Most Americans Support Ban On Assault Weapons And Other Gun Control Measures

Another poll in the wake of this month's mass shootings shows increased support for several gun control measures. That doesn't mean Congress will act, though.

In the wake of the shootings two weeks ago in El Paso and Dayton, a new poll finds that two-thirds of Americans support a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” but it’s not at all clear that this will lead to political action of any kind:

The majority of Americans support a ban on assault weapons in the wake of two recent mass shootings that killed a total of 31 people, a new Fox News poll found.

Two-thirds of Americans favor a ban on assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons as a measure to reduce gun violence, according to a poll released Wednesday. It is a 7-point increase from when the question was asked in March 2018.

Support for an assault weapons ban is stronger among Democrats, at 86 percent, based on the poll. Forty-six percent  of Republicans and 58 percent of independents said they are in favor of a ban.

An overwhelming 90 percent of Americans support requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers, based on the poll. The support is statistically equal between Democrats and Republicans. 
Democrats and some Republicans have been calling on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to call a vote on a universal background check bill. The Democratic-controlled House passed the bill in February.

Here are some details from the poll:

  • As noted, 67% of Americans favor banning “assault weapons” while 27% oppose the idea. The poll also shows that a majority of nearly all demographic groups support such a ban with the exception of self-identified Republicans (who are divided 46% to 46% on the issue) and people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 (47% oppose while 46% support);
  • Americans overwhelmingly favor expanded background checks, with 90% in favor and just 7% percent against. This includes self-identified Republicans (89% in favor and 8% against) and Trump voters (90% in favor and 7% against);
  • Americans also overwhelmingly favor laws that make it easier to take guns away from people determined to be a threat to themselves and others, with 81% favoring the idea and 13% opposed. This includes self-identified Republicans (75% in favor and 19% opposed) and Trump voters (also 75% in favor and 19% opposed);
  • A plurality of Americans (47%) have an unfavorable opinion of the National Rifle Association while 42% have a favorable opinion. The numbers are quite different among self-identified Republicans (72% favorable vs. 20% unfavorable), Republican men (72% favorable v. 23% unfavorable), Republican women (72% favorable v. 17% unfavorable), and among Trump voters (73% favorable v. 18% unfavorable);
  • With the exception of Republicans and Trump voters, the majority of Americans (71%) think Congress could do more to address gun violence while 26% think that there’s little it can do; and,
  • The majority of Americans (74%) think that Congress will do little to address gun violence while 18% think Congress will do something.

This poll follows in the steps of a previous poll from last week in the immediate aftermath of the twin shootings that showed increased support for a wide variety of gun control measures. This follows a pattern we’ve seen before after similar mass shooting events.

In the wake of the December 2012 shooting that resulted in the death of more than two-dozen schoolchildren, for example, we saw increased support for gun control measures. Within a year after the shooting, support for most gun control measures had fallen back levels they were at prior to the shooting. By the second anniversary of Sandy Hook, polling indicated that more Americans supported protecting gun rights than passing new gun control measures. By the time of the third anniversary of the tragedy, polling showed a majority of Americans opposing a ban on the type of weapon used in the Sandy Hook shooting, 

Additionally, polling indicated increased support for certain gun control measures in the wake of the mass shooting in Las Vegas in October 2017 that resulted in the death of 59 people and more than eight hundred injured, making it the worse such event in American history. Despite this, there was no movement on the issue in Congress on even the seemingly straightforward idea of banning bump stocks, the devices which allow semi-automatic weapons to act as if they are fully automatic.  Ultimately, it took the Trump Administration until December 2018 to issue an administrative ruling banning bump stocks that may or may not survive a future court challenge.

After the February 2018 shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, which has led to a wave of political activism on the part of young people, we saw polling that showed strong support for increased gun control, including measures such as enhanced background checks and a ban on so-called “assault weapons.” That support waned fairly quickly, though, and polling in both April and May of last year showed support waning. While the Florida shooting did result in the passage of some measures, such as new laws in Florida that made it easier to take guns away from people who pose a threat to others, and moves to increase the minimum age to purchase a rifles to 21, there were no significant moves on the national level and little indication from exit polling that gun control issues played a big role in the outcome of the midterm elections. 

