Previous Post
Next Post

Gallup: Most Americans Oppose an 'Assault Weapons' Ban

From Gallup: “Americans’ support for a ban on semi-automatic guns in the U.S. has dropped eight percentage points from a year ago, when opinions were more evenly divided after the mass shooting in Las Vegas. Last year’s measure was unusually high for the trend over the past several years; the current 40% is back to within a few points of where it was between 2011 and 2016.”

And it’s not even close…the gap between pro and against is now a whopping 17 percent.

So despite the opportunistic onslaught from the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex and their willing co-conspirators in the media in the aftermath of two national attention-grabbing incidents, Americans have decided that knee-jerk reactions that result in an abrogation of their civil rights isn’t in their best interests.

Gun grabbers know — better than most — that you never let a crisis go to waste. Which is why we now have a number of states with bump stock bans and age limits to buy long guns. Given time, the electorate comes to its collective senses and that works against the interests of those who would degrade our right to keep and bear arms.

Surprising precisely no one…

Views of an assault weapons ban are sharply polarized politically. Since 1996, Democrats have been more supportive than Republicans of a ban on semi-automatic guns. Currently, they are more than twice as likely as Republicans to favor such a ban (56% vs. 25%). Republicans’ current reading ties with 2016 as their lowest. Thirty-eight percent of independents support a ban, continuing the recent trend in which they are more closely aligned with Republicans than with Democrats.

The highest support for a ban among each party was 50% of Republicans in 1996, 63% of Democrats in 1996, 2000 and 2017, and 63% of independents in 2000.

Gallup: Most Americans Oppose an 'Assault Weapons' Ban

So Beto Bobby O’Rourke, Claire McCaskill and Diane Feinstein aren’t likely to have views altered by Gallup’s results. We suppose America’s gun owners are OK with that.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. We’re getting to the point where most Americans will own an “assault rifle”. Once that threshold is crossed an AWB will be near impossible to pass or implement. Granted it’s already impossible to implement.

    • If I-1639 passes in WA, 90% of gun owners will own “assault weapons” as defined by law.

      In 2011, I bought my first gun — a Marlin Model 60 tube-fed .22 rifle — on impulse. I had an hour to kill after dropping the kids off at the local game shop for Pokemon league, so I went to a nearby sporting goods store to wander the aisles.

      I’d been thinking about getting a gun for quite a while, and when I stopped at the gun counter and asked them about affordable starter rifles, everything clicked. Time, place, price, opportunity.

      When I picked up the kids a half-hour later, I was a first-time gun owner. It started a sea change in the way I looked at the world — a change that came not a moment too soon. It’s involved the entire family. We all know how to shoot (and do it safely), and there are 3 gun owners in my household now.

      But if I-1639 had been in place then, I wouldn’t have been able to walk out of the store with that classic little .22 rifle. Because it would have been an “assault weapon.”

      Instead, I would’ve had to wait 10 days, and then wait for my local police chief to personally okay the purchase (and they don’t do that sort of thing in this “progressive” college town; I have to go to the county sheriff to get my CCW permit processed).

      Then I’d have to take a special training course — which isn’t offered in this little college town, either. The nearest one is a 2 hour drive away. It costs $90. Oh, and there’s an “assault weapons” tax of $25 to be paid, too. Doesn’t seem like a lot of money…but when you factor in travel time plus the price of gas, the law effectively doubles the price of that Marlin Model 60.

      I had $175 and one half-hour to work with. If I-1639 had been in place, I would’ve been SOL. Buying a $160 plinking rifle would’ve taken weeks and cost well over $300 all told.

      I had more money then than I do now, but even then I might have balked at the price of entry. probably wouldn’t have jumped through all those hoops. And even if I had, I’d be required to renew my “assault weapon” training about now, and I don’t have the $ to do it. Pay up or become a criminal, I guess.

      If I hadn’t been able to get that little .22 rifle — which is now thisclose to being redefined as a super deadly “assault weapon” — I probably wouldn’t be here talking to you now, because I wouldn’t have known TTAG existed. I wouldn’t have come to know the Second Amendment community. I would never have discovered America’s true gun culture. I might never have come back around to the libertarian-constitutional-conservative point of view. Heck, I might still be voting for Democrats (I hope I’d have had more sense than that, but you never know).

      My wife and kids wouldn’t know how to use guns properly and safely, and they wouldn’t be gun owners either. They’d probably believe everything the mainstream media told them about those evil guns and the bad and wrong people who own them.

      How many decent people will a bad law like this discourage? I think the people behind I-1639 are banking on that number being pretty high.

      None of the stuff the anti-gun side wants is about stopping crime. It’s all about stopping peaceful, law-abiding people like me and you. It’s about moving the gun-control line on that graph higher, by any means necessary.

