Gun Control isn't a "liberal" or "conservative" issue it's one of public safety.

I am really sick of people who try to make this into anything other than the public safety issue that it actually is. Worse, they twist the Second Amendment to try and create a "right" which didn't exist until fairly recently.

Fortunately, even though Heller and McDonald removed the Second Amendment from its relationship to Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the US Constitution: it made it clear that any "gun right" was subject to regulation.

In case you missed it all. From Heller.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Heller at 54-5

Which has as a footnote (26):

We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

Better yet:

But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Heller at 64

From McDonald:

It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 39-40

So, let's forget the Second Amendment shit since even those "gun friendly" cases aren't on your side. Toss in how you harmonise them with the prior case law which made it clear the Second Amendment only applied to the Active (Organised) Militia (Presser and Miller).

You should feel really stupid if you find your Conservative cred is somehow tied to support for repealing the gun laws. You have been played since it was once a bi-partisan issue, but the powers that be figured out it was a good way to get you to vote against your interest (and sell some guns).

Richard Nixon is on record as saying:

     “I don’t know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house, The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth....why “can’t we go after handguns, period?”
    “I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it.” But “people should not have handguns.”

That's not the only anti-gun statement Nixon made.

Next, let's go to Conservative icon Ronald Reagan. Despite how he has been reformed, Reagan was a strong gun control advocate.

“Reagan last week declared his support for a bill requiring a seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases. He did so at a George Washington University ceremony marking the 10th anniversary of the shooting that almost killed him and permanently disabled his press secretary, James S. Brady.

“It is called the Brady Bill, and Reagan said Congress should enact it without delay. ‘It's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period to allow local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to buy a handgun,’ the former president said.’”

“It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, ‘prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street.’ The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

“Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. ‘I support the Brady Bill,’ he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, ‘and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay.’" SOURCE

Brady, as in "Brady Bill" and"the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence", is a reference to James Brady. James Brady was a victim of the 1981 attempt on Reagan's life.

Paul Helmke who was the head of the Brady Campaign, was mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana and a Goldwater Republican. In fact, a lot of the Brady people would call themselves conservative (that is a whole other post there).

Chief Justice Warren Burger, another Conservative, said this about the Second Amendment "scholarship" which is polluting this issue. In case the above clip gets yanked:

JUSTICE BURGER: That says a well regulated militia being necessary for the defense of the state, people's rights to bear arms. This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word "fraud," on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. Now just look at those words. There are only three lines to that amendment. A well regulated militia -- if the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well regulated, why shouldn't 16 and 17 and 18 or any other age persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated? It's got to be registered, that you can't just deal with it at will. Someone asked me recently if I was for or against a bill that was pending in Congress calling for five days' waiting period. And I said, yes, I'm very much against it, it should be thirty days' waiting period so they find out why this person needs a handgun or a machine gun.

Next, the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 that expired in 2004 started out as an executive order by President George H.W. Bush. Somehow that got lost in all the polemic of this being a conservative v. liberal issue amongst all the other conservatives who backed gun control.

Let's put it this way, there is a reason that Gun Violence research has been banned: it's that it kills the "conservative" talking points on this issue.

Personally, you aren't conservative by any stretch if you can be conned into somehow supporting an issue which is harmful to yourself. 

Nor are you intelligent.

Honor, Integrity and Gun-Enabled Violence

There is much to reflect upon whenever a tragedy happens.  What we should focus on is easing the pain to the extent any easing can be done.  We should try to provide some justice so that the tragedy can be avoided if that is even possible. We should for a way to bridge the divide that caused the hate to develop.

When I look at the reaction of various groups to the Orlando massacre, I see most people wanting to do nearly all of this.  A few, like Donald Trump, seek to use it for political advantage, some others seek to use it to make false claims about “gun free zones.”  A number of others, like the NRA, seek to get ahead of any outcry and so make some false claims, using misleading statistics, about crime and gun violence.

I won’t compound the rancor with more of the same.  I will simply say that the NRA and its supporters in Congress are wrong to ONLY offer up that they’ll modify the law to include people on the “No Fly” list as those who can’t buy firearms.  That misses the mark by a long way.  It’s not just access to firearms, it’s the type.

