TAG | obama
Since Barack Obama’s election, a whisper became a roar. The whisper started during the presidential campaign. The NRA, like it does in most high profile elections, started attacking Obama because he did not support gun rights as much as the other candidate, John McCain. For instance, they created this website, which includes lots of doctored pictures of Obama looking like an evil villain, and phrases like “if you vote for Obama, you lose your rights.”
Now, that whisper has become a roar, with gun sales soaring since Obama’s election and buyers claiming that they want to buy guns now in fear that they can’t in the future.
Virginia gun owner Kyle Lewandowski said he was buying a .45-caliber pistol to “hedge my bets.”
“Every election year, you have to worry about your rights being eroded a little bit at a time,” he said. “I also knew, because of the Democrat majority and because of the election, everybody would have the same reaction I did,” he added
Notwithstanding the fear-mongering tactics of the NRA (which, in my opinion, are just as bad as the animal rights and anti-hunting groups on the other side of the spectrum), are people really this gullible? When I hear people talking about “Obama is going to take away our guns,” I cannot help but wonder if these people are joking or serious. I sincerely doubt that Barack Obama will attempt to use his influence to alter gun rights in the US.
It is preposterous that anyone thinks that increasing or restricting gun rights is a priority for the US right now. The country is deeply involved in military conflict. The economy is tanking. The national debt is climbing closer and closer to an unhealthy level. Do you really think that Obama is going to get into office and say: “OK, Congress, let’s destroy all the political capital I have right now and try to do something radical about gun rights.” That is not going to happen. Obama needs all the political capital he can get right now to attack all of the serious problems in the United States and the world. If he decides to waste it dealing with a pet issue, he is a moron.
The bottom line is this. If you’ve got a rifle, you’ve got a shotgun, you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it away. Alright? So they can keep on talking about it but this is just not true. And by the way, here’s another thing you’ve got to understand. Even if I wanted to take it away, I couldn’t get it done. I don’t have the votes in Congress.
The fact that Americans can be tricked this easily is exactly what is wrong with the political process today.
I stumbled across this old article that Greg Mankiw wrote in 2000 (reposted on his blog). He writes:
Voting is a civic responsibility, they tell us, because democracy works best when everyone participates . . .
. . . The problem is, this isn’t true. Sometimes the most responsible thing a person can do on election day is stay at home . . .
. . . By not voting, they are doing themselves and everyone else a favor. If the ill-informed were all induced to vote, they would merely add random noise to the outcome . . .
So, therefore, if you voted because of “change” or “experience,” but did not understand either of the candidates’ policies, perhaps it would have been nicer for the rest of us who made an informed decision if you had just stayed home. For the record, Starbucks did not check to see if I had an “I Voted” sticker on when they gave me my free coffee.
Here’s my question: What % of rhetoric of “change v. experience” will we hear as opposed to real cost-benefit issue debate? I predict 95% change v. experience rhetoric, 5% issues. Although that could be different, considering the bailout plan is on everyone’s minds. Hopefully I can catch some of the debate… I have a big legal writing project due tomorrow.
I also predict that Obama has been itching to debate McCain for a while now. Whether one or the other is a better candidate for president, there is no question that Obama is the better orator. I would be surprised if anyone dubbed McCain the “winner” of a debate with Obama… he’s going to need to win through other means if he will win…
Apparently, one of Barack Obama’s largest political liabilities is that 15% of voters think he is a Muslim, and do not feel comfortable voting for a Muslim (AP-Yahoo Poll Conducted April 2-14) (some polls say 10%). Notwithstanding that it is a bit crazy to think someone who just publicly dealt with his connections to a crazy Christian pastor is Muslim, it disturbs me that 15% of the country would not vote for a candidate because he is a Muslim. Isn’t it racist to not vote for someone because he practices a particular religion? I do not see any other way to describe these attitudes. Isn’t the Jim Crow era over? Haven’t we moved on? Apparently not, for 15% of the country.
Sorry to harp on the gas tax holiday so much, lately, but this is hilarious: