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

[Vandalshandle]

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.

How will they know you did not run a background check if they don't know that you sold it to them? DUH!

Admiral, you might as well ask why ANY gun dealer should be required to run a background check. It makes just as much sense as asking why small dealers should run background checks. And, having satisfied yourself that background checks don't help the situation (in spite of the fact that tens of thousands of people have failed background checks), why not just come clean and demand that anyone who can afford a Saturday Night special should be allowed to buy it, even if his name is John Hinkley?

You are not getting it, which is no huge surprise.

If I sell you my gun and do not do a background check on you, how exactly will anyone know? Can you answer that question or are you as stupid as Obama hopes you are?

BTW, John Hinkley got his gun perfectly legally, did he not?

Yo

You are simply chasing your tail around in a circle. I told you before that if you sell a gun so someone without a background check, if required by law, and that buyer commits a felony with it, the cops are going to trace that back to you, and now YOU are going to be charged with a felony too. if you sell arms for profit, you are required by law to be able to produce copies on request of every background check you run. If you are asking how the cops would know that you sold it without a background check if the gun never showed up on police radar, then you are right, they would not know. So, like I did, when I was 15 years old and bought a car, with no insurance, license plate, or driver's license, you take your chances. if you lose, you pay the price. And as for John Hinkley, you can STILL legally sell him a gun, because of this loophole, even though he can not legally buy it.

 

[Spoonman]

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

problem of capitalism:
rna is powefull more than president of united state(commander in chief)

that is true, the NRA is more powerful than the president. that is why Obama will be left to symbolic gestures that do nothing, like his executive order. his problem is he flapped his gums and thought he had more power than he did, but he got shut down cold.

Wrong....his attack is coming from blue states. They are passing stupid gun laws, which will be upheld by the judges he appointed to the federal bench in the hope that hilary will appoint left wing, anti gun Justices to replace one of the 3 conservatives on the Supreme Court..thus making laws from the blue states the laws of the land bypassing congress....

in ny, only about 5% complied with cuomos safe act and registered their guns. they pretty much said fuck you and would rather become felons than comply

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gramps has trouble that he is what he has done before.

Leave firearms along, gramps. That's not a cheap shot but only great advice for you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

problem of capitalism:
rna is powefull more than president of united state(commander in chief)

that is true, the NRA is more powerful than the president. that is why Obama will be left to symbolic gestures that do nothing, like his executive order. his problem is he flapped his gums and thought he had more power than he did, but he got shut down cold.

Wrong....his attack is coming from blue states. They are passing stupid gun laws, which will be upheld by the judges he appointed to the federal bench in the hope that hilary will appoint left wing, anti gun Justices to replace one of the 3 conservatives on the Supreme Court..thus making laws from the blue states the laws of the land bypassing congress....

in ny, only about 5% complied with cuomos safe act and registered their guns. they pretty much said fuck you and would rather become felons than comply

Sure, bro, they said that. You moron.

 

[Vandalshandle]

67% of the public despise everything Obama stands for so it is impossible we support this illegal executive order.

Yet, he was elected president.......twice........ Strange.

 

[Spoonman]

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.

How will they know you did not run a background check if they don't know that you sold it to them? DUH!

Admiral, you might as well ask why ANY gun dealer should be required to run a background check. It makes just as much sense as asking why small dealers should run background checks. And, having satisfied yourself that background checks don't help the situation (in spite of the fact that tens of thousands of people have failed background checks), why not just come clean and demand that anyone who can afford a Saturday Night special should be allowed to buy it, even if his name is John Hinkley?

You are not getting it, which is no huge surprise.

If I sell you my gun and do not do a background check on you, how exactly will anyone know? Can you answer that question or are you as stupid as Obama hopes you are?

BTW, John Hinkley got his gun perfectly legally, did he not?

