What I find interesting politically, is what he didn't say. AK-47s, and other weaponry do belong in the hands of the military, police and not criminals. What he didn't say was that such weapons should not be in the hands of law abiding citizens with proper education and training in care and use. You might argue that he implied as much, but I wouldn't because Obama knows that stricter gun control is doa in Washington, D.C.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Obama: AK-47s are for soldiers!
- Thread starter SkydiveGuy
- Start date
I noticed that too, and thought it was pretty calculating. While I have no doubt the administration would like another assault weapons ban, I think the most we will see would be tightening up on gun shows and mental health checks. Maybe they'd roll together a whole new (see: expensive) federal background system exclusively used for gun sales. While I wouldn't be in favor of this at all, it would be much less inconvenient. I do have to say it was refreshing to see him attack bad parenting, school, etc. Now if only they could use more than rhetoric maybe they could fix some of the problems in the inner city.
Mike
Mike
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 6,920
- Likes
- 617
What is generally considered to be a "good price" on the 7.62 Saigas? I was contemplating buying either that, or the 5.45 version just this week. I really wanted the 7.62 version, but for some reason the barrel length was a couple of inches more than the 5.45. Are they usually that way with the Saigas? I will obviously convert either one, but the extra length on the barrel just didn't look right to me.
Hiltonizer
Banned
my 7.62 is 16" and was 450 (3 years ago)
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 6,920
- Likes
- 617
Thanks, I will use that for comparison when I go back to look at it more closely.
"I think that all right-thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired.
I'm certainly not!
But I'm sick and tired of being told that I am!"
On this note, what happens if the .gov signs an unconstitutional treaty? Can the supreme court nullify it?
if re-elected there will be a lot more, we will get the big FY
We already correspond with the CRIMINAL HISTORY SYSTEMS BOARD, so this shows you what they think of you.
I think the Constitution has provisions for this possibility. (-;
For certain.
Here, read this to see what they REALLY think of you:
Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
But, but, but. It's a "dead issue"TM and what has Obama done to harm your 2A rights... Heck, he signed the parks law...![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
I do feel betrayed by this turn of events. I still don't think he'll put real effort into this, but he has added to the momentum, what there is of it.
I don't see how anyone can be surprised or think this is a "turn" given his voting record, appointments, political allies, prior statements, etc, etc...
The way it works under our Constitution is that the Executive (any sitting President) negotiates a treaty that is either unilateral or bilateral. Once the treaty is agreed by the parties (nations) proposing the treaty, the Executive submits the proposed treaty to the United States Senate which Advises the Executive and either consents or rejects the proposed treaty. IF the Senate consents to the treaty, the treaty is sent to the Executive for ratification. The Executive ratifies the treaty by conveying formal diplomatic notice to the other signatories that the US Executive is ratifying the treaty on behalf of the US government.
Article VI of the Constitution makes treaties (as distinguished from Executive agreements for example) the supreme law of the United States.
"All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
That's the basics without the nuances. If the treaty is one that was consented to by the Senate and ratified by the President it is the supreme law of the land. The Supreme Court does not have the right to declare such a treaty unconstitutional as it would a state or federal statute. It can, however, interpret treaties as it does other parts of the Constitution.
Last edited:
I think the president was referring to criminals in the sense of people who have been convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors. What "one law" might ya'll be referring to?
- - - Updated - - -
Article VI of the Constitution makes treaties (as distinguished from Executive agreements for example) the supreme law of the United States.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
That's the basics without the nuances. If the treaty is one that was consented to by the Senate and ratified by the President it is the supreme law of the land. The Supreme Court does not have the right to declare a treaty unconstitutional as it would a state or federal statute. It can, however, interpret treaties as it does other parts of the Constitution.
- - - Updated - - -
The way it works under our Constitution is that the Executive (any sitting President) negotiates a treaty that is either unilateral or bilateral. Once the treaty is agreed by the parties (nations) proposing the treaty, the Executive submits the proposed treaty to the United States Senate which Advises the Executive and either consents or rejects the proposed treaty. IF the Senate consents to the treaty, the treaty is sent to the Executive for ratification. The Executive ratifies the treaty by conveying formal diplomatic notice to the other signatories that the US Executive is ratifying the treaty on behalf of the US government.
Article VI of the Constitution makes treaties (as distinguished from Executive agreements for example) the supreme law of the United States.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
That's the basics without the nuances. If the treaty is one that was consented to by the Senate and ratified by the President it is the supreme law of the land. The Supreme Court does not have the right to declare a treaty unconstitutional as it would a state or federal statute. It can, however, interpret treaties as it does other parts of the Constitution.
