The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old July 25, 2012, 11:01 PM   #1
Botswana
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:
“I – like most Americans – believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “I think we recognize the traditions of gun ownership passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.

“But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,” he added.
That is just amazingly tin eared considering gun control is not gaining any ground in public opinion. Is he tired of being president?
Botswana is offline  
Old July 25, 2012, 11:05 PM   #2
MLeake
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:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the tragic shootings in Aurora, Colorado, and a potential ban on assault weapons. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
Let me first say that as a lifelong gun enthusiast, I will continue my steadfast support of our Second Amendment rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States upon taking office. As such, I am committed to preserving the right of law-abiding citizens to purchase, own, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Semi-automatic firearms were introduced more than a century ago. They account for about 15 percent of the more than 250 million privately-owned firearms in the United States, and are used for the same purposes that other firearms are, including self-defense, hunting, and recreational and competitive target shooting. Semi-automatics fire only one shot when the trigger is pulled. Contrary to some reports, semi-automatics can't "spray fire," and aren't easy to convert into machine guns.
A ban on new manufacture of assault weapons and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds was imposed from 1994 to 2004. Crime reports and felon surveys showed that assault weapons were used in only 1-2 percent of violent crimes before the ban, while crime victim surveys indicated the figure was 0.25 percent. In the 10 years before the ban, murders committed without guns outnumbered those with assault weapons by about 37-to-1. Additionally, there are now more assault weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds than ever before, and the nation's murder rate is at a 47-year low, having decreased 52 percent since 1991.
Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have strongly opposed every attempt to infringe upon our Second Amendment rights. I have always considered myself a friend and supporter of responsible and law-abiding gun owners, and believe the rights of these individuals needs to be preserved. It is no secret that President Barack Obama and his liberal anti-gun activists would like to see added regulations on the gun market and decreased access to firearms for all Americans. Rest assured, however, that I will actively and aggressively oppose them at every turn. Simply put, we do not need more anti-gun regulations for law-abiding citizens.
Again, thank you for contacting me regarding this important issue. Please feel free to call my office at (202) 225-7041 should you have any further questions or concerns about this or any other issue, or visit my website at http://graves.house.gov for more information.

Sincerely,

Sam Graves
Member of Congress

Congressman Sam Graves
mo06ima@mail.house.gov
MLeake is offline  
Old July 25, 2012, 11:35 PM   #3
Nico Testosteros
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.
Nico Testosteros is offline  
Old July 25, 2012, 11:47 PM   #4
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,757
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
BarryLee is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 12:00 AM   #5
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,396
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
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 12:02 AM   #6
Botswana
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 4, 2012
Posts: 203
Quote:
It's just pandering, but to whom, I couldn't tell you.
Probably people who don't know any better. He is talking about doing background checks, which already happens. He's complaining about AK's only being in the hands of our soldiers, while clearly having no idea what that means, unless he's using the media definition of "AK".

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.
Botswana is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 01:21 AM   #7
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 2,983
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...
__________________
You cannot wake someone who is pretending to sleep. Stop pretending. Wake up.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 01:24 AM   #8
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Will it amount to legislation? Nope. It's just pandering, but to whom, I couldn't tell you.
Obama obviously has to give his supporters who favor gun control some hint of hope. If he joined the NRA and started taking his family shooting on a weekly basis, he would still attract precious few votes from gun owners (he continues to support a new assault weapons ban according to his press secretary). But a hint that he might do something to advance gun control may be enough to energize some of his supporters. And if nothing happens ... it is Congress' fault.
gc70 is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 02:16 AM   #9
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,090
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.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 07:32 AM   #10
Botswana
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.
Botswana is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 07:56 AM   #11
JimPage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 636
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
JimPage is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 08:00 AM   #12
comn-cents
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!
comn-cents is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 08:01 AM   #13
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
Mr.Pond,
Quote:
I know people have a visceral dislike of any attempts to control guns but, really, is what he said wrong?
Absolutely...
Quote:
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.
Most folks want to prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who shouldn't have them but...
"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
hogdogs is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 08:12 AM   #14
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,689
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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 08:17 AM   #15
eastbank
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 7, 2008
Location: pa.
Posts: 1,099
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
eastbank is online now  
Old July 26, 2012, 08:29 AM   #16
pgdion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2010
Location: MPLS, MN
Posts: 1,112
Quote:
He's complaining about AK's only being in the hands of our soldiers,
He's also still sitting a bit on the fence. Did you notice he said they belong in the hands of soldiers on the battle field ... and ... they don't belong in the hands of criminals on the street.

