Gun sales surge after Obama/DemCongress election

[Little-Acorn]

The funniest part of the article, is the subtitle that points out that Obama wants to ban so-called "assault rifles", and then literally in the same sentence cites his claim that he "supports gun rights".

The doublethink needed to rule as a Democrat today, is clearly in great abundance in the party.

Who can blame ordinary people for stocking up now? The chances that our right to keep and bear arms will be eroded in the near future, are as real as the chances our taxes will be raised by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Even if you don't see an immediate need, buy now while you still can.

------------------------------------

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/11/obama.gun.sales/index.html

Gun sales surge after Obama's election
Gun stores across the country see sales double or triple

Gun store owners and customers fear new restrictions

President-elect favors ban on assault weapons but says he "supports gun rights"

From Kevin Bohn
CNN Senior Producer

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Bernie Conatser has never seen business this good.

The owner of a gun shop in the Washington suburb of Manassas, Virginia, Conatser said sales have doubled or tripled since this time last year.

On Saturday, he said, he did as much business as he would normally do in a week.

"I have been in business for 12 years, and I was here for Y2K, September 11, Katrina," Conatser said, as a steady stream of customers browsed what remained of his stock. "And all of those were big events, and we did notice a spike in business, but nothing on the order of what we are seeing right now."

Weapons dealers in much of the United States are reporting sharply higher sales since Barack Obama won the presidency a week ago.

Buyers and sellers attribute the surge to worries that Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress will move to restrict firearm ownership, despite the insistence of campaign aides that the president-elect supports gun rights and considers the issue a low priority.

According to FBI figures for the week of November 3 to 9, the bureau received more than 374,000 requests for background checks on gun purchasers -- a nearly 49 percent increase over the same period in 2007. Conatser said his store, Virginia Arms Company, has run out of some models -- such as the AR-15 rifle, the civilian version of the military's M-16 -- and is running low on others.

Such assault weapons are among the firearms that gun dealers and customers say they fear Obama will hit with new restrictions, or even take off the market.

Virginia gun owner Kyle Lewandowski said he was buying a .45-caliber pistol to "hedge my bets."

"Every election year, you have to worry about your rights being eroded a little bit at a time," he said. "I also knew, because of the Democrat majority and because of the election, everybody would have the same reaction I did," he added.

[gabosaurus]

If you want a handgun or a hunting rifle, fine. Anything else will be prohibited.
And what is wrong with a national gun registration? You have your car registered.
I would be in favor of a gun license, just like a driver's license. You have to pass a gun safety course first.

By the way, let me remind you that prohibiting guns sales is not a priority of the new administration. The bans will come on ammunition.

[red states rule]

If you want a handgun or a hunting rifle, fine. Anything else will be prohibited.
And what is wrong with a national gun registration? You have your car registered.
I would be in favor of a gun license, just like a driver's license. You have to pass a gun safety course first.

By the way, let me remind you that prohibiting guns sales is not a priority of the new administration. The bans will come on ammunition.

http://gifu.cool.ne.jp/gunnuts/img/gun_control_works2.JPG

[Mr. P]

If you want a handgun or a hunting rifle, fine. Anything else will be prohibited.
And what is wrong with a national gun registration? You have your car registered.
I would be in favor of a gun license, just like a driver's license. You have to pass a gun safety course first.

By the way, let me remind you that prohibiting guns sales is not a priority of the new administration. The bans will come on ammunition.

1. Why prohibit anything else?

2. The differences between gun ownership an driving is clear in the Constitution. Oh, there is no legitimate need for registration.

3. Gun ownership is a right granted by the Constitution..driving is not. See #2

[Little-Acorn]

3. Gun ownership is a right granted by the Constitution..driving is not. See #2

Oops..... but your point is valid. The Const says that our right to own and carry guns can't be restricted or taken away. It doesn't say that about driving.

[namvet]

Gun sales were going up before the election

[gabosaurus]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The second amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms if you are part of a well regulated Militia. Doesn't mention individuals. Doesn't mention private ownership.
Registering guns is not infringing ownