NRA vs Obama

doobie

Banned
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
8,423
Likes
266
Feedback: 7 / 0 / 0
NRA vs. Obama.

It's long but here are the first three paragraphs...

With the 2008 presidential election upon us, the National Rifle Association is making their case against Barack Obama. They unflinchingly describe him as “the most anti-gun presidential candidate in American history” and have dedicated large sums of money to exposing his anti-gun agenda.

An in-depth look at his record justifies their position. Not only is Obama the economic socialist Rush Limbaugh has said he is, he is also a gun-banning associate of 1960s radicals who cannot wait to take away one of America’s greatest freedoms - - the right to keep and bear arms.

The NRA points out the fact that Obama supports handgun bans while Obama frequently excuses himself by saying he supports the Second Amendment but believes states, cities, and municipalities should be able to regulate types of handguns and implement local restrictions. (This convolution is an example of the type of reasoning he uses to explain how he can both find handgun bans and the Heller case, which banned handgun bans, to be “reasonable.”)
Continued
 
I expected a louder voice from the NRA. I hope this connects to all the Fudds in the world.
 
I expected a louder voice from the NRA. I hope this connects to all the Fudds in the world.

Why they don't truly care about your rights? And would gladly sit down with the Brady Campaign and draft up 'common-sense' legislation that doesn't infringe on your rights...too much.

If they truly had gun owners in their heart they'd disavow the ATF, GCA, NFA and be working to repeal them.
 
Now I'm really confused. A third party writes an article about the NRA and Obama (A) based upon which some people now seem to think the NRA "isn't doing enough"(B). Have I got that right? If so please explain logic for getting from A to B. If not, then please just explain.
 
Back
Top Bottom