# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/101 "2016-08-17T23:49:19Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > Garland’s stance on guns, if he has one, is small potatoes anyway in the big picture. Isn’t that up to the Senate to decide if it’s a big deal or not? ---
**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 18, 2016, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/102 "2016-08-18T00:05:51Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Can you quote me where I did so? I can’t find it. No, I can’t be bothered to look it up for you. I’ll just accept that I was wrong and you have nothing to say about the NRA’s marketing claims. Fair enough? It was a breath of fresh air, though, hearing a gun proponent refer to the NRA’s pronouncements as “marketing claims”. Gun owners on this board have steadfastly rejected the notion that the NRA is trying to sell guns, that it simply educates the public on gun safety and gun rights. It’s good to know that someone on their side disagrees with that. ---
**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 18, 2016, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/103 "2016-08-18T02:29:24Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > No, I can’t be bothered to look it up for you. I’ll just accept that I was wrong and you have nothing to say about the NRA’s marketing claims. Fair enough? > > It was a breath of fresh air, though, hearing a gun proponent refer to the NRA’s pronouncements as “marketing claims”. Gun owners on this board have steadfastly rejected the notion that the NRA is trying to sell guns, that it simply educates the public on gun safety and gun rights. It’s good to know that someone on their side disagrees with that. I said nothing about gun spokesmen whether you want to be bothered to look it up or not. The NRA isn’t in the business of selling guns. They sell lots of Chinese made tchotchkes but not guns. They are in the business of the NRA. I often hear the claims that the NRA wants all gun laws abolished. That would be bad for business. Anyone who thinks that is what they want is a fool. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2016, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/104 "2016-08-18T03:41:39Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > It was a breath of fresh air, though, hearing a gun proponent refer to the NRA’s pronouncements as “marketing claims”. Gun owners on this board have steadfastly rejected the notion that the NRA is trying to sell guns, that it simply educates the public on gun safety and gun rights. It’s good to know that someone on their side disagrees with that. Not sure how you went from “marketing claims” to “the NRA is trying to sell guns”. They’re trying to sell the NRA. ---
**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 18, 2016, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/105 "2016-08-18T03:54:40Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > Garland’s stance on guns, if he has one, is small potatoes anyway in the big picture. He has shown no ideological leaning and has been praised by members of both parties for the job he’s done throughout his career. If he votes regularly for one party, it’s impossible to tell from his record, which makes him an ideal nominee for SCOTUS, wouldn’t you agree? It would be a shame if he was denied a seat because of the myopic vision of one special interest group. How nice of you to conclude for everyone else what is small or large potatoes. I’ll make my own judgments. What do you think is the big picture then? If anything, the largest criticism I’ve read consistently from all directions is that Garland tends to be deferential to administrative interpretation and more centralized power structures (could be a bad paraphrase there). That too is bad, but not a deal breaker IMO. I don’t know if he’d be an ideal nominee for SCOTUS so I don’t agree. To me, an ideal nominee for SCOTUS would align with my judicial philosophy - anything less would not be ideal. > [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > No, I can’t be bothered to look it up for you. **I’ll just accept that I was wrong and you have nothing to say about the NRA’s marketing claims.** Fair enough? > > It was a breath of fresh air, though, **hearing a gun proponent refer to the NRA’s pronouncements as “marketing claims”**. (my bold) These two bolded sentences are contradictory. Was that intentional? ---
**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 18, 2016, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/106 "2016-08-18T05:13:59Z")
This is going off the rails, and I think it’s largely due to my snarky tone, for which I apologize. Believe it or not, I’d rather have an honest debate, not a snark contest, so I’ll try to refrain from it from now on. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Isn’t that up to the Senate to decide if it’s a big deal or not? Of course it is, but I didn’t say otherwise. My comments shouldn’t be taken as demands of the government. > [@JXJohns](#): > > I said nothing about gun spokesmen whether you want to be bothered to look it up or not. > > The NRA isn’t in the business of selling guns. They sell lots of Chinese made tchotchkes but not guns. They are in the business of the NRA. I often hear the claims that the NRA wants all gun laws abolished. That would be bad for business. Anyone who thinks that is what they want is a fool. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Not sure how you went from “marketing claims” to “the NRA is trying to sell guns”. They’re trying to sell the NRA. Sorry, looks like I interpreted your comment wrong, **JXJohns**. My view is the NRA does promote the use of guns with its rhetoric and therefore are both salesmen and spokesmen for the industry, in practice if not explicitly. I don’t have a cite, but that’s my view. Maybe you could clarify what you meant by “the NRA and its marketing claims” in post 94. > [@Bone](#): > > How nice of you to conclude for everyone else what is small or large potatoes. I’ll make my own judgments. What do you think is the big picture then? If anything, the largest criticism I’ve read consistently from all directions is that Garland tends to be deferential to administrative interpretation and more centralized power structures (could be a bad paraphrase there). That too is bad, but not a deal breaker IMO. > > I don’t know if he’d be an ideal nominee for SCOTUS so I don’t agree. To me, an ideal nominee for SCOTUS would align with my judicial philosophy - anything less would not be ideal. It isn’t fair to turn my opinion into an order. I’m also not trying to usurp Congress’s authority. Taking into account all the cases that come before SCOTUS, gun rights/gun control must be a small minority. To me, that’s small potatoes. ---
**Author:** ![Duke\_of\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Duke\_of\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke_of_Rat)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2016, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/107 "2016-08-18T19:30:52Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > The NRA isn’t in the business of selling guns. They sell lots of Chinese made tchotchkes but not guns. My dad was an NRA member. He quit when they claimed to be all Rah! Rah! America! but sent Chinese trinkets as renewal tokens. He’s been dead for 5 years and they still send renewal packets to his address. I use a little red, blue, silver folding NRA Made in China knife they sent him as a letter opener. I don’t care for their aggressive marketing, but I feel they are more of a lobbying entity than an arms dealer. I think as my parting tribute to the Obama administration, I’ll pick up a .308 gas piston auto. ---
**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 19, 2016, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/108 "2016-08-19T21:46:00Z")
Bueller?..Bueller?.. Bone?..Bone?.. Ditka?..Ditka?.. Johns?..Johns?.. I guess it’s settled, then: the NRA’s propaganda is an attempt to scare gun owners into thinking that Obama wants to take all yer guns, and the next thing you know, tanks will be rumbling through the streets. So go out and buy more guns, all you warriors in the battle for freedom, cause that will stop the American military in its tracks for sure. ---
**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 19, 2016, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/109 "2016-08-19T21:53:59Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > This is going off the rails, and I think it’s largely due to my snarky tone, for which I apologize. Believe it or not, I’d rather have an honest debate, not a snark contest, **so I’ll try to refrain from it from now on.** (my bold) > [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > Bueller?..Bueller?.. > > Bone?..Bone?.. > > Ditka?..Ditka?.. > > Johns?..Johns?.. > > I guess it’s settled, then: the NRA’s propaganda is an attempt to scare gun owners into thinking that Obama wants to take all yer guns, and the next thing you know, tanks will be rumbling through the streets. So go out and buy more guns, all you warriors in the battle for freedom, cause that will stop the American military in its tracks for sure. Almost lasted one post. ---
**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 19, 2016, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/110 "2016-08-19T23:21:31Z")
I’m sorry I was gone for a day and unable to reply. It’s almost as though some folks have a life outside of this joint from time to time… > [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > …Maybe you could clarify what you meant by “the NRA and its marketing claims” in post 94. You originally posted this: “Do you have anything to say about the claims made repeatedly by the NRA? And its choice for president?” For some reason, you asked me to be the defender of the NRA at that point. Later, you incorrectly mentioned that I made comments about gun spokesmen. In answering your question regarding claims made repeatedly by the NRA, I stated that yes, they make a lot of claims. Regarding this not