Wednesday, 30 January 2013 14:55

Vast Majority of Gun Owners Would Defy Ban, Poll Shows

Written by 

If the government were to pass an unconstitutional law purporting to ban firearms, two thirds of Americans with guns in their household say they would defy the lawless legislation and refuse to comply, according to a recent poll conducted by Fox News. Even the majority of Democrat and liberal gun owners would refuse to surrender their weapons, the survey revealed. Most Americans also believe that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens — not gun bans — would help reduce crime. 

The Fox poll interviewed more than 1,000 registered voters in mid-January on a wide range of issues, most of which were related to firearms and the Second Amendment. According to the results, more than half of all respondents said there was at least one gun in their household — and the numbers have been steadily rising over previous years. Another five percent did not know whether there were guns in their home, or they were not willing to answer the question.

Among the 52 percent of respondents who admitted to having a gun in their household, the overwhelming majority said they would defy any “law” purporting to require the surrender of firearms. An astonishing two thirds said outright that they would defy the unconstitutional pretended act of legislation. Some 13 percent were not sure, and just 22 percent said they would give up their guns or submit.

Breaking down the numbers by political affiliation also provided some interesting insight into the attitudes of Americans. In all, 70 percent of Republicans and 68 percent of self-identified conservatives would refuse to hand over their weapons. More surprisingly, perhaps, were the figures for those on the left: According to the survey, more than half of Democrats and almost 60 percent of self-styled liberals would defy any potential gun ban.

Other interesting results from the survey include the American people’s thoughts on whether tougher infringements on the Second Amendment would help prevent tragedies such as the Newtown school shooting. Less than one fourth of respondents thought more gun control could help stop such violence, while more than 70 percent said people intent on mass murder would always be able to find guns. About five percent thought new laws might help, but that mass murderers would still find ways to wreak havoc.

Breaking down the results by political affiliation provided further evidence that extremist politicians in Washington and some state capitals are way out of touch with mainstream America — not to mention the Constitution they took an oath to uphold. Consider, for example, that just over a third of Democrats thought tougher infringements on the right to keep and bear arms could help stop tragedies such as the massacre at Newtown. Almost 60 percent said they thought mass murderers would always be able to find guns. Less surprising, perhaps, only seven percent of Republicans thought more gun restrictions could help prevent such tragedies.

In a somewhat deceptive question, pollsters asked whether it was more important to protect the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, or to protect citizens from gun violence, as if the two were mutually exclusive. Still, a clear majority of Americans thought protecting the Second Amendment was more important.

In reality, however, studies have repeatedly shown that more guns in private hands correlates with lower levels of crime and violence. For evidence, see Chicago and Washington, D.C., which have among the most draconian restrictions on gun rights and among the highest rates of gun violence and murder. States with widespread gun ownership and few restrictions — places such as Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, and other areas — enjoy some of the lowest crime rates in the nation.

Internationally, those trends are similar. In Switzerland, for example, where gun ownership is mandatory for virtually all able-bodied males of military age, crime rates and murders are among the lowest in the world. Places such as Mexico, meanwhile — which enforces a virtual total ban on all civilian gun ownership — have some of the highest murder rates on the planet. Over 60,000 have been murdered there just in the last six years.    

Americans seem to realize that. Another question in the Fox survey asked whether there would be less violent crime if guns were banned, or if more law-abiding citizens had guns. About one fourth responded that a gun ban would be more effective, while close to 60 percent said more firearms in the hands of citizens would reduce violent crime more effectively. Some 15 percent said they did not know.

Leaving the issue of crime aside, another recent poll, this one conducted by Rasmussen, showed that despite all of the media propaganda, fully two thirds of Americans understand that the Second Amendment was designed to protect the people from government tyranny. Even 54 percent of Democrats understood that. Just 17 percent of those polled disagreed — apparently oblivious to U.S. history, the writings of the Founding Fathers, and the Constitution itself.  

Another recent poll by Gallup, conducted in the weeks following the Newtown tragedy, showed that a majority of Americans opposed any ban on so-called “assault weapons” — a meaningless term used by anti-Second Amendment extremists to demonize popular semi-automatic firearms. Less than 45 percent supported such a ban. Even those figures do not tell the full story, however, as most ban supporters would be unlikely to vote for or against a candidate based solely on their position on guns bans, while gun owners tend to be laser-focused on ousting politicians who would seek to trample on their rights.   

