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.
AK-47s don't belong in the hands of soldiers; at least, not soldiers of the USA, educated how to properly fire a longarm, and clean it. Maybe in the hands of uneducated conscripts...

(educated how to take care of a firearm, not necessarily Physics, or Chemistry)
 
The quote in the OP is not quite complete.
I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. I think we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation. That hunting and shooting are 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, not in the hands of criminals. That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.
Click to expand...

The way I perceive Obama's statement is that he tried to say things everyone could agree with (i.e. criminals and guns), while trying to reassure gun owners and simultaneously give gun control advocates some hope, but all without making ANY specific commitments. It is hard to see how the statement could have been any more nebulous.
 
Overall, I can accept and respect the opinion for what it is. It doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is, as long as they keep it out of our rights.
Click to expand...

The problem is that he's in a position to get his opinion tangled up in our rights...under the radar, of course.

Personally, I have no need for an AK or an AR15, and don't presently own an example of either...but "need" has nothing to do with the question, and what I need has nothing to do with what anyone else needs or simply wants. If you want one...why should you not be able to go and buy one? Sadly, there are people who would like very much to have the power to determine what you should and shouldn't have...and that's the travesty.
 
I think the President should be able to own whatever firearm he wants to until he moves back to Chicago.
 
Anti gun politicians love to use the the old "many gun owners agree that we need gun restriction XYZ". They are trying to make the general public think gosh, even gun owners agree with this gun restriction, when they don't.

Truth seems to be optional with most anti's.
 
"Assault weapons" and "AK-47" are the buzz words for the antis in their rabid campaign to reenact a permanent Federal "assault weapons" ban.

The Colorado shooter, James Holmes, used an AR-15.
 
"I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals," Obama said. "That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. "
Click to expand...
The key to the statement is: "not in the hands of criminals". So, yeah, I agree with that.

Also important
Speaking aboard Air Force One as the president flew Sunday to meet with families of those killed, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Obama did not have plans to push for new legislation in light of the Colorado shooting.

"The president's view is that we can take steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them under existing law. And that's his focus right now," Carney said, adding it was too early to determine how the issue would play in the election.
Click to expand...
 
What are we voting on?

The snippet that about AKs? That's absurd on the face of it if you're knowledgable about semiautomatic rifles.

The speech before the Urban League as a whole?

I'm more annoyed that the Fox writer used assault rifle as interchangeable with semiautomatic rifle in writing the article.
 
I am being sarcastic, however I do hope he knows "our" soldiers carry AR's and not "AK's", or he does not know the difference.:uhoh:
 
I actually long for a day in which it's acceptable to carry rifles everywhere. So no, I highly disagree.

BTW, almost ZERO politicians on either side take the 2nd amendment seriously. This is evidenced by the fact that the places MOST forbidden of gun control would be Federal property. The 2nd amendment has never been supported by the courts under the 14th amendment. Hence, the 2nd amendment would technically only apply to the FEDERAL government. Hence, the right to "keep and bear arms" would apply to all federal property. But no, those are the places it's most strictly forbidden.

Republicans and Democrats don't really care about the 2nd Amendment. PERIOD.
 
I don't think a semi-auto AK-47 (or an AR-15, for that matter) is any more dangerous than other rifle.

It's the user, not the inanimate object!
 
I freaking screwed the poll! :banghead:

Don't ask my how it happened, but I clicked 'YES' and hit submit before I realized that I had made a mistake. I hope I don't make the same mistake when I go to vote in November! :eek:

In no way do I agree with Obama's statement.
 
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.
 
beatledog7 said:
Correct me if I err, but hasn't it usually been the soldiers we were fighting against that carried AKs? Isn't it still that way, mostly?

If so, why would our president want to make sure that's where the AKs are?
Click to expand...
That might be the only kind of military rifle he can name. It's probably come up a few times in conversation about why he needed to shield Holder with executive privilege.
 
What a shocker... I never would have guessed that's how he feels about military style rifles.
Again, I'm shocked!
 
I'm kind of surprised (like... REALLY) surprised that 5 people actually voted YES on here.
 
FreedomFreak said:
I actually long for a day in which it's acceptable to carry rifles everywhere. So no, I highly disagree.

BTW, almost ZERO politicians on either side take the 2nd amendment seriously. This is evidenced by the fact that the places MOST forbidden of gun control would be Federal property. The 2nd amendment has never been supported by the courts under the 14th amendment. Hence, the 2nd amendment would technically only apply to the FEDERAL government. Hence, the right to "keep and bear arms" would apply to all federal property. But no, those are the places it's most strictly forbidden.

Republicans and Democrats don't really care about the 2nd Amendment. PERIOD.
Click to expand...
Watch it FreedomFreak. With that logic you'll never see the Emperor's new clothes.
 
I personally thing that he picked AK-47 as his example deliberately. I think he was careful to say words like "criminal", "mentally ill", and "streets" which imply "mean streets" etc. He is a liberal politician pandering with words to an audience of antis. I think it notable that he did not mention any legislation in the offing because he needs to votes of a huge number of otherwise liberal voters who happen to support fully the 2nd Amendment. One cannot line up liberal vs conservative, Democrat vs Republican when it comes to gun control. It is not a partisan issue (although I will concede there are trends down party line). Some of the most ardent 2nd amendment supports are Democrats. There are plenty of 2nd amendment antis who are Republicans (bye bye Dick Lugar). It is a little harder to say there are plenty of liberal 2nd Amendment supportes because in today's climate, one who support RKBA is sort of stripped of their liberal "credentials"...so I say otherwise liberal...that is in fact me. I am quite liberal on many subjects. I am also rather conservative on many others. I'd like to say I am a liberal when it comes to RKBA..."I'd like to see the liberal ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens and a liberal tearning down of gun control laws".

I am gonna get flamed, and of course I could be wrong, but the current administration is NOT the Clinton administration nor is the USA of 2012 the USA of 1992 or 1996. The value of the 2nd Amendment is much more in the forefront of the mind of the people of the USA and that fact is in the forefront of the mind of the politicians. Dianne Finestien? No. Bloomberg? No. But lots and lots of politicians? Yes. The current administration in the White House? I think so. They've got a fight on their hands to get re-elected. Gun Control would pretty much end that...they know that.
 
There are gun owners who do believe AKs, ARs and other rifles in the same class should not be available to private citizens. We've had threads discussing this before. This board is not representative of all gun owners but is instead comprised primarily of those with a strong passion for firearms. Thousands of households own firearm(s) without the level of interest held by most here and there views are often going to be very different than those commonly found here.

Personally i'm tired of "polls" given only to those one expects favorable answers from. They are serve no purpose but to mislead.
 
1) Virginia Tech shooter used a Glock and a Walther P22. No so called "assault rifle" used
2) The Glifford Shooting in arizona used a glock. No so called "assault rifle" used
3) The current "AK-47 bandit" in So Cal is using an AK with a 75 round drum to rob banks. (this is under Califorinia's strick gun laws.
4) Norway has one of the strictest gun laws in the world, but the shooter managed to kill 77 and injure 300+ people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Obama's Thoughts on Gun Violence - Politics or Truth
Replies
2
Views
608
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
C
  • Locked
Obama's Gun Dance
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
P
  • Locked
Obama's record on firearms triggers run on sales in state
Replies
0
Views
394
PILMAN
P
G
  • Locked
Why the NRA must be stopped.
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
Al Thompson
A
T
  • Locked
Obama Claims He Supports Individual Gun Rights
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
125
Views
7K
Winchester 73
W
Back
Top