jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (27 posts)

Obama does more to promote guns than the NRA

0
TheBizWhizposted 2 years ago
Obama has actually contributed more to the increase of guns than any other president. Sales have increased an average of 8% per year since he has been in office, which has made the NRA's job a lot easier. I imagine gun makers will make donations to Hillary Clinton instead of Jeb Bush in 2016.
reply report
1. 96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Are you confusing a time correlation with a causal reaction? What has Obama done to encourage the sale of guns? Force the ACA through congress?
  reply report
  0
  TheBizWhizposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I think Credence explained the correlation very well. The fear of gun control legislation has increased sales.
  
  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/smith-wes … 55106.html
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Then fear of what Obama might do increased sales. Not anything he actually DID do. Sounds more like scare tactics from the far right is to blame than anything the President did or said.
  reply report
  0
  TheBizWhizposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Well, Obama's initial reaction to any mass shooting (14 since he became president) has been to try and solve the problem with gun control. Case in point, his first response to Charleston shooting;
  
  ""We do know that once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun," Obama said at the White House. "At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn't happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it."
  
  The author of the article then wrote: "Thursday isn't the first time Obama has used a shooting tragedy in the United States to make a renewed call for toughening gun ownership laws. Bolstering restrictions on gun sales became a top White House priority immediately following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook, which killed 20 children and left a total of 28 people dead."
  
  So either you are saying Obama is far right or you are not aware of Obama's attitude towards guns. I'll tell you; it doesn't sound like the far right creating the fear to me. It sound like the president using the fear of a tragedy to push his agenda, but in reality it backfired. Just like censorship labels bolstered sales of music, Obama trying to initiate gun control pushes the sales of guns.
  
  http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/politics/ … -shooting/
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Biz, Wilderness is right. The president stayed away for starting legislative intiatives on this issue like the plague. Obama's attitude is not the issue, it is what he does with that attitude as President and head of the Execuitve Branch of Government. After almost 7 years in office there has been no substantial movement from Washington on the gun issue.
  reply report
  0
  TheBizWhizposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Of course his attitude is the issue. lol He is the president of the United States and anything he says can sway perceptions here and abroad. I mean, less powerful men have set off a chain of events by just saying a phrase. Do you remember when Alan Greenspan used the phrase "irrational exuberance" in a speech? lol
  
  Whether or not Obama has PASSED legislation is irrelevant. It is when he IMPLIES it is when the fear sets in and people buy guns. You cannot deny that he implies it.
  reply report
  81
  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Of course, Biz I want deny that he implies it, he is a Democrat party, progressive ideology politician, I would expect no less. The people concerned about their guns should know that too and take a wait and see attitude to see if the President walks the talk, so far he hasn't.... How did the gun lobby react during Bill Clinton's term, he was not exactly in bed with the NRA?
  reply report
  0
  TheBizWhizposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  You said: "The people concerned about their guns should know that too and take a wait and see attitude to see if the President walks the talk, so far he hasn't."
  
  Well, if they wait until he walks the walk it is too late. lol Therefore, they don't wait until he acts, only reacts to the way he talks.
  reply report
2. 81
  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this
  There is no correlation, people bought guns cleaning out the shelf in fear that Obama would institute a gun ban during his administration, a ridiculous premise but a valid explanation
  reply report
3. 82
  psycheskinnerposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  How does that make him a causal factor?
  reply report
4. 78
  Larry Fieldsposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Biz's initial post is spot-on.I Now lets take a look at another of O'Bummer's actions. But first, some background.
  
  Under The Shrub, we had Operation Wide Receiver. 'Straw purchasers' would buy firearms from gun dealers, who were cooperating with the government. The purchasers' intention was to resell the weapons to drug cartels in Mexico. Federal agents followed the purchasers to the border. Then our agents attempted to arrest everyone, who was directly involved with the gun-running.
  
  Under O'Bummer, Operation Wide Receiver mutated into Operation Fast and Furious. However one minor detail changed: Zero arrests were made, until AFTER the Fast and Furious fiasco was exposed in our media. The official story was that BATF sought to made high-level arrests in the drug cartels.
  
  With the cooperation of Mexico's squeaky clean law enforcement, no doubt. /sarc
  
  There was a gunfight between our Border Patrol and Mexican drug dealers. Agent Brian Terry was shot dead. Although firearms that O'Bummer deliberately allowed to slip across the border were used, It could not be determined if the fatal bullet came from one of those firearms.
  
  What was O'Bummer's true motive for deliberately putting American weapons into the hands of Mexican drug dealers? Was it to get Americans killed, in order to advance his gun control non-agenda?
  
  No, I never said that. I merely asked the obvious question. If I had said that, I would have been labeled as a conspiracy theorist. And I refuse to play that game. I'll leave it to the other commenters on this forum to put two and two together.
  
  By the way, plausible deniability does not even begin to cut the mustard here. Nobody in law enforcement could possibly be that stupid. Make no mistake about it: F&F was approved from the top of the food chain.
  reply report
0
TheBizWhizposted 2 years ago
Why would you say there is no correlation then explain the correlation between Obama and gun sales rising?
reply report
80
BruceDPriceposted 2 years ago
In general, Obama's strategy is to stir up tension and trouble. Things are done in very calculated ways, for example, Ferguson. If you keep people off balance, they are going to start making strange adjustments in their lives. Sure, they will buy more guns. Maybe take on more insurance policies. Maybe they start putting their money in strange investments. Maybe they buy more gold and silver. They will worry more. And they should.
reply report
1. 82
  psycheskinnerposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  You think Obama caused Fergusson? I think that is *seriously* overestimating his power and influence. He can't even get a bill through both houses.
  reply report
  0
  TheBizWhizposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I believe he means stirred up trouble after Ferguson.
  reply report
  82
  psycheskinnerposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  How?
  
  Obama was on yesterday basically saying "F U America for not letting me pass gun control, this is what you get". If that is pro-gun you are looking at him through a strange prism.
  reply report
  0
  TheBizWhizposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  His FU stirs up fear, therefore more people buy guns. That is the whole premise of this forum. lol
  
  No wonder he got elected.
  reply report
67
teamrnposted 2 years ago
I'm concerned; really concerned. We, in the USA, have a problem. The problem is much greater and spans farther; much farther than gun violence, lack of respect for authority, teenage pregnancy, race-bating, gangs or poverty, to name a few. Those are the but the symptoms of the problem (forgive me, but I'm writing all of this off the top of my head, and if things sound half-baked: they are).

The American people have been become divided, fragmented in so many ways. It used to be that when people who had differences of opinion on subjects, acknowledged those differences but respected them. Then they tolerated them but still discussed civilly these differences with the occasional person being persuaded to change his or her own way of thinking. Then, they didn't talk. Today, if they disagree, they argue.

When people disagree NOW, not only do they hurl insults right and left, but they incite more violence and fan flames inciting more violence? I can still hear Rodney King from the LA riots 'fame' as he said, "can we all get along? Can we get along?"

As a society, we've become so divided and the media or other social engineers, forces and politicians who say it is up to THEM to solve the problem; haven't. When are we going to solve the problem of violence, lack of respect, and say: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.? "A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF {CANNOT STAND." A. Lincoln
reply report
1. 96
  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  +1 Well said.
  reply report
96
promisemposted 2 years ago
Maybe gun sales have gone up because of the number of highly publicized massacres. It's possible they also have gone up because the NRA is getting better at highly inflammatory rhetoric. Fox News has certainly inflamed the issue even more.
reply report
1. 0
  TheBizWhizposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I think news in general is getting "specialized". Not just Fox News. I call it "Niche News", meaning people can choose their news by their beliefs just like they choose food off of a menu. Because of this, the public cannot get a broad view of topics. All they do is become more entrenched in their own ideology.
  reply report
  96
  promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  I agree that MSNBC has an intentional liberal slant and Fox has an intentional conservative slant. I also agree that people are getting more entrenched in their own ideology to the point where they refuse to consider facts and logic. They rationalize like crazy.
  reply report
  0
  TheBizWhizposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. It is a shame that the internet is used for ready-made news instead of its intended use, which was to bring us closer together. Getting views from exaggerated headlines is more important than worthwhile content that educates the public.
  
  While I can see how Caitlyn Jenner would be important to some people, I just don't understand how it is important, educational news. I am sure I will take a couple of licks from the PC Police for saying that, but it is true.
  reply report
85
colorfuloneposted 2 years ago
Some evidence on a staged event: "Charleston S.C. shooting: Evidence of Drill plus much more"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blhXxX6G75g

Here is a Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers PDF file of the document in the above video.
https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/fil … 2-2015.pdf

If you look at the document, line 21 says:

And, any mention of Jade Helm is laughed off and called tin hat wearers?
This is a boring video but this woman breaks down the meaning and reason of Jade the program. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVxsEQMq4iU
reply report
85
colorfuloneposted 2 years ago
Fast Track passed - next TPP will most likely pass.

Brunei will to be a part of the Free Trade deal. Isn't the United States suppose to be at war with Islamic radicals? Shariah law. But, President Obama is making them partners?

Brunei has become a wealthy nation and no doubt some donations will be passing hands.

I am stunned beyond belief.
reply report
1. 85
  colorfuloneposted 2 years agoin reply to this
  "Senate Hands a Victory to Obama on Trade Pact"
  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/us/po … .html?_r=0
  reply report