Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reply To Thread

Gun sales up since the electionFollow

#1 Nov 11 2008 at 8:12 PM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/11/obama.gun.sales/index.html wrote:
Weapons dealers in much of the United States are reporting sharply higher sales since Barack Obama won the presidency a week ago.

Buyers and sellers attribute the surge to worries that Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress will move to restrict firearm ownership, despite the insistence of campaign aides that the president-elect supports gun rights and considers the issue a low priority.

According to FBI figures for the week of November 3 to 9, the bureau received more than 374,000 requests for background checks on gun purchasers -- a nearly 49 percent increase over the same period in 2007. Conatser said his store, Virginia Arms Company, has run out of some models -- such as the AR-15 rifle, the civilian version of the military's M-16 -- and is running low on others.

Such assault weapons are among the firearms that gun dealers and customers say they fear Obama will hit with new restrictions, or even take off the market.

Virginia gun owner Kyle Lewandowski said he was buying a .45-caliber pistol to "hedge my bets."

"Every election year, you have to worry about your rights being eroded a little bit at a time," he said. "I also knew, because of the Democrat majority and because of the election, everybody would have the same reaction I did," he added.

But Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called the buying spree "goofy." He said widespread talk of banning guns is a "sales pitch."

"With the glacial speed that we make progress on sensible gun laws, savvy gun consumers should know better than to think they have to rush out and buy guns," Hamm said. Similar surges accompanied the election of Bill Clinton, the last Democratic president, he added.

Dealers in Colorado, Ohio, Connecticut and New Hampshire also reported seeing major increases.

"It's a fact that the liberal Democrats that now control all three branches of our government do not like guns. They want us out of business," Connecticut resident Scott Hoffman said. "They don't want the average American to have a right to defend themselves."


What do you all think? To me it sounds like gun dealers have made the pitch to "get 'em while you can!" despite the Obama campaign not having gun control on the table for quite a while. Seems odd to me that in a time when the economy is so sour and people are losing their life savings, they can still shell out the cash for a civvy version of an M-16.

I suppose that if the economy keeps going down they can use the weapons to loot and pillage?

I don't know, something about using the election results as a sales pitch for firearms reeks of unethical dealings similar to stores advertising iodine pills for radiation poisoning if they're near a plant or emergency rations/duct tape/flood insurance for incoming storms after Katrina. Ie, the kernel of truth in the situation is grossly overstated and misrepresented in order to boost sales. Good idea, bad idea?
#2 Nov 11 2008 at 8:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
I'd believe the fear originates more from the consumer than the business. I believe a lot of conservatives are going to be disappointed with how moderate the next administration will be.
#3 Nov 11 2008 at 9:00 PM Rating: Decent
**
496 posts
Allegory wrote:
I believe a lot of conservatives are going to be disappointed with how moderate the next administration will be.
But the rest of the world will cheer
#4 Nov 11 2008 at 9:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/11/obama.gun.sales/index.html wrote:
"It's a fact that the liberal Democrats that now control all three branches of our government do not like guns. They want us out of business," Connecticut resident Scott Hoffman said. "They don't want the average American to have a right to defend themselves."
Damn liberal Democrats controlling the SCotUS and striking down the DC gun ban Smiley: mad
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Nov 11 2008 at 10:49 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
I thought this would be some article about a prediction that "n% of those guns are thought to be implicated in an assassination plot."
#6 Nov 12 2008 at 2:39 AM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
"They don't want the average American to have a right to defend themselves."
The average American kills more people than he protects with said weapons, so yeah we would rather he just called in the people who are paid to protect him instead.
#7 Nov 12 2008 at 2:45 AM Rating: Good
To be fair, it's pretty fucking retarded.

Even if we assume for one moment that some guns are about to be made illegal, buying them beforehand won't make them any more legal when they're banned. Whether the gun is in your house or in the gunstore, if it's illegal, it's illegal.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#8 Nov 12 2008 at 2:57 AM Rating: Excellent
****
5,870 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
To be fair, it's pretty fucking retarded.

Even if we assume for one moment that some guns are about to be made illegal, buying them beforehand won't make them any more legal when they're banned. Whether the gun is in your house or in the gunstore, if it's illegal, it's illegal.
And it won't make them any harder to get than they were before.
#9 Nov 12 2008 at 4:31 AM Rating: Excellent
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,293 posts
I'll never understand why any John Q Citizen has to own a fullyautomaticsupermondodeathmachinegun to "protect" themselves.

