• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

President Speaks out Against Guns

The Airframer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2012
Messages
171
Location
Virginia Beach
Apparently, someone interprets the 2nd Amendment as for hunting use only. In lieu of the recent attack on a theater that denies its patrons the right to defend themselves, our potus won't let this tragedy go to waste.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...gun-violence-in-new-orleans-speech/?hpt=hp_c1

"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.

I am a gun owner and strongly disagree with this statement. Our soldiers carry M4's/M16's, only enemy soldiers carry AK-47's, I'd rather them carry slingshots.

An AK-47 is translates to Avtomat Kalashnikova or AUTOMATIC Kalashnikova (the designers last name) and 47- the year it was designed. Mentally suitable law abiding citizens must undergo a lengthy FFL process of interviews, psychoanalysis, background checks etc to own an AUTOMATIC anything... I'm sure he knows this already being so involved and understanding of gun owners. I'm surely glad he didn't mention WASR-10's or any other AK variants :monkey
 
Last edited:

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,279
Location
Iowa, USA
Im not sure what to think. Its said obama hasn't really addressed the issue, but I've heard he's planning on signing the un small arms treaty. The statement made by Romney about not controlling guns but controlling criminals, if truthful, is kind of a breath of fresh air.
 

The Airframer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2012
Messages
171
Location
Virginia Beach
I don't envision any action being taken until after the election. If we are unlucky enough to see him serve another term, prepare for the reinstatement of the AWB, the signing of the ATT, forget about legally acquiring foreign made firearms/ammo, and prepare to enter all of your firearms by serial number into the UN's small arms registry.

For any action to be taken in that direction before the election would be a forfeit in the race and he knows this.
 
Last edited:

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
On the interview with Brian Williams, Romney was asked straight out if he still felt that assault rifles should be illegal and he flat out didn't answer the question.

Actually the Pres. didn't speak out against guns, only guns in the hand of criminals or crazy folks.

“I think a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” he said.

“I believe the majority of gun owners agree we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons," the president said. "That we should check out a person’s criminal record before they can check out at a gun store. That a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily.”
 
Last edited:

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
On the interview with Brian Williams, Romney was asked straight out if he still felt that assault rifles should be illegal and he flat out didn't answer the question.

Actually the Pres. didn't speak out against guns, only guns in the hand of criminals or crazy folks.

“I think a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” he said.

“I believe the majority of gun owners agree we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons," the president said. "That we should check out a person’s criminal record before they can check out at a gun store. That a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily.”

This is my big problem with that statement. There ARE many possible things the would keep more criminals from having guns. How much of your freedom are you willing to exchance to pay for those things?
 

The Airframer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2012
Messages
171
Location
Virginia Beach
“I believe the majority of gun owners agree we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons," the president said. "That we should check out a person’s criminal record before they can check out at a gun store. That a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily.”


In reference to that psycho James Holmes. The background checks he's suggesting are already done and if a speeding ticket would have prevented Holmes from buying guns than I'm sure about 90% of Americans would be disqualified to purchase a firearm, least I know i would be-- I have a heavy foot and a grand total of 3 speeding tickets on my extensive criminal background! Better watch out for this guy!

Holmes was not a fugitive, criminal, nor a documented mentally ill individual until he walked into that theater and started mowing down unarmed innocent people in spite of the mandatory background checks done on him before he legally purchased the firearms he used.

Call it what you want, I see it as a subtle warning of legislation to come. He wouldn't have spoken about the issue if he just planned on using the background checks already in place.
 
Last edited:

The Airframer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2012
Messages
171
Location
Virginia Beach
This is my big problem with that statement. There ARE many possible things the would keep more criminals from having guns. How much of your freedom are you willing to exchance to pay for those things?

Anyone see that he's possibly implying that a psychological evaluation be performed on you before you "check out at a gun store"?
 
Last edited:

carracer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
1,108
Location
Nampa, Idaho, USA
“I think a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” he said.

“I believe the majority of gun owners agree we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons," the president said. "That we should check out a person’s criminal record before they can check out at a gun store. That a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily.”

The problem with this is that he would as soon turn us into the "criminals" to justify his actions.
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
The problem with this is that he would as soon turn us into the "criminals" to justify his actions.

I don't see any evidence to support that statement. The fact that he hasn't done anything to restrict gun ownership is not proof that he will. I think we all agree that criminals and crazies shouldn't have access to guns, the question is, how do we prevent that without restricting the rights of law abiding, non-crazy folks?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Flawed premise.
<snip> the question is, how do we prevent that without restricting the rights of law abiding, non-crazy folks?
Laws are currently in place to prevent known criminals/mental nut cases from acquiring guns via lawful means. If the current slew of laws could not prevent a Aurora what makes you and your lefty brethren believe that additional laws will prevent a Aurora? To prevent another Aurora the government must enact laws, that you correctly point out, will severely restrict the rights of the law abiding.

The only answer to the Aurora scenario is to remove all restrictions on the lawful exercise of our 2A right. Non-crazy criminals will be deterred and the previously unknown crazy folk will still be able to perpetrate a Aurora. The price of liberty can be very high from time to time.

Disclaimer: I support restrictions on the private ownership of all modern firearms with a caliber of .61 and larger, excluding black powder firearms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yzI0AIpUUA

....for obvious reasons.
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
I didn't say anything about additional laws, good lord, don't you think we have enough already? This Holmes guy was obviously nuts and it's frustrating to me and a large part of the gun owning population that there isn't some mechanism to get the guns away from the Holmes of the world before they go off. When they do go off, the spotlight gets turned on the rest of us non-crazy gun owners and it's getting more difficult to defend our position. Saying that the solution is to allow easier access to gun just means that more crazy/criminal folks will have them and a lot of folks who are on the fence just don't buy that.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I think we all agree that criminals and crazies shouldn't have access to guns, the question is, how do we prevent that without restricting the rights of law abiding, non-crazy folks?
Yes, you did. Of course your question could have been rhetorical in nature and I just didn't get it.

I agree that the embedded paradox is quite perplexing, prevention requires restrictions.
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
I just hate the frustration I feel everytime something like this happens. Here at work I have to explain a gun owners position on this because everyone here knows I'm an enthusiast. And what's more, it's too damn hot to go out and shoot after work!
 

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
Proof of how responsible and safe gun owners are, is the fact that anti-gun propronents feel so safe in deamonizing us and trying to take our guns away.

The lefties sure dont feel that way about Muslims.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
<snip> Saying that the solution is to allow easier access to gun just means that more crazy/criminal folks will have them and a lot of folks who are on the fence just don't buy that.
Well, I believe that a great deal of empirical data exists to discount what the 'folks who are on the fence' think/believe.

It's our job to correct their thinking one citizen at a time. Nobody ever said our task would be easy. We are making progress though.

Keep up the good work.....one citizen at a time.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Proof of how responsible and safe gun owners are, is the fact that anti-gun proponents feel so safe in demonizing us and trying to take our guns away.

The lefties sure don't feel that way about Muslims.
Irrelevant, gratuitous, OT, cheap shot.

No, it is not proof of anything, lefties would find another 'thing' to demonize liberty minded citizens. Guns are easy that is all.
 
Top