It's the fact that he didn't mention us althogether that makes me nervous Pond. He said they're ok for the military and bad for criminals. So my question then is, "Ok Mr President, where do you stand with the rest of us owning them?" He specifically (and intentionally I'm sure) avoided that one.Nothing in that quote made any reference to stopping you owning one, merely that criminals toting those must be addressed.
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.
I thought George H.W. Bush did that in 1989.
They're still out there, but they don't really have the clout to sway policy or public opinion. Nonetheless, insulting them with silly nicknames isn't the way to convince them.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.
To say AK's or similar rifles have no use outside of the military is to be un-informed.
I have to disagree here. It is very common among lawyers to examine not only what someone said, but what they did not say. If a legislative body wrote a law and said that "everyone has to do A, B, and C," we infer from the statute that the legislature intended to exclude D from the list of things everyone has to do. Given the process by which political speeches are drafted and vetted, I think that it is fair to say that both every word and every omission is intentional. I would not hold the speech to the same standards if it were, for example, a situation in which a candidate is simply fielding questions.BigMikey76 said:. . . .I can see taking what he SAID out of context and fearing that there is a gun control agenda on the horizon (though I don't agree that his statement implied that), but making assumptions based on what he DID NOT SAY is simply putting words in his mouth. . . . . .
1) We need to make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns...
...I can't say that either of those points is disagreeable to me.
kraigwy said:Lets take a closer look at the AK47
While I don’t fundamentally disagree with this statement either the devil is indeed in the details. For instance what are some ways they might use to reduce access to guns by criminals?
Enact a Federal five day waiting period to buy a gun allowing more detailed background checks.
Require background checks for ammo purchases.
Require all sales to go through a FFL even individual to individual.
Eliminate on-line sales of guns and ammo.
If a legislative body wrote a law and said that "everyone has to do A, B, and C," we infer from the statute that the legislature intended to exclude D from the list of things everyone has to do.
Comm-cents wrote:
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!
I agree that these measures are probably the most likely steps to be taken, if any steps are taken at all. I don't, however, see these as completely bad things.
I don't think the Gifford's shooter would have made it and I doubt Holmes would have either.
I agree that these measures are probably the most likely steps to be taken, if any steps are taken at all. I don't, however, see these as completely bad things.
Well, the issue was keeping guns away from criminals and I doubt any of the hypothetical things I mentioned would work. We have to remember that criminals are not going to follow the law and would certainly find simply ways around these supposed controls.