I’m going to address some questions and comments that I imagine a certain conservative, gun-owning segment of the population has in mind.
Let’s start with the most important one.

Does Obama want my guns? I saw on Ted Cruz’s website that Obama wants my guns.
No. The president’s executive actions this week say nothing about collecting guns or even regulating what types of guns can be sold.
Ted Cruz, however, wants your angry/scared support.

What is he doing then?
The big thing he wants is background checks in more situations.
Some gun sellers aren’t licensed dealers, so they didn’t have to conduct checks. But they sell enough guns online or elsewhere that they probably should be considered a dealer and should have to do background checks.
This just makes sense. It’s weird how some folks don’t think two years of investigation is enough to let a refugee into the country but it’s fine that literally anyone can legally purchase a gun.

I’m a law-abiding citizen. Why should I be prevented from getting a gun?
What are you worried about? If you really are a law-abiding citizen, what are you afraid of a background check finding?
A background check may take a bit more time, but if you’re one of those “good guys with a gun,” the actual outcome of whether or not you can get a gun remains the same.

How is this going to prevent criminals from getting guns? They’re criminals, remember? They don’t care what’s legal.
It’s also weird how some folks bring up this argument against gun control laws, but not elsewhere. No one says, “Well, people are going to speed anyway, so why even have speed limits?”
Police pull over some fast drivers. Additional background checks will certainly complicate obtaining a gun for some lawbreakers, and maybe prevent it entirely for a few.
Meanwhile, everyone who’s legally clear to purchase a gun can still do so.
So what’s the harm in making an effort?

But guns aren’t even the problem.
Obama is also proposing $500 million for mental health care. Can we agree that will only help the situation?
And let’s remember how massive the federal budget is before we complain about a relatively small half billion dollars.

Isn’t this unconstitutional? I think this is an attack on the Second Amendment.
Let’s turn to the classic example of not being allowed to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. No one with his or her head on straight says that’s an attack on free speech; that’s just a logical limitation.
We have a free press, but of course a news outlet can be sued for libel. That’s a good thing.
The First Amendment isn’t a pass to say or print literally anything and claim protection.
Why would the Second Amendment be a free pass for all gun-related activities?

Is Obama allowed to do this? This feels like dictatorship.
Does it always feel like dictatorship when presidents take executive actions? If someone thinks that’s wielding too much power, I hope they dislike the actions all the time, not just when they’re made by a president they disagree with.
There can be questions about the exact boundaries of a president’s authority, but the concept isn’t illegal.

I just want to be mad.
Cool. Let’s be mad at Congress for doing nothing. Obama wouldn’t have needed to do anything if the legislative branch would do more than just talk.