Obama's secret skeet shooting

Originally posted by seabag

We've already been told by this administration that guns can't be used for recreational purposes.

This is not the stance of the administration. It's ONLY being said by crazy republicans.
Obama is NOT anti-gun. Get it through your thick skulls.

The only reason you guys find this so hard to believe is that you wear your views entirely on your sleeve. Not to mention your guns. Just because someone isn't bragging about their guns and ragging on gun control doesn't mean they hate guns or are against ownership of them! Not everyone who shoots talks about it. Trust me.

I find it perfectly believable that Obama owns guns and skeet shoots. He's no Charlton Heston, but it's not hard to believe that he enjoys some target practice or gun sport now and then...

And if there was a picture of it, you'd be complaining about THAT!

reply to post by Ghost375


Eh.. I would disagree. I think he is very probably "anti-gun," just because he is only supporting a ban on one class of weapons and the size of magazines doesn't mean he wouldn't prefer to go after more than that. He is from Chicago where all guns are banned so I wouldn't speak to the subject unless I was certain, which neither of us are.

If you were arguing that he is anti gun crime it wouldn't make sense still since semi auto rifles are the least likely gun to be used in crime. It's just the most reasonable and effective place to start on all out gun control.

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by seabag

We've already been told by this administration that guns can't be used for recreational purposes.

This is not the stance of the administration. It's ONLY being said by crazy republicans.
Obama is NOT anti-gun. Get it through your thick skulls.

What?

Obama clearly has said time and time again Americans don't need "assault weapons or clips" clear hollywood terminology.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by seabag

 

I don't know why you are trying to argue with me, but I don't think those are significant examples. The point I was making, that you must have missed, was that he wouldn't want his constituency to see him enjoying guns while he is attacking him. He tries to maintain a peaceful image because we all know his actions, putting an image with them that people could latch onto would have an effect even if it's minute and subconscious.

Me personally, I don't believe he even shoots skeet at all.
His first passion as we all know is golf, that's why he himself he doesn't care to stay at Camp David because there is no golf course. [he made those statements himself in an interview]
And he likes basketball.

I think he made this story up due to thew fact that Clinton just got on their azz about offending gun owners on both sides of the isle.
Bill Clinton: Democrats Must Respect Gun Rights, Culture

So, in my opinion, he came up with this story to pretend to "relate" to gun owners by implying hey, I'm one of you, which of course, he's not.

Sounds like the Dems are catching heat for this aggressiveness on guns instead of focusing on the economy.
Hell, if they tackled the budget/economy problems as aggressive as gun control, our country would be a lot better by now. Clear sign of priority screw up IMO.

Just my two cents worth.......

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I don't think the point was whether or not he owns them or shoots them, it's that he is a photo op maniac and has likely not allowed photos of this particular extracurricular as it would have an effect on the public opinion.

reply to post by snarky412


That's possible, but at the same time it's possible he has done some skeet shooting. I agree it is to relate as I said in an earlier post, but the reason there are no photos isn't necessarily because he doesn't do it/hasn't done it, but because it would have a negative effect in his attack on gun rights that is ongoing. I think he probably has done some skeet shooting, I think he mentioned it to relate (even though it still doesn't make him relatable), but avoided photos so it doesn't go too far and have a negative effect on another group.

My comment about a picture was just a prediction that someone will photoshop a pic of the pres shooting skeet with an assault rifle because people cannot resist photoshoping. And of course a person doesn't normally shoot sheet with an assault rifle.

Wow that a nutjob

Originally posted by roadgravel
My comment about a picture was just a prediction that someone will photoshop a pic of the pres shooting skeet with an assault rifle because people cannot resist photoshoping. And of course a person doesn't normally shoot sheet with an assault rifle.

People don't skeet shoot with ar's prolly cause they are poor shots, you can skeet shoot with anything

Shotguns are for those who can't hit the broad side of a barn

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
I don't think the point was whether or not he owns them or shoots them, it's that he as a photo op maniac and has likely not allowed photos of this particular extracurricular as it would have an effect on the public opinion.

