The trouble is, the folks who were supposed to be on the side of gun rights proved to be bad managers of the nation. Such a topic would be beyond the scope of our forum's purpose, but I bring this up to note that it was quite long ago that they were identified as politicians who simply talked a big talk to gun owners but who were willing to throw us under the bus when we were not "handy."
For instance, our NRA held the previous president's feet to the fire as the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" was due to expire after 10 years. Unfortunately for the President, it was right before the 2004 election. This put the President in a difficult position. He wanted to renew the Assault Weapons Ban, a silly piece of legislation that has little to do with making the public safe. Review it for yourself here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban
I will simply note that these requirements are chiefly aimed at discouraging people from obtaining guns that "look evil" in the eyes of others who are opposed to gun rights. Tell me, is it really in the public's interest to prevent citizens from owning a firearm to which a bayonet can be mounted? How many banks have been robbed or how many evil deeds have been perpetrated by terrorists here because they had the capability to mount a bayonet to a long gun?
Or, what special magical property causes a long gun with a separate pistol grip to incite otherwise law-abiding citizens to break the law and engage in banditry more than a conventional long gun? Are there statistics that can be presented that show such an influence?
So our previous President, who eagerly subscribed to such bunkum, wanted to renew this so called "Assault Weapons Ban." However, anticipating a tough election campaign in 2004, he did not want to alienate voting gun owners by proposing such a measure. So, he let it be known that, if Congress passed such a bill, he'd be happy to sign it.
Unfortunately for President Bush's anti-gun sentiments, the Congressional leadership of the President's party were unwilling to be duped into carrying the President's water, and let it be known that they'd be happy to bring whatever bill the President suggested to a vote in the Congress. The ban then expired after its ten year term.
Gun dealers here are experiencing a land office business, and many popular ammunition calibers are in short supply, or worse. Prices are jacked up in many cases. Folks driven by panic are lining the pockets of folks having something to sell quite lavishly, and of course the banter going about in many circles feeds this situation. It is obviously not hurting the cause of free enterprise in the case of some individuals.
A study of the political scene here seems to underline two facts to me: First, that the present administration has no appetite to diminish their political backing for economic, educational, and health care initiatives by getting embroiled in a fight that they cannot win over gun regulations. Not only had President Obama made this clear during the election, he reinforced twice by publicly slapping down calls for stronger restrictions on guns by Attorney General Holder and Secretary of State Clinton. Seeing the present panic through this prism casts a different light on it.
Secondly, aligning the gun rights movement with a single party is a foolish strategy, because when that party perceives that gun owners are "in its pocket," it feels no necessity to pay attention to our interests.
These are my views of our situation here -- you may or may not find them germane to the Indian political landscape.
