So here we are three years into the first Obama administration and looking back I am remembering the dire predictions about Obama coming for people's guns. Hasn't happened. So now I am curious as to how the narrative has evolved. Was Obama afraid of the NRA? Is he waiting to do it in his second term? Is there an onslaught of legislation just over the horizon? Was Obama heroically blocked by the Tea Party Congress? Or was it simply all hysteria from the get-go with an uncertain economy, a seemingly different president (muslim, maybe?), phantom Al-Quaeda types around every corner? One thing you can't say is that Obama's been bad for the fire-arms industry.
Another question in the same vein is when republicans who are alleged to be pro-gun controlled all 3 branches of gov't, why did they not run the table and make it impossible in the future for any sitting gov't to effect gun rights? The reverse question (if true) of those times when democrats have owned the table why have they not followed through if they are really anti-gun?
And a follow up question(s), why after the so-called assault weapons ban legislation did a next generation assault weapon(s) hit the market "IF" the intended purpose of the assault weapons ban was to really eliminate such weapons in the hands of the public? Next question, after a military weapons maker completes a contract run for the US gov't who is the largest procurer of such weapons on the planet, is said maker of such weapons suppose to idle his entire production facility until the next contract run? Why did planes displace trains in regards to moving people? Hmmm! Sorry, another thread for another time.
In this age of privately owned companies who make up the industrial complex and under the modern capitalist market model driven by rising profits and ever rising stock prices, are we not to expect them to make some tooling modifications to military weapons and thus begin a civilian version production run between gov't contracts? Would this not seem reasonable to keep such production lines viable and manned with employees in case the war need escalates? Why do we still maintain nuclear weapons production capacity when we have nearly 10k such weapons and yet since 1945' we've only actually used 2 of them? Would legislative forces in both parties not make sure any legislation passed would not negatively effect these military weapons makers and on the flipside could a legislative assault weapons ban have really been about the fact that older technology patents were expiring and giving rise to small scale market competitors and that said legislation used the next generation patent exclusivity as the design model that pushed the small scale upstarts out of the marketplace?
Like the abortion industry (anti and pro) the gun industry is a huge industry that employs large numbers of people from makers to advocates to detractors and then you have the lobbyist industry built around both. Like abortion, if the status of guns was ever settled one way or the other, what would all these people who sell fear as a product do for a living?
The true answers lay deeper in the questions themselves but the problem is those answers would be most unpleasant for those of the democrat and republican flavor.
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.
Edward Bernays
