Massive support

Most Americans Agree With Obama That More Gun Buyers Should Get Background Checks



When President Obama announces today — a little over a month after 14 people died in a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California — that he is bypassing Congress with executive actions to tighten access to guns, he will lead with a measure that strengthens an astonishingly, consistently, overwhelmingly popular government policy: background checks for would-be gun buyers.

In dozens of polls over the past two decades, Americans have been asked if they support expanding background checks for the purchase of firearms. Background checks are run to prevent sales to people who have been convicted of certain crimes, who are running from the law or who otherwise have been banned from buying guns for a variety of other reasons. The specifics of the question have varied — sometimes asking about the Brady Bill, the 1993 law that required background checks for purchases from licensed dealers; sometimes about circumstances for which federal law doesn’t currently require checks, such as sales from unlicensed sellers or of ammunition. Consistently, at least 70 percent of Americans said they favor background checks. Often, far more do. In October, a CBS News/New York Times poll found that 92 percent of Americans — including 87 percent of Republicans — favor background checks for all gun buyers.

Without much hope of getting a gun-control measure through Congress (a Democratic-controlled Senate couldn’t muster enough support to prevent a filibuster of a proposed expansion of background checks in 2013, a few months after the Newtown school shooting), Obama isn’t proposing anything as extensive as the kinds of background checks Americans have been polled about. According to a fact sheet released Monday evening by the White House, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives plans to clarify — and in many cases expand — the definition of being “engaged in the business” of selling guns, which is the criterion that determines whether a seller must get a federal license and, therefore, must check the backgrounds of would-be buyers.

Thousands of guns are available for sale over the Internet to buyers who do not have to undergo background checks, because the sellers are not considered regular dealers. Under the White House plan, people who sell only at gun shows or exclusively online might need to be licensed, and “there is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement,” according to the fact sheet. (Possible criteria for what would trigger the requirement were proposed in reports last fall by the pro-gun-control groups Everytown for Gun Safety and the Center for American Progress; opponents of gun control have promised to sue to block the executive action.)

The White House also is proposing other measures to curb gun violence, such as stepping up enforcement of existing laws and increasing state reporting into the background-check system of people with mental-health issues that prohibit them from buying guns. But expanding background checks is the lead item in the White House’s blog post on Obama’s executive actions, in its fact sheet, in Obama’s tweet summarizing his actions and in several news articles.

The popularity of background checks transcends age, political party, gender, education and even gun ownership. Last month, Quinnipiac University asked Americans whether they support a law requiring background checks for sales at gun shows or online. At least 84 percent of every one of 15 subgroups — including Republicans, men, gun owners and people living in rural areas — said “yes.”

bialikchecks1.png



“It’s very hard in our partisan environment to find anything that 80 percent to 90 percent of people support,” Arkadi Gerney, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who formerly ran former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, said in a telephone interview Monday.

So how can Jennifer Baker, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, have been right when she said on Saturday, in a pre-emptive response to the forthcoming White House measures, that “the majority of Americans oppose more gun control”? (The NRA didn’t immediately respond to our request for comment Monday evening.) Because Americans’ responses to polls on guns aren’t always internally consistent. For instance, in that same Quinnipiac poll last month, half of respondents said they oppose stricter gun laws in the U.S. — meaning that a significant proportion of people who said they backed a law requiring background checks said they oppose stricter gun laws.

That’s partly because stricter gun laws could include a wide range of measures, some far less popular than background checks. For instance, since 1959, Gallup has asked whether people think there should be a law banning possession of handguns except by police and other authorized persons. Although 60 percent of people said “yes” when the question was first asked and at least 40 percent agreed in most subsequent polls until passage of the Brady Bill in 1993, lately just a quarter of respondents back a total ban.

screen-shot-2016-01-05-at-8-59-11-am.png



No major party or official is calling for a total handgun ban today, but even some more limited measures that once enjoyed broad support now bitterly divide voters. From just before the assault-weapon ban was enacted in 1994 until soon after its expiration in 2004, it consistently drew support of 60 percent of Americans or more. Lately, though, its popularity has declined — so much so that more Americans opposed it than supported it in two December polls.

Summarize all the conflicting views on gun control into one question, as the Pew Research Center has done, and you find a nation evenly split since 2010. Since 1993, Pew has asked the following question: “What do you think is more important — to protect the right of Americans to own guns or to control gun ownership?”

bialikchecks3.png


Maybe that’s one reason background checks are so popular, including among gun owners: They’re seen as a way to control gun ownership and to protect the rights of most Americans — those Americans who pass the checks — to own guns.

