Previous Post
Next Post


Letter to the Editor from

Even before Barack Obama was elected, the National Rifle Association labeled him a “serious threat to Second Amendment liberties” (The Nation, Sept. 10). After the election, the NRA warned “American gun owners will soon be the targets of an attack dog named Rahm Emanuel.” . . .

However, this assault on Second Amendment rights never occurred. In fact, according to gun industry lobbyist Richard Feldman, “Obama has done everything in his power to stay away from the gun issue.” Furthermore, Obama’s “inaction on guns earned him an F in 2009 from the pro-gun control Brady Center.”

So why all the paranoia? Simple — fear-mongering by the NRA and the gun industry it represents sells product. In 2001, the first year of George W. Bush’s presidency, gun sales dropped a whopping 23 percent. Conversely, gun sales “soared 23 percent in 2009.” Why? According to the NRA, President Obama was coming to take away its members’ guns. Hogwash!

Gun makers have a problem: Their products can last a lifetime. The solution? Create an environment of fear. Although the murder rate in the United States has declined by 44 percent since 1995, articles published in popular gun magazines belie this fact.

“Most gun publications … are glorified catalogs in which the line between editorial and advertising (content) is virtually nonexistent. Many are selling more than guns; they’re also pitching fear.”

And gun and ammunition manufacturers are complicit as well, promoting alarmist content in their ads and on their websites.

While President Obama is not coming after your guns, the NRA and the industry it represents surely are picking your pockets. So, the next time you train your sights on something, make sure it’s the right target. The president is not the boogeyman the NRA makes him out to be.

Cray Little, Vero Beach

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “Everything in his power to stay away from the gun issue” ???

    My a$$, he did exactly what we all thought he would do….send his minions to do it for him, that way he has plausible deniability at election time, and if it goes well, ala BinLaden, he’ll take the credit. Look at his miserable career..he has nothing to claim other than community organizing , hahaha.

    Example: Fast and Furious was a bold an daring plot to advance his anti-gun agenda.

    Another example: MAIG….they operate with govt employees on govt tax dollars…..DOJ would tear them a new hole if not for Obama’s boy looking the other way.

    Another Example: The brady bunch and related orgs…..they are the walking dead. Only thing keeping them moving if their firm belief that they have a friend in Obama. Any other self righteous org wold have folder years ago….what do they have like a few K likes on their Facebook page…lol

    • “he did exactly what we all thought he would do”

      Really? Because prior to his inauguration everyone was predicting that we’d see a renewed AWB within the first 100 days of his Presidency. Didn’t happen.

      Instead all we got were Fast and Furious and and multiple sale registration on border states. Not that I agree with those things, of course, I oppose them strongly. However he hasn’t turned out to be anywhere near the gun grabber everyone predicted.

      • Allow me to add some perspective here.

        1. Obama appointed two of the four SCOTUS justices who opined that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t protect the God given right of INDIVIDUALS to armed defense.

        2. While he’s seriously out of his league, he’s at least smart enough to know that showing his true colors on the gun grabbing front will hurt his chances at reelection (his #1 priority since taking office).

        3. Consider his penchant for executive orders along with his widely publicized off-mic comments to the Russian president (the gist was that he’ll have more flexibility after the moochers and dumb$&!?s vote him into a second term).

        Given the above it’s WAY too early to say we’ve seen Obama in action on guns. We’ve only seen Obama inaction, on purpose.

        I unabashedly believe that the Scumbag-In-Chief is every bit the gun grabbing bully that the NRA has claimed. He’s at least proven the ‘bully’ part of that assessment beyond the shadow of a doubt.

        • Bingo. Also remember, If (oh, God) the POS is re-elected, he wont have to worry about future elections and do what he REALLY wants to do.

        • You and the guys running the NRA are completely and utterly retarded, lol. Some of the things you listed where just dumb. I’m sadden to have to live in world with people like you. Just admit your wrong and move on .

    • The roots of Fast and Furious extend back prior to January 2009, meaning prior to the Obama presidency, but everybody keeps forgetting that.

      The investigations of Fast and Furious have not found evidence that Obama or Eric Holder were properly briefed on Fast and Furious, or that either had anything to do with the gunrunning and other failures of Fast and Furious.

      • the roots don’t go anywhere. The bush admin had an operation where the guns were electronicly tracked and never allowed to leave the country . they also did something eric holder never did, he arrested the peope trying to take them into mexico .
        so put away the tin foil and get a nice ball hat, F&F is all holders deal.

      • ‘Wide Receiver’ was conducted in cooperation with the Government of Mexico.

