• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Casper said:
And answer number 2 says 53% disagree with the way he is handling gun policy. Strange you picked the part you liked, darn links.
Click to expand...

Captain America said:
Glad you brought that up. I saw that poll thingy. When asked if they liked Obama's gun policy, the majority (slim) says no. But when you broke down the items in the policy by bullet point (pardon the pun,) the majority was in favor of them.

That is really weird.

That's like saying, "Yeah, we like bacon, eggs and toast but we hate breakfast."
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.

The "disagree" number may also contain those who believe gun control has not gone far enough.

We saw this apparent incongruity early-on with ObamaCare numbers. It turned out some not happy with it believed it should've gone farther (ex: single-payer).

But as another interesting anomaly, polls seem pretty consistent in claiming around 90+ of Americans desire to see background checks. If so, I wonder if the 67% supporting number, can allude to 23% not happy the measure was done by EO? Or perhaps there's a polling discrepancy?
 
TurtleDude said:
22 lr is the tough stuff still

if you are going to load for several cartridges the best press is a dillon 550

for a single pistol cartridge that you are going to stick with one recipe-the dillon square deal is the way to go

I can load 1000 380s for about 100 dollars. factory 380 would be about 280

here is the cost (the 375 dollar press has been paid off a year ago)


1000 Berry jacketed bullets-73 dollars

1000 CCI small pistol primers-26 dollars
3000 grains of winchester 231 powder (one load @ 3 grains of powder) 9 dollars

the brass I get free from the range where I shoot and I have collected tons of it over the years collecting 9 mm

I'd add an additional cost of about 2 dollars a thousand for the cost of tumbling media that I use to clean the brass
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info but Im not in the right place right now to reload maybe a few years down the road. I thought since most of my guns fire multiple calibers it would be easy to have ammo for them....Thanks Obama.
 
cpgrad08 said:
Thanks for the info but Im not in the right place right now to reload maybe a few years down the road. I thought since most of my guns fire multiple calibers it would be easy to have ammo for them....Thanks Obama.
Click to expand...

well if you get there drop me a PM-I have over 500K rounds of experience in loading pistol and shotgun ammo
 
TurtleDude said:
well if you get there drop me a PM-I have over 500K rounds of experience in loading pistol and shotgun ammo
Click to expand...

Maybe you should start your own brand: Turtledude Ammo, promise to make liberals run away.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Consider myself part of the majority here. The President has never looked stronger on this issue in my eyes but he is always a bit angry and annoyed. It could be because it had to come to this point, or it could be partly due to the fact that he truly cares about this issue and is trying to figure out the best way to raise awareness to these problems related to gun ownership and how people obtain guns. Although, the EO might not do much in the short term. It's fascinating watching him care so much about this issue. I truly believe the Newtown shootings really fundamentally affected the man and that ever since that day, he has been struggling, mentally. Trying to figure out some way to cope with it.

Newtown Shooting the Worst Day of His Presidency, Obama Says

Has Newtown changed Obama? | Tampa Bay Times
Click to expand...
I think this is possible, and we can't forget his experience working as a community organizer on the Southside. I'm sure that impacted him quite a bit, as he mentioned Chicago right after Newtown. Plus, Michelle is a Southsider along with her family. Many of her family members are still on the Southside, and she visits often, and he visits occasionally. So the gun-deaths of children is on the forefront of their minds, because it is inescapable in the African-American neighborhoods there. Many neighborhoods on the Westside are no better.
 
cpgrad08 said:
Maybe you should start your own brand: Turtledude Ammo, promise to make liberals run away.
Click to expand...

LOL, funny. I would say its ideal for use on hares. a friend of mine has a business that "remanufactures" ammo meaning they use industrial grade CAMDEX machines and they supply a chain of three (soon to be five) indoor ranges. they get the brass customers leave at the range and load them. I endorse his stuff and my son uses his 124 Grain 9mm in competition for "open" (race gun aka unlimited) steel division events. I don't like shooting lead reloads in a Compensated gun that has a C-More scope on it due to the fact lead bullets (which are easier on the barrel) tend to be a bit dirtier
 
TurtleDude said:
who cares-I wonder how many of them understand that the first law requiring background checks has done absolutely NOTHING in decreasing violent crime

and If I asked 1000 of those polled, what is the constitutional basis for what Obama has proposed, I doubt more than 2 could explain that those limited by law to INTRASTATE sales and who CANNOT receive firearms in INTER-STATE commerce are not properly subject to a FEDERAL LAW

what most don't explain is that holding the license allows you to deal in interstate commerce and once you do that you are subject to congressional regulation.
Click to expand...
To the bolded: You believe running background checks has not stopped anyone from committing a crime, TD?
 
