Obama Killed More People in 2011 Than “Assault Weapons”

You read that right. I’ve been working on a series of comparisons to other means of unnatural death to give some perspective to the number of “assault weapons” deaths, and the commander-in-chief eliminated, via drone strikes, more people in 2011 than were killed by so-called assault weapons in these here United States.  According to data compiled by the New America Foundation, President Obama ordered drone strikes that offed at least 367 people in 2011, all without judicial oversight. And according to Dianne Feinstein, there are about 48 deaths from “assault rifles” every year in the United States. Those deaths, by the way, appear to include police usage of these firearms to eliminate criminals, as well as civilian use to defend the lives of innocent people. So, in other words, both metrics include the defense of innocent life by killing criminals / combatants. After all, if we can save just one life . . .

avatar

About Nick Leghorn

Nick Leghorn is a gun nerd living and working in San Antonio, Texas. In his free time, he's a competition shooter (USPSA, 3-gun and NRA High Power), aspiring pilot, and enjoys mixing statistics and science with firearms. Now on sale: Getting Started with Firearms by yours truly!

119 Responses to Obama Killed More People in 2011 Than “Assault Weapons”

  1. avatarWilliam says:

    DRONE MAN. He strikes without warning; gives no quarter, no appeal to God, no mercy.

    And I imagine God will show no mercy unto him. If there is one.

    Even if there isn’t, I bet.

  2. avatarbrian.z says:

    I think we have our first Assault President.

    • avatarTabby says:

      And yet the left will never admit it! They still go on about how they think Bush is a ‘war criminal’, yada…yada…yada… And even though O has greatly expanded upon all of the policies they shrieked over when it was Bush, you won’t hear a peep from the libs.

      • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

        Tabby: Actually, it is the use of torture that we object to. And we pretty much object to it whether the President is Democrat or Republican.

        • avatarPaul W says:

          You can’t deny the left is one hell of a lot quieter about drone strikes, indefinite detention, “enhanced interrogation”, etc now that it’s Obama doing it.

        • Paul, I actually posted a long reply to this but it got deleted.

          Basically, the media is more upset about Obama than they were when the same thing happened under Bush. Even the “liberal” sites, like Huffington and Consortium News, are every bit as harsh on Obama.

        • avatarMark v says:

          Torture is about as unAmerican, unpatriotic as you can get. No, the end does NOT justify the means.

          But I have a hard time regarding a training technique that is used on OUR OWN SOLDIERS, as “torture”.

        • Mark,

          As with a lot of things, “torture” is a matter of degree. Forcing someone (a soldier or a prisoner) to sit in 72 degree water for an hour is unpleasant, but not really torture. If the water was 52 degrees, though, it would be torture.

          American soldiers are exposed to waterboarding as part of survival training. The average period of time that they are subject to the procedure is said to be 28 seconds. (In the CIA, the average period of time is said to be 14 seconds.) Both numbers seem low, but there are good reasons why the real numbers are not known.

          For prisoners, on the other hand, the average length of time is greater. It is enough to cause brain damage and even death. Sometimes victims have to be revived with electric shocks.

          Basically everyone who has ever been exposed to it consider waterboarding to be torture, including legal experts, war veterans, intelligence officials, military judges, and human rights organizations. The only people who don’t are people like Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft, who are comfortable sending other children off to war, but avoided it themselves.

          Sean Hannity publicly stated that he was willing to be waterboarded to prove that it was not torture. Once he realized what a stupid thing that was to say, he changed his mind about volunteering. He still claims that it is not torture: That is what is known as “lying”.

          Khalid Sheik Mohammed was waterboarded more than 150 times, with no result. The only way they finally got him to talk was to keep him awake for 180 hours straight.

          Is that torture? You bet it is. It is still a little better than Americans than Americans get from Al Qaeda? Of course. Theoretically, that is what makes us better than them.

        • avatarShaky Dave says:

          Not THIS Lefty. Torture was totally useless in an intelligence-gathering scenario. “High government officials” deciding to off U.S. citizens without benefit of judicial review is homicide. And I’m a Life/Endowment Member of NRA, and Golden Eagle and all that jazz, but would call myself a social libertarian, fiscal conservative. And I’m NOT one of the 60 percent (that mythical crowd) of NRA members who support Common Sense Gun Control.

        • Dave:

          Most people on this board seem to be socially liberal, in the sense that they don’t think government should interfere in any personal rights, be they gun rights, marriage rights, or the right not to be killed by a desk-jockey a thousand miles away.

          Most liberals I know are fiscally conservative too. We just have a different definition of what it means to be “conservative”. In my liberal-perfect world, Carnival Cruise Lines would pay the same tax rate that Smith & Wesson pays. (Instead, S&W pays about 35% more taxes per dollar than Carnival.)

