Neither.
The second ammendment says the government can not prevent you from owning a gun, but it says nothing about particular restrictions and it says nothing one way or the other as to which type of gun might be restricted. The Supreme Court has already said that felons and people with mental illness can not have them. And that they can be restricted as to where they may be carried. The court has upheld laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of guns. So it is not as if the Court does not understand that certain circumstances might merit regulation.
I am no fan of the president, but I really do not think he said anything at all to which most reasonable people would not at least give a hearing. And I do not think most reasonable people would hold it against him for saying it. And anyway, he can’t do anything about it. Any legislation about the issue would originate in the Congress, not the White House. He can talk all he wants.
To those who would argue that we need AK-47s in order to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government, I would say our days of believing that we will be able to fend off Uncle Sam from our back yard or the hill crest on the local golf course have long past. If they want to come and get you, they will and you really cannot stop them. You can try I suppose, but you won’t live to see victory. So that leaves issues of sport and self defense. Neither of these require an AK or an M4 or such. I own some guns, including a couple of AR15s. I don’t like to hunt, but I shoot targets with them. I would never be foolish enough to point one of them at an armed servent of the government if they came for me. I served with such people and I have had their training and used their weapons. They are scary, and I know it.
So, I don’t think it is a big deal. The problem in the US is the ice cold economy and the fact that we each owe tens of thousands of dollars to bond holders for as far into the future as you can imagine. Everybody knows it.