Obama envisions soldiers, not citizens, with AK-47s. But of whose soldiers is he thinking?

The man occupying of office of the President made the following statement:

“I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals.”

It strikes me as odd the President of the United States would mention an AK-47 and not an AR-15, one of the guns actually employed in the Colorado massacre.

What’s the difference? Why does it matter?

Here is the difference. The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16, which is the shoulder-fired rifle of our armed forces. Actually, most soldiers now use a shorter variant, denominated the M-4, which is functionally identical and only a touch shorter in barrel length.

The AK-47, on the other hand, is the shoulder-fired weapon of choice for the Islamic terrorists of the world.

And that is revealing, is it not?

Of whom is Obama thinking when he refers to a weapon in the hands of “soldiers”?

Might this be related to his comment, when asked, back in 2008, in how many states he had campaigned? Do you recall his answer?

The M-16/M-4 from Wikipedia.

M16a1m16a2m4m16a45wi.jpg

And the AK-47, also from Wikipedia.

Rifle AK-47.jpg