A majority of Americans are extremist gun-grabbers who hate freedom.

[Direckshun]

So says WaPo/ABC poll:

Overall, 53 percent of the public carries a favorable impression of Obama’s proposals while 41 percent are opposed.

While the poll represents a first reaction to the president’s plan, views on it are surprisingly hardened already. Almost seven in 10 give the plan “strongly” favorable (38 percent) or strongly unfavorable ratings (31 percent).

And, partisans have closed ranks. Fully 76 percent of Democrats rate Obama’s proposals favorably, while nearly as many Republicans say the opposite (72 percent). Independents tilt positively toward the newly announced restrictions: 51 percent favorable and 44 percent unfavorable.

By contrast, a separate Post-ABC poll conducted before Obama’s announcement found Republicans overwhelmingly supporting — or no worse than evenly divided — on four central Obama proposals. Nearly nine in 10 Republicans in that survey supported requiring background checks at gun shows, 65 percent supported adding armed guards in schools and 59 percent supported a ban on high-capacity clips. Republicans’ least-liked current proposal — banning assault weapons — was opposed by a modest 51 to 45 percent margin.

One potential reason for Republicans’ rejection of the new proposals is principle. Obama unveiled a broad slate of new gun restrictions, and the vast majority of Republicans oppose stricter gun control laws (in general), according to a December Post-ABC poll. While polls found Republicans are open to specific gun control measures, they may be less open to a comprehensive approach.

Another possibility? It’s Obama.

Republicans’ sharp negative reaction to Obama’s gun control proposals symbolizes a paradox of presidential leadership in a hyper-partisan era.

And so says a particularly striking Gallup poll:

Given the chance to vote 'for' or 'against' each of nine key proposals included in President Obama's plan to reduce gun violence, Americans back all nine.

This is what you guys were saying all through the healthcare debate, right? That Obama was trying to impose something that Americans didn't want?

Well he is riding a wave of public opinion, now, if he wasn't already on this subject.

It's become a winner.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Based on an ABC poll????

You're such a ****ing tard anymore

A WaPo/ABC poll, eys.

And I don't think a guy who relies exclusively on conservative media is in any position to criticize polling firms outside of your favorable bubble. Your media choices of preference were leagues off in November.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

A WaPo/ABC poll, eys.

And I don't think a guy who relies exclusively on conservative media is in any position to criticize polling firms outside of your favorable bubble. Your media choices of preference were leagues off in November.

Just admit you are in love with Obama and want the Fed Gov to tell you hwo to tie your shoes, what to eat, how much to drink, etc

[HemiEd]

I have been a Republican for many years, and don't understand how anyone being objective, could be against back ground checks.

The only explanation could be total unilateral barriers IMO.

I sure don't have any desire or need to have an assault weapon, but that doesn't mean I even have a real understanding of the desire to own one that those enthusiasts have.

If they are qualified and pass the background check, leave them the **** alone.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

I have been a Republican for many years, and don't understand how anyone being objective, could be against back ground checks.

The only explanation could be total unilateral barriers IMO.

I sure don't have any desire or need to have an assault weapon, but that doesn't mean I even have a real understanding of the desire to own one that those enthusiasts have.

If they are qualified and pass the background check, leave them the **** alone.

Background checks are not the issue

[blaise]

Direcksun's full time job seems to be Obama campaigning.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by notorious

There is no reason to talk to you on this subject. You are a waste.

Shame, Obama. Making Republicans spontaneously, opportunistically change their mind against their will out of hyperpartisanship.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Shame, Obama. Making Republicans spontaneously, opportunistically change their mind against their will out of hyperpartisanship.

Kinda like Dems on SS??? Oh yea, oops..forgot about that , didn't ya??

You ****ing hack

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Just admit you are in love with Obama and want the Fed Gov to tell you hwo to tie your shoes, what to eat, how much to drink, etc

What?

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

What?

I guess if they don't tell you what to say you can't answer for yourself either???

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Kinda like Dems on SS??? Oh yea, oops..forgot about that , didn't ya??

You ****ing hack

I'm pretty sure there was never a majority among self-identified Democrats to support the privatization of social security.

Although I'm open to you proving me wrong, if you have anything at all to back that shit up.

[notorious]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Shame, Obama. Making Republicans spontaneously, opportunistically change their mind against their will out of hyperpartisanship.

No, I just don't want to lose any of my freedoms.


**** Republicans and **** you.

[fan4ever]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

Dude...you need to get a life.

Seriously.

I see everyone telling this guy this, but then I see how many participate in his threads

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Background checks are not the issue

My post intent went right over your head.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by petegz28

I guess if they don't tell you what to say you can't answer for yourself either???

Just trying to figure out how any of that little shitfit had to do with the OP.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by notorious

No, I just don't want to lose any of my freedoms.

When it comes to public order, you put everything on a spectrum between total freedom (i.e. chaos) and total order (i.e. Nazi Germany). We all exist between those spectrums on a variety of issues. Those two are mutually exclusive in almost every case. The more freedom you have, the less order the government can maintain, and the more order the government can maintain, the less freedom you have.

On the issue of arms, I'm guessing you don't want it to be legal for civilians out there to be in possession of grenade launchers. If that is in fact an accurate summation of your point of view, then you've given up a freedom to promote a degree of order.

It's the same thing with assault weapons.