Huge majorities on East Coast support national gun registry

A shocking poll released Tuesday shows overwhelming majorities of people in Virginia, New York and New Jersey support a national gun registry.

The survey released Tuesday was done jointly by Roanoke College in Virginia, Rutgers-Eagleton in New Jersey and Siena College in New York. It shows that 68 percent of New York voters and a whopping 74 percent of New Jersey voters are in favor of establishing a national gun registry.

Even in the southern state of Virginia — which has gone blue in recent years — 63 percent want the federal government to track all guns.

NRA Spokesman Andrew Arulanandam pointed out that the poll appears skewed.

“Given the exceptionally high numbers of support for President Obama and Hillary Clinton in this poll, it isn’t surprising that there would be high numbers of support for draconian gun control proposals,” he told me.

42 Comments - what are your thoughts?

  • Art Hock says:

    They had the survey in Harry Reid’s office.

  • David in MA says:

    Doubtful this is a true survey.
    When will people understand “gun control” is a two way defeatism for America. Criminals are not punished and the hippy college crowd does not live in reality, both are being used for government to enslave the population by removing the citizens ability to protect themselves from tyranny, which BTW is sitting in the White House as the debate continues. Look at every country where “gun control” has been instituted and which progresses to confiscation and eventual status of that country. The founders of the United States Constitution understood what it means for the citizens NOT to have the ability to fight a government of the elite and America was not intended to be such a country….

  • I Seigel says:

    When will the NRA get it?: registering and tracking guns is not the same as confiscating them or limiting the rights of sane, law-abiding citizens to own them. It would in no way “trample” Second Amendment rights. The majority of the people of NY, NJ and Virginia seem to understand that, no matter how the NRA spokesman wants to spin it.

    1. Barry Johnson says:

      No but it is a prelude to confiscation. Just look at Connecticut
      . That is exactly what is happening there. And what purpose does it serve. Other than to give the government a list and addresses if they ever decide to confiscate. Wake up Seigel.

      1. I Seigel says:

        You know, a week after Obama was elected (the first time), I was getting emails from friends saying “They’re coming for our guns”. Still hasn’t happened. But yet, it was a great inducement to go out and buy more guns and ammo.

        Step 1 – Create an enemy
        Step 2 – Provide means of fighting enemy
        Step 3 – Sit back and watch the profits roll in

        Maybe soon you’ll start to notice how we’re being manipulated by lobbyists, big business, and big money. Personally, I don’t like the feeling of being a tool. Maybe you feel the same way. Or maybe you like being led around by the nose..

        1. Barry Johnson says:

          I guess you don’t live in or pay attention to CT, NY, MI, NJ and other states that are or are trying to confiscate firearms. You should pay attention. It is people like you who deny the world around them and that always leads to loss of freedom.

        2. cal3301 says:

          One questions. If they are not taking the guns, why is the government buying up all that ammo?

          1. I Seigel says:

            I was curious when I read your question. Here is a link to a story in Forbes magazine, a conservative-leaning business publication, NOT your typical “libertard” magazine:


            If readers here don’t want to make the effort to actually read the story, I’ll summarize:

            The reason there’s a shortage of ammo is because of the record sales of guns following the alarms that the Obama Administration was “coming after our guns”. So, a record number of gun sales, a record amount of ammo being bought. It’s not rocket science, or a conspiracy.

            Here’s one quote from the article:

            “Federal Premium Ammunition, an American ammo manufacturer founded in 1992 that now has 1,400 employees in Anoka, Minn., published a statement saying the rumor that the DHS is “buying excessive quantities of ammunition thereby restricting availability to the commercial market” is a “false and baseless claim.” They say, “The Department of Homeland Security contract makes up a very small percentage of our total ammunition output. This contract is not taking ammunition away from civilians. The current increase in demand is attributed to the civilian market. Our production volumes on government contracts have been stable since the mid-2000s.”

          2. cal3301 says:

            Our Federal government is buying up as much ammo as they can get their hands on. The USPS, that is in the red, just bought a shit load and they are a gun free zone—-

            “The U.S. Postal Service is currently seeking companies that can provide “assorted small arms ammunition” in the near future.

            On Jan. 31, the USPS Supplies and Services Purchasing Office posted a notice on the Federal Business Opportunities website asking contractors to register with USPS as potential ammunition suppliers for a variety of cartridges

            “The United States Postal Service intends to solicit proposals for assorted small arms ammunition,” the notice reads, which also mentioned a deadline of Feb. 10 ”

            The government also shut down the last lead smelter. If they can’t get your guns, they’ll take your ammo so you can’t shoot.

