Truth In Politics: Gun Sales Boom After Election

[freedom2012]

December 3rd story form Chicago:

http://http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/gun.sales.election.2.879513.html


Is it me or does anyone else think the Obama elect administration is talking down gun control as a back burner issue because they want to prevent FURTHER runs on guns than what already is evident, then will act fast and quick after inaugeration?

Or, am I just paranoid like most of us?

 

[calsdad]

You might be a little paranoid. But given all the airtime that Obama has given to gun control efforts in the past - I doubt that this administration will be "gun friendly".

The reality is that they have far bigger problems to deal with than gun control right now. Economic implosion, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Pakistan and India potentially going at it again over the Mumbai incident, US dollar declining and potentially not being world reserve currency, etc. etc. etc.

There are much bigger problems on the plate than gun control right now. The way I see it is that could be either good - or bad. It might be good if the loonies who want increased gun control are ignored because of all the other issues I mention. It could be bad if Obama starts getting beaten up really bad over all the issues he can't really solve - like the economy - and starts looking for a "win". Even more draconian gun control could get shoved down our throats because everything else the administration tries turns to shit, there is an "incident" that gives them and excuse - and the lefties start screaming for the administration to do "something". Given the Democratic majority in Congress - and the right combination of factors - we could still be on the receiving end of a big pile of crap as gun owners.

I say keep stocking up. You are voting with your wallet. Sooner or later there will so many guns in this country that it will be absolutely impossible for the govt. to do anything about it.

My basic position is that we should feed the paranoia.

 

[center442]

You might be a little paranoid. But given all the airtime that Obama has given to gun control efforts in the past - I doubt that this administration will be "gun friendly".

The reality is that they have far bigger problems to deal with than gun control right now. Economic implosion, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Pakistan and India potentially going at it again over the Mumbai incident, US dollar declining and potentially not being world reserve currency, etc. etc. etc.

There are much bigger problems on the plate than gun control right now. The way I see it is that could be either good - or bad. It might be good if the loonies who want increased gun control are ignored because of all the other issues I mention. It could be bad if Obama starts getting beaten up really bad over all the issues he can't really solve - like the economy - and starts looking for a "win". Even more draconian gun control could get shoved down our throats because everything else the administration tries turns to shit, there is an "incident" that gives them and excuse - and the lefties start screaming for the administration to do "something". Given the Democratic majority in Congress - and the right combination of factors - we could still be on the receiving end of a big pile of crap as gun owners.

I say keep stocking up. You are voting with your wallet. Sooner or later there will so many guns in this country that it will be absolutely impossible for the govt. to do anything about it.

My basic position is that we should feed the paranoia.

Exactly my feeling. Gun legislation is "feel good" legislation. It doesn't really do any good, but it makes the social engineers feel better.

 

[Rob]

My basic position is that we should feed the paranoia.

Yup. I've been spreading my wealth...to gun shops.

 

[MasterShinken]

The Obama campaign was the thing that finally got me out to get my LTC-A. I figure it's easier to prevent me from getting something then to take it away and is better to not give him the chance to restrict me. I'm defiantly not alone in that thought either as I know at least 3 of my friends that are in process now for the same reasons.

 

[notalib]

December 3rd story form Chicago:

http://http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/gun.sales.election.2.879513.html


Is it me or does anyone else think the Obama elect administration is talking down gun control as a back burner issue because they want to prevent FURTHER runs on guns than what already is evident, then will act fast and quick after inaugeration?

Or, am I just paranoid like most of us?

You are just paranoid.. I mean, do you really feel that the government.... Just a sec.. someone is knocking at my door

 

[doobie]

I don't think he'll do it in the first two years. I'll tell you why: If he does, he has a strong chance of losing the democratic senate/house.

He also may not do it in the first 4 years, because it would be a huge risk to him losing his Presidency.

My guess is, it will likely come in his last year or two in office. It will also be dependent on if congress is in his pocket or not. He may do it at the end of his first 4 years in hopes that since congress stayed democratic (if it does), maybe he'll hope confiscation of our Rights isn't a big issue.

