• Obama Going For Gun Salesmen of the Year - Firearms Sales Surging
    42 replies, posted
[quote]It looks like Fox News is confirming that gun sales have increased dramatically. Reporter Nick Giampia interviewed gun store owner Jay Wallace about the recent surge where Wallace made the claim that they are selling more than 15 rifles per hour. Wallace was also quoted as saying sales have “really kicked up”. Fox also reports in a separate article that sales among the LGBT community is also on the rise. Given the recent blow to the LGBT community I am really glad to see more people becoming interested in firearms. Fox also spoke with a national gun club with strong roots in the LGBT community, The Pink Pistols, who saw its membership more than double in one day. TFB also checked with some of our sources in the industry and found that many distributors are running as much as a week behind in fulfilling dealer orders. We spoke with several large firearm retailer websites that have indicated that their order volume is between 3 and 7 times over the normal volume, with more than one expressing that they saw sales patterns very similar to this in 2008, 2012, and in 2015. One dealer even reported selling 7,000 AR-15s per day since Sunday, a massive increase over normal sales patterns.[/quote] [url=http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/06/16/reports-gun-sales-surging-confirmed/]The Firearm Blog[/url] I can already hear .22LR going $20/50rd box, again. :speechless: Well, guess I'll settle for a .177 Air Rifle for my plinking for a bit, because shits gonna get expensive pretty quickly.
I have no doubt that gun sales are on the rise, like they are after [i]literally ever major shooting[/i], but this is a blog article that cites [I]literally nothing but FOX News.[/i] Why not just post the original FOX News articles, instead of a random firearms blog? Also, your title has nothing to do with the article - you editorialized it for no reason at all. The original title on the blog is "Reports Of Gun Sales Surging Confirmed." Obama isn't selling them. Why editorialize it?
Nothing big has happened yet congress wise. My shop we've seen a rise in sales, but it's been all random stuff. Less than a handful of people came in to buy black rifles. Still, my distributors ran out of most ARs the day of, and they've inflated the cost. If something similar to the AWB hits congress, even if it has no chance to pass, thats when youll really see prices spike. [editline]20th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=.Isak.;50553956]I have no doubt that gun sales are on the rise, like they are after [i]literally ever major shooting[/i], but this is a blog article that cites [I]literally nothing but FOX News.[/i] Why not just post the original FOX News articles, instead of a random firearms blog? Also, your title has nothing to do with the article - you editorialized it for no reason at all. The original title on the blog is "Reports Of Gun Sales Surging Confirmed." Obama isn't selling them. Why editorialize it?[/QUOTE] "Obama is the best gun salesmen" is a tongue in cheek reference to whenever he speaks about guns sales spike. Pretending there wasn't a shooting if he came out today and said I'm going to ban AR-15 I can guarantee you sales would spike.
Why would people get rifles as a response to a mass shooting? wouldn't small firearms be more preferable? Since you can conceal them for the chance a shooting takes place. Rifle on the other hand would be ideal to do a mass shooting with.
[QUOTE=Deljade;50554225]Why would people get rifles as a response to a mass shooting? wouldn't small firearms be more preferable? Since you can conceal them for the chance a shooting takes place. Rifle on the other hand would be ideal to do a mass shooting with.[/QUOTE] They're probably buying everything. People who are on the fence about buying a gun are going to buy it if they think the opportunity will disappear.
I made some recent firearm purchases. I'm afraid if I don't get what I want now they'll get banned and I'll never get them. It's not a blind fear because they passed the SafeAct overnight and plenty of people woke as potential felons. Considering all the dumb gun control legislation they're talking pushing and the fact that Obama is going to be gone in a year this is the perfect time to actually fist that stuff through the system and sign some more bullshit AWB's into effect. If the Feddies don't do it than my State probably will. And if Hillary gets elected at the end of the road than that's it. It's all over for us.
