Seller’s Market
The internet has been abuzz about the potential for new legislation which could violate our Second Amendment rights. After the second debate between Presidential candidates, the current Commander-In-Chief answered this question: “What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?” Obama said this:
“My belief is that, (A), we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement…But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”
Yes, we need to keep criminals from getting guns. But let’s look at places where you can’t carry a weapon readily as a law-abiding citizen. The UK, Australia, DC, Maryland, California for the most part, and the President’s home state of Illinois (the only state in the country with NO provision for Concealed Carry whatsoever) are good examples, but not all inclusive by any means. Then ponder this: “Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.” How is that gun control working out, Mr. President? Outlaw forks to combat obesity in America, outlaw cars to stop drunk driving, and then we’ll talk. Hardware solutions rarely solve software problems.
As a byproduct of these comments, and a frankly disappointing answer by Governor Romney as well, we’re in the midst of another panic buy. I expected a little of a rush, but as the last one in 2008 was mostly unfounded I hoped the administration would skirt it again, and as an unintended byproduct lessen a gun-buying panic. They didn’t. I’m taking your guns, said the President. Folks, the Second Amendment isn’t so we can hunt, or shoot paper. It’s so we can defend ourselves from tyranny. As a result of these comments, gun enthusiasts are stocking up in anticipation of legislation attempting to take our rights away. I didn’t pay too much attention to it last time, and got smoking deals once supply exceeded demand again a few months later. Frankly, I’m more worried about it myself this time as Obama has nothing to lose if he’s re-elected. It’s not like continuing to screw America is going to cost him a third term…
The night of the debate, we were in the middle of a 3-day Carbine 1 class in Lynchburg, VA. After we wrapped up a night shoot, I caught the buzz on the net about Obama winning meaning losing our guns. Our host happens to own a local gun shop as well as the range, and the next morning his dealer prices on everything had jumped from his distributors. Ammo, guns, you name it. Stripped lowers went from $99 to $160 in some places I found on the Google machine here. Big props to some people (Legion Firearms comes to mind) for saying they won’t jack up prices to take advantage of the potential sacking of the Constitution. It would be nice if some others would follow suit. I don’t begrudge someone for making a buck, but preying on the fears people have against their own government is pretty low. If the last one was any indication, prices on guns and ammo are going to skyrocket again for a few months. If all goes well, hopefully it will go back down. If not, and we face a permanent ban on assault weapons, it’s likely they’ll skyrocket up and in a few decades buying a nice Colt 6920 will be similar to transferrable NFA territory. That’s not something I want to chance, so if you need me, I’ll be ordering more stripped lowers and hi-cap mags. Don’t forget to vote, and join the NRA. Without their support of the Second Amendment, we would already have been left with only 90% of our Bill of Rights.
Tags: Canipe
What was the name of the place you were taking the carbine class in Lynchburg? I live near Lynchburg and would like to take a carbine class.
Vultures. People should take note of the companies jacking up prices instead of increasing production. Those people are lazy and don’t deserve your money.
“Hardware solutions rarely solve software problems.”
Classic.
Be afraid, very afraid…
Vote and talk about it.
The NFA world could be in for a hard time with either candidate. From the second presidential debates
“We of course don’t want to have automatic weapons, and that’s already illegal in this country to have automatic weapons.” -Mitt Romney.
“Dumber and Dumber – 2012 Special Edition DVD”
Anyone that is stupid enough to believe President Obama is going to take away our guns if he is reelected is a moron. We’re not Australia. If said morons are going out to buy as many guns and as much ammo as they can, then those dealers deserve every penny.
Also, a lot of people need to stop going around screaming “molon labe,” ‘you can take it from my cold, dead hand,” and other bullshit. That only gives more ammo to elected politicians on both sides who have an antigun stance or will give into antigun lobbying. It only effects/punishes law abiding gun owners.