/shrug

____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#10 Nov 12 2008 at 4:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Baron von tarv wrote:
Quote:
"They don't want the average American to have a right to defend themselves."
The average American kills more people than he protects with said weapons, so yeah we would rather he just called in the people who are paid to protect him instead.
Stupid comment is stupid. There are around 15,000 gun-related homicides in the US every year compared to 600,000 crimes in which a gun is used in self-defense. I'm personally in favor of sensible gun control, but srsly, they are used in their intended manner quite often.
#11 Nov 12 2008 at 5:17 AM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
Stupid comment is stupid. There are around 15,000 gun-related homicides in the US every year compared to 600,000 crimes in which a gun is used in self-defense. I'm personally in favor of sensible gun control, but srsly, they are used in their intended manner quite often.
I was trolling, as i find the original statement equally as retarded as the one I was using.
#12 Nov 12 2008 at 5:24 AM Rating: Good
Mindel wrote:
Stupid comment is stupid. There are around 15,000 gun-related homicides in the US every year compared to 600,000 crimes in which a gun is used in self-defense. I'm personally in favor of sensible gun control, but srsly, they are used in their intended manner quite often.


Could you define sensible gun control for the Asylum at large?

P.S. I'm for good policies.

Edited, Nov 12th 2008 7:27am by Kavekk
#13 Nov 12 2008 at 5:25 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,596 posts
Quote:
I'll never understand why any John Q Citizen has to own a fullyautomaticsupermondodeathmachinegun to "protect" themselves.

/shrug


Because nothing says "That person is dead" like having him/her look like swiss cheese? I dunno why people would need that. Full auto should be considered military grade weaponry imo.
#14 Nov 12 2008 at 5:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Kavekk wrote:
Mindel wrote:
Stupid comment is stupid. There are around 15,000 gun-related homicides in the US every year compared to 600,000 crimes in which a gun is used in self-defense. I'm personally in favor of sensible gun control, but srsly, they are used in their intended manner quite often.


Could you define sensible gun control for the Asylum at large?

P.S. I'm for good policies.

Edited, Nov 12th 2008 7:27am by Kavekk
I believe that an individual should need to obtain a license in order to own a firearm. I support a national firearms ballistic registry. I support requiring carry permits. I support strong restrictions on the sale and ownership of automatic weapons.
#15 Nov 12 2008 at 5:37 AM Rating: Decent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
The rumor has been around for a while based on a badly written news article from nine years ago.

It doesn't matter what a Democrat says; the NRA is going to jump to its own conclusions and start preemptively screaming. Happened with Clinton too.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#16 Nov 12 2008 at 5:42 AM Rating: Good
***
3,909 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
To be fair, it's pretty fucking retarded.

Even if we assume for one moment that some guns are about to be made illegal, buying them beforehand won't make them any more legal when they're banned. Whether the gun is in your house or in the gunstore, if it's illegal, it's illegal.


This, pretty much.

Although my dad got away with owning an Italian semi-automatic shotgun he inherited from his father without even realising it was illegal for...twenty years? Twenty-five maybe? Grandpa used to shoot cats.
#17 Nov 12 2008 at 5:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Multidude wrote:
Quote:
I'll never understand why any John Q Citizen has to own a fullyautomaticsupermondodeathmachinegun to "protect" themselves.

/shrug


Because nothing says "That person is dead" like having him/her look like swiss cheese? I dunno why people would need that. Full auto should be considered military grade weaponry imo.
They are. Fully-automatic weapons have been subject to special restrictions since 1934. Any fully-automatic weapon must be registered with the federal government (BATF). The owner must obtain the written assent of the sheriff or chief of police for the jurisdiction in which the weapon will be kept. The owner must submit to a background check and be fingerprinted and photographed. There's an annual fee that must be paid, and written permission from the BATF must be obtained any time the weapon is moved across state lines. Smiley: schooled
#18 Nov 12 2008 at 5:46 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,909 posts
Multidude wrote:
Quote:
I'll never understand why any John Q Citizen has to own a fullyautomaticsupermondodeathmachinegun to "protect" themselves.

/shrug


Because nothing says "That person is dead" like having him/her look like swiss cheese? I dunno why people would need that. Full auto should be considered military grade weaponry imo.


The issue isn't the classification of what constitutes a military weapon, it's the availability of such weapons to the general public. This is an ideal enshrined in the concept of protecting oneself adequately in the eventuality that Obama turns America into a fundamentalism Muslim theocracy and starts oppressing good white Christian women with his army of communazi Jewish jihadists, who in this particular fantasy scenario are all carrying military assault rifles.

These people should just be honest about it. They want to own high-powered weaponry because they want to be prepared for a zombie apocalypse. It's the only sensible reason to have one, really.
#19 Nov 12 2008 at 5:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Lady Tare wrote:
I'll never understand why any John Q Citizen has to own a fullyautomaticsupermondodeathmachinegun to "protect" themselves.

/shrug



Haha, you actually put "mondo" in there. I can't remember the last time I heard/used that.

you're so valley
#20 Nov 12 2008 at 5:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
zepoodle wrote:
These people should just be honest about it. They want to own high-powered weaponry because they want to be prepared for a zombie apocalypse. It's the only sensible reason to have one, really.
If this is the case, they're all suckers. Everyone knows shotguns are the way to go vs. zombies.

