# Was Bush or Obama a better president for pro-gun people? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 5, 2016, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855 "2016-08-05T17:04:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/61 "2016-08-13T04:56:34Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t think people generally are getting “he’s gonna take away _ALL_ our guns” from that. I think it’s a straw man argument that you and others have made up. I believe that most RKBA folks believe BHO and HRC want to ban the purchase of _some_ guns. You might not believe it yourself, but I don’t think you’ve been paying attention. I refer you back to the link in post 38: “CNN conducted two surveys of gun owners in 2013 on this question. In January of that year, a narrow majority of gun owners – 53 percent – said they felt the federal government was trying to take away their right to own a firearm. In April – after Obama and Vice President Biden had spent several months fruitlessly trying to convince Congress to expand the background-check program – that figure had increased to 62 percent.” So, how did 62 percent of gun owners–that would be roughly 60 million of them–come to believe a fantasy in which the feds are trying to take away their right to own a firearm? ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/62 "2016-08-13T05:44:14Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > You might not believe it yourself, but I don’t think you’ve been paying attention. I refer you back to the link in post 38: > > “CNN conducted two surveys of gun owners in 2013 on this question. In January of that year, a narrow majority of gun owners – 53 percent – said they felt the federal government was trying to take away their right to own a firearm. In April – after Obama and Vice President Biden had spent several months fruitlessly trying to convince Congress to expand the background-check program – that figure had increased to 62 percent.” > > So, how did 62 percent of gun owners–that would be roughly 60 million of them–come to believe a fantasy in which the feds are trying to take away their right to own a firearm? Easy, Sandy Hook just happened. Between 12/14/12 and the survey you cite, Americans were treated to politician after politician stating that they would stand up and do something about gun violence. Schumer, Feinstein, Biden, Obama and countless others were on the TV and internet threatening executive orders, introducing sweeping legislation, and generally making threats that they knew they could not implement. The public, especially the gun owning public fell for it hook line and sinker. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/63 "2016-08-13T05:59:55Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > I’m talking about the belief that Obama wants to take away all your guns and wipe out the Second Amendment. If you personally don’t believe that, good for you, but I don’t see what Obama’s supposed political motivations or the failure to ban handguns has to do with that belief. I don’t believe that he wants to ban all guns. He wants to ban some guns. His failure to attempt to ban handguns has nothing to do with that. I was simply making the point that if he or Clinton were serious about actually solving problems, they would go after handguns. Since they do not, it is my belief and one shared by many including several in this thread that their attack on AW’s is nothing more than political theater. Once again, relating back to the OP, that makes him a bad President for gun owners. I hope I made it clear. ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/64 "2016-08-13T17:53:04Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > I don’t believe that he wants to ban all guns. He wants to ban some guns. > > His failure to attempt to ban handguns has nothing to do with that. > > I was simply making the point that if he or Clinton were serious about actually solving problems, they would go after handguns. Since they do not, it is my belief and one shared by many including several in this thread that their attack on AW’s is nothing more than political theater. Once again, relating back to the OP, that makes him a bad President for gun owners. > > I hope I made it clear. Okay, understood now. Finally.:o > [@JXJohns](#): > > Easy, Sandy Hook just happened. Between 12/14/12 and the survey you cite, Americans were treated to politician after politician stating that they would stand up and do something about gun violence. Schumer, Feinstein, Biden, Obama and countless others were on the TV and internet threatening executive orders, introducing sweeping legislation, and generally making threats that they knew they could not implement. The public, especially the gun owning public fell for it hook line and sinker. The number might not be 62 percent today, but it isn’t a miniscule figure. Whatever it is now, I don’t think it can be pinned on Dem pols from a few years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/65 "2016-08-13T18:13:31Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > It’s one of those dog whistles I hear tell about. Just like when Republicans say ‘I oppose him based on policy issues’ they _really_ mean ‘I hate that n\*gger’. In the same way, when Obama says he supports the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, he is _really_ saying that he will nominate [justices](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/29/stephen-halbrook-merrick-garland-and-the-second-am/) for the Supreme Court who oppose the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. > > It means different things to different audiences. Thanks for chiming in. You sound like just the kind of guy I’d like to hear from. How does Merrick Garland’s rulings on a couple of regulations mean he opposes the right of individuals to bear arms? Bonus question: Why does the writer in your link refer to those regulations as a power grab? The government makes all kinds of laws and regulations about everything. Are they all power grabs? ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2016, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/66 "2016-08-14T02:33:29Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > Okay, understood now. Finally.:o > > The number might not be 62 percent today, but it isn’t a miniscule figure. Whatever it is now, I don’t think it can be pinned on Dem pols from a few years ago. All I can say is that the same pols are still in their respective offices and they have not changed their attitudes. If one thought their rights were at risk after Sandy Hook, it seems that little has changed to make then think otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2016, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/67 "2016-08-14T16:00:16Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > It’s one of those dog whistles I hear tell about. Just like when Republicans say ‘I oppose him based on policy issues’ they _really_ mean ‘I hate that n\*gger’. In the same way, when Obama says he supports the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, he is _really_ saying that he will nominate [justices](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/29/stephen-halbrook-merrick-garland-and-the-second-am/) for the Supreme Court who oppose the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. > > It means different things to different audiences. > > Regards, > Shodan > [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > Thanks for chiming in. You sound like just the kind of guy I’d like to hear from. > > How does Merrick Garland’s rulings on a couple of regulations mean he opposes the right of individuals to bear arms? > > Bonus question: Why does the writer in your link refer to those regulations as a power grab? The government makes all kinds of laws and regulations about everything. Are they all power grabs? Whoooosh. While I’m here, I have a question for the gallery: If AWBs are pointless because the features that define an assault weapon are merely cosmetic\*, then why is it so important to defend them? \*I assume criticism of banning weapons “based on the way they look” is equivalent to this objection. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2016, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/68 "2016-08-14T16:30:21Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > You might not believe it yourself, but I don’t think you’ve been paying attention. I refer you back to the link in post 38: > > “CNN conducted two surveys of gun owners in 2013 on this question. In January of that year, a narrow majority of gun owners – 53 percent – said they felt the federal government was trying to take away their right to own a firearm. In April – after Obama and Vice President Biden had spent several months fruitlessly trying to convince Congress to expand the background-check program – that figure had increased to 62 percent.” > > So, how did 62 percent of gun owners–that would be roughly 60 million of them–come to believe a fantasy in which the feds are trying to take away their right to own a firearm? Your link doesn’t appear to provide the actual question CNN asked in their poll. If it was something like “Is BHO trying to take away your right to own a firearm?” I could see lots of people feeling that “yes” was closer to the truth than “no”. It’s clear that BHO (and HRC) would like to seriously restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Using the word “fantasy” and your earlier claim that “There isn’t an ounce of truth in it” seem out of touch with the reality of the situation. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2016, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/69 "2016-08-14T16:33:02Z")
> [@Nametag](#): > > If AWBs are pointless because the features that define an assault weapon are merely cosmetic\*, then why is it so important to defend them? I think of it like this: if politicians wanted to ban all red cars, and you were a red car owner, would you sit by and let it happen? Being red isn’t a necessary component of having a working car. It would work fine if you repainted it blue, but your car happens to be red, and there’s no rational reason for banning red cars. ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2016, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/70 "2016-08-14T20:49:15Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > All I can say is that the same pols are still in their respective offices and they have not changed their attitudes. If one thought their rights were at risk after Sandy Hook, it seems that little has changed to make then think otherwise. If Democrats called for confiscation of everyone’s guns and gutting of the Second Amendment, _they_ would be the ones living a fantasy and you’d have a valid point, but I’m pretty sure they didn’t. Yet that’s how they’re being portrayed by the NRA, for instance, and now by none other than the Republican nominee for president, who has the NRA’s endorsement. Whoever believes them isn’t thinking back a few years to when Democrats wanted to ban all guns and trash the SA, because that never happened. ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2016, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/71 "2016-08-14T20:50:19Z")
> [@Nametag](#): > > Whoooosh. I’ll be happy to have been whooshed in this case, but I’m not convinced yet that I was. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2016, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/72 "2016-08-14T21:16:14Z")
> [@Nametag](#): > > Whoooosh. > > While I’m here, I have a question for the gallery: If AWBs are pointless because the features that define an assault weapon are merely cosmetic\*, then why is it so important to defend them? The reason for the defense is that there is no substantial difference between an AW and any other semi auto firearm. A gun is not made more dangerous by the addition of a bayonet lug, a flash hider, nor the [shoulder thing that goes up](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U). In addition, as I mentioned earlier, AW’s make up a tiny percentage of murders by firearm. [ALL rifle deaths](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls), not just AW’s accounted for 367 murders in 2010 and dropped steadily to 248 in 2014. This is less that knives or blunt instruments or hands and feet. They simply are not a problem as compared to other weapons. ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2016, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/73 "2016-08-14T22:05:03Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Your link doesn’t appear to provide the actual question CNN asked in their poll. If it was something like “Is BHO trying to take away your right to own a firearm?” I could see lots of people feeling that “yes” was closer to the truth than “no”. It’s clear that BHO (and HRC) would like to seriously restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Using the word “fantasy” and your earlier claim that “There isn’t an ounce of truth in it” seem out of touch with the reality of the situation. However the question was framed, “Obama’s gonna take away all your guns” is not a logical conclusion, even after Sandy Hook. It isn’t remotely true, but it’s still being perpetuated by influential gun spokesmen _and_ the Republican nominee for president.