Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think he has actually signed more pro-gun legislation than anti-gun. I'm not 100% certain of that though.

 d-usa wrote:
I think he has actually signed more pro-gun legislation than anti-gun. I'm not 100% certain of that though.

That is probably the case because it is what the nation has forced him to do.

But you can't say that his efforts post Newtown were not in a way to help secure second amendment rights. He made a ton of noise about using his executive powers to do what Congress wouldn't, and all that.

He kind of got quiet about it though when the CDC kind of came back and said his claims were baseless, after following through with one of those executive orders.

Well, he could have had the option of vetoing any pro-gun bill that came before him.

But he signed all the NRA-endorsed watering down of compliance measures that make sure that the BATFE remains a joke. Didn't he sign a bill allowing guns in national parks and transport via Amtrak?

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I think he has actually signed more pro-gun legislation than anti-gun. I'm not 100% certain of that though.

That is probably the case because it is what the nation has forced him to do.

Do something to restrict guns gets all the blame.
Does something positive for guns gets no credit.

@easysauce: I would say he is a President that is neither, and would probably not have to do anything involving firearms legislation. It isn't something he seems to care much about in comparison to everything else he has on his agenda.

The NRA's basic point that American liberties are more restricted now is correct, though. The wave of panic anti-terrorism legislation that was rushed through after 9/11 eroded things. Gun rights did nothing to stop that, though, and weren't affected anyway, so to focus on them is a bit meaningless.

I find it funny we have this thread going with anti gun views and we have a thread on weapons we own

NRA kind of hepl us in having a Fire Arms thread

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The NRA's basic point that American liberties are more restricted now is correct, though. The wave of panic anti-terrorism legislation that was rushed through after 9/11 eroded things. Gun rights did nothing to stop that, though, and weren't affected anyway, so to focus on them is a bit meaningless.

How dare you. The NRA's always wrong. And racist. Racist and wrong.

Also, patriarchy and privilege.

 d-usa wrote:
I'll be sure to insert a 1000x1000 pixel sarcasm alarm pic next time since it seems that everyone is a bit dense today.

To be fair, I don't think anyone expected you to go the self-satire route.

I was a firearms instructor for a few years, so you can guess where my stance is.

NRA is made up of all white people Seaward

Not all white, there are at least 12 black people that are members.

Good article by the way.

 Frazzled wrote:
Strangely you're wrong. Are you a member?

Perhaps even more strangely... you're completely wrong. While the NRA originally distanced itself from corporate sponsorship and worked mostly to protect hunter's rights, that's a long damn time ago now. These days less than half of NRA revenue comes from members, with the majority coming from sponsorships, direct grants and ad revenue from the NRA's various publications. This includes, by the way, multiple gun companies who contribute directly to the NRA on a per gun sold basis.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-nra-has-sold-out-to-the-gun-industry-to-become-their-top-crisis-pr-firm-2012-12

As with pretty much anything, all you have to do is follow where the money comes from, and figure out what will bring in more money, and realise that's exactly what any person or organisation will do. When the NRA's revenue is dominated by gun manufacturers and will actually increase with every gun sold, then it's no wonder they speak for the gun manufacturers first and foremost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Wow. Its an excellent conspiracy theory, truly worthy of MSNBC.

Recognising that an organisation will be loyal first and foremost to its biggest contributors is now a conspiracy theory? Don't be ridiculous about this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Interesting...

NRA’s LaPierre: ‘Gun Rights Have Become a Metaphor for Something Larger’
National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, addressing donors and key supporters at the NRA Convention in Indianapolis this morning, said, “Gun rights have become a metaphor for something larger: a feeling, this sense of something that’s slipping away, a yearning for individual rights.”

Isn't that pretty much what Obama said all those years ago?

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

The difference I see there is that your quote opts for a vague and fairly silly notion of individual rights... as if the individual in the 1950s or 1970s had some real kind of freedom that has since been taken by govenment. Obama, on the other hand, recognises that what's been lost is prosperity - that there has been a real economic decline in many places as heavy industry and manufacturing has closed up or moved overseas, or simply stopped paying what they used to pay.

And maybe that gets to the real heart of what's essentially broken in US politics. While the Democrats mention the real issue too rarely and do something about it even less often, at least they recognise the real issue. On the other hand, Republicans and other conservative bodies can't even bring themselves to admit that's an issue, let alone the primary issue, and instead talk about nonsense like 'a yearning for individual rights' or, well, the rest of the conservative platform.