Percentage of Americans Wanting Looser Gun Laws Triples in 2014

Fifty-five percent of Americans reported in a new Gallup poll that they are dissatisfied overall with American gun laws and policies, an increase from 51 percent in 2013 and just 42 percent in 2012.

But the most dramatic rise in dissatisfaction comes from the contingency of Americans who feel gun laws are too strict, rather than from those who think they aren't strict enough. This percentage jumped to 16 percent this year, a rate that more than triples the 5 percent recorded by Gallup last year. Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans favoring stricter gun laws fell seven points in 2014, from 38 to 31 percent.

The enormous growth of the gun-freedom caucus could in part be attributable to heavy lobbying efforts last year by the National Rifle Association and others. Sensing a groundswell of support for firearm restrictions in the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., gun-rights groups reported lobbying to the tune of $12.2 million in 2013, according to data compiled by the Sunlight Foundation.

Gun-control groups spent five times as much on federal lobbying in 2013 as they did the year before, but the NRA and others still outpaced them by more than 7-to-1.

Catherine Mortensen, a spokeswoman for the NRA, said the poll results were not surprising. She said the boost in those wanting lighter restrictions came even despite heavy investment from gun-control groups on advertising last year. In direct contrast to federal lobbying, control groups outspent the NRA and others by a 7-to-1 margin ($14.1 million to $1.9 million) on advertising in 2013, according to data collected by Kantar Media.

"Billionaire gun control zealots such as Michael Bloomberg outspent us exponentially last year," she said in a statement. "However, their efforts failed to resonate with a majority of Americans that gun control laws are necessary. In fact, as Gallup shows, it has been counterproductive."

President Obama again called for tighter gun restrictions in his State of the Union address earlier this week, echoing the emotional plea he made in his address to Congress a year earlier after the tragedy wrought in Newtown. Consistent with the overall theme of his speech, Obama suggested he intends to tighten gun laws even if Congress doesn't send any gun legislation to his desk.

"Citizenship means standing up for the lives that gun violence steals from us each day," the president said Tuesday. "I have seen the courage of parents, students, pastors, and police officers all over this country who say, 'We are not afraid,' and I intend to keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters, shopping malls, or schools like Sandy Hook."

The Senate failed last spring to pass legislation that would have expanded background checks, and the issue is widely viewed as a political nonstarter once again in Congress. Gun-control advocates did see some success last year in a few state houses, particularly in Colorado and Connecticut, but lawmakers choosing to support such legislation frequently face politically fatal backlash from the gun lobby.

Gallup's telephone interviews were conducted from Jan. 5-8 among a random sample of 1,018 adults. The poll's margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Switzerland has mandatory military service, and does NOT have a round-the-clock media waiting to do the blood dance whenever there is a shooting.

To be sure, they have their own version of liberal traitors, but the majority of the people understand their own history, their culture, and their traditions, and they love and cherish those things.

They’re a single, unified culture and don’t have the same intentionally-created problems that we have.

It’s a BIG DEAL here because we are in the process of being dumbed down and conditioned.

I teach handgun and rifle instruction to people; you’d be amazed at how many folks have NO idea that this is a genuine Constitutional right and not a “privilege”.

On the positive side, young folks are VERY enthusiastic about learning, and they positively light up when they realize they DO have a right to own and carry and defend themselves.

We can “revolutionize” the young too. You just have to DO it.

Switzerland has mandatory military service, and does NOT have a round-the-clock media waiting to do the blood dance whenever there is a shooting.
To be sure, they have their own version of liberal traitors, but the majority of the people understand their own history, their culture, and their traditions, and they love and cherish those things.
They’re a single, unified culture and don’t have the same intentionally-created problems that we have.
All true. They are also a VERY small country, all Christians, VERY well off financially and WON'T allow foreigners to become Swiss citizens. THAT latter caveat keeps them EXACTLY who they are right now.

It’s a BIG DEAL here because we are in the process of being dumbed down and conditioned.
I teach handgun and rifle instruction to people; you’d be amazed at how many folks have NO idea that this is a genuine Constitutional right and not a “privilege”.
On the positive side, young folks are VERY enthusiastic about learning, and they positively light up when they realize they DO have a right to own and carry and defend themselves.
We can “revolutionize” the young too. You just have to DO it.
Agreed.
Those who voted to RE-ELECT Obama did us a great disservice. There WERE Republicans who did so too.
I can HARDLY blame them either as the GOP put up a MORMON. The Mormons believe that Jesus and Lucifer were BROTHERS. What?!?! I didn't vote for Romney either. Since I COULD NOT and WOULD NOT vote for Obama I threw my vote away...a Mormon? Please.

However, I think I will still stick to my one seat Georgia loss and two seat Texas loss.

What 2 seats in Texas? No GOP seat there is at all vulnerable. None gave Romney less than 57% of the vote. I'm not particularly interested in medium or long term predictions of demographic doom and gloom. Right now in 2014 those seat are NOT vulnerable. Not at all. No menacing brown tide that was absent 2 years ago is gonna float in and magically hand Obama's party 2 conservative House seats in Texas.

The only Texas set in play is that of freshman rat Pete Gallego who beat an incumbent Republican despite Romney winning the district by narrow margin.

Kingston's open seat in GA-1 is theoretically winnable for rats but I assign it very low risk in Obama's 6th year midterm especially since the leading rat candidate is some random lady who lost by over 20 points in 2012 when Black turnout was much higher than it's gonna be this November.

If a seat changes hands in GA it will be GA-12 held by rat John Barrow. A top Republican target.

Nunn's daughter is unlikely to seriously compete for the Senate seat unless Republicans make the mistake of nominating Ron Paulish Congressman Paul Broun.

RE Mormons: No Mormon ever called me a “domestic terrorist”, nor has it been Mormons running around cutting off heads and slamming aircraft into buildings. They believe what they want to, that’s their right in a free country. And as much as I disagreed with Romney, I think he probably would not have caused anywhere NEAR the damage this commie clown has caused.

I don’t argue religion with people; you believe what you want to believe, and I will too, and we’ll get along fine. That’s the beauty of Freedom of Religion.

RE Sig Sauers: They are extremely well-made and are quality pieces, but I never liked the long trigger pull on them, same as with the Berettas. I am a Glock 19 fan; it’s what I train men, women, and kids with. Used to carry a 1911A1 around, but it was too bulky for concealed carry.

RE: “No GOP seat is vulnerable in Texas.”

As I point out again and again, in each post, my prediction is based on Democrats successfully turning out their base voters.

Democrats began working on turn out in Georgia and Texas a few weeks after the 2012 election.

If they fail, you are right.

If they succeed, I am right.

Which seats in Texas?

Randy Weber - District 14

If Blacks and Hispanics turn out in Brazoria and Jefferson County, Weber is toast.

He won just 53% of the vote in 2012.

Roger Williams - District 25

His Democratic opponent barely got 50% in Travis County, which is ludicrous, unless his District his gerrymandered through every white neighborhood in the county.

Blake Farenthold - District 27

Turn out in Nueces County - which is 62% Hispanic - was dramatically lower than the state average.

RE: “Nunn’s daughter is unlikely to seriously compete for the Senate seat.”

In a state wide poll about 10 days ago, Nunn led all four of the likely GOP candidates by small margins.

Can she lose?

Of course.

But she is a serious candidate.

Democrats “work on turnout” EVERYWHERE, ALL THE TIME. They will not suddenly produce untold waves of Mexican voters to create the huge swings necessary to elect NOBODY DEMOCRATS in those Texas districts especially in an election where they are set to do badly because OBAMA IS UNPOPULAR, that’s fanciful nonsense. If they were capable of such sorcery they would have done it by now, in every state. I shudder to think what kind of masochist you must be to twist your mind into believing this.

