|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 25, 2012, 11:01 PM | #1 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 4, 2012
Posts: 203
|
Obama: AK-47s belong on battlefield, not streets
He's going for it!
Obama calls for common sense regulation Best Quote - Quote:
|
|
July 25, 2012, 11:05 PM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
I just posted this in "Has your voice been heard?" in this forum...
... but it bears repeating here.
The following is a response from my representative in Missouri, to a note I'd sent him about my concerns about possible pushes for new gun control legislation; it provides a lot of ammo for our side in a debate: Quote:
|
|
July 25, 2012, 11:35 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 24, 2010
Location: Austin, Tejas
Posts: 110
|
I agree Botswana, doesn't seem to be a smart thing to say. It's disappointing to this pro 2A independent/ Democrat. But, the Republican candidate has basically said the same thing although he's probably flip flopped on that position as well.
|
July 25, 2012, 11:47 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,944
|
I believe this is the new strategy to claim you support the Second Amendment while simultaneously looking for ways to destroy it. Attempting to make certain items or practices seem unacceptable to the general public and then restricting them. I think most gun control advocates realize that there is little difference between a 10 round magazine and a 15 round version, but the idea is to make government control seem acceptable. Then it’s just a short skip and a jump to other more aggressive policies.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
July 26, 2012, 12:00 AM | #5 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Wow, that was an abysmally dumb thing to say a few months before election. Just when pundits are lamenting the fact that nobody wants to talk about gun control, he chooses to do this.
Which, of course, gives his opponents something to sink their teeth into. Will it amount to legislation? Nope. It's just pandering, but to whom, I couldn't tell you.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
July 26, 2012, 12:02 AM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 4, 2012
Posts: 203
|
Quote:
It's ignorant and misguided. I like watching politics in a tennis match sort of way. Unfortunately, like so many things Obama seems to say these days, I think what he gains from this will be far less then what he'll lose. |
|
July 26, 2012, 01:21 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
|
I know people have a visceral dislike of any attempts to control guns but, really, is what he said wrong?
The AK47 is a military weapon by design, and I doubt anyone wants them being used by criminals. I can't argue with either of those points. Now, to then say that preventing their sale will somehow make them less prevalent in the hands of crooks is a different story, but that is not what he said in that quote. I don't have a horse in this race, but it seems to me that criminals having access to any guns is a bad thing. For me the biggest issue is that the recent horrible events that no doubt lead to this statement, and those like them are not "gun" issues but "social" issues. It is one aspect of modern politics that really annoys me, whoever the perpetrator: there is an attitude of being perceived as taking action is more important that actually addressing the issues. In this case, the media, lobby groups etc are all wanting control of guns, when that is not the route cause, but it is the action that would be seen as being the most proactive...
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic. Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
|
July 26, 2012, 01:24 AM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
Quote:
|
|
July 26, 2012, 02:16 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
I believe the president felt he had to say SOMETHING, lest he lose all credibility with his base. I can imagine tremendous pressure on him if he remained silent on the matter.
But I predict nothing will happen between now and November. Remember that Romney signed the AWB in Massachusetts and has said he would sign an AWB as president. I have yet to see him recant. See: "Mitt Romney's Draconian Gun Control (December 2007)" on YouTube. I am more concerned with what the Romney might do as president, than what Mr Obama might do before November. |
July 26, 2012, 07:32 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 4, 2012
Posts: 203
|
Funny,
In the end, who do you think will be worse for gun owners? The sitting president who has been rabidly anti-gun and continues to be so even though public opinion is not with him. or The other gun who has been rabidly anti-gun but is not so dense that he fails to see it is a losing proposition. Not to mention the national stage is a different story. Not that I want to turn this into "Campaign Mitt HQ", but Romney has made it pretty clear that he sees things differently at the state level. He also had the state legislature to back him up. Mitt is a lot of things, but stupidly obstinate is not one of them. Although, really, this is always an interesting and oh so pointless debate between the two candidates. I am not going to be voting based on their gun control record, sorry. I do think Mitt is much less likely than Barack to make a play against guns. He can see the writing on the wall. To take it back to the matter at hand though, Obama is not even waiting until he has secured election to start talking about this. I think he is trying to take a page from the Clinton playbook, but doing it badly. |
July 26, 2012, 07:56 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 941
|
Pond, James Pond: I don't want criminals to have AKs either. Not that they are military weapons so not suitable for civilians. That's a long proven useless saw. On other hand, I don't want criminals to have any guns or any weapons. I don't want them to be out of prison.
If I choose an AK I should be able to have it. The AK is not that formidable. It's not "high power." It's power is approximately (slightly less actually) as the venerable 30-30, "Formidable" is not a valid reason for gun control.
__________________
Jim Page Cogito, ergo armatum sum |
July 26, 2012, 08:00 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2008
Location: Pac.N.W.
Posts: 1,804
|
I liked what he said, there was a spike in gun sales after the recent tragedy, the more he spews his ignorance the better the odds that we will lose!
