Results of TheBlaze gun poll

Last week TheBlaze invited you to participate in an online survey about guns and gun ownership, and the current debate about limiting or adjusting what is currently allowed within the 2nd Amendment.

The survey ended up with 106 questions and TheBlaze received nearly 5 million responses to the survey. Given the media narrative that would have most believe that Americans are in strong support of new gun regulations, Glenn went through the results of the survey on radio this morning.

Before getting into the results, TheBlaze gives a good breakdown of who a typical Blaze reader is:

• 100% believe in the right to bear arms

• 85% are at least 35-years

• 80% are homeowners

• 78% have children

• 76% are married

• 73% served in the U.S. military or have an immediate family member serving

• 71% of the respondents are male

• 66% own dogs  (36% have cats)

• 63% have more than one gun

• 54% read more than 12 books a year

• 52% have taken a firearms safety class

"If you take all of that data into account, the typical Blaze reader is a married man, a reader, over 35, who has a house, kids, dogs, and at least one gun.  However, it should be noted that readership has expanded significantly since last year."

Glenn explained that TheBlaze poll started with 20 questions, and then asked Blaze readers to submit their own.

The most agreed upon question generated unanimous consensus. TheBlaze asked, "Do you believe in the 2nd Amendment."

100% responded yes — that's 4,876,394 people.

There was 99% agreement around the overall feeling about 'why' the 2nd Amendment was written by the Founding Fathers. That feeling was, "I believe the 2nd Amendment protects the people from a tyrannical government."

"So this isn't about hunting, at least for our crowd," Glenn commented.

99% of the individuals who took this poll responded 'no' to these questions:

• Will an assault rifle ban prevent violent crime?

• Would you surrender your Second Amendment rights in exchange for a promise from the government to protect you from all harm?

• Should the UN or any other foreign entity have any say about American gun rights or the Second Amendment?

• Should a gun owners address be published?

• Did you vote President Obama?

"Before you think that the majority of those responding are card‑carrying NRA members or concealed carry permit holders, look at these two questions," Glenn said, "Are you a member of the National Rifle Association and do you carry a concealed weapon?"

Just under half of those taking the poll said 'yes'.

"Now, Gallup has been surveying America on guns and the 2nd Amendment for decades now, and it's interesting to point out that a majority of Americans agree with The Blaze readers on the average citizen's right to own a firearm," Glenn pointed out.

Here are Gallup's poll results:

In 2003 67% believed there should not be a law to ban the possession of handguns except by police and other authorized persons. Interestingly enough, the poll taken the week after Sandy Hook showed a 2% drop in those who called for a handgun ban. The overall support for a handgun ban has dropped 8% over a decade.

"That's amazing," Stu noted of the surprising drop following the incident that really sparked the discussion on gun legislation.

Looking deeper into TheBlaze gun poll:

• 88% own a gun

• 75% have owned a gun for more than a decade and they have more than two guns in their home.

• 74% think that every home in America should have a gun.

• 72% of respondents have taken a firearms safety class. However, only 37% believe that gun buyers should be required to pass a basic firearms skills test prior to being sold a weapon.

In contrast "Blaze readers are twice as likely to own a gun as the rest of America," Glenn explained.  "According to Gallup, the last time that we had more than 50% gun ownership in the country was 1993 and it was at 51%."

Looking at these numbers, readers of TheBlaze are likely more concerned that gun ownership could be at risk or become more difficult in the near future. In fact, 87% of those who took TheBlaze poll said that they are considering or will be purchasing a firearm in the near future.

And while 87% are considering purchasing a gun, 91% really believe that the president will use an executive order to enact a gun ban if congress will not. And a whopping 89% are worried that gun confiscation will be attempted before the year's end.  98% say they will not willingly surrender their firearms if confiscation is ordered.

"Really important numbers," Glenn commented.

The poll also shows that 64% have purchased ammunition and 45% have purchased a firearm within the past six months.

"May I recommend that you don't purchase ammunition, that you purchase ways to make ammunition," Glenn told listeners.

Two other overwhelming responses of the nearly 5 million readers who took our poll was one that the leaders in Washington may want to pay attention to. 97% said they will actively campaign against any politician who votes against the principals of the 2nd Amendment, and 99% believe that banning assault rifles will not prevent violent crime.

"What The Blaze found surprising is that Gallup's recent survey on the possibilities of reinstating an assault ‑‑ a ban on rifles taken after the Sandy Hook murders showed no real increase in popular support for this action," Glenn noted. "A majority of Americans is still against this action."

