Posted by Tina
While I was occupied defending American wealth builders and job creators over the last week the President and his talking heads were trying to make a case for gun control. Unfortunately the President came up with another embarrassing remark. His words went right over my head but those who know about guns and the military know better and their feedback is suddenly beginning to bubble to the surface. Take a look at one of the Presidents comments following the murders in Colorado:
“AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals.”
How could those words be offensive or wrong?
Russ Vaughn of The American Thinker sets the record straight on this weapon:
The AK 47 is probably the most significant icon of the hostile forces arrayed against America for the past six decades. I fought against the AK47 and felt its rounds cracking past me as I saw it take the lives of my fellow paratroopers in Vietnam. A half century later that same simple assault weapon is still being employed by Afghan, Somali and Yemeni enemies to kill and maim America’s warriors. This simple, stamped-metal, efficient weapon of choice of the leftist movements of the world has killed tens of thousands of Americans serving in uniform in multiple conflicts around the world for decades.
If in fact the Colorado killer used an AK 47, then our really lame president should have noted that the assault weapon used in this slaughter was one used by America’s enemies for the past half century to thwart American interests around the globe, distributed indiscriminately by the Russians and China to any and all who would take up arms against the Great Satan. He should have made note that this is a weapon imported from Eastern Europe or Asia most likely, not an American weapon of choice. It is a garbage bin weapon easily acquired by any mad man in any country of the world.
Gosh if only the President had known! But then…he would have consulted with a corpse-man. No help there.
AK 47 … AR 15 … this would be a distinction without a difference.
What are you telling us? That the victims should be all proud they were maimed by an AMEEERICAN weapon?
I don’t think they care, really.
I don’t really care either way about gun control. I don’t own guns or hunt. I’m not scared of them this just isn’t a huge issue for me. But I do think it is really bizarre that as a Republican party when Bush was president we allowed our civil liberties to be taken away from EVERYONE, not just gun owners, but we still defend this bizarre right to own assault weapons for a few people. We all have to go through ridiculous security at the airport: taking off our shoes, having special bags for our tiny shampoo bottles, pat downs, screening, etc. We have to go through these lines at the courthouse, at lots of government buildings and museums. My party was just fine with this huge taxpayer giveaway to the TSA and the formation of the DHS. But now I’m supposed to be angry that Obama wants people to not be able to buy these guns on the internet? Jeez, that really seems like a no-brainer.
Why is it that cuts to education and medicare and social security and even food stamps are necessary sacrifices for American people, but cuts to the Department of Homeland Security and fat cat defense contractors who outsource our jobs to other countries are disastrous?
America is changing. The people who legally own guns today represent less and less of our population.
Reason: It’s expensive and complicated to buy guns. There are far fewer places to hunt, guns themselves are expensive and even target shooting requires one to travel long distances to take part. Then there is the sterotype created by the left of gun owners as rightwing nut jobs. In another 100 years or so I can see how this constant pressure from the left will have virtually phased out legal gun ownership, but certainly no gun crimes. The greatest portion of society that shall still possess guns will most likely just be the criminals.
Glad I will be long gone by then.
I’m sorry, I literally don’t even understand this criticism. Tina, can you explain the problem in your own words?
Half of American households report owning guns. That’s a significant number. Americans have also been buying guns at a rapid clip over the last three years so who knows if that statistic is accurate. Gun ownership is a right (I’d call it a duty) that most citizens fully embrace whether or net they own guns &70%).
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-24/colorado-gun-sales-surge-after-the-aurora-massacre
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gun-sales-and-stocks-continue-to-boom-during-obama-presidency/
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-24/markets/31232772_1_gun-rights-gun-shop-owners-obama-era
http://www.infowars.com/gun-shops-cite-obama-re-election-fears-as-sales-surge/
Not much has been reported about war under Obama but the terror threat is still with us and it could easily come from within.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2012/May/Would-Be-al-Qaeda-Bomber-a-Spy-for-CIA/
Princess some Republicans were upset about the new laws to fight terrorism under Bush and they said so loudly. They said, as you do, that it “took away civil liberties”…and yet, not a single case of liberty infringement has been reported to my knowledge. The government still must abide by the Constitution and guard the civil liberties of our citizens. They can use the law only very carefully for the narrow purpose for which it was intended…
And if not…
I’ve heard tell that some of us have guns. Most who do also have a famous Founding Father quote or two at the ready to back them up. “When in the course of human events…”
The only cuts made so far have been in the defense department to my knowledge. We haven’t had a new budget in three years but have simply extended old budgets.
We spend $2.48 Trillion on social programs:
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/spending-cuts?gclid=co3c0rcdubecfukbqgod7myaig
This is what’s happened with food stamps (SNAP):
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/447-million-americans-now-food-stamps-more-any-time-under-bush
The Constitution REQUIRES the federal government to defense of the nation. It needs funds for that. The rest, it says, is up to individuals and the states.