Still, despite the clear sentiments of the American people, the Obama administration and certain extremist Democrats in Congress appear determined to assault the Second Amendment and eventually gut it completely. Many of them realize it may cost them their jobs, however, and so, when push comes to shove, even Democrats acknowledge that the “assault weapons ban” will be a tough sell for lawmakers.

Meanwhile, just in case, state lawmakers nationwide are currently preparing to protect the unalienable rights of their constituents. Numerous legislatures, for example, are considering legislation that would nullify any further infringements emanating from Washington on the right to keep and bear arms. More than a few of those bills would put federal officials in prison if they attempted to enforce unconstitutional gun statutes within state territory.   

Across America, sheriffs and local law enforcement officials are also coming out in droves to support the Second Amendment. In addition to refusing to enforce any new unconstitutional gun control, more than a few chief law enforcement officers have even vowed to actively prevent the enforcement of any more infringements on the rights of citizens in their counties.

Obama and some Democrats are pushing hard for an all-out assault on gun rights. The resistance, however, is growing, and some analysts have even said that the movement for gun control might have crossed “a bridge too far” — predicting that after this battle, now that the gun-grabbers have shown their true intentions, the movement for gun control will be crushed and become totally irrelevant once and for all. 

“The enemy's openly-expressed gratification over the deaths of innocent teachers and children at Sandy Hook has transformed itself into hubris, and hubris has led the enemy across several bridges too far,” noted author William Levinson in a hard-hitting piece for the American Thinker. “It is therefore time to counterattack decisively in what Carl von Clausewitz called the Hauptschlacht: the decisive battle of annihilation that ends forever the enemy's ability to wage further aggression. We will make 2013 the year in which gun control becomes about as popular as slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and similar practices that have been relegated to the ash heap of history.”

Analysts say gun control-supporting politicians who would infringe on Americans’ God-given right to keep and bear arms will soon be looking for another job. And while Obama may think he can use “executive orders” to implement his radical and unconstitutional agenda, Americans and officials at all levels of government have already made it clear that such lawlessness will not fly.

Even New Yorkers are stepping up to the plate, orchestrating what has been dubbed the largest act of civil disobedience in state history to defy an unconstitutional “law” purporting to require the registration of semi-automatic firearms. If the people of New York are willing to resist the lawless assault on their rights, just imagine the lengths to which Texans and others from liberty-minded states would be willing to go.    

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, politics, and more. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Related articles:

Poll: Vast Majority in U.S. Support Concealed Carry, Self Defense

Gun Owners Refuse to Register Under New York Law

Yes, Fellow Bubbas, They’re Coming for Your Guns

States Aim to Nullify Obama Gun Control

Sheriffs Target Obama Gun Control, Vow to Resist

Mom Hailed as Hero After Shooting Intruder Five Times

Missouri State Rep Introduces 2nd Amendment Protection Bill

Wyoming Bill Would Nullify Obama Gun Control, Jail Feds

Kentucky Sheriff Vows to Protect Residents from Obama Gun Control

Rand Paul's Bill to Nullify “King” Obama's Gun Control Executive Orders

Resistance to the President’s Gun Control Plan Continues to Build

Obama Unveils Assault on Gun Rights

As Obama’s Anti-gun Agenda Emerges, Republican Threatens Impeachment

Obama Executive Orders on Guns Would Spark Mass Resistance

Police Chief Seeks Nullification of Unconstitutional Gun Control


  • Comment Link Unapologetically American Friday, 22 February 2013 12:57 posted by Unapologetically American

    The Second Golden Age of Organized Crime

    December 18, 1917 the Federal Government outlawed alcohol. The prohibition of alcohol brought about a period of time in the US where a significant number of Americans became “law breakers” because they didn’t agree with the policy. The willingness of the majority of Americans to break the law or look the other way contributed to the illegal production, transportation and sale of a product. This period of time is also called the “Golden Age of Organized Crime”.

    Because of the poor economy, and potential vast illegal profits to be made from alcohol, bitter struggles ensued to control and make money. Shootouts in broad daylight between gangsters in the middle of town created a good deal of collateral damage. Many police officers, who may not have agreed with prohibition, were nevertheless bound by law to enforce those laws. Many died in the process. As soon as prohibition was repealed in 1933 by the 21st Amendment to the Constitution, profits dried up and organized crime diminished significantly. Shootouts between rival gangsters which caught civilians and police officers in the crossfire stopped.

