Obama: AK-47s belong on battlefield, not streets
- Thread starter Botswana
- Start date
- Status
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.
By the way, I Agree, Pond has no stake in this one. That's why I skimmed through to read his posts first.
Strafer Gott
New member
If we were actually able to buy real select fire military weapons, it would be different. The issue is similar to the one at the range. 2 second spacing between shots speed limits. We are already keister deep in laws, regulations, and rules. We buy licenses and pay fees. In many places we are constrained from exercising basic rights. Enforcement abounds. Why should new gun laws even have a priority?
BigMikey76
New member
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. The fact that he didn't mention self defense can just as easily mean that he is not concerned with legal possession of firearms, and he therefore did not feel it necessary to mention it.
I can't say with any certainty that I know what he meant or whether he has any hidden agenda. I can say that the things he ACTUALLY SAID were all centerred around two concepts:
1) We need to make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns
2) We need to address the social aspect of the issue by supporting programs that decrease the chances of young people getting to the point that they feel violence is the answer to their problems.
I can't say that either of those points is disagreeable to me.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Yes, and the criteria are pretty arbitrary. If President Obama plans to enact any kind of gun control, then it will have to be similar to his expansion of reporting requirements to semi-auto rifles - by stretching out authority Congress has already delegated to him.
Assuming he wants to have that fight, the two places I see that are really open are importation of semi-automatic rifles, and perhaps implementing the proposed sporting purposes test for shotguns that they floated earlier in his term (which would turn a bunch of domestic shotguns into Destructive Devices under the NFA as well as ban a bunch of imported shotguns). I think either of those would be politically foolish though; but the Administration has done more than a few things I regarded as politically foolish.
BigMikey76
New member
I agree with you on this statement, but that is not what he said. He said
"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 never said that they have no use outside of the military. I suppose the second half of the statement, the part about "the streets of our cities" could be interpreted to apply to legal private ownership, but the context of the statement does not lend itself to that conclusion.
Spats McGee
Administrator
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:
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.
Obviously I just pulled these points out of thin air, but we know they’re not too far off base. I would personally oppose all these ideas and feel they would start that proverbial snowball rolling down hill.
The problem is the statement of barring access to criminals.
Prior to the shooting in Aurora, James Holmes had not committed any crime involving a firearm until the point where he left his apartment with the intent to murder others. The exact timing of when that became a crime might be under debate, but the fact is that up until he started shooting, there was nothing indicating he had illegal intent.
The police or feds are not omnipotent. We can't predict people who have bad intentions and even if we could there would be no way to tell if anyone would really follow through.
We can have a "national discussion", but usually what that means out of a politicians mouth is they want to pass a law. Of course they do, it's the only solution they have. We have enough laws. We have MORE than enough laws. If the current laws are deemed ineffective, then the proper action would be to repeal some of the current laws and replace them with something more effective.
That never happens in the USA though. They just make more behavior illegal.
There have been many stories, albeit buried by the mainstream media, of potential mass shootings that were stopped by those wielding firearms.
Maybe what we need to ask is how do we stop these shootings in gun free zones? Even that won't stop the whole problem. Just ask Rep. Giffords.
We are not going to stop murder in this country. We can either allow people to defend themselves or make them easier targets.
Prior to the shooting in Aurora, James Holmes had not committed any crime involving a firearm until the point where he left his apartment with the intent to murder others. The exact timing of when that became a crime might be under debate, but the fact is that up until he started shooting, there was nothing indicating he had illegal intent.
The police or feds are not omnipotent. We can't predict people who have bad intentions and even if we could there would be no way to tell if anyone would really follow through.
We can have a "national discussion", but usually what that means out of a politicians mouth is they want to pass a law. Of course they do, it's the only solution they have. We have enough laws. We have MORE than enough laws. If the current laws are deemed ineffective, then the proper action would be to repeal some of the current laws and replace them with something more effective.
That never happens in the USA though. They just make more behavior illegal.
There have been many stories, albeit buried by the mainstream media, of potential mass shootings that were stopped by those wielding firearms.
Maybe what we need to ask is how do we stop these shootings in gun free zones? Even that won't stop the whole problem. Just ask Rep. Giffords.
We are not going to stop murder in this country. We can either allow people to defend themselves or make them easier targets.
Sinlessorrow
New member
I wonder if Obama realizes we use the M16FOW and our enemies use the AK-47?
motorhead0922
New member
kraigwy said:
kraigwy, I learn something almost every time you post!
BigMikey76
New member
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. All of the things you mentioned here are aimed at reducing the chances of criminals getting their hands on guns. If your background has no red flags, then all it would be is an inconvenience. You would still be able to purchase firearms, just not quite as fast. In an organized society, the government is tasked with protecting the populace. We may not always agree with the way they do it, but that is part of representative government. Accepting an inconvenience so the government can try to do its job is not the same as giving up rights. To the best of my knowledge, there is no "right to walk out of the store with my new gun without a waiting period."
That is true, but it doesn't really apply. We are not talking about a legislative body. We are talking about a speech. Even if we were talking about legislation, however, your logic is still not quite on track. You are talking about legal obligations, not rights. The concern is not whether we HAVE to do something, as in your example, it is whether we will be ALLOWED to do something. The logic you presented works the other way in this case. If the law says we are NOT ALLOWED to do A, B and C, but does not mention D, and we therefore assume that the legislature intentionally left D off the list, that means we ARE allowed to do D. That is a much more appropriate example in this situation. The logic of intentional exclusion as it applies to this example lends itself far more readily to the idea that anything not mentioned was left out because there is no intention of restricting it.
Do you realize the National Guard was still being called the militia in the 1920s? I think maybe the word "militia" now has a bad connotation, seeing as how some otherwise very nice folks take it upon themselves to try to organize their own private army and call it a militia.
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.
All these controls would do is score politicians a few points and make things more difficult for law abiding citizens. The bigger problem is that after implementing some “reasonable” controls when there is not reduction in violence guess what’s next ever more draconian levels of control.
One thing some states have and some don't (mine does) is a requirement to have a permit to purchase a hand gun or any AR style rifle. I like this solution myself and feel it offer us all the rights we deserve with an extra barrier between the criminals/crazies and the guns. It's nothing more than a slightly more in depth background check (which everyone should still pass if not a felon and not un-stable) but it does require showing up in person at your local police dept or sheriff's office in filling out a form in front of them. There is no cost and if your good, you get your permit to purchase in about a week. It's good for a year, is continuously renewable, and lets you buy a gun and take it with you same day. I think that many would have a tough time even showing up in person or passing the screening. I don't think the Gifford's shooter would have made it and I doubt Holmes would have either. They just would have come off as too unstable I think (and I'm not sure they would even have tried to get the permit). This system also stops the heat of the moment rash thinking to some extent because there is now a waiting period for that first gun. I like the system myself and it hasn't stopped me or anyone I know from getting all the guns we want. I personally feel better knowing that not just anyone can walk in off the street at anytime and buy a handgun or AR style rifle.
So, what do you base this on? When I got my permit the government clerical worker took my form, fingerprints and $75. There was no psychological screening and I doubt she looked at me more than once during the entire process. I suspect neither of the people you mentioned would have been denied a permit based simply on the observation of the person processing the request.
The president and all these anti gunners want to live in a fairly land state where only the government at various levels has guns. In history nations that have done this have ALWAYS paid a high price in blood and lives for these policies. Ask the people of North Korea what that price is...
Look at the UK and other places, the government cannot claim they lowered murder or anything else, in fact in some cities crime is higher than ever and the police have taken to skewing what’s reported as a crime to try to lower the numbers...
Australia restricted guns to the point when they had a infestation of rabbits they had to hand out dynamite to the farmers to try to help deal with the problem... Funny I never thought dynamite was a safe as a firearm... (Not that it goes off easily)
I think its funny that in a election year they are now willing to roll the gun control carpet out in front of everyone.... This is one administration that simply does not learn from the past...
Look at the UK and other places, the government cannot claim they lowered murder or anything else, in fact in some cities crime is higher than ever and the police have taken to skewing what’s reported as a crime to try to lower the numbers...
Australia restricted guns to the point when they had a infestation of rabbits they had to hand out dynamite to the farmers to try to help deal with the problem... Funny I never thought dynamite was a safe as a firearm... (Not that it goes off easily)
I think its funny that in a election year they are now willing to roll the gun control carpet out in front of everyone.... This is one administration that simply does not learn from the past...
BigMikey76
New member
This is absolutely correct. The law breakers will always find a way to break the law, but that doesn't mean that the lawmakers should not try to make it more difficult for them.
The other end of it is the enforcement of laws, which was a major point in the President's speech. He said that part of the equation is working with LE to make sure that the laws are enforced. That is really all the government can do.
- Status