Reply #46

I am not supporting the NRA at all.

If you accused Hitler of cannibalism--of eating Jewish children fried in their mother's fat--I might ask you to show your evidence. If you immediately leaped to the conclusion that I am a fan of Hitler, you would be way off base.

The fact is, if Hitler actually did practice cannibalism, and if your statement was supported by responsible historical research I would like to know that fact myself. I would like to be able to cite your credible sources--to make them my own.



No. I read it as a statement of opinion, based on factual claims.

The NRAs contention, whether it turns out to be true or false, makes sense and is consistent with the facts. Obama was virulently anti-gun before he was running for president. It is true that he hasn't acted on the very anti-gun opinions he held years ago, but what you are missing is that the NRA admits that in your citation.

There are two possible reasons for Obama not acting against gun rights:

1. He has had a change of heart.
2. He has found it politically advantageous to behave as he has.

If the second reason is correct, it is perfectly reasonable to think that he might change his tune in his second term. Obama is certainly not above changing tactics in his second term--as he himself said in his accidentally overheard microphone slip-up.

There is nothing deceptive about discounting Obama's behavior in his first term if you believe in the second of the two branches. And both branches are consistent with the facts. Only Obama knows the truth, and even though I voted for him twice he is a politician--prone to say what he needs to to get or maintain power.

In evaluating two theories, you can make no progress by citing evidence compatible with both. All of the evidence I've seen on this issue is compatible with both the change of heart and political advantage theories.

My acknowledging that is no more supportive of the NRA than it is supportive of you. It's just seeing clearly, as far as I can tell.