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

[pgdion]

I just don't think some of these nut cases would even have the guts to go into their PD. Keep in mind that Holmes was turned away from a range on a 'bad' feeling about him. not saying this is a catch all or guarantee, just an extra barrier. BTW - I'm not suggesting to do what your state does (that's 'gone too far'). Here there are no fingerprints and there is no cost (so everyone can do it). Just requires showing up in person, filling out a background form, and then passing a little scrutiny than the FFL check does. I like the system.

 

[kraigwy]

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.

And just how would that have changed things in most of the mass shooting we've had the last few years?

Short Answer: None, none what so ever. Chicago has more restrictive firearms laws, how is that working out for them?

Your ideals are like many (all) gun control laws, the sound good, give people a warm fuzzy feeling, but haven't reduced crime one little bit.

So what do they accomplish besides "infringe" on Law abiding citizens.

Infringe.................where have I seen that word before?

Infringe: to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress:

 

[Axelwik]

I really don't think that Obama will take away gun rights. If he's so anti-gun, then why did he do these things?

From http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-07-21/obama-romney-views-have-evolved-toward-gun-rights

September 2008: Obama seeks to reassure gun owners: "I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. ... There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away." Nonetheless, gun sales go up when Obama wins, apparently because of fear that new restrictions are imminent under his administration.

2009: As president, Obama signs a law allowing people to carry concealed weapons in the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and other national parks and wildlife refuges and another that lets people carry guns in their checked bags on Amtrak trains.

2010: The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence gives Obama a grade of "F'' for failing to push even the gun restrictions he supported while campaigning.

In 2009 he actually EXPANDED gun rights!

 

[kraigwy]

2009: As president, Obama signs a law allowing people to carry concealed weapons in the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and other national parks and wildlife refuges

Not to get political be lets be fair here.

That bill was a rider to another bill he had no choice in signing. It was not a stand alone bill. He did in fact come out with an executive order reversing another's executive order allowing firearms into National Parks.

 

[gc70]

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.

I agree that these measures are probably the most likely steps to be taken, if any steps are taken at all.

If you want to see at least some of the things Obama is contemplating, you can read about them -in his own words- in the article he wrote for the Arizona Daily Star following the Giffords shooting. The actions cited in that article essentially boiled down to making NICS information more accurate, complete, and timely.

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.

How does an arbitrary waiting period achieve anything? The information is either available in NICS or it is not. Unlike wine, database search results do not improve with age.

How does a background search for ammo achieve anything? If NICS checks work properly for guns, criminals will not have guns in which to use ammo; if they do not work for guns, they will also not work for ammo.

Requiring all sales to go through FFLs would only enrich gun dealers. If you think all purchasers need to be checked through NICS (and I do not), open NICS up to individual use.

Please explain how eliminating "online sales" achieves anything. Buying a gun "online" simply means you have reached an agreement to conduct a transaction with/through an FFL or a face-to-face transaction with an individual. As to ammo, see above.

 

[gc70]

That bill was a rider to another bill he had no choice in signing. It was not a stand alone bill. He did in fact come out with an executive order reversing another's executive order allowing firearms into National Parks.

I don't think Obama revoked the regulation adopted by the Bush administration; a federal court took care of that without his involvement. However, the Obama administration did not pursue a challenge of the court ruling or conduct the environmental impact assessment that was the court's basis for invalidating the regulation.

 

[tobnpr]

Far as I'm concerned, he (Obama) can keep shooting himself in the foot...
There is LESS support for stricter gun regulations- not more- among the voting public.

Other than the far-left liberals, that won't let facts interfere with their arguments, informed Americans and firearms owners know that allowing self-defense weapons into the hands of law-abiding citizens has lowered violent crime and murder rates- not raised them...

The Democrats- even Reid- understands that the majority of centrist and right-leaning Dems will not support stricter gun regulations.

How are those strict gun control laws working out in Chicago for ya, Rahm?
Only the gang-bangers and criminals have guns...

The problem is, it starts under the guise of "high capacity magazines"...
Who needs them, "they" say...
Well, I would fairly say, no one...
BUT...the problem is, if you ban magazines with say, capacity of 50 rounds or more- it will open the FLOODGATES...

