67% of Public Support Obama's Executive Action On Guns

[IsaacNewton]

We`ll have to see what the NRA`s top lawyer thinks of this. It`s been decades since he`s killed anyone...but that`s what he did.
The NRA's Top Lawyer Was Once Convicted Of Murder

Wait for Faux News and con-talk-radio to come out and defend this guy with all they have.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The topic is that 2 of 3 support sensible gun control.

You don't.

Liar the topic is the government ignores the Constitution and hopes that public opinion can be turned against it in hopes of being able to ignore more of it. but you're just another leftist assbag that thinks losing more freedoms will make him safer. ******* *****

You are a far right regressive who thinks he can do what he wants despite the law. Sux to be you. The OP is that 67-of-public-support-obamas-executive-action-on-guns, meaning you are in the small minority.

jake, you're why we have a Constitution. B/c if people like you had your way, there would be no freedom.

You are talking to yourself in the mirror, princess. Your kind are the ones who threaten Americans' freedom.

and yet I'm against it's loss while you demand it.

If you really believe that, you are mentally ill or mentally malignant. Either or. Nothing else.

 

[Two Thumbs]

CNN / ORC poll.

Full results: CNN/ORC poll on guns in America - CNNPolitics.com

A bit of a breakdown of supporters:
Dems = 87%
Independent = 67%
Republicans = 51%
Gun owners = 57%
Women = 72%
Non-whites = 74%

31% say he's done enough on gun control; 30% say not far enough.

This is despite skepticism that it will have much effect.

and this is why we have a Constitution, so public opinion can't be used to take away more of our rights

Public opinion is what votes. Let's talk about Bush, the Orwellian 'Patriot Act' and the taking away of rights as well.

Correct, such is the hypocrisy of many on the right.

In addition to being wrong as a fact of Constitutional law and devoid of merit, conservative claims that the president is 'taking away rights' are purely partisan.

To think like you do, you have to live in a vacuum where you get all your information from a single source.

how the **** is the aca not an invasion of privacy?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Liar the topic is the government ignores the Constitution and hopes that public opinion can be turned against it in hopes of being able to ignore more of it. but you're just another leftist assbag that thinks losing more freedoms will make him safer. ******* *****

You are a far right regressive who thinks he can do what he wants despite the law. Sux to be you. The OP is that 67-of-public-support-obamas-executive-action-on-guns, meaning you are in the small minority.

jake, you're why we have a Constitution. B/c if people like you had your way, there would be no freedom.

You are talking to yourself in the mirror, princess. Your kind are the ones who threaten Americans' freedom.

and yet I'm against it's loss while you demand it.

If you really believe that, you are mentally ill or mentally malignant. Either or. Nothing else.

you support the aca, which is an invasion of privacy and out and out tyranny
you support infringement of the 2nd

I don't know how I can be clearer that everyone knows you hate America. You and every other leftist just hate freedom and think the government can prevent everything while we are at war with something we tried to prevent

the level of stewpud required to think like you 'people' boggles the mind

 

[August West]

We`ll have to see what the NRA`s top lawyer thinks of this. It`s been decades since he`s killed anyone...but that`s what he did.
The NRA's Top Lawyer Was Once Convicted Of Murder

Wait for Faux News and con-talk-radio to come out and defend this guy with all they have.

I dunno..it was only one murder and the perp isn`t a Muslim or some other dark skinned person. What`s the big deal?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are the poster boy, two thumbs, for ding dong libertarianism.

SCOTUS opines that ACA is constitutional; your opinion is not even worth a shit.

You are no sort of a good American.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I don't believe for one second 67% of America supports this no more than I believe the unemployment rate is around 5%. Dumb ass left loons will believe anything

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't believe for one second 67% of America supports this no more than I believe the unemployment rate is around 5%. Dumb ass left loons will believe anything

And you give evidence that you are stupid, just SO BIG STUPID.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Right is enraged that a guy under a restraining order for stalking his adulterous wife is going to be denied the right to buy a 1911 45 from a gun seller who will soon be forced to do a background check.

and the woman that is being stalked

but that's magically different since she can pee herself

Got it. Given 2 choices, between denying a man with no right to own a gun, the opportunity to buy it, or, giving both him and his intended victim a gun, you prefer the latter. That is, of course, saying a shoot out between a good guy and a bad guy is preferable to not giving the bad a guy a gun in the first place.