Hell, even I'm prepared for that particular contingency.
#21 Nov 12 2008 at 5:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Multidude wrote:
Quote:
I'll never understand why any John Q Citizen has to own a fullyautomaticsupermondodeathmachinegun to "protect" themselves.

/shrug

Because nothing says "That person is dead" like having him/her look like swiss cheese? I dunno why people would need that. Full auto should be considered military grade weaponry imo.

Well, technically fully-auto (and even burst-fire I believe) is illegal; that's what the AR-15 is, a semi-only M-16. You need to modify most guns and import illegal parts to make them automatic.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#22 Nov 12 2008 at 5:59 AM Rating: Excellent
zepoodle wrote:
Multidude wrote:
Quote:
I'll never understand why any John Q Citizen has to own a fullyautomaticsupermondodeathmachinegun to "protect" themselves.

/shrug


Because nothing says "That person is dead" like having him/her look like swiss cheese? I dunno why people would need that. Full auto should be considered military grade weaponry imo.


The issue isn't the classification of what constitutes a military weapon, it's the availability of such weapons to the general public. This is an ideal enshrined in the concept of protecting oneself adequately in the eventuality that Obama turns America into a fundamentalism Muslim theocracy and starts oppressing good white Christian women with his army of communazi Jewish jihadists, who in this particular fantasy scenario are all carrying military assault rifles.

These people should just be honest about it. They want to own high-powered weaponry because they want to be prepared for a zombie apocalypse. It's the only sensible reason to have one, really.


I think it's a little silly given the society we live in, but it remains their right (if they choose to jump through all the legal hoops required to legally possess military-grade weaponry). It's a legacy of our country's foundation. We are the result of a bloody rebellion that succeeded because the common people had access to the military-grade weaponry of their day. Still, while it's fun to laugh at those people and one can certainly question their persistent ignorance, I can't consider them much of a threat to anything.

I don't think I'd want to go hang out at the county picnic with them (and I'm sure I wouldn't be all that welcome), but those folks tend to keep to themselves and aren't particularly interested in making trouble or committing crimes. Despite our wide political divide, I have no doubt that the majority of them are law-abiding people who are more concerned with paying the mortgage and having enough scratch for a case and some chips with which to entertain the neighbors when they're over to watch the game on Sunday. 90% of this is fodder for ***************** sessions out back anyway.

Hard-core gun rights advocates aren't the prime contributors to the issue of criminal gun violence. The folks who are routinely using guns to commit crimes really don't care all that much about the legal status of their firearms.
#23 Nov 12 2008 at 6:16 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,909 posts
What I find kind of pointless about that sort of armed insurrection logic is that even if every adult male owned a military-grade rifle, there is no chance, should the military ever choose to oppress its citizens in such a manner, that it would be any help at all. Military technology has changed since the War of Independence - tanks, planes, large battleships. Should the military ever have the extreme insanity to deploy those kinds of forces against its own citizens for the purposes of political oppression, your chances of effective resistance are incredibly slim. You'd be a broadly disorganised mass of discontented citizens with a hodge-podge armoury standing up to a trained military force. In such a scenario the only hope of the citizenry, basically, would be that they gain the support of at least a portion of the military.

That particular set of gun owners are mostly harmless, with the exception of preventable accidents by firearms, and even that not so much because the kind of person we're talking about usually knows how to handle firearms. I just can't see the relevancy in wanting to own one.
#24 Nov 12 2008 at 6:28 AM Rating: Excellent
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,293 posts
Mistress Nadenu wrote:
Lady Tare wrote:
I'll never understand why any John Q Citizen has to own a fullyautomaticsupermondodeathmachinegun to "protect" themselves.

/shrug



Haha, you actually put "mondo" in there. I can't remember the last time I heard/used that.

you're so valley


I'm old. Smiley: frown
____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#25 Nov 12 2008 at 7:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
zepoodle wrote:
What I find kind of pointless about that sort of armed insurrection logic is that even if every adult male owned a military-grade rifle, there is no chance, should the military ever choose to oppress its citizens in such a manner, that it would be any help at all. Military technology has changed since the War of Independence - tanks, planes, large battleships. Should the military ever have the extreme insanity to deploy those kinds of forces against its own citizens for the purposes of political oppression, your chances of effective resistance are incredibly slim.
While I find the "Keep the King of England off your back" argument to be somewhat quaint, I can't really imagine a plausible scenarion where the entire US volunteer army turns completely against the citizenry of the United States and leaves us all fending off howtizers with deer rifles.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26 Nov 12 2008 at 7:30 AM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Jophiel wrote:
While I find the "Keep the King of England off your back" argument to be somewhat quaint


Yarr, they be a randy lot.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 281 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (281)