If public opinion follows the pattern it has in the past, then we can expect support for gun control to wane in the coming months. Then, the next mass shooting will happen and we’ll go through this all over again.

As it has before, all of this brings to mind something Kevin Drum wrote in the wake of the defeat of the Manchin-Toomey bill, which was put before the Senate mere months after the Sandy Hook shooting That bill would have expanded background checks and purported to close other loopholes in the background check system, It also happened to be an issue that enjoyed at the time, and continues to enjoy, widespread public support even among Republicans, conservatives, and gun owners:

about 80 percent of those Americans think it sounds like a reasonable idea but don’t really care much. I doubt that one single senator will suffer at the polls in 2014 for voting against Manchin-Toomey.

Gun control proposals poll decently all the time. But the plain truth is that there are only a small number of people who feel really strongly about it, and they mostly live in urban blue districts already. Outside of that, pro-gun control opinion is about an inch deep. This is a classic case where poll literalism leads you completely astray. Without measuring intensity of feeling, that 90 percent number is meaningless.

I made a similar observation at the time:

Even at the height of the post-Newtown political push, only 6% of Americans considered gun control the most important problem facing the nation. That’s a far cry from the vast majority of voters who say that they support the various gun control measures that have been advocated over the past four months.

This isn’t the first indication that gun control is a low intensity issue among American voters.  Back in January, just one month after Newtown, a similar Gallup poll showed the same results that we see in this month’s release. At that time, I predicted that it would be difficult for gun control advocates to get the most ambitious parts of their agenda through even the Senate, but I thought at the time that at least something would be passed. In part, I thought this because it seemed as though the post-Newtown attention paid to the issue was going to make it inevitable and that a low-priority issue like background checks would be something that Congress could pass to make it appear that they’re doing something, even though in reality the Manchin/Toomey bill would have done little to stop the massacres that have garnered much attention over the years. As it turned out, the politics of the issue were far more complicated, and public intensity on the issue of gun control was far less than many thought it might be after the events of Newtown.

Once you understand where the politics of gun control actually stand, the behavior of Republicans and red state Democrats becomes completely understandable.

As I keep saying, maybe this time things will be different. Maybe this time support for increased gun control will be the kind of issue that motivates voters to get to the polls in November 2020. That election is still 447 days away, though, and there are a lot of other issues likely to grab the attention of the public between now and then. If history is any guide we’ll talk about doing things until the next big thing happens, as it inevitably will, at which point public attention will again be diverted and support for gun control will return to historic norms. At least until the next mass shooting.

FILED UNDER: Congress, Donald Trump, Guns and Gun Control, Law and the Courts, Politicians, Second Amendment, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. An Interested Party says:

    It’s amazing how many things most Americans support that those in the government refuse to act on…

    3
    9
  2. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    If 20 dead white suburban 6- and 7-year-olds were not able to move the needle in Congress (or more specifically the Senate Republican Caucus) there’s no reason to believe that public outrage over dead Hispanics will last until that same caucus returns from summer holiday, let alone have enough community memory to act 400-some days from now. We’re Americans, dammit! We like shooting people and there’s nothing you candy-ass liberals can do about it! Get over yourselves!

    3
    9
  3. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    Sorry, not today.
    Today the President is only interested in two women of color who have been in Congress less than a year.
    Let’s not talk about inaction on gun control, the economy, the deficit, trade wars, or Epstein.

    3
    8
  4. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker:

    If 20 dead white suburban 6- and 7-year-olds were not able to move the needle in Congress

    This.
    Here’s how this will, in all likelihood, play out. Republicans in the Senate will allow something meaningless to happen on Gun Control…then they will claim it as a massive victory; only Trump could get Gun Control done.
    There will be no mention of the hundreds of people that have died while Republicans claimed “now is not the time to discuss Gun Control.” There will be no mention of the hundreds of people who have died while Republicans offered only their “thoughts and prayers.” There will be no mention of the hundreds of people who have died while Republicans took millions from the Gun Lobby.
    Mark my word on this…

    5
    13
  5. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker: We like getting shot and there’s nothing you candy-ass liberals can do about it!

    FTFY.

    3
    2
  6. Paul L. says:

    All Democrats should campaign fully on Gun Control/Safety/Reform in 2020. “with 90% of Americans and 80% of gun owners on your side, you can’t lose.”

    As a start, the Democrats should amend the bills H.R. 8 H.R .112 and H.R. 1296 to only apply to registered Democrats who fully support those laws.

    5
    10
  7. grumpy realist says:
  8. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    @grumpy realist:
    Those are mighty big words for Paul L.

    1
    1
  9. Paul L. says:
  10. michael reynolds says:

    @Paul L.:
    Typical troll. You hide in the bushes when we’re discussing the massive failure of your orange god’s economic policies, and pop up for guns, POC and gays. If someone starts talking about race or gender we may even see @Guarneri.

    Add to the Dark Triad of mental illnesses: cowardice.

    It’s like when Guarneri has to flee any time I ask him a very simple question. You’re wimps and weaklings. Big surprise.

    7
    6
  11. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    @Paul L.:
    True, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t a moron.

    5
    1
  12. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Paul L.: Paul L is just a mimic repeating words without understanding.

  13. Hal_10000 says:

    One possible option I thought of an assault weapons. I wouldn’t necessarily support this and it would do little, since they constitute such a tiny sliver of crime. But it’s an option.

    We license people to carry concealed weapons because we recognize the greater danger of a concealed gun. We also very strictly license fully automatic weapons. You could split the difference between those two by requiring a CC-like permit to buy assault rifles. You would not have to register the weapon and old weapons would be grandfathered in (they kind of have to be unless you want to imprison millions of people). It could be implemented through the background check system. So if you pass a background check, you can buy a pistol or rifle. If you pass the enhanced check, you can buy an assault rifle.

    Again, might not make much of a difference but it would a least steer the occasional mass shooter toward other weapons. And it would easily survive court challenges.

  14. An Interested Party says:

    I wouldn’t necessarily support this and it would do little, since they constitute such a tiny sliver of crime.

    So than why do it? Instead, why not institute options that will do more and deter more crime? Of course, that might impact donations from the NRA and gun lobbyists to whores in Congress…God forbid…

    1
    2
  15. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Hal_10000: I’m not sure how a proposal that “I wouldn’t necessarily support” is useful to begin with, but since the two sides can’t agree on the definition of “assault weapon” and the NRA seems to believe that elements such as oversize magazines and the ability to fire multiple times by simply holding down the trigger represent advancements in hunting rifle design, color me skeptical about this being something other than just nutha dog what don’t hunt.

    1
    2
  16. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Hal_10000:

    You would not have to register the weapon and old weapons would be grandfathered in (they kind of have to be unless you want to imprison millions of people).

    Tell me something, why is this only a concern with assault weapons? Nobody ever said, “we can’t make drugs illegal (unless we want to imprison millions of people).”

    2nd of all, bullshit. Nobody, and I mean nobody, needs an assault weapon (outside of LEO). Institute a well financed buyback program, pass laws that make the possession of one a felony subject to 10 years in prison, the manufacture or modification of one a felony with mandatory minimum of 20 years. The same for expanded magazines and silencers.

    Will that get them all? No. But I’d be willing to bet it would get 90% or more of them and the remaining 10% or less would hardly see the light of day because the penalties are too severe to risk. I have a firing range just a mile down the road from me and I can assure you my life would get a lot more quiet because no one would dare bring one to it.

    3rd, I have a definition that gets them all: Any automatic or semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine. Any semi-automatic firearm with non detachable magazine limited to a capacity not to exceed 6 rounds.

    Would that piss off a whole lot of gun nuts? You betcha. Do I care? Not one whit. They have the option of coming up with a definition that succeeds as well as mine does. I have 5 firearms, only one of which fits this definition and I would gladly surrender my Ruger 10/22 in the hope that I live long enough that headlines of 19 dead and 32 wounded in a single shooting have become a thing of the past.

    4
    7
  17. Hal_10000 says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    Nobody ever said, “we can’t make drugs illegal (unless we want to imprison millions of people).”

    I say it all the time. But drugs are ephemeral. Once they’ve been used, they’re gone. Guns stick around for decades.

    Institute a well financed buyback program, pass laws that make the possession of one a felony subject to 10 years in prison

    So imprisoning millions of people, then. Australia’s compliance rate was likely about 20%. There are ten million AR-15’s alone in the United States. So that means 8 million people going to prison, assuming we get a similar compliance rate.

    1
    2
  18. michael reynolds says:

    @Hal_10000:
    The problem with licensing assault rifles is when the applicant comes to the question: why do you need an assault rifle? There is literally no reason why anyone would need an AR as a personal protection weapon. The only thing they’re good for is what they’re designed to do: inflict catastrophic injuries on human beings.

    1
    6
  19. michael reynolds says:

    @Hal_10000:
    I call b.s.:

    1) No, it means two dozen guys going to prison and a lot of the rest of the tough guys rolling over.

    2) There may be ten million ARs in this country, but there are not ten million owners. People who feel the need to possess people-killing tools tend to be obsessive, they can’t just have one, after all, what if the race war is on? So not 8 million, maybe 1 million. Still an awful lot. But they won’t be showing off their ‘rights’ by strutting around a Wal-Mart, now will they?

    3) As you know, the deadliness of an assault rifle is largely about the ammo. Ban the ammo. Now your one million owners are slowly attrited, dwindling as threats.

    4) Finally, outlaw reloading equipment, percussion caps and brass. Mark the powder.

    5) Make the penalty for resale of an AR twice as high as the penalty for possession. Mandatory 10 and seizure of your business if you’re a gun dealer. What might have a been a legal or at least gray transaction becomes a great deal more serious.

    3
    7
  20. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Hal_10000:

    But drugs are ephemeral. Once they’ve been used, they’re gone.

    Oh, well than, I guess we’re gonna run out any day now, right? Maybe I should have used a baseball bat to make my point which seems to have slipped right by you:

    #1: I guess we should never make any laws because people will inevitably go to jail.
    #2: I didn’t want to say this before because I have never seen any indication of racism in any of your comments and I did not want you to think I was accusing you of it. But you missed this… and the inference is there every time somebody says it whether they are aware of it or not: Nobody objected to the laws on crack cocaine because they would send millions of black people to prison, but laws on assault weapons? Oh nooooes, we would need to send millions of white men to prison.

    So imprisoning millions of people, then.

    To repeat myself, because apparently you just skipped over it all together:

    Will that get them all? No. But I’d be willing to bet it would get 90% or more of them and the remaining 10% or less would hardly see the light of day because the penalties are too severe to risk. I have a firing range just a mile down the road from me and I can assure you my life would get a lot more quiet because no one would dare bring one to it.

    Even if you want to quibble with my assumptions about compliance (that is fair) the fact remains that the whole idea is to get these weapons off the street. I really don’t give a rats ass if these gun nuts want to hide in their basements fondling their male virility while fantasizing about mowing down the black/brown/yellow/government hordes. What I care about is the fact that they won’t be able to strut around in public showing what manly men they are and even more so don’t dare take them out and shoot them for practice because then they will go to prison. And if they can’t do those 2 things, that makes it even harder to go out and kill 30 people in broad daylight.

    @michael reynolds: makes a # of rejoinders I would have (especially regarding the # of owners of assault weapons) and a few others I would not have but I largely agree with his sentiments.

    Right now I have to get on with my day.

    3
    2
  21. Tyrell says:

    @OzarkHillbilly: This is interesting:
    The most prolific serial killer of modern times seldom and maybe never have used a gun. Yet he is suspected in the murders of well over a hundred people. Few today have ever heard of him. He may have also plied his horrible ways in a foreign country. This creature did not usually live in homes, but usually stayed in a hotel that he owned. He eluded police for quite a while, even though his photograph was common. He actually was done in by a horse. His name is in this paragraph.

    1
    1
  22. Hal_10000 says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    If the lesson you’ve learned from the War on Drugs is, “Gee, we should apply those methods to guns!” you’ve learned the wrong lesson. And your response “in their basements fondling their male virility while fantasizing about mowing down the black/brown/yellow/government hordes.” illustrates once again my belief that this isn’t really about policy anymore; it’s a culture war. You guys just don’t *like* these guns and look down on the people who own them. And so you want them banned.

  23. michaael reynolds says:

    @Hal_10000:

    You guys just don’t *like* these guns and look down on the people who own them. And so you want them banned.

    We don’t like them because we can’t live our lives without being in fear of them. We don’t like them because people use them to murder people on the basis of their skin color or religion. It’s not a culture war for us, it’s a culture war for you.