          I agree with you that military actions need some sort of judicial review. We should not be bombing countries based on the skin complexion of their religious leaders, nor should we be offing American citizens just because they appear to have joined the other side.

          Although, you have to admit, through most of the history of the United States, that has been pretty much exactly the U.S. decides to kill people.

  3. avatarDouble D says:

    I’m sure there is an “evil, black, and scary” joke here, somewhere…

    • avatarChuckN says:

      You racist, you! Those drones were only doing their jobs!
      Their working hard so they can feed their families.
      Think of the little gliders, man!

      • avatarNew Chris says:

        No they’re defending our freedoms, just don’t ask me to step you through the logic or you’re un-grateful and un-American.

        • avatarThomasR says:

          LOL, Dude! that was a good one!

          Good thing I wasn’t drinking something or I would have sprayed the key board.

      • avatarJarhead1982 says:

        As long as they arent black he doesn’t care how many them drones kill!

  4. avatarRalph says:

    Yes, but drones are single shot, while assault weapons can fire a million bullets in a second and have no purpose other than wiping out a billion people really fast, like instantly. I know that because Obama said so, and he’s our boss so we have to do what he says.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      Good point!

    • avatarIng says:

      No, I’m pretty sure he’s the Dad of America. Although we still have to do what he says (he deals some pretty brutal time-outs).

    • +1 Ralph – so I think what you’re saying is that a drone is like a musket or maybe a double barrel flintlock pistol? One or two shots and you have to reload vs the million round magazine you can buy for $1 at Cabela’s.

      Illustrating Chicagoland Idiocy, Mayhem and Stupidity at heyjackass.com

    • avatarJeremy says:

      He’s not your boss, he’s your daddy. At least that’s what Chris Rock said.

    • avatarUnapologeticallyAmerican says:

      No Drones are not single shot. They are semi-automatic. One missle per trigger squeeze x4 (depends on the load). But don’t forget the AR-15 can take out a train…

      • avatarTabby says:

        According to Jessie Jackson right? He also said it could “shoot planes out of the sky”. Seriously he needs to lay off whatever it is he’s been on it’s really starting to effect his perception. ;-)

        • avatarrepeater says:

          To be fair, Jesse is such a mushmouth that you can’t be 100% sure of what it is that he actually says.

          Maybe when he said
          “these weapons can shoot down airplanes” he was misquoted and actually said “it’s a gorgeous day outside, let’s go for a walk.” We can never really be sure.

  5. avatarAlphaGeek says:

    I was doing a ton of research last night for some work I’m doing for the Firearms Policy Coalition, and I came across two interesting facts:

    (1) The CA Attorney General is required to submit a yearly report with an analysis of gun crime stats. Here’s the latest from 2011:

    http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_11.pdf

    (2) Actual usage of “assault weapons” in crimes is astonishingly low (pg 6, Fig 7) and in 2011 there were 5 (FIVE) “assault weapons” used in crime according to the CA AG

    FIVE. And in 2010? NINE. In a state that’s home to 38M people, 28M of whom are adults.

    Mind. Blown.

  6. avatarAlphaGeek says:

    Nick, my last comment got stuck in the spam filter, so if you could set it free…

    I’d email you to ask, but you don’t appear to have an email address listed anywhere on your contributor profile.

  7. avatarCameron S. says:

    Heil King Obama.

  8. avatarHiPlanesDrifter says:

    How come nobody is denouncing Dianne Feinstein for her racist remarks, i.e. calling black assault weapons scary and dangerous? Racism! Racism!

  9. avatarSammy says:

    DiFi is a LOT scarier looking than any gun I’ve ever seen. Maybe we can get her banned. Please, oh please, it would make up for the pony I never got as a kid.

  10. avatar4strokes says:

    Ban assault Presidents!

  11. avatarAPBTFan says:

    These drone strikes are getting enough attention that even Benson the rabid leftist cartoonist for the AZ Republic (owned by Gannet, go figure) took a break from his daily NRA bashing and made a stinging cartoon against Obama’s drone campaign the other day. It was a predator with Obama’s face on the front flying straight at the Constitution. Completely ironic since he consistently craps on the Second.

  12. avatarDutchinDC says:

    I’d say the majority of the 367 killed in drone strikes likely deserved it. Besides I can’t fit a Reaper UAV or a hellfire in my gun safe.

    • avatarNew Chris says:

      “I’d say the majority of the 367 killed in drone strikes likely deserved it. ”

      Why, because a politician said so?

      What if China decided to kill dissidence in the US and inadvertently took a few civilians out in the process?