I am saddened about it this situation because I needed some more ammo and maybe a complete bcm rifle 🙁
I worry a lot more about a second term Obama than I do a first term Romney. If you think Obama is happy with you owning firearms you sir are the moron.
“Anyone that is stupid enough to believe President Obama is going to take away our guns if he is reelected is a moron. ”
The man said, and I quote, “[p]art of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.”
What part of “ban” don’t you understand? Granted, as long as the Republicans control the House, it’s highly unlikely that it will happen, but stranger things have happened and John Boehner has proven that he will NOT stand up to Obama.
But don’t breathe a sigh of relief if Romney is elected either. Unlike Obama, he actually HAS passed gun control laws while he was Governor of Taxachusetts. As for his “we don’t need any new gun control laws,” pledge, anyone remember Papa Bush’s “read my lips: no new taxes” pledge?
I’ll second what John said ; Join the NRA
If you are not a member and your reading this you need to wake up – the NRA is the only thing any politician fears when it comes to gun control; they are the 800 pound gorilla in this arena
Great post Jon.
Anecdotal information:
Suncoast Gun Show at the Florida State Fairgrounds in Tampa today and tomorrow has a table at the entrance where you can join or renew your NRA membership for a $10 discount on the cost of membership. They were very popular today, with many wearing the pin they gave for you joining or renewing.
In many shows the past few years the BATFE also has had a table at the show for distributing propaganda. No table today.
Just as important as joining the NRA is making sure that you vote, and that you vote for those who would not deprive you of your civil rights among the candidates for President, the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Ed, that’s a good point. Gun ownership is a civil right.
In an election year, fear sells.
To be specific, it sells ammo, stripped lowers, handguns, AKs, and 2A advocacy group memberships.
People were convinced that gun banning would take place after the first Obama election win. There were even distortions about the “500% increase in Federal tax on ammo” Obama was going to enact.
And who profited from it like a bunch hucksters on the side of the road with their medicine show, hawking their “feel good” snake-oil.
A whole lotta retailers, manufacturers and gun rights organizations.
Both Demicans and Republicrats reap the rewards of stirring up their constituencies with phantom threats and the subsequent promises whilst knowing that gridlock (which they create) will prevent either from being able to or needing to follow thru on those promises.
Are their earnest 2A defenders and gun-grabbers? Yes.
But there are also a whole of others who are just in it for profit and power.
What Barak Obama wants to do in his second term (if he gets one) is very different from what he will be able to get. Any legislation he wishes to push through regarding firearms will have to get through the House of Representatives, which is held by Republicans. I think it likely that such a gun control measure would pass the Democrat held Senate, but it would fail dismally in the House. Having said that, it is vitally important that we all vote in a manner consistant with our beliefs. Should you believe firmly in the Second Ammendment, do not vote for candidates that are “squishy” on that issue. Unfortuantely, we are left with a choice between very bad (Barak Obama) and bad (Mitt Romney). This is one of those situations where we are going to have to hold our noses and vote in the lesser of two evils.
Remember, all of those Republicans are up for reelection EVERY two years, as in THIS year. If you want balance of power scenario, you’d better consider votes in both the House and Senate and act accordingly.
Very good points r0ckhamm3r. We should all take note of this crucial sentence in what Obama said:
“Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.”
“seeing if we can get” – in other words, if there’s enough opposition to it then he and his party won’t get it. Of course its clear that others in his party, like that ***** Feinstein won’t rest until they’ve achieved their objective to get scary-looking guns out of our hands. So its not just the guy in the White House that matters… Remember that on November 6.
I can understand gun enthousiasts will find this very important, but I sincerely hope you’ll be looking on the total package that both candidates stand for, on ALL topics.
That said, I hope people understand Obama has put the US in a much better light after his predecessor. Consider the role the US has on the world stage.
Have you been asleep the past four years? Can you spell B-E-N-G-H-A-Z-I?
