foreigner wanting to understand NRA voting advice

[vaupet]

Hy all, as a Europian and regular visitor of this forum, let me first thank you all for this great source of info.

In spite of the no politics I would like to pose two questions, because in Europe press reports on the official support of the NRA for gov Romney and I like to understand why they acted so.

Has mr Obama done anything in the past four years wich goes against 2A or expressed any intention to do so?

What were mr Romneys deeds and/or intentions when he took office as governor?

I do believe in the power of pro-gun movement and would love to have a similar organisation active in Europe.

Thanks again and have fun

Peter

 

[gpb]

I suggest you go to this NRA site for further explanation and clarification.

http://www.nraila.org/

 

[Sam1911]

The simplest answer is that the election will come down to one of two men -- men who head up two political parties.

One of these parties is perceived as more traditionally favorable to gun control and the other is perceived as more traditionally opposed to gun control.

Both candidates have made statements in the past which were unfavorable to gun rights. Neither has actually managed to DO much on that subject, certainly not recently.

Neither candidate is someone who the gun rights organizations would choose to support if they had more than two realistic choices, but the primary gun rights organization will not sit idly by and refuse to endorse one candidate as more favorable than the other, even though neither is very good.

So they throw their support behind the candidate who heads the party which has been traditionally seen as least unfavorable to our interests.

 

[JT-AR-MG42]

Gun legislation over the next four years itself is not, in my opinion, the driving force behind the 500,000,000 dollars+ being spent between the two candidates.

I am concerned with the future of the 2nd Amendment with the 2 or possibly 3 Supreme Court positions the winner of this election will appoint.

Overturning THEIR decisions is a long road that rests with us, the voters in their respective States, through the Constitutional Amendment process.

JT

 

[Sam1911]

Let's keep this VERY STRICTLY focused on vaupet's questions:

...in Europe press reports on the official support of the NRA for gov Romney and I like to understand why they acted so.

Has mr Obama done anything in the past four years wich goes against 2A or expressed any intention to do so?

What were mr Romneys deeds and/or intentions when he took office as governor?

Speculation and general politics will get this locked down.

 

[Walkalong]

One of the things the NRA looks at is voting records. Obama has a dismal record voting for anti gun legislation as a Senator. His party has pushed more gun control than the Republican party. It only makes sense for the NRA to back Romney.

Fortunately either president would have a hard time getting any anti gun legislation passed due to the make up of the House and the Senate right now. You will find the NRA supporting many of those politicians who are also up for election this time, and hopefully manage to keep many pro gun legislators while defeating some that are anti.

 

[MechAg94]

Obama may not have passed legislation on gun control but he and his appointees have done quite a bit short of that including attempting to game the system with Fast and Furious to gin up support for gun control. Also, his Supreme Court appointees are definitely pro gun control.

The only reason Obama and his cohorts have not gone for gun control legislation is because they know it is a losing issue for them. Getting re-elected is one of the few things more important.

 

[308win]

Viewed in the context of a position timeline regarding gun control neither candidate is ideal but Obama has taken much more extreme postions in his past offices, particularly as a state senator.

We are currently in an environment where the likelyhood of extreme gun control actions is unlikely if not impossible but that can change through:

congressional makeup
court decisions
executive orders.

Any of these are possible

 

[zdc1775]

Another possible reason for their decision is that they beleive Romney would be less likely to push for gun control than Obama even if they think he would still sign it if it landed on his desk.

 

[Pilot]

Certainly the lesser of two evils, as Romney supported, and signed the "Assault Weapons Ban" in Massachusetts when he was Governor. However, he had to appeal to a "progressive" constituency, which he will have much less of as President. He will also probably have to deal with both a Republican controlled House, and Senate who realize any gun control legislation is political suicide.

 

[OilyPablo]

Without going political, the question does involve our three branches of government. I doubt either would OPENLY push any form of gun control legislation. Behind the scenes (as we yanks say) from the executive branch it's a different animal. But let's not speculate on that - there is a record there.

As mentioned - THE most important thing will be judicial appointees from the executive branch. And there is HUGE chance, well it goes beyond chance, that Mr. Obama will absolutely appoint liberals, really super liberal socialist anti-2nd Amendment justices to the Supreme Court and with a majority they could if challenged by a state basically re-interpret the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution and we will be royally hosed. Some say this can't/won't happen. When it's talked about by a retired justice, and another justice says she would start with another Constitution if given the chance, I say absolutely it can and will be reality.

 

[vaupet]

txs for your insights sofar, it opens another view on your political system, that doesn't get any attention in Europe (the role of the SCOTUS).

keep it coming and keep up the good work

Peter

 

[JustinJ]

One of the things the NRA looks at is voting records. Obama has a dismal record voting for anti gun legislation as a Senator. His party has pushed more gun control than the Republican party. It only makes sense for the NRA to back Romney.

It makes sense only because the NRA, made up largely of republicans, are basing their decision on far more than just gun issues. If you describe Obama's voting record on gun rights as abysmal then what do you call Romney's? If one looks at the impact at what they voted for i would say Romney has a far worse record.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm#19
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm#2

The fact is Romney has regularly altered his position on gun issues through out his political career for political gain. To me it is obviously not genuine but simply doing what it takes to get elected.

In Romney's 2002 run for governor of Massachusetts the NRA gave his Democrat opponent a higher rating but failed to endorse either candidate. Yeah, the NRA is just about guns. Sure. Regardless, if the NRA were truly making decisions solely based on gun related issues Gary Johnson would have their endorsement. In a perfect world.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

Like this forum, the NRA maintains a non-political stance. The NRA endorses cantidates (or doesn't) based on their voting records on gun rights and their public policy staments regarding the same. They issue a grade, like a school grade, from "A" to "F".

Mr. Obama has, in his books, made statments indicating he favors further restrictions on 2nd amdt rights.

 

[Pilot]

that doesn't get any attention in Europe (the role of the SCOTUS)

Yes, the President's ability to appoint Supreme Court justices is huge as previously stated they can actively re-interpret laws, and the Constitution. If Obama is re-elected he will get a minimum of two judges to appoint, and while the Senate has to approve them, they always get approved. It is pretty much a rubber stamp.

 

[Gordon_Freeman]

Read the two parties' platforms on firearms and gun control which can be found on their websites. It is glaringly obvious which party truly supports our firearm rights. It is clearly spelled out and too many firearm owners refuse to believe it.

 

[OilyPablo]

Read the two parties' platforms on firearms and gun control which can be found on their websites. It is glaringly obvious which party truly supports our firearm rights. It is clearly spelled out and too many firearm owners refuse to believe it.

Post of the year material.

 

[CoRoMo]

...expressed any intention to do so?

Both candidates have expressed their intentions publicly...

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/
Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment... They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/gun-rights
...Mitt does not believe that the United States needs additional laws that restrict the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

 

[xwing]

Mr. Obama has expressed his negative opinion on gun ownership and 2nd amendment rights many times. He is on record saying "I don't believe there should be private ownership of guns" and has advocated many restrictive firearm laws. Those (among others) go into how he is rated by the NRA. Once the NRA rates the two candidates, they are doing their best to support the one that more closely aligns with the rights of gun owners. They do not always endorse a candidate in any given election though. Sometimes both major candidates in a given election both earn similar ratings by the NRA.

 

[JustinJ]

Mr. Obama has expressed his negative opinion on gun ownership and 2nd amendment rights many times. He is on record saying "I don't believe there should be private ownership of guns" and has advocated many restrictive firearm laws.

Where and did he say "I don't believe there should be private ownership of gun"? That's just not true. But in 2008 he did say: "I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. … There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away.” So had he said what you claim, why does he not get the same pass that Romney seems to be getting for his past comments?

 

[Shadow 7D]

Obama has expressed MANY TIMES that have been recorded to wish to increase restrictions or COMPLETELY BAN firearms. That it has not been a political possibility....
still does not restrict the ability of the president to exercise the executive office, such as the ATF operation Fast and Furious, appointment of justices that will not interpret the 2nd amendment as a individual right etc.

He also said that he was working
'under the radar' to further gun control.
that means he was/is looking to further restrictions on owning firearms, I'm not for that.

Romney, ONLY looks better compared to that.

Justin he stated that he was looking to 'REASONABLE' restriction, that means he is looking for more.....
that he can't ban them outright...
this is the guy who said 'cling to their bibles and their guns'

Justin, I think that your opinion sucks, hence I believe that I should 'reasonable' restrict your ability to express it, you don't need the 1st...
maybe you should have to apply for a card before you express yourself, how bout a national data base
what else should we prohibit
fat people increase the cost of my health care and taxes, we should ban them...

how far down the slippery slope would you like to go...

Romney gets kinda a pass cause he's better than Obumbles, and he knows that if he tries anything he will be hoisted on his own petard by his own party.

 

[JustinJ]

Obama has expressed MANY TIMES that have been recorded to wish to increase restrictions or COMPLETELY BAN firearms

"Many times" that have been recorded yet you fail to cite a single source? Sure, buddy.

He also said that he was working
'under the radar' to further gun control.

Wrong again. In an interview Sara Brady claimed that Obama told her he in a private meeting that he is working on gun control under the radar. The NRA and gun community have completely distorted what actually happened, as you are doing now.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-coming-after-guns-under-radar-nra-say/

that means he was/is looking to further restrictions on owning firearms, I'm not for that.

Nor am I. Obama has expressed support for further gun legislation. So has Romney. That is not the same as wanting to ban private ownership of firearms.

Justin he stated that he was looking to 'REASONABLE' restriction, that means he is looking for more.....

this is the guy who said 'cling to their bibles and their guns'

Yes he did. But that statement had nothing to do with his views regarding further gun control. He was talking about perceptions that cause people to vote against their own interests(from his perspective).

Justin, I think that your opinion sucks, hence I believe that I should 'reasonable' restrict your ability to express it, you don't need the 1st...

how far down the slippery slope would you like to go...

What are you even talking about? I'm talking about a factual representation of Obama's history on gun related issues. But obviously you have no interest in facts that don't support your opinions. By the way, that's called backwards thinking. Seeking facts to support an opinion rather than seeking facts to form it.

Romney gets kinda a pass cause he's better than Obumbles, and he knows that if he tries anything he will be hoisted on his own petard by his own party.

Sorry to dissapoint you but a president can't be impeached for supporting gun legislation. I know, those pesky facts again.

 

[rtroha]

Has mr Obama done anything in the past four years wich goes against 2A

Yes, he nominated Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Justin, president doesn't have to be impeached to be tossed under the bus by his party.

 

[Neverwinter]

Yes, he nominated Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

To replace Stevens and Souter. Those nominations had no effect on gun control. Try again.

Justin, president doesn't have to be impeached to be tossed under the bus by his party.

This is largely why Obama hasn't done anything. His party still remembers the '94 elections, even if others don't.

Sent using Tapatalk 2