Alright Barry
I just read the full speech (well, the part that's relevant to guns at least) and I feel a lot better about it. If you've only read the blurb about "AK47's out of the hands of criminals", I suggest you get some of the context: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/obamas-full-remarks-on-guns-from-urban-league
His main point here wasn't gun control at all. It's about lowering crime in general, getting kids off the street, better mental health services especially for at-risk youth, etc. Really, there's only one sentence in this whole speech that gives me pause, and that's the "AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals" line. I'm sure he was very careful to not make a mention of law abiding citizens because he's a politician after all, and wants to toe the line as much as possible.
I'm not completely reassured, but I don't think it's as bad as it seems if you just read that one little paragraph. I think it's unlikely he'll do anything gun-related until after he gets re-elected...
His main point here wasn't gun control at all. It's about lowering crime in general, getting kids off the street, better mental health services especially for at-risk youth, etc. Really, there's only one sentence in this whole speech that gives me pause, and that's the "AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals" line. I'm sure he was very careful to not make a mention of law abiding citizens because he's a politician after all, and wants to toe the line as much as possible.
I'm not completely reassured, but I don't think it's as bad as it seems if you just read that one little paragraph. I think it's unlikely he'll do anything gun-related until after he gets re-elected...
Peshooter, the trouble with such a kind reading is not that we are taking his statements out of the context of the speech. It is that to read it so charitably as you are is to take it of the context of his whole life and political career.
Progressives want us to ignore what he is saying and what we know he means by trying to "close read" his statements and "deconstruct" them, but the reality is that when he says "get guns out of the hands of criminals" he means, "by taking them out of everyone's hands."
When he says "criminals" he means ordinary criminals as well as seditious fiends who think that 2A is intended to protect a right of defense against tyrannical governments as much as it is against ordinary criminals (in contrast to the "extraordinary" ones we call politicians).
In short, they think we are dumb enough to miss his meaning the first time and if not, gullible enough to accept a pedantic interpretation the second. We are neither. Actions speak louder than words and the resume of the president, his appointees and allies on that front tell us all we need to know.
Progressives want us to ignore what he is saying and what we know he means by trying to "close read" his statements and "deconstruct" them, but the reality is that when he says "get guns out of the hands of criminals" he means, "by taking them out of everyone's hands."
When he says "criminals" he means ordinary criminals as well as seditious fiends who think that 2A is intended to protect a right of defense against tyrannical governments as much as it is against ordinary criminals (in contrast to the "extraordinary" ones we call politicians).
In short, they think we are dumb enough to miss his meaning the first time and if not, gullible enough to accept a pedantic interpretation the second. We are neither. Actions speak louder than words and the resume of the president, his appointees and allies on that front tell us all we need to know.
I don't doubt that he would love to take the guns out of everyone's hands. However, he was obviously very careful in how he worded this - he doesn't want to publicly take a strong stance and risk alienating either side.
Seems to me that his actions thus far indicate that he's probably not going to do anything crazy until after he gets re-elected... But we'll see what happens with the UN treaty.
This (the "it isn't gun control") is more of the same crap that goes along with things like calling it the "Affordable Healthcare Act."
That ignores that it temples on our rights and is anything but, but it says it he "electrolytes," so it must be good.
You hear the same nonsense when Sonya Chang-Diaz steps up to the microphone and says "this isn't gun control" in defense of her bill that most certainly is.
That ignores that it temples on our rights and is anything but, but it says it he "electrolytes," so it must be good.
You hear the same nonsense when Sonya Chang-Diaz steps up to the microphone and says "this isn't gun control" in defense of her bill that most certainly is.
Of course his words a carefully chosen - to deceive people into accepting that this zebra changed its stripes rather than this zebra is smart enough to wait until after the election to really piss off his opposition and swing voters.
Well you heard our leader. As members of the militia, we all better get AK-47s now!
Seriously though, I never really wanted an AK before seeing this thread. The firearms industry is going to miss Barry when he is gone.
The political theater is fun, the GOP candidates are so bad the only way they can get you to vote for them is fear.
Seriously though, I never really wanted an AK before seeing this thread. The firearms industry is going to miss Barry when he is gone.
The political theater is fun, the GOP candidates are so bad the only way they can get you to vote for them is fear.
We now live in a world of sound bites. It doesnt matter what he actually said, it only matters what the voters hear.
They're so bad, that if you put Romney's policies on paper next to Obama's, they're nearly identical. The one obvious exception would be that Romney is much worse for gunowners. But, besides that they're too similar to tell apart.
CAESAR
NES Member
By saying that about AK-47 he turns to the cluless dumb sheeps ... excuse me: people that elected him in the first place. AK is mean gun and should be banned.
Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk 2
Similar threads