      In this age of classified names on classified lists determined by classified parameters and classified evidence there is no room for a rational person to claim any sort of certainty as to what is actually deserved.

      • avatarAccur81 says:

        I’m with New Chris. Obama wants elimination of our AR-15s, yet he has precious little oversight on his drone attacks. And Fast and Furious, and the budget, and Obamacare spending, spying on US citizens, expanding Secret Service Protections, entitlement spending…

        In fact our responses on TTAG are probably already being stored on a government computer.

        • avatarHenry Bowman says:

          I’ve long ago accepted the likely fact that I’m on some sort of Terrorist Watch List. Might as well live free than live afraid.

      • avatarDutchinDC says:

        No it’s not from politicians. I know a lot about those killed in the strikes and you wouldn’t want any of them in your home, at least not alive. Just because Obama is wrong about gun control and a number of other issues doesn’t mean he’s wrong about this. A lot goes into these strikes and they are run by people who know what they are doing not by the ATF, FBI, or justice dept. This is not a gun control or big govt issue, it’s to keep people outside the US from attacking this country. Don’t confuse this with issues here in the US.

        • avatarNew Chris says:

          But how do you know? It’s all classified… they might be the baddest dudes on earth but we have no way of knowing because no evidence is ever presented against them.

          If they were in my home and they posed a threat, that is they showed the motive, opportunity and ability to do immediate harm, then I’d shoot them myself.

          I don’t see how those standards can be met when they are hiding in a building in a another country.

          They probably are bad guys… but that’s no excuse for civilian casualties in places like Pakistan.

        • avatarHenry Bowman says:

          New Chris,
          Save your breath. He’s in the Distric of Criminals and will steadfastly hold to the statist pardigm. He doesn’t even realize that the military is just as much a federal agency as the BATFE(&RBFs), FBI, and DOJ.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          you wouldnt want a pakistani child in your home?

          …dumbass

        • avatarDutchinDC says:

          I live in VA, I just work in DC not that it has anything to do with this. I find it amazing that people who have no background or insight into what’s actually going on with these strikes are “experts” and think they know who we’re actually killed in these strikes.

        • avatarTabby says:

          Actually there’s innocent women & children that have nothing to do with the jihadis killed in them all the time. The Daily Mail’s article I believe estimated civilians at around 3,000 several months ago..
          It’s Obama’s policy to hit weddings & funerals..Then they ‘wait’ until the rescue & medical workers arrive & hit them. When I first heard that I thought it was so un-American. Really slimy.
          I remember a video of a child post strike, couldn’t have been over 3 & had his whole face including lower jaw blown off but was still alive. Absolutely tragic.
          Obama doesn’t have the ethics Bush or any other POTUS has…He’s a real tyrant. 60,000 dead in Syria now to his terrorist jihadists too.
          The links to most the articles concerning that can be found at commieblaster.com > “Obama Crimes”

        • avatarLow Budget Dave says:

          Tabby: I don’t think what you are saying is true. The reason the US hit a couple of wedding parties is that terrorists planted their cell phones in the wedding party. It took the military an unfortunate amount of time to figure that out, but I don’t think you can blame that on the President.

          Also, I am not sure you can blame the President for what is going on in Syria. Are you saying that unless we intervene, then it is our fault? By that definition, the meteor strike in Russia is our fault too.

        • avatarNew Chris says:

          DutchinDC I agree, people who have no expertise should be cautious with their opinions. I also agree that geographic location is not a definitive qualifier.

          The only information I have is that which is publicly available, which is the root of the problem. Who are the people being targeted, what are they accused of, what evidence against them is there and what chain of evidence exists to ensure its integrity?

          These people have no appeals process, they don’t even get to know they are being targeted for assassination.

          I need more than just the word of people who refuse to present evidence publicly. We are talking about using American weapons of war in other countries where we have no formal hostilities and killing the citizens of those countries without trial, charge, or evidence. We would never tolerate this if it was done to us. No matter how much secret information the offending country claimed existed.

          But you haven’t qualified yourself, I don’t k now what special information you have access to that is not publicly available and I’m not really willing to take your word for it. (No offence)

        • avatarDutchinDC says:

          Daily Mail, the British tabloid…..?

          TTAG really needs to keep this blog focused on guns and gun issues. The articles and blogs tend to be more informed.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          “It took the military an unfortunate amount of time to figure that out, but I don’t think you can blame that on the President.”

          Oh really!?

          he’s the f^cking commander in chief of the military you dolt.

          you obama lovers are amazing. First your boy “threw the switch on bin laden” then when some innocent pakistani children get killed by a hellfire, “it took a unfortunate amount of time for the military to figure out it was a wedding”.