After seeing the results of the poll, one thing is crystal clear: TheBlaze audience is filled with staunch defenders of the 2nd Amendment and that right is also supported by the members of our audience who do not own a gun.

The Associated Press has issued a dire warning for abortion providers ahead of the Supreme Court's decision on Roe v. Wade.

According to an article titled "'Heightened alert’: Abortion providers brace for ruling," abortion clinics nationwide are expecting an increase in "protests, harassment, and other violence ... in states where abortion remains legal" if Roe v. Wade is overturned — as a draft opinion leaked in May suggested is likely to happen.

"On the night of last winter’s arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that could end the nationwide right to abortion, people gathered outside a clinic in New Jersey with lawn chairs, a cooler and a flaming torch — a sight that brought to mind lynchings and other horrors of the country’s racist past," the AP article began.

The article did go on to cite two incidents of extreme anti-abortion violence — "the 1993 killing of Dr. David Gunn outside a Florida abortion clinic [and] the 2015 fatal shooting of three people inside a Colorado Planned Parenthood." But there was almost no mention of the ongoing attacks on pregnancy crisis centers by pro-choice activists, including the violent group that calls itself "Jane’s Revenge."

On the radio program, Glenn Beck noted that the closest the current administration has come to calling out Jane’s Revenge was when the Department of Homeland Security published a terror advisory warning of crime on both sides of the Roe v. Wade debate earlier this month. But when was the last time you heard about violent attacks on pro-life centers in the corporate media? There have been several instances of violence by pro-choice proponents, and the Biden administration remains silent.

Watch the video below to hear more from Glenn Beck. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

GLENN: Now the righteous generation of the woke has reached such a level of holiness that it cannot possibly be contaminated by name of a less righteous monster like George Washington. Student insists the university must break its ties with white supremacy and systematic racism by canceling its 200 year old name and renaming it. Are you ready? Malcolm X University.

Disney-owned Pixar's latest animated film "Lightyear" was expected to blast off last weekend, but ended up falling way short of box office expectations.

Box office analysts expected the "Toy Story" spin-off to gross $70 million and $85 million domestically and $50-60 million in offshore markets, despite having been barred in at least 14 countries over a controversial same-sex kissing scene, but the film's total haul worldwide wound up at $85.6 million.

Earlier this year, the controversial kissing scene was apparently cut from the film, but the Disney corporation made a show of reinstating it in March amid outrage over Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' (R) Parental Rights in Education bill.

Now, why would such a woke movie flop at the box office on its opening weekend?

"Blame the fact that it doesn’t appeal to girls, blame Disney+ for stealing family moviegoers, blame the lack of an ensemble Toy Story cast, heck, blame everything as Disney/Pixar’s Lightyear didn’t do its magic by internal studio or industry standards this weekend with $51M, close to a third below its lowest $70M pre-release projection," said Deadline.com.

"Variety" lamented that the film's lofty "ambitions were thwarted by heightened competition from Universal’s behemoth 'Jurassic World: Dominion' and Paramount’s high-flying 'Top Gun: Maverick,' as well as little intrigue to watch a slightly esoteric origin story about Buzz Lightyear."

AV Club guessed that maybe "longtime fans have simply grown up and moved on and/or gotten tougher to please."

Both Vanity Fair and Movie Web seemed to think the problem was with the movie's "high concept premise" of making a film based on a film that was supposed to have inspired the Buzz Lightyear toy in "Toy Story."

On the radio program Monday, Glenn Beck, Stu Burguiere, and Pat Gray weren't afraid to call out the obvious reason Disney's latest film fell flat: Parents are just tired of woke politics in their children's movies. It's really not that hard to figure out, Disney.

Watch the video below to catch the conversation. Can't watch? Download the podcast here.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

It’s now common knowledge that America’s mainstream media will do what it can to help the Democrat Party. But a recent op-ed from The Washington Post just took far-left pandering to a whole new level. The article, titled ‘Here’s what voters will get if they cast their ballots based on gas prices,’ tells Americans Democrats are NOT to blame for our sky-high inflation rates and gas prices: ‘There are relatively few tools that the president and Congress can deploy to help boost oil production or moderate overall inflation.’ HOLY COW, Glenn says. In this clip, he unveils the rest of The Washington Post’s INSANE Democrat defense, and he asks and important question: How do they sleep at night?!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Here we are with the Washington Post. And they have a new very important piece out today. That says, here's what voters will get. If you cast your ballot based on a gas price. Okay? Americans are mad about inflation. They're especially outraged that the gasoline average now is $5 a gallon, nationwide. And history suggests that they may act on that furor. By voting the bums out. But voters should think carefully about what they'll get, if they cast their ballot, base on a gas price. Have you ever -- ever heard this, ever before?