        Please present evidence that the Mexican government was cooperating with operation F&F.

      • Not true. Go read the incomplete IG report. Wide Reciever and F&F were unrelated. WR was strictly a local operation that failed whereas F&F was coordinated by “high officials of the Justice Depatment.

  2. Clinton tried it, and spent the rest of his time in office regretting it. Would our president sign a “gun control” bill? You betcha. Is it going to happen? Nope.
    Congress is where the laws come from, and few representatives really want the kind of direct opposition that seriously working for gun control brings. Note that I said serious.
    Lots of people talk about and propose bills that never actually even make it out of committee. That’s the way they want it, so they can claim that they tried, but not have to reap the fruit of their bitter planting.
    The reality is that meaningful change pro-con gun laws is one of the third rails of politics. Lots of people talk about it; few actually do anything about it. That’s why I don’t take the platform statements of GOP and Dem very seriously. Saying it and doing it are two very different things. The best I can say is that GOP generally will stand against gun control…but we’ve seen more advancement through groups like SAF and the legal process than we have through our duly elected representatives.
    My double penny.

    • Congress is where the laws come from…

      Unless they’re executive orders.

      The best I can say is that GOP generally will stand against gun control…

      Unless they’re people like Regan or Romney.

  3. Interesting post. I too have often noticed that the gun magazines draw a very fine line, if any, between advertising and content. And the NRA surely does have an interest in stoking worries about loss of gun rights. But was it so irrational to think that Obama would try to take away those rights, given his ideology and previous statements? After all, everyone knows he wanted to, and refrained only because he surveyed the landscape and saw that the chances of success did not justify the political cost of trying.

    And what would he do in a second term, when he never again has to face the voters? Maybe we’ll find out.

    • “Interesting post. I too have often noticed that the gun magazines draw a very fine line, if any, between advertising and content. ”

      Selective bias – Have you looked at any genre-specific magazines, i.e. cars, motorcycles, guitars, bodybuilding, etc..? They all do that. You quite literally have to look for the fine print that says its and advertisement!

    • “But was it so irrational to think that Obama would try to take away those rights, given his ideology and previous statements? After all, everyone knows he wanted to, and refrained only because he surveyed the landscape and saw that the chances of success did not justify the political cost of trying.”

      I followed Obama closely before voting and never saw anything about gun control. Give me one example of his “previous statements” showing that he wanted more gun control.

      • I followed Obama prior to the election and saw nothing. Period. Nothing. Some community organizing, some cushy ‘teaching’ job at a university where he worked more on the links than on the lectures… Oh, and some time in the State Senate, where he did… Nothing.

        But none of that changes the fact that Barak Hussein is a Chicago style bully. Please give me one example that he doesn’t stand against every principle on which this great nation was founded? And a quote from his speeches won’t cut it; he’s proven to be a more effecient liar than rabblerouser. And that’s really saying something.

        • I’m not making any claims to the contrary, all I did wask ask for evidence, ANY evidence, to support the idea that Obama wants to take our guns away. And i’m doing it again. How/why is a “Chicago style bully?” How has he proven himself to be a liar?

          I understand he has been rather ineffective in office thus far but that does not make him a gun grabbing liar. I do not agree with many of the presidents views but, since Ron Paul will never win, he is better than the alternative IMO.

  4. While he has managed to avoid the subject of firearms at all costs, there is the matter of the ban on the sales of Garand rifles from Korea through executive order. But his history as a law maker is quite poor when it comes to personal firearm ownership.

    In 1996 He openly supported a ban on the manufacture sale and possession of handguns. Two years later he endorsed a ban on the sale or transfer of semi-automatic firearms. In 1999 he supported a 500% tax increase on guns and ammunition. 99 was a busy year for this pro-big government president. He co-sponsored legislation limiting gun purchases to one per month. In 2003 he voted to ban numerous rifles and shotguns. Then in 2004 he voted to prosecute anyone who used a gun in a self defense situation, even in their own home. He voted against a national right to carry in 2004, and 2005 voted to ban several types of rifle ammunition. That same year he voted to open gun manufacturers and sellers to lawsuits from the use of their products. He supported the DC gun ban.

    And let us not forget Fast and Furious which was intended to alter American perception on the 2nd amendment with the overall purpose of increasing restrictions on weapons sales.

    We need only look to the policies and opinions of the trusted advisors he surrounds and surrounded himself with. Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago sound familiar?

    He cannot run for a 2nd term and admit he wants Chicago styled laws nation wide. He will wait until his 2nd term for that.