😉 Universal background checks and a ban on spree killers’ weapon of choice is hardly “seriously restricting” the right to keep and bear arms. It isn’t like there are no other guns out there. In no way does it equate to Obama taking away all your guns. That _is_ a fantasy. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2016, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/74 "2016-08-14T22:42:07Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > However the question was framed, “Obama’s gonna take away all your guns” is not a logical conclusion, even after Sandy Hook. It isn’t remotely true, but it’s still being perpetuated by influential gun spokesmen _and_ the Republican nominee for president.😉 Politicians and advocates exaggerate? No way! > [@](#): > > Universal background checks and a ban on spree killers’ weapon of choice is hardly “seriously restricting” the right to keep and bear arms. It isn’t like there are no other guns out there. In no way does it equate to Obama taking away all your guns. That _is_ a fantasy. Spree killer’s weapon of choice is questionable - depending on how you’d cherrypick the data. But beyond that, it’s also not very remarkable. The AR-15 platform rifle is also one of the most popular rifles in the country, if not the most popular, so it could be said it’s the law abiding citizen’s weapon of choice. It’s also my weapon of choice. One of my choices at least. Is there still any question that Obama was worse for pro-gun people than Bush? ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2016, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/75 "2016-08-14T23:41:08Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Politicians and advocates exaggerate? No way! Acknowledging that the NRA is exaggerating is a step in the right direction, so thanks for that. Whether they’re exaggerating or lying is for another debate, though. > [@Bone](#): > > Is there still any question that Obama was worse for pro-gun people than Bush? For someone who’s been conditioned to think Obama, and now Hillary, is going to destroy the Second Amendment and confiscate all guns, there’s absolutely no question. I don’t know whether Bush or Obama in reality was worse for gun owners. I do know that a false belief has created the perception in a lot of minds that Obama has been worse. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2016, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/76 "2016-08-14T23:56:11Z")
Really the PLCAA is sufficient to answer the question. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2016, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/77 "2016-08-15T01:49:50Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > …Universal background checks and a ban on spree killers’ weapon of choice is hardly “seriously restricting” the right to keep and bear arms. It isn’t like there are no other guns out there. In no way does it equate to Obama taking away all your guns. That _is_ a fantasy. Do you have a cite on what the spree killer weapon of choice is? As far as I can tell, its a handgun. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2016, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/78 "2016-08-15T05:25:53Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > I’ll be happy to have been whooshed in this case, but I’m not convinced yet that I was. Very well.I could be wrong, but I interpret the remarks thusly: > [@](#): > > It’s one of those dog whistles I hear tell about. Maybe you need to be around this board longer to recognize when **Shodan** is being a smartass, but this _faux_ ignorance (“I hear tell”? Really?) is a harbinger of sarcasm to come. > [@](#): > > Just like when Republicans say ‘I oppose him based on policy issues’ they really mean ‘I hate that n\*gger’. I don’t believe for one instant that **Shodan** , one of our more conservative posters, accepts this equivalency. It’s a straw man for some actual “dog whistle,” and he is mocking the entire concept. > [@](#): > > In the same way, when Obama says he supports the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, he is really saying that he will nominate justices for the Supreme Court who oppose the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. OK, I have to admit that it’s knee-deep at this point, and I’m no longer sure whether **Shodan** is being sincerely ironic (?), _faux_ ironic (?!), or double secret ironic (!). One might take this last sentence to mean “Obama is just making nice with the NRA crowd, here’s what he really means to do,” “Obama is a liar, and here’s what he really means to do,” or “Obama is not really all that keen on banning guns, and here’s an example of the hysterical exaggeration to which his enemies must resort to imply that he is.” What I’m sure of is that you can’t take his post at face value. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2016, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/79 "2016-08-15T05:35:21Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I think of it like this: if politicians wanted to ban all red cars, and you were a red car owner, would you sit by and let it happen? Being red isn’t a necessary component of having a working car. It would work fine if you repainted it blue, but your car happens to be red, and there’s no rational reason for banning red cars. I might have my red car repainted if it were demonstrated that red paint represents a particular hazard to the public. For example, asbestos is a useful material with many applications, and the best material for some; removing it is expensive and inconvenient; and yet we banned it from most of these uses for the public good. ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2016, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/80 "2016-08-15T05:50:16Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Really the PLCAA is sufficient to answer the question. It doesn’t address my point, though. I looked through the PLCAA and nowhere does it sanction the telling of outlandish whoppers by gun spokesmen. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855.md?page=5)