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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In addition, as I mentioned earlier, AW’s make up a tiny percentage of murders by firearm. ALL rifle deaths, 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Very well.I could be wrong, but I interpret the remarks thusly:
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.
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.
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.
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.