  5. He has made two appointments to the Supreme Court. Both of them have stated they do NOT believe the Second Amendment applies to civilians who are not in the sanctioned militia, that there is no fundamental right to self-defense, and that they would vote to overturn Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago if they get an opportunity. I know (for his supporters in the media and the left) “the buck never stops” anywhere near Obama, but those are his Supreme Court judges. He, and they, believe that the Constitution is a “living document” – meaning that they can interpret it any way they want, as long as they have the brute power to enforce that interpretation.

    Why would we believe anything Obama says, when he has admitted lying in his own autobiography? I mean, seriously – he can’t even tell the truth to himself?

    • I call B.S. Yes both were in the minority in Heller and McDonald, but no, I have not seen anywhere that either would vote to overturn these decisions, and neither has ever said that there is no right to self-defense. Further, the Heller minority all agreed that the second expressed an individual right(not a group right) to keep and bear arms, albeit in connection with service in a milita. And the Constitution being a “living” document has nothing to do with “interpreting any way you want to.” And by the way, Scalia is not into “original intent” but “plain meaning.” (Which hasn’t stopped hm from interpreting what would sseem to be pretty plain and unambiguous language.) All of this is rather esoteric stuff. The court throughout its history, IMHO, has always decided what result it wants and then applied whatever anyalysis gets them there. It is not peculiar to democrats or “liberal activist judges.”

      • Respectfully, you have a few things wrong.

        I call B.S. Yes both were in the minority in Heller and McDonald

        Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined the court well after Heller was decided.

        Further, the Heller minority all agreed that the second expressed an individual right(not a group right) to keep and bear arms, albeit in connection with service in a milita.

        You present that as if it contradicts the earlier posters. But their point was that the dissent (which Kagan and Sotomayor have said they agree with) did not recognize a right to self defense. And, in fact, the dissent in Heller does not recognize any individual right under the 2A to self defense. For example, the dissent says:

        Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

        You also posted: And the Constitution being a “living” document has nothing to do with “interpreting any way you want to.”

        The living constitution view does mean that the intended meaning of the document at the time of the framers does not control in today’s world. Instead, times change, and what was a right back then may not be a right today. While this may not mean they can interpret it “any way you want to,” it does mean that rights can appear and disappear as public opinion, or judicial opinion, changes. This is the main criticism of the living constitution view.

        And by the way, Scalia is not into “original intent” but “plain meaning.”

        Scalia in fact follows originalism, not plain meaning, which I think you are confusing with textualism (which Scalia also defends as a means of interpreting statutes). Scalia has never been an advocate of the plain meaning approach. Textualism means we have to look at the words of the statute, and that judges can’t rewrite the law based on what they believe the lawmakers probably intended (especially when unintended consequences arise, which is when judges are tempted to interpret a law against the text, but in favor of what they see as the intent of the legislators). By contrast, the plain meaning approach basically just looks at the dictionary definition of the statute’s words, without considering the context or common understanding.

        The court throughout its history, IMHO, has always decided what result it wants and then applied whatever anyalysis gets them there. It is not peculiar to democrats or “liberal activist judges.”

        The court has not always done this. I think the Justices have, over history, been fairly true to their duties to interpret the constitution without just trying to reach a political outcome. Not in every case, but most of the time. It’s why we have so much respect for the court (as compared to the other institutions–like congress), and why we end up with opinions where liberal Justices vote against politically liberal positions, and conservative justices vote for them (such as the legalization of medical marijuana, when concepts of federalism controlled their views, not their expected political leanings). So when you say the court has “always” decided the result it wanted first, then used whatever interpretive method was needed to get there, I have to disagree, and I think any objective study of the court’s history would back me up.

  6. I’m not sure I understand the problem. The firearms industry has a marketing plan that works. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, between 2008 and 2011, jobs in companies that make, distribute, and sell firearms and ammunition have grown 30% — adding 23,000 direct jobs. The NSSF estimates that the industry’s “direct economic impact” doubled to $13.6 billion in that time. Forbes says, By any measure, the gun industry is outpacing the US economy that has been inching along at a 2% annual rate.

    I could just imagine the PSH from Cray Little, Vero Beach, if the bailed out the firearms industry.

    • The point is that most readers believe the NRA represents the public. When it is really just an industry sales mouthpiece.

      The NRA is not your friend.

  7. I agree with the overall theme of the article. The hyperventilation from the NRA has gotten sickening, and the administrations record hasn’t lined up with the rhetoric.