The unexpected inflation tends to cause voters to punish incumbents at the polls. Yeah. Exactly like it's supposed to. The cost of gasoline looms especially large in the public consciousness. If also weighs heavily on presidential approval ratings. But the president doesn't have some super-secret special dial on his desk, that can adjust gas prices. But many voters believe otherwise. Well, let me just give you the rundown on the history of this. Because it seems ironic coming to the press. 1996, the press reported, not Clinton's fault. It's capitalism, and Newt Gingrich's fault. Then 2000. Bush blames Clinton. But it's really Bush's fault. This is typical of an administration that refuses to accept responsibility. Here's another one from CNN. 2001. It's Bush's fault. Then 2004. It's all Bush's fault. Then 2008. It's Bush's and Cheney's fault. Then CNN 2012. Stop blaming Obama. It's not his fault. Then in 2012. Sure, gas prices are high. But it's not as bad as you think. CNN, 2012. America, quit whining about high gas prices. 2018, it's Trump's fault. 2020, now it's Trump's fault. Low oil prices are causing oil company bankruptcies. Then CNN 2021, Biden can't do anything about it. It's not his fault. Okay. All right.

So back to the Washington Post. Republicans hope this widespread confusion will turn the midterms into a referendum on painful economic conditions. And by extension, Democratic leadership. They're counting on voters to protect their homes and dreams. Including their wildest fantasies about cheaper gas. I don't know about you, but I'm not thinking of, you know, the people behind the counter at the gas station all dressed up in something Lacey and revealing. It's not exactly a fantasy for me. You know, gas prices, being low. No. We had that just a year and a half ago. I don't know if anybody else noticed. But when Trump was in, we were for the first time in my lifetime, energy independent. We didn't have to worry about Saudi Arabia, or anybody else. Because we were independent and had cheap gas. For the first time in my life. And who got that done? Oh. Donald Trump.

But wait a minute. He doesn't have any levers to do that, does he? Hmm. There are relatively few tools, said the Washington Post, that the president and Congress can deploy to help boost oil production. What?

Here's an idea. End ESG. End the administration's war on oil. Here's another idea. You really want to get rid of oil? Fine. Get rid of oil. But how about we take a quick break. How about we just break for a minute, slow this down, until we have the other things that are going to replace oil. They also can't control or moderate overall inflation. Isn't that what the Federal Reserve's job is -- that is -- that is their only job. I know they've taken on so much more. That is their job. Their job is to keep inflation under control.

Well, the things that they do have, probably won't make a huge dent in price growth. But they could help a little on the margin. Unfortunately, these are not the things that either party is proposing right now. Democrats are grandstanding about greed, and considering silly stuff such as export bans and price controls. Meanwhile, by the way, those price controls won't seem silly when they happen. Republicans demagogue about President Biden's supposed war on fossil fuels. And socialism. His supposed war on fossil fuels.

That's what he campaigned on. Washington Post says, neither party has a serious plan for dealing with inflation. Overall, or gas prices, specifically. You know what, we don't need the Republican Party. All you need to do is just listen to the people. Are we a republic? Do we have representatives of the people? Because I can tell you, most of the people in America would say, you know what, let's start producing more of our oil. Most of America would say, I want to go green, if we can. That's great. But let's not sacrifice ourself on the God of global warming. I would like the country to continue. I would like my children to be able to eat. Oh. And inflation, here's an idea. Stop spending money. You don't have it. No one is borrowing it. Nobody is giving us the money anymore. We're borrowing it from the fed. Meaning, we're just printing more. Assuming that Russia's war in Ukraine continues to disrupt every energy market, that is such bullcrap, I can't take it. Then voters realistically face a choice, between high gas prices and the rest of Democratic agenda. War, high gas prices, and the rest of the Republican agenda. So what it's worth. Let's consider what the rest of the agenda is, for each party: Biden and fellow Democrats once promised a cradle-to-grave expansion of the safety net. Plus, measures intended to combat climate change.

Love or hate this program, I very much like it. But it's no longer terribly relevant to the choices the voters face this November. Yes, it is. Climate change. That's what's causing all of this. This, and the hostile takeover of the free market, through something called The Great Reset. But Democrat infighting has considerably scaled back their ambitions. Giving constraints laid out by senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. Who wield critical votes for getting anything done. Democrats have at best had a shot at more modest packages, focused on climate, prescription drugs, and maybe some tax increases on high earners and corporations. But what do the Republicans stand for? Their national leaders won't say. Yeah. I know.

Keep it secret. You know why? Because our national leaders agree with a lot of this stuff, that is going on with the Democratic Party. They don't represent the people. Anyway, even when asked directly, they keep it secret. Their state level rising stars are mostly focused on fighting with Mickey Mouse and drag queens. Really? Are we? Is that how you put it? When -- when our parents are called terrorists for saying, hey. I don't want this Marxist and sex stuff in school.

You dismiss it by saying, we're fighting with Mickey Mouse in drag queens. But if you look at G.O.P. actions taken over the last several years. Including, when they had unified control of the federal government. You get a sense of what Republicans are likely to prioritize. Republicans mostly seem to care about tax cuts for the wealthy. And corporations.

Don't even start with corporations. Do you think the corporations are the friend of anyone, who is on the right? Anyone who doesn't believe in all of this progressive bullcrap? I mean, check the ad campaigns. But if you look at the G.O.P. actions, they just want to find ways to repeal Obamacare. Or otherwise reduce access to health care. Huh. For example, by slashing Medicaid. I know. As somebody who has voted Republican, and I myself am not a Republican. Because I don't want to be tainted with the -- with the -- with the smell of all of the death. But I am all for cutting back on -- I say, we close hospitals, in poor areas. You know, let's just close them down. Kids' medicine. Please, at any time if they're defective. Oh, wait a minute. That sounds like a progressive agenda. They only care about installing judges, who will roll back reproductive rights. Hey, listen to this. They care about supporting a president, who has used the powers of the state, to further his own political and financial interests. Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. Let me give you a couple of quick stories here. Just to -- I just -- let me just point them out real quick here. Story number one. Headline. Buttigieg says the fed -- the feds have power to airlines to hire more workers, amid travel delays. Let me see here. I remember the republic -- or, the Democrats were very upset at Ronald Reagan. Because he forced union workers to go back into work, so we could keep the skies open, because none of them would work the control towers. So they had a real problem with that. Buttigieg is saying, he can tell the airlines, you don't have enough workers. Hire them.

Where, in the Constitution can you find that? That's fascism. Oh, here's the other. This one from the Washington Examiner. Biden's bid to expand Obamacare. The Biden administration is unlawfully trying to expand Obamacare. The Internal Revenue Service has published a proposed regulation. That would make an additional 5 million people eligible for premium subsidies. The IRS proposal is unlawful, but the administration will do it anyway. Here's the background. Obamacare statute created premium subsidies for people who buy insurance through exchanges. Congress restricted those subsidies for people with low and moderate incomes. Or at no other source of health insurance. In addition to Medicare and Medicaid recipients, 155 million Americans with job-based coverage are prohibited from claiming the credits.

The law carved out one exception. If a company plan required a full-time employee to contribute more than 9.5 percent of household income for self only coverage. Then the worker and his or her family members are eligible for the subsidies. So this has gone back and forth with Congress. And they won't do it. Because it will add $45 billion to the deficit. Just in the next ten years. It's called the family glitch. The urban institute, estimates the regulation would reduce the number of uninsured, by around 190,000. Because why? At an average cost of $4.5 billion, taxpayers are going to pay 23,000. 684, per newly insured person each year. Which is kind of not so good. So it would never pass Congress. And so now the IRS is going to do it, even though they know it's illegal. So what is it they care about supporting a president who used the powers of the state, to further his own political and financial interests? Financial interests, China. Please.

They care about supporting a president, whose few purported diplomatic achievements. Few? Few? The world was headed towards peace. The Middle East was having peace. Like I've never seen in my lifetime. In retrospect, they largely look like an excuse to meet potential investors who can might fund Trump aides' new private equity. Are you kidding me? This guy who is schlepping his son with him, everywhere he goes. And you're blaming this on Trump?

They care about defending at all costs, a president who cheered on the mob. Seeking to hang his own vice president. Speaking of mobs, how about the people who are threatening to kill our Supreme Court justices? Because that kind of sounds like the same thing to me. And what is the White House saying? Nothing. What are the Democrats doing? Reluctantly voting to give the Supreme Court justices and their family security. And then they have this one. And then they care about undermining the integrity of our election system. And overturning the will of the voters. If and when tallies don't go their own way. Oh, my gosh. I think I'm going to start vomiting blood. I mean, holy cow. Election deniers are already laying the groundwork to overturn the will of the voters in the future. Through legal and administrative changes at the state and federal levels. They're only changing it back to what it was. The special exemption for covid!

Oh. I can't -- I mean, how do they even -- how do they sleep at night? How do they sleep at night? Well, I guess if it's in the winter, they probably sleep well. Because it's very warm in hell.