Amazon.com Widgets

Does it concern you that Obama said, "AK-47s do not belong in the hands of criminals. AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers," when you know that most armies whose weapon is the AK-47 are in nations not friendly to the U.S.?

Asked by: bigdave
Does it concern you that Obama said, "AK-47s do not belong in the hands of criminals. AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers," when you know that most armies whose weapon is the AK-47 are in nations not friendly to the U.S.?
  • Semi auto weapons of any kind should be legal, plain and simple.

    Obama is a dictator, he uses executive order way too much. This is his way of getting back at Russia for beating him up by not importing them( Putin is laughing) and getting a slug at gun owners the only thing in his way of a full communist like take over.

  • Yes. I am concerned.

    Today is Veteran's Day. Go find a Vet. Ask any of them " What is the weapon is in the hands of soldiers of the free world?" All of them will say the M16/M4 .Then ask them the opinion question " Does it concern you that Obama said, "AK-47s do not belong in the hands of criminals. AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers," when you know that most armies whose weapon is the AK-47 are in nations not friendly to the U.S.?" All of them will be concerned about the statement when taken in its entirety. Why don;t you ask them why?

  • Obama was right.



    It doesn’t concern me that Obama said, "AK-47s do not
    belong in the hands of criminals. AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers,"
    when I know that most armies whose weapon is the AK-47 are in nations not
    friendly to the U.S. because I know that Obama’s heart was in the right
    place. He was just trying reduce the
    number of deaths on American streets.


  • Seriously no off course not

    An ak-47 is a commonly stated weapon that everyone knows about. When he was speaking that was probably the rifle he could think of im pretty sure he wasnt implying terrorist. I highly doubt obama studies weapons or plays call of duty. Its something called common sense apparently themohawkninja has common sense


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
themohawkninja says2013-11-02T22:31:54.603
You really like seeing if people are concerned about something Obama said, don't you?
bigdave says2013-11-03T01:27:05.007
Themohawkninja .... Yes. Are you not?
bigdave says2013-11-03T01:28:21.593
Themohawkninja... Yes i do, you should too.
themohawkninja says2013-11-03T01:33:04.857
I mean, I am all for the idea of questioning authority. It's something that should be done. It's just that you seem to care about really minor "if-interpreted-this-way" lies.

He's just saying that criminals in the U.S. shouldn't have access to assault rifles. I am sure he is well aware of the fact that the AK-47 is used by professional armies around the world, seeing as the U.S. dealt with such an army during the Iraq War, and we actually do train our troops with them.
bigdave says2013-11-05T02:42:27.257
I know you think you heard what you thought he said, but you must realize that what he said carries meanings that you did not hear. He did not say "Assault rifles" which would have conveyed the meaning you thought, but he said "AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers," Get it "Soldiers with AKs" = "Soldiers not friendly to the US" = "My world view is not the world of the M-16" Do you see it now?
bigdave says2013-11-05T06:08:15.827
Wait for my comment to come through moderation.
bigdave says2013-11-07T06:30:39.207
Themohawkninja..... If you really think that "we actually do train our troops with (AK47s)", you need to do some serious research. From experience I can say that we TRAIN on M-16A2s. While we may become FAMILIAR with AKs, we hardly TRAIN on them.
bigdave says2013-11-07T06:43:58.427
Actually most training is on M4s today.
themohawkninja says2013-11-07T14:42:16.487
I understand that most of our training is with the M4 carbine (I study firearms a lot), but special forces of the United States (if not other countries) do use the AK-47 when they either need to train the people in foreign countries (as we have with the Iraqi police forces), or when they run out of ammo on a gun that uses ammunition that isn't found easily in the country (seeing as the middle east mainly uses the AK-47 as its assault rifle, which is chambered for a 7.62x39mm round, and the M4 is chambered for a 5.56x45mm round). Note the bottom picture here: http://www.Americanspecialops.Com/special-ops-weapons/. I also would assert that becoming familiar with a firearm is a way of training on it, as you are training your mind to how the weapon cycles, reloads, operates, etc.

Secondly, Obama asserted that AK-47s should be in the hands of soldiers. That would tend to imply soldiers that are friendly to the U.S. Once again, I feel that it is relevant to point out that he is only making reference to the fact that the U.S. Tends to fight people that use the AK-47, as many of our allies use their own weapons like the HK G-36, or the L85, if not also referring to the use of the AK-47 by gangs in the U.S. It depends on what his speech is about, as I don't know if this speech was about gun control or terrorism.
bigdave says2013-11-07T15:37:05.427
To quote you " it is relevant to point out that he is only making reference to the fact that the U.S. Tends to fight people that use the AK-47,",

My point exactly!
themohawkninja says2013-11-07T15:53:27.680
Okay then. Why should this concern me at all? An AK-47 is fairly cheap (in the Middle East, that is), since it's wood and stamped steel. There are over 90 million of them around the world, so of course the U.S. And our allies will face them sooner or later. The U.S. And out allies have their own assault rifles, and anyone that doesn't have a lot of money to spend on firearms (like extremist groups, and third-world countries) use the AK-47. Hell, I know for a fact that there is at least one country in the world that has the gun on their flag.
bigdave says2013-11-07T16:26:57.007
Themohawkninja.... You seem to be going all around the edges of this issue without going dead center on it. The President of the most powerful nation in the Free World said AKs belong in the hands of soldiers. He spoke specifically about AKs and soldiers. He did not say Assault rifles which would have carried a neutral meaning. He said AKs. To quote you "so of course the U.S. And our allies will face them sooner or later". Do you not see what this says about the world view baggage that Obama carries?
themohawkninja says2013-11-07T16:30:22.433
" Do you not see what this says about the world view baggage that Obama carries?"

Apparently not. I don't see why AK-47s should be in the hands of the criminals.
bigdave says2013-11-07T17:12:26.450
Comment in moderation
bigdave says2013-11-07T18:05:57.533
Themohawkninja.... Perhaps you are unaware of the context of the statement. View it here....

Http://www.Politico.Com/politico44/2012/07/obama-aks-belong-on-battlefield-not-streets-130141.Html

The Freudian Slip (cf) is clearly apparent unless you are too busy admiring the Emperor's clothes (cf).
bigdave says2013-11-07T18:06:14.053
Another Comment in moderation
themohawkninja says2013-11-08T17:23:17.633
Okay, so it was a gun control speech. Yeah, that makes sense. He states how they shouldn't be "on the streets of our cities". If they are in the hands of soldiers in countries that aren't friendly to the U.S., then they sure aren't in our cities.

You know, taking another look at the phrase... "most armies whose weapon is the AK-47 are in nations not friendly to the U.S.". That could either be interpreted as the soldiers of the nation, which would follow suite with what Obama is asserting, or could be interpreted as in the streets of those nations, which would also follow suite with what Obama asserted.
bigdave says2013-11-08T21:30:40.233
Themohawkninja..... Again I state that there is a difference between the statement " Assault rifles belong in the hands of soldiers" and "AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers," The first indicates a world view that takes into account all nations. The second specifically reveals a world view that is much different than my own, and I hope your as well. It calls up images of revolution against the West.
themohawkninja says2013-11-08T21:53:55.813
I did specifically state AK-47 if you were to read what I stated again. I don't see where this "world view" you are interpreting is coming from. Also, you have yet to refute my point that what Obama said is in-line with reality, nor have you specifically stated the problem here.

People that break the law shouldn't have an AK-47, because AK-47s are weapons that should be in the hands of a trained army. What is wrong with that statement?
bigdave says2013-11-09T05:51:46.347
Themohawkninja .... One more round in the chamber. If he had said "Assault rifles belong in the hands of soldiers," " he would be making a general reference to non specific armies of the world. Had he said "Galils belong in the hands of soldiers," he would be making a more specific reference probably to Israel, but he is not exactly pro Israel. Had he said "HKs or FAMAS belong in the hands of soldiers," he would have been referencing western European armies, but he is not exactly pro western Europe. He made reference to AKs, so you connect the dots.
themohawkninja says2013-11-09T15:19:34.380
How many people know what a FAMAS, or Galil is? It's much easier to use the term AK-47, because it's the gun that EVERYONE knows about, so EVERYONE knows what he is talking about. It also happens to make a nice reference to the terrorists that we have been fighting, and demeans them somewhat indirectly. If that latter point is the dot I was supposed to connect to, you are going to have to explain why that's a bad thing, because I don't see what's wrong with demeaning the enemy.
bigdave says2013-11-09T15:44:19.107
Themohawkninja .... You and I will only see this issue in the same light as you gain more life experience. He could have said "Assault rifles do not belong in the hands of criminals. Assault rifles belong in the hands of soldiers," and even more EVERYONE would know what he is talking about . If you see nothing wrong with the most powerful individual in the free world making the statement that equates AK47s with soldiers it says something that you cannot or will not understand. Perhaps as you mature you will see that WORDS convey MEANINGS and CHOICES of words sometimes convey MORE meanings.
themohawkninja says2013-11-09T15:54:33.660
I understand that meanings have words, and saying "AK-47" could bring up images of terrorists, gangs, and armed African armies led by dictators which would qualify as criminals in many peoples minds, whereas "assault rifle" might bring up the thought of an American soldier. Obama may have wanted to specifically use the AK-47 to get the right image in people's minds.

You still have yet to explain why this is such a bad thing, as you are just demeaning my level of maturity without confronting the question directly.
bigdave says2013-11-09T23:40:47.017
Themohawkninja .... To quote you " it is relevant to point out that he is only making reference to the fact that the U.S. Tends to fight people that use the AK-47,",

My point exactly!

Perhaps this will finally explain it to you. Elmo has been shot at by an enemy AK, so Elmo says Aks should not be in the hands of anybody. And when someone LEGITIMIZES those enemies with "AK-47s BELONG in the hands of soldiers,", Elmo gets really mad.

Bert and Ernie were not looking down the barrel of an AK, so they have no idea that it is a bad thing to say.
themohawkninja says2013-11-10T04:28:56.403
Who is Elmo, Bert, and Ernie in this situation? I thought the statement "belongs in the hands of soldiers" was what you were questioning, but in your analogy, you state that it legitimizes things.
bigdave says2013-11-10T06:24:56.640
Themohawkninja ...I am Elmo, You are Bert, Obama is Ernie. We all agree that criminals should not have AKs. We argue about "in the hands of soldiers". I say that statement shows that the speaker makes legitimate those armies that carry AKs. I disagree, and state that he should not have chosen those terms. It is an insult to those that have carried the weapons of the FREE WORLD.
themohawkninja says2013-11-11T01:31:18.360
I'd hardly call the countries that have used the weapon to be free. It's mainly terrorist groups, Russia (well, they use an updated version), and some corrupt African countries. It's hardly a weapon of any "freedom". That being said, the armies that do carry the weapon are legitimate government armies from what I understand, so I don't see how it is wrong to call any army legitimate unless perhaps it is a rebel group that calls itself an army.
bigdave says2013-11-11T03:13:29.357
Themohawkninja ...When I say "It is an insult to those that have carried the weapons of the FREE WORLD." the weapons of the FREE WORLD refers to M16s. Your previous statement shows that you have completely misunderstood this entire discourse.

Look again at what you said in reference to the Aks...."I'd hardly call the countries that have used the weapon to be free. It's mainly terrorist groups'

My point exactly.

And Obama's statement about "in the hands of soldiers" shows that he is legitimizing those soldiers in his world view. That is an insult.
themohawkninja says2013-11-11T17:10:59.160
Well when you talk about AK-47s and then say "the weapons" without specifying, it's hard to know that you switched which weapon you are referring to.

That is because there are many actual armies that use the AK-47, many of which are U.S. Allies [1].

1. Http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Ak-47#Users
themohawkninja says2013-11-11T17:11:14.463
Comment in moderation.
bigdave says2013-11-11T20:38:05.293
Themohawkninja .... Today is Veteran's Day. Go find a Vet. Ask any of them " What is the weapon is in the hands of soldiers of the free world?" All of them will say the M16/M4 without needing to specify the reference. Then ask them the opinion question " Does it concern you that Obama said, "AK-47s do not belong in the hands of criminals. AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers," when you know that most armies whose weapon is the AK-47 are in nations not friendly to the U.S.?" All of them will be concerned about the statement when taken in its entirety. Why don;t you ask them why?
themohawkninja says2013-11-11T20:45:32.820
Veterans would have skewed views, because they have had to face the horrors of war fighting the gun. If we faced Germany, they would say the same thing about the G36, or if we faced Austria, it would be the Steyr AUG. It would be about as far from objective as you can get to pose such a question to a soldier.