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;50554340]I made some recent firearm purchases. I'm afraid if I don't get what I want now they'll get banned and I'll never get them. It's not a blind fear because they passed the SafeAct overnight and plenty of people woke as potential felons. Considering all the dumb gun control legislation they're talking pushing and the fact that Obama is going to be gone in a year this is the perfect time to actually fist that stuff through the system and sign some more bullshit AWB's into effect. If the Feddies don't do it than my State probably will. And if Hillary gets elected at the end of the road than that's it. It's all over for us.[/QUOTE] Aren't you being a bit over dramatic with the whole "it's all over?" You will still be able to buy guns, your government is to scared to ban them as we have seen time and time again. [quote]On a note, the AWB was completely justified in my opinion, as a civilian why on earth would you need one? Semi auto is completely fine for target shooting, home defence and hunting.[/quote] Sorry, Thought you where referring to an automatic weapons ban. My mistake.
[QUOTE=cherry gmod;50554510]Aren't you being a bit over dramatic with the whole "it's all over?" You will still be able to buy guns, your government is to scared to ban them as we have seen time and time again. Sorry, Thought you where referring to an automatic weapons ban. My mistake.[/QUOTE] Nah, don't you know, Hillary is going to rip that 2nd amendment right out of the constitution the second she gets into office. Grab those guns while you can before the g-men try to haul your family off to the FEMA camps!
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;50554340]If the Feddies don't do it than my State probably will. And if Hillary gets elected at the end of the road than that's it. It's all over for us.[/QUOTE] despite the massive growth of the gun rights movement over the past 40 years into a powerful lobby that has extensively politicized gun regulation and stripped down existing gun control legislation in addition to convincing judges to reinterpret the second amendment in favour of individual rights, somehow the election of Hillary means the end to this?
:pride:"I'm armed and [I]fabulous[/I]!":pride:
[QUOTE=chocolatedrop;50554727]:pride:"I'm armed and [I]fabulous[/I]!":pride:[/QUOTE] damn, how did the pink pistols miss the opportunity to have this as their motto [quote]The Pink Pistols are a gay gun rights organization in the United States and Canada. [B]Their motto is "Pick on someone your own caliber".[/B][1][/quote] thats not nearly as good
I was actually planning on buying a WASR-10 sometime soon, maybe a century arms variant. Noticed that the one I had been looking at in a gun store in town went from 599.99 to 679.99 out of nowhere just after the shooting.
Also kind of annoyed because I went through my last box of .22LR a few days ago, and every store in town is sold out now due to cuntflaps buying every box available
An armed society is a polite society. As long as we consider mental illness and do our best to combat it in a safe and responsible way.
Last time there was a shooting people from Florida were trying to get gun shops in Canada to ship them .223 and .22lr. Then we ran out and were out for about a year.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50554804]Supreme court justice up for grabs. She could easily put an anti-gun judge into the courts.[/QUOTE] But do you really think they'd still try and revoke the 2nd? Do you honest to God think that is something any politician in the USA would actually attempt to do? If most of them are in it for the money as is commonly believed, trying to revoke a right is a one-way ticket to poorsville. Imposing actually meaningful restrictions is a sure-fire way to a diet of Ramen. There's very little chance of a politician actually revoking or seriously regulating it over there. The issue isn't a simple left-right divide after all. There are Democrats both for and against it, as are there Republicans for and against it.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;50554873]But do you really think they'd still try and revoke the 2nd? Do you honest to God think that is something any politician in the USA would actually attempt to do? If most of them are in it for the money as is commonly believed, trying to revoke a right is a one-way ticket to poorsville. Imposing actually meaningful restrictions is a sure-fire way to a diet of Ramen. There's very little chance of a politician actually revoking or seriously regulating it over there. The issue isn't a simple left-right divide after all. There are Democrats both for and against it, as are there Republicans for and against it.[/QUOTE] Politicians? No. Judges? Absolutely. The idea of a living constitution makes the amendment process obsolete for getting good rid of the 2nd amendment through reinterpretation.
[QUOTE=BioWaster;50554807]An armed society is a polite society. As long as we consider mental illness and do our best to combat it in a safe and responsible way.[/QUOTE] Funny that the party most in favor of unrestricted gun access is the one actively opposing widespread healthcare reform that would help cure the mental health issue in our society. More guns doesn't fix anything. Fear is a profit multiplier for manufacturers. I have nothing against guns - I'd just like to see them treated the same as vehicles. Title, license, training process, and inspection. All that's neededed, plus judge-officiated blacklists to prevent Mateens from getting their hands on weapons. If you need to prove your capability to use a car, which is far more necessary for everyday life than a gun ever will be, you should need to prove your capability to be trusted with a gun. The federal government can regulate commerce - gun commerce should be regulated. I don't know how that can be argued against. AWBs are dumb and reactionary - but how can people be opposed to fair and responsible background checks and licensing systems other than irrational fears that the gubmint gone take my guns?
[QUOTE=Deljade;50554225]Why would people get rifles as a response to a mass shooting? wouldn't small firearms be more preferable? Since you can conceal them for the chance a shooting takes place. Rifle on the other hand would be ideal to do a mass shooting with.[/QUOTE] Idiots rush out to spend their childrens college fund because they think the gun stores are gonna be closed up when obama bans all the guns. You'd think after the last 20 or so shootings they'd stop but no it happens each time
[QUOTE=BioWaster;50554807]An armed society is a polite society. As long as we consider mental illness and do our best to combat it in a safe and responsible way.[/QUOTE] Mental health reform, in any meaningful way would require a national healthcare system, which is dead on arrival because of the same people calling for it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50554882]Politicians? No. Judges? Absolutely. The idea of a living constitution makes the amendment process obsolete for getting good rid of the 2nd amendment through reinterpretation.[/QUOTE] The Cruikshank decision in 1876 already defined the legal precedent that the right to bear arms is not defended by the constitution. This was 140 years ago. The idea that the second amendment defines the right of [i]anyone[/i] to bear arms hasn't existed since Heller in 2008. The "living constitution" argument is the reason the second amendment fight is around. It's been expanded since then - the legal precedent that the Second Amendment exists for more than organized state militias is very recent and is a consequence of the "living constitution" idea that you always criticize in these threads. I agree with these interpretations - and I don't want to see gun rights stripped away either. Limitations and regulations that make sense, unlike the AWB? Absolutely necessary. Give each gun title and registration to a specific owner, require a federally-certified training course to purchase a gun (just like driver's ed), and you still have open gun access without the absurdity of a gun being easier to buy than a motorcycle. Why is that bad?
[QUOTE=sgman91;50554882]Politicians? No. Judges? Absolutely. The idea of a living constitution makes the amendment process obsolete for getting good rid of the 2nd amendment through reinterpretation.[/QUOTE] Okay, but that needs a majority agreement to actually happen correct? Even if there are more Democrat justices than Republican, what are the possibilities they all walk the exact same party line? The Supreme Court Justices seem pretty autonomous, doing whatever the fuck they want rather than what the other branches of government are asking. They don't need to play by a party playbook as it's a lifetime service if they don't step down. And a quick Google search tells me only one Justice has ever been removed by force (legally).