I love how when I talk to liberals about them wanting to take away the Second Amendment and if they did that, what is to stop them from taking away the 1st or the 4th after that... and their response is always "They wouldn't do that, those are our freedoms." My response is always, "And the 2nd allows *me* and the People to protect it without having to trust the government."

 

[Ultimate]

http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/gun.sales.election.2.879513.html

Working link

 

[M1911]

I don't think he'll do it in the first two years. I'll tell you why: If he does, he has a strong chance of losing the democratic senate/house.

I agree with you. There are a lot of Democrats, including Bill Clinton, who remember how the Democrats lost control of Congress after the 1994 assault weapon ban. They attribute that loss, in part, due to pissed of gun owners.

Obama has got bigger fish to fry than gun owners -- two wars and keeping us out of a depression.

 

[Trupo]

The reality is that they have far bigger problems to deal with than gun control right now. Economic implosion, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Pakistan and India potentially going at it again over the Mumbai incident, US dollar declining and potentially not being world reserve currency, etc. etc. etc...

...There are much bigger problems on the plate than gun control right now.

While you are correct that there are much bigger fish to fry for the Obama administration, don't think for a second that he won't just simply hand this issue off to one of his croney's (sic?), give it a little face time, and this passes long before we thought it ever could have. Just my $.02

 

[M1911]

While you are correct that there are much bigger fish to fry for the Obama administration, don't think for a second that he won't just simply hand this issue off to one of his croney's (sic?), give it a little face time, and this passes long before we thought it ever could have. Just my $.02

They'll have a hard time getting it through the senate. They'd need 60 votes to get past the inevitable filibuster. Some moderate Republicans would vote for it, but some Democrats would vote against it. I don't think the Democratic leadership wants to risk it. They're in control. They're loving it. They don't want to lose it.

 

[BOBKATT]

He may have bigger fish to fry, but he aint the guy that fries the fish. All obama has to do is sign whatever makes it to his desk. And if you have any idea that he's not going to sign anything anti-gun without thinking twice, your lost.

 

[Trupo]

He may have bigger fish to fry, but he aint the guy that fries the fish. All obama has to do is sign whatever makes it to his desk. And if you have any idea that he's not going to sign anything anti-gun without thinking twice, your lost.

Exactly my point.

....M1911, I pray you are right.

 

[M1911]

....M1911, I pray you are right.

You and me both.

 

[Ray-500]

I agree with you. There are a lot of Democrats, including Bill Clinton, who remember how the Democrats lost control of Congress after the 1994 assault weapon ban. They attribute that loss, in part, due to pissed of gun owners.

Obama has got bigger fish to fry than gun owners -- two wars and keeping us out of a depression.

Agreed....and it is going to be a VERY interesting 4 years. Watch and wait.

 

[jhblaze1]

I almost hope they do ban all guns and confiscate those already owned. A) they're bad B) they're scary looking and C) mine keeps sneeking out of the safe at night an going on killing sprees all by itself. The guns must be stopped at all costs! Just think if they team up with iPods and MySpace and take over the world...

On a serious note, I doubt a real AWB will even get to a vote. It will be political suicide for the Dems. I would not be surprised by significant taxes levied on guns/ammo getting tacked on as an ammendment to one of the inevitable upcoming "spread the wealth" peices of legislation. back door tactics (no i'm not talking about barney frank right now) will be the name of the game IMO.

 

[Ray-500]

On a serious note, I doubt a real AWB will even get to a vote. It will be political suicide for the Dems. I would not be surprised by significant taxes levied on guns/ammo getting tacked on as an ammendment to one of the inevitable upcoming "spread the wealth" peices of legislation. back door tactics (no i'm not talking about barney frank right now) will be the name of the game IMO.

Look for the "back door" approach". Taxes on ammo, restrictions on ammo, making ammo harder to get, marking/labeling, etc. etc. They will try to make your firearm unuseable because you cannot have ammo for it. Obviously, my opinion only.

