so we all can see where you’re coming from. That’s much better than throwing out rumors and innuendos.

    3. Seriously James? Un-bunch your panties. The only amendment in front of the 2nd is the 1st. Go gobble up a bunch of network news and keep believing what they’re feeding you. Seek out information. Find Truth!

    4. Eloquent and insightful. I’m happy that someone can put into words exactly what I feel and see every day. Thank you G Man. Happy were teammates!

  16. That doesn’t surprise me. Our cities have become social sewers and our cops and judges are ineffective. Apparently it has always been, “God helps those who helps them selves,” but now it’s more obvious. Let’s see what happens with the republicans in office.

  17. First off criminals do not pass background checks, and can only get guns thru illegal theft, or other illegal means. Law abiding citizens should not be restricted from buying, and owning guns, or be restricted in the way they carry them. They are not the problem, criminals are the problem. There are laws on the books to add additional punitishment for using. or being in possesion of any type of weapon while commiting a crime. These laws need strict uniform enforcement. I think armed citizens are a deterent for criminals because it reduces the advantage that a weapon carrying criminal would have, and gives the citizen a way to defend themselves, and or family in a life threatening situation. I would like to see affordable, or free firearms training be offered to citizens who pass a background check. I think knowing that a person may be armed, and has the skills to defend themself, criminals would avoid these types of personal crimes, and lives would be saved. Citizens cannot replace good Law Enforcement, but should be able to defend themselves and others when in a life threatening personal confrontation.

    1. I have thought the same thing: training anyone who wants it (even subsidizing their ammunition costs) might do more to prevent violent crime than just about anything else. Starting at an early age so that these people learn to respect the tools and each other would go a long way too.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Discover more from The Shooter's Log

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading