Obama likely to ban semi-automatic weapons if elected??

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@SenorBeef

There’s a lot of truth to this. It comes from the “my side right or wrong” mentality of American politics. Everyone blindly supports and defends anything “their side” says or does, and demonizes everything the opposing side says or does, pretty much regardless of their own principles.

So when republicans push gun control legislation, gun owners say “well… uh… it’d be worse if it was a democrat” as if getting screwed by your own side somehow made things better. People, even on a fairly smart board like this one, think in such absurd degrees in terms of party lines that they don’t even think in terms of their own views on the issues, but spout party lines at each other.

It’s disgusting and it hurts us all. It’s what’s allowed, for instance, “conservative” republicans to expand the government at the greatest rate since FDR - conservative people realize that governmental expansion conflicts with their beliefs, but it’s what their party is doing, and their party is right no matter what, so they support it.

This way of thinking is so deeply entrenched that it allows parties to screw over their constituency without consequences. Republicans can expand the government and ban guns, and their constituents will accept it even though if the other side did it they’d fight tooth and nail.

Ultimately, both sides look to expand government size and power just in slightly different ways. People view democrats and republicans as diametric opposites when they’re really pretty similar. But it’s that blind loyalty/opposition mentality combined with vitriolic hostility that allows government to take and take and take from its citizenry and never give back.

And for that reason it might be more dangerous for gun rights for a republican to be in office - although either side controlling the presidency and the legislature is probably the most dangerous thing. Gridlock is the best we can hope for.

Great post…sadly, too true.
I hope whomever gets elected POTUS (and I’m really thinking that it’s going to be Obama or McCain) can work towards bridging this divide and getting some sane governance happening that’s good for America.

[Nars_Glinley]

@E-Sabbath

His current opinion on matters:

@Obama at the debate

Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?

A: I don’t think that we can get that done. /snip

I think that’s a fairly enlightened stance to take.

As a gun owner, I’d feel much more comfortable with his position if he had said, “We don’t want to do that.” instead of the answer that he gave.

[E-Sabbath]

Yeah, KRM, but for a democratic, inner-city sort, it’s about as good as we’ll get. Again, at least he’s honest about it.

[Triskadecamus]

@levdrakon

So what you’re all saying is he was pro-automatic weapons ban but now he’s not? He wiffle-waffles and doesn’t have the political courage to take a firm stance on a contentious and important issue?

Or perhaps he is aware that his opinion is not the opinion of a majority of Americans, and therefore does not feel it useful to attempt to impose it upon them.

Of course your characterization will get more right wing-nut votes mobilized.

Tris

[levdrakon]

@Triskadecamus

Or perhaps he is aware that his opinion is not the opinion of a majority of Americans, and therefore does not feel it useful to attempt to impose it upon them.

Of course your characterization will get more right wing-nut votes mobilized.

Tris

Yeah but my point is if a Clinton so much as combs her hair differently she’s a lying scumbag bitch and if Obama or a Republican slaps a baby on camera it’s “debatable,” or “probably being taken out of context or misinterpreted.” I just get queazy and nauseated at the standards the Clintons are held to but not other candidates.