Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

Obama comes out in favor of “assault weapon,” handgun bans in second debate

Written By: Bob - Oct• 17•12

During the second presidential debate last night, Barack Obama finally admitted after five years of dissembling that banning the most common and popular firearms in American was his administration’s specific goal:

QUESTION: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?

OBAMA: We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.

But there have been too many instances during the course of my presidency, where I’ve had to comfort families who have lost somebody. Most recently out in Aurora. You know, just a couple of weeks ago, actually, probably about a month, I saw a mother, who I had met at the bedside of her son, who had been shot in that theater.

And her son had been shot through the head. And we spent some time, and we said a prayer and, remarkably, about two months later, this young man and his mom showed up, and he looked unbelievable, good as new.

But there were a lot of families who didn’t have that good fortune and whose sons or daughters or husbands didn’t survive.

So my belief is that, (A), we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement.

But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.

This was a remarkable slip-up for a president who successfully dodged the issue of gun control in his 2008 campaign. In just seconds, he confirmed the suspicions of every American that it was his intention to ban semi-automatic rifles and handguns.

There is no functional difference or logical consistency between what Obama and his allies consider hunting firearms and what they consider firearms “designed for soldiers in war theaters.”

The AK-pattern rifles that Obama’s ATF sent into Mexico by the thousands in various gun-running operations are what Obama and his allies consider weapons of war.

They look like this.

Saiga SBR in .223 Remington. Stock photo from Modern Firearms.

 

There are rugged, reliable hunting rifles that Obama says—on the surface, at least—he would protect, like this .308 rifle.

Saiga SBR in .223 Remington. Stock photo from Modern Firearms

While these two examples differ in caliber and cosmetics, their actions are exactly the same. They are both made by Russia’s Izhmash company, in the same factory.

Obama would outlaw the Bushmaster XM-15 as an “assault rifle.” It has near 100% parts commonality with the Remington R-15 hunting rifle. Both are part of the same AR-15 family of firearms that is the most popular centerfire rifle design in the United States. Period.

In addition to banning the most popular rifles in the United States, Obama admitted in that same burst of honesty that he wants to ban “cheap handguns.”

Perhaps if Obama would provide a list of firearms his ATF is running to Chicago-area gangs in Operation Gangwalker we could get an understanding of precisely what he means by “cheap handguns.” Taken at face value, it suggests economic bigotry that would leave the poor defenseless against criminals.

Certainly that isn’t what he wants.

Or is it?

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

3 Comments

  1. louielouie says:

    anyone who had only SUSPICIONS on his position on this is an idiot.
    his only mission in the second debate, was to do what biden did. energize the base. that was all. it didn’t make any difference if he lied. so what. energize the base. that’s all that matters.
    oh, and his base shares his opinion of the second amendment. so no surprise there.

  2. louielouie says:

    from hussein’s answer:

    Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.

    google chicago gun laws:

    As you may know, the city outlawed the sale and possession of handguns way back in 1982. (Not that the move was very successful in disarming Chicagoans: Police here confiscate an average of about 10,000 firearms each year.) In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out the handgun ban, saying it was in violation of the Second Amendment.

    if they outlawed chicagoans would that violate the 2nd amendment?

  3. cmblake6 says:

    But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally.

    If you read the Federalist Papers, I believe you will find it the Founders intent that weapons capable of being used to fight were exactly what they had in mind. When the NFA 34 came about because of a SBS, what better weapon for CQB can you imagine?