Is Obama even on the radar as far as gun rights go? The reason I ask is a speech Palin gave recently saying that Obama would take away your guns and ammo "if he could". As far as I can tell, all Obama has done re: guns is allow them to be carried in National Parks, where they previously could not. Is there any fear on this subject?
i am not a gun owner or a member of the NRA, but i DO believe in the the 2nd Amendment and think it is important. from that perspective i am not aware of any ways in which Obama has significantly affected this issue. but i DO expect that Gun companies like having liberal Democrats in office...i suspect they do quite well as a result!
I don't belong to NRA, and I don't love guns. I don't have a CCL or a handgun. I do cherish our liberties, including those guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. Obama's infringing my right to KaBA is not high on my personal alert list at the moment. But then I don't know anyone personally who puts stock in what Palin says. If you know of such a person you should ask away. I don't use this board to ask whether people agree with ramblings of silly out-of-office politicians much myself. I also suggest working on being less inflammatory in thread titles unless you desire primarily to stir emotions more than to elicit meaningful responses.
Its about raising money. The more fear of Obama the NRA can create, the more money they can raise from members.
I'm a Lifetime NRA member, and have a CCL. I think Palin is full of crap, and attempting to further stoke paranoia to garner favor and money for the NRA. While I support the NRA in its purported goal of protecting the 2nd Amendment, the multitude of crap I get in the mail from them, as well as the (what I consider) to be nothing more than right-wing propaganda in their print material/magazines often gives me the fierce impression that it has become nothing more than yet another political arm of the uber-right Republican Party, with an agenda that far surpasses its original purpose. I'm not that concerned that Obama is some great enemy of the 2nd Amendment. So far, I've nor heard nothing (even in the NRA's material) to accurately substantiate the notion that his administration has any real intent to challenge or limit it. (Any legal briefs from the DoJ that may indicate this are necessarily the purpose of that department [i.e., D.C.'s gun ban]. As with any other federal law, its job it to try and defend the laws as they are written and interpreted. As lawyers that is the position they are supposed to take.) President Bush (II) is the most recent president to have signed into law the more restrictive federal gun law. Sara Brady and her husband is some of the most conservative-leaning people out there, 2ndA leanings notwithstanding. So I have an extremely difficult time accepting the notion that commie-lib Democrats are the ones whom we must fear (although I accept that there are certainly those within its party who do indeed feel that way).
NRA Member here. Obama has done wonders for the gun and ammo industries because nobody trusts him. The NRA is sending out warnings about this: U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade The NRA says that this is the first step in Obama supporting international gun control laws. Yeah, sure, I understand that this sounds like right-wing wacko stuff, but then you have Mayor Daly of Obama's hometown saying he intends to take the gun control issue to international court. Chicago Sun Times So, sometimes their fears may not be so far-fetched.
The executive branch holds basically absolute authority over FFL licensure. A neighbor was an FFL, and nearly lost it as he tried to renew during the waning days of the Clinton presidency. No reason was ever given, despite repeated attempts to figure out what the problem was or at least get his $500 processing fee back. This individual bought ~30 guns per year, all of them for his upper-middle class friends. It's impossible to think of a more benign FFL holder. When Bush was elected, he got an unsolicited telephone call from the BATF that his FFL license was in the mail. The license was up for this year, and he chose not to renew it. Not only because it likely would've been rejected, but also because it would've targeted him for suspicion should Obama sign anti-gun legislation. There is also the theater going on in Chicago, where Obama's old friends are calling for the National Guard to restore order in their city against the armed barbarians. Democrats, like Republicans, love solutions to problems which place the blame squarely in groups of people for whom they harbor an irrational dislike (illegal immigrants, communists, fundamentalists and gun owners are all easy ones, but there are a ton). Gun control is one of those simplistic and ineffective solutions that fires up the liberal base (similar to the border fence for the right). That doesn't make it any less retarded, but it does give a boost to Democrat congresspeople in contested districts and states. This is somewhat counterbalanced by the fact that it does not play well on the national stage, so I would look for this strategy to come out in 2014 and (less so) 2016 if Obama is reelected.
"One year into the Obama Administration and Gun Rights advocates have had little to fear. In fact, movements are underway across the country to adopt legislation aiding those who own firearms, contrary to fearful predictions early last year that the new presidency would spell bad news. In addition to President Barack Obama approving a federal plan to allow Guns in national parks, The White House has done little to bring back the federal ban on Assault Rifles or close the loophole that allows..."
TxState nailed it. I am a gun owner and have a CCL. The NRA has become the 700 Club with testostrone. It has lost its way to become just another powerfull lobbying entity. Basically the NRA should concern itself with promoting the following;#1. Second Ammendment Rights; #2. there is no such thing as an "unloaded" gun; #3. never point a gun at anyone or anything that you are not prepared to kill; #4. if you need an assualt weapon to drop a deer, then maybe hunting isn't for you.
He has bigger fish to fry at the moment-- give him a second term and he will focus on the second level of priorities-- get the guns out of those that might ever opose him
The NRA has no need to tell people they should not want, need, or have a given type of small arms. I agree with YDD's #1-3, though.
No I use my grandfather's bolt action .22, He never bagged anything either. Moral? Pick your battles and your hobbies wisely.
I am a gun owner and my father is in the NRA- so I on occasion see and read the literature. Obama has done absolutely NOTHING to threaten gun owners' rights, and in fact stated he supports the 2nd amendment. But by reading the NRA propaganda you would think he is personally confiscating people's handguns. It really has devalued the legitimacy of the NRA if their organization has to resort to scare tactics and misleading pamphlets in a goal to increase membership and raise capital. They could instead evolve and play a more meaningful role for things like gun safety classes or hunter education- but instead they choose to align themselves with BS rallies built upon the anxieties of the misinformed.
Yo, Your response is much more indicative of someone full of themselves and their political hardheadiness of the issue. I was pointing out what people really care about, liberty, in order to correct this stereotypically cartoony label of a trigger happy gun toter that the holier than thou left likes to throw out. I'm not a gun enthusiast/lover.
texas-ex, Everyone loves liberty. So what. What Yo and others are commenting is that the NRA uses a false pretense to stoke the anxiety of some gun lovers, and claim that they will lose a particular liberty when reality couldn't be more different.
