The OP is about Obama’s “assault” on gun rights but yeah…let’s expand it. Why not?
What could you buy in 1947 that you cannot buy today (as regards guns)?
By this I mean laws that prevent you from buying something, not some discontinued firearm for profit reasons.
If you do not want to expand it then tell me what firearm you could buy in 2007 that you cannot buy today because Obama made it illegal or impossible to buy.
I find it amusing that the people who consider guns to be one of the most important things in their life put their trust in a man who likely has never read the Constitution, doesn’t care about it and doesn’t understand… anything about how anything works. He doesn’t understand things like laws and courts and shows no indication of learning about them. Three months in and he still doesn’t seem to know what the President does, and people trust he will be the great protector of their rights? Do people honestly believe he cares about them?
All the anti gun people have to do is make a small pistol called “The Donald” and market it for people with small hands and those people going door to door to round up those evil brown skinned people will be coming for your guns.
It’s not so much faith in Trump as it is confidence that his opponent was going to be worse for the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Just like Obama was horrible for gun owners.
Oh wait… :smack:
I can’t manufacture a new NFA machine gun.
I can’t buy any new model semi auto handgun in CA.
I could previously purchase a semi auto center fire rifle with a detachable magazine and an adjustable stock in 2007. I can no longer do that.
Granted, these aren’t directly related to Obama. I like Obama, always have. I think he’s a pretty cool guy and when watching the old speeches, talks, press conferences, I miss his administration. I personally disagreed with some of his policy choices, and I fully believe that if he was able the would have pushed more substantive gun control, but fortunately times being what they were he wasn’t able to. So relatively speaking, he wasn’t very effective at pushing gun control. I still like the guy, no matter what I disagreed with I think he was always trying to do his best and what he thought was best for the country.
I’ve been trying to find specific NRA reactions to Obama’s statement and I’ll admit the expectation I’d find a least one that indicates they felt assaulted, but so far it’s fairly tepid. The December 21, 2012 news conference the NRA held a week after the shooting has some moments I’d consider somewhat passive-aggressive:
LaPierre later hints at some kind of regulation…
…but I’m not sure, and he is not specific, if this means keep guns out of the hands of people on such a database, or just use a database to estimate how many potentially mass-shooters there are. He later describes as “dangerous”, the notion of adding more gun bans or laws to the “20,000 other laws” that exist and failed. I don’t know the source of this number.
Sounds a tad paranoid - the NRA’s notion of putting armed guards in every school was rejected when LaPierre proposed it five years earlier after the Virginia Tech shooting, therefore it must be due to fear and hatred of the NRA?
The rest is largely about blaming violent video games and promoting their idea of armed guards in schools. There were no specific comments about Obama’s reaction, nor was Obama specifically named.
Heh, a national gun registry would be an affront to the Constitution but registering people with mental problems is A OK.
Right, Bill Clinton disarmed us and left us all defenseless before the Brown Horde long before that, remember?
Why would you need to?
He was asked what changes have happened to his right to buy weapons and that’s what he answered. And it’s pretty silly to ask why a gun enthusiast would want to buy a new model handgun.
It’s no sillier than seeing the word “need” and reading it as “want”.:rolleyes: The discussion here is about rights, and those are based on needs.
When it comes to rights, “need” has got nothing to do with it. Rights is rights. That said, the idea we’ve just emerged from an 8 year assault on the 2nd amendment is silly hyperbole.
Where did you get that idea?
Do you think it’s more or less silly hyperbole than calling Trump’s budget a “war on science”?
ETA: Our political discussions are full of rhetorical flourishes and hyperbole, on both sides of the aisle.
I’m not sure they’re comprable, because the 2nd amendment is a constitutional rights issue, and science is just something that people should want to embrace.
Trump has proposed to cut research at the National Institutes of Health by 18 percent. Did Obama propose an 18% cut to gun ownership?
The point went right over your head, didn’t it?
So you’re agreeing that there was no war on guns, but there is a war on science?
No, I’m agreeing that, as I already stated, “Our political discussions are full of rhetorical flourishes and hyperbole, on both sides of the aisle.”
Is it a war on science? I thought Trump was just fleeing the battlefield.
To be fair, I’d give Obama something like a “C” for effort. The charge was led by Feinstein and a bunch of anti-gun folks in the media like Rachel Maddow and Pierce Morgan.
I think Obama has an instinctive aversion to guns that comes from being raised in a gun free bubble his entire life but I bet he would be open to compromises that would expand gun rights if he thought it would reduce gun violence. its just that the only people that he spoke to about guns were Feinstein and the brady foundation.