Yo

You are simply chasing your tail around in a circle. I told you before that if you sell a gun so someone without a background check, if required by law, and that buyer commits a felony with it, the cops are going to trace that back to you, and now YOU are going to be charged with a felony too. if you sell arms for profit, you are required by law to be able to produce copies on request of every background check you run. If you are asking how the cops would know that you sold it without a background check if the gun never showed up on police radar, then you are right, they would not know. So, like I did, when I was 15 years old and bought a car, with no insurance, license plate, or driver's license, you take your chances. if you lose, you pay the price.

dude, so many guns are circulating with no record of who owns them. I rarely buy a gun through a dealer anymore. as for ar 15's, people are making their own. no serial numbers, no registrations, fuck your background checks. your laws aren't regulating. shit. we just ignore them

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually, it would be extremely cool if the president's EO 'required' anyone who sells guns to obtain an FFL 01 – I'd get one in a heartbeat and buy all sorts of wonderful guns online and have them shipped right to my front door absent transfer fees or a back ground check.

But alas, the president's EO 'authorizes' no such thing.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

How will they know you did not run a background check if they don't know that you sold it to them? DUH!

Admiral, you might as well ask why ANY gun dealer should be required to run a background check. It makes just as much sense as asking why small dealers should run background checks. And, having satisfied yourself that background checks don't help the situation (in spite of the fact that tens of thousands of people have failed background checks), why not just come clean and demand that anyone who can afford a Saturday Night special should be allowed to buy it, even if his name is John Hinkley?

You are not getting it, which is no huge surprise.

If I sell you my gun and do not do a background check on you, how exactly will anyone know? Can you answer that question or are you as stupid as Obama hopes you are?

BTW, John Hinkley got his gun perfectly legally, did he not?

Yo

You are simply chasing your tail around in a circle. I told you before that if you sell a gun so someone without a background check, if required by law, and that buyer commits a felony with it, the cops are going to trace that back to you, and now YOU are going to be charged with a felony too. if you sell arms for profit, you are required by law to be able to produce copies on request of every background check you run. If you are asking how the cops would know that you sold it without a background check if the gun never showed up on police radar, then you are right, they would not know. So, like I did, when I was 15 years old and bought a car, with no insurance, license plate, or driver's license, you take your chances. if you lose, you pay the price.

dude, so many guns are circulating with no record of who owns them. I rarely buy a gun through a dealer anymore. as for ar 15's, people are making their own. no serial numbers, no registrations, fuck your background checks. your laws aren't regulating. shit. we just ignore them

So, are you with the Crips, or the Bloods?

 

[Spoonman]

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

problem of capitalism:
rna is powefull more than president of united state(commander in chief)

that is true, the NRA is more powerful than the president. that is why Obama will be left to symbolic gestures that do nothing, like his executive order. his problem is he flapped his gums and thought he had more power than he did, but he got shut down cold.

Wrong....his attack is coming from blue states. They are passing stupid gun laws, which will be upheld by the judges he appointed to the federal bench in the hope that hilary will appoint left wing, anti gun Justices to replace one of the 3 conservatives on the Supreme Court..thus making laws from the blue states the laws of the land bypassing congress....

in ny, only about 5% complied with cuomos safe act and registered their guns. they pretty much said fuck you and would rather become felons than comply

Sure, bro, they said that. You moron.

uhm jake, the state was taken to court to publish the results. it's public record. same with CT.

 

[Spoonman]

67% of the public despise everything Obama stands for so it is impossible we support this illegal executive order.

Yet, he was elected president.......twice........ Strange.

so was bush

 

[AvgGuyIA]

67% of the public despise everything Obama stands for so it is impossible we support this illegal executive order.

Yet, he was elected president.......twice........ Strange.

He was elected from a pool of voters that represented the minority of registered voters. Also, democrats crammed ballots resulting in more democrat votes than registered voters.

 

[Vandalshandle]

67% of the public despise everything Obama stands for so it is impossible we support this illegal executive order.

Yet, he was elected president.......twice........ Strange.

He was elected from a pool of voters that represented the minority of registered voters. Also, democrats crammed ballots resulting in more democrat votes than registered voters.

What color is the sky on your planet?

 

[Vandalshandle]

67% of the public despise everything Obama stands for so it is impossible we support this illegal executive order.

Yet, he was elected president.......twice........ Strange.

so was bush

And that was our fault. We nominated the wrong candidate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

uhm jake, the state was taken to court to publish the results. it's public record. same with CT.

umm spoonie, sure, they said that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

67% of the public despise everything Obama stands for so it is impossible we support this illegal executive order.

Yet, he was elected president.......twice........ Strange.

so was bush

And that was our fault. We nominated the wrong candidate.

I understand the feeling, but McCain would have blown up the world.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

How will they know you did not run a background check if they don't know that you sold it to them? DUH!

Admiral, you might as well ask why ANY gun dealer should be required to run a background check. It makes just as much sense as asking why small dealers should run background checks. And, having satisfied yourself that background checks don't help the situation (in spite of the fact that tens of thousands of people have failed background checks), why not just come clean and demand that anyone who can afford a Saturday Night special should be allowed to buy it, even if his name is John Hinkley?

You are not getting it, which is no huge surprise.

If I sell you my gun and do not do a background check on you, how exactly will anyone know? Can you answer that question or are you as stupid as Obama hopes you are?

BTW, John Hinkley got his gun perfectly legally, did he not?

Yo

If one is a licensed gun dealer (FFL 01/02) and fails to do a background check for any gun he sells, the ATF will discover that failure during an audit – where the 4473 is either missing or lacks an NICS background check status entry, along with discrepancies in the FFL's bound book.

If, on the other hand, one does not meet the criteria to be an FFL, and sells guns as a private person from his private collection, he's not required to do a background check; indeed, he's unable to do so because he's not authorized to use the NICS system.

This is current Federal law, unchanged by the president's EO – those not designated as FFL's aren't required to do a background checks.

You're the one who clearly isn't 'getting it,' otherwise you wouldn't be attempting to propagate these ridiculous lies concerning the EO.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“BTW, John Hinkley got his gun perfectly legally, did he not?”

BTW, his fails as a red herring fallacy.

It was never the original intent of the Federal law authorizing background checks to detect those without a felony conviction, or otherwise not designated a prohibited person.

Background checks were never presented as a 'panacea' for all gun crime and violence.

Background checks are successful in what they are intended to do: prevent prohibited persons from buying guns from licensed gun dealers.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Gramps has trouble that he is what he has done before.

Leave firearms along, gramps. That's not a cheap shot but only great advice for you.

We have firearms in our house. Wanna come see?

 

[Spoonman]

“BTW, John Hinkley got his gun perfectly legally, did he not?”

BTW, his fails as a red herring fallacy.

It was never the original intent of the Federal law authorizing background checks to detect those without a felony conviction, or otherwise not designated a prohibited person.

Background checks were never presented as a 'panacea' for all gun crime and violence.

Background checks are successful in what they are intended to do: prevent prohibited persons from buying guns from licensed gun dealers.

and when they fail there they get one on the black market. they're as easy to get as drugs

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

“BTW, John Hinkley got his gun perfectly legally, did he not?”

BTW, his fails as a red herring fallacy.

It was never the original intent of the Federal law authorizing background checks to detect those without a felony conviction, or otherwise not designated a prohibited person.

Background checks were never presented as a 'panacea' for all gun crime and violence.

Background checks are successful in what they are intended to do: prevent prohibited persons from buying guns from licensed gun dealers.

and when they fail there they get one on the black market. they're as easy to get as drugs

Liberals have never stepped outside of their safe space so they have no idea how things are in the real world.

For a couple hundred bucks I could have a gun & some drugs within 30 minutes of getting into downtown KC