They won't be happy stopping there. They'll continue to whittle away at our 2nd Amendment rights. So, there must be a line in the sand...right now.

What "they" also don't realize is that anyone that trains with their weapons, can effect mag changes in two seconds.

There was just an episode of TAC TV where Vickers competed with Sterling subgun against a competition handgun shooter.
Despite the fact that the handgun shooter had to effect a mag change, he was every bit as accurate, and effective against the clock and targets as Vickers with the subgun...

The non-shooting (and some of the shooting, as well) public is just plain ignorant...and I don't mean that in a mean way, just in the pure definition of the term. They don't understand the FACTS.

 

[Axelwik]

Kraigwy, I'm just stating facts... everything else is just talk.

I voted for Obama in 2008 and will again this year.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Latest Pres. statement on gun laws -

http://www.politico.com/politico44/...-on-gun-control-short-of-new-laws-130201.html

Looks like the AK statement doesn't indicate push for new laws but a general look, blah, blah. Romney basically said the same thing.

It will blow over, the Olympics will fill the cable news shows. Some ranting and that's it.

 

[Sparks1957]

We are not going to stop murder in this country. We can either allow people to defend themselves or make them easier targets

Some of the ideas being posted here by gun owners are pretty disturbing... having to go your police department to get a permit to buy a gun? Eliminating on-line sales of guns and ammo? What?

Since when do criminals pay a whole lot of attention to the law? All you are suggesting will simply make it more difficult for law-abiding people to participate in the shooting sports.

Places like Chicago do not allow people to carry guns... and look at the statistics about gunshot deaths there, it clearly is working isn't it?

I'm all for keeping weapons out of the hands of the lunatic fringe, believe me. You won't do it by passing more gun laws.

 

[kraigwy]

The problem is, it starts under the guise of "high capacity magazines"...
Who needs them, "they" say...
Well, I would fairly say, no one...

Again, I'll go back to my stand on competition shooting.

One of the events in Service Rifle Matches is the Rattle Battle, or Infantry Trophy Match fired at Camp Perry and other major matches.

The ITT requires high cap. magazines. You basically start out with a team of 6 shooters, you are issued a set amount of ammo and fired at different ranges. Starting at 600 yards the targets are exposed for 50 seconds. During that time the team fires at 8 targets. They then move to shorter ranges doing the same thing in the same time period. The more hits you score and the furthest ranges, rather then the shorter, the higher your score.

If you tried to fire the match with 5 or 10 round magazines you'd run out of time before you got you rounds off.

The same thing with pistol shooting. Many active type shooting matches, such as steel challenge, etc, depend on high cap magazines to be competitive. It's about time, and high cap magazines help you with the time.

I am well aware that not everyone shoots competition, but to say NO ONE but criminals and soldiers have a use for military style "service rifles" and/or high capacity magazines is misstating facts and doing a dis-service to thousands of competitors of shooting sports.

 

[Spats McGee]

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.

Well, yes and no. As you might imagine, I read this somewhat differently. I agree with your statement that "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." However, my statement dealt with requirements, yours with prohibitions. Neither one deals with rights.

Let's take a look at the original quote from the OP:

“I – like most Americans – believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “I think we recognize the traditions of gun ownership passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of 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 and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,” he added.

We have to go somewhat far afield into speculation as to what this omission means, and I doubt that either you or I or anyone else will know exactly why SD was not mentioned, absent a clarifying statement.

Anyway, Obama specifically mentioned "hunting and shooting" as part of a "cherished national heritage." My contention is that the omission of "self defense" indicates that Obama or at least his speech-writers do not consider self defense to be part of that "cherished national heritage." My conclusion: this indicates to me a belief that while hunting and shooting are worthy of protection, SD is not (either in the speech writer's mind, or Obama's).

In the realm of legislation and caselaw, consider how the restrictive jurisdictions have briefed out the issue of "whether there is an RKBA outside the home." Those attorneys charged with upholding restrictive laws have consistently claimed that Heller stands only for the proposition that there is a 2A right to keep and bear arms inside the home, and only inside the home. Heller did not deal with carry outside the home, and courts will not (typically) answer a question that was not asked. That said, the omission from the discussion of any RKBA outside the home is being held up to mean that there is no RKBA outside the home.