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50554887]Funny that the party most in favor of unrestricted gun access is the one actively opposing widespread healthcare reform that would help cure the mental health issue in our society. More guns doesn't fix anything. Fear is a profit multiplier for manufacturers. I have nothing against guns - I'd just like to see them treated the same as vehicles. Title, license, training process, and inspection. All that's neededed, plus judge-officiated blacklists to prevent Mateens from getting their hands on weapons. If you need to prove your capability to use a car, which is far more necessary for everyday life than a gun ever will be, you should need to prove your capability to be trusted with a gun. The federal government can regulate commerce - gun commerce should be regulated. I don't know how that can be argued against. AWBs are dumb and reactionary - but how can people be opposed to fair and responsible background checks and licensing systems other than irrational fears that the gubmint gone take my guns?[/QUOTE] I do find that ironic as well. They obviously need to change with the times and include research and background checks into the human psyche, but this is America we're talking about here. At the same time though, fear of a tyrannical government is always a possibility no matter how people try to downplay it and the Obama administration has me questioning their motives every time a shooting happens. I think people fear the possibility of government dictating what the measures of background checks are, they can tell people that they are unstable or whatever reason and then not allow them to have their guns. muh guns
[QUOTE=BioWaster;50554937]I do find that ironic as well. They obviously need to change with the times and include research and background checks into the human psyche, but this is America we're talking about here. At the same time though, fear of a tyrannical government is always a possibility no matter how people try to downplay it and the Obama administration has me questioning their motives every time a shooting happens. I think people fear the possibility of government dictating what the measures of background checks are, they can tell people that they are unstable or whatever reason and then not allow them to have their guns. muh guns[/QUOTE] And that's one of the advantages of the two-party system. One party can keep the other in check. If you think a Democrat-majority house would push to ban guns... It won't happen. No doubt there are people who want a total ban, but the vast majority just want common-sense regulation. Cooperation between both parties can net satisfactory regulation that won't allow "the gubmint" to steal any guns. If our legislature hadn't forgotten how to compromise, we could get that sort of regulation drafted and discussed instead of resorting to weird half tactics like the AWB. If someone is concerned about the government calling them crazy and stealing their guns, and feel that they need their weapons to defend themselves against federal agents in a case like that - they are unstable. An armed revolution against the US government is a laughable reason to think everyone should be armed. If open revolt occurred, and the US become a tyrannical dictatorship, guns wouldn't make a difference in lives lost or remotely sway the battle. That isn't a reality worth thinking about in the first place.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50554882]Politicians? No. Judges? Absolutely. The idea of a living constitution makes the amendment process obsolete for getting good rid of the 2nd amendment through reinterpretation.[/QUOTE] Nevermind the fact that libertarian pro-gun minded judges began to heavily reinterpret the second amendment during the 70s on the basis of "originalism" while ignoring former precedent and the majority of legalscholars actually disagreed with it. The argument that the second amendment protects individual rights to the extent that the gun lobby promotes it is a very recent idea. Loads of judges began to become involved in the politics of it. Make no mistake, the gun political movement heavily influenced judges with modern politics, directly undermining the old conservative originalism by pretending the new decisions weren't political in nature
[QUOTE=Deljade;50554225]Why would people get rifles as a response to a mass shooting? wouldn't small firearms be more preferable? Since you can conceal them for the chance a shooting takes place. Rifle on the other hand would be ideal to do a mass shooting with.[/QUOTE] People are worried about a ban and are deciding to buy them now instead of putting it off til later so they'll be grandfathered in.
It seems deeply hypocritical of people advocating such views of the amendment as the original intended one, yet criticising those drawing upon a different one. Neither of the modern interpretations by either side of the political system are the original and it's incredibly disingenuous to claim that the one supporting your political viewpoint is somehow the apolitical and original position
In the US, a law cannot be enforced against those that would be considered breaking it before the law is enacted; ex post facto.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50554882]Politicians? No. Judges? Absolutely. The idea of a living constitution makes the amendment process obsolete for getting good rid of the 2nd amendment through reinterpretation.[/QUOTE] I'd just like to point out that without the "living constitution" and judicial reinterpretation, none of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights would have the power that they do today. In fact, the Bill of Rights would not even apply to state governments. It's important to note that you're criticizing a basic principle of modern legal thought that for the most part has allowed the expansion of individual liberty.
Was planning on buying an AR or some other black rifle soon, but it wasn't really a priority. This whole debacle has made me move it up my buy list though. A leftist on his way out is enough to worry about, but the possibility of an even more aggressive one on the way in makes it even worse. And with a justice seat up for grabs? Probably the only grabber scare that has any merit, so far. They won't take them all, of course. But they'll pull out the good old democrat definition of compromise and stammering on about "common sense gun reform" and "assault weapons" and other buzzwords and ask us to give up rights little by little in exchange for.... well, nothing, usually. I'd much rather grab a few before that happens, just in case.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.