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!
pgdion is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 08:44 AM   #17
Botswana
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 4, 2012
Posts: 203
Quote:
Interesting that he chose to use the AK47 as an example
I think he is just following the trend set forth by the media and pundits. The AK-47 is often invoked due to its negative association as the weapon of choice among terrorists and our traditional enemies.

Nevermind that no one can actually own an AK-47, it's just the generic media term for "big scary gun"
Botswana is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 08:57 AM   #18
Musketeer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2005
Posts: 3,732
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
Musketeer is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 09:07 AM   #19
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,501
Quote:
...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.
I'm not so sure it's a net loss. After 4 years of hysterical anti-Obama rhetoric by the NRA and after the F&F scandal, perhaps his campaign advisers have decided that the pro-gun crowd is a hopeless lost cause. It's likely that they're right.
Quote:
If he joined the NRA and started taking his family shooting on a weekly basis, he would still attract precious few votes from gun owners...
+1.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 09:18 AM   #20
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,396
Quote:
Obama's base hates guns.
You might be surprised. I know a few gun owners who voted for him. Their justification has been that he's not made any statements or overtures towards banning anything. Until yesterday, they were right.

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:
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.
The "Fudd" moniker is insulting and best avoided. Frankly, I can't remember seeing anyone like that in the news since the 2004 sunset.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 09:21 AM   #21
BigMikey76
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 432
Quote:
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.
That is exactly right. School shootings and other random mass shootings are a social issue. That is why the President focused his speech on such things as making it more difficult for the guns to get into criminal hands, working with local LE to get better enforcement of existing laws and supporting youth programs in an attempt to decrease the likelihood that young people will resort to gun violence in the first place. Those were the details that provided context for the statement about AKs not belonging on the streets. The statement about AKs can be twisted any way you want if the context is ignored.

Quote:
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.
This is also a good point. If he remained silent on the recent events in Aurora, would we be happy with that silence? Probably not. Had he not addressed the issue, there would be just as many, if not more, people upset with him because he would seem uncaring, which is certainly not what he wants in an election year.

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.”

A gun should be a tool in the hands of a deadly weapon, not a deadly weapon in the hands of a tool.
BigMikey76 is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 09:31 AM   #22
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,126
Note well . . .

. . . the inclusion of the phrases "hunting and shooting." Equally important as the phrase he did not include: "self-defense."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond
I know people have a visceral dislike of any attempts to control guns but, really, is what he said wrong?
In some ways, yes, in some ways, no. It is not wrong to say that guns shouldn't be in the hands of "criminals on the street." However, there are a great many of us who are neither soldiers on the battlefield, nor criminals on the street. His speech makes no provision for us. What then? A fairly simple change in law could change many gun owners from law-abiding gun owners to "criminals on the street." For example, a law limiting all handgun magazines to 10 rounds would force every Glock 19 owner to either turn in magazines, destroy them, or be a criminal. Never mind the fact that there are millions of people who own guns with 10+ round magazines, none of whom have killed anybody.

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:
Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond
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.
Many firearms are either military by design, or have their origins in military design. 1911, AR15, Mini-14, Beretta M9 (is that the model?) . . . Rifles based on the AR15 platform are commonly called "Modern Sporting Rifles" these days. They're actually a very good choice for multi-purpose rifles. Do I want them used by criminals? No, but I don't particularly want criminals using a blunderbuss, either. Or a crossbow. Or a bolt-action rifle. The origin of the design is of no consequence.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 09:34 AM   #23
Lateck
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!
Lateck is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 09:42 AM   #24
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
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.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 09:56 AM   #25
spacecoast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2009
Location: Sunshine and Keystone States
Posts: 4,136
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...
spacecoast is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16196 seconds with 9 queries