It is my sincere hope that you are right and that the administration has absolutely zero designs on restricting the RKBA. I do not, however, believe that to be the case.

 

[Pond James Pond]

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...

That is like suggesting that guns are the cure to crime.

If that were the case then crime rates in the US would, surely, be close to nil.

Guns are a defence against crime. That is all.

Now, I whole heartedly agree that UK firearm law is excessively restrictive and should, at least be revised to allow for personal/home protection.

I would suggest that far more effective cures to crime would be greater education, equality and opportunity for people from all backgrounds and walks of life in a given country.

 

[tyme]

I'm confused.

AK47s, by which I think Obama means part-plastic, pistol-grip, detachable-mag, semi-auto weapons like the AR-15, do not belong in the hands of street criminals. I think we can all agree on that, but no actual or proposed law is likely to be able to address that problem, and it's a very minor problem compared to criminals with guns generally.

What I cannot agree with is this administration's apparent belief that such weapons belong in the hands of gun runners who will carry them across the border and pass them on to people who shoot our border patrol agents.

Calling for public policy that will remove evil guns from the hands of criminals is like calling for a manned space mission to Alpha Centauri. Except that the latter would be ridiculed for being unrealistic, while gun-haters eat up anti-gun proposals without considering if they will actually achieve their perceived goals, and without considering collateral damage.

 

[BigMikey76]

I'm gonna try to stay out of this after this post, as I believe most of what I have to say has been said already, either by me or by others.

The speech the President gave was in response to a terrible and regrettable incident. As the President, he was obligated to say something, and he did. I have listened to that speech a few times now, and I can't see any legitimate way to interpret it as an attack on gun rights. He said that the government needs to take what measures it can to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. He said that the government, in the form of law enforcement, should make greater efforts to ensure the enforcement of the existing laws. He also said that social programs should be supported, particularly programs aimed at helping to stop kids from getting to the point that they resort to violence.

He did not say that he wants to take away the rights of lawful gun owners. He did not say that he wants to ban assault weapons. He made no mention of firearms used for self-defense by law-abiding citizens.

I think a lot of people are reacting to their own fears and preconceived notions here. Because he is a Democrat, it is assumed that he is automatically an anti-gun activist, despite the fact that there is no real evidence to support that. That is the same as assuming that all Republicans have secret stashes of weapons and ammo in their cellars. The truth is that there are many different variations out there. I, for example, am a Democrat, but I love my guns, and I will stand up right next to you in defense of my right to own them. I know Republicans who don't like guns, and think there ought to be more restrictions on them.

To put it succintly (I know, too late) we are involved in a debate over the meaning of statements that were not even made. In a debate like that, there is no winner.

Soapbox dismounted.

 

[kraigwy]

Look at the UK and other places

Let do look.

The UK has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. Nothing new, they've been around a long time.

So what happened after Dunkirk. The British army had to flee back to England leaving most of their equipment behind. England was short of small arms to repel the upcomming German invasion.

They couldn't rely on the British Citizens ownership of arms, so they turned to the US, barrowing individual weapons from US Citizens (The NRA played a big part in that). As luck would have it Germany couldn't defeat the RAF, so the invasion was called off.

To understand any law, you need to study the thinking of the authors of the law. The same applies to the US Constitution. What was the thinking of the authors of the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't about hunting, it was defense agains oppression and self defense.

Here are a few just brought on Google.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Hmm, let's quote everyone so we know where they stand:

Quote:

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.

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.

So waiting five days to buy a gun isn't an inconvenience? We must have a definition of that word - and considering the millions of tax dollars we have sunk into the National Instant Check System, what exactly would be the point of having a 5-day waiting period? A "cooling down" period so that a normal, everyday person who has lived their whole life without committing any crime that disqualifies them from owning a firearm can overcome that impulse to murder someone? What the hell does this accomplish that you are so quick to accept it?

Require background checks for ammo purchases? We required people to fill out a Form 4473 for purchases of handgun ammo from 1968-1986. It was discontinued in 1986 because it was pointless. Now we should revive the same concept? Why stop there? Why not add a five-day waiting period for this too?

Please explain for me, exactly the thought process that goes into surrendering all of these hard-won rights when there is absolutely zero reason to compromise? Do you have some illusion that it is going to make all the critical news articles go away? It will not. It will not stop calls for further gun control. I've watched it my whole life. If you give them an inch, they will be back tomorrow to ask for a mile; but they'll compromise and take only 100yds if you are quick and obsequious enough.

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.

If someone kicked me in the butt every morning when I woke up since I was born, I'd probably have some good reasons to justify it to myself too. Texas (3x the size of your state in population) and Florida (2x the size) both have lower murder rates in 2010, despite your permit system. If that system is effective in reducing crime, or in any way justifiable, how are so many states doing better without it? (Source: http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/OneYearofData.cfm)

And as I understand it, your state just got rid of this requirement in any case?

 

[tyme]

He did not say that he wants to take away the rights of lawful gun owners. He did not say that he wants to ban assault weapons. He made no mention of firearms used for self-defense by law-abiding citizens.

He said specifically that AK-47s belong with soldiers and not with criminals. Given that true AK-47 ownership by criminals is extremely rare, and when it does occur it's usually not isolated criminals deciding "gee I want an AK47 to rob that liquor store", but usually the result of affiliation with a larger criminal enterprise with logistical ties that enable such acquisitions, it's absurd to mention it in the aftermath of a mass killing by a lone shooter who used a rifle that was semi-auto and not even AK-style.

If you also notice, he gets applause for his statement. What are they applauding for? They're applauding because they think (as I think) he's talking about trying to reinstitute whatever kind of AWB II he thinks he can get away with.

"No AK-47s for criminals" may sound harmless when interpreted literally, but it sounds to me like code for, "I haven't forgotten about trying to get rid of those evil assault weapons and high capacity magazines that Bush allowed the evil gun industry to start producing again for sale to private citizens back in 2004."

These sorts of anti-gun politicians would vote for any illogical, impractical, or ineffective gun law 5 times over if they could get away with sneaking around and voting on behalf of absentee colleagues in the House and Senate. They think all such laws are stepping stones to increased public tolerance of gun regulation, even if the laws have no effect or a harmful effect on society.

I think they do this not because they are malicious, but because they genuinely believe an eventual outright ban on guns is possible, and that it would reduce murder and assault rates once completed. They are willing to sacrifice the safety of certain individuals in order to ensure fewer overall gun-related casualties, and they are willing to accept almost any negative consequences in the intermediate stages of restrictions -- gun registration and partial gun bans.

http://thefiringline.com/library/quotes/antifreedom.xml (search for Obama)

 

[Sparks1957]

Thank you, Bartholomew, for that eloquent post.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

He did not say that he wants to take away the rights of lawful gun owners. He did not say that he wants to ban assault weapons.

The man he appointed as Attorney General said that - in this term no less. You remember Eric Holder right? He'd be the same man that President Obama just used a claim of executive privilege to defend from a Congressional investigation into how the ATF came to be arming Mexican drug cartels with AK47s. Doesn't that seem like an odd move for the President to make given the speech we are dissecting here today?

He made no mention of firearms used for self-defense by law-abiding citizens.

At least not since he argued to prosecute such people as an Illinois State Senator. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...-defending-himself-with-handgun-95131129.html

I think a lot of people are reacting to their own fears and preconceived notions here. Because he is a Democrat, it is assumed that he is automatically an anti-gun activist, despite the fact that there is no real evidence to support that.

You mean besides his documented actions as an Illinois politician, his support for banning both semi-automatic firearms and handguns in that same capacity, and his role as a Board member of the notoriously anti-gun Joyce Foundation?

I, for example, am a Democrat, but I love my guns, and I will stand up right next to you in defense of my right to own them. I know Republicans who don't like guns, and think there ought to be more restrictions on them.

So in this thread, you just welcomed 4 new restrictions as "not a bad thing" but you are going to stand with me on Second Amendment issues? Did I miss something? I welcome Second Amendment supporters from any party. However when someone claims to support the Second Amendment and then spends a great deal of time defending a man with a proven anti-Second record, I have to question how sincere they are in that belief - and it doesn't help when they start talking about additional unnecessary compromises we could make and how reasonable they are.