          Nice consistency. Obama should be so proud to have such spinning fans.

        • WLCE: The President is not a field officer. You can’t keep blaming him for everything that goes wrong in your world.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          did you read what i f^cking said? obama is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF. why do i have to reiterate this?

          so youll give him credit for OBL but not for the children killed in the drone strikes he ordered. Nice.

          “You can’t keep blaming him for everything that goes wrong in your world.”

          There is legit criticism for obama, this is it. sorry to offend your sensibilities and dash your hopes and dreams of your messiah, but he’s just as bloody as bush.

          you type of liberals make a real liberal puke.

  13. avatarHenry Bowman says:

    This is news? State-sanctioned criminal activity has always overshadowed free-lance criminality.

    • avatarNew Chris says:

      At least the thug in an alley doesn’t insult you by claiming that what he’s doing is a service.

      • avatarHenry Bowman says:

        True. Free-lance criminals are much more honest than politicians.

        • avatarJarhead1982 says:

          They actually have some sense of morals to, put a rapist or a pedophile into general prison population and they kill them first chance they get.

  14. avatarNew Chris says:

    I remember when the US had the pretense of benevolence?

  15. avatarDon says:

    That headline was so funny I think I peed a little! LOL!

  16. avatarDaveC says:

    Obama is bad for guns. Everyone knows that.

    But because of drone strikes our soldiers can come back. We would be killing these people one way or the other. We have forgotten that they are saving American soldiers.

    I’m not arguing that there isn’t a better option, like isolationism. And drones scare me as soon as I think of terrorist figuring out how to fly them over the USA. But I’d rather kill Taliban with drones than our soldiers.

    • avatarTabby says:

      Ya know, Rand Paul is blocking the Hagel confirmation because they feel they have the right to drone strike on US soil & wouldn’t give a definitive “no we won’t do that”… Sooooo – the terrorists you most need to fear it would seem would be those in the US gov’t.

  17. avatarLongPurple says:

    “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. “ – U S Constitution

    Definition: bill of attainder
    n. pl. bills of attainder
    A legislative act pronouncing a person guilty of a crime, usually treason, without trial and subjecting that person to capital punishment and attainder. Such acts are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

    An action the Constitution forbids the Congress to do by passing a law, with all the safeguards and checks and balances built into that legislative process, is somehow assumed – by the President – to be within his legitimate authority. The power to declare guilt, especially guilt of “treason”, and to punish that “guilt” by death, is exercisable on the basis of his sole judgment.

    By what convoluted logic does the President, a single elected official, rationalize his “authority” to do something that is specifically forbidden by the Constitution to the elected bodies of the Senate and House of Representatives, numbering over 500 elected officials in total?

    On what basis does he elevate the power of the President to serve as judge, jury, and executioner — in direct contravention of a Constitutional prohibition of such a tyrannical power forbidden to that body of the representatives of the people, the Congress?

    If that power is recognized as a form of tyranny to be denied the Senate and House of Representatives, in spite of the safeguards inherent in the legislative process, then – “a fortiori” — it must surely be tyranny if exercised by the President.

    • avatarHenry Bowman says:

      Hahaha… as if the President, Congress, or even the Supreme Court gives anything other than lip service to the Constitution. Good one.

    • avatarSammy says:

      Barry knows all of that and then some. He’s an fvcking Constitutional organizer er, I mean professor, don’t ya know.

      • avatarLongPurple says:

        Do you think he might have studied the Constitution in order to destroy it? Or maybe I’m just cynical.

  18. avatarGov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    I read a week or two ago that in Pakistan alone the big BO has killed nearly 200 children – not people, but CHILDREN. Not to mention the 16 year old American citizen he assassinated in Yemen. Yet he thinks he can get up on his soap box and preach to us about our weapons!

    • avatarDutchinDC says:

      Need to check your facts before you post

      • avatarNew Chris says:

        176 children killed in Pakistan is the number I’ve heard… skepticism is warranted, but it’s a lot more than 0.

        We do know that the government of Pakistan has repeatedly filed protests against US drone strike in their country as violations of their sovereignty.

        • avatarDutchinDC says:

          176 terrorist becomes, 176 civilians, then 176 women then finally 176 children. These numbers are coming from the same people who hid Bin Laden and continue to support the Taliban to kill our troops. I wouldn’t trust them as a source of information.

        • avatarNew Chris says:

          That’s possible, but I need more than speculation. Do you have more information or is this just something that is convenient for you to believe?

          Are you suggesting that no innocent civilians have been killed by US drone strikes in Pakistan?

  19. avatarsupton says:

    True Lies:

    “But they were all bad people…”

  20. avatarLance says:

    Thats it ban Assault Democrat Presidents: “We do not need Presidents of war on our streets”!!!!!

  21. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    The drone people were criminals, what? Well, yes so are the people that break into houses, armed robbers, muggers, rapists. I guess obama has some special criminals that can’t be killed, Randy

  22. avatarAharon says:

    The gun-grabbers could be re-posting this story with a good laugh expressing how gun blogs play fast and lose with facts knowing apples and oranges are being compared. With the exception of one (or two?) the drone strikes were not used on American citizens. Under Bush those drone strikes on bearded characters in the middle east were applauded by many conservatives and especially conservative gun owners.

    • avatarNew Chris says:

      Well if it’s only one or two it hardly seems worth mentioning…

      FWIW Bush thoroughly cured me of my Republican disease.

      What’s more telling is how many anti-war democrats decried drone strikes under Bush, but are now apologist for drone strikes under Obama…

      I’ve sincerely asked many of them what the actual difference is and have yet to be given any sort of reasonable answer.

      I’m afraid they might be incurable.

      • avatarHenry Bowman says:

        As Butler Shaffer puts it: “the left and the right are two wings of the same bird of prey.”

      • avatarAharon says:

        Tell me about it. I agree with all you wrote. I’m neither republican or democrat, conservative or liberal. I do lean traditional in my personal social values. In 2008, I voted against the GOP NeoCons and in 2012 I voted against the democrat party PC socialists.

        I recall the liberals, progressives, and democrats marching in the streets against the Bush Republican wars as recently as 2007 and then those same protesters disappeared under Obama.

        IMO, the Democrats and Republicans are often two sides of the same coin. There are no more dangerous and destructive organized crime families than those two parties.

      • avatarAharon says:

        My comment has not posted. The filter got it.

        Thanks for your reply. I agree with it.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Glad to see I’m not the only one getting punished by the hyperactive spam filter. I’ve lost a few good ones down the drain today.

    • avatarMOG says:

      A terrorist is a terrorist, don’t care what his/her nationality is. Join terrorists overseas, die with them. Terrorists in the US are under the rule of law, but, if a drone was what it took, go for it. (But, may the Big Head in The Sky forbid we defend our family/friends/home and the three dogs under the back porch with personal arms).

      • avatarNew Chris says:

        A terrorist is some who kills civilians in pursuit of a political agenda…

        So when a drone strikes kills civilians…

        Wait no, that can’t be right, let’s work through that again…

        • avatarAharon says:

          A couple hundred years ago, a political writer wrote: “your terrorist is my freedom fighter”.

        • avatarNS says:

          It’s not terrorism when the United States does it, because the United States fights the terrorists, so the US Gov can’t engage in terrorism, obviously. That’s what terrorists do.

          And for all the clamoring about terrorism and how it’s the gravest threat to our way of life and there are millions of people who would love to roast the flesh of American babies, food poisoning kills more Americans per year than terrorism has in the last dozen or so

      • avatarWLCE says:

        youre assuming the government is always right (it isn’t).

        Therefore, the logic of “terrorists are terrorists and deserve drone strike”, only applies to terrorists but is plain murder when innocents are murdered alongside that terrorist.

        maybe its my goddamned respect for human life, that i am compelled to opposite government authority and the idea of dropping hellfire missiles because of hunches.

  23. avatarMOG says:

    So? I have no problem with killing the enemy, by any means. What do drone strikes have to do with (so far), home/personal defense? You are pushing the envelope on this one.

    • avatarNew Chris says:

      Unfortunately there is a significant portion of the population who will gladly kill anyone that someone in power labels “the enemy.”

      I understand it, but I wish people would be more considerate about who they kill and why.

      • avatarMOG says:

        I understand that, but, enemy in this case refers to terrorists of any stripe, that mean the world harm. We could argue who the enemy is, while the gates are being breached, take my word for it, you will know the enemy when you see them. I do not advocate killing just for the sake of it.

        • avatarNew Chris says:

          I would argue that, at least at the moment, the people who are the greatest and most direct threat to my personal freedoms are not in Pakistan, but Washington DC.

        • avatarCarlosT says:

          No, enemy in this case refers anyone Obama or whoever the sitting President says is a terrorist. There is no standard of evidence, there is no due process required, even for American citizens. It’s just “this guy is a terrorist, therefore he dies.”

          Also, did you know that the Obama administration has defined “militant” as any military-age males in the strike zone? So who’s to say they’re being careful with the definition of “terrorist”? For all we know, the definition of “terrorist” could be “somebody we killed with a drone.”

        • avatarNew Chris says:

          All suspects are guilty! Otherwise they wouldn’t be suspects.

  24. avatarLuke says:

    This whole argument seems disingenuous and partisan. Obama + drones = evil police state, fire from the skies. If it were a republican initiative my guess is the sentiment would = ‘MURIKA! FUK YEA!

    Just sayin’

    • avatarNew Chris says:

      In many cases that is likely true, in my case it is not.

    • avatarMOG says:

      It could have been just a mind fart.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      very very true

      the fact is that most republicans waved the flag in support of police state actions until a democrat was elected in office.

      IF we get anybody besides a democrat in office, the shoes will switch feet. Democrats will once again clamor for human/civil rights and republicans will wave the flag and say, “if you dont like it here, you can GIT out!”.

  25. avatarMOG says:

    I have learned over the years there are two types of people you should never argue with, those that are right, and, those that are wrong.

    • avatarNew Chris says:

      That’s actually pretty good advice. I go with, here is why I think I’m right, but please show me where I messed up and got it wrong because I’d really like to know.

  26. avatarJames R says:

    Looks like the president must have been playing too much of MW.

  27. avatarWLCE says:

    Is anybody surprised?

    christ, weve been bringing this up for YEARS and everybody just wrapped themselves in the flag, singing “by jingo! were gonna smoke ‘em out”, all the while, simultaneously, crying out to the “messiah” and the “change” he will move “forward” (more like “foward…into the abyss!”)

    Lets face the facts; those that are in office are:

    1.) not acting in our interests
    2.) are acting in the interest of corporate/banking consortiums
    3.) are PSYCHOPATHS with no regard towards human pain and suffering
    4.) WILL gladly kill you when the going gets tough and if you threaten their positions of power
    5.) WILL gladly deploy the instruments of the state, that you have been burdened with debt over, against you.

    last question: When are you going to walk away from the death/debt paradigm???

  28. avatarDon says:

    This is still funny as hell, though call me old fashioned but I don’t really care about us killing known terrorists in war-zones. I define a “war zone” as anywhere outside of the US that we have deployed troops who get shot at by bad guys. So good on Obama for killing these guys.

    What I do have a problem with is when he kills US-citizen-to-terrorist converts overseas. Not so much that they ultimately are executed, but I think we should bring them home for trial because they are US citizens, no matter how reprehensible, and we owe it to our own values (not them, but to us) to give them their trial. If we don’t adhere to our own law (and constitution) then what do we have? That’s the whole 2A issue too.

    Also this crap about defining US territory loosely as a warzone which would provide a legal mechanism for using drones at home. That’s messed up. I almost think they’re so hot to ban 50 BMG domestically because that’s what you’d use to effectively knock those drones out of the sky when they are over your property.

    I’m none too pleased about Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama expanding these powers of the executive branch over domestic issues the way they’ve all been doing.

    -D

  29. The majority of the people killed in drone strikes were terrorists. Maybe not 100%, but at lest that was the intended target. It doesn’t make it right, but it does push it into the definition of “war” that Congress laid out. Which means that “Obama” didn’t kill them, the United States did. There’s a difference.

    Last year, at least 20 of the people killed by assault weapons were first-grade children, who were getting ready to celebrate Christmas with their families. A couple more were law enforcement officers. Even more were innocent victims, who might have been able to defend themselves had they not been outgunned.

    Do you see where I am going here? You have set up a false comparison in order to publish political insults and hatred, instead of rational discussion.

    And then, in the articles on both side of this one, you are going to accuse the other side of hate tactics. Do you even understand that you are doing the exact same thing you accuse gun-grabbers of?

    • avatarDon says:

      Curious, what if the innocent children were killed after Christmas? Would that make it less heinous? If they were Jewish and never celebrated Christmas would that make it less soul-rending? How many years older would they have to be to make it less than completely awful and disgusting?

      There is ample hypocrisy on all sides regarding “the war on terror”, but speaking for myself as a liberal, my issue with Obama and drone strikes is that we are violating some of our own rules for the sake of convenience when in a few instances we have killed known terrorists, but technically US citizens abroad. I don’t have problem that a known terrorist was killed, I have a problem that we freely violate our own principles to do it without consequence and punishment of those who violated. It’s not that we owe it to the known terrorist to give them a trial… we owe it to ourselves to give them a trial.

      Our laws and principles we build society with are only as strong as they are respected and thoughtfully treated as sacrosanct, even though in reality we know we made them up ourselves and can circumvent them pretty arbitrarily.

      • avatarLongPurple says:

        Agreed.
        Obama has assumed the authority to write “Bills of Attainder”, an act Congress is forbidden to take by the Constitution, declaring citizens to be traitors without a trial and executing them by drone.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      “The majority of the people killed in drone strikes were terrorists.
      Maybe not 100%, but at lest that was the intended target. ”

      Erm….no.

