Skip to comments.Gun sales are up, but it's legal (Barfer)
Posted on 03/22/2009 7:06:57 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA
Like it or not, gun sales are, well, booming.
There are a number of reasons but the most prevalent are people are afraid the Obama administration, sooner or later, will get around to creating more-restrictive gun ownership laws and taxes. And those are not unfounded fears.
So gun owners are stocking up on ammunition, handguns and semiautomatic rifles. Sales are up 50 percent since Barack Obama was elected.
And gun-control advocates have taken notice.
In a story in Seacoast Sunday last week, Peter Hamm of the Washington-D.C.-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence used words like "lunacy" to describe people who are buying guns.
(Excerpt) Read more at seacoastonline.com ...
In the meantime, there is nothing to prevent people from legally stocking up on guns and ammunition.
Barack Obamas gun control policy, or should I write anti-gun record is long and informative:
* 1994 to 2001 - Obama was on the board of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. This foundation is the largest funding source for radical anti-gun groups in the country.
* 1996 - Obama supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.
* 1999 - Obama proposed a 500 percent increase in the excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. This tax would effectively punish gun owners for buying guns and ammunition.
* 2003 - Obama voted in support of legislation that would have banned privately owned hunting shotguns, target rifles and black powder rifles in Illinois.
* 2004 - Obama voted against legislation intended to protect homeowners from prosecution in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion.
The Secret Service Protection should be taken away from Obama and any other anti-gun legislator. If we don’t need guns for self-defense, neither do they.
Courious how many would still be of the same opinion then?
I do not see the reason for the barf alert. It seems a fairly descriptive bit of reporting.
“In the meantime, there is nothing to prevent people from legally stocking up on guns and ammunition.”
Oh, don’t be surprised when it becomes illegal to “stockpile” guns and ammunition. Police agencies have already used the “stockpile” excuse to confiscate weapons while they sort out the details of if the “cache” of weapons is legal. Funny, that sort of reasoning would be appalling to liberals if it was applied to some cause they support. How about we seize “ACORN” and then sort out if they are up to no good?
"In the meantime, there is nothing to prevent people from legally stocking up on guns and ammunition."
Yes. Very descriptive. It describes exactly what it is that makes people on this forum want to barf.
I do not think this is “equally charged” by any stretch:
Equally charged rhetoric from the other extreme side of the issue doesn’t help either.
Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Association, said during a recent speech, “The Second Amendment breathes life into liberty. The Founding Fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules.”
“Police agencies have already used the stockpile excuse to confiscate weapons while they sort out the details of if the cache of weapons is legal.”
Imagine for a second that police forces went and rounded up people who had boxes and boxes of pens.
The absurdity here is no different.
This is why they are so arrogant about the rights of citizens to defend themselves-because they live in armored cocoons and many of the liberal gun grabbers have permits.
But there are plenty of proponents of gun ownership to challenge and argue against such regulations.
The Second Amendment still gives Americans the right to keep and bear arms. Gun ownership and possession are legal in this country.
People use them for hunting, for target shooting, for collections, for protection.
Sadly, some people use them in robberies and murders. But such people are breaking our laws when they do so. Such are not the actions of responsible gun owners. And no law can totally prevent such actions.
I have to say: it's actually nice to see some balance (for a change) in an article about gun ownership.
It’s also why so many in Hollywood can be of that opinion....they have armed bodyguards.
Would love to hear their opinions without said bodyguards.
Peloser said no to a renewal of the AW ban, and 65 Democrats on Friday told the Bambi administration(isn’t that an appropriate name?) no more gun laws. I wonder how many blue dogs signed on.
I doubt the donks want to replay 1994.
Possibly one that may save their lives.
What usually happens during economic down turns?
Having a home protection firearm always makes sense. But it is a necessity in times like these.
The last line struck me though. Why should there be anything to prevent people from buying guns with an Amendment which expressly give this right?
The fact that this word was even used is disturbing to me.
"...The decisions will be made in the Congress..."
Bullchit! I thought the SCOTUS said something about the various legislatures making these decisions in a ruling last summer.
I’m in Texas. Based on what is happening in Mexico, and of course here in Washington, there are plenty of reasons to be prepared.
Saw a sign out front of a gun shop the other day, one of those real upscale signs with some really good graphics. One of the "statements' on it this past week.
It is clear that this media boy is trying to act objective. However, like most in this nation, he is confused on two points. First, he points out the punitive things government can do to reduce gun ownership if the Second Amendment is ignored. Second, he lists the reasons for gun ownership as: hunting, target shooting, collections, and protection. Again he forgets that the Second Amendment is there to insure that the Citizens can band together, become “a well regulated militia” to protect the Constitution and the Nation (from enemies both foreign and domestic).
I really think you can read that both ways, especially in the context of the article, which I found refreshingly balanced.
It is true that there is nothing to prevent people from legally stocking up on guns and ammunition and that is their right as citizens, as explicitly recognized (not granted, mind you, but observed) in our Constitution.
In any event, such discussion is far better than what passes for discourse about firearms in most of the mainstream media, where violence is routinely blamed on inert tools rather than on the people who promulgate it.