That being said, many WWII vets have (or had, seeing as many of them have died since then) Lugers and Japanese weapons, so they obviously don't despise them, therefore I HIGHLY doubt that ALL Iraq/Afghanistan war vets would be concerned. You are asserting that every single one of those that went to the Middle East for war feel that Obama's statement is bad. I would bet money that not all of the many tens of thousands would be concerned. That statement is most likely a huge generalization.
bigdave says2013-11-11T21:26:26.087
I reiterate "Themohawkninja .... You and I will only see this issue in the same light as you gain more life experience. He could have said "Assault rifles do not belong in the hands of criminals. Assault rifles belong in the hands of soldiers," and even more EVERYONE would know what he is talking about . If you see nothing wrong with the most powerful individual in the free world ( WHEN SOLDIERS IN THE FREE WORLD GENERALLY CARRY M16/M4s) making the statement that equates AK47s with soldiers it says something that you cannot or will not understand. Perhaps as you mature you will see that WORDS convey MEANINGS and CHOICES of words sometimes convey MORE meanings."

Stop debating anything else except the exact words that Obama chose to use " AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers," WHEN SOLDIERS IN THE FREE WORLD GENERALLY CARRY M16/M4s. AND OBAMA IS THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE FREE WORLD!

The army of which he is CIC has in their hands the M16/M4. When he was a child in Indonesia it was the M16/M4. It was only in KENYA in 2007 that he would have been up close and personal with the AK. DO you see how "Soldiers" +"AK" = says something about his view of the world since "CHOICES of words sometimes convey MORE meanings" And he chose the specific word AK when the more generalized "Assault rifle" could have been used.
themohawkninja says2013-11-11T21:33:52.683
I am using the term AK-47, I don't know how you are managing to straw man my statements. I also don't see how life experience comes into play here since the only required life experience you cite is the very skewed experience of being in war, and from what I can deduce, Kenya is actually a decent place politically speaking, so I don't see where the AK-47 comes into play here with any significance. I understand that Obama is most likely the most powerful man in the world today, and the U.S., along with their allies uses the M-4 and M-16, just as the AK is used by the U.S. And their allies.
bigdave says2013-11-11T21:36:09.223
Wait for my comment to come through moderation.
bigdave says2013-11-11T21:52:02.020
Themohawkninja .... Read your above statement ( or previous statement, or the one you just made) ", since the only required life experience you cite is the very skewed experience of being in war". Now think about how your own "life experience" (or lack or experience) has skewed your own views. The question is "Are you concerned" I am. You are not. If you do not or will not understand, then go away (preferably to a place without internet access).
themohawkninja says2013-11-11T21:59:55.727
Two sets of skewed information doesn't make an unbiased view. I have never fired the gun in my life, nor have I ever had any direct, or indirect interaction with it, so my "skewed" viewpoint on the gun is based off of a lack of direct experience either for or against it, not because of a traumatic event like a veteran, or gun enthusiast might propose. I perfectly understand the question, and have answered it accordingly. Just because you and I disagree doesn't mean I don't know what you have proposed.
bigdave says2013-11-11T22:20:59.877
Themohawkninja ..... If you "perfectly understand the question", then answer the question as stated at the top of the column.
themohawkninja says2013-11-11T22:23:54.707
I did, and the answer is no, and you already know it, as to quote you in your previous statement: "The question is 'Are you concerned' I am. You are not."
themohawkninja says2013-11-11T22:24:04.770
In moderation.
bigdave says2013-11-12T04:18:47.527
Perhaps "Migs belong in the Air Force" or "Astronauts belong in Soyuz". How about "Songs belong in the Navy"
bigdave says2013-11-12T04:18:57.837
In moderation.
themohawkninja says2013-11-12T16:54:30.130
In moderation.
bigdave says2013-11-14T20:31:48.373
An inspection of this page reveals that fully 100 percent of respondents agree with my position. Therefore by extension fully 100 percent disagree with your stance.
themohawkninja says2013-11-14T23:00:27.953
Point being? You are the only one who has stated their opinion on the actual poll, and therefore you are the only person to make up the 100%. That doesn't qualify for anything by at least 29 people.
bigdave says2013-11-15T03:07:02.863
Point being that you never stated your opinion properly in the poll.
themohawkninja says2013-11-15T03:08:45.997
I didn't answer the poll.
bigdave says2013-11-15T03:17:20.887
Do you not know how?
themohawkninja says2013-11-15T03:25:24.460
I don't see much point seeing as nobody else is responding, and the discussion of my opinion is happening anyways.
bigdave says2013-11-15T04:23:28.773
I don't see much point either.
bigdave says2013-11-15T21:44:04.437
Did he say "Swastikas belong on the shoulders of soldiers?"
bigdave says2013-11-15T21:44:41.407
Did he say that swastikas belong on the shoulders of soldiers