No. There has been a steady dribble of propaganda re: Obama to keep the donations coming in. The Clintons, because of the AWB, are the target of visceral
hatred by many within the gun community. Hillary, as a Democrat would have been been perceived as an anti in any case, but she is a proven anti. From your typical NRA member’s point of view her election would have been an insult to their very way of life. The NRA would have beat their drums to death and had a massive river of cash donations flowing straight into their coffers. The GOP would have played along and made like they were all that was keeping the 2nd ammendment from being canceled. Obama has been, comparatively speaking, ignored by the gun lobby; mainly because whatever his personal opinions may be on the matter, he wasn’t willing to expend any political capital at all on enacting any new restrictions. The only times he’s signed anything, he actually eased restrictions.
Which the NRA knows. That’s why their executives swear up and down that he’s saving all the super-duper-anti-gun stuff for his second term. I’ll cite the absurd rhetoric if I need to, but I think you know it’s been out there. I can’t prove a counterfactual, but the NRA spent $2 million on lobbying in 2009, which was more than they had spent in any year since '98, and they ramped up their lobbying in 2010 and 2011 before cutting back this year. And that was without any major gun control legislation under consideration. They do not care that Obama is not a “proven” enemy. They only care about posturing and gun sales.
No, the NRA doesn’t give a wet crap about gun sales or posturing, either, as they don’t make a cent off either one. You, IIRC, are not pro-gun and it is evident that your mental image of the NRA is colored by that. I, on the other hand, am pro-gun and was a political activist on that topic for many years. I am a former life member of the NRA too. What the NRA cares about is maintaining the status quo and thereby their income stream. The NRA was, once upon a time, an organization that promoted gun safety and marksmanship. They transformed into a lobbying organization in the 1970’s. In the last 15 years or so, they morphed again, under LaPierre’s leadership, into a fundraising engine. They need for there to be guns out there for people to fear losing and they need a bogeyman to scare people that he wants their guns. Obama hasn’t cooperated on that account so they had to increase efforts, which is to say spending, to scare the rubes into opening their wallets.
I am pleased to know that your life is over.
I didn’t say they make money from them. I was suggesting something I thought was obvious: the NRA spouts apocalyptic rhetoric about gun grabs, gun sales go through the roof, and the companies that make guns give more money to the NRA. And yes, because NRA members are terrified, they also give more money. Rinse and repeat. As a wise fellow once put it:
What I’m saying is this: when crying wolf is your agenda, the presence of actual lupines is not particularly relevant. If you’re saying they are not really trying in regard to Obama, I don’t agree.
We could probably figure that out if you define your terms.
I think Hilary would have made BO her VP, both neutralising the internal opposition and grooming him for the Presidency in 2016 (q.v. Reagan / Bush).
I never said they haven’t used Obama to try to scam the rubes. My point is that what they’ve got from using him is trivial in comparison to what they would have had from Hillary. Let me try to explain it using fictional monsters: Obama is like The Creature From The Black Lagoon. Hillary is like 400-foot tall Mecha King Kong Anti-Christ. The NRA, which is good at exploiting fear moreso than causing it, would have blanketed their members with calls to arms i.e. solicited donations like a motherfucker. The rubes, who already hate and feat Hillary, would have been very receptive. Obama isn’t scary, they haven’t succeeded in making him scary, and I doubt he’s going to become scary in his second term. If you’d been a member of the NRA for as long as I have, and received the emails/snail mails/phone calls that I have over the years, you’d recognize that they’ve done little more than go through the motions in demonizing him. With Hillary in office, they’d have gone nuts.
Why? Bill pretended to go duck hunting. He signed some of the “assault weapon” legislation. Is that it, or do the rubes wives hate Hillary for not divorcing Bill? 
There was a perception at the time, actually fostered by the Clintons themselves to some extent, of Hillary as “co-president.” Hillary, alas, lacks Bill’s charm and personability. The rubes hated Bill as a liar and lecher, but they hated Hillary more as they believed her to have been the brains in that operation going back to when the Clintons were college students. Bill, I guess they considered an amoral tool. Hillary is an evil mastermind.
Oh, it’s totally wishful thinking. My basic thought process is that Hillary is smart and adapts to changing circumstances. I believe she would have understood the situation we were in and that the Bowles Simpson plan was necessary instead of wasting all of her political capital on PPACA and failed carbon trading legislation. The improved relations with the business community, improved economy, and re-election all follow from passing that necessary legislation. The foreign policy statement is that I essentially think Obama has done a very good overall job on foreign policy, and I can’t imagine Hillary doing much better. If anything, I think she might have been more aggressive in intervention in some of the MENA uprisings, which I personally would consider to be a mistake.