Let me take a wild guess. You are in the NRA publicity department.....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Okay. I was talking with my brother about this on Team Speak. What this amounts to is by making individuals and private owners who sell guns at gun shows register for FFL's, they've essentially outlawed gun shows and private sale of firearms between one individual or another. That, and gun shows will become defunct if this EO stays.

Because now, the only people who would be allowed to sell guns there would be the local gun shops. My brother owns two guns, and if I interpret what the EO says, he won't be able to sell anyone a gun without getting a FFL and doing a background on someone.

How unreasonable is that?

Wrong again, as usual.

In order to be eligible for an FFL 01, or to be required to obtain such a license, one must be in the actual business of selling firearms for profit:

“[A firearms dealer is a] person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C).

Consequently, an owner of two guns would be able to sell both guns absent an FFL and background check, unaffected by the president's EO.

What's unreasonable his how you and others on the right refuse to research the actual laws and facts concerning all manner of issues, and instead continue to propagate ridiculous fallacies, misinformation, and lies.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Or you could say that supporters of Barry Hussein's use of an unconstitutional decree rather than the law found a couple of low information Americans who agree. Thank God the Country isn't run by polling data.

When exactly did the Supreme Court rule the EO is 'un-Constitutional' – the High Court alone makes that determination, not you and other ignorant, partisan hacks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Whitehall, why, yes, you are a hack and not SCOTUS.

And for heaven's sake don't talk about federal firearms license, or that hack Lonestar will show up to bore us all.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The Right is enraged that a guy under a restraining order for stalking his adulterous wife is going to be denied the right to buy a 1911 45 from a gun seller who will soon be forced to do a background check.

He would not be allowed to do so with a background check BEFORE Obama's EO, which I still have not seen.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Okay. I was talking with my brother about this on Team Speak. What this amounts to is by making individuals and private owners who sell guns at gun shows register for FFL's, they've essentially outlawed gun shows and private sale of firearms between one individual or another. That, and gun shows will become defunct if this EO stays.

Because now, the only people who would be allowed to sell guns there would be the local gun shops. My brother owns two guns, and if I interpret what the EO says, he won't be able to sell anyone a gun without getting a FFL and doing a background on someone.

How unreasonable is that?

Wrong again, as usual.

In order to be eligible for an FFL 01, or to be required to obtain such a license, one must be in the actual business of selling firearms for profit:

“[A firearms dealer is a] person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C).

Consequently, an owner of two guns would be able to sell both guns absent an FFL and background check, unaffected by the president's EO.

What's unreasonable his how you and others on the right refuse to research the actual laws and facts concerning all manner of issues, and instead continue to propagate ridiculous fallacies, misinformation, and lies.

What does the EO say?

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Right is enraged that a guy under a restraining order for stalking his adulterous wife is going to be denied the right to buy a 1911 45 from a gun seller who will soon be forced to do a background check.

He would not be allowed to do so with a background check BEFORE Obama's EO, which I still have not seen.

It is not illegal for small gun dealers to sell this man a gun without a background check. Obama's EO will presumably narrow that loophole.

Two Thumbs, on the other hand, has somehow morphed the entire scenario into one in which the intended victim would ALSO be denied the right to buy a gun, which is, of course, utter nonsense before or after the EO. It is the sort of overreach that gun nuts love to do, without regard for the fact that it is utterly untrue that anything being proposed is going to take away a law abiding legal purchaser's right to purchase a firearm..

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The Right is enraged that a guy under a restraining order for stalking his adulterous wife is going to be denied the right to buy a 1911 45 from a gun seller who will soon be forced to do a background check.

He would not be allowed to do so with a background check BEFORE Obama's EO, which I still have not seen.

It is not illegal for small gun dealers to sell this man a gun without a background check. Obama's EO will presumably narrow that loophole.

Two Thumbs, on the other hand, has somehow morphed the entire scenario into one in which the intended victim would ALSO be denied the right to buy a gun, which is, of course, utter nonsense before or after the EO. It is the sort of overreach that gun nuts love to do, without regard for the fact that it is utterly untrue that anything being proposed is going to take away a law abiding legal purchaser's right to purchase a firearm..