“If a policy is around keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people, almost everyone agrees with that,” Gerney said.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...gun-buyers-should-get-background-checks/#fn-1

Truth is asking people wether they support or oppose gun control is stupid. Because gun-control is too vague. Asking people wether they support or oppose gun control is like asking them "Do you want absolutely anyone to have access to any gun or do you want guns to be outlawed for absolutely everyone ?". Doesn't make any sense 'cause both answers are stupid.
But when you ask people wether they support a specific aspect of gun-control (mandatory background-checks, open-carry, conceal-carry, automatic rifle ban, high capacity magasine ban, armor-piuecing ammos ban, etc.), then you have interesting results ; the kind of results the government can base his gun policy on.

When more than 85% of the people support a policy, a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" has a moral duty to implement a bill about it.
 
Those sources are suspect. Nate Silver another 538'er has even had to walk back his Trump prognostication. Center For Progress bwahahaha. France is lovely this time of year, yes?

I got your gun control right here.
 

This is the CNN poll Breitbart is using : http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/obama-guns-executive-action-poll-results/index.html

It is true, when asked "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling gun policy?", 55% of the people answered no.

But I suggest you go to question 3, 3a and 3b (page 9 and 10), you'll se that, when asked about background checks, 67% of the poeple say the approve them (43% strongly, 23% moderately) them.

67% people approve background checks but 55% oppose Obama's executive order on backgrouind checks ; This may seem contradictory but it's not : People want background checks but they want congress to pass a bill about it. They want the poeple they elected to represented them in the Sena and the House to pass the bills they are asking for.
The probem is congressmen are NRA sold-outs, they fear that, if they pass such a bill, if they vote it, they can kiss their NRA campaign-financing goodbye...

In the end, as usual, it all comes from the fact that, due to corporate and lobby campaign-financing, politicians care more about pleasing their sponsors than their voters.
 
Last time in Paris
Last time in Paris
Last time in Paris was strange
Last time in Paris
Last time in Paris
Last time in Paris was strange
 
This is the CNN poll Breitbart is using : http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/obama-guns-executive-action-poll-results/index.html

It is true, when asked "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling gun policy?", 55% of the people answered no.

But I suggest you go to question 3, 3a and 3b (page 9 and 10), you'll se that, when asked about background checks, 67% of the poeple say the approve them (43% strongly, 23% moderately) them.

67% people approve background checks but 55% oppose Obama's executive order on backgrouind checks ; This may seem contradictory but it's not : People want background checks but they want congress to pass a bill about it. They want the poeple they elected to represented them in the Sena and the House to pass the bills they are asking for.
The probem is congressmen are NRA sold-outs, they fear that, if they pass such a bill, if they vote it, they can kiss their NRA campaign-financing goodbye...

In the end, as usual, it all comes from the fact that, due to corporate and lobby campaign-financing, politicians care more about pleasing their sponsors than their voters.

There are lies
There are white lies
Then there are statistics....
Remember mitt thought he was going to win in a landslide.
Obama is just doing the only thing he can and seeing if it holds. Congress?!? Those diluted SOB's can't agree on anything.
Let alone actually do something.
 
There are lies
There are white lies
Then there are statistics....
Remember mitt thought he was going to win in a landslide.
Obama is just doing the only thing he can and seeing if it holds. Congress?!? Those diluted SOB's can't agree on anything.
Let alone actually do something.

Obama has only had to issue 5 vetoes. A historically low number for a two term president. Yeah, the Republicans have stood in his way constantly. Einstein.
 
Obama has only had to issue 5 vetoes. A historically low number for a two term president. Yeah, the Republicans have stood in his way constantly. Einstein.

And the pope has a huge monkey army ready to come take our guns and give em to ISIS so that they can win the war against Christmas.....
This is were you yell Bengahzi.....
 
Obama has only had to issue 5 vetoes. A historically low number for a two term president. Yeah, the Republicans have stood in his way constantly. Einstein.
And still conservatives are calling him a dictator

By the way, issuing a veto isn't how President bypasses political opponents standing in his way, it's how he stands in the way of these opponents. Obama stood in the way of his republicans only 5 times, historicaly low number for a two term president, yet republicans call him a leftist
dictator.

But how many times those same republicans have been stood in his way ? How many times have they tried to repeal Obamacare ?

Truth is Obama rarely stands in the way of Republicans but Republicans constantly stand in his way. And still some dare to call Obama a dictator...
 
And still conservatives are calling him a dictator

By the way, issuing a veto isn't how President bypasses political opponents standing in his way, it's how he stands in the way of these opponents. Obama stood in the way of his republicans only 5 times, historicaly low number for a two term president, yet republicans call him a leftist
dictator.