    Today, our economy, like the 1920s prior to the crash, is doing fine, but an impending crash is coming. Congress is considering another prohibition of a product that many Americans will not agree with banning, guns. If congress outlaws guns, it will again create an illegal market for guns and ammunition. Instead of back-woods stills, people who can reload ammunition stand to make a considerable profit during a time when jobs are really hard to find. Organized crime will inevitably take control and bitter struggles for illegal profits will again occur. More lives will be lost in the process, not the other way around. The stage is again set for a “Second Golden Age of Organized Crime”.

  • Comment Link Dennis Monday, 04 February 2013 05:56 posted by Dennis

    Franky so sorely misguided,

    I am a veteran. I took an oath to defend our Constitution from enemies, including enemies from within. I am not concerned that any of my brothers in arms, other veterans, will come for my guns. Mostly because they too took that oath, but also because they do not wish to go to war with fellow Americans. That was tried before, and if you knew any history you would know that.

    Just because we have "smart-phones" and high definition TV's does not make us immune to history. Evil is evil, with which there can be no negotiation. We therefore, have the 2nd Amendment. Now I know that you are against the 2nd Amendment, as you have made clear, but you are free to express that largely due to people like me. So if you do not wish to own a gun, please do not infringe upon my right to own one.

  • Comment Link Peter A. Sagi Friday, 01 February 2013 02:41 posted by Peter A. Sagi

    The problem is not that people buy guns, it is that they don't take the time to train. As far as the database ... only partially correct due to transfers by private parties.

    Guns manufactured via official firearms manufacturers come with serial numbers, and those are sent into the ATF if I am not mistaken, and cross ref'd against sales via licensed dealers. That the govt. records the serial # first is a method of covertly gaining a public interest in that property. The same thing is done to automobiles via Manufacturer's Bill of Origin, which the dealer sends into your state DMV, which, by virtue of recording first, gains an interest in, giving them the right to issue a "certificate of title." Meanwhile, home manufactured weapons are an exception to the rule and need not have a serial number nor conform to other restrictions.


  • Comment Link Peter A. Sagi Friday, 01 February 2013 02:33 posted by Peter A. Sagi

    The problem is that these gun bans are technically NOT unconstitutional. Why? The restrictions apply to statutory "persons" and NOT "We The People" or the "Posterity" spoken of in the Constitution, who were Freemen and Citizens of their respective states. The culprit is the 14th ammendment and things that tie people into that, clouding any possible claim to Freeman status ... things like birth registration, enumeration via socialist slavestate number, internal passport (driver's license), state permission to marry (marriage license) voter's registration, etc. The laws are written such that they NEVER infringe the rights to whom the second ammendment applies, even tho "everybody knows" otherwise.


  • Comment Link Franky Thursday, 31 January 2013 22:03 posted by Franky

    It is a scientific (and indisputable) fact that Second Amendment advocates are a bunch of morons easy to manipulate and subdue; these slobs are extremely gullible and incapable to think for themselves – trained not to think. Moreover, these retards are lovers of wealth and pleasure; they are selfish, slothful, indolent and can be inspired to raise above their brutish existence only by fear of impending death or catastrophe.

    These imbeciles are unable to grasp that gun manufacturers in the United States are amassing huge profits driven mainly by fear and paranoia of an imminent economic collapse and the subsequent social unrest.

    Furthermore, these so-called “patriotic” Americans cannot envisage that the Federal Government has already prepared a national database of all gun owners in the country, so if Martial Law is enacted due to the scenarios posted before, these good-for-nothing will be requested to turn their guns in exchange for food coupons and a symbolic monetary compensation.

    Those who ignore this mandate will be legally held as Enemies of the State and lethal force can be used by law enforcement authorities if they perceive some sort of resistance during the confiscation process.

    Americans do not have a single clue of what Martial Law is all about and hundreds of thousands may foolishly die as a result of their misguided (and chauvinistic) patriotism.

  • Comment Link REMant Wednesday, 30 January 2013 21:13 posted by REMant

    Gun control advocates, most of whom come from liberal urban areas where gun violence is out of control, a fact even the president had to acknowledge, are saying 30 citizens of this country are murdered by guns every day. The FBI puts it at 23.5 in 2011, down from 27.75 in 2007. But of this number, less than one per day is done with a rifle. As many military service members commit suicide as that. Only half as many are involved in anything that can be termed mass shootings, and a like number of children are involved in gun-related deaths. Nearly the same number of ppl meet their deaths by suffocation and poisoning every day as by firearms. Are we going to ban ropes, household chemicals and drugs? The entire proposition is ludicrous, even without retailing the consequences for rising crime rates and potential tyranny. Those who laud the British gun laws, probably aren't aware of their libel laws.

Please Log In To Comment
Log in