      Try 98% of those killed in drone strikes are civilians.

      “It doesn’t make it right, but it does push it into the definition of “war” that Congress laid out.”

      And there are consequences for killing civilians during a time of war. Have you ever heard of the rule of law and Geneva Convention?

      “Which means that “Obama” didn’t kill them, the United States did. There’s a difference.”

      Obama is the commander of the chief and the drones are CIA operated. Dont even try to pass the hot potato off of him.

      can you polish obama’s shoes any harder?

  30. avatarJames1000 says:

    Wait, I thought you could shoot done planes, drones and helicopters with AR15s?

  31. avatarrossi says:

    Not a helpful story to run…..I think that TTAG should stick to domestic firearms policy. When you pull in content that mixes it with other issues, you make it easier for liberals to dismiss the entire site as a GOP talking points/propaganda piece.

    (We know that’s not true, and that there were some very strong pro-NPR comments recently, but first time viewers to the site don’t have this awareness of the recent past. They will show up, see a variety of anti-obama stuff, on a variety of issues, and move on thinking there’s nothing of value here to listen to/read.)

  32. avatarcurz says:

    If he killed all those people, did he also kill Osama?

  33. avatarCaptain Obvious says:

    1 major difference. Drone kill terrorists and associates. Assault weapons kill children and innocent people. Are you trying to suggest that the life of a terrorist is EQUAL to an American child? F***ing idiots.

    • “Assault weapons” don’t have some magical technology that only force them to kill ‘children and innocent people.’ And these numbers include police officers using their issued firearms to shoot criminals as well as citizens defending themselves, putting the drone numbers on par with this figure. Since, in reality, the number of confirmed civilian casualties from drone strikes far outweighs the number of AW deaths in the US as well.

      I really wish people would actually read the articles before defaulting to their own biases…

      • Nick,

        I think the point he was making is that the drone strikes were part of a war action. Regardless of how you feel about it, the original targets were terrorists.

        No matter how you feel about the second amendment, the majority of assault weapons in America have not been used to defend the country, or even people’s houses.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          so civilian casualties are okay, as long as it was under conditions war and terrorists were the target?

          oh okay. gotcha.

          go ahead and continue justifying civilian casualties with “smart weapons”. see how long sensible people take you seriously and dont dismiss you as a bloody warmonger.

          “the majority of assault weapons in America have not been used to defend the country, or even people’s houses.”

          of course…theyre just sitting in safes not harming a single thing. We know.

          look, i know it hurts your little feelers that obama is acting just like bush, but he is. at least try to be consistent on your stances.

        • WLCE: I didn’t say it was right, I just said that it was part of a military action with original targets that had been authorized by Congress. If the President had done nothing, he would have been blamed, if he had sent in more ground troops, he would have been blamed, and if he attacked from the air, he would have been blamed. Once the war is started, there is no “clean” way to kill people.

          On this very board, a half dozen people have accused Obama of siding with the terrorists. Then, when he kills a few terrorists, Republicans get angry because he didn’t use ground troops. Then, when he uses ground troops, they call it “Obama’s War.”

          The problem with assault weapons is that they are not sitting in people’s safes. They are the weapon of choice for spree killers. They are poorly suited to home defense because they are harder in tight quarters and tend to shoot through walls.

          I freely admit that if the US government collapses, and people have to go out in their subdivision hunting for food, and taking on armies of “Mad Max” type looters, then there is no substitute for a good assault weapon.

          But if you are having to resort to worst-case scenarios from Mel Gibson movies to justify your gun purchases, then the argument is not going well for you.

        • avatarpat says:

          Dave, how do you know the time or place in the future these so called ‘assault weapons’ (semiautomatic rifles, in reality) will be employed, and under what conditions? It may be that some rube future would be dictator, after looking at the sheer numbers of semiautomatic rifles out there, desides not to even try, which would mean that the weapons served their purpose without firing a shot, ala MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). By any measure, these rifles would make an ideal home defense tool.
          Maybe, as we speak, these guns are keeping Barry at bay (I dont think so, but I am making a point).

        • avatarWLCE says:

          ” If the President had done nothing, he would have been blamed, if he had sent in more ground troops, he would have been blamed, and if he attacked from the air, he would have been blamed. Once the war is started, there is no “clean” way to kill people.”

          A False dilemma fallacy.

          You could always stop the drone strikes and empire building for corporate interests…

          not that such a miracle could happen under the watch of our current leadership.

          “On this very board, a half dozen people have accused Obama of siding with the terrorists. ”

          I dont give a shit what other people have accused of obama of doing. I have refuted this horseshit countless times. Obama is not a terrorist. He’s not a muslim. and most certainly has a birth certificate.