We need to cut federal social programs because that is where all the money that we don’t have is spent.
If more unemployed people could find a JOB it would certainly help the situation by getting them off food stamps and into paying taxes into the system. (If able bodied suckers gaming the system would get off their fat asses and learn a skill…they too would become contributing parties.
I’m all for cutting waste in defense AND anywhere we find it.
Chris the only soldiers that would use an AK 47 are those that have been the enemies of America. The AK 47 is Russian made and China or Russia would be nthe likely source for such weapons. This American vet (Vietnam) took exception. He thinks the President, Commander-in-Chief, should know that. Obama’s lack of experience and maturity (or that of his staff) has once again placed him in a somewhat embarrassing position regarding things military.
I wouldn’t know an AK 47 from a pea shooter (not really) but I know Jack would. I posted the story to see if any of our ex-military guys would be as intrigued or offended by the President’s comments. So far that isn’t the case.
Libby seems to think the weapon’s actual place of origin is irrelevant. Is it? The left has been attempting to blame America’s gun owners/builders/sellers using this particular weapon as a hammer for a couple of decades and they don’t even come from America. Shouldn’t that be a relevant point if they are really serious about stopping the sale of illegal guns?
I’m a little surprised no one else has made the point…a small point for sure but worth considering if we are talking about gun control.
Tina, I think our Vets accept how ignorant Obama is about military things and weapons, so they’re not going to get too excited because this dunce doesn’t now and AK from an AR.
You made a good point about having many ways to bump people off besides using a firearm.
A person could purchase everything they need to create a huge block buster of a bomb at our friendly neighborhood Lowe’s and Safeway. One could easily construct a device that would level a factory or take down an entire apartment building. It only requires two fairly small explosive devices that almost anyone with basic skills could make for under $50. That and a 50 lb. sack of flour.
Here’s how it works (without giving away secrets, this was on TV, so not to worry): The first explosive device is placed under a sack of flour and it is blown up, filling the air with energized flour particles, then a second later the next device goes off and explodes the flour dust hanging in the air. It works much like a match to gasoline vapor in a large barrel. Then Ka-boom… this explosion is equal to about 1000 pound WWII bomb.
The Anarchist Cook Book was once on-line for free and it had the precise plans for building many types of smaller destructive devices. This kind of thing makes the threat from a mere AK 47 or AR 15 look real puny.
Good thing the nutcase (Holmes) didn’t think about using his chemistry knowledge instead of guns, it could have been so much worse.
As a retired law enforcement SGT and military NCO we were trained in IED’s, it’s no big trick to make em. Any person with modest intelligence could create a bomb that would do great harm. How can we ever stop that? We really can’t, not without locking down more freedoms that we could ever bear, but liberals want to pass restrictive laws because of one odd isolated event, a law that is sure to hurts millions and is no guarantee of safety or anything except robbing us of a little more of our precious freedom.
Tina, thanks for explaining. I get it now. I didn’t know that AK-47s were not used by the U.S. military. That is a pretty embarrassing mistake for the commander in chief to make, I must admit. Especially since this was part of a prepared speech, not a spontaneous remark. Someone should have caught that one, and Obama should have known better.
That said, Vaughn’s conclusion goes way too far to be taken seriously. He writes:
“This political cow, our president, is a far leftist in whose mind the weapon of choice is the AK 47, a veritable symbol of violent revolutionary communism around the world. As a Vietnam veteran, I’m telling you, Barack Obama might as well have raised a red star communist flag.”
Does anyone really believe that Obama mentioned the AK-47 because he is a secret communist? More likely he used that term because it’s what a lot of Americans first think of when they think of extreme high-powered weapons. Obama’s statement was dumb, but so is using it to try and further link the president to communism.
Chris, not to nitpick, but the AK47 is not a high powered weapon, not at all. Please note that by calling it “high powered” will cause gun folks to chuckle and they will think you don’t know anything about guns.
The AK47 uses a mid-range rifle cartridge, a 7.62X39 mm round. The average bullet (139 gr) travels at about 2300 fps, not real hot for modern rifles. The max effective range is only about 1300 feet. Most shooters don’t care to shoot beyond 200 yards because it’s not that accurate. The weapon is put together loosely (sloppy feeling), but this results in high reliability, because it rarely jams! That’s the best I could say about an AK47…it rarely jams, everything else about it is mediocre.
By comparison your great grandpa’s 30.06 back in old W-W One was far more powerful.
*hides in shame* OK, I am even more ignorant on this subject than I thought.
Chris I understand your sensitivity. I disagree that his conclusion was that Obama is a “secret” communist.
I think he is just expressing incredulity that an American President would put “…a veritable symbol of violent revolutionary communism around the world” in the hands of American soldiers in a dramatic way.
He may think of Obama as a communist but I don’t think he’s implying secrecy.
