Another run on guns & ammo?

[Blitzkrieg]

Why would politicans care about a shrinking percentage of the electorate? They want power and votes and your lobbying is going to be less relevant every day

 

[davemata]

If people believed that Blitz, there wouldn't be any grass roots groups.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

If people believed that Blitz, there wouldn't be any grass roots groups.

It's the truth, no matter what people believe.. it's simple numbers and demographics. Don't kill the messenger of bad tidings..

 

[davemata]

No intention to kill you, just don't agree with you.

 

[davemata]

So WHAT legislation has he introduced then since winning the election?

None.

 

[Misterbill]

So if all the talk of Obama takin R gunz is nothing but bunk, why do we need to lobby the senate at all? Why would you say something so contradictory to the rest of your argument? Makes no sense. If it's not real, what's the point of wasting the money to lobby against a non-issue?

The ignorance this statement shows is astounding.

I've never said, here or anywhere else that Obama was a friend to gun owners. I've stated repeatedly that he was opposed to us, but it was pretty far down the list of things he cared about. I don't see where, practically, he was in any significant way different from Romney on this particular issue. I've been entirely consistent on this point for 5 years and have been borne out by the facts.

The level of PSH over Obama regarding guns is laughable. Never, have so many, been so paranoid, with less objective reason or more resistance to any injection of fact.

I have seen, repeatedly, on this board, speculation that:

1. Obama is going to declare himself dictator for life

2. Obama, without the help of the congress, is going to magically ban everyone's Black Rifles and large cap magazines.

3. Obama is going to stack the SC with extra justices (because, hey, THAT's never been slammed down before).

4. That a treaty designed to stop proliferation of small arms to third-world war zones, which has repeatedly, BY THE US Govt, been altered to specifically NOT include any lawfully owned or traded civilian firearms AND which hasn't the chances of a snowflake in Hell passing the U.S. Senate with the required 66% majority REGARDLESS, is a great threat to our rights.

5. That Obama has a "secret agenda" (apparently "more extreme" than the long-stated, never retreated from goal of a AWB) that was just waiting for a second term, when unlike his first term, he has a Republican majority in the house. (That's planning like a real Machiavelli, I tell ya!)

This is the tinfoil damned-foolishness I'm talking about. This is the kind of epistemic closure, the kind of other-world paranoid delusion that makes sane people, including a lot of gun owners, shake their heads and ignore the whole issue, which is REALLY bad for all of us.

This is the boy who cried wolf over, and over and over again, day in, day out.

The one thing I'm actually concerned about Obama doing is appointing a SC replacement for two ANTI-GUN justices very likely to retire this term, who is also anti-gun. If we could keep another Sotomayor off the court, this would result in an IMPROVEMENT over the existing court makeup.

Given that the gun rights community has a lot MORE power than we did in 2009, I see a decent chance of doing this. I also think a litmus test over guns is a lot more important than a litmus test over abortion, which has been the GOP standard for 30 years AND which has kept a lot of people off the bench.

This is an actual, REAL threat, that we can ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT. I realize writing letters to and meeting with Senators isn't nearly as sexy or as easy as ranting conspiracy theories on the internets and sending a check to an organization who lobbied AGAINST filing Heller vs. DC. (Starts with a N, ends with a A) but that's what gets the job done.

Obama isn't going to take our guns because he CAN'T. He can appoint SC justices we really aren't going to like. He can make some VERY minor regulatory decisions we won't like. The first we can absolutely do something about. The second, you need congressional action to over-ride. Since my rock-ribbed "Conservative" Congressman Doc Hastings has not introduced a SINGLE piece of pro-gun legislation since 1994, nor have the vast majority of our so-called "friends" in congress, call me crazy If I call BS on the whole R vs. D Black/White, Good/Bad fiction and insist on fighting fights that

a: Actually exist to be fought
and
b: We have some ability to address

 

[The Redpaw]

The ignorance this statement shows is astounding.

I've never said, here or anywhere else that Obama was a friend to gun owners. I've stated repeatedly that he was opposed to us, but it was pretty far down the list of things he cared about. I don't see where, practically, he was in any significant way different from Romney on this particular issue. I've been entirely consistent on this point for 5 years and have been borne out by the facts.