          “Then, when he kills a few terrorists, Republicans get angry because he didn’t use ground troops. Then, when he uses ground troops, they call it “Obama’s War.”

          The continuation of wars instigated by false flag attacks is a disgusting trend that should be opposed by all liberty loving americans that are fed up. Being sick of the perils of empire goes beyond the left/right paradigm.

          “The problem with assault weapons is that they are not sitting in people’s safes. They are the weapon of choice for spree killers. ”

          Holy shit. /facepalm. are you serious?

          just in case you didnt know, assault weapons constitute less than 1/5th of 1% of gun crimes and those are weapons (including pistols) with magazines bigger than 10 rounds. This begs the question: what is the number of AR15s and AKs and other scary black rifles used in gun crimes???

          I do know that rifles (all rifles) killed 323 (FBI uniform crime statistics), which leaves a substantially smaller number to evil military looking rifles.

          but why stick to facts when you have a throbbing boner for scary looking guns that frighten the jeezuz out of you? I could care less about your fear of such weapons. I do care when you see it fit to push for my ownership of them to be limited because of your irrational fear. Enough is enough.

          “They are poorly suited to home defense because they are harder in tight quarters and tend to shoot through walls.”

          you really dont know anything about such weapons do you?

          AR15s are very suitable for home defense. They are reliable, accurate, ergonomic, lightweight, and simple to operate. They also produce substantially less recoil, which is critical if you are of smaller stature or are a woman (shotguns are difficult for females to shoot and operate effectively).

          5.56 (with the exception of M855) has also been demonstrated to be just as equal or less penetrating than even 9mm FMJ or 45 ACP or 12 gauge 00 buck when it comes to home walls.

          again. why stick with facts?

          “I freely admit that if the US government collapses, and people have to go out in their subdivision hunting for food, and taking on armies of “Mad Max” type looters, then there is no substitute for a good assault weapon.”

          Which is why more people have been buying them.

          If you think that our paper/dollar paradigm and the problem of peak oil is going to “fix itself”, then you are mistaken. people are becoming more proactive. they’re *gasp!* PREPARING!!! (oooohhhhh!). god forbid you become self sufficient…

          Just out of morbid curiosity, i would love to know how much debt you have. how much metals you have in your safe.

          “But if you are having to resort to worst-case scenarios from Mel Gibson movies to justify your gun purchases, then the argument is not going well for you.”

          it doesnt go well for you because all of those events are already coming into effect. no matter how many grains of sand you pile over your head, it doesnt make the problem go away.

          Who cares what i buy to defend myself and my family with? what f^cking business of it of yours? theyre not harming you or depriving you of your liberty (as long as you dont decide to play rapist over at my ranch then were good).

          and stop trying to pass off bad information. peoples lives are on the line and youre impeding any sort of common sense that is trying to blossom.

        • WLCE: I am actually all in favor of gun rights, I just think it is fair game to impose regulations like background checks and anti-trafficking rules. If you say that the 5.56 is less likely to shoot through walls than a .380, then I will go get one. I understand about how high-speed ammo sheds weight, I just never thought about it.

          If social order breaks down in my neighborhood and I have to live off squirrels, I am going to be pretty hungry either way. The only wildlife in a ten-mile radius is the opossums that dig through the trash cans.

          I also agree with you that patriotic Americans should oppose war, regardless of who started it. Remember, though, that the original title of the article blames Obama by name, which is like blaming the fire extinguisher for the fire.

          As far as weapons of choice, I guess that was inaccurate, too. In the last 30 years, spree killers have used 68 semiautomatics, 35 assault weapons, 20 revolvers and 19 shotguns. Which seems to be an argument for limiting the size of magazines, but not necessarily anything else.

          It is heartening to see what small numbers these are, but honestly, even a handful is too many. If we could stop 62 spree killers just by imposing a minor infringement on the rights of 100 million Americans, I think people would do so, but unfortunately, that is a false choice too.

          I don’t believe the “slippery slope” argument, I just don’t think gun control will ever be able to prevent more than one or two out of every ten spree killers.

          The tools more likely to stop spree killers are ones that are most often overlooked: Better access to mental health care, and better follow-up on rejected background checks.

        • avatarpat says:

          Gun control wont stop 1 out of 100 spree killers.
          The old ‘if it saves just one child’ logic many libs use is right out of Orwell and a great way to force people to start huffing on Zyklon-B. The 10 round mag limit is insane. Some dumbass cop comes to my door trying to take a small box with a spring in it because its holding 15 bullets (when I am allowed only 7 for the mag in my Glock 22 in NY), all the while carrying the same effing gun with a 15 round mag on his belt……he will have to get his ass gut shot.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.