The high capacity magazine and semi-automatic “assault” rifle are really more to blame than any hole in the “No Fly” list.  The gun-show loophole is equally a part of the problem in allowing for straw purchases for reselling firearms to criminals.  The weapon type and magazine point should be what we are discussing, not the political theater of the “No Fly/No Buy” bill.  That bill is pablum and would never have stopped Omar Mateen.  It would never have stopped the shooter at Sandy Hook, or San Bernadino, or Aurora Colorado, or Virginia Tech or Gabby Gifford's shooter. 
That said, it’s not a bad thing to do, but it’s far short of enough, enough to offer the victims justice, their families solace, and the nation some meaningful improvement in safety.

Instead it’s time to admit assault weapons and high capacity magazines are not needed by civilians for home defense.  It’s past time to close the gun-show loophole nationally.  It’s time to require the national database to be universally implemented and enough time for it to be accessed prior to the completion of a sale.

These aren’t even hard measures.   

They will curtail gun sales; so the gun lobby and their mouthpiece, the NRA, will hate it.  But, in response to a tragedy, we have the obligation to the dead and their loved-ones to stop pointing fingers and do that which we’ve known for a long time needed doing. 

We have an obligation to the living, to keep them safe from further mass shootings. 

We have an obligation to our first responders to minimize the number of both mass shootings and the frequency of smaller 'every-day' shootings that put their life and limbs in harm's way.  Other countries do not have the frequency of violent death that is experienced by our law enforcement and first responders, who should be the ultimate 'good guys' of our society, deserving of our protection through regulation. Instead we put them in an on the street weapons race of firepower.

This isn’t knee-jerk legislation, it’s finally pushing aside political resistance we should never have let stop us in the first place.   Honor requires it, decency pleads for it, and the memory of the dead demands it.  Our choice is intelligent pragmatism that addresses facts and uses logic, or foolish ideology that ignores and denies a violent reality.

For those who don't know the NRA very well

There is a huge chasm (not a mere gap) between the NRA past and the NRA present; likewise, there is a huge chasm between the NRA politically, and the rest of the country, both gun owners and non-gun owners.

For those who are shockingly unfamiliar with the NRA history, allow me to educate you, since once again I demonstrably have a better grasp of facts than the right wingers do.

I am cross-posting this from the website Sane Guns, because I couldn't write a better brief history:

The National Rifle Association

The National Rifle Association is the most vocal and most recognized component of the "Gun Lobby." Today, it is best known outside of the shooting community as the most powerful advocate of a broad (and almost limitless) individual "right" to firearms ownership. But the NRA is 123 years old and has gone thru three major eras in its history -- it wasn't always the obstructionist force it is today. History of the NRA The Early Years The first century of the NRA's history (from it's incorporation in 1871 to the "Cincinnati Revolt" of 1977) was directed towards promoting shooting sports -- first marksmanship and then (following WW II) hunting. The organization maintained close ties with those governments which could support it and, in fact, relied on feeding at the public trough for its survival -- in both direct financial support and legislated favoritism that drove off all competition. The New NRA The NRA claims to be far more than just a lobbying organization. It portrays itself as maintaining a serious interest in the shooting sports and in gun safety. In fact, it is still the national overseeing body for target competitions and does provide training in safe gun handling and promotes the Eddie The Eagle program for children. But the primary thrust of the NRA is no longer in the shooting sports or in safety. It is in carrying Harlan Carter's legacy of no gun laws. The Ultimate Lobbying Machine When Harlon Carter took over the reins of the NRA in the "Cincinnati Revolt" of 1977 and announced that "Beginning in this place and at this hour, this period in NRA history is finished," he was serious. No longer would the NRA's primary goal be to serve the sportsman. Now it was to intimidate those who had the temerity to challenge it. Bashing the Cops In the early years, the NRA and law enforcement were the best of friends. A shared interest in firearms, coupled with the NRA's training programs in marksmanship and safety forged strong bonds between the two groups. But the "New NRA" destroyed those bonds when Harlan Carter's absolutist opposition to gun laws ran into the police officers' campaign for bans on cop-killer bullets, plastic guns and assault weapons. The NRA's response was an all-out attack on the police leadership -- from the chiefs to the head of the rank-and-file's Fraternal Order of Police.

The Massive Difference between NRA Legislation and What Lawful Gun Owners - and most Americans - Support

Who wants criminals to have guns?
Legal gun owners, including NRA members, and non-owners don't want that.
Who makes it EASY for criminals to get guns?
The NRA does, in order to increase the sales for their real clients, the gun manufacturers.  The NRA acts as both a legal gun manufacturer lobby, and an illegal/unregistered one through ALEC, where it buys those thousands of corrupt CONSERVATIVE politicians.

Who characterizes the NRA membership? Conservatives, white, out of shape, crabby old men, make up the majority of the NRA -- which is who the NRA manipulates with ludicrous fear mongering, and outright lies.

The following is to educate Joe Doakes and some of our lurking trolls who lack his courage to comment, readers who either do not recognize or who are apparently too fact averse/ ill-informed about the distinctions between what the NRA promulgates, and what lawful gun owners want.

Pollsters and political operatives don't come any further right, at least none who are respected, more than Frank Luntz.

From MAIG, press release July 24, 2012

NEW POLL OF NRA MEMBERS BY FRANK LUNTZ SHOWS STRONG SUPPORT FOR COMMON-SENSE GUN LAWS, EXPOSING SIGNIFICANT DIVIDE BETWEEN RANK-AND-FILE MEMBERS AND NRA LEADERSHIP

Gun Owners Believe Protecting Second Amendment Goes Hand-in-Hand with Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Criminals

Overwhelming Support for Background Checks for All Buyers; Barring Terror Suspects from Firearm Ownership; and Requiring Reporting of Lost and Stolen Guns – Measures Opposed by the NRA’s Washington Office

Mayors Against Illegal Guns today released the findings of a survey by GOP pollster Frank Luntz showing that NRA members and gun owners overwhelmingly support a variety of laws designed to keep firearms out of dangerous hands, even as the Washington gun lobby prepares to spend unprecedented millions supporting candidates who pledge to oppose any changes to U.S. gun laws. The poll also dispels the myth among many Washington pundits that there is a lack of public support for common-sense measures that would help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and keep Americans safe.

Among the survey’s key findings:

• 87 percent of NRA members agree that support for Second Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
  
• There is very strong support for criminal background checks among NRA members and gun owners:

• 74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.
• 79 percent of NRA members and 80 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees – a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.

NRA members strongly support allowing states – not the Federal government – to set basic eligibility requirements for people who want to carry concealed, loaded guns in public places, with 91 percent of NRA members stating states should decide.

By contrast, the NRA leadership’s top Federal legislative priority – national reciprocity for concealed carry permits – would effectively eliminate these requirements by forcing every state to allow non-residents to carry concealed guns even if they would not qualify for a local permit. NRA members support many common state eligibility rules for concealed carrying:

• 75 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors, including assault.
  
  
• 74 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.
  
  
• 68 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.
  
  
• 63 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.

The NRA rank and file also supports barring people on terror watch lists from buying guns (71 percent) and believe the law should require gun owners to alert police to lost and stolen guns (64 percent). The NRA’s Washington office strongly opposes both measures.

The Luntz findings are in line with previous research showing that Americans are nearly unanimous in their support for closing loopholes that allow dangerous people to buy firearms without a background check. A January 2011 poll conducted for Mayors Against Illegal Guns by the bipartisan polling team of Momentum Analysis and American Viewpoint found that 86 percent of Americans and 81 percent of gun owners support requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check, no matter where they buy a gun or who they but it from.

“Gun owners and NRA members overwhelmingly support common sense steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, even as the NRA leadership continues to oppose them,” said Mayors Against Illegal Guns Co-Chair and New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. “It’s time for those in Washington – and those running for President – to stand with gun owning citizens who are concerned about public safety, rather than influence peddling lobbyists who are obsessed with ideology. I join with NRA members in urging Washington to pass a law requiring universal background checks for all gun sales – and to take other common sense steps that will save lives.”

“This poll shows plain and simply how seriously out-of-step the leadership of the NRA is with its membership – and how, despite what previous polls say, there really is support for common sense gun laws in the U.S.,” said Mayors Against Illegal Guns Co-Chair and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino. “The best way to honor the memory of those who senselessly lost their lives in Aurora is to make it harder for this to ever happen again. Our political leaders need to lead – and we demand they act now.”