How will it accomplish that? There is no way it could possibly come to anyone's attention if the background check is never run!

This entire grandstanding is based on 100% compliance with the law. Well, we already know criminals do not follow the law, so what is the point?

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Right is enraged that a guy under a restraining order for stalking his adulterous wife is going to be denied the right to buy a 1911 45 from a gun seller who will soon be forced to do a background check.

He would not be allowed to do so with a background check BEFORE Obama's EO, which I still have not seen.

It is not illegal for small gun dealers to sell this man a gun without a background check. Obama's EO will presumably narrow that loophole.

Two Thumbs, on the other hand, has somehow morphed the entire scenario into one in which the intended victim would ALSO be denied the right to buy a gun, which is, of course, utter nonsense before or after the EO. It is the sort of overreach that gun nuts love to do, without regard for the fact that it is utterly untrue that anything being proposed is going to take away a law abiding legal purchaser's right to purchase a firearm..

How will it accomplish that? There is no way it could possibly come to anyone's attention if the background check is never run!

This entire grandstanding is based on 100% compliance with the law. Well, we already know criminals do not follow the law, so what is the point?

If I sell a gun to someone when I should have run a background check, and did not, I am guilty of a felony, and if that guy uses that gun to kill someone, you can be damned sure that it will be traced by to me, and I am in for some heavy duty shit.

 

[2aguy]

The Right is enraged that a guy under a restraining order for stalking his adulterous wife is going to be denied the right to buy a 1911 45 from a gun seller who will soon be forced to do a background check.

He would not be allowed to do so with a background check BEFORE Obama's EO, which I still have not seen.

It is not illegal for small gun dealers to sell this man a gun without a background check. Obama's EO will presumably narrow that loophole.

Two Thumbs, on the other hand, has somehow morphed the entire scenario into one in which the intended victim would ALSO be denied the right to buy a gun, which is, of course, utter nonsense before or after the EO. It is the sort of overreach that gun nuts love to do, without regard for the fact that it is utterly untrue that anything being proposed is going to take away a law abiding legal purchaser's right to purchase a firearm..

How will it accomplish that? There is no way it could possibly come to anyone's attention if the background check is never run!

This entire grandstanding is based on 100% compliance with the law. Well, we already know criminals do not follow the law, so what is the point?

If I sell a gun to someone when I should have run a background check, and did not, I am guilty of a felony, and if that guy uses that gun to kill someone, you can be damned sure that it will be traced by to me, and I am in for some heavy duty shit.

Individuals who are not gun dealers do not have to perform background checks....and again...as I keep posting and you guys fail to answer in any meaningful way...

criminals do not use individual sales to get illegal guns....they steal them or use straw purchasers who can enter a licensed gun store and pass a background check...

So....a Straw purchaser can go to an individual and even if that individual runs a background check...it will come back clean.....and he can then sell the gun and the straw buyer can then sell the gun to the criminal....

So exactly how is that going to stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns?

 

[2aguy]

The Right is enraged that a guy under a restraining order for stalking his adulterous wife is going to be denied the right to buy a 1911 45 from a gun seller who will soon be forced to do a background check.

He would not be allowed to do so with a background check BEFORE Obama's EO, which I still have not seen.

It is not illegal for small gun dealers to sell this man a gun without a background check. Obama's EO will presumably narrow that loophole.

Two Thumbs, on the other hand, has somehow morphed the entire scenario into one in which the intended victim would ALSO be denied the right to buy a gun, which is, of course, utter nonsense before or after the EO. It is the sort of overreach that gun nuts love to do, without regard for the fact that it is utterly untrue that anything being proposed is going to take away a law abiding legal purchaser's right to purchase a firearm..

How will it accomplish that? There is no way it could possibly come to anyone's attention if the background check is never run!

This entire grandstanding is based on 100% compliance with the law. Well, we already know criminals do not follow the law, so what is the point?

Ahhhh....see....in order to be able to track the possible movement of guns through individual sales and to make sure background checks are being done....... they will need to register guns.... all of them. Otherwise there is no way to know who owned the gun and when they owned it and wether a background check was done....

See how they work that?

 

[JimBowie1958]