Obama: AK-47s belong on battlefield, not streets

[BigMikey76]

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.

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.

 

[Spats McGee]

Note well . . .

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

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.

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.

 

[Lateck]

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,

 

[BlueTrain]

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.

 

[spacecoast]

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...

 

[Botswana]

The fact that he left out the use of firearms as a means of self defense is a pretty big deal. It's actually my biggest hang-up with his statement.

The 2nd Amendment says diddly squat about "hunting". The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting or sport shooting. That is the dodge we always see out of the gun grabbers.

 

[scottycoyote]

i believe getting a shot at more gun control has always been onthis presidents agenda. I think the fast and furious was supposed to be the path for them to make it an issue but it blew up in their faces, and thats why they are so quickly jumping on this aurora incident, its plan b. This will make his base happy and its a chance to further demonize the right, the NRA, all the "bitter people who clutch to their guns and their religion" (his words not mine).

Of course the media wont ever put forth some of the figures that have been presented in this post, the declining crime rates, how assault rifles play such a small part in crimes, how states with concealed carry laws enjoy much less violence.

You are always going to have incidents like this shooting, there is no way to stop it in a free society. Franklin said he who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. The older i get the smarter our founding fathers were.

 

[BlueTrain]

If we can ignore the fact that it mentions the militia, then we can ignore the fact that it doesn't mention hunting.

 

[MLeake]

BT, the militia saw has been debunked left and right.

Yes, the phrase is there.

Its meaning has been parsed to mean either argument - IE the militia at the time of the founders was not organized like today's National Guard, and its members were using firearms they already privately owned for the pro-2A types; or the "well-regulated" in modern terms argument for the antis.

But historical review of the comments of the framers; the Federalist Papers; and the predecessor Articles of Confederation show that the intent was for the Second Amendment to apply to individuals, as do all the other Amendments in the so-called "Bill of Rights." It was intended for the people to be able to defend against tyranny.

What you present as "a given" wasn't even how the militia phrase was interpreted until sometime after Woodrow Wilson took office.

But you are right about one thing - it has never mentioned "hunting."

 

[Pond James Pond]

If I choose an AK I should be able to have it.

Surely it is more appropriate to criticise Obama for what he said, rather than what we imagine he might have meant...

I've not heard the speech and perhaps there are other bits that are more specific but nothing in that quote made any reference to stopping you owning one, merely that criminals toting those must be addressed.

"military weapon by design..." Takes out far too many firearms...
Springfield 1903? Colt 1911? Browning's automatic rifle? Where will the line be drawn?

Same again:
Nothing in that quote made any reference to stopping you owning one, merely that criminals toting those must be addressed. "Military by design" were my words, not his...

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.

From what I gather he was making a speech about the dangers of guns in the wrong hands.
If no mention was made of the average Joe's access to guns, then the average Joe can be considered as not being "the wrong hands"...
A good thing, no?

Again. I can see why people are getting worried, but perhaps criticise Obama for what he said, rather than what we might imagine he meant...

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.

No need to apologise but, no, I do not have a stake in this.

I will follow the developments with interest as I find the US political model interesting and the Bill of Rights quite unique. I've not had this much insight into the real meaning of those statutes before joining here so I find it quite fascinating, but I still have no horse in this race.

Besides, I've already been quite clear on these fora in the past that I have no issue with a degree of gun control.
Unfortunately, not everyone is mature, considerate and responsible enough to own and carry a deadly weapon, IMO... waaaaay to many people with chips on their shoulder.

 

[BarryLee]

i believe getting a shot at more gun control has always been onthis presidents agenda.

I also believe this to be the case. Remember he wants to get re-elected to a second term and then the gloves can come off. Many like to mention that Congress will not pass any gun control bills, but we have to remember the damage that can be done without the Legislative Branch.

 

[jmortimer]

Obama base supports gun control, that is a fact beyond dispute. I know we have to P.C. it up here but it is a fact beyond dispute with 2/3 of his base supporting gun control. Simple really, but we have to play semantics games and I don't have a problem with that as otherwse, it gets the thin-skinned all excited if you try to discuss facts, which are beyond dispute.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Bad speech no matter what the President's intention was... it gives opponents an excellent chance to hang Fast and Furious around his neck. You just juxtapose his "AK47" comment with Fast and Furious and the privilege claim. Another easily preventable political gaffe.

One thing that did occur to me though is the President has the authority to put a real crimp in the AK47 market, at least to the degree that they are imported. All it takes is a decision by the Attorney General that such a firearm has no particular sporting purpose and it no longer reaches the U.S. That also lines up nicely with the other language Spats McGee noted (hunting & shooting; but not self-defense).

This would also be one of the few moves the Obama Administration could make given the current Congressional make-up. The problem from a campaign standpoint is the Brady's can barely fund themselves, so they aren't going to be donating much in the way of cash to his campaign. At best he gives his unhappy base something to chew on; but he will likely stir up his opponents even more with that move.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Even if elected, the Pres. is tied by the Congress and will be under pressure to not nail the next candidate - Clinton did that to Gore.

In general, candidates spout extreme positions and do little - Bush would trot out various extreme positions when in trouble and then do little. Mentioning them is a no-no, so think about it.

Or that's my take. Some horror can stampede the Congress also. So far we gotten through Columbine, VT and Giffords with the usual theater but no laws.

See what happens this time.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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.

Heck, we have TFL members who are saying that. There are more than a few gunowners who think feeding others to the alligator is a good idea. There aren't as many as they used to be; but they aren't as few as the should be either.

 

[kraigwy]

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.

I can. Lets take a closer look at the AK47 (and other surplus military arms).

Are they only for soldiers and criminals?????????

In 1903 President Roosevelt persuaded congress to pass acts creating the National Matches and the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice.

In 1905 Congress passed laws allowing the Army to sell "surplus military" rifles to Americans. The DCM (Division of Civilian Marksmanship) program was started to provide instruction to civilians in the use of military firearms and selling these rifles to American Citizens.

In 1996 the DCM was changed to the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program), basically the CMP is run by civilians under charter of congress, to continue the program of the DCM except now the CMP receives no federal funs (as the DCM did), but funds its marksmanship programs with the sales of surplus rifles and equipment.

Where does the AK come in? The CMP, to adhere to their charter conducts Clinics and Matches across the country. Called the GSM or Garand, Springfield and (other) military clinics and matches.

Understanding not everyone shoots vintage military rifles, the CMP created a category called Modern Military, that being AKs, SKS's AR's M1A's etc etc.

Not everyone can afford a AR or M1A as their prices are normally much higher then AKs and SKS's. Allowing such guns allows everyone to participate in the CMP programs, keeping CMP Shooting Games from being a "rich man's sport".

I'm a CMP Master Instructor, I put on CMP GSM Clinics and Matches, I see a lot of Non-Soldiers, non-criminals, compete with AKs and similar rifles.

To say AK's or similar rifles have no use outside of the military is to be un-informed. For a setting president to make such a comment is rather odd, seems like he would know about the charters of congress (during a period when a member of his party was president) commanding the CMP to conduct marksmanship activities with such rifles.

 

[wingman]

The far left would only be happy with a total gun ban,Hillary is working now in passing a UN ban.

The drug war has failed as would a gun ban.

The idea that we can prevent all death/killing is a naive idea, we would need to ban almost all products we now use, gas,vehicles, planes, etc.

Within 2 days after the Colorado shooting 13 illegal immigrants were killed and some 12 more were injured in an over turned truck they were riding in South Texas, certainly they were not shot but the media failed to circle like buzzards yet they were human and had families.

Very little came from the press(firearm wise) when a Muslim soldier killed 13 in Kileen Texas.

Politics and a liberal press.

 

[gc70]

One thing that did occur to me though is the President has the authority to put a real crimp in the AK47 market, at least to the degree that they are imported.

I thought George H.W. Bush did that in 1989.

 

[pgdion]

he's not made any statements or overtures towards banning anything. Until yesterday, they were right.

I agree with you Tom, up until 2 days ago, I wasn't sure Obama was that bad for us. He wasn't a staunch supporter, but he wasn't showing any signs of swinging the other way either. I was still leery, but certainly not concerned. Now I'm concerned (however, he wasn't getting my vote in November either way).

BTW - saw a 'Fudd' in the new just yesterday (or this morning maybe) when reading. He said exactly what Tom was just stating, to the T. I couldn't believe it. The guy said he loved guns but couldn't understand why anyone needs anything other than a 'hunting' type of gun and that legislation should ban the AR rifles. Wasn't sure the guy was even ok with hand guns. And this guy is "on our side"???

 

[Isk]

I see this response as being the absolute least he could do to keep his side happy. The statement amounts to little more than "Guns are bad in the hands of criminals, I'll think about maybe someday getting around to doing something about that later..."

Maestro Pistolero has it right. It's as little as he can say without commiting to anything.