Ok, gonna have to throw the bullshit flag in your face there!
I point you to the two separate issues you are not only conflating, but completely wrong about!
Obama...states. Federal...State. If you understood the Constitution, that would be a glaring mistake to you, but you just upped and ran with it...even though States EXPANDED the carrying of guns. In fact, Chicago and more broadly Illinois (where I live) actually finally relented and WAS FORCED TO allow the Concealed Carry and ownership of guns because of 2A. That all happened IN OBAMA’S HOME STATE ON HIS WATCH! And, don’t get me wrong in thinking he was jumping with glee. I’m sure he wasn’t, but he didn’t...nor can he...lift a finger to curtail 2A.
Under Obama, gun ownership DRAMATICALLY INCREASED! Why? Because the right saw him as the suitable “evil” to spur on their customers and their paymaster’s agenda. The NRA isn’t just funded by right wing zealots who don’t understand that the 2A is safe as safe could be and is going nowhere, but by the gun lobby, manufacturers.....and, oh yeah, RUSSIA!!!
You are welcome to your opinions on Obama and Trump and guns, but don’t stray into the Trumpian World of pulling facts out of your arse, especially with card-carrying gun owners who NEED to know the laws.
Apart from his taxes, his fidelity, his university, what he said this morning, what he said yesterday, what he said last week...I actually find Trump refreshingly honest about matters,
Didn't get that one entirely right, did they? Stalin was every bit as bad.In essence, it's akin to the USA in World War 2 supporting Stalin to defeat Hitler; they were both known as being bad just one was considered a lot worse than the other.
So what's that to do with siding with Stalin because the USA was attacked by Hitler's ally?
I understand your point. It was just a shit analogy. The US didn't consciously choose to side with Stalin. They would more than likely have stayed out of it if they weren't attacked by Japan and by default ended up on the side that wasn't allied to Japan.Because it highlights people will back/support one evil to remove/ destroy or deny power to what they consider a greater evil.
The US have a history of this type of thing when you consider things like Afghanistan & Iraq in the 80's
They would more than likely have stayed out of it if they weren't attacked by Japan and by default ended up on the side that wasn't allied to Japan.
As opposed to the British or any other major military or political power across the span of history??Because it highlights people will back/support one evil to remove/ destroy or deny power to what they consider a greater evil.
The US have a history of this type of thing when you consider things like Afghanistan & Iraq in the 80's
Seriously? Even Britons at the top of government were willing to allow Nazism’s march....as long as it left them alone. So, if Britain had not chosen resistance and defiance, there would have been no need for an eastern front for America.Not sure i'd agree with that. When you consider things like lend-lease, the huge defence budget increase/re-introduction of the peacetime draft in early/mid 1940 it's pretty much considered that the US was already gearing up for total war. All the pearl harbour attack did was sway public opinion and expedite their full entry into the war.
Have you just watched "Darkest Hour"?Seriously? Even Britons at the top of government were willing to allow Nazism’s march....as long as it left them alone. So, if Britain had not chosen resistance and defiance, there would have been no need for an eastern front for America.