    I don’t know how fair it is to blame the industry for this. The NRA is not the industries lobbying group, it’s primarily funded by member contributions. The Nation Shooting Sports Foundation is the industries actual lobbying and public advocacy group. Their rhetoric in contrast has been fairly reserved, when compared to the NRA. Of course either way, the manufacturers are benefiting from it in terms of gun sales.

    I’m an NRA member, but I’m really beginning to question my commitment. It seems like it’s becoming a partisan Republican organization, rather than an actual gun rights group.

    They used to give gun-friendly Democrats positive grades, in accordance with their officially non-partisan position. Now they fail pro-gun Democratic legislators for the audacious act of voting to confirm Obama’s appointments to the Supreme Court, as though deadlocking the process is a reasonable position.

    By all rights Harry Reid should get glowing reviews from the NRA. As the Senate Majority Leader he’s blocked attempts by some in his own party to pass gun control legislation, and helped numerous pro-gun bills go while Obama has been in office. Instead they threw him under the bus.

    • They “threw him under the bus” as you put it because he voted to confirm Sotomayor and Kagan.; two individuals that are on record in their opposition to the Heller and McDonald decisions. While lately the Supreme Court has been almost an ally to gun rights, it is difficult to call yourself a reliable supporter of the Second Amendment when you vote for individuals that would be willing to reduce the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to a mere truism.

      • How could Sotomayor or Kagan been “on record” as oppositng the Heller decision before it was ever decided, i.e., at th time they were up for confirmation?!?!? DOH! Are you telling us that the NRA can see into the future????

        • No, I was referring to the end result of those decisions, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right, not a collective one.

    • The NRA didn’t endorse Reid during his last run for Senate — but it didn’t endorse his opponent, either. Having criticised Reid’s support for Kagan and the Wise Latina, the NRA sat out the Nevada Senate election. That’s hardly throwing Dirty Harry under the bus.

  8. Judges, judges, judges. 99.9% of Democratic appointed judges detest the 2nd amendment- how in the world can that not be more clear to people? When you vote for a national or state democrat you are voting for the judges they appoint.

    • god help me and keep the lightening from striking me but I agree with matt on this one. barry, rahm, difi and that crowd are anti gun. They also know that the pro gun crowd has gotten stronger and more aggressive. They simply wait for a moment of weakness or diverted attention.

    • That “matt” is a doppelganger of the matt which is normally here. Its easy to see too, he is impling that you should vote Republican.

        • That’s why I picked a location. 🙂

          Related CSB: A few years ago, I worked at Home Depot for about 3 years. Somewhere about halfway through that tenure, I started putting Matt3 on my apron and signatures on in-store forms. At the point I started doing it, out of ~200 employees we had 11 Matts. I was the 3rd longest tenured, hence the 3. I’m not sure we ever had fewer than 6 while I was there.

        • All joking aside, I think Ralph Farago needs to do something about this username problem. I’ve had my username conscripted by two others. One person used (and is continuing to use) the exact same name, “Bob”.

          How many other regulars have had their usernames stolen by newbs, often with completely opposite views about the subject being commented on? How am I supposed to keep arguing for my opinion when another Bob is throwing contradictory comments into the mix? Who can tell what I said versus what the other one said?

          Robert F, you need to put a filter on the usernames-&-emails part of the comments engine. If a username has already been selected by another member, then notify the new member that it has been taken and he should choose a different username. I don’t know how hard to implement that may be, but I think it must be done, and soon.

          Chime in, please, if you agree.

        • Agreed. We’re looking for a WP Guru. I’ll add this to the list. Sorry for the inconvenience and besmirchment.

  9. Mr. Farago, I hope you are trolling, because otherwise you remind me of a friend who was handling a small rattlesnake while he explained to me that snakes had no inclination to bite humans. My friend’s argument rested on the fact that he had not been bitten to that point, and I found it persuasive right up to the point when the reptile presented his argument.

  10. The president is not the boogeyman the NRA makes him out to be.

    Yes, he most certainly is, and the NRA didn’t make him out to be all of the inglorious things the man is– he did it himself, often directly from the horse’s mouth.

    A few of those things are that he’s a narcissist and will do anything to hold power. Anything includes leaving sleeping dragons, such as firearm regulation, the hell alone until he has nothing to lose politically by going after them.