Rat turnout will be LESS than in was in 2012. This is CERTAIN even if through some herculean effort they get better turnout than they usually do in a midterm of a rat President, it will still be less than in Obama’s POTUS reelection which featured many people who normally don’t vote. According to all history unless Obama’s approval shoots up to close to 60% it is certain the democrats will suffer a net loss of House seats. It’s laughable to pretend Republicans are on the defensive in their own seats.

In 2012 Weber faced inexplicably popular rat ex-Rep. Nick Lampson in an open seat (maybe Ron Paul fatigue was a factor in that race? Don’t know). In 2014 he is an incumbent and will face one of 3 NOBODIES with limited resources. This race is not even on the rats radar screen. All election prediction people rate all of those Texas races you mention that pit incumbent Republicans in districts that gave Mitt Romney at least 57% against cash-strapped democrats with no name recognition as safe Republican. Even in the democrats wet dream fantasies of taking back the House in 2014 those seats you mentioned are NOT on their target list of seats they think they can win.

In 2000 I read rat strategists proclaim Texas would be a swing state by 2008, whoops. I’ll believe it when I see it. It sure as hell ain’t happening in Obama’s 6th year midterm with a feminazi nightmare heading up their statewide ticket.

So basically all this boils down to your unsubstantiated claims that democrats have mastered the art of turnout voodoo that is sure to work versus all other evidence. If you don’t mind I’m gonna go with “all other evidence”.

I agree Nunn’s dykey looking daughter is a “serious candidate” but with the Senate at stake she is unlikely to win no matter what her daddy’s famous name is doing for right now in the polls. The polls you mention BTW are from PPP, a democrat firm. PPP wants people to donate money to Nunn which they are less likely to do if they show her down by 10 points like she probably actually is.

Wait, so a 62% Hispanic county in TX had a much lower percentage of the population that voted in 2012 that did the state as a whole? Zoot alors! You’ve really discovered something there. *Of course* a far lower percentage of residents voted: in a 62% Hispanic district in TX, a far lower percentage of the population will be 18+ or U.S. citizens. But let’s say that the distopian future you predict occurs in 2014, and a “large brown horde” shows up to vote. You’re talking about an election between (i) a Republican incumbent who has raised over $500,000 and who connects enough with Hispanic voters that in 2010, back when the district was over 70% Hispanic, defeated a Hispanic Democrat incumbent who had served for two decades, and (ii) some random, unknown Anglo Democrat named Wesley who has raised $15,000 and will not get any support from state or national Democrats because they’re fighting for survival in Dem-held districts, all in a congressional district that gave Romney 60.5% in 2012. But go ahead and continue predicting that the world will end tomorrow, since you’ll be right someday and you’ll be able to point proudly to your 1 correct, 30,000 incorrect prediction record.

Cassandra was given the gift of prophecy by the gods; you seem to have been given the gift of willful misinterpretation of data in an attempt to argue that all is lost. So, no, you’re no Cassandra.

Farenthold's victory in 2010 is misleading, at best.

The Tea Party Revolution that year was a victory for voter turn out - nothing else.

Nationally, turn out for white Conservatives was exceptionally high.

Turn out for Blacks and Hispanics was exceptionally low.

The best example of this - Gov. Susana Martinez(R) in New Mexico in 2010.

40% of eligible voters in NM are Hispanic.

61% of Hispanics voted AGAINST Martinez.

Yet, Martinez won comfortably because of heavy white turn out.

Except for his devout Conservative principles, Farenthold is not a candidate with general appeal.

He is obese, he has an odd face, he loves the sound of his own voice, and he has a quirky and often inappropriate sense of humor that makes only Conservatives laugh.

Farenthold won in 2012 by 37,000 votes.

I went back and calculated how he would have done in each county in his District if 100% of eligible voters had voted in 2012.