snarky (?) question: > [@](#): > > NRA’s propaganda is an attempt to scare gun owners into thinking that Obama wants to take all yer guns, and the next thing you know, tanks will be rumbling through the streets. So go out and buy more guns, all you warriors in the battle for freedom, cause that will stop the American military in its tracks for sure. After Obama and Ms. Clinton both have praised a country for enacting sweeping bans and compulsory buy backs of entire classes of weapons, and stating that those solutions would be worth “looking at”, it isn’t a stretch to think that they would like to do the same here. It’s the words that came out of their mouths, and I just read that Clinton lies significantly less than trump so there you go. Australian style controls probably would not pass Congress anytime soon but they said what they said and the NRA ran with it. ---
**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 20, 2016, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/111 "2016-08-20T21:29:43Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Almost lasted one post. You guys didn’t seem to be interested in the honest debate thing, so I thought I’d go back to snark and see what happened. And whadda ya know.😉 Okay, now that that’s out of the way, back to seriosity. Why did you insinuate that I was deciding for you what is “small potatoes”? That came right out of left field. You don’t jump to the conclusion that other posters are trying to tell you what to think, including me in all my previous posts. All of sudden, two of you think I’m the thought police or something. ---
**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 20, 2016, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/112 "2016-08-20T21:43:49Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > You originally posted this: > > “Do you have anything to say about the claims made repeatedly by the NRA? And its choice for president?” > > For some reason, you asked me to be the defender of the NRA at that point. Later, you incorrectly mentioned that I made comments about gun spokesmen. In answering your question regarding claims made repeatedly by the NRA, I stated that yes, they make a lot of claims. I asked if you had anything to say about the NRA and its claims, as you quoted, not to defend them. I asked because I dropped into this thread to make the point that the opinion of gun owners–some, not all–about Obama has been distorted by the over-heated rhetoric of the NRA. You responded with a post about handguns and Obama’s misguided attempts at regulations, which I thought was irrelevant to the point; hence my question. > [@JXJohns](#): > > After Obama and Ms. Clinton both have praised a country for enacting sweeping bans and compulsory buy backs of entire classes of weapons, and stating that those solutions would be worth “looking at”, it isn’t a stretch to think that they would like to do the same here. It’s the words that came out of their mouths, and I just read that Clinton lies significantly less than trump so there you go. Australian style controls probably would not pass Congress anytime soon but they said what they said and the NRA ran with it. Neither Obama nor Clinton have threatened to repeal the Second Amendment and take everyone’s guns away, as the NRA and other gun rights pundits would have us believe, and praising Australia’s gun control doesn’t come close to suggesting that. Australians are allowed to own guns. If the NRA says otherwise, they’re lying, and Clinton would be a paragon of honesty compared to them. ---
**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 20, 2016, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/113 "2016-08-20T23:25:59Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > Neither Obama nor Clinton have threatened to repeal the Second Amendment and take everyone’s guns away, as the NRA and other gun rights pundits would have us believe, and praising Australia’s gun control doesn’t come close to suggesting that. Australians are allowed to own guns. If the NRA says otherwise, they’re lying, and Clinton would be a paragon of honesty compared to them. No, what they have said, both of them, is that they would like to look further into implementing Australian style gun control measures. That would include significant hurdles to legal gun ownership and banning and confiscation of millions of semi auto guns. I think the major disconnect between us is that you seem to be the sort that thinks that since they don’t want to ban _all_ guns that means to you that they don’t want to ban guns. If we can own something, the Second Amendment is still intact and we should just sit in the corner and shut the fuck up. Sound about right? They both support an assault weapon ban. Based upon the latest AW legislation that Sen. D Feinstein introduced, pretty much all semi auto rifles and shotguns would be included in that ban either by name, build configuration, or look. I am quite sure that you don’t care as we would still be able to own bolt actions. That is a bad thing for gun owners. You