Testing Obama's Theory

As a gun owner, do you agree with the president?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 3.2%
  • No

    Votes: 458 96.8%

  • Total voters
    473
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is a great thread and I think it shows the disconnect between Obama and gun owners. I wonder who voted yes?
 
I wonder who voted yes?
Unfortunately our forum has some trolls, shills, and has been infiltratrated by out right anti"s that pose as member for the sole purpose of stirring up bovine excreatment.
They are quite recognizable and deserve no quarter, or respect.
 
If magically all the AK-47s of the world disappeared.. that would be OK with me. They appear to me to be the Saturday Night special of the semi automatic rifle world
.

And what if they determine your 870 shotgun, which can be had for less than $300, is a "Saturday Night Special"? When you buy into their game...and start embracing their terminology....you've already switched sides, as far as I'm concerned. Banning so-called " Saturday Night Specials" didn't measurably affect crime rates or have any other drastic impact on criminal behavior. The previous assault weapons ban proved to be useless as a crime control measure. With such obvious failings in the past, how can one reasonably hold on to the idea any future ban would have different outcomes? It'd be one thing is you could point out that banning Saturday Night specials was a worthwhile effort because associated crime rates dropped by 75% or something....but the truth of the matter is, nothing like that happened, which leads me to ask why you think any other ban would have different implications?
 
Patriotme remarked,

I'm not saying that it's going to happen but Obama runs that risk if he talks about the topic around real journalists. Of course journalists used to be the watchdogs of government overstepping it's boundries. Now we almost always have lapdogs cuddling up to those in power.

My understanding is that it's pretty easy to lose your White House Press Privileges if you challenge the President too much. I could be wrong, but that's what I thought.

Thus, there would seem to be a selection bias toward lapdoggery.

The White House is, after all, a "bully pulpit*."

Terry, 230RN

*From Wiki:

This term was coined by President Theodore Roosevelt, who referred to the White House as a "bully pulpit", by which he meant a terrific platform from which to advocate an agendum. Roosevelt famously used the word bully as an adjective meaning "superb" or "wonderful" (a more common expression in his time than it is today). An expression which survives from this era is "bully for you", synonymous with "good for you".
 
the thing the antis dont want to educate themselves enough to know the diffrence about AKS and AK is one is full auto and the other is semi auto
there are very few full auto AK-47 full auto's in this country most being AKS and SKS which both are semi auto and all shoot the 7.62X39 round which is less lethal than a .30-06 or a .308 which is more common for hunting than any 7.62
Mosin Nagant uses a much more lethal round than a AKS you dont hear any gun controllers going after the Mosins.
 
Before I voted, I thought I'd consider what the president actually said.

"I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms," Obama said.

I agree with the president of the United States. Absolutely.

"But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities."

This one's trickier.

He's saying that "a lot" of gun owners would agree that AK-47s don't belong on city streets. Let's break that down:

1) AK-47s. AK-47s are fully-automatic battle rifles. Do "a lot" of gun owners think fully-automatic battle rifles should be accessible to the general public for private ownership? I think "a lot" of the most passionate NRA members might, but the recent surge in gun ownership is driven by first-time buyers (including women) and other folks who probably don't want full-auto weapons. I certainly don't. My semis are more than sufficient for my needs (fun, target shooting, SD).
2) City streets. Anyone who cares about and respects the 4 rules of gun handling knows that a city street is not a good place for a full-auto weapon. By all means carry a hand gun for self-defense while in the city. But an AK-47? Terribly impractical, and the automatic fire vastly increases the likelihood of unintended collateral damage. Having read many threads on this very forum about city self-defense, I can reasonably extrapolate that "a lot" of gun owners would agree that carrying an AK-47 on city streets is just a bad idea.

So: I too agree with the president. Voted "yes."
 
"I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms," Obama said.
I agree with this, I just don't believe he believes they way I do. I do not add a "but" to it.

"But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities."

I disagree with the President on this one, even when AK's are used for self defense, but most AK's are used at the range or out back on the farm to have fun with.


Remember, all guns are the same to the anti's. They will take whatever they can get today, and the rest when they can. Never forget that.
 
