So, Mitt Romney addressed the NRA yesterday at their big convention in St. Louis, Missouri in what was billed as "a celebration of American values." The day before the convention, this piece from AP caught my eye. Here was the quote that made me chuckle.
Although Obama has virtually ignored gun issues during his term, the NRA considers him a foe and plans to mount an aggressive effort against him.
What I truly don't understand here is that President Obama is acting with the exact benign neglect when it comes to gun laws that gun rights folks have so vociferously argued that they want to see from the federal government. And yet...
We need a president who will stand up for the rights of hunters, sportsmen and those who seek to protect their home and family. President Obama has not; I will.
Uh...huh? That's not what happened. Gun rights have never been looser and violence around the country has continued to drop. What the fuck is he talking about?
In a second term, he would be unrestrained by the demands of reelection. As he told the Russian president last month when he thought no one else was listening, after a reelection he'll have a lot more, quote, 'flexibility' to do what he wants. I'm not exactly sure what he meant by that, but looking at his first three years, I have a very good idea.
Ah, I see.
Paranoia...
Fear...
Shit your pants...
Check, check and check!
11 comments:
The liberal wing of the Democratic Party spent years giving gun owners reasons not to trust them.
Yes, benign neglect is an improvement over that.
Yes, the NRA loves to fear-monger to keep the money rolling in.
Perhaps you weren't paying attention, but part of the motive for Fast and Furious was to justify new gun laws/regs.
You might say that the NRA could reasonably sit on the sidelines, since Obama has not been aggressive. It is also fair for them to look for a candidate that is more positive towards guns than Obama.
But anything but drop-to-your-knees worship of Your Hero is just racist hatred, isn't it?
but part of the motive for Fast and Furious was to justify new gun laws/regs.
Where is your (unbiased) evidence for this? Remember that this was simply an extension of a Bush program to catch the big fish drug lords.
Where is your (unbiased) evidence for this?
I do believe CBS News should qualify. Obviously you thought this was just a right-wing blogosphere fever swamp issue. Surprise! It was your do no wrong bureaucrats working for The One.
Geez, talk about hiding under a rock! Hey Bubble boy...get out once in a while and see what is really going on.
Why is it a bad thing to require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns?" And, please, no flowery answers about liberty and freedom. I'd like a concrete reason as to why it's bad.
Why is it a bad thing to require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns?"
That is hardly the point, is it? It may indeed be a valid policy - but that is something that should be argued on its merits, not by inducing illegal acts (the gun dealers did not want to sell and ATF told them to proceed), and then attempting to cover it up.
Now, shut the fuck up if you can't apologize.
CBS is a right wing fringe blog that cannot be used as an unbiased source!
CBS is a right wing fringe blog that cannot be used as an unbiased source!
not by inducing illegal acts (the gun dealers did not want to sell and ATF told them to proceed), and then attempting to cover it up.
Yeah, that's not exactly what happened. The goal here was to get the big fish and not the little guys. The policy failed but the policy wasn't a directive to order gun dealers around.
Now, shut the fuck up if you can't apologize.
Apologize for what? All I did was ask a question. You do that all the time, remember?
Apologize for what?
For assuming 1) that I was just repeating a right-wing talking point, and 2) failing to acknowledge an unbiased source for that piece of uncomfortable (to you) information. Instead you tried, with all your might, to change the subject - about like a two-year old trying to push over a brick wall.
was simply an extension of a Bush program to catch the big fish drug lords.
No it wasn't. It bears superficial resemblance, but the core operational functions of the two were so different as to make the operations focus at completely different directions.
Post a Comment