get that, right? Just because they don’t want to ban everything, we are not going to be happy about the fact that once we jump through a million hoops we might be able to qualify to own a BB gun. Are they coming for our guns? Some of them yes, but only if they get a willing Congress. Hillary supporters say that she is mostly honest. I’ll take them and her at their word. ---
**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 20, 2016, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/114 "2016-08-20T23:33:43Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > Okay, now that that’s out of the way, back to seriosity. Why did you insinuate that I was deciding for you what is “small potatoes”? That came right out of left field. You don’t jump to the conclusion that other posters are trying to tell you what to think, including me in all my previous posts. All of sudden, two of you think I’m the thought police or something. Because of this: > [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > Garland’s stance on guns, if he has one, is small potatoes anyway in the big picture. Plus, ditto what JXJohns said in post #113 just above. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2016, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/115 "2016-08-21T20:15:58Z")
I’m just tuning out the side track, from this thread it looks like there really isn’t a lot of room to call them different. I realize I didn’t clarify my position at the beginning, so this may help understand where I’m coming from: I’m someone who’s very much pro-gun, but also believe in nondiscrimination and equal rights, and actually fiscally conservative (so opposed to corporate welfare, support UHC, prefer individual welfare to prison spending, etc.). In practice I pretty much always vote for either a Democrat or Libertarian, because republicans are simply awful on issues like civil rights, discrimination, abortion, and so on, while not doing anything positive for the areas they’re supposed to be good for like guns or being fiscally conservative. (See the NC legislature for a good example of this). I’ve had people argue that the vast difference between Ds and Rs on guns should sway my opinion, but I don’t see that there really is a whole lot of difference at higher levels (and at low-levels the Republicans are just batshit, again see the NC legislature). I was wondering if I was missing something, but it really doesn’t seem like I am in looking at how little either side does even when they have a solid majority and sympathetic president. > [@Bone](#): > > Really the PLCAA is sufficient to answer the question. What did Bush do for the PLCAA other than sign it? I don’t recall him putting any significant effort into campaining for it, AFAIK it was pushed in the legislature without any significant action by him. It’s not like Obama and the ACA, where you can lay the credit/blame for the law primarily on Obama since it was a major initiative for him. Obama voted against the bill, but I haven’t seen any comment that he disapproved enough to veto it if it had come up while he was president - so unless I’m missing something significant that Bush did, they seem to be a wash on this issue too. ---
**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 21, 2016, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/116 "2016-08-21T21:24:38Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > No, what they have said, both of them, is that they would like to look further into implementing Australian style gun control measures. That would include significant hurdles to legal gun ownership and banning and confiscation of millions of semi auto guns. I get that gun owners feel that way, but it’s a wholly one-sided viewpoint. An objective analyst, one who has no skin in the game either way, would also want to know why Australia instituted its gun control measures, and if they have succeeded. Are you willing to consider that, or are you just going to stick to your own guns? > [@JXJohns](#): > > I think the major disconnect between us is that you seem to be the sort that thinks that since they don’t want to ban _all_ guns that means to you that they don’t want to ban guns. I think that if they want to ban _some_ guns, they don’t want to ban _all_ guns, and I haven’t said otherwise. (“Never bring a preconceived notion to a gun debate.”) If you’re so concerned about drawing illogical conclusions, how about the NRA’s conclusion that because [insert name of current Democrat bogeyman or woman] wants to ban _some_ guns, they want to ban _all_ guns _and_ destroy the Second Amendment to boot? And then give you all wedgies! All of which is–pardon the language–pure applesauce and jiggery-pokery. If Obama/Hillary responded in kind and accused the NRA of wanting to force everyone to have guns whether they want them or not, veins would be popping left and right in NRA offices. Yet the sanctimonious Defenders of Freedom blithely make up shit about them, and without any consequences. They keep at it year after year, from president to president (fingers