__________________
Be Smarter Than A Bore-Snake! |
July 26, 2012, 08:01 AM | #13 | ||
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
Mr.Pond,
Quote:
Quote:
"military weapon by design..." Takes out far too many firearms... Springfield 1903? Colt 1911? Browning's automatic rifle? Where will the line be drawn? But the point of the matter is if I want to tote either an AK or AR variant with a hundred round drum rather than 5 20 rounders when I want to hike in jeans and a t shirt to a shootin' spot is a no brainer... But I wouldn't want the 100 rounder for life safety needs as I wouldn't find it reliable enough Brent |
||
July 26, 2012, 08:12 AM | #14 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Interesting that he chose to use the AK47 as an example; when that was not the rifle used in the Aurora shooting. I wonder why they decided to choose the AK47 to pick on? Apparently the Administration is sensitive enough on that issue that it didn't want to risk touching on the American weapon actually used.
Though from a practical perspective, banning the one weapon that was used last and malfunctioned causing the gunman to abandon his plans doesn't strike me as a real efficient way to mitigate spree murders even if you could show that a ban might be effective. Of course, the opposition isn't interested in mitigating murders or crime. They are interested in banning guns. I think they are just starting to realize that saying so openly was what got them in trouble in the first place and now they are trying to play the "O I believe in the Second Amendment, but who needs one of those" game to start the ball rolling again. The key is to get them to say what is on their mind - most of them will eventually blurt out "We should ban them all!" if you get them talking long enough. |
July 26, 2012, 08:17 AM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 7, 2008
Location: pa.
Posts: 2,450
|
the second admendment is not about duck hunting, its about being able to defend ones freedoms from a dictutorial president and we are very close to that now. i don,t like to watch basketball, hockey or bowling but i don,t mind you watching it,the same goes for firearms. eastbank
|
July 26, 2012, 08:29 AM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2010
Location: MPLS, MN
Posts: 1,214
|
Quote:
So just exactly what is saying with regards to the rest of us in between ... not a soldier, not a criminal. Not on the battlefield, and not in the street. I'm sure this is not by accident, not with this well rehearsed, teleprompter fed president.
__________________
597 VTR, because there's so many cans and so little time! |
|
July 26, 2012, 08:44 AM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 4, 2012
Posts: 203
|
Quote:
Nevermind that no one can actually own an AK-47, it's just the generic media term for "big scary gun" |
|
July 26, 2012, 08:57 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2005
Posts: 3,733
|
This swings dangerously close to political but the two are intertwined.
Obama's base hates guns. Obama's base is not nearly as pumped up as they were in 2008 As he is rapidly loosing the middle that got him in in 2008 he needs to depress overall turnout while energizing his base. Finally, we all know Fudds out there who agree. These are the 2A's worst enemies. They appear on the news with their trap gun or deer rifle talking about how nobody needs those other guns... When people claim there is no need for these weapons show pictures of people defending their homes and businesses with them during the Rodney King riots, after Andrew in Miami and Katrina.
__________________
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin |
July 26, 2012, 09:07 AM | #19 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
||
July 26, 2012, 09:18 AM | #20 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Heck, we really are better than we were four years ago when it comes to 2A issues. Had he kept his mouth shut, the President could have taken that with him to the debates. Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
July 26, 2012, 09:21 AM | #21 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 981
|
Quote:
Quote:
I really don't think this speech implies that the President is going after any bans or outlandish control measures that would infringe on 2nd ammendment rights. We are so ready to assume that he wants to push gun control at all costs that any statement regarding guns is likely to evoke a visceral reaction, even when the statement doesn't really warrant it. His political opponents are likely to try to twist it that way, but that is standard politics, and both sides are guilty as charged when it comes to mudslinging.
__________________
Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs. |
||
July 26, 2012, 09:31 AM | #22 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Note well . . .
. . . the inclusion of the phrases "hunting and shooting." Equally important as the phrase he did not include: "self-defense."
Quote:
The other problem that I have is the attempt to make gun control seem like a reasonable "common sense" measure. It's not. Not by any stretch of the imagination. All it does is disarm the populace and potential victims. Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
July 26, 2012, 09:34 AM | #23 |
Member
Join Date: December 22, 2010
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 72
|
This is a big deal!
If said enough times we will get tired of hearing it and then they WILL pass a law! Mr. Pond, James Pond, stated he has no horse in this race. SORRY, We ALL have a stake in this. Even if we do not live in the USA. When rights are taken away anywhere, WE all lose. (As the other side will say; Look at that group, they are happy. ?? ) Let's not fall asleep with this jaw-boning.... As it can come to pass.... Next will be other arms! Lateck,
__________________
Proud Ruger & SIG owner in the Free State of Arizona! |
July 26, 2012, 09:42 AM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
Did Mr. Graves promise to never attempt to change the constitution as well?
If it looks like an AK, smells like an AK, shoots like an AK, it's an AK. Doesn't even have to be in 7.62mm.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
July 26, 2012, 09:56 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 14, 2009
Location: Sunshine and Keystone States
Posts: 4,461
|
What Obama's really saying is that nobody needs more than a single shot rifle that's the functional equivalent of a crossbow. And ya know, some of those crossbows are awfully "tactical" with all that camo and stuff... maybe all projectile-based weapons should be painted day-glo orange and have bells attached to them so we can all be aware when someone is packing. Just a matter of public safety...
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|