    Once again, HAL, you’re smart. . . until the discussion turns to guns. Then you start talking abject nonsense – nonsense you yourself could easily refute if you were capable of objectivity on the topic. Ask yourself why that is. Why are your arguments in favor of guns so easily blown out of the water? Why do you keep losing these debates, and not losing well, either?

    At the point where you’re down to sounding like an unpopular middle schooler crying, ‘you guys just don’t like me,’ it’s time to step back and re-evaluate your beliefs.

    2
    2
  24. William Dixon says:

    1013 people were polled….pure garbage.

    2
    3
  25. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    Tell me something, why is this only a concern with assault weapons? Nobody ever said, “we can’t make drugs illegal (unless we want to imprison millions of people).”

    You DO get that we’re talking about 2 different categories of people here, right? ( 🙂 😛 )

    ETA: Never mind. I see that you get it further down the thread. 🙂

  26. Xiada says:

    @Hal_10000: fully automatic weapons are already illegal unless you have a special license and like 15k.

    Firearms are used DEFENSIVELY 500k-3 million times annually and that’s not by LEOs.

    Over 90% of these shootings are in gun free zones, showing that it’s not law abiding, licensed concealed carriers that are the problem.

  27. Me says:

    @OzarkHillbilly: But there something you can do about it. Stop fearing the unknown, learn to defend yourself against a threat that does not abide by laws. Learn to be your own first responder, instead of relying on others that you eventually wait for to show up. Which by the time first responder arrives, the threat is gone and you are left with the injury, if not dead. Because until you can tell me how to stop ALL violent crime (not just with a firearm) people continue to commit violent acts against each other, regardless of any law. Until then you can learn to defend yourself, family and others around, or you can just bleed out waiting for the medic and PD to arrive. Remember to apply direct pressure to wound and/or pressure points, you know first responder stuff.

  28. Joe Anthony says:

    @William Dixon:
    That’s what I was thinking.

  29. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Hal_10000:

    You guys just don’t *like* these guns and look down on the people who own them. And so you want them banned.

    Your damn right I don’t like them and your damn right I look down on the pussy mf’ers who “need” them and your damned right I want them fucking banned.

    What part of what I wrote above was in any way ambivalent?

    As far as it being a “culture war”, sure run and hide behind that tired RW talking point, it’s what conservatives do when they have run out of arguments because nobody is buying the bullshit they are trying to sell, which in this particular case is a culture of death.

    And your goddamned right I want it to end. WTF do you want?

  30. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Xiada: Bump stocks.

    @Me: You stupid fuck, I live in a place you can only dream of and I have lived in places that are your worst nightmare, and I never felt the need to carry a gun. Why? Because I’m not a pussy.

    You want to know what I am afraid of? Losing one of my sons, which I have come desperately close to losing both, by any means. One of which is from stupid mf’ers who have no business owning one, much less walking around with guns and doing something really stupid with one. And you know what? I know people who are and most definitely shouldn’t. I get the sinking feeling you are a kissing cousin. And for the record? I’ve been around guns all my life, I own guns and I use them. I just don’t feel the need to kill anybody except as an absolute last resort.

    @Tyrell: I have no idea wtf point you are trying to make. Is it that because somebody killed a hundred people by other means we should allow for the killing of thousands by guns? Are you stupid? Because that is the most moronic thing I have ever heard argued.

    As to your riddle, you’re playing games while people die. How Christian of you.

  31. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Xiada:

    Firearms are used DEFENSIVELY 500k-3 million times annually and that’s not by LEOs.

    Over 90% of these shootings are in gun free zones, showing that it’s not law abiding, licensed concealed carriers that are the problem.

    And by the way, both those statistics are absolute bullshit having zero basis in reality. In this country we can’t even say how many people are injured with guns severely enough to go to a hospital for treatment (crime, accidents, failed suicides, etc etc). And you are going to pull this crap out of Wayne LaPierres grifting ass and expect us to believe it?

  32. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Me: One other thing, have you ever seen some body get shot? I have. I have seen the shattered bodies. I have smelled the blood on the street. I have heard the last raspy breaths of a man whose brains lay in the gutter behind him. And I have heard the screams of 4 suddenly orphaned children looking upon the bodies of their parents lying in the street. I have felt their bodies shudder at the horror they will never forget as I carry them away.

    Fuck you and your unknowns. I know what you can not even imagine. I can not forget. I still hear the screams. I still….