      Wow, this went really long…guess I had a little bit of something to say. 🙂

      • This resonates with me, I’m originally from NYC and didn’t buy my first gun until I moved west… waaaaayyyyy west 🙂

        Onerous laws are exactly designed for that reason, stop the casual person from joining the group to minimize and delegitimize that group.

        You nailed it, and we need to keep shouting their intentions from the rooftops every chance we get!

  2. If you look at that graph, there seem to be “spikes” where the most horrific shootings have occurred (i.e., Sandy Hook and Las Vegas). Then, the support for AW bans returns to what appears to be a quiescent level. But most notably, that quiescent level of support to AW bans is on a long-term downward trend.

    • That’s why they push so hard after a tragedy.

      It’s the only way they could get it passed.

      But there’s a danger – At no time did the majority of Americans support ‘ObamaCare’. The political stars aligned (control of both houses and the WH) and we got that shit-sandwich rammed down our throats.

      Expect them to use the same playbook for guns the next time the ‘stars’ align for them again.

      And they *will*…

      • If they couldn’t get an AW ban after Sandy Hook with a (D) president and (D) congress and a few turncoat (R)’s, then I doubt it will happen in the forseeable future. However, Obama and Trump becoming president has removed my certainty about anything political.

        • The democrat Congress during Dubya’s last two years could have sent him a bill and he would have signed it. That’s what he said in 2004 when the AWB expired. “Send me a bill and will sign it”.
          Why didn’t they do it then ????
          Too skeered of backlash ????

    • We learned a lot about the validity of polls on 11/8/2016. Hopefully, many Americans are no longer relying on predictions and going into the voting booth only to bet on the favorite.

      Polls conducted by the same organization, conducted in the same manner, repeatedly over many years, can sometimes indicate trends in public opinion about certain issues. I think the above graph is useful only within that context.

      There are two takeaways here: 1)opinions are headed in the right direction, and 2) Democrats are slower learners than Republicans.

  3. Our rights are not subject to social utility. Take all the polls you want, they matter not. The 2nd Amendment will never be repealed. Until then, the only sane position to take is that we the People have an unlimited right to keep and bear arms. No law restricting the free exercise of any right is Constitutional nor should we even entertain the insane discussions about them. Some here have told me to go away because such absolutes are impossible. No they are not. This is the only logical arguement. Shall not be infringed has no qualifiers.

    • completely agree GMAN. One other thing i would add is that even those with a criminal history should not be denied. Why? Because if they are deemed to be reformed enough to release back into society it should be that they have all rights restored. Currently however they are released well before that time comes. Prison should not be some nice touchy feely place either. I think that sheriff in Arizona (cant think of his name off the top of my head but he was also involved with trying to verify obummers bonafides as to whether he was a legit president or not) had the right idea with tent city and hard labour. In prison ALL rights should be suspended but once released be reinstated.

  4. If the polls are accurate, they could help us formulate the most effective strategy going forward. And yet, how do we know if a poll is accurate???

    One thing is certain: polls should NEVER be used to claim legitimacy of laws which infringe on our unalienable rights. No matter how many people say that resisting rape should be a crime, resisting rape should NEVER be a crime. Likewise, it doesn’t matter matter how many people say that possessing a firearm should be a crime, it should NEVER be a crime.

  5. I am amazed at there being such a high number of misinformed ( ignorant ) people with regards to opposing a constitutional right. Maybe these individuals should focus their energies on lax or no enforcement of laws to incarcerate violent felons. In the beginning, the penalties were to lock up violent thugs to protect the law abiding citizens. Now they are trying to make these thugs a protected class. Same stuff went on when peanut brain Jimmy Carter was the apologist in chief.

  6. Most Americans are abosolutely clueless on the topic and therefore their opinion is worthless. By repeating the fictional term “assault weapons” is to acquiese on their terms and thus we have already lost. The only logical position to take is that there are no Constitutionally allowable limits upon the free exercise of our rights. The entire discussion is stupid.

  7. One could simply state that the Supreme Court has already ruled on the mandatory protection of military weapons in US v. Miller 1939 and any weapon of use for the military is specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment for the People.

    • Historically, and until recently, private citizens had access to more advanced weapons than were in use by the military of the time.

      – Rifled barrel long-rifles vs. smooth bore “Brown Bess” flintlocks during the Revolution
      – Lever action repeaters with cartridges vs. cap and ball muskets during the Civil War
      – Semi and full-auto magazine fed rifles and carbines vs. bolt-action rifles during WWI and WWII

  8. Gee I’m getting an evil black fully semiautomatic ASSault rifle with the shoulder thingy that goes up-and a bayonet lug😄…I never answer random poll’s either.

  9. The graph demonstrates the effects of the media push for gun control after every shooting. It is a planned effort to the point they have a plan in place for immediate use after the next one.

    Democrats don’t care about children, the oppose any and every plan that would actually help protect children in schools, they only care about the opportunity to push their agenda.

    What are the odds they have a shooting planned to occur within the next two weeks?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here