# But...Obama Was Going To Take All The Guns! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 16, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405 "2013-01-16T18:23:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/201 "2013-01-18T19:14:35Z")
I did answer the question. I’ve been answering these sorts of questions at length all throughout the thread. People can prefer different products of similar capabilities. I also addressed the underlying implicit point he was trying to make, since it was obvious that he was trying to point out an inconsistency, and using fallacious logic to do so. I have been logically consistent and intellectually honest in this thread. You guys are the ones bending over backwards to support laws you know are bullshit. You think that because you outnumber me, that somehow makes you correct. The protection of the herd in arguments. But fundamentally, you are on the side of ignorance. You are deliberately ignoring the fact of the matter and supporting restrictions on law abiding citizens based on flimsy premises. If even the smarter and more educated of you lot are willing to toss aside that knowledge and spread your bullshit anyway, then it is a correct action on the side of gun rights advocacy to fight you across the board. You are not looking at finding the most effective laws that have the least amount of invasiveness, you are looking to deal out punishment to “gun nuts”. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/202 "2013-01-18T19:30:34Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > He gets points for substances but where’s the style, the flash? I added a flash supressor. [d&r for a bad gun joke] ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/203 "2013-01-18T19:30:37Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I did answer the question. Right. You said “That’s not a question!” and (in an edit I didn’t see) offered a metaphor that sort of addressed half of the concept and which was contradicted **Algher** ’s actual, fact-based answer. I’ll let **steronz** talk about his own post, but again: > [@](#): > > You guys are the ones bending over backwards to support laws you know are bullshit. > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Fortunately, **SenorBeef** is able to swat them all away like harmless little flies. He is proving to be an expert at hand-waving. Maybe he has some kind of semi-automatic hands. I doubt I’m going to be able to get you to understand this, **SenorBeef** , but in case you are not doing this on purpose, you really are approaching these discussions with the predetermined view that your opponents are being dishonest and are just trying to ban lots and lots of guns. Then you find “evidence” for your opinion and declare they’re not arguing in good faith, at which point you’ve killed any chance for an actual discussion. And since you call people dishonest every third post, nobody gives a fuck if you think they’re being dishonest. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/204 "2013-01-18T19:37:07Z")
Well, for reasons I’ve explained over and over again, I feel that people who wish to spend their limited political capital on persuing assault weapons bans, those people who know they’re not actually meaningful, and will not affect public safety meaningfully, rather than working on something that may actually improve public safety probably do not have public safety in mind as their primary interest. What, then, is their primary interest? Would it be inaccurate to classify them as dishonest if they were to claim that public safety was their primary interest? ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/205 "2013-01-18T19:47:46Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > You can get a plastic stock for both. I had one for my Mini-14 in a folding style, until California made that part of the definition of illegal assault weapon. I put the wooden stock back on it. Increased the weight, and I had to get a new gun case for the longer form factor. > > Barrel length can be changed on both. I personally like shorter barrels, except on my long-distance rifles (Remington Model 70 in 300 magnum for example). > > The pistol grip on the AR 15 is more comfortable to me to shoot, but again that is part of the definition of evil by the State of California. So I go back to the standard hand wrap. > > Many would argue that the AR 15 is easier to work with thanks to all of the military surplus gear out there (firing pins, replacement bolts, etc.). There is also an arguement that the standard AR is more accurate out of the box than the Mini-14, and that it can take more abuse in the bush. Thank you for this post, especially the quoted part. Since I don’t live in California, I haven’t met anyone who’s actually had to contend with laws like California’s, which I’m assuming don’t allow grandfathering. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/206 "2013-01-18T20:49:09Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I feel that people who wish to spend their limited political capital on persuing assault weapons bans, those people who know they’re not actually meaningful, and will not affect public safety meaningfully, rather than working on something that may actually improve public safety probably do not have public safety in mind as their primary interest. The “not actually meaningful and they know it” part exists within your own skull. You’re calling people liars and sooper seecret gun grabbers because you’re having a basic failure to understand their argument. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/207 "2013-01-18T21:13:19Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Since the ban said that rifles with stuff like bayonette lugs and flash suppresors (which don’t try to hide the flash from the person you’re shooting at, by the way, on account of the laws and physics and stuff - but rather try to keep shooting from blinding the shooter), the rifles were often modified to remove those features. Not intended as a gotcha, but you and [Sam Stone](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15909422&postcount=71) disagree on this point: > [@Sam Stone](#): > > They have flash suppressors to avoid giving away the shooter’s position at night in combat. [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_suppressor) sides with you though. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/208 "2013-01-18T21:47:44Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > …Do you have any idea how juevenile you sound? “Why do the rifles have to look scary? Why can’t they look like normal rifles!?!”… Well, OK, why? If, as so many insist, the question of guns is strictly a utilitarian matter, uncluttered by emotional baggage or irrational motivations, why do manufacturers produce “scary looking” (note: your wording, not mine…) weapons. Because they sell better? I think that’s probably it. Which leads us to the insight that people who buy these guns want “scary looking” guns. You say it is affectionate nostalgia for their military days, or a familiarity from same. Perhaps. So, are you suggesting that the majority of people who buy these things are veterans? Have any way to back that up? > [@](#): > > …You are essentially asking why someone wants a contemporary infantryman’s rifle, which millions upon millions of people have done before, when instead they should allay your fears about weapons that don’t look like “hunting rifles your dad has”. It’s a ridiculous requirement. I’m suggesting that the people who manufacture these guns make marketing decisions, based on their desire to have their product purchased. Duh. I’m further suggesting that they make these things “scary looking” because that’s what produces the desired result. I’m not saying this completely rebuts your portrait of the totally rational, utilitarian gun owner. But perhaps it calls it into question in many of the cases. For a visual enhancement, go down to your eleventy-seven store, check out the mag rack. You’ll find a gun magazine (paper, print) there. Two bits says I can describe the cover without even seeing it, a gun, depicted in lurid colors, thrusting from the page in a _faux_-3D, the muzzle thrust right into your face. Gun porn. Johnny Wadd’s dick in .45 caliber. Who buys them? Why? Is this the sort of thing a healthy culture wishes to see flourishing? I don’t much care for actual flesh porn, but for my two bits, death porn is far, far worse. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/209 "2013-01-18T21:56:45Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I’m suggesting that the people who manufacture these guns make marketing decisions, based on their desire to have their product purchased. Duh. I’m further suggesting that they make these things “scary looking” because that’s what produces the desired result. Except the design of the two best known “scary rifles” were not designed by a marketing team to sell to the public, they were designed based on input from the military. The AR style rifle was designed and sold to the US military. The AK style rifle was designed (sold is an odd word here) for the former Warsaw Pact nations. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/210 "2013-01-18T22:18:43Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Or we can tell you to pound sand and keep your hands off of our legally aquired and owned property Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there! I just love how that line can stand on it’s own, without context like that. It makes the reader wonder what’s being discussed, and entices them to deduce what is being referred to by the phrase “legally acquired and owned property”, which necessitates comparisons of things which can be owned and which others might not want people to own. What makes it amusing enough to make me want to go to the quarry and throw stuff down there is the supposition that **ExTank** prolly was not trying to invoke the comparisons that naturally come to mind when he wrote it, but that nonetheless are inevitable when someone reads it. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/211 "2013-01-18T22:20:54Z")
I was just at Harbor Freight, a really good tool store, and I bought a Machete on sale for $4.99. As the lady rang it up she said: “Weapon, huh? Obama won’t let us have guns soon and they’ll come for stuff like this next”, so the puerile demands for “CITE!” that it’s a right wing conspiracy that he’s snatching all the guns is out there and it’s common no matter how much people here like to disclaim. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/212 "2013-01-18T22:23:45Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, OK, why? If, as so many insist, the question of guns is strictly a utilitarian matter, uncluttered by emotional baggage or irrational motivations, why do manufacturers produce “scary looking” (note: your wording, not mine…) weapons. Because they sell better? I think that’s probably it. We don’t need to even say that the choice is “uncluttered by emotional baggage or irrational motivations” The arguments you’re making now are “people think modern military guns look cool, that’s why they buy them” and you’re just hoping that’s somehow sinister enough to imply something. Even if you’re right, so what? Does it make the guns any more dangerous or lethal if people like the aesthetics? But, as was addressed in the next post, most of these weapons were developed for the military, which tends to be big on utilitarianism and not so big on aesthetics. As I’ve said like 5 times in this thread now, it’s been very common since the founding of this country for private citizens to own the common rifleman’s arm. They’re cheap, plentiful, there are surplus parts and ammunition, they’re usually rugged and simple, lots of gunsmiths are familiar with them to customize or fix them, lots of military get trained on them. And they have a historical value to them too. I’ve owned German and Russian rifles from WW2. I’d love to own a Garand an an enfield too. I’d love an M14. None of those things are black and modern looking, so you probably wouldn’t think anyone was weird for me liking them, but if I were to want the standard US military rifle of the last 40 years or the most commonly produced rifle of the modern world (AK47/74), suddenly you think sinister and a shooting spree waiting to happen. But the motivation in the same in every case. You’re the one somehow saying that owning military firearms up until about the 50s and 60s is okay, and owning ones from the 60s onwards is sinister and evil, simply based on the fact that you think the newer ones look scary. > [@](#): > > Which leads us to the insight that people who buy these guns want “scary looking” guns. You say it is affectionate nostalgia for their military days, or a familiarity from same. Perhaps. So, are you suggesting that the majority of people who buy these things are veterans? Have any way to back that up? I don’t think all the owners are veterans. Majority? I don’t know. A lot of the guys I know who own AR-15s are ex-military, but a lot aren’t. I’m just adding it to the list of of reasons people might want to own a common infantry rifle. > [@](#): > > I’m suggesting that the people who manufacture these guns make marketing decisions, based on their desire to have their product purchased. Duh. I’m further suggesting that they make these things “scary looking” because that’s what produces the desired result. The military generally isn’t deliberately designing things to look scary. Mostly they want them to be simple to maintain, easy to repair, easy to train with, and reliable. > [@](#): > > I’m not saying this completely rebuts your portrait of the totally rational, utilitarian gun owner. But perhaps it calls it into question in many of the cases. Again, even if you were right, so what? Are you seriously proposing that we ban guns that people think look appealing or badass or scary or however you want to phrase it? Regardless of the actual capabilities of those weapons? > [@](#): > > For a visual enhancement, go down to your eleventy-seven store, check out the mag rack. You’ll find a gun magazine (paper, print) there. Two bits says I can describe the cover without even seeing it, a gun, depicted in lurid colors, thrusting from the page in a _faux_-3D, the muzzle thrust right into your face. > > Gun porn. Johnny Wadd’s dick in .45 caliber. Who buys them? Why? Is this the sort of thing a healthy culture wishes to see flourishing? I don’t much care for actual flesh porn, but for my two bits, death porn is far, far worse. That I don’t really know. I’ve never subscribed to gun magazines or anything like that. If I had to guess, SWAT teams and other “tactical” police have been trying to form their own little military rambo squads, and there’s been a lot of equipment designed for them designed to look like modern military gear. So if you’re into a certain kind of gear like that - rather than shotguns or hunting rifles or whatever - then the aesthetic of modern military weapons has kind of set the tone for the whole industry. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/213 "2013-01-18T22:33:14Z")