The Luntz poll of 945 gun owners nationwide was conducted in May 2012 and was divided evenly by gun owners who were current or lapsed members of the NRA and non-NRA gun owners. The poll has a margin of error of + 3 percent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The poll numbers vary, depending on how the questions are asked, but consistently there is an increasing desire for MORE gun control, in response NOT ONLY to mass shootings but to all the shootings, the suicides, the murders / homicides with firearms, the muder/ suicides, the accidental shootings, and especially the deaths and injuries involving children,

Here are a few more polls from this year that illustrate that the NRA DOES NOT REPRESENT LEGAL/LAWFUL GUN OWNERS, but rather represents a narrow segment of extremist conservatives who are fact averse, and arguably hold views which are tantamount to political insanity.

The NRA is out of touch with most gun owners, and more importantly with most Americans (gun owning or non-gun owning).

Here is are the results from a CNN poll recently, that show that not even all conservatives agree with the NRA, and that 90% favor some of the legislation which could have assisted law enforcement to disarm the shooter who executed a former co-worker with five rounds on Friday BEFORE that event happened, resulting in the injuring of 9 other people.  Excerpts in bold, and enlarged are my emphasis - DG

"Not surprisingly, there are gender and ideological gaps on this issue, with more than six in ten women and two thirds of self-described liberals supporting major restrictions or a complete ban, compared to just 34% of men and 36% of self-described conservatives," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "And major restrictions on guns are most popular in urban areas and in the Northeast than in the rest of the country."

What specific restrictions do Americans favor?

The poll indicates that two meet with almost unanimous approval: Ninety-six percent are in favor of background checks and 91% support laws to prevent convicted felons or people with mental health problems from owning guns.

Three-quarters of people questioned favor gun registration with local governments, and roughly six in ten favor bans on the sale or possession of semi-automaticweapons and high-capacity ammunition clips. But 54% oppose a limit on the number of guns an individual can own, and only one in ten think that all Americans should be prevented from owning guns.

And from a CBS News poll after the Gabby Giffords mass shootings:

Even those who live in gun-owning households favor a ban on assault weapons, the poll finds, although by a smaller margin than with the rest of the population: 54 percent of those Americans favor a ban on assault weapons, and 44 percent oppose such a ban.

The survey also indicates that nearly two in three Americans favor a ban on high capacity clips that can hold dozens of rounds like the ones used in the Arizona shootings. Sixty-three percent favor a ban on such clips (including 58 percent of gun-owning households), while 34 percent oppose it.

And while there are partisan differences on many of these questions, with Democrats more supportive of tougher gun laws than Republicans, half of Republicans also favor a ban on assault weapons and on high capacity magazines.

And there was this state-wide poll in Wisconsin that shows support from gun owners AND from NRA members for the kinds of background checks on gun sales that the NRA has obstructed.  The consistent pattern has been that while there ARE Republicans who support stricter gun regulation, the more extreme right one goes, the more anti-gun control attitudes one finds. (again, emphasis added below is mine - DG)

From PR Newswire/United Business Media.:

Statewide Bipartisan Poll Commissioned by WAVE Reveals Overwhelming Support for Background Checks on All Gun Sales
Release of Poll Highlights Comes on the Heels of International Association of Chiefs of Police Groundbreaking Report Also Calling for Background

Checks on All Gun Sales

MILWAUKEE, Sept. 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Wisconsin Anti-Violence
Effort Executive Director, Jeri Bonavia, released the following information
and statement today in response to the new International Association of
Chiefs of Police (IACP) groundbreaking report: "Taking a Stand: Reducing
Gun Violence in Our Communities."
     See the IACP complete report here:
http://www.freedomstatesalliance.com/docs/Embargoed_IACP_Report.pdf
     The IACP report calls on local, state and federal lawmakers to enact
almost 40 recommendations to reduce gun violence and reverse the nationwide
upswing in violent crime. One of the most effective recommendations from
IACP was a requirement to conduct criminal background checks prior to all
gun sales.
     This concurs with a comprehensive, statewide bipartisan poll recently
commissioned by Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, which found that there is
overwhelming public support for a law that would require background on all
gun sales.
     The poll was jointly conducted by a right-leaning polling firm,
Overbrook Research, and by a left-leaning firm, Lake Research Partners.
WAVE is planning a comprehensive release of the poll results in the coming
weeks.
     Some highlights of the Wisconsin statewide bipartisan poll:
     Eight out of ten likely Wisconsin voters support requiring a background
check on all gun sales;
     85% of Wisconsin residents, including 80% of gun owners, think gun
violence is a serious problem;
     Seven out of ten NRA supporters or members support background checks on
all gun sales.
     "This groundbreaking report from our nation's police chiefs highlights
the need to address gun violence with sensible and effective policies,"
said Jeri Bonavia. "Specifically, the chiefs of police and the people of
Wisconsin agree that conducting background checks on all gun sales is an
effective way to reduce gun violence and make our communities safer."