ModerateGOP said:
Consider myself part of the majority here. The President has never looked stronger on this issue in my eyes but he is always a bit angry and annoyed. It could be because it had to come to this point, or it could be partly due to the fact that he truly cares about this issue and is trying to figure out the best way to raise awareness to these problems related to gun ownership and how people obtain guns. Although, the EO might not do much in the short term. It's fascinating watching him care so much about this issue. I truly believe the Newtown shootings really fundamentally affected the man and that ever since that day, he has been struggling, mentally. Trying to figure out some way to cope with it.

Newtown Shooting the Worst Day of His Presidency, Obama Says

Has Newtown changed Obama? | Tampa Bay Times
Click to expand...

part of being an effective pandering pimp is to make those you are pandering to believe you care.

Newtown is a red herring that pimps like Obama use because none of the laws involving infringements on our rights would have done squat to stop it.

I think what changed Obama was the fact that he was unable to use the blood of those children to screw over gun owners and the NRA on a federal level and that is what really bothered him. His Hero FDR was able to completely rape the constitution using a bunch of bootleggers killing other bootleggers and Obama couldn't get anything passed despite all those dead innocent children that he figured would be worth their weight in gold when it came to his ability to force more laws into place
 
Chomsky said:
To the bolded: You believe running background checks has not stopped anyone from committing a crime, TD?
Click to expand...

I believe what the Duke study has shown-that the millions we have spent on this scheme has not had any measurable impact on violent crime. and if we want to use the ONE CRIME, I am sure there are cases (they were documented on this board years ago) of people dying because the brady bill waiting period (which sunset when the instant check was put on line) prevented them from getting a gun before someone stalking them killed them

lots of people denied are later found to be legal gun buyers. A right delayed is a right denied. who pays all those wrongfully denied for their costs?
 
TurtleDude said:
part of being an effective pandering pimp is to make those you are pandering to believe you care.

Newtown is a red herring that pimps like Obama use because none of the laws involving infringements on our rights would have done squat to stop it.

I think what changed Obama was the fact that he was unable to use the blood of those children to screw over gun owners and the NRA on a federal level and that is what really bothered him. His Hero FDR was able to completely rape the constitution using a bunch of bootleggers killing other bootleggers and Obama couldn't get anything passed despite all those dead innocent children that he figured would be worth their weight in gold when it came to his ability to force more laws into place
Click to expand...

All I got from this offensive post was that you think our President is a pimp and you think he wants to use blood of children just to screw gun owners...Shows me you don't listen to anything the President ever says and just make up crap to fit your worldview.
 
ModerateGOP said:
All I got from this offensive post was that you think our President is a pimp and you think he wants to use blood of children just to screw gun owners...Shows me you don't listen to anything the President ever says and just make up crap to fit your worldview.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you really don't understand the issue at all.
 
ModerateGOP said:
All I got from this offensive post was that you think our President is a pimp and you think he wants to use blood of children just to screw gun owners...Shows me you don't listen to anything the President ever says and just make up crap to fit your worldview.
Click to expand...

exactly, that is how I see Obama the panderer. I listen to what he says and his disrespect for our constitution is disgusting. especially since he is educated in Constitutional law.
 
TurtleDude said:
I believe what the Duke study has shown-that the millions we have spent on this scheme has not had any measurable impact on violent crime. and if we want to use the ONE CRIME, I am sure there are cases (they were documented on this board years ago) of people dying because the brady bill waiting period (which sunset when the instant check was put on line) prevented them from getting a gun before someone stalking them killed them

lots of people denied are later found to be legal gun buyers. A right delayed is a right denied. who pays all those wrongfully denied for their costs?
Click to expand...
I would never hold you or anyone to the ONE INSTANCE standard. That's a BS argument.

I recently saw some numbers from the Washington Post showing >2M gun purchases were denied over the last 20 years, with >1M being to felons. So it would seem to me if 1M felons were denied guns, there had to be some percentage that were prevented from committing a crime at that moment, even if a moderate number. But with uneven laws, those guys could hop right over the border from where I live and buy in a less stringent state. And the city butts right up to the border.

The problem that I see with BGCs, is unless they're done consistently and uniformly at a national level, they'll never work due to illegal importation from other states and locals.

I won't argue with you on the waiting periods; I'd like to see immediate BGCs. I can't think of why we can't do this.
 
Henrin said:
People need to spend more time respecting the freedom of others and less time being scared of inanimate objects.
Click to expand...

