You said there was no "threat." I showed that the Dem Presidential candidate openly favored gun confiscation. OK, that's not a "threat" to you. But it was to many voters. It's certainly reasonable to take it as hostility to Heller and other gun rights.milosz wrote:This is a pretty sweet combo of loaded question and non-sequitur. You are literally the person who brought up Hillary in response to the complete impossibility of a ban being enacted and the only one interested, I don't really have anything to say about her or her position so... good luck with all that.Nobody forced Hillary to speak up for gun control and to fan gun owners' fears, rational and irrational.
Maybe you should write more carefully.milosz wrote:I said nothing about Hillary or either party or... well, whatever you seem to think I said. You should read more carefully, perhaps.
What does "never any threat of ban or anything" mean, if not a threat by the politician everyone "knew" would be the next President?
johno wrote:No whining about the mean old NRA.
The NRA is still the premier gun safety educator in the US. And gun event organizer. And will be for the foreseeable future. That you don't know that shows either willful ignorance on your part or the effectiveness of the media blackout on the subject.milosz wrote:What about the NRA? It's fairly self-evident at this point that they don't exist to foster anything positive for members unto themselves, they're a mouthpiece and lobbying group for the firearms industry, to the detriment in some instances of gun owners. By constantly relying on scare tactics to drum up memberships (and sales), the process of a shrinking base of gun owners (lots of guns, relatively few gun owners in this country - the people who do just happen to own a large number), you shrink the number of voters and citizens comfortable with and supportive of gun rights.
As to your dire predictions on the fate of guns in the US:
http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/ ... un-rights/
OUT
