So the first amendment doesn’t apply to radio, tv or the internet? That is one of the most retarded arguments ever presented by the anti-gun side of the debate.
All things being equal, I’d trade corporate profits for more expansive rights for law abiding citizens. I don’t really care how much profit Smith & Wesson is making.
Donations to Planned Parenthood went up when Trump got in office.
My point being that entities such as PP and the NRA benefit financially when the opposition is in political power. But they lose on the legislation side (roughly speaking).
Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t.
Heck, the Smith&Wesson stock I bought during Obama’s presidency did very well for me. I sold it for a nice profit the week after Trump was elected and it’s been bearish ever since. Had Hillary won, I’m sure I’d still have it and it’d still be climbing.
What is interesting is how little it adheres to reality.
I was amazed over eight years how every few months there would be an, “Obama is coming for your guns!” which would result in renewed sales.
Thing was Obama never came for their guns.
But he wanted to, you could tell! :eek::eek::eek:
I can understand the perception of a “chilling effect” in the sense of a president (undoubtedly the holder of huge official powers) who says something in passing like “That was awful” after yet another school shooting can trigger a skipped heartbeat in people who live in constant fear of gun-loss. It wouldn’t even surprise me if they considered that an assault.
Fair enough but it displays a complete mis-understanding of how legislation works in this country.
There is a sense that a school shooting today will mean a ban on guns tomorrow so there is a surge in gun sales.
The reality is even IF a school shooting today results in legislation against guns it will take months (at the least) to pass in the face of the most powerful lobby in the US not to mention legal challenges. End result is anti-gun legislation will take years to move through the system.
Don’t rush to buy a gun because you are afraid of Obama. Rush to buy a gun when it is at the Supreme Court with a liberal majority.
I really think the worrying about Obama banning guns is merely used as a way for people who already want to buy a gun to justify spending the money (rather than fixing their roof or something else).
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make - gun bans take a long time, so only worry about it when it’s at the doorstep? Thanks, but no. Just as Democrats eschew advice from Republicans about what they should do to move their party forward, the same applies here. Yes anti-gun legislation takes time. Court battles take longer - the pro gun rights folks are better off if litigation is never needed. It may be necessary to scuttle what could potentially good legislation to avoid what could be potentially poor legislation. This is chess, not checkers.
So maybe background checks would be great - but then we see efforts to increase the number of people that would be prohibited and those very databases used for the background checks expanded beyond the scope of the law. And that’s why universal background checks should be opposed. Repeat for every other anti gun effort, big or small.
I am suggesting the the gun industry loves stirring paranoia to boost sales.
In the last 70 years how badly have gun rights been restricted?
Sure there have been fiddly bits done but can you still buy a gun today despite all hand wringing about it?
How much worse off are you today as a gun owner than you were 70 years ago? What can’t you do now that you could do then?
Bottom line is until the 2nd Amendment is changed or the SCOTUS redefines it gun owners have been doing fine.
I live in Chicago which has been one of the most gun un-friendly places in the country (law-wise) and if I want to go buy a gun I can still do it with little fuss.
Are we expanding past the Obama Administration then I guess.
I agree the gun industry makes efforts to advertise, boost sales, stir advocacy, etc. If there wasn’t some truth to it, the message wouldn’t be persuasive among their target audience.
In the last 70 years? So 1947? Machine guns no longer able to be purchased. No mail order firearms. Waiting periods. GFSZA. Ban open carry in CA, and other places. AWB. Magazine ban. Ammo bans. I mean, I’m not 70, so some of this stuff happened before my time.
A couple years ago I wanted to purchase a new Gen 4 Glock pistol. Nothing fancy, just a new model - it came with 2 extra mags instead of just one. The grip was a little better. It is banned for sale in CA because it doesn’t contain non-existent magical technology. 100% of any new semi auto handguns are banned for sale in CA. The number of models of semi auto handguns available to purchase has been going down every year. So, what can’t I do? I can’t purchase the same pistol that is used at police departments all over the country because it doesn’t contain magic.
I agree though, we’ve been moving towards a more permissive environment on a nationwide basis for a little while now. It’s a good start.
Weren’t you not allowed to legally purchase a pistol (in Chicago) until McDonald?
Obama used the power of the bully pulpit to advocate for additional restrictions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. He was largely unpersuasive, but that doesn’t mean the attempt wasn’t made. I don’t have a problem with Trump calling the whole of his and his fellow Democrat’s actions an “assault” on the Second Amendment. YMMV.
That should say “manufactured”.
And I don’t have a problem with you calling it an assault, except to note that it’s a broadening of the term to the point of uselessness based on the actions thus far attributed to Obama. Is there any bully-pulpit statement a president could make about gun violence (assuming he wasn’t speaking in favor of it) that is not an assault on the second amendment, in your view? Would the example I gave of a president mildly decrying a school shooting count?
You’re the only one that is construing comments about a tragedy as an assault on the 2nd amendment.
You’re wrong - I’m asking the people who claim an assault has occurred if comments about tragedy count as assault, to try to find out how they’re defining the term.
Yes, yes, and here is another example.
Cool. We have a dividing line. That was Bush43 about Virginia Tech, though. What about Obama and Sandy Hook?
The actual text of the Gun Control Act says “possess in or affecting commerce”; has the Supreme Court considered this clause post-United States v. Lopez (which ruled that possession of a gun in a school zone didn’t fall under the commerce clause)?
No, inclusion in NICS means you don’t pass the instant background check. NICS also contains the names of people with potentially disqualifying conditions, which results in a ‘delay’ response, but might result in approval a few hours later.
I’m not following what you are saying. Are you saying that a person can be prohibited from purchasing but be perfectly legal to possess? That seems like no.
If you’re say g that people get flagged by NICS but later are allowed to purchase, those people aren’t who I’m talking about. I’m using “included in NICS” as equivalent to being prohibited.
I had to go and look it up. Here is what I found:
I wouldn’t call anything in that statement “assault”-like. Even the “we’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics” line is vague enough that it’s hard to get riled up about, especially in the wake of such a tragedy.