Originally Posted By: canvasback
Originally Posted By: Gnomon
Chuck, it should be possible to disagree with a political position and not be excoriated.

For all you sing;e-issue voters, gun rights have been expanded; for all others we as a nation are far better off than we were when Obama took office.


Wouldn't it have be fairer or more accurate to say that US gun rights have expanded despite the policies of the Obama administration.

If the subject at hand is the effectiveness of the current administration i.e. "we as a nation are far better off than we were when Obama took office." context is important because this is a somewhat subjective subject.

However it is clear to all that gun rights in the US have expanded DESPITE the policies of the current administration, pointing to a LACK of effectiveness of that same admninistration, at least on this subject..


This is certainly one way to look at it but I think it speaks to the overall system of check and balances and separation of branches.

It is disingenuous (at least in my opinion) to "blame" Obama for the economy (ignoring that it has been recovering for the past several years) and then not credit him when gun rights are expanded.

That is selective attribution. It's the final outcome that counts.

It is easy to identify errors and mistakes but when we consider that the economy was in free-fall when Obama took office and it now looks like we have averted a full-blown depression I think it's safe to say that "we as a nation are far better off..."