          3. I Seigel says:

            I think you’re quoting another story from that same Kit Daniels guy. Geez!!

            Here’s a right-wing blog for you. This guy is no friend of Obama. Debunks everything you’re claiming here.


          4. cal3301 says:

            It was from -

            I found this other one to be more informative–


          5. I Seigel says:

            Are you kidding? Did you LOOK at the website? Here are some of their other headlines:

            “Outer Space Sex Magick: A True Conspiracy”

            “Confirmation that family members come to see you after death”

            That’s like getting your news from the National Enquirer. PLEASE tell me you don’t spend your time actually READING this crap!!

          6. cal3301 says:

            I read what I find interesting. Whether I believe it or not is another story. The thing that you fail to realize is that even fairy tales have a thread of truth.

          7. I Seigel says:

            Are you talking of “Jack and the Beanstalk” or “Hansel and Gretel”? Or The Bible?

          8. cal3301 says:

            No, Mother Goose and her nursery rhymes. Ring around the Rosie, London Bridge is Falling Down. Even Hans Christen. FYI, The Bible is a history book, learn from it!

          9. I Seigel says:

            I can’t find anything in the Bible about dinosaurs. Can you tell me: did they really die out 65 million years ago, or is the earth and everything on it not more than 6000 years old, which is what the Bible says? Did people and dinosaurs live on earth at the same time? Did they die out in Noah’s flood? If so, then I expect we’ll be seeing dinosaurs in that new movie coming out soon about Noah and the Flood.

          10. cal3301 says:

            Your sarcasm is unappreciated and the Bible was written by men. According to our history, dinosaurs and man did not exist at the same time. When their skeletons were found, they called them dragons. The actual time of man is still unknown as Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000- 250,000 years ago.

            They evolved in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago. The transition to behavioral modernity with the development of symbolic culture, language, and specialized lithic technology happened around 50,000 years ago according to many anthropologists although some suggest a gradual change in behavior over a longer time span.

            Meaning we’re not sure when we came about.

          11. I Seigel says:

            Thank you. Just checking where you stood on the “science scale”.

          12. David in MA says:

            to shoot you & me if we disobey?

          13. cal3301 says:

            It was a rhetorical question to which I already knew the answer. Nice try though.

        3. Barry Johnson says:

          Here is one of many if you bothered to get your head out of the sand it is not hard to discover:

          1. I Seigel says:

            See my response to cal3301 above. Again, nothing here in this story. If you get your head out of the sand and actually READ the story, you’ll see it’s just a “prediction”. Hasn’t happened yet.

    2. Johnny says:

      You are absolutely correct as far as registering is not confiscation. However, IF you did your homework [ever] you would have read that after all registration had been performed and all the legal ownerships have been determined, what follwed was – you guessed it: CONFISCATION. So I Seigel it is time for you to wake up.

      1. I Seigel says:

        I would be very interested in reading an actual news story about such confiscation. Please provide a link to a story, so that I can educate myself. I would like to read about a locality that has registered weapons, determined legal ownerships of guns, and then confiscated them.

          1. I Seigel says:

            Thank you for your work in assembling this list.

            First off, let’s eliminate the bottom 3 “news stories”. I read them through, and I see no actual citing of a confiscation. The same guy in Connecticut is quoted as saying that registration “will lead to confiscation”, but there is no story that it has actually happened yet.
            The NRA publication is, well, from the NRA. Sorry, but that’s not a news source; it’s a propaganda and recruitment tool.

            The Inforwars stories are a little more interesting. The Maryland story (the first link) is very current. But it says that the police are targeting approx. 110,000 owners of guns who are in their criminal database, and are therefore ineligible to own a gun under the Maryland law. So I don’t see that as a contradiction to my original statement, which was that LAW-ABIDING citizens’ rights are not being trampled.

            The other Infowars story (the 2nd link) is very interesting and has to do with enforcing the SAFE Act that was passed just a year ago in NY State. There have been several lawsuits filed against various parts of the law over the past year. Only one judge has ruled in the cases so far, in Dec 2013. He upheld most of the parts of the law except he found that the limitation of 7 rounds of ammo in a magazine designed for 10 was arbitrary, and (I think) he threw that part out. So at least one judge has ruled that Second Amendment rights are still being protected, but there are other lawsuits and other rulings to follow. Stay tuned.

            So, actually, you haven’t presented anything that makes me feel like I need to admit I’m wrong. There is still nothing you’ve shown me where a law-abiding citizen has actually, forcibly had his gone confiscated by the authorities. Just a lot of scare tactics from the NRA and right-wing bloggers and pseudo-reporters.

            Please inform me how I’m wrong.

          2. cal3301 says:

            The problem with your way of thinking is that we are no longer living in a honky-dory world. Our own military are being trained to turn on us for marshall law and our government doesn’t care if you are LAW-ABIDING. There is a state police officer that my son told me about in PA. They came and seized his personal guns because he was seen by a doctor for a health issue. He can’t own one, yet he can carry the state issued one while he is on duty.

            You have no idea that even a traffic ticket, can cost you your gun. Any minor infraction of ANY law, can cost you your gun. A visit to your doctor can cost you your gun.
            In fact a Florida man was registered to conceal carry, was targeted by the Maryland state police when he drove through their state.

            Here are some other sights.





          3. I Seigel says:

            Cal3301, I really do appreciate what appears to be your sincere effort to have a reasonable discussion about this.

            But, with all due respect, could you PLEASE take a look at the sources you’re quoting, or getting your news from? There’s not one “fair & balanced” source here. These are all right-wing blogs and websites with very obvious agendas. They don’t even TRY to be non-partial journalists. Can you find me a story in any newspaper ANYWHERE in the country? Dallas Morning News, Orlando Sentinel, Salt Lake Tribune, Arizona Republic? These are all legitimate news sources from red, conservative states. I’m not asking for you to find something in the NY Times or the Washington Post or the San Francisco Chronicle. But a news source such as those that I mentioned should qualify as “fair & balanced”, as much as I can hope for, anyway. I’m willing to listen to any conservative newspapers, if the reports are written by people with some semblance of reporting experience and journalistic integrity, and not just opinions or “news” based on blog sources.

            I’m trying to keep an open mind here. I hope you’re willing to do the same.

          4. cal3301 says:

            Read these articles for the content, not whose sight it is on. They are reporting news that can be found on other sights out there. I chose them for the details that many liberal or nuetral sights overlook. Always read with an open mind, because a closed one doesn’t get it. FYI, I’m a registered Independent.

          5. I Seigel says:

            Cal, you can’t be that naïve.
            Yes, read with an open mind. And that means read with a questioning mind. The source of the material will tell you a lot about the content. And when the source has ALL the same anti-government, “the sky is falling” ranting, it should set off alarm bells in you and make you wonder if all this is really real. You have to realize that EVERY thing you see these days is put there for a reason. Your job, as a citizen, as a consumer, as a parent, is to figure out what that reason is. Look for the motive behind the message. Just don’t take the message at face value. That’s how the Germans wound up with Hitler.

          6. cal3301 says:

            Again, I grew up on military bases. I have nephews and friends in the military. If what they tell me coincides with what I have been reading on the websites that you don’t like, I tend to believe them over liberal bull.
            I have also been around politics most of my life as my grandmother was a Republican chairperson up until she was 86. It did not sit well that I went Independent.
            What you fail to understand is that the liberal media has been sugar coating the news since Obama has been in office. They have been omitting things that Obama does not want you to know.
            Many people in the press are starting to become annoyed with the fact that this is the most closed, highly secretive, administration that they have ever dealt with.
            I am not naive as to how things are run. I know money talks and bullshit walks. I have warned most of my friends for years of impending things and to watch out for China with our dollar. What you are failing to see are the signs of a push for Leftist, Liberal, Socialistic Societies, that history has proven never really work. My father and I talked of this everytime the Dems were in control from back in the 70’s.

          7. I Seigel says:

            I respect that you’ve been around military for much of your life. And I don’t disagree with much of what you’ve said here.

            But notice you said, “…the liberal media has been sugar coating the news since Obama has been in office.” So 3 questions come to mind:

            1. In an earlier post, you said something like, “Don’t look at the news site, look at the contents.” So, you see, you’re guilty of the same thing you accused me of doing. Anything that comes from a “liberal” site, is not to be believed, yet, it shouldn’t matter what the source is, according to you.

            2. Did the same liberal media also sugar coat the news BEFORE Obama took office? Or was the news that they printed and aired during the Bush years more believable to you?

            3. If the liberal media is so obviously warping the news to fit its agenda, then why isn’t it just as obvious that conservative media are warping the news to fit THEIR agenda? That is why I said that as citizens and consumers (of news, among other things), it is our responsibility to seek out the TRUTH. I asked you for any stories backing up your claims from CONSERVATIVE but recognized news sources like newspapers in Texas, Arizona and Utah, but you haven’t offered anything. I have asked you to provide a source other than a blog that has every story talking about anti-government, “they’re coming for our guns” rants. Or sex in outer space. But you haven’t provided anything that is even remotely non-partisan. I even provided a link to a very CONSERVATIVE website, the Breitbart Report, which says the story about ammo shortages is a myth. Provide me a link to a LIBERAL website that backs up any of your claims.

          8. cal3301 says:

            I said that they sugar coat the news and that is a fact. NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC are falling over backwards trying to be politically correct as not to offend the first black president, which in reality he wasn’t. He was the sixth. Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln( called Abraham Africanus the First by his opponents), Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Dwight David Eisenhower all had black blood in them, making them legally black.
            If Obama was white and a Republican, the media would be tearing him apart and you know it. FOX appears to be the only station that is reporting what is actually happening and Obama stated it was their fault for his falling in the polls. When the truth is reported, you do catch heat. Why do you think he wants supervisors at all media outlets to control what is being told to Joe Public. ARE YOU THAT NAIVE?
            By the way, my news sources come from DC and my military friends. I get emails from both Republican and Democrats as to what is going on. When stations fail to report or overlook what is occurring, they are sugar coating it, period.

          9. I Seigel says:

            Luckily, here in America, you’re free to believe whatever you choose.

            Here is a quote from Wikipedia about your ” 6 black presidents” claim, which I would consider a non-partisan source:

            “These claims have been made by the historian William Estabrook Chancellor, amateur historian J. A. Rogers, ophthalmologist Dr. Leroy William Vaughn,[1] and Dr. Auset BaKhufu. All but Chancellor base their theories chiefly on the work of J. A. Rogers, who apparently self-published a pamphlet in 1965 claiming African ancestry of five presidents.[2] Vaughn’s and BaKhufu’s books appear to have been self-published.[3]

            Historians’ and biographers’ studies of these presidents have not supported such claims, nor have the claims above been peer-reviewed.[4] They are generally ignored by scholars. They repeat each other’s material and are classified as “rumormongers and amateur historians.”[5] Vaughn and BaKhufu have added little substantive research to their claims, although there has been extensive new documentation of race relations by others in the decades since Rogers published his pamphlet”
            In other words, non reputable sources of information, and each uses the other to support their claim. AKA, an echo chamber.
            You still haven’t offered anything to refute any of the evidence I’ve shown you. Only more quotes from right-wing blogs. And what sound like talking points from FOX that you’re repeating. EVERY SINGLE THING you’ve claimed, I have found a legitimate, recognized, non-partisan news source that refutes it. Please try to do the same.

          10. cal3301 says:

            Jefferson- “son of a half-breed Indian squaw and a Virginia mulatto father.

            Jackson- The Virginia Magazine of History staes that Jackson was the son of an Irishwoman who married a black man.The magazine also stated that
            Jackson’s oldest brother had been sold as a slave.

            Lincoln- had very dark skin and coarse hair and his mother allegedly came from an Ethiopian tribe. His
            heritage fueled so much controversy that Lincoln was nicknamed “Abraham Africanus the First” by his presidential opponents and cartoons were drawn depicting him as a Negro.
            In a book, titled “The Hidden Lincoln” written by William Herndon, Lincoln’s law-office partner, said that Lincoln’s father of record, Thomas Lincoln, could not have been Lincoln’s father because
            he was sterile from childhood mumps and later was castrated.

            Harding- Never denied his ancestry, stating that he had black ancestors between both his parents. Harding attended Iberia College, a school founded to educate fugitive slaves.

            Coolidge- He claimed his motherwas dark because of mixed Indian ancestry. Coolidge’s mother’s maiden name was “Moor” and in Europe the name “Moor” was given to all blacks just as “Negro” was used in America. It later was concluded that Coolidge was part black.

            Eisenhower- Eisenhower’s mother, Ida Elizabeth Stover was a mullato woman making Eisenhower
            part black. Eisenhower as president moved military integration from a law to reality. He battered Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus with federal force to
            desegregate Little Rock’s Central High School. He was the first President to elevate an African-
            American to an executive position in the White House. He established the first regulations to prohibit racial discrimination in the federal
            workforce. He was the first President since Reconstruction to meet with Civil Rights leaders in the White House. He helped turn Washington,
            D.C., into an integrated city.

            By the way A.J. Rodgers is a renowned African- American historian and Wikipedia states that not all their information is correct. It often asks for help in correcting it.
            “Amending our Terms of Use: Please comment on a proposed amendment regarding undisclosed paid editing.”

            (Warren Harding was the 28th President of the United States, he served from 1921 – 1923 and he was black. Harding never denied his ancestry. When Republican leaders called on Harding to deny his “Negro” history, he said, “How should I know whether or not one of my ancestors might have jumped the fence?”)