(Note, I tried to activate a link to the site indicated in this report, but couldn't find one that was current.)

And then there was this from the HuffPo regarding another bi-partisan poll taken a year ago April, emphasis added is again mine:

WASHINGTON -- Despite powerful lobbying against any new gun-control measures by groups like the National Rifle Association, a new bipartisan poll shows that both gun owners and the general public support stronger measures to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and other potentially dangerous individuals.
The poll -- conducted for the coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns, co-chaired by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino -- suggests that while far-reaching gun-control legislation seems unlikely to pass, some narrower measures may be able to earn bipartisan support.
"Large majorities of Americans agree with the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns, and Americans strongly oppose efforts to ban handguns," said Bob Carpenter, vice president of American Viewpoint, the Republican polling firm that joined with Democratic firm Momentum Analysis to conduct the survey. "But Americans and gun owners feel with equal fervor that government must act to get every single record in the background-check system that belongs there and to ensure that every gun sale includes a background check. Most Americans view these goals, protecting gun rights for the law-abiding and keeping guns from criminals, as compatible."
Some findings from the poll results, provided exclusively to The Huffington Post:

-- 90 percent of Americans and 90 percent of gun owners support fixing gaps in government databases that are meant to prevent the mentally ill, drug abusers and others from buying guns.-- 91 percent of Americans and 93 percent of gun owners support requiring federal agencies to share information about suspected dangerous persons or terrorists to prevent them from buying guns.
-- 89 percent of Americans and 89 percent of gun owners support full funding of the law a unanimous Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed after the Virginia Tech shootings to put more records in the background-check database.
-- 86 percent of Americans and 81 percent of gun owners support requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter who they buy it from.

-- 89 percent of Americans and 85 percent of gun owners support a law to require background checks for all guns sold at gun shows.

In terms of protecting Second Amendment rights, 79 percent of Americans and 90 percent of gun owners said they believe an individual has the right to own guns, and the amendment is not limited to protecting the rights of state militias. Eighty percent of Americans and 90 percent of gun owners oppose a law that would ban the sale of all handguns.
The survey also asked whether respondents believe that "the sale of guns should be more strict." Fifty-one percent said they agreed with that statement, 7 percent more than agreed in a November Gallup poll using nearly identical wording and 4 percent more than what CBS found using similar wording last week.
Jared Lee Loughner, the alleged shooter in the tragic Jan. 8 shooting in Arizona, legally obtained the Glock-19 pistol that he eventually used to kill six people and wound 13 others. Despite his documented history of drug abuse, Loughner was able to slip through the cracks and become a gun owner.
In the months following the April 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, lawmakers passed a bill meant to increase the number of records entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. But three years later, hundreds of thousands of records are still missing, allowing many to pass background checks they might otherwise fail. Additionally, since 2007, Congress allocated only $20 million of the $375 million authorized in the law.
"Our coalition of mayors has fought for years to fix our federal background check system and close loopholes that give dangerous people a way to get around the requirement altogether," Bloomberg said in a statement on the poll's findings. "This poll shows that, particularly in the wake of yet another tragic mass shooting, Americans and gun owners agree with our efforts. If the tragedy in Tucson was not enough to ensure that Congress finally takes action, we hope this clear call for reform from the public will add to the groundswell of support."
Closing the so-called "terror gap" has particularly strong support. A 2010 Government Accountability Office report found that during the past six years, individuals on the terror watchlist were able to buy firearms or explosives from licensed U.S. dealers 1,119 times.
The NRA has opposed bipartisan legislation closing the gap on the grounds that the list is flawed -- some individuals are put on the list by mistake, while many who pose legitimate threats are never added.
But this position puts the NRA far to the right of even its members. A survey last year by conservative pollster Frank Luntz found that 82 percent of NRA members supported "prohibiting people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns." Eighty-six percent agreed with the statement that the country can "do more to stop criminals from getting guns while also protecting the rights of citizens to freely own them."