That's only if you believe that people who want some reasonable, balanced gun control don't own guns. The problem is that most people here think that there are TWO sides to this issue: You either LOVE guns and think we should all be allowed to own tanks if we want... Or you HATE guns and think they should all be banned.

PLENTY of people who own guns support his recent actions and measures. The "attack on gun rights" is in your head.

I hear Obama takes a poop at Camp David, too, but I don't want to see a picture of it to prove it.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

PLENTY of people who own guns support his recent actions and measures. The "attack on gun rights" is in your head.

Really citing what other people support is ridiculous are you a gun owner?

Being one I do not support any addition legislation that has not stopped a damn thing, that holds the entire countries populace repsponsible for acts of crime they did not commit.

I think it's a shift in strategy myself. I think it's a political attempt to divide gun owners. Right now there is a relatively unified opposition to any new or renewed law aside from maybe better background checks. What he's trying to do, along with others, is to neutralize any opposition from those that solely hunt or sports shoot by assuring them no one is after their guns, at least for right now.

I've seen the term "Fudd" (as in Elmer Fudd) used perjoratively to describe those who own only hunting weapons and maybe a handgun or two and believe that the 2nd is to protect hunting and self-defense quite regularly of late. What he's trying to do is to divide the Fudds from those who believe the second is there as a last resort against tyrannical government.

This is where I believe that the NRA and other pro-second amendment organizations failed in '94. When they saw that their guns, at that time, weren't on that era's hit list they decided not to expend their resources fighting it. This is why I say that the NRA has folded on guns in the past and if you don't hold them accountable will in the future. It is also the reason why, in addition to the NRA, I support groups like Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership.

reply to post by jefwane


I could give you 100 stars for that response.

Well stated and right on, IMHO. Drive a wedge and demonize the outgroup.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

I don't know why you are trying to argue with me,

Probably just out of habit.

but I don't think those are significant examples. The point I was making, that you must have missed, was that he wouldn't want his constituency to see him enjoying guns while he is attacking him. He tries to maintain a peaceful image because we all know his actions, putting an image with them that people could latch onto would have an effect even if it's minute and subconscious.

I understand what you meant and tend to agree. I was referring to your comment about him not taking a photo that could be misconstrued. He got hammered by the right for the 'bowing' incidents and the White House said they were being misconstrued. They said he was just being respectful. Some of us thought he was being submissive; certainly not the action of the POTUS. There is no precedent for a POTUS kissing arse like that.

reply to post by neo96


I love threads like this.

People trying so hard trying to find a negative angle with anything to do with Obama. Even when he says he supports what you support and actually participates in gun activities....some people have to try very hard to still be against that.

It's hilarious really...Obama could come out in support of ARs....and some here would demand they be banned.

reply to post by xedocodex

People trying so hard trying to find a negative angle with anything to do with Obama.

There is nothing hard about pointing out Obama's shortcomings as the are many.

reply to post by xedocodex

It's hilarious really...Obama could come out in support of ARs....and some here would demand they be banned.

If he does that I will vote for him in 2016.

I promise.

Inexplicable double post.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I think te image of him using any gun would have the same effect be it single shot or AR15.

I don't think the gun control that has been proposed is reasonable at all. I am aware there is a middleground of people that at least say they like guns, but support what you call "reasonable" gun control measures. The thing is what you are calling reasonable are anything but. Reasonable IMO is not far off from what we have now and it can still be soundly debated. Reasonable is making sure everyone get's a background check if they buy from a business, making a special license required to own machine guns, and of course banning things like RPGS, etc.

I do not think that banning 30 round magazines is reasonable, and I don't think banning semi auto rifles is reasonable. It makes no sense when they are used in the least amount of gun crime in the country. They are the least dangerous to civilians and most dangerous to governments. The proposed gun control measures are far from reasonable.