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

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

The Constitution is up for a vote, thank God.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

Funny how polls against Gay Marriage were never important.

Nor the 75% that opposes Obamacare.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

 

[KissMy]

Look at the question referring to on-line and gun shows. His EO had NOTHING to do with either one as background checks were already required!

You Lie! Obama's EO closes loopholes.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Obungle's EO is destined to get shot down as unconstitutional

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

You don't.

I don't care if 100% favor more gun control, our rights aren't controlled by opinion polls.

And you don't understand the 2d Amendment.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Look at the question referring to on-line and gun shows. His EO had NOTHING to do with either one as background checks were already required!

You Lie! Obama's EO closes loopholes.

Really? Would you care to explain exactly what loopholes it closes?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Look at the question referring to on-line and gun shows. His EO had NOTHING to do with either one as background checks were already required!

You Lie! Obama's EO closes loopholes.

There are no loopholes.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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

You don't.

I don't care if 100% favor more gun control, our rights aren't controlled by opinion polls.

And you don't understand the 2d Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment gives us the right own guns and that right can't be infringed. I understand it completely.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Look at the question referring to on-line and gun shows. His EO had NOTHING to do with either one as background checks were already required!

You Lie! Obama's EO closes loopholes.

That's why he's just talking about it and not signing it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supreme Court ultimately determines whether acts of government are un-Constitutional, and manifest as an unwarranted, illegal restriction of citizens' rights, including executive orders by the CE.

And until such time as the Supreme Court makes such a ruling, acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional (see US v. Morrison).

Errant, subjective partisan opinions from the right that a given EO or firearm regulatory measure is 'un-Constitutional' are just that: subjective, partisan, and wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

You don't.

I don't care if 100% favor more gun control, our rights aren't controlled by opinion polls.

And you don't understand the 2d Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment gives us the right own guns and that right can't be infringed. I understand it completely.

Obviously not.

The Second Amendment right is no different than any other right, it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government, where firearm regulatory measures determined to be Constitutional by the courts in no way manifest as an 'infringement.'

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

You don't.

I don't care if 100% favor more gun control, our rights aren't controlled by opinion polls.

And you don't understand the 2d Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment gives us the right own guns and that right can't be infringed. I understand it completely.

What you think "infringe" means is not in fact what it means.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

You don't.

I don't care if 100% favor more gun control, our rights aren't controlled by opinion polls.

No one ever said they were.

But your rights are subject to reasonable restrictions by government, consistent with Constitutional jurisprudence, including that of the Second Amendment.

And firearm regulatory measures advocated by the president have thus far been upheld as Constitutional, or presumed to be Constitutional absent being subject to judicial review.

 

[the_human_being]

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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

You don't.

I don't care if 100% favor more gun control, our rights aren't controlled by opinion polls.

No one ever said they were.

But your rights are subject to reasonable restrictions by government, consistent with Constitutional jurisprudence, including that of the Second Amendment.

And firearm regulatory measures advocated by the president have thus far been upheld as Constitutional, or presumed to be Constitutional absent being subject to judicial review.

That's why murder is illegal. Armed robbery is illegal. While I have the right to own a gun, I don't have the right to murder, or rob someone. There's your reasonable restriction.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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

You don't.

I don't care if 100% favor more gun control, our rights aren't controlled by opinion polls.

And you don't understand the 2d Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment gives us the right own guns and that right can't be infringed. I understand it completely.

What you think "infringe" means is not in fact what it means.

It means restrict, or limit.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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

You don't.

I don't care if 100% favor more gun control, our rights aren't controlled by opinion polls.

And you don't understand the 2d Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment gives us the right own guns and that right can't be infringed. I understand it completely.

Obviously not.

The Second Amendment right is no different than any other right, it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government, where firearm regulatory measures determined to be Constitutional by the courts in no way manifest as an 'infringement.'

Obama wants unreasonable restrictions.

 

[aaronleland]

Okay. I was talking with my brother about this on Team Speak.

All hard-hitting political discussions go down on Team Speak.

 

[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