1. No they don’t.
2. That’s not necessarily a good thing if it were true. We need to take care of America first, not take care of the world at the expense of Americans.
I’m sorry, but am I the only person who’s noticed the logical fail Obama himself said in his response?
If most of the violence is being committed with ‘cheap handguns,’ what would an assault weapons ban solve?
Smoke and mirrors.
Sure. I took that to mean not only an AWB but extending to handguns as well.
Good stuff Jonny.
I think the most important point you made is WHY the second amendment exists in the FIRST place. Even right wingers get this wrong in the media, and sound like a parrot on crack when they repeat “2nd amendment, 2nd amendment, rock!”
Another important point- I’ve heard many times by the anti- gun crowd that when the amendment was written, “what they meant was a musket, NOT an ‘assault rifle'”! Compleat and utter hog wash. In the 1700s, if you had a Brown Bess musket hanging over your fire place, you had one of the most modern and state of the art weapons available. It was the era’s equivalent of an M4 with an RDS an PEQ…and everyone had one! Anti gunners need to look at history before they try to use history against us.
Last point- I don’t much care what the current president has done for our “image” on the world stage. I live in America. I only care what he’s done for America!
Roger that, Matt.
As you correctly state, the Brown Bess (and Charleville, etc.) was the 18th Century equivalent of the assault rifle: you didn’t own one for hunting, you owned it because it was optimized for infantry combat. Its smooth bore made it far less accurate than the fancy Pennsylvania squirrel rifles most preferred for hunting but that same smooth bore, coupled with paper cartridges enabled a much higher rate of fire than a rifle. Add in the larger bore and the ability to fix a bayonet and you had the state of the art infantry weapon for its time.
In other words, the whole point of the 2nd Amendment (and most state constitution RKBA language) was to ensure that every able bodied man had, AT A MINIMUM, a weapon system suitable for infantry service.
Despite what the gun-banners and the fudds would have you believe, the 2A has exactly nothing to do with “sporting purposes” or “hunting” or any of that nonsense.
One of the problems at the time of the American Revolution was that too many gun owners did not own bayonets or weapons that could not easily mount bayonets, and that there was insufficient quantities of shot and powder to sustain each gun owner if normal sources of supplies were cut off. Keep that in mind with those that think a bolt action hunting rifle or shotgun and a box of ammo is sufficient to have on hand. There is a reason that a weapon that can sustain a higher rate of fire like a magazine fed semi-automatic rifle, shotgun or pistol is feared by some in government.
When the British marched on Lexington and Concord to seize community-owned war supplies owned for the common defense of the farming community, among the items that they seized and destroyed were transport wagons that carried flour. Civilian government of the Massachusetts Colony had already been dismissed and a military governor established in Boston who governed by decree backed by troops. The people of Boston were disarmed and virtually imprisoned. One of the wonders that forced the evacuation of military-ruled Boston by the British military was the organization of an efficient wagon transport force to erect overnight barricades that would resist military attack by the British while cannon the Colonists captured at Fort Ticonderoga were positioned in newly dug breastworks overlooking the island of Boston. The British had the option of evacuation or destruction of their forces, as a successful attack on the Colonists was no longer an option even with numerous of warships in the harbor. A well-stocked pantry or Bubba’s pickup truck can be a machine of resistance to tyranny! Purpose-driven people with organization and planning skills are to be feared for the damage that they can inflict with the help of others.
“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington
Our dear friend, Mr. Washington, felt that it was the right of the American citizens to own arms and ammunition that were sufficient to combat our own government (i.e., military). Doesn’t say anything about “sufficient to hunt big game” or “sufficient to defend against invaders, with the help of the military”. Seems to me, in today’s day and age, old George would expect us to have fully-automatic weapons with armor-piercing rounds, and an M1A1 parked in the garage if we deemed it necessary. I’m not suggesting this is something we push for, but leave things where they are – I can hold my own with a semi-automatic weapon.