crossed), and gun owners don’t bat an eye. Believe it or not, one of them passed it off as “marketing claims”. > [@JXJohns](#): > > If we can own something, the Second Amendment is still intact and we should just sit in the corner and shut the fuck up. Sound about right? Yes, except for the “sit in the corner and shut the fuck up” part. I’m not out to rescind the First Amendment, either. > [@JXJohns](#): > > They both support an assault weapon ban. Based upon the latest AW legislation that Sen. D Feinstein introduced, pretty much all semi auto rifles and shotguns would be included in that ban either by name, build configuration, or look. I am quite sure that you don’t care as we would still be able to own bolt actions. That is a bad thing for gun owners. You get that, right? You must know that we’ll have different ideas about what constitutes “bad”. That’s another dead end debate. > [@JXJohns](#): > > Just because they don’t want to ban everything, we are not going to be happy about the fact that once we jump through a million hoops we might be able to qualify to own a BB gun. Hyperbole aside, will you be happy if gun deaths are substantially reduced, or does that not matter? > [@JXJohns](#): > > Are they coming for our guns? Some of them yes, but only if they get a willing Congress. Hillary supporters say that she is mostly honest. I’ll take them and her at their word. From that, I gather that you don’t take the NRA at its word. Now the question is, are they exempt from the ethics of honesty? ---
**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 21, 2016, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/117 "2016-08-21T21:25:43Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Because of this: > > Plus, ditto what JXJohns said in post #113 just above. How dare JXJohns tell me what to think! ---
**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 22, 2016, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/118 "2016-08-22T01:16:40Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > I get that gun owners feel that way, but it’s a wholly one-sided viewpoint. An objective analyst, one who has no skin in the game either way, would also want to know why Australia instituted its gun control measures, and if they have succeeded. Are you willing to consider that, or are you just going to stick to your own guns? I already have considered it. Rifles and shotguns, assault variety, pump, lever action, or semi auto make up a ridiculously small percentage of the firearm murders in the US every year. I posted the numbers earlier. Remember that part earlier about handguns being the problem? If one wanted to seriously tackle the problem of gun violence, that’s what they should consider. > [@](#): > > If you’re so concerned about drawing illogical conclusions, how about the NRA’s conclusion that because [insert name of current Democrat bogeyman or woman] wants to ban _some_ guns, they want to ban _all_ guns _and_ destroy the Second Amendment to boot? And then give you all wedgies! All of which is–pardon the language–pure applesauce and jiggery-pokery. Hyperbole is common on both side of the debate. I haven’t seen the NRA claim that anyone wants to ban all guns. They make the claim that Obama and CLinton want to ban guns which is true. They both support a new Assault Weapon _ban_. I’m a member and I know the secret handshake. Perhaps you can offer a cite for me to work with from the NRA stating that they want to ban all guns. > [@](#): > > If Obama/Hillary responded in kind and accused the NRA of wanting to force everyone to have guns whether they want them or not, veins would be popping left and right in NRA offices. Yet the sanctimonious Defenders of Freedom blithely make up shit about them, and without any consequences. They keep at it year after year, from president to president (fingers crossed), and gun owners don’t bat an eye. Believe it or not, one of them passed it off as “marketing claims”. That’s exactly what they are. Marketing claims to get more members and money. A bit of truth with a shitload of exaggeration. Both sides do it for similar reasons. > [@](#): > > Hyperbole aside, will you be happy if gun deaths are substantially reduced, or does that not matter? I would be thrilled if gun homicides [continue to fall](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/) as they have for the last 20+ years without any significant anti gun legislation, confiscations, or licensing schemes. > [@](#): > > From that, I gather that you don’t take the NRA at its word. Now the question is, are they exempt from the ethics of honesty? Honesty in politics. That’s a good one. 🙂 ---
**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 23, 2016, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/119 "2016-08-23T16:12:10Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > I’m a member and I know the secret handshake. Perhaps you can offer a cite for me to work with from the NRA stating that they want to ban all guns. Okay, I’ll play along. Take all the time you need to go through them. No doubt it will take a while for a member of the NRA who knows the secret handshake to absorb all this new information that the NRA leadership has been saying for years.