Thread Title Search for "Obama".

[Balrog]

If you want some entertainment, do an adavanced thread search of titles for the name "Obama". You get more than 14 pages of threads, most of which have been closed. It is surprising how many people here, including moderators, did not think Obama was going to push an anti gun agenda. Its also interesting to read the reasons the moderators gave for closing the threads... many of which could be summarized as "he isn't a threat at this time".

Here is an example: "This thread is more about politics than about pending or passed laws, or pending or decided court decisions."
Well my my how times have changed. I guess it aint just about politics no more, is it? Looks like maybe we shoulda let some threads stay open and educate folks.


My question to those of you who felt that way is:
Have you changed your mind now?

 

[hso]

Of course, but an honest look at those posts show the caveat that he wouldn't be able to do anything as long as nothing catastrophic happened.

Auroa didn't qualify.

The blood of little children was what was needed and Newtown provided that.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

I think if the issue became pertinent later, the mods should re-open those threads. Perhaps they were premature in closing them. We should recognize those members who were precognitive.

 

[Balrog]

The blood of little children was what was needed and Newtown provided that.

Well you know mass shootings really aren't anything new. If you didn't think they were going to happen, you are very naïve. If you didn't think Obama would exploit them, you are very naïve. I don't consider that much on an excuse.

 

[OregonJohnny]

Newtown was VERY different from almost all other recent mass shootings.

I was visiting Denver when Aurora happened. I sat in front of the TV most of that day, somewhat shocked. I drove by the theatre on my way to the airport the next day. It felt very close, but there was still kind of a disconnect.

When Newtown happened, I was a wreck for about 3 days. I had a lump in my throat every time I turned on the news. And I'm not even a parent. But it was devastating.

I can completely understand how anti-gun people, and many who may have been on the fence, felt that Newtown was the straw that broke the camel's back. Saying that Newtown was just like all other mass shootings is not taking into account the psychological difference of it being young innocent children, in a place they felt safe and happy.

 

[joeschmoe]

It is surprising how many people here, including moderators, did not think Obama was going to push an anti gun agenda.

I looked. I could not find such posts. Can you please cite them? I see lots of ranting about Executive orders, confiscation, throw out the Constitution and war with his "volunteer army". He clearly said he wanted to reinstate the AWB. No surprise there. I think everyone knew he was anti-gun. Lots of don't accept he is the anti-christ either.

 

[TennJed]

Balrog I am not a Obama supported and believe he was anti gun from the get go, but do you think Romney would not be pushing the same way as Obama after the events in CO and CT?

 

[Balrog]

"This thread is more about politics than about pending or passed laws, or pending or decided court decisions."


"Ant-gun is not really that politically popular right now, during a HARD recession, war, etc."

"Harry Reid is from Nevada, and knows if he pushes for this - or even allows it to become an issue in the Senate, he's out on his rear. He's up for re-election in 2010, and is on thin ice as it is.
That said, no way in the world would he let Nancy Pelosi move on it and put him in that situation."


"Whoever is elected will have a hell of a lot else to worry about right away than whether or not you get to keep your guns."

"THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!!

Look - We won Heller. That was a big one, even if it didn't give us every little thing we wanted. If a president wants to do any of the stuff you've listed, they're gonna have to work for it, even with a democratic majority. Believe it or not, the Dems still remember how badly they got burned after the '94 ban."

"He won't have the votes for measures like the ones you guys are talking about. Democrats are scared of gun voters. Gun issues is what took them out of power in the house in 1994, and they know that. "

"i just saw a commercial no more than 2 minutes ago of obama supporting gun rights,not just for hunting but to defend yourselves.thank goodness.looks like we are'nt in as big of trouble as people are making it out.he even brought up the nra.after all i've seen on this site it was the last thing i expected to see in a obama add.i wonder how many gun shops are using politics to scare people into buying guns that are supposedly going to be outlawed. "

"The sky is STILL not falling. As many folks have discussed already, there was gun control in 1934... and yet we still have our guns. There was gun control passed in 1968... and yet we still have our guns. There was gun control passed in 1986 and 1994.... blah, blah, blah."

 

[Balrog]

Balrog I am not a Obama supported and believe he was anti gun from the get go, but do you think Romney would not be pushing the same way as Obama after the events in CO and CT?

\

I didn't vote from Romney either. I think Romney is anti-gun also.

 

[joeschmoe]

So you couldn't find one quote to back up your claim?

did not think Obama was going to push an anti gun agenda.

Or do you believe that anyone who doubts the claims of confiscations and rounding us up for re-education camps are blind Obama supporters? I know Congress/Obama can't order confiscations or re-education camps, and I have always known he's a gun grabbing 2nd Amendment hater. Both are true.
Your premise is false, straw man argument.

 

[TennJed]

\

I didn't vote from Romney either. I think Romney is anti-gun also.

That is why I enjoy the no political post policy on THR. What would have been the point of keeping those Obama threads open? Gun control is bigger than Obama.

 

[beatledog7]

A lot of us have said it -- the gun rights debate is steeped in politics and will be decided by politicians. How can you discuss gun rights without discussing politics?

 

[muggia59]

Realize this is much later, but just received email from senator Casey Jr from PA. Supporting assault rifle ban, magazine ban, Feinstein etc. Very sick and tired of our governments BS. Fired back a pointless reply and told him I dont want an answer back. We definetly are loosing more rights.

 

[Walkalong]

"he isn't a threat at this time".

And he wasn't, but since Newtown he is, along with many many other politicians, some from both sides of the isle (Although the ratio isn't particularly even), who were waiting their chance. Whether Romney would be pushing gun control now is completely irrelevant.

We need to focus on who is pushing and supporting this, and now that there will be a vote, we can pin the ones who vote for more gun control down, and hopefully make them pay in 2014 and beyond.

Write, email, call, and put pressure on your states Senators and Representatives.

 

[KimberUltra]

I remember last year when ct was threatening a 10 round magazine ban. Everyone pushed it aside thinking since it failed them it won't succeed in the future. Wrong.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Walkalong: That attitude is the exact reason I resigned from the NRA. If you, we, them, are not intelligent enough or mature enough to be able to identify an animal (or human) by their actions, mannerisms, and by the company they keep we do not deserve to live in a free republic. Soon we won't because it seems the policy around here and other places is to get excited long after the horse has left the barn. I'll now shut up and go back in my hole.......

 

[Walkalong]

There is a difference in an anti (Which Obama/Biden/Pelosi etc clearly are), and an anti with votes and public support to actually get anything done.

Yes, I voted against the only one of these antis I could, but without a tragedy for them to take advantage of they would not have nearly the chance to get gun control voted into law.

Yes, me must identify the antis by their voting pattern, and yes, we should campaign and vote against them, but the point remains the same, he was not a real threat the first time around compared to now with the Sandyhook tragedy that they are exploiting. Biden, Pelosi, Schumer etc have been there for years, but they needed support and a tragedy like Sandyhook to have another chance to push their agenda.

Don't crawl back in a hole, get out front and help defeat these easily identified antis.

Oh yea, Life Member of the NRA, one of the only reasons we have any gun rights left today.

 

[Balrog]

And he wasn't, but since Newtown he is

Yea that's kind of like saying Charles Manson wasn't a threat before the Tate murders.

 

[tomrkba]

At the time, there was no point in arguing about what could happen. We knew Obama liked ALL anti-rights bills since that was on his Senate voting record and in speeches/platforms.

I agree with the mods on this one.

 

[Balrog]

At the time, there was no point in arguing about what could happen. We knew Obama liked ALL anti-rights bills since that was on his Senate voting record and in speeches/platforms.

I agree with the mods on this one.

Yea, I bet Obama appreciates it too.

 

[beatledog7]

It is not impossible to be a non threat before Newtown and be a threat since Newtown, but it's a stretch to say the least.

A single event does not change a rational person's views on gun rights. And neither does a politically calculated voting record accurately reflect it.) But such an event does open the door for an opportunist. Obama is an opportunist, and we have always known that. Every opportunist is a threat because events such as Newtown can't be predicted.

 

[Walkalong]

All antis are a threat, of course, but they needed emotion to get support and get the public behind votes. Sandyhook gave then what they needed.

I bet Obama appreciates it too.

I am 100% sure he does not appreciate my voting pattern nor my donation pattern.

There wasn't a fight to win before, so one more anti made little difference, but now there is, and Sandyhook was the catalyst to get the antis going.

Instead of arguing semantics, how about getting in the fight.

It is not impossible to be a non threat before Newtown and be a threat since Newtown, but it's a stretch to say the least.

I understand the feeling, and where people are coming from on this debate on a definition of "threat". I have seen Obama as a threat to many things all along, but the opportunity has to be there, and after Sandyhook, the opportunity for more sweeping gun control was.

We must make them pay heavily at the polls for their upcoming votes. Some of the anti politicians seem to have forgotten what it cost others the last time.

 

[Balrog]

We must make them pay heavily at the polls for their upcoming votes. Some of the anti politicians seem to have forgotten what it cost others the last time.

By then its too late. The laws are passed. The newly elected won't repeal them.

 

[Walkalong]

We are where we are, if gun laws are passed, we must make them pay. The good news is nothing is passed, and our chances of defeating it all are very good. Then with no new legislation passed we still know who to try to vote out by their now being on record. Some antis we know, some we are not sure of. Some of those will have their hands forced and then they will be on the record.

Do we take a chance here? Sure, life is full of chances though. Politics is rough, dirty, strange, and complicated. I do not pretend to know how it all works.