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.

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.