...so, we should not be obsessing so much over ISIS and Islamic Terrorists, eh?
 
upsideguy said:
...so, we should not be obsessing so much over ISIS and Islamic Terrorists, eh?
Click to expand...

:roll: You're comparing people that have stated and acted upon their intent to kill innocents with an inanimate object that can't do anything by itself.
 
Chomsky said:
I would never hold you or anyone to the ONE INSTANCE standard. That's a BS argument.

I recently saw some numbers from the Washington Post showing >2M gun purchases were denied over the last 20 years, with >1M being to felons. So it would seem to me if 1M felons were denied guns, there had to be some percentage that were prevented from committing a crime at that moment, even if a moderate number. But with uneven laws, those guys could hop right over the border from where I live and buy in a less stringent state. And the city butts right up to the border.

The problem that I see with BGCs, is unless they're done consistently and uniformly at a national level, they'll never work due to illegal importation from other states and locals.

I won't argue with you on the waiting periods; I'd like to see immediate BGCs. I can't think of why we can't do this.
Click to expand...

unless these felons were prosecuted for lying on the form (if you admit you are a felon no check is even done-you are denied summarily by the clerk) and then incarcerated, how can you know they were actually denied ultimately getting a gun

Once again

if they were guys who didn't think they had a record (like a 30 year old drug bust for weed possession) and weren't intent on getting a gun to rob or kill, denying them a legal purchase probably didn't do squat in terms of public safety

if they were hard core scum bags wanting to kill or rob-do you really think being turned down at JOE'S WORLD OF FIREARMS means they stopped looking>

you do know its illegal to buy a handgun in another state no matter if you do a background check

Later BB tomorrow
 
Captain Adverse said:
That's because 67% of those Americans (1,027) polled have been convinced to think background checks have real value.

I have no faith in statistics. I simply don't believe that calling a little over 1000 people truly represents public opinion for 300 million people.

In any case I am one of those who think otherwise. :coffeepap:

By the way, this "poll" also showed:

54% Oppose executive action.
57% Changes will NOT be effective.
Click to expand...

Lol no faith in statistics ?

And you use your faith to reason, do you ?
 
TurtleDude said:
unless these felons were prosecuted for lying on the form (if you admit you are a felon no check is even done-you are denied summarily by the clerk) and then incarcerated, how can you know they were actually denied ultimately getting a gun

Once again

if they were guys who didn't think they had a record (like a 30 year old drug bust for weed possession) and weren't intent on getting a gun to rob or kill, denying them a legal purchase probably didn't do squat in terms of public safety

if they were hard core scum bags wanting to kill or rob-do you really think being turned down at JOE'S WORLD OF FIREARMS means they stopped looking>

you do know its illegal to buy a handgun in another state no matter if you do a background check

Later BB tomorrow
Click to expand...

You don't have to prove "they were always prevented from getting a gun." All we have to show is that the state didn't let them legally buy a gun. Why do you want to arm violent criminals ?

Further, they've made arrests ON THE SPOT.

Do you have to have proof that speed limits save lives to pass speed limits ? Do you need proof that the drinking age should be 21 to make that the law ?

Why should any measure with >80% public support need any more approval ? That's completely ridiculous.
 
I would like to go one day without hearing some lefty talk about how guns are the root of all evil, or some righty talking about how guns are more important than anything. Just one day.

I just don't care about guns.
 
Kobie said:
I would like to go one day without hearing some lefty talk about how guns are the root of all evil, or some righty talking about how guns are more important than anything. Just one day.

I just don't care about guns.
Click to expand...

Fairly easy to do. Just don't come into threads concerning guns and a significant part of your stated desire will be met. :cool:
 
Chomsky said:
...But as another interesting anomaly, polls seem pretty consistent in claiming around 90+ of Americans desire to see background checks. If so, I wonder if the 67% supporting number, can allude to 23% not happy the measure was done by EO? Or perhaps there's a polling discrepancy?
Click to expand...

I agree that it appears many Americans, both gun control and gun rights supporters, seem to think background checks are a good idea.

When it comes to gun control advocates it's because many honestly think this is a good preventative measure that may help in some way to reduce criminal use of guns.

When it comes to gun control advocates, I believe its because they have bought into this theory and don't expect the restrictions to ever apply to them.

I have several problems with background checks. First the fact that historically similar steps have been used to disarm large segments of populations. Second, while it was sold as a rational restriction to prevent violent criminals and the insane from access to guns (at least that's how I seem to remember it being advertised way back when), once in Congress it was expanded. There are NINE current categories, only two of which deal with convicted felons and the insane. Even the convicted felons is not limited to violent or repeat offenders but anyone convicted of a felony or any crime a judge can sentence to prison for more than one year.