😉 > [@](#): > > Wayne LaPierre: > > “‘If we get one more [judge] like those three, the Second Amendment is finished,’ he said. ‘It’ll be the end of our freedom forever…’ > > “‘All of what we know is good and right about America, all of it could be lost if Barack Obama is re-elected,’ he said. ‘It’s all or nothing.’” > > [http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/feb/10/nra-official-obama-wants-outlaw-guns-2nd-term/](http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/feb/10/nra-official-obama-wants-outlaw-guns-2nd-term/) > [@](#): > > Chris Cox: > > “If we don’t show up to the polls in force this November, we will witness the end of individual freedom in this country,” Cox said. “That’s not hyperbole. It’s the truth.” > > [https://thinkprogress.org/after-falsely-claiming-obama-would-take-away-guns-nra-now-makes-same-claim-about-clinton-d78ddf6d0d2f#.1ow7j885d](https://thinkprogress.org/after-falsely-claiming-obama-would-take-away-guns-nra-now-makes-same-claim-about-clinton-d78ddf6d0d2f#.1ow7j885d) > [@](#): > > LaPierre again: > > "If she could, Hillary would ban every gun, destroy every magazine, run an entire national security industry into the ground and put your name on a government registration list. > > “Folks, I’m not kidding. If she gets even one Supreme Court nomination, Hillary’s court will hold that the Second Amendment is a government right — not an individual right — and you can kiss your guns goodbye.” > > “We know a Hillary Clinton White House would be ground zero for a massive attack on our freedom…A haven for all the Hollywood elites to plot the destruction of our Second Amendment…” > > “Every State of the Union address — every carefully staged press conference and public event — Hillary would pull out all the stops in seizing and destroying all the freedoms and values we care about most.” > > [NRA’s Wayne LaPierre Speech To The Members At The Annual Meeting | The Daily Caller](http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/21/nras-wayne-lapierre-speech-to-the-members-at-the-annual-meeting/) > > “President Barack Obama is setting the table to ban your ammunition—all of it. > > [America's First Freedom - May 2015](http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/nra/aff_201505/#/10) (page took quite a while to load) > > “She hates us and is coming after every bit of our freedom.” > And Ted Nugent: > > “…the Obama administration ‘is attempting to re-implement the tyranny of King George’.” > > [NRA chief tells Hillary Clinton to 'bring it on' in gun control fight | NRA | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/03/nra-wayne-lapierre-hillary-clinton-cpac-gun-control) ---
**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 23, 2016, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855/120 "2016-08-23T16:33:10Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > I already have considered it. Rifles and shotguns, assault variety, pump, lever action, or semi auto make up a ridiculously small percentage of the firearm murders in the US every year. I posted the numbers earlier. Remember that part earlier about handguns being the problem? If one wanted to seriously tackle the problem of gun violence, that’s what they should consider. You can’t deny the Australian measures achieved their intended purpose, to significantly reduce gun deaths, and they did it without barring Ozzies from buying guns. They did it without “ending their freedom forever” or “destroying all the freedoms and values we care about most”, without “banning every gun, destroying every magazine” or “banning your ammunition–all of it”. Neither did they “come after every bit of their freedom” nor “implement the tyranny of King George”. If the NRA is serious about reducing gun violence as they say, you’d think they’d welcome Australian-type measures. Not only did they work, but _none of the NRA’s worst fears came to pass._ I’d expect to hear a collective sigh of relief from them instead of a continuing flow of fiery Doomsday rhetoric. It makes one question their real motivation, does it not? You’d almost think they’re more concerned with instilling fear into Americans so they’ll buy more guns. > [@JXJohns](#): > > I would be thrilled if gun homicides [continue to fall](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/) as they have for the last 20+ years without any significant anti gun legislation, confiscations, or licensing schemes. If that trend continues, the U.S. will be on a par with Switzerland and Canada in about, oh, let’s say 3000, and Australia in about 4000. Keep up the good work, America!🙂 > [@JXJohns](#): > > Honesty in politics. That’s a good one. 🙂 Now you acknowledge that the NRA lies for political reasons as if you knew all along. Makes me wonder why you asked for cites.😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-bush-or-obama-a-better-president-for-pro-gun-people/761855.md?page=7)