            John Hanson is the only President in debate of color. One group list him as Sweden, but another group as black because his mother was a “moor”. Even though he was elected, one variable that was never thought through was that America was not going to accept a Black President during the heart of the enslavement period. Enter George Washington.

            FYI, I use FOX as an example because Obama blamed them for his failings in a news clip that can be seen on youtube. I don’t watch TV. I get my info from more reliable sources that only I am privy to. What I give you is googled and scanned. Wikipedia is not always a factual source and they admit it.

          11. I Seigel says:

            Hurray! Thank you! You’ve actually presented some reputable info to refute me. Thanks!
            Now, how about guns, ammo, post office, confiscation – all the “real” topics that this thread is all about. We got sidetracked a little bit.

          12. David in MA says:

            Please tell us, which branch of government do you work in?

          13. cal3301 says:

            This is a post I found by Angry Patriot. It is about giving control to the UN.

            “Lets talk about Treason to the American People , Our Constitution and the Unites States of America .
            U.N. Resolution 2117 lists 21 points dealing with firearms control, but perhaps of most interest is point number 11: “CALLS FOR MEMBER STATES TO SUPPORT WEAPONS COLLECTION,
            DISARMAMENT —”

            HOORAY – 53-46 vote – The U.S. Senate voted against the U.N. resolution.
            Now, Which 46 Senators Voted to Destroy Us?

            Well, let their names become known !! If you vote in one of the states listed below with these 46 “legis..traitors”… you should vote against them.

            In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty which would have established an international gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo. Astonishingly, 46 of our 100 U S Senators were willing to give our Constitutional rights away to a foreign power.

            Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.”

            Baldwin (D-WI)
            Baucus (D-MT)
            Bennett (D-CO)
            Blumenthal (D-CT)
            Boxer (D-CA)
            Brown (D-OH)
            Cantwell (D-WA)
            Cardin (D-MD)
            Carper (D-DE)
            Casey (D-PA)
            Coons (D-DE)
            Cowan (D-MA)
            Durbin (D-IL)
            Feinstein (D-CA)
            Franken (D-MN)
            Gillibrand (D-NY)
            Harkin (D-IA)
            Hirono (D-HI)
            Johnson (D-SD)
            Kaine (D-VA)
            King (I-ME)
            Klobuchar (D-MN)
            Landrieu (D-LA)
            Leahy (D-VT)
            Levin (D-MI)
            McCaskill (D-MO)
            Menendez (D-NJ)
            Merkley (D-OR)
            Mikulski (D-MD)
            Murphy (D-CT)
            Murray (D-WA)
            Nelson (D-FL)
            Reed (D-RI)
            Reid (D-NV)
            Rockefeller (D-WV)
            Sanders (I-VT)
            Schatz (D-HI)
            Schumer (D-NY)
            Shaheen (D-NH)
            Stabenow (D-MI)
            Udall (D-CO)
            Udall (D-NM)
            Warner (D-VA)
            Warren (D-MA)
            Whitehouse (D-RI)
            Wyden (D-OR)

          14. I Seigel says:

            Cal3301, I’ve looked at the ENTIRE UN resolution 2117. Did you, or did you just get it’s terms from the Angry Patriot – now THAT’S a “fair & balanced” news source.

            Here is a link to the actual, full resolution, from the actual United Nations website:

            If you click on “View the Full Document”, you can read the entire text. It’s very long and very involved, so probably best not to quote long parts of it here.
            But basically, it has to do with getting “member states” to try to keep small arms from terrorists, drug traffickers, etc. And to honor UN-sanctioned arms embargoes against countries that are doing bad things.

            The ONLY clause of this resolution that I can see that might be of concern to you is this clause:

          15. David in MA says:

            Either socialists or leaning toward socialism, one and all.
            And all democrats, except one and he is a socialist.
            I am embarrassed that both senators from MA are on the list, I consider them both socialists. America, we are so damn close to becoming a Marxist utopia it is not funny. If a socialist country is so great, why are former and current socialist countries embracing capitalism?

          16. David in MA says:

            your an idiot, move to Cuba or any number of “gun control” countries if that is what you want.

          17. I Seigel says:

            If you are going to call someone an idiot and show everyone how smart you are, at least try to spell correctly. Pathetic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Keep the Fake News Media in check.

Don’t let the MSM censor your news as America becomes Great Again. Over 500,000 Americans receive our daily dose of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness along with Breaking News direct to their inbox—and you can too. Sign up to receive news and views from The 1776Coalition!

We know how important your privacy is and your information is SAFE with us. We’ll never sell
your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time directly from your inbox.
View our full privacy policy.