Nicole, than'ks for the advice. I think that, or I hope that, what I was suggesting was that instead of just saying "obama sucks" - Say "Obama sucks because.....and no offenes to toys539 ....Instead of saying "take no advice from Obama" - support why I should not take his advice. Gun enthusiasts tend to lose their momentum and support when they say thay "hate on obama", but do not say why. Does that make sense? I want the gun enthusiaists to gain support, and I think the first step in gaining support is to send a message, a consisent message, full of facts and conclusions.
Ah. Thank you for the clarification. There is a huge difference between "Show your work" and "Don't say things I don't like to hear" and I'm afraid I misinterpreted your post as the later instead of the former.
By way of response/tangential ramblings: You have a valid point. I would point out though that while you are going to run into a lot of Republicans in any kind of group of gun enthusiasts, the younger generation of gun nuts and particularly on NES is much more libertarian than party-line Republican. As TOY said, "the current idiots." If you started a thread asking if people liked GWB and his policies, I think the answers here would be overwhelmingly "NO." I think there's a general sentiment of finding him less despicable than Obama, but a large consensus of posters here has no love for the Republicans. And that is where the non-gun nuts lose us - there is an assumption that all gun nuts are Bible-quoting, abortion banning, gay-hating white guys with Republican party cards and that doesn't describe most of the gun nuts I know, and certainly not the ones on NES.
For us, it is a given that nearly all the policiticians in DC are liars, scoundrels, and notable for sticking their noses into things they don't understand. If you haven't reached a similar conclusion, your average NESer will conclude that you just haven't been paying attention.
Just to illustrate, Joe Biden recently suggested that no one (particuarly women) needed an AR for home defense, instead they should have a double-barreled shotgun and just shoot through their door if they feel scared. What is wrong with this?
1. ARs are more ergonomic and have considerably less recoil than your typical shotgun, which means your average person will do better if handed an AR and is certainly more likely to practice with the AR.
2. A double-barreled shotgun allows two shots before reloading. An AR will allow minimally 5, potentially several times that depending on magazine choice. Why is this a good thing? Talk to a hunter. Ask if they've ever heard of someone shooting a 100+ lb deer right in the heart/lungs and watched the deer run off. They will laugh and tell you it happens ALL the time. Bullets are not magic. One shot =/= one kill. It can, but there's certainly no guarantee of that. Now imagine a home defense scenario. You are scared out of your mind, so your aim is likely a bit off. There may be multiple attackers. They may be on drugs. They are just as able to run towards you as run away if you shoot them. And it may take multiple hits to make them stop being a threat to you. Do you want two shots or as many as you can get? I know I sure as heck want more than two!
3. As a responsible, law-abiding citizen, shooting through an exterior door is generally verboten, both ethically and legally. If someone is still outside and has not breached the door, they are not yet an imminent danger to me. I cannot shoot someone just because they are standing in my yard yelling scary things. Additionally, if they are on the other side of the door, it is unlikely that I have identified the target and impossible to know if the shot is a good shot (e.g. there could be police or helpful neighbors coming up the walk behind the threat and I can't see them). Shooting through your front door because you are scared is likely to land you in jail and is not something you will see advocated amongst responsible gun owners.
4. Biden also encouraged the use of a "warning shot" into the air. Such things are generally illegal. In most jurisdictions, the discharge of a gun is the use of deadly force. You can't employ deadly force just because you are scared, you must have a reasonable fear of imminent death or grievous bodily harm. And if you DO have such a reasonable fear, why on God's green earth would you waste ammo on a warning shot? Moreover, if you have such a reasonable fear, you are very unlikely to have the TIME for a warning shot. If someone has given me reason to believe they are about to kill me, I want them to stop and I want them to stop RIGHT NOW.
In conclusion, Biden went on national TV and told people to use guns that are less effective, with which they are likely to be less proficient, that are more likely to fail to stop a threat, and encouraged them to engage in multiple behaviors that are illegal. He has NO clue what he is talking about, and it is painfully obvious to any gun nut that this is the case. And this is what happens darn near every time the politicians start talking about guns. If you want examples, start a thread asking everyone to contribute examples of "dumbest things politicians have said about guns" and ask them to explain to a newb why it was a dumb thing. That should be sufficiently amusing to engage us.
For more on this general theme of why what the media/politicians say is stupid and uninformed, you should read the following post. Correia kicks ass, and reading this post would be an excellent start on your gun education.
An opinion on gun control | Monster Hunter Nation