> [@rogerbox](#): > > I was just at Harbor Freight, a really good tool store, and I bought a Machete on sale for $4.99. As the lady rang it up she said: “Weapon, huh? Obama won’t let us have guns soon and they’ll come for stuff like this next”, so the puerile demands for “CITE!” that it’s a right wing conspiracy that he’s snatching all the guns is out there and it’s common no matter how much people here like to disclaim. This is clearly malarkey. Everyone knows that Harbor Freight is a _terrible_ tool store. My favorite terrible tool store, but still. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/214 "2013-01-18T22:35:24Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > This is clearly malarkey. Everyone knows that Harbor Freight is a _terrible_ tool store. > > My favorite terrible tool store, but still. Aye, they are hands down the best store for cheap, shitty tools in the US. ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/215 "2013-01-18T23:00:36Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > Except the design of the two best known “scary rifles” were not designed by a marketing team to sell to the public, they were designed based on input from the military. > > The AR style rifle was designed and sold to the US military. > The AK style rifle was designed (sold is an odd word here) for the former Warsaw Pact nations. Very true. However, they are now being marketed to the public. As everyone talks past each other in these endless threads, no one seems to notice that this marketing, with tactical if not military themes appeals to its intended audience - but generates fear in others. As the public sees photos of some of our recent murderous nutcases and their firearms - with an appearance similar to the photos of our armed forces from recent wars - it doubtless amplifies those fears. I don’t think either side in gun debates is alone in fearing “jack booted thugs”. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2013, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/216 "2013-01-19T03:45:10Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > This is clearly malarkey. Everyone knows that Harbor Freight is a _terrible_ tool store. > > My favorite terrible tool store, but still. Sorry, I meant, great place to get the same chinese crap that Home Depot, Ace Hardware etc overcharge for. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Skip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@Skip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skip)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2013, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/217 "2013-01-20T09:07:16Z")
[Five Injured In Accidental Gun Show Shootings On ‘Gun Appreciation Day’](http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/five-accidental-shootings-at-gun-shows-mark-gun?ref=fpa) > [@](#): > > As gun rights activists celebrated the turnout at gun shows for national Gun Appreciation Day Saturday, police responded to at least thee accidental shootings that left five people injured at shows across the country. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2013, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/218 "2013-01-22T17:15:09Z")
Here’s [Mitch McConnell’s campaign manager](http://fatlip.leoweekly.com/2013/01/20/mitch-mcconnells-irresponsible-campaign-email-watch-outtheyre-coming-for-your-guns/): > [@](#): > > Dear Patriot, > > You and I are literally surrounded. > > The gun-grabbers in the Senate are about to launch an all-out-assault on the Second Amendment. On your rights. > > On your freedom. > > Just the other night, President Obama urged them to act. And then he went one step further, spelling out the 23 different Executive Orders he will take to get your guns. > > My friend, our freedom is under direct assault. > > From those who want take your guns. From those who want to shred our Constitution, and as our good in friend Rand Paul from Kentucky says, from those who want to be King. > > Let me tell you, Mitch McConnell is ready to lead the fight to protect your rights. > > Will you stand with Mitch today? > > Our Founders fought a revolution to secure our rights. They would have been appalled by what they heard from an American president the other day. > > President Obama has the left wing media in a frenzy. And, like his old Chief of Staff, he is determined to not waste a crisis. > > The gun-grabbers are in full battle mode. And they are serious. Nah, nobody’s telling anyone that Obama’s coming for their guns. Nobody. Perish the thought. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2013, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/219 "2013-01-22T17:33:19Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > The gun fetishists had said Obama was going to take all the guns away and **he didn’t.** Bolding mine. Didn’t. Past tense. The only logical way to read the OP’s statement is if the OP is claiming that others were claiming that Obama would “take all the guns away” by the time the OP wrote that post. If you’re posting quotes about a future event, or an ongoing process, then it does not pertain to what the OP says, which is that gun nuts were all expecting Obama to have taken all the guns away last week. All the paranoid rantings in the world about future action on gun control are not relevant to the OP’s position, which is that people actually thought guns would already all be banned. The entire point of the OP is laughing at these imaginary people who thought Obama would, last week, declare all guns illegal by executive order. These quotes do not support that. ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2013, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405/220 "2013-01-22T18:46:16Z")
Is it bad for the gears to backpedal that vigorously? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-obama-was-going-to-take-all-the-guns/647405.md?page=12)