A lot of people think of Obama as being Marxist/socialist and I don’t think any of them would say he is attempting to hide it. He came right out and said as much before he got elected when he spoke with Joe the Plumber. He believes in the Marxist theory that those with means should give up what they have so it can be given to those with needs…redistribution. American soldiers have fought against the spread of this philosophy. I’m willing to allow one who has some room to vent.
Chris, I’ll make you a deal. Next time you come to Chico allow me to take you over to the shooting range. I’ll arrange for you fire some various types of AKs, ARs, shotguns, etc. You will have fun and no doubt you will learn something valuable about some very common firearms some folks wish to ban over their looks.
Tina: “He believes in the Marxist theory that those with means should give up what they have so it can be given to those with needs…redistribution. American soldiers have fought against the spread of this philosophy.”
That’s quite a strong statement. Off the top of my head, American soldiers have not fought against Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Italy or any other country for having systems of wealth redistribution much more radical than what Obama was referring to when he called for tax rates on the rich to go back to where they were during the Clinton boom years. That was the context of his “redistribute the wealth” statement.
American soldiers have fought against the spread of communism, which is a much more extreme form of Marxism/socialism; as I’m sure you know, “communism” means a lot more than simply “a progressive tax system where the funds go to welfare.” In most of the communist countries America fought against, communism manifested itself in extreme human rights abuses and the murder of citizens. That’s why we went to war with them, not simply because they favored redistribution of wealth!
I find you linking Obama’s statements to America’s enemies to be quite the leap.
In this time of record economic equality, Obama is right to call for a more equal distribution of wealth. Polls show that most Americans want a more equal distribution than we currently have in this country. Even a majority of Republicans and wealthy people have reported favoring a more equal distribution of wealth than the current level, and believe that raising tax rates on the very wealthy and raising the minimum wage are good ways to do this, according to the Public Religion Research Institute:
“With the exception of Americans who identify with the Tea Party, Americans strongly support proposals to address economic inequality at both the top and bottom end of the income spectrum. Seven-in-ten Americans, including majorities of all major religious groups as well as Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, support increasing the tax rate on Americans earning more than $1 million per year.
Two-thirds of Americans again including majorities of all major religious groups and Democrats, Independents, and Republicans also support raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.00 per hour. Majorities of Americans who identify with the Tea Party oppose both proposals.”
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/features-the-religion-world/2011/11/08/americans-favor-distribution-of-wealth-survey-finds/
Another survey shows that while a large majority of Americans underestimate the current level of income inequality, they still want a much smaller disparity:
“When we asked respondents to tell us what their ideal distribution of wealth was, things got even more interesting: Americans wanted the top 20% to own just over 30% of the wealth, and the bottom 40% to own about 25%. They still wanted the rich to be richer than the poor, but they wanted the disparity to be much less extreme.
But was there consensus among Americans about their ideal country? Importantly, the answer was an unequivocal “yes.” While liberals and the poor favored slightly more equal distributions than conservatives and the wealthy, a large majority of every group we surveyed from the poorest to the richest, from the most conservative to the most liberal agreed that the current level of wealth inequality was too high and wanted a more equitable distribution of wealth. In fact, Americans reported wanting to live in a country that looks more like Sweden than the United States.
So, if Americans say they want a country that is more equal than they believe it to be, and they believe that the country is more equal than it actually is, the question becomes how we lessen these disparities. Our survey didn’t ask what measures people would be willing to support to address the wealth gap. But to achieve the ideal spelled out by those surveyed, about 50% of the total wealth in the United States would have to be taken from the top 20% and distributed to the remaining 80%.
Few people would argue for an immediate redistribution of 50% of the nation’s wealth, and such a move would unquestionably create chaos. In addition, despite the fact that individual Americans give large amounts to charitable causes each year in effect, a way of transferring wealth from the rich to the poor the notion of government redistribution raises hackles among many constituencies.
Despite these reservations, our results suggest that policies that increase inequality those that favor the wealthy, say, or that place a greater burden on the poor are unlikely to reflect the desires of Americans from across the political and economic spectrum. Rather, they seem to favor policies that involve taking from the rich and giving to the poor.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/08/opinion/la-oe-norton-wealth-inequality-20101108
Now you may say, “Isn’t this redistribution a Marxist idea?” And the answer is honestly, “yes.” But I have to agree with Martin Luther King, Jr., who said that holding this idea does not necessarily make one a Marxist. Like MLK, I believe there are huge flaws in Marx’s philosophy (and I certainly despise how this philosophy has been used by tyrants throughout history!), but I also think Marx raised some important questions and articulated the concerns of the poor in a way no one else had before. Like MLK (and like most industrialized countries since right after WWII) I believe that in order to have the most equal society, we must combine the best aspects of capitalism and socialism. I don’t think this makes me a socialist, any more than it makes me a capitalist; it makes me a realist.
Jack, I think I’ve mentioned this before, but I have gone shooting with my dad many times, and I’ve had fun (even though I am a crap shot). I just honestly could not tell the names of the guns I fired. My brain just doesn’t retain that kind of information. 😉