But how many times those same republicans have been stood in his way ? How many times have they tried to repeal Obamacare ?

Truth is Obama rarely stands in the way of Republicans but Republicans constantly stand in his way. And still some dare to call Obama a dictator...

So you are going to give me an education on how our government works and the process of the three branches of American government? I wish you would have notified me earlier. It could have saved me about 150,000 dollars in student loans.
Look you moron, no president has utilized executive orders in the way this president has.

None!
 
Facts, moron, facts and datas.
Obama is the president who issued the less executive orders since Grower Cleveland, whose mandate endend 125 years ago !
 
Facts, moron, facts and datas.
Obama is the president who issued the less executive orders since Grower Cleveland, whose mandate endend 125 years ago !

You dipshit, it is not the amount of executive orders, it is the manner in which they were utilized. Of which, Obama has chosen to circumvent the legislative process.

You are simply a simple minded fool who has no understanding of the nuances and the actual processes of American government. But keep spouting off. Your ignorance is on full display with each and every post you make.
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Obama is the president who issued the less executive orders since Grower Cleveland, whose mandate endend 125 years ago !

I only point this out for clarification: Obama has used presidential memoranda more often than executive orders. But presidential memoranda carry the same legal force as executive orders. He has used presidential memoranda more often than any President in U.S. history, according to the piece that I read last year.

As for expanding background checks, in general terms, I have no problem with that. But as with any broad policy measure, it comes down to the nuts and bolts of implementation. I haven't read the specifics of what Obama has proposed here. But in the case of private sellers, I would be curious to know what mechanism is available to them to do background checks, that would satisfy this order?

Another issue that I've mentioned many times before here: why has the Obama administration continued to be so lax on enforcing existing federal firearms laws? Just a couple of days ago, I watched a piece on drugs and guns being imported into the U.S. by the Sinaloa cartel... specifically into Phoenix, AZ. The narrative that Eric Holder used to spin was that guns were being exported from the U.S. into Mexico by American straw buyers, as drugs were being imported into the U.S. from Mexico. And while that may be true to some degree, when speaking about average pistols or semi-auto rifles, in the case of actual select fire or fully automatic, post-1986, military grade weapons, those are not available in the United States (not to straw buyers of any stripe). Even most people in the U.S. who are avid gun aficionados have never seen nor held a select fire weapon made after 1986, unless they've been in the military or are members of a police agency. So apart from the domestic street gangs and the criminal element who make up the largest percentage of gun violence in the U.S., why has this administration continued to go so light on the cartels that are making American cities bastions of violence and hopelessness for the residents? In the show that I watched, I saw a late version M-16 with a grenade launcher. I saw a Mini Uzi. I saw an MP-5 that looked to be post-1986. These people have billions of dollars at their disposal. They don't need to buy the good stuff here (since you can't anyway). They buy military grade weapons from international arms dealers and take them into the markets where they do business - and do it while they're laundering their stacks of cash through the international banking system. Personally, I find that just as, if not more troubling, than making sure that Average Joe, the gun collector, files the right paperwork before selling off his collection of shotguns and single action pistols.

The Obama administration (along with Bush and Clinton before him) has gone light & easy on money laundering. So, it doesn't surprise me that this is all he's come up with on gun related violence in the U.S. I guess this will make his base feel good, even if it doesn't really address the problem... which I, for one, would like to see addressed.
 
Memorandum and executive orders are essentially the same. If John Boehnor had any balls ( which he didn't) he would have carried through with his threat to sue the president for his abuse of the pen. His use of memorandum does not receive much press because they are directed at departments and agencies, whereas executive orders address specific agenda that he either does not have the stomach to fight for, or he knows he will not win through legislation.
 
Memorandum and executive orders are essentially the same. If John Boehnor had any balls ( which he didn't) he would have carried through with his threat to sue the president for his abuse of the pen. His use of memorandum does not receive much press because they are directed at departments and agencies, whereas executive orders address specific agenda that he either does not have the stomach to fight for, or he knows he will not win through legislation.

As Obama smugly stated, "elections have consequences."

If a republican wins the white house in 2016 I expect them to use the same dismissive while abusing the shit outta that pen.

yeah right.

It's not gonna happen because republicans are a bunch of pussies. Except one or maybe two.

Can the republicans please have a shit bag obstructionist like Harry Reid and an ideoligical speaker like Pelosi if or when they gain control of the presidency and congress again?
 
Can the republicans please have a shit bag obstructionist like Harry Reid and an ideoligical speaker like Pelosi if or when they gain control of the presidency and congress again?


Talk about obstructionism...
 
Top