There is the drug use/addiction restriction. Does not require a conviction. There is the Dishonorable Discharge restriction. Many UCMJ charges have no civilian equivalents (like AWOL). There is the restraining order restriction. Occurs many times in messy divorces. There is the renouncing of citizenship restriction. Why would this eliminate a right to buy a gun? There is the under indictment restriction. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

The concern I have with the felony conviction restriction is that we have 65 million citizens with criminal records, a sizeable number of those have some felony conviction or other. There is already a problem with trying to re-integrate after a criminal conviction because of difficulty getting jobs, renting an apartment or buying a home, voting in some States. Why should person who has done the time for a crime suffer additional limits on liberties and rights forever-after because most can only regain rights via the almost impossible to obtain Governor's pardon?

Still, the biggest problem I have, is that the limits can always be amended to include more and more classes of people. To administratively deprive citizens of the right to keep and bear arms by cutting off access to purchases. What good is a right if you have no way to exercise it?
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
I agree that it appears many Americans, both gun control and gun rights supporters, seem to think background checks are a good idea.

When it comes to gun control advocates it's because many honestly think this is a good preventative measure that may help in some way to reduce criminal use of guns.

When it comes to gun control advocates, I believe its because they have bought into this theory and don't expect the restrictions to ever apply to them.

I have several problems with background checks. First the fact that historically similar steps have been used to disarm large segments of populations. Second, while it was sold as a rational restriction to prevent violent criminals and the insane from access to guns (at least that's how I seem to remember it being advertised way back when), once in Congress it was expanded. There are NINE current categories, only two of which deal with convicted felons and the insane. Even the convicted felons is not limited to violent or repeat offenders but anyone convicted of a felony or any crime a judge can sentence to prison for more than one year.

There is the drug use/addiction restriction. Does not require a conviction. There is the Dishonorable Discharge restriction. Many UCMJ charges have no civilian equivalents (like AWOL). There is the restraining order restriction. Occurs many times in messy divorces. There is the renouncing of citizenship restriction. Why would this eliminate a right to buy a gun? There is the under indictment restriction. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

The concern I have with the felony conviction restriction is that we have 65 million citizens with criminal records, a sizeable number of those have some felony conviction or other. There is already a problem with trying to re-integrate after a criminal conviction because of difficulty getting jobs, renting an apartment or buying a home, voting in some States. Why should person who has done the time for a crime suffer additional limits on liberties and rights forever-after because most can only regain rights via the almost impossible to obtain Governor's pardon?

Still, the biggest problem I have, is that the limits can always be amended to include more and more classes of people. To administratively deprive citizens of the right to keep and bear arms by cutting off access to purchases. What good is a right if you have no way to exercise it?
Click to expand...
Good arguments, Captain.

But I'm most impressed with the way you have all the restrictions nicely enumerated.

I wouldn't doubt this could be a useful 'sticky' somewhere.
 
cpgrad08 said:
Thanks for the info but Im not in the right place right now to reload maybe a few years down the road. I thought since most of my guns fire multiple calibers it would be easy to have ammo for them....Thanks Obama.
Click to expand...

I have gone to matched weapons...carbine rifles in .40 and glock .40s. I have a few Ruger ranch rifles in .223 and a ton of 22 LR and Magnum rounds. Ive got some .45 and a few weapons chambered in .45 but I have been talking to some folks about trading for another .40 glock and carbine. I am very well stocked on .40 ammo. Keeping it simple...lots of backups of the same type weapon. They all share magazines.
 
Captain America said:
Glad you brought that up. I saw that poll thingy. When asked if they liked Obama's gun policy, the majority (slim) says no. But when you broke down the items in the policy by bullet point (pardon the pun,) the majority was in favor of them.

That is really weird.

That's like saying, "Yeah, we like bacon, eggs and toast but we hate breakfast."
Click to expand...

The sad truth is that most Americans do not really research policies in depth before saying they support or oppose.

Or they get tied on the title or broad concept of a proposed law or regulation, and look at you with disdain as a "rules lawyer" if you try to explain how the nuances will affect them.

It's like when I see extremist of either political side complaining about a certain law or the county budget or whatever it is, and how angry they are over how it was done, and yet they never sat in at the committee hearings, they have no idea how tough it actually is to be a legislator.

Someone I know who used to be on a school board, said they routinely receive complaints about how the school board members were overpaid (School district board members receive $15 a meeting for two meetings a month)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom