Poll shows Californians' view of guns isn't quite what you think

  • Posted on
  • By Write Winger
  • 0
Poll shows Californians' view of guns isn't quite what you think

When California voters are then asked about support for an undefined "common sense gun safety measure to reduce gun violence", they stated they would support it 68/32, which nearly mirrors the votes for Prop 63.

Last week, the group Grassroots Californians Defending Civil Rights launched a campaign called "2A for CA" which seeks to add a provision to the California State Constitution that would protect the fundamental right to keep and bear arms by way of a ballot initiative.

The organizers behind 2A for CA attempted a referendum last year to stop seven gun control measures called Veto Gunmageddon, but came up short due to only having limited time and logistics to garner petition signatures to get the referendum on the ballot.

Another blow came to California gun owners during the November 2016 election when the voters approved 63% to 37% what was touted by gun control advocates as a "common sense gun safety measure", Prop 63, or the "Safety for All Act", which really banned the possession of lawfully acquired and owned +10rd magazines, placed restrictions and background checks on ammunition purchases, and also made the theft of a firearm a felony again as well as making a process for ensuring prohibited persons relinquished their firearms.

Gun rights and gun control advocates have both used the passing of Prop 63 as a measure of the CA voters' negative attitude toward guns. Gun rights groups have written off engaging CA voters at the ballot box long ago, and gun control advocates are using it as a mandate.

But what if their assumption is wrong, or at least half wrong? New polling seems to show something very different: an overwhelming support for the ability to keep and bear arms, even in the Golden State, but always with a caveat.

Polling done through the Zip App, which anonymously and randomly polls its hundreds of thousands of active users, and accurately predicted the election of President Donald Trump while other mainstream polls came up short, shows Californians do support the right (or at least the ability) to keep and bear arms, and gun ownership in general, but are easily swayed into infringements and restrictions on that right with the right euphemisms, buzzwords, and flowery language. Or as some put it, they're "Butters" which are people who say, "I support the Second Amendment, BUT..."

Most poll questions regarding guns typically ask about what kinds of "safety measures" or "restrictions limiting access to criminals" need to be instituted, which are always received positively by the public, because who would be against safety or want criminals gaining access to firearms? When framed that way, the public overwhelmingly supports anything for a perceived "safety".

But the public, even in supposedly anti-gun states like California, is rarely asked if they support the ability of a law abiding citizen to own a gun. When asked that way, 79% say yes. When asked in the negative, if they support banning all guns within the state or if they'd repeal the Second Amendment if they could, only 21% said they would.

When California voters are then asked about support for an undefined "common sense gun safety measure to reduce gun violence", they stated they would support it 68/32, which nearly mirrors the votes for Prop 63.

Interestingly, and equally alarming, even in a poll of voters who voted for Trump 80/20 were asked the same question of their support for an undefined "common sense gun safety" measure, and the results were the same, roughly 65/35, which leads to the conclusion that it's all in the marketing - that with the right focus group driven buzzwords, you can get a majority of voters to support whatever you put in front of them.

California voters, for all their faults, have never been asked to vote on a proposition that protects their right to own a gun, or even dressed up with the same flowery language as anti-gun Prop 63.

Californians voted for Prop 8, in which only a marriage between one man and one woman would be recognized by the state. The same California voters also voted not to overturn the death penalty, yet they approved other propositions dressed up with flowery language like Prop 47 and 57 which reduces the sentences and penalties for those who victimize others, setting criminals loose on the public who voted to release them. Both props 47 and 57 are now widely condemned by the public, yet the public apparently didn't read the Props except for the flowery language the day they went in to vote, nor did they have any understanding of the props' implications.

A quote widely attributed to Winston Churchill but disputed by others, yet nonetheless doesn't make it any less accurate, "The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." It isn't a good idea to let the public vote on your rights (because that's not how rights work), but the public already does get to vote AGAINST our rights time and time again by the trickery of flowery language, like with Prop 63. Why not see if it'll work in our favor?

Otherwise the only recourse is through the Supreme Court forcing California to recognize our rights, if they ever decide to take a 2A case years or decades later, or by Congress through enacting pro-gun legislation and imposing it on anti-gun states via the Supremacy Clause, which is just as unlikely.

2A for CA is looking for signature commitments (how many people you personally believe you can get to sign petitions), and when they reach 800,000 commitments, petitions will be available to print at home for distribution, and those who have signed up will be contacted to fulfill their commitment.


Be the first to comment...

Leave a comment
* Your email address will not be published