Quantcast

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
Gun sales soar with Obama election
Faster than a speeding bullet, rifles and handguns have been flying off the shelves here and across the country since Barack Obama won the presidential election.

"Gun sales doubled Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday last week, and we've sold out of a lot of the guns we normally have in stock," said Jim King, sporting goods manager at Thatcher's Ace Hardware in Baker City, which still retains a tinge of its Wild West boomtown origins.

People are afraid of losing their Second Amendment gun rights, King said, although that would involve a lengthy and improbable attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution.

He said much of the buying frenzy involves assault rifles, which, King said, Obama's Web site says he wants to ban.

The Web site includes a statement supporting making the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent because such weapons belong on battlefields, not streets.

On Monday, King said the sporting goods department at Thatcher's was down to one Colt AR-15 rifle, the semiautomatic civilian version of the M16 and M4 assault rifles.

The AR-15 sells for about $1,350.

"It's not just Baker, its everywhere," King said. "We called one warehouse that went through 4,000 assault rifles in four days. One warehouse we called had 21 assault rifles when they opened for business on Monday, and within 30 seconds they were gone," King said.

"We are on waiting lists now to get more of these (Colt AR-15s). People are coming in and paying for them up front," King said.

The gun rush began with Obama's nomination and crested with his election, retailers say.

Published reports quote shop owners as saying sales have jumped 40 percent since Obama won the election. Prices are expected to increase.
a serious question: why would you need an ar15, m16, or m4? and if you have a serious answer, do you also need a 203 or a grenade launcher?
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
exactly.

not something targeted at a man; give me handgun or shotgun for a realistic defensive weapon.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
36,955
3,779
Sleazattle
I remember the same thing happening when they were legislating the assault weapon ban in the mid 90's. The end result was people paid twice as much for a gun that they could have gotten post ban sans the bayonet lug.

I don't think Obama has supported any further bans other than making the current A.W. ban (that the current administration extended) permanent
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
36,955
3,779
Sleazattle
exactly.

not something targeted at a man; give me handgun or shotgun for a realistic defensive weapon.

A pretty good offensive weapon too. You might want something with more reach if you often hang out in freshly plowed fields in Nebraska.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
The bigger the gun, the more liberties you secure, duh! If you have an AR-15, you get your choice of 8 civil liberties, while a handgun only gets 3.
 

Cant Climb

Turbo Monkey
May 9, 2004
2,687
10
I was out riding the Sunday before the election and heard an unusual amount of gun fire.....

There is no hunting here on Sundays and it's bow season anyway. I figured it was the Reds gearing up for the civil war....
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,045
0
Towing the party line.
exactly.

not something targeted at a man; give me handgun or shotgun for a realistic defensive weapon.
Shotgun with a home defense load. nice big spread, lots of power, and will not blast through the walls and kill your neighbor's kid.

I love the morons who talk big and think they can hit a home in vader from across the house, with a rifle or handgun, in the dark, with adrenaline pumping, not 100% awake.

Good luck hitting the broad side of a barn under those conditions without proper military/SWAT training.
 

manimal

Ociffer Tackleberry
Feb 27, 2002
7,214
14
Blindly running into cactus
The bigger the gun, the more liberties you secure, duh! If you have an AR-15, you get your choice of 8 civil liberties, while a handgun only gets 3.
Are you aware that the average semi-auto hunting rifle found at walmart is far more dangerous than an ar-15 in regards to range and power? the gun ignorant can't see past the military "look" and assume that because a weapon looks intimidating that it must be unnecessary. the truth is that the ar-15/m-16 platform is a very simple, accurate, and capable weapons platform for home and homeland defense. banning guns or types of guns has proven futile in itself because one thing never changes: criminals and government leaders don't abide by the rules and i refuse to succumb to either.

a little reminder. the 2nd ammendment isn't just for in-home defense; it's also intended for homeland defense and i personally don't want to be stuck bringing a bb-gun to a war. it's like the difference in having full coverage car insurance instead of just liability...at least i'll know i'm covered. ;)
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,045
0
Towing the party line.
Are you aware that the average semi-auto hunting rifle found at walmart is far more dangerous than an ar-15 in regards to range and power? the gun ignorant can't see past the military "look" and assume that because a weapon looks intimidating that it must be unnecessary. the truth is that the ar-15/m-16 platform is a very simple, accurate, and capable weapons platform for home and homeland defense. banning guns or types of guns has proven futile in itself because one thing never changes: criminals and government leaders don't abide by the rules and i refuse to succumb to either.

a little reminder. the 2nd ammendment isn't just for in-home defense; it's also intended for homeland defense and i personally don't want to be stuck bringing a bb-gun to a war. it's like the difference in having full coverage car insurance instead of just liability...at least i'll know i'm covered. ;)
The average hunting rifle is bolt action, an AR-15 is not. An AR-15 is also fairly easy to convert to full auto given the proper knowledge and a pre-ban trigger assembly.

Compare apples to apples here, dude.

The second amendment was indeed for national defense, at the time when a professional army did not exist. It does exist now, and includes local chapters in the National Guard. ie: citizens do not need to defend the homeland anymore unless they are enrolled in said professional army.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
Are you aware that the average semi-auto hunting rifle found at walmart is far more dangerous than an ar-15 in regards to range and power? the gun ignorant can't see past the military "look" and assume that because a weapon looks intimidating that it must be unnecessary. the truth is that the ar-15/m-16 platform is a very simple, accurate, and capable weapons platform for home and homeland defense. banning guns or types of guns has proven futile in itself because one thing never changes: criminals and government leaders don't abide by the rules and i refuse to succumb to either.

a little reminder. the 2nd ammendment isn't just for in-home defense; it's also intended for homeland defense and i personally don't want to be stuck bringing a bb-gun to a war. it's like the difference in having full coverage car insurance instead of just liability...at least i'll know i'm covered. ;)
I was making a joke at the whole "guns protect liberties" argument, because it is completely ridiculous and not based in reality.

We spend nearly as much as the entire world combined on the military, if we spent far less on the military, then the homeland defense argument might hold water, but it simply doesn't work. The outside threat to the U.S comes from big missiles, not from a land or sea invasion.

Gun bans don't work in the U.S because of the proliferation of guns, and I've never suggested that a gun ban is possible in the U.S.
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,640
4
SF, CA
today's thread-relevant strategy forecast email addresses the barrett, p90, & mexican border problems
The weapons seized at the Gonzalez Duran safe house included more than 500 firearms, a half-million rounds of ammunition and 150 grenades. The cache also included a LAW rocket, two grenade launchers and a small amount of explosives. Along with the scores of assorted assault rifles, grenades and a handful of gaudy gold-plated pistols were some weapons that require a bit more examination: namely, the 14 Fabrique Nationale (FN) P90 personal defense weapons and the seven Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifles contained in the seizure.
damn.
 

Defenestrated

Turbo Monkey
Mar 28, 2007
1,657
0
Earth
a little reminder. the 2nd ammendment isn't just for in-home defense; it's also intended for homeland defense and i personally don't want to be stuck bringing a bb-gun to a war. it's like the difference in having full coverage car insurance instead of just liability...at least i'll know i'm covered. ;)
You are aware that the people you would be fighting likely have armor, and air support.

Good luck.
 

JohnE

filthy rascist
May 13, 2005
12,647
664
Front Range, dude...
Random fact. Red Dawn was actually based on fact. The real truth has been hushed up by corrupt politicians for years. We have been living under indirect Soviet and Cuban rule for years. True story...

Damn, Jennifer Grey was hot.
 

JohnE

filthy rascist
May 13, 2005
12,647
664
Front Range, dude...
There is also talk of a remake...we must really be screwed, with the PTB trying to placate us into 15 more years of servitude. Damn Socialists!
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
Somewhere in Iraq, a guy wearing sandals and a tracksuit is telling you to HTFU.
Yeah, the Iraqi resistance in taking the country was massive

edit: I know what you mean, but the possibility of a land army invasion into the U.S is next to nothing.
 
Last edited:

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
10,221
237
chez moi
I was making a joke at the whole "guns protect liberties" argument, because it is completely ridiculous and not based in reality.

We spend nearly as much as the entire world combined on the military, if we spent far less on the military, then the homeland defense argument might hold water, but it simply doesn't work. The outside threat to the U.S comes from big missiles, not from a land or sea invasion.

Gun bans don't work in the U.S because of the proliferation of guns, and I've never suggested that a gun ban is possible in the U.S.

Yeah, it's only by the grace of the Colonial army being so well equipped that we beat the poor, rag-tag British back to home. And those Iraqis sure are doing pretty well with small arms and stolen/smuggled/scavenged munitions.