  11. It still amazes me that people buy into this train of thought. Obviously did not look to Senator Obama’s record in Illinois to see that he is a threat to 2nd Amendment liberties. Mr. Obama does not stand alone in his administration and although he has been very careful not to say the words himself until recently you have only to look at others doing the talking for him. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton working diligently with the UN on an International solution to our propensity for guns in the US, Attorney General Eric Holder and the DOJ (and yes I do believe he is guilty as sin) working to aid the cause with Fast & Furious and every Liberal/Progressive (or whatever you want to call them) talking head chatting up the airwaves about more gun control and more restraint on DGU by defeating SYG laws and on and on… As far as gun makers go AND gun owners, the innovation that has been shown in our industry over the past few years in particular has kept the customers coming back for more. It’s not about one gun lasting a lifetime it’s about 2nd Amendment loving gun owners being passionate about guns. And as for the NRA using fear mongering just take a look at the other side. The Brady bunch has been using fear mongering techniques for years very successfully so now that the pendulum is swinging in the other direction and the NRA is successfully supporting our right to keep and bear arms they’re bad. AND OBTW the reason the murder rate in the US has declined by 44% is BECAUSE we have the right to own guns and even criminals don’t want to breach a home where they might not have the advantage. And just to finish this up … isn’t it great that we live in this amazing country of ours where we can agree to disagree. It’s called freedom of speech and it’s backed by the 2nd Amendment.
    Have a great day
    Kate Krueger / Talking Guns

  12. The president is not the boogeyman the NRA makes him out to be.

    Damning with faint praise. Barry wasted his first term political capital on Obamacare. His lame duck term will be less ambitious, leaving him free to deal with us if he so chooses. Look for a renewal of the UN gun ban, the AWB to rear it’s ugly head (as recently reintroduced by DiFi), a long gun registry by executive order or regulatory action, and this one will include more than the border states, and who knows what other insults. Of course, he just might decide to spend his second term on burying the US economy, just as he spent his first term. ‘Cause once the Obamacare and capital gains taxes kick in, the economy will be deader than Kelsey’s nuts.

    • Hey Ralph, why don’t you tell us what the income tax rate was for high earners back in Eisenhower’s day. He’s a Republican, right? And what about during Nixon’s day? Wasn’t it Reagan who managed to raise taxes on most Americans–except the richest?

  13. Never in a million years did I expect to see Vero Beach show up on here…it sucks here in Zero Beach. Nothing ever happens here (it’s only like 13 square miles in size. It’s usually the areas around it…Palm Bay, Port saint lucie, etc

    • That’s funny. Vero Beach residents want to be in Port Saint Lucie, and everyone in PSL wishes they were anywhere else.

  14. It Is funny. I voted for Obama the first time. Homestly he has done so many different things I do t agree with that gun issues are kind of low on priority. I am glad to see that the GOP has had the balls to push for national reciprocity. Regardless there are so many thing this president did which I find unconstitutional that I couldn’t vote for him again.

    • The famous HR822 national handgun reciprocity bill that passed the House was aggressively promoted by Republicans and a core of Blue Dog Democrats led by Heath Shuler from North Carolina via Tennessee. Unfortunately, Shuler isn’t running for reelection, so we are losing a strong 2A guy in the majority party.

  15. Save this letter and mail it back to him in a year or two when the inevitable, which all halfway wise gun owners know will happen, occurs.

    • You mean like when the NRA warned about all the bad things that would happen, but didn’t, if obama was elected for the first time?

  16. If you remember the old tale, or fable if you will, of the boy who cried wolf, I can see a very dangerous scenario by those who will choose to use it.

    Use your minions to do your dirty work for you, and when they “cry wolf” over your malevolent deeds, you can show the world your “innocence.” Once enough of this has gone on, the majority of people will pay heed no more to the claims of evil about you, and then, you really release your hell-hounds and do your evil deeds, as most won’t realize what is happening until it is just too late to do anything about it.

    It’s not outside the range of plausible AND it is quite doable.

  17. Keep it in mind that under the new National Healthcare program, ( you know that 2,000 + page book of rules and regs nobody read before they passed it, and when people did start readin’ it the big org’s went to the monarchy to beg for wavers )
    there’s not any part of your life that can’t be controlled by fedgov.
    Seen it predicted that once this thing kicks in, the anti’s will start their endless rants over how unfair it is that people have to pay for all those unnecessary and preventable medical costs of treating gunshot wounds and all those other related costs. Guns are just too dangerous for people to have and since they can’t ban them outright, they’ll have to all be registered as a small first step, cost-cutting measure.

  18. While President Obama is not coming after your guns, the NRA and the industry it represents surely are picking your pockets.

    I make a distinction between giving money to the NRA, which isn’t very different in practice from a political contribution to the RNC, and giving money to the gun industry, in which case you generally get firearms, ammunition, or accessories in return.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here