The level of PSH over Obama regarding guns is laughable. Never, have so many, been so paranoid, with less objective reason or more resistance to any injection of fact.

I have seen, repeatedly, on this board, speculation that:

1. Obama is going to declare himself dictator for life

2. Obama, without the help of the congress, is going to magically ban everyone's Black Rifles and large cap magazines.

3. Obama is going to stack the SC with extra justices (because, hey, THAT's never been slammed down before).

4. That a treaty designed to stop proliferation of small arms to third-world war zones, which has repeatedly, BY THE US Govt, been altered to specifically NOT include any lawfully owned or traded civilian firearms AND which hasn't the chances of a snowflake in Hell passing the U.S. Senate with the required 66% majority REGARDLESS, is a great threat to our rights.

5. That Obama has a "secret agenda" (apparently "more extreme" than the long-stated, never retreated from goal of a AWB) that was just waiting for a second term, when unlike his first term, he has a Republican majority in the house. (That's planning like a real Machiavelli, I tell ya!)

This is the tinfoil damned-foolishness I'm talking about. This is the kind of epistemic closure, the kind of other-world paranoid delusion that makes sane people, including a lot of gun owners, shake their heads and ignore the whole issue, which is REALLY bad for all of us.

This is the boy who cried wolf over, and over and over again, day in, day out.

The one thing I'm actually concerned about Obama doing is appointing a SC replacement for two ANTI-GUN justices very likely to retire this term, who is also anti-gun. This would result in an IMPROVEMENT over the existing court makeup.

This is an actual, REAL threat, that we can ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT. I realize writing letters to and meeting with Senators isn't nearly as sexy or as easy as ranting conspiracy theories on the internets and sending a check to an organization who lobbied AGAINST filing Heller vs. DC. (Starts with a N, ends with a A) but that's what gets the job done.

Obama isn't going to take our guns because he CAN'T. He can appoint SC justices we really aren't going to like. He can make some VERY minor regulatory decisions we won't like. The first we can absolutely do something about. The second, you need congressional action to over-ride. Since my rock-ribbed "Conservative" Congressman Doc Hastings has not introduced a SINGLE piece of pro-gun legislation since 1994, nor have the vast majority of our so-called "friends" in congress, call me crazy If I call BS on the whole R vs. D Black/White, Good/Bad fiction and insist on fighting fights that

a: Actually exist to be fought
and
b: We have some ability to address

I actually agree with you, I've read other posts which made me wary of you and I doubted your logic in a few other threads, but....

This is sound logic, we aren't in any danger right now. If we are in danger, I'm sure the better part of those if us will take the time do the right thing, and that is actually get off the keyboard warrior mentality and make the damn phone calls.... Relentlessly.

This thread goes right wing, left wing the next post, back and forth.... But it is apparent we are all concerned over our rights to enjoy our guns. Arguing semantics over a non existent threat (as of right now) is good for what?. When push comes to shove, I'd rather have a guy from the left who atleast agrees with my rights pushed by the right, standing next to my testifying for our rights together as one party....

Than a politician who never hears from us because we voiced it on a forum with no clout in the political arena.

We can disagree about a lot of issues, owning guns, respect for others rights and respect for each other should come first, because this isn't the divided states of america... We need each other.

 

[Thebastidge]

Our rights are ALWAYS in danger, and the price pf liberty is eternal vigilance. I agree with Bill that Romney might have been a couple percent better than Obama. We didn't lose the election last week, we lost it when we didn't get anybody other than the coke and pepsi party to vote for. And the Coca-cola was about half Pepsi, too.

But on to address the price-gouging thing. I'm an FFL. I won't arbitrarily raise prices. There's a certain amount of arbitrary in ANY transaction, because value is entirely subjective. I set a price, and depending on what I am willing to take as the price of my time and labour, I set a margin above my cost that I charge. Basic economics, guys. Any voluntary transaction is by definition a fair trade, because each side gains value or they wouldn't agree to tit. They may not get as much value as they would like, but they end up with more value than they had before, unless they are just purely foolish, and that's not a matter of being cheated, merely one person's judgment of value not standing up over time.