The argument is not at all ridiculous. However, many gun owners are, which helps make it seem that way.

And because there's no current credible threat of an amphibious or aerial invasion of the US at the moment doesn't mean there never was or never will be again (especially with the ascendence of China and a renewed Russia), so I don't see why that thread of argument really goes anywhere, either.

As far as anyone "needing" a specific gun, the legal onus is not on the citizen to prove a need, but for the government to prove a public interest in regulation. Obviously, there's a pretty good case for some sort of reasonable-person standard regulation...the debate is what's "reasonable" in this case, which is why we have debate, legistlation, and judicial review.

Anyhow, once Skynet becomes self-aware, you will all get the point.
 

Samirol

Turbo Monkey
Jun 23, 2008
1,437
0
Yeah, it's only by the grace of the Colonial army being so well equipped that we beat the poor, rag-tag British back to home. And those Iraqis sure are doing pretty well with small arms and stolen/smuggled/scavenged munitions.

The argument is not at all ridiculous. However, many gun owners are, which helps make it seem that way.

And because there's no current credible threat of an amphibious or aerial invasion of the US at the moment doesn't mean there never was or never will be again (especially with the ascendence of China and a renewed Russia), so I don't see why that thread of argument really goes anywhere, either.

As far as anyone "needing" a specific gun, the legal onus is not on the citizen to prove a need, but for the government to prove a public interest in regulation. Obviously, there's a pretty good case for some sort of reasonable-person standard regulation...the debate is what's "reasonable" in this case, which is why we have debate, legistlation, and judicial review.

Anyhow, once Skynet becomes self-aware, you will all get the point.
Iraq and Colonial America didn't have nuclear capabilities, which is such a major game changer. Russia and China aren't threats because, again, of nuclear weapons. We spend 10 times what Russia does on the military.

China represents a much larger economic threat, but not a military one.

My thread of argument revolves around that any military threat comes in the form of nuclear winter, not from the land, sea, or air.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
10,221
237
chez moi
OK, sure, I agree that nukes would be the worst of all. That doesn't somehow obviate other threats.

If being shot sucks, that doesn't make being stabbed hurt any less, or make it less likely.
 

FlyinPolack

Monkey
Jul 16, 2007
371
0
China represents a much larger economic threat, but not a military one.

My thread of argument revolves around that any military threat comes in the form of nuclear winter, not from the land, sea, or air.
China is currently building the biggest army the world has ever seen, who the **** do you think they'll aim it at?

I love the "can't happen here" attitude from most Americans. We aren't as strong as many seem to think we are, & I just hope we never have to find out the hard way..
 

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,640
4
SF, CA
We aren't as strong as many seem to think we are
Then what the **** have we been spending all this money on?

If you're telling me we have spent as much as the rest of the world combined on military and defense for the last 50 years, and we're "not that strong" then the DoD has some serious explaining to do.

Go back to Iraq part 1. We routed the 3rd largest army in the world in a couple of weeks. Iraq part 2, we routed their military in a matter of days. All while maintaining a domestic presence and numerous other major international presences.

China is growing, Russia is reinvesting in military. Neither of them are YET a credible threat. When they start getting closer (like say 20% of our size), maybe we can start reinvesting. Spending now is wasting money on equipment that will be obsolete by the time we need it and could be spent suring up our infrastructure so we actually have an economy to pay for a war. Additionally, until those two start getting a little closer, our own government and people are greater threats to us.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
5
Speak for yourself, pussy.
he may be onto something: Lawsuit filed in defence of Marine vet’s anti-Islam decals
Ann Arbor, Nov 13, 2008 / 06:56 am (CNA).- A Marine veteran whose anti-terrorist and anti-Islam vehicle decals hindered him in visiting the grave of his fallen son at Arlington National Cemetery has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the military order which rebuked his display of the decals.

Jesse Nieto, a 25-year Marine veteran, served two combat tours in Vietnam. His youngest son, Marc, was one of the seventeen sailors killed in the terrorist bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in October of 2000.

Since 1994 Nieto has been a civilian employee at the Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. In 2001 he began displaying various decals on his vehicle expressing sentiments such as “Remember the Cole, 12 Oct 2000,” “Islam=Terrorism” and “We Died, They Rejoiced.”

On July 31, 2008, two military police officers ticketed Nieto for displaying “offensive material.”
here's the offensive material

**warning** NSFM (not safe for mosque)