I am NOT claiming 100% will vote.

I am going to show you what happens when Blacks and Hispanics turn out at the EXACT SAME rate whites turn out.

I used Pew 2012 eligibility numbers for Texas - Hispanics(44%), Blacks(70%), whites(78%).

I used 2012 Census Bureau numbers for county population and ethnic breakdown.

There was no NEP Texas exit polling in 2012.

2008 NEP Texas polls show 73% of whites voted Republican.

I can't find 2008 NEP Texas data for Blacks and Hispanics, so I used 2012 NEP national data.

Blacks voted Democrat 93%, and Hispanics voted 71% Democrat.

I put all those numbers in the blender, and Farenthold wins by 7,000 votes at 100% turn out.

In other words, less than 2% if turn out is equal among the main ethnic groups.

Almost anything could knock this guy off a lead that small.

A center-left Republican or a Libertarian could enter the race and bleed off 3% of his votes.

Farenthold likes to joke extemporaneously, and if one of those jokes goes wrong, he could go down 5% in a heartbeat.

Maybe the 10,000 poor white women in his District who now get free Medicaid will decide they don't like Farenthold's plan to repeal ObamaCare.

So that's what ALL your boasting and mockery come down to, H2O.

You are certain that white Conservatives will turn out at a higher rate than Blacks and Hispanics.

You have no plan to stop mass immigration.

You have no plan to convert Hispanics to Conservatism, which is not surprising since they have been Socialists for two centuries.

And you bring no original thinking to this issue, just the usual hate words and mockery you plagiarize from the Democrats.

My analysis - you are a reflex Libertarian who cannot let go of your Open Borders fantasy world.

You are hopeless. You think that Hispanics in Nueces County vote the same as in Starr County or Brooks County? Or that white Anglos in Nueces County vote the same as in Austin? So how can you plug in your assumptions based on statewide breakdowns? All the while ignoring the numbers for the TX-27 as a whole (in which Nueces County is the most Democrat part). Romney carried the TX-27 with 60.5%, despite the highest Hispanic turnout ever. But that doesn’t go into your blender? BTW, I wholeheartedly agree that Farenthold isn’t an “attractive” candidate—he looks like Flounder from Animal House—but you have to admit that he has done well electorally in his two elections, even though the first ine was in a district that was over 70% Hispanic (back when Cameron County was in the TX-27). And you haven’t considered the fact that Wesley Penniless Nobody will be the RAT nominee in TX-27 in 2014.

Unlike in 2012, when the RATs contested the GOP-held TX-23 (which they picked up) and open TX-14 (where they fell 9% short), the RATs aren’t contesting any GOP-held congressional districts in TX this year. None. The most money raised so far by Democrats in a district is the $35,000 raised by the only RAT running in TX-31 (Carter’s CD), which gave Romney 59.6% in 2012. And the filing deadline was in early December, so it’s not like a good candidate can enter the race now. While Steny Hoyer lies and says that the Dems are poised to retake the House, he doesn’t have the chutzpah to claim that they’ll pick up a CD in TX, since the RATs aren’t even trying to win any GOP seats there. Only in your mind could any GOP- held TX CDs be in trouble.

BTW, no exit poll was carried out in NM in 2010. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2010/11/03/the-latino-vote-in-the-2010-elections/ What’s your source for 61% of Hispanics voting against Susana Martinez? Oh, and in 2012, 39% of eligible voters in NM were Hispanic (http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/10/01/latinos-in-the-2012-election-new-mexico/); the percentage of registered voters in NM that were Hispanic was lower than that, and the percentage if those who turn out was still lower (and in a non-presidential year, lower still). I don’t think that 2010 saw an extraordinary white Anglo turnout in NM, although certainly it’s true that in NM, like in most states in 2010, conservatives were more enthusiastic than were liberals. You know what election cycle also has enthusiastic conservatives and unenthusiastic liberals so far? 2014.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.