Price and cost ALWAYS have a loose and flexible relationship. This is the reason why Marx and Engels' labour theory of value and communism in general have been debunked.

Some factors that are affecting costs: almost all manufacturers are behind on production due to high demand. They may be investing in more equipment or more labour in order to meet that demand, and therefore the per-unit cost is going up. They also know that due to demand, their product is worth more (subjectviely) because people are willing to pay more. There is nothing unethical about charging what people are willing to pay. "What people are willing to pay" is an averaged target, and new entrants to the market may skew that.

To be honest, firearms are one of the lowest-margin items in my shop, and we do that because we have to compete with multi-billion dollar chain store enterprises that can buy in much greater volume than I ever will be able to. I make up SOME of that in offering accessories that you simply won't find at Bi-Mart or Fred Meyers.

We won't raise prices at my shop just to take advantage of a panic, but we will raise prices as needed. If the cost to me of replacing a firearm in my inventory is more than the price I sell it for, I come up with a cash flow issue. The price I sell for is not based upon the cost I paid for it- that's the "sunk cost fallacy". Look it up. It's based on what I need to pay to keep my inventory going. If I sell you an AR for say, $950, and it costs me $1050 to get another of the same model to replace it, I now have to come up with $100 from somewhere. If that's out of my pocket, I can only do so many of those transactions before I go out of business. I'll always be chasing the dragon in that scenario. This is BASIC to the idea of being in business. If my business and all the others like it go away, you'll be stuck with generic chain stores. They have their place, but small businesses are more responsive to specific, non-generic needs. It's your call.

I was hesitant to address this issue at all, with all the FFL-bashing up-thread. It kills me that more people don't understand basic business. I certainly wish more people tried to run their own- it's a very free-ing experience to be your own man this way, even as it causes lots of headaches and sleepless nights. It causes you to think a LOT about things like perceptions surrounding tax and money issues that most Americans never think about, as they go to a wage job and produce abstract work for someone's else benefit. Prior to the industrial revolution, MOST people worked for themselves, and had very different attitudes about a lot of things.

 

[Will_Power]

The ignorance this statement shows is astounding.

I've never said, here or anywhere else that Obama was a friend to gun owners. I've stated repeatedly that he was opposed to us, but it was pretty far down the list of things he cared about. I don't see where, practically, he was in any significant way different from Romney on this particular issue. I've been entirely consistent on this point for 5 years and have been borne out by the facts.

The level of PSH over Obama regarding guns is laughable. Never, have so many, been so paranoid, with less objective reason or more resistance to any injection of fact.

I have seen, repeatedly, on this board, speculation that:

1. Obama is going to declare himself dictator for life

2. Obama, without the help of the congress, is going to magically ban everyone's Black Rifles and large cap magazines.

3. Obama is going to stack the SC with extra justices (because, hey, THAT's never been slammed down before).

4. That a treaty designed to stop proliferation of small arms to third-world war zones, which has repeatedly, BY THE US Govt, been altered to specifically NOT include any lawfully owned or traded civilian firearms AND which hasn't the chances of a snowflake in Hell passing the U.S. Senate with the required 66% majority REGARDLESS, is a great threat to our rights.

5. That Obama has a "secret agenda" (apparently "more extreme" than the long-stated, never retreated from goal of a AWB) that was just waiting for a second term, when unlike his first term, he has a Republican majority in the house. (That's planning like a real Machiavelli, I tell ya!)

This is the tinfoil damned-foolishness I'm talking about. This is the kind of epistemic closure, the kind of other-world paranoid delusion that makes sane people, including a lot of gun owners, shake their heads and ignore the whole issue, which is REALLY bad for all of us.

This is the boy who cried wolf over, and over and over again, day in, day out.

The one thing I'm actually concerned about Obama doing is appointing a SC replacement for two ANTI-GUN justices very likely to retire this term, who is also anti-gun. This would result in an IMPROVEMENT over the existing court makeup.

This is an actual, REAL threat, that we can ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT. I realize writing letters to and meeting with Senators isn't nearly as sexy or as easy as ranting conspiracy theories on the internets and sending a check to an organization who lobbied AGAINST filing Heller vs. DC. (Starts with a N, ends with a A) but that's what gets the job done.

Obama isn't going to take our guns because he CAN'T. He can appoint SC justices we really aren't going to like. He can make some VERY minor regulatory decisions we won't like. The first we can absolutely do something about. The second, you need congressional action to over-ride. Since my rock-ribbed "Conservative" Congressman Doc Hastings has not introduced a SINGLE piece of pro-gun legislation since 1994, nor have the vast majority of our so-called "friends" in congress, call me crazy If I call BS on the whole R vs. D Black/White, Good/Bad fiction and insist on fighting fights that

a: Actually exist to be fought
and
b: We have some ability to address

Tell ya what, Bill. I admire and respect all the hard work you're putting into addressing the Chicken Littles here in this thread.

As for me, I'm losing my patience trying to combat the fear, ignorance, and outright lies I'm hearing in many places across the 2A community. Even heard some of that foolishness in Curt's this weekend. Talk about gun laws (that will never ever get passed) and other such nonsense.

Keep up the good fight.

 

[Modeler]

I deal with 4 firearms distributors. As of yesterday, no one had any average run of the mill AR rifles left in inventory. There were a few high end target models and a few varmint hunting platforms but that was it. Davidson's, RSR Group, Lipsey's, Valor, etc. zero inventory.
Whatever your opinion is on that person that was re-elected, and those people ruling the Proletariat, the run on certain firearms is real.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that show a run on those guns on the distributor/retailer side? Doesn't necessarily mean there's a run on the retailer/consumer side, does it?

 

[locobob]

If there wasn't a run on guns before there will be now

<broken link removed>

Um you realize that this is not new but rather a quotation of Obama answering a question from the 2nd debate right? Article is dated Oct. 16. Not that that fact changes the content any but it should be noted that he did not just now make some new call for gun control after being re-elected.

 

[drew]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that show a run on those guns on the distributor/retailer side? Doesn't necessarily mean there's a run on the retailer/consumer side, does it?

That's what I had been thinking too. There will be some panic buying from end customers. I'm just hoping there isn't a lot of it.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

No intention to kill you, just don't agree with you.

That merely makes you wrong

The USA as we knew it is finished.. Balkanization and blood is in the near future

 

[Jammer Six]

The USA as we knew it is finished.. Balkanization and blood is in the near future

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I disagree....

It'll take a few years

Just a matter of time

 

[Blitzkrieg]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them"

Santayana

 

[MountainBear]

Just finished two days at the Redmond gun show. No paranoia buying. Lots of people buying things, sold lots of little stuff, but no one running around screaming that the sky was falling.

 

[jrprich]

That's SOP for a POTUS for at least my entire lifetime, so from Carter to now.

Goes way back long before Carter.......think way back pre WWII and BOTH parties POTUS have been doing this stuff for a very long time.

 

[Grunwald]

Let's fast forward 2 years and say the Democrats gain 8 seats in the House. That give Nancy back the speakership and control.
Now think back to 2009 & 2010 when the Democrats had control of all 3 branches. Did they even care about what the people wanted? Over 90% of calls and emails that they received was against the healthcare reform bill. What was the response? Nancy's famous line of "we have to pass it, to see what's in it".
Harry Reid is busy trying to change the rules of the Senate to prevent filibusters and I read people that they do not worry about the possible firearms restrictions?
Really? Seriously? At one point or another all the big hitters in the Democrat party have stated that they want to restrict 2A rights, and we know from experience that most Republicans are gutless wusses who sell out for 2 pieces of silver, so chances of them stopping it or nill, and you're not worried?

 

[4Freedom]

Gun rights won't be around forever.. Sad, but true.. Considering how the country is becoming socialist and the demographics are changing to people from third world countries and many young Americans are becoming socialists who become more dependent on the government for support rather than contributing to the country, I would say that yeah, gun rights are in jeopardy! People are being brainwashed and told to believe in the power of the machine. They are told "We The People" are "Weak and Helpless". Mind control, propaganda, ignorant and self-absorbed people looking for their own selfish gain, rather than a practical plan to help the country thrive are now becoming the majority.

Sorry to say, Rome won't stand forever. Just read history..

P.S.
I encourage people not to horde the guns and ammo, that way there is more for me..