PowerPost Analysis NRA, Trump administration say Obama is to blame for ‘bump stocks

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Oct 6, 2017.

  1. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #26
    HELL no they should not, that is why the NRA is getting their butt kicked all over social media by gun owners
     
  2. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #27
    That would be the NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation).
    I know it's not the answer you wanted, but it is the correct one.
    They are the trade industry organization that represent gun manufactures.
    "its 8000 members are gun and ammunition manufacturers and dealers."
    A little background for you... https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...un-lobbying-group-you-dont-hear-about/279616/
    https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000054336

    The NRA was not founded to be the face of the gun industry. They were founded as a civl rights organization for gun owners.
     
  3. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #28
    Right because the Obama administration was one to shy away from the gun fight.
     
  4. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #29
    how DARE you bring facts here :mad::mad::mad::mad:

    Sending the NRA another donation
    --- Post Merged, Oct 6, 2017 ---
    he probably bought gun stock and made a pretty penny there :eek:
     
  5. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #30
    Republicans are taking this "blame the black president" game to ridiculous heights. Let’s understand this fine print:

    "[T]he Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions…" If you know anything about administrative law, you know that the executive agencies, like the ATF, are limited to interpreting and enforcing acts of Congress. They can’t make new law; they can only interpret existing law. Here, the ATF has said, TWICE, that it does not have the authority to regulate bump stocks under the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act. It is their opinion that in order to regulate these things, they need a new act from Congress.

    Now, maybe the ATF was wrong about its authority to act. But any time you have a Republican telling you that an executive agency has more authority than it thinks was given to them by Congress, you are talking to a hypocrite who is banking on you being too stupid to spot the con.

    "[T]he National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law." Again, the ATF has already reviewed this issue and determined that these devices DO comply with federal law. Most likely, the NRA is hoping that ATF looks at it a third time and comes to the same inexorable conclusion, so the NRA can say "bump stocks are in total compliance with federal law and the Second Amendment," so their perfect circle of death can keep rolling along.

    "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations." Lie. THIS IS A LIE. The NRA does not believe that devices designed to make semi-automatic rifles function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations, or else they’d be calling for a review of all the things that Stephen Paddock didn’t use that nonetheless would have accomplished his same goal. Like Trigger crank. Where is the NRA on this?

    The NRA’s greatest trick has always been to compartmentalize every version of a "gun," and every modification of a gun, into its own separate category, and then force regulators to treat each and every one differently. The NRA, and its stooges in Congress, has made it so merely changing the name of a thing triggers the need for new regulation to stop the thing that is banned under a different name.

    You can imagine the anarchy if other machine manufacturers had the same luck: "It says here that cars must have seat belts, but we’re selling SUVs." "Sure, there are speed limits for drivers, but our iTesla RoadWarp 3 actually has operators instead of drivers, mmmkay? So going Mach 2 down I-95 is totally legal. Maybe if you *******s understood the technology better, you’d see that."

    The NRA, and all their anti-gun-regulation followers, are so full of bull.
     
  6. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #31
    he was in power when this passed, his administration had no problems letting cartels get guns that could not be traced and Obama himself blocked any investigation of it.
     
  7. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #32
    It is obvious from your analysis that you have no idea how administrative law works or what the president's role is. Your ignore 99% of the post and deflect game is spot on though.
     
  8. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #33
    almost as good as yours overlooking the criminal negligence under obama........... yeah letting cartels get guns that can't be traced is criminal negligence
     
  9. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #34
    Your post wasn't about cartels - it was about the NRA's statement blaming Obama. My post wasn't about cartels. You're "yea but cartels" is irrelevant.
     
  10. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #35
    it's called context with an explanation chaser as to why Obama was worthless when it came to laws..........
     
  11. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #36
  12. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #37
  13. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #38
    Can I just say I'm so tired of people injecting race into things that have zero to do with race in some ******** attempt to take a veiled jab at them. It's nothing but an attempt to put them in a place where you think they should have to fight against your ridiculous claim of racism right from the start. It's honestly what has hurt the democratic party more than it's helped it.
     
  14. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #39
    Can I just say I'm so tired of people injecting Obama into things that have zero to do with Obama in some ******** attempt to take a veiled jab at him. It's nothing but an attempt to put them in a place where you think they should have to defend Obama against your ridiculous claim right from the start. It's honestly what has hurt the republican party more than it's helped it.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 6, 2017 ---
    Ad hominem. Can't argue against the facts, so attack the author rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
     
  15. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #40
    Riigghtt....because for practically the entire first term of Obama's presidency it wasn't a "blame Bush for everything" exercise in political grandstanding by Obama and his supporters. No we've never pinned the blame for anything on our leaders that occured during their term(s).
     
  16. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #41
    "facts" please, crime has been pretty level even with all the guns bought after oclueless was voted into office :rolleyes:
     
  17. citizenzen, Oct 6, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2017

    citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #42
    Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

    You left off the first part. Clumsy.
     
  18. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #43
    You literally did the same thing again. Ignore the facts cited in the study, and insult some other guy.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 6, 2017 ---
    I agree that Democrats blamed Bush for too much. I said it back then too, that we had to move past Bush asap.

    But at least Democrats blamed Bush for things that Bush actually had a direct hand in. Bush himself lobbied for tax cuts to the rich, wiping away our surplus and plunging us into a deficit. Bush himself lobbies for a declaration of war, plunging us into a seemingly neverending series of middle east conflicts. He did those things.

    The things Republicans blame Obama for are far out there, and usually only tied to Obama in that he was in the white house at the time the events occurred. Blaming Obama for this bump stock thing makes about as much sense as blaming Obama for the earthquake in Japan. Yea, he was President at the time, but he literally had nothing to do with anything related.
     
  19. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #44
    your facts from your biased source are wrong
    https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-rate-rises-slightly-remains-near-20-year-low
    http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales/index.html
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankm...ays-it-has-grown-158-since-obama-took-office/
    tons of more guns and crime rate near 20 year low.
     
  20. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #45
    Obviously you didn't read a single sentence of my source - not even the abstract. It is a survey of many studies, putting it all together and looking at trends. They even say in the article that sometimes there are outcomes different from their overall conclusion. However, more often than not, less guns meant less gun crime. Your links to one anecdote don't prove that article that looked at 130 studies in 10 countries is wrong. Not even close.
     
  21. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #46
    we are different culturally, and there is a crapload more guns since Obama took office with crime remaining at a 20 year low. biased source from
    he is an anti gun clown
     
  22. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #47
    Culturally different than who? A bunch of those studies are of US-laws.

    Also, we aren't culturally different than Australia for example. They are virtually identical to the US in every way. Big country, coastal cities with mostly farm, desert, mountains, a few cities, and plains in between. Huge cowboy culture, car culture, love country music. Same language. They even have a freakin' copy of Duck Dynasty on their TV.
     
  23. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #48
    deflection noted...................
     

Share This Page