Something I saw over the weekend and neglected to post was the above official White House photo of the POTUS allegedly shooting skeet.
And I’m inclined to believe that, even though the elevation of the weapon seems a little low, more like Dick Cheney’s style of shooting.
I post it now in case y’all are at all inclined to discuss the whole “does he or doesn’t he, and if he does, does he ‘all the time'” thing that was going on for several days last week. An excerpt of an NYT story, to get y’all started:
WASHINGTON — When President Obama mentioned last week that he had picked up a new hobby — skeet shooting at Camp David — it was a surprising disclosure by a president whose main identification with guns these days is his effort to ban assault rifles and high-capacity magazines.
To some, Mr. Obama’s newfound enthusiasm for shooting clay pigeons — he said in an interview that he did it “all the time” at the presidential retreat — also seemed a bit suspicious.
So on Saturday, the White House tried to silence the skeptics by releasing a photograph of Mr. Obama shooting on the range at Camp David in August. The president, wearing protective glasses and ear-muffs, is squinting down the barrel of a shotgun moments after pulling the trigger. Smoke is shooting from the front of the gun…
Actually, to me it looks like the picture was taken in the very same second that the president pulled the trigger, not “moments after.” But what do I know, compared to somebody who actually still gets paid to work at a newspaper, and The New York Times, no less?
Bottom line, I think we can still safely say that the president’s weapon of choice is the drone…
Related Posts
Wow they fixed that lie in a hurry.
Not sure what the flap is. That is hardly an AR-15. In fact, looks a little like my grandfathers’ squirrel gun to me.
If I had to guess, that looks like a Browning Citori, in the sporting model, as it’s has the ported barrel. That was actually the gun I started shooting on at 16. It’s a great shotgun. A couple of other observations:
1. It’s very odd that he only has an extended choke in the top barrel. You see where the end of the muzzle has the little piece that extends out maybe .75 of a inch? That’s an extended choke tube. I’ve been shooting clay targets for over fifteen years and haven’t ever seen anybody do this. There’s no reason you would have an extended choke in one barrel but not the other. It’s like putting on mismatched shoes. That makes no sense whatsoever.
2. I think that this has been touched on, but if he’s at a skeet field (they’re all exactly the same dimensions) it appears he is aiming too low, unless he’s shooting extremely late in the flight path, in which case, that’s poor form. Basically, I would expect him to be holding the gun at a higher angle.
3. Stance: He’s standing straight up (almost a little backwards) which is wrong. You should be leaning forwards into the shot, in a power stance. The butt of the gun is too high up on his shoulder; it needs to come down a few inches to get into the right place.
4. Almost every shot in skeet (expect for stations 1, 7, and 8) require you to swing the shotgun as the bird crosses in front of you. It’s definitely not station 8, because that’s the most difficult shot on the field, requiring you to hit a bird coming straight over your head. The angle on that shot is greater than 45 degrees. It’s also probably not stations 1 or 7, because those have you right up against the high house and the low house, respectively. They aren’t in the picture, and they would be if he was at station 1 or 7. Accordingly, it has to be one of the crossing stations if he’s actually shooting skeet.
All that leads up to the point that it doesn’t look like he’s swinging the shotgun. Obviously, it’s almost impossible to tell from looking at a still photograph, but I’ve seen people shoot thousands of rounds on the skeet range, and they don’t look like that shooting crossing birds. Just my opinion, for whatever it’s worth.
Not that any of this all matters anyway. I could take a picture of myself holding a guitar, but that doesn’t make me a musician.
You mean the way I did in the picture at the bottom of this post?
I really need to go skeet shooting with you sometime, see what it’s like. Most of my shooting experience is with tin cans and paper targets. I doubt I could hit anything moving, but it would be interesting to try.
It’s really fun.
I’m no expert on shooting clays, but if I had to guess just from the limited information I can glean from the picture, I’d say that Obama’s shooting at a fixed object. Maybe a can sitting on a fencepost. The barrel does look to be slightly elevated, but not much. I agree with Bryan though, the stance is off. He needs to lean forward and get his left elbow up a bit, I think.
Also, look how the comb/cheekpiece is smushing his cheek in the photo. It shouldn’t be doing that. Either he’s got the wrong size stock, or he’s holding the shotgun incorrectly. Probably both.
Others have already analyzed the photo and compared it with a photo of Kennedy in the same location and they’ve determined it’s not a Skeet range it’s on the Trap range which would explain the low angle of the barrel.
I think this photo was more of a photo-op picture than anything else. It’s like the photo of him bicycling riding a girls bike.
At least he isn’t wearing his “mom jeans” this time.
He’s clearly not shooting on the skeet range at Camp David (anyone can visit via google maps). That is obvious as there is a palisade fence around the stations. However, the pavement and woods does resemble the area just to the right of the range. Given the single choke Bryan mentioned, I think Silence is correct; this is a photo of Obama plinking. Maybe it’s actually a photo of his first shot? It is interesting that the photo was so professionally captured and yet the President’s form is so amateurish. I can imagine a Marine or two standing back, not wanting to do more than keep things safe…
And to be fair, Jeb Bush just about killed himself one day on the Camp David skeet range with his dad (as VP) when he double loaded a 20 gauge shell in his 12 gauge gun, blowing the barrel apart at the breech.
A guy with a name like “Jeb” ought to be able to handle a gun. Stands to reason.
Unless, of course, “JEB” stands for you initials and isn’t your real name…
Oh, wait: I’d have to exempt J.E.B. Stuart from that rule, I suppose. I’m sure HE could shoot. Even though he let down the side at Gettysburg…
I guess I’m suprised that the 20 gauge shell even fit well enough in the 12 gauge breech for the firing pin to make contact with the primer. I’d figure that it’d just slip right in there and sort of get swallowed. Also suprised that there’d be enough exposive power to cause the breech to fail. I guess if you cycled the gun and the 20 gauge shell slipped far enough into the barrel, then fired off a 12 gauge shell while the barrel was thus obstructed – you’d have a pretty catastrophic event, certainly capable of causing barrel or breech failure. Maybe that’s what happened.
I read that that’s what happened. A 20 gauge shell slipped all the way in, he forgot which barrel he loaded (or that he did) and he reloaded a 12 gauge shell and fired.
Yikes!
That’s why 20 gauge shells are yellow. You can get 12 gauge shells in any color (red, green, pink, grey, black…etc.) except yellow. 20 gauge shells are ONLY AND ALWAYS yellow for the specific purpose of not confusing them with 12 gauge.
A smaller 20 gauge shell will fit in a 12 gauge breech, but not vice versa. And like Jeb learned, putting a 20 gauge shell in your 12 gauge gun will ruin your whole day.
So don’t do that. It’s bad. It’s like crossing the streams, if you’re a little fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing.
Nice shotgun.
That picture was taken after a few gun handling tips. Here was an earlier shot before the advice:
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/549983_4829224939870_1953287119_n.jpg
Photoshop is fun.
Agreed about the drones. Now let’s talk about the constitutionality of using drones to assasinate American citizens. I guess due process is out the window these days. Kind of like holding people indefinitely without trial. Both are things I never thought I’d see the United States doing.
Obama’s going to take care of that matter during his 3rd term.
Speaking of Dick Cheney, there’s a new report out today that details the horrendous practice of “extraordinary rendition” conducted during the during the George W. years and probably at the direction of the former VP. This chilling report shows how completely out of control the former administration was in conducting foreign affairs. From Huffpo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/extraordinary-rendition-torture-report_n_2617809.html
“WASHINGTON — The U.S. counterterrorism practice known as extraordinary rendition, in which suspects were quietly moved to secret prisons abroad and often tortured, involved the participation of more than 50 nations, according to a new report to be released Tuesday by the Open Society Foundations.
The OSF report, which offers the first wholesale public accounting of the top-secret program, puts the number of governments that either hosted CIA “black sites,” interrogated or tortured prisoners sent by the U.S., or otherwise collaborated in the program at 54. The report also identifies by name 136 prisoners who were at some point subjected to extraordinary rendition.
The number of nations and the names of those detained provide a stark tally of a program that was expanded widely — critics say recklessly — by the George W. Bush administration after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and has been heavily condemned in the years since. In December, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, condemned the CIA’s detention and interrogation efforts as “terrible mistakes.”
Drones, waterboarding, extraordinary rendetion, Gitmo. These are all things that need to go away if we’re ever to claim the moral high ground in the fight against terrorism. This is one area where Obama has been a disappointment. But he’s still light years ahead of the previous regime.
Bud, today is not a good day to be all self-righteous on the Obama administration’s behalf, given this exclusive NBC story about a memo that shows how the current White House has stretched its definition of its powers to kill people all over the globe, including Americans:
I used to have arguments on the blog, back during the Bush administration. They would insist there was no “Global War on Terror,” that it was a Bush/Cheney invention. They insisted on speaking of “two wars,” referring to Iraq and Afghanistan. They insisted so strongly that pretty much everyone uses that construction today, although I don’t.
Barack Obama has made it far, far clearer that we are fighting a global war, and he has pursued it much more aggressively and, shall we say, flexibly.
I support him in that, with admittedly some reservations. But I don’t think his supporters have any business complaining about the Bush administration bending the rules. If I were a Democrat, I’d drop that line.
Unlike Bush, Obama is a better salesman of his war on terror policies, especially to people who like to call themselves progressives. And also he can be trusted not to abuse these powers because he’s a super-cool mensch who surely does the right thing. Or something like that.
Not Photoshopped, because the Whitehouse stated that people weren’t allowed to Photoshop that picture.
Want to see some better ones Google Obama Photshop Skeet and look at Images.
Allegedly? You have a pretty clear photo.
Who said anything about being self-righteous regarding the Obama administration? I specifically mentioned the drones and my disappointment with Obama in using them. All I’m suggesting is that the Bush administration was worse. Indeed there should be an investigation into the use of drones. Too many innocent people are dying and until we as a nation confront the issue of foreign entanglements, whatever the method used, in a comprehensive manner our moral standing in the world will suffer.
bud, at this point your claim that the Bush admin was worse is getting increasingly tired and meritless. What “bad” Bush policy has Obama not continued or expanded?
At the risk of arousing Brad’s wrath I would simply say the methods used by the Bush Administration to secure support from congress for the Iraq war make him worse on this score. Obama saw that war as something that was wrong while he was a state senator. Also, the awful process of extrordinary rendition is unique to the Bush era. There are probably others but those 2 alone qualify Bush as worse than Obama.
@bud – there you go again….
The expanded use of drones to fight the Global War on Some Terrorists is heading us down that slippery slope.
Anyone doubt that we will see drones used in America to kill someone within the next decade?
Anyone doubt that the first time we kill someone by mistake, it will take months before anyone admits it?
We have too much weaponry to believe that it will always be used correctly.
I personally doubt that the drones we have now, or have deployed now, will be used in the United States in the next decade.
But that doesn’t mean that something we haven’t even seen yet wouldn’t be used here.
I’m thinking in terms of smaller and smaller drones. What if, say, a weapon of some kind could be mounted in a quiet drone the size of a hummingbird? That could have been used to take out that guy who was holding that kindergartener hostage in that bunker, without overt risk to the child. Just fly it in there while he’s distracted, get him on the camera and fire.
It would have to be a projectile weapon of some kind, and accurate (a drone that just explodes would endanger hostages), and would have to overcome recoil problems since the platform would be light. But I could see something like that, if and when it exists, being used under certain circumstances.
As for your second question, it would depend entirely on the circumstances, and who is involved. I could see it being admitted immediately (say, the way Jimmy Carter went before the nation and told us of the Iran hostage rescue SNAFU), or never acknowledged at all, or anywhere in between.
I’ve got this ridiculous image in my head of a derringer flying around on synthetic insect wings…
“I personally doubt that the drones we have now, or have deployed now, will be used in the United States in the next decade.”
They’re already being used.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57409759/drone-use-in-the-u.s-raises-privacy-concerns/
The drone strikes, ESPECIALLY against US citizens need to stop. If not then we may need to impeach the president. There. Let’s get one thing clear. I’m a LIBERAL, not, I repeat, NOT a Democrat. It’s just that the Democrats are our best hope. Considering the absolute calamity that befalls us whenever the GOP gets complete control I just naturally support the guys who give us our best shot.
” I’m a LIBERAL, not, I repeat, NOT a Democrat.”
So who is the last Republican you voted for? Nixon?
I don’t necessarily see the slippery slope of killing avowed American terrorists operating in foreign countries. I guess if someone is willing to proclaim themselves a violent threat to America (and locate themselves outside of the laws of our country), then I think they put themselves at risk.
But if we start offing American drug traffickers, etc., then that would start to appear dicey – to me.
It seems inevitable that we will have armed, hand-launched drones within 5 years – although they probably exist right now.
last time I checked, American citizens had due process rights. These included a fair hearing, with the right to confront their accusers and see the evidence against them. This includes criminals and those fomenting insurrection.
I don’t necessarily see the slippery slope of killing avowed American terrorists operating in foreign countries.
-Mark
Problem is how do we know these folks are “avowed American terrorists”? We’re accepting the president at his word. What if some guy goes to France on vacation and talks about how the president is nothing but a Kenyan-born socialist and we need to take the country back for the REAL Americans? Would that comment be considered a threat worthy of a drone strike? I think most people would say no. Yet taking someone out like that doesn’t seem all that far removed from taking out an “avowed terrorist” who happens to be a Muslim.
The president is in danger of losing the support of his base. Liberal web sites like the Huffington Post and Buzzflash are growing increasingly critical of the drone policy. If there is some political motivation behind this I don’t think it will work. He probably really does believe this is a good way to fight terrorism. (I disagree) He won’t gain any support from the neo-cons but will certainly alienate his base. That will make legislating anything very difficult. Obama needs to find a way to retreat from this policy and at the same time save face. Not an easy challenge.
@Bud
He won in November. He doesn’t care what the base thinks. He’s got two years to ram through all the stuff he really wanted to do in his first term. After that, he’s a lame duck.
I’m waiting for sometime in 2014 when Obama has to tell Biden that he isn’t going to be President.
The drones are an incredibly effective tool for prosecuting war. Using them protects Americans and degrades the enemy. We will, of course, be subject to their use by our enemies before long. The targeting of Americans by Americans is reprehensible, regardless of the crimes they’ve committed. How the administration doesn’t recognize (or refuses to recognize) that this policy violates several tenets of our Constitution is beyond my understanding. This issue, the refusal to prosecute acts of torture, and the failure to hold anyone accountable for the mortgage meltdown are the darkest blots on President Obama’s legacy.
Georgia is already looking at using drones to monitor traffic. Their use in other areas of law enforcement will be widespread by the end of the decade. I suspect it won’t be many years before FedEx and other carriers will be using them to whisk packages from airport to airport–perhaps even without a ground-based pilot except for take-off and landing the craft. GPS would take care of the rest. What a wondrous, dangerous world it is.
I must just view the world differently. Drones have an operator who pulls the trigger. It’s not like when the US Navy launched cruise missiles from hundreds of miles away on the suspicion that Sadam Hussain was in an underground bunker in the middle of Bagdad.
Drones are just like an F-16 loitering. Only the drone pilot is physically safe. Does that really offend people?
In the same way, I expect that police drones will be operated by a police officer who follows the law just as they would if they were patrolling in a car. Wake me up if that is ever NOT the case. Until then, let the drones of war and the drones of law enforcement roll – and do not ever assume that they are one and the same. War is war. And it is one we didn’t start.
Panetta: Obama Absent Night of Benghazi
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/panetta-obama-absent-night-benghazi_700405.html
Wasn’t this the same night Obama and Michelle were out drinking and partying with Jay Z and Beyonce at a fundraiser? bud complains about Bush reading to pre-schoolers at the time of 9-11… who was there to answer the phone at 3 a.m.?