    No, just fuck you. You don’t know. But I do, at least a little bit. Dawg, as much as I want you to get a clue, I hope you never know.

  33. michael reynolds says:

    @Xiada:
    Provide a link to a credible source that has research showing 500k- 3 million self-defense uses. Spoiler alert: you can’t, no such data exists, it’s bullshit. So either you lack the sense to see that it’s obviously nonsense or you’re lying. Pick one.

    1
    1
  34. Chris W says:

    And three polls told us Donald Trump would not win the election. Most firearms owners will not answer polls or will purposefully mislead the pollsters. Why? Because no one truest them anymore.

  35. wr says:

    @Chris W: That’s right, you adorable little gun humper. Everyone in America secretly agrees with you — it’s just that they’re so manly and bold they’re too scared to answer a question honestly. Much better to dream about killing the person who is asking, right? Especially if their skin is a little darker than yours?

  36. Kyle Fortner says:

    @michael reynolds: the CDC literally produced this finding after a massive and extensive investigation launched by Obama. Guns aren’t the problem, it’s people. Which is why the UK still has rampant violent crime. Which is why Chicago, Jersey, New York and LA have rampant crime. Which is why despite a ban on assault weapons we still had two of the worst shootings in America, both Columbine and Virginia tech. Two shootings that happened in gun free zones, which time and time again prove to be useless since almost all shootings happen in gun free zones and almost all shootings are caused by illegal firearms.

    None of you anti gun advocates have a clue about anything you’ve got to say and are completely uneducated about guns. You want scary rifles banned yet pistols are used in the most shootings. Hammers kill more people a year than the AR15 and most shootings are gang related. Which, for the idiots saying you don’t need a gun for defense is exactly why you do need a gun for defense. Factually every single shooting where the guy doesn’t kill himself is stopped by a good guy with a gun. Every one.

  37. Tyrell says:

    @OzarkHillbilly: Certainly you are not advocating some sort of mass seizure of guns from people’s homes? Which would mean searches. I would think most people would be against that. A lot of police would not go along with that. I only have an antique rifle that doesn’t fire, so I would not be affected. But once something like that starts, what would be next?

  38. michael reynolds says:

    @Kyle Fortner:
    Show me a link. Again, spoiler alert: you can’t.

    As for not knowing anything about guns, I’ve owned a Marlin .22 lever action rifle, a 210 single action shotgun and a Colt .45 Commander. I have fired any number of .22’s, .32’s, .38’s, .357 mags, .44 mags, a .270 hunting rifle, a 12 gauge over-under, an M1 Garand, an M1 carbine, a Thompson submachine gun and a BAR.

    The good guy with a gun argument is moronic. We wouldn’t need good guys with guns if we didn’t first give guns to bad guys, now would we?

    The argument that people get murdered without guns therefore guns aren’t a problem, is like saying we have so many heart attacks we shouldn’t worry about cancer. Again, a transparently stupid argument.

    And equating gang violence with terrorism is an argument you yourself would have laughed out of the room if we were talking about Muslim terrorists. You don’t want to see white supremacists as terrorists so you switch sides and reduce terrorism to just another crime.

    But then you people never can make a consistent rational argument. You need lies.

  39. Seadog says:

    @Hal_10000: Nice idea, but you’ll never get me to admit I own any “assault” weapons. NONE of my weapons are “offensive” weapons, they are ALL defensive weapons.

  40. Proud vet says:

    @Daryl and his brother Darryl: You are right first off the converse or for bidden from being involved in the first 10 amendments of which the second amendment is paramount to the other nine! If people think the government is stealing from them now and giving our money to illegal aliens which, tax Money is supposed to go, support government and the needs of government to protect the people and that is all. We have let the communist in Congress get by with stealing our money and trying to make us feel guilty that we are saying anything about what they are stealing now giving it away to people who care less about this country, while exacting their selves from the same taxes and laws. Who’s fault is this? It’s weird the people‘s fault we have the power, but we don’t have the people with any guts to stand up for it! God bless America and may he rest the souls of all who died for this Great nation!

  41. Scot Raymer says:

    Is the poll done in big metropolitan areas or urban areas ? Kinda like the electoral college for potus!

  42. michael reynolds says:

    @Proud vet:
    Jesus, dude, get help.

    1
    1