Polls like this only help the anti's. It is inevitable that someone will vote yes, and although the numbers may be less, they can always say "even xx% of gun owners agree with the president's statement".

And to those distinguishing full auto AK's, that distinction gets lost on the general public and what we're left with is a sound bite that hurts us.

Forgive me, but now is not the time for intellectual hair splitting discussions. We are under attack. If we want to promote the 2A then we should just come out and state our position instead of posing what we consider to be rhetorical questions and then getting bombarded with devil's advocates and details ad nauseam. It makes us look divided.

We should imagine ourselves on a political campaign during this firestorm and choose our words carefully. And I hope this thread gets locked like the other reactionary threads.
 
kind of off topic post but did anyone see a while back that retard BATFE agent confiscate a whole air soft store because the moron said they could be converted to shoot real ammunition where do these idiots come from and what makes them think it is their duty to blatantly and deliberately trample all over another persons individual constitutional rights?
even if they could be converted it would be perfectly legal for someone to do so as long as they did not make a full auto conversion provided they did not try to sell it after making the conversion.

I really hope this agents supervisor at least gave him a Dinozzo slap in the back of the head to try and knock a little sense in him:D
 
Let's drop the "its not a real assault rifle" mantra. We all know what is being referred to. Arguments of semantics are obvious dodges of the real issues at hand and convince nobody of nothing. If somebody says "we should ban assault rifles like what was used in the theater shooting" it will not convince them that AR's should be allowed by pointing out that a real assault rifle is select fire. They are concerned with what the gun enabled the shooter to do. Not proper terminology.

The gun didn't enable the shooter to do anything that he couldn't have done with any number of "sporting" semi automatic rifles or shotguns.
 
The gun didn't enable the shooter to do anything that he couldn't have done with any number of "sporting" semi automatic rifles or shotguns.

It didn't because it jammed. Let's be honest, an intermediate caliber rifle with detachable box magazines (more so with drums) will allow a shooter to cause far more death and mayhem than any other type of readily available gun out there. I'm not in favor of banning them or trying to argue such but this is the issue for those who do who want them banned. Not the term "assault rifle".
 
oh I think it could have been far worse if he would have stormed in with a Saiga 12 and/or a franchi spas loaded up with slugs and buck shot.
the situation could have been just as bad if not worse if he was loaded down with a couple of 10-22's and multiple 50 and 100 round magazines.
a 22 LR is just as deadly at close range. as a matter of fact the 10-22 would be greater firepower at the range he was shooting due to magazine capacity exceeds that of a AR-15 the only diffrence between the two is the AR looks far more intimidating and a louder discharge than a 10-22 but all that would have not meant a thing once the shooting started.
just sayin.
 
Last edited:
The antis are never honest about their intentions and prefer ignorance to knowledge about gun/ammo comparisons and statistics.
They claim that they are against the AK, but remember the talk about AR-15s after the movie massacre?

They would move from banning the AK clones, ARs, and after these successes to the SKS, VZ-58, M-1A, Garand, M-1 Carbine etc. They might finish with the Mini 14, 30 and the semi-auto .22s and semi-auto handguns. Our White House right now won't allow exports of S. Korean M-1 Carbines to the US (it's the magazine capacity).

You can have a Mini 14 in the UK. However, after passing the personal police investigation of your intentions and other obstacles, your Mini 14 can only operate as a bolt-action, as with the many Enfields etc. Imagine the trouble, time and cost to obtain the licences.

Watch "jubbles2343" operate the bolt of his Mini 14 on Youtube at a range in England.
Without the constant work of the NRA and other groups (which are less effective-name one which is comparable),
the UK's laws could be the laws of the USA one day.
 
Last edited:
The antis are never honest about their intentions
Yep, they will talk "Saturday Night Specials" to the general public to try anf garner votes, and then draft legislation that includes some of the nicest handguns you own. They will talk "Assault Rifles" to put fear into voters, and then draft legislation that includes your Remington or Browning auto loader in .308 or ought six.

Always watch what the left hand is doing while they are waving the right hand to stir up voters.

If it ever gets momentum, and they drag out some old proposed legislation, and it actually comes up for a vote, this revived talk about how AK's are not good for anything but killing, and only the military needs them, will include banning a great many other guns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top