NYTimes Gun Laws Article And A Stereotypical Vanity Fair Summary

When President Obama took office, gun rights advocates sounded the alarm, warning that he intended to strip them of their arms and ammunition.

And yet the opposite is happening. Mr. Obama has been largely silent on the issue while states are engaged in a new and largely successful push for expanded gun rights, even passing measures that have been rejected in the past.

Full Story: NewYorkTimes

A surprisingly negative and stereotypical “crib sheet” summary of the New York Times article at over at Vanity Fair.


6 responses to “NYTimes Gun Laws Article And A Stereotypical Vanity Fair Summary”

  1. Articles like this make me happy. As a Pro-Gun Democrat (Is that possible?) I’ll be happy when the hysteria over the election of a Democratic president dies out and prices on firearms and ammunition drops. I don’t mean any disrespect to Republicans, and I am surely aware of Obama’s record on firearm policy, but the NRA is such a powerful institution that it is going to be extremely hard for a president, no matter how powerful, to completely change laws that have been in place for years.

    Obviously I’m aware that this post won’t get any love, but I think before people jump to over-hyped conclusions about the status of 2nd Amendment rights they need to step back and take a good look at the way things are instead of jumping to how they might be. Even though it doesn’t seem like it sometimes, we are still a country where public opinion is King, and with gun rights being so popular right now, it’s going to be very hard to make significant changes to gun laws with every Republican, and many Democrats, supporting gun-rights.

  2. Jeremiah,
    instead of jumping “to over-hyped conclusions about the status of 2nd Amendment” I think vigilance is the term you’re looking for. It’s only by vigilantly watching over and protecting our 2nd Amendment rights that we retain them. If that makes us look jumpy, then so be it!

  3. I definitely agree with you on that point, but I think it’s one thing to be vigilant and another entirely to start a movement to see the President’s birth certificate because he is the scourge to every one of our American rights (dumb). Vigilance is completely different than accusations and rumors about things that aren’t really happening.

    1. Again, IF they “aren’t really happening” it is because we keep vigilant watch. Just because something hasn’t happened YET, doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

      As for “accusations and rumors” I think we can take the gun control folks at their word and expect them to try to take our guns.

      1. You’re right; I’m definitely not trying to disagree with you. I think vigilance is the thing that keeps gun rights in place. I just hate it when everyone gets freaked out and buys all the ammunition and guns to be found, causing prices on both to SKYROCKET.

        1. Here’s to cheaper guns and ammunition! Boom Boom Boom!