 

[psquiggs]

Big Taxes on Ammo is going to happen, just like Gov Devil increase the fee on LTC's. Anything they can do to piss off gun owners in this state they will. The federal ammo tax will be justified as a needed source on revenue.

 

[mikem317]

I agree with you. There are a lot of Democrats, including Bill Clinton, who remember how the Democrats lost control of Congress after the 1994 assault weapon ban. They attribute that loss, in part, due to pissed of gun owners.

Obama has got bigger fish to fry than gun owners -- two wars and keeping us out of a depression.

That's why it won't come through Congress.

It will be an Executive Order.

 

[MasterShinken]

iRobot

I almost hope they do ban all guns and confiscate those already owned. A) they're bad B) they're scary looking and C) mine keeps sneeking out of the safe at night an going on killing sprees all by itself. The guns must be stopped at all costs! Just think if they team up with iPods and MySpace and take over the world...

Dont forget the Roomba's. mines been attacking my cat for dominance over my house since we got the thing

 

[Ray-500]

Dont forget the Roomba's. mines been attacking my cat for dominance over my house since we got the thing

Perhaps I'm a pessimist...I hope so...but let's see how much levity there is 12 months from now.

 

[M1911]

That's why it won't come through Congress.

It will be an Executive Order.

No can do.

 

[Bill Nance]

The Obama administration will NOT be gun-friendly, but they are also not stupid. They've gotta remember the '94 elections and the results of the last AWB. I'd look for a slightly watered-down version of the AWB sometime end of '09, maybe beginning of '10. At the moment there are frankly bigger fish to fry.

That means we have time to work on our congress critters, local news media, friends, neighbors, co-workers etc.

The facts are on our side. We just need to get the word out.

 

[Bill Nance]

That's why it won't come through Congress.

It will be an Executive Order.

You're high dude. EOs can only be applied to a very limited set of things and gun control ain't one of them.

 

[calsdad]

I almost hope they do ban all guns and confiscate those already owned. A) they're bad B) they're scary looking and C) mine keeps sneeking out of the safe at night an going on killing sprees all by itself. The guns must be stopped at all costs! Just think if they team up with iPods and MySpace and take over the world...

On a serious note, I doubt a real AWB will even get to a vote. It will be political suicide for the Dems. I would not be surprised by significant taxes levied on guns/ammo getting tacked on as an ammendment to one of the inevitable upcoming "spread the wealth" peices of legislation. back door tactics (no i'm not talking about barney frank right now) will be the name of the game IMO.

I know a lot of people who make that argument ....... there is a big BUT in there though that makes me think that argument might not hold water any more.

If you believe all the news reports something like 80 to 90 percent of the people in this country were opposed to the bailout. BUT IT HAPPENED ANYWAY.

We are in a new world. A world where Congress doesn't a shit what the voters think. I don't think that a new AWB would come out of nowhere. It would have to come out of some sort of "incident" that gives the politicians the reason they need to vote for it. That is the way this crap always goes down. So if you combine Obama getting his ass handed to him by govt. plans to fix the economy that don't work, with some sort of really bad "gun" incident - (like say a Mumbai style attack here in the US) - with a bunch of libs in Congress who come up with bill to address the issue - you will get an Obama who feels he has to sign it - because he can throw one in the "win" column and everybody can feel good about themselves for a while.

And just like the Bush administration has used the bullshit argument about how there have not been any more terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 and the Patriot Act et. al - the Obama administration will be able to use the similar bullshit excuse that they have prevented more attacks on US soil - by banning and confiscating "assault weapons".

Given an admittedly hypothetical situation like this - I think the only thing that would save us from serious restrictions is getting lucky and having US citizens right there fighting back - with their guns. But that is a crapshoot and probably not likely to happen - because terrorists are smart, and will pick a place where there is not likely to be anybody who is armed and can resist them.

 

[Ray-500]

I know a lot of people who make that argument ....... there is a big BUT in there though that makes me think that argument might not hold water any more.

If you believe all the news reports something like 80 to 90 percent of the people in this country were opposed to the bailout. BUT IT HAPPENED ANYWAY.

We are in a new world. A world where Congress doesn't a shit what the voters think. I don't think that a new AWB would come out of nowhere. It would have to come out of some sort of "incident" that gives the politicians the reason they need to vote for it. That is the way this crap always goes down. So if you combine Obama getting his ass handed to him by govt. plans to fix the economy that don't work, with some sort of really bad "gun" incident - (like say a Mumbai style attack here in the US) - with a bunch of libs in Congress who come up with bill to address the issue - you will get an Obama who feels he has to sign it - because he can throw one in the "win" column and everybody can feel good about themselves for a while.

And just like the Bush administration has used the bullshit argument about how there have not been any more terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 and the Patriot Act et. al - the Obama administration will be able to use the similar bullshit excuse that they have prevented more attacks on US soil - by banning and confiscating "assault weapons".

Given an admittedly hypothetical situation like this - I think the only thing that would save us from serious restrictions is getting lucky and having US citizens right there fighting back - with their guns. But that is a crapshoot and probably not likely to happen - because terrorists are smart, and will pick a place where there is not likely to be anybody who is armed and can resist them.

Given the "mania" surrounding this nebulous person, do you doubt that what he wants he will get? I almost expect Rod Serling to jump out at any time and welcome me to the "Twilight Zone". I truly cannot believe the stupidity of our electorate and I am in RI where this stupidity runs rampant. Are people really this uninformed and ignorant? What in the world is it going to take to wake people up? Are the "give me's" and the "I'm entitled to's" so far superior in number that the actual producers no longer have a say? Heaven help us....because our politicians and "takers" know no bounds.

 

[mikem317]

No can do.

Why not?

You're high dude. EOs can only be applied to a very limited set of things and gun control ain't one of them.

No, I'm not.

Why can't he? Can you detail further?

If use of the EO by the Bush regime is any indication, we're in for a wallop under Dear Leader's regime.

Google: United States Executive Order 9066.

 

[mikem317]

"It's simply paranoia," said Thomas Mannard of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. "And it's irresponsible, from my point of view, to be touting how wonderful this is. More guns definitely equal more death."

Are they ignorant or just wantonly lying to people now? This claim is patently false.

 

[Ray-500]

Why not?



No, I'm not.

Why can't he? Can you detail further?

If use of the EO by the Bush regime is any indication, we're in for a wallop under Dear Leader's regime.

Google: United States Executive Order 9066.

That order dealt with Sabotage and Espionage during WW II. It was the basis of Japanese folks being but in "camps".

How does this relate to the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution? Are you saying that an EO can totally abrogate this right? If so, and if this happens, I believe there will be a backlash, the likes of which goes back to the very founding of our country. I do not believe that the majority of Americans are ready to accept a dictator.

 

[mikem317]

That order dealt with Sabotage and Espionage during WW II. It was the basis of Japanese folks being but in "camps".

Right. Your person, the very first property that you are endowed with, could be ordered to be physically moved into an interment camp. What's stopping them from taking other property, like guns, if they can take your body?

How does this relate to the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution? Are you saying that an EO can totally abrogate this right? If so, and if this happens, I believe there will be a backlash, the likes of which goes back to the very founding of our country. I do not believe that the majority of Americans are ready to accept a dictator.

EO can mandate the confiscation of property. It's happened before. Roosevelt (yuck, I hate referencing this dictator), ordered people to surrender there gold coins and gold bullion. He also ordered first-, second-, and third-generation Japanese Americans from the West Coast to be put into interment camps.

So why can't they do it with guns? I bet a couple of knucklehead Congress critters might egg Dear Leader on.

What makes you so sure that "the majority of Americans are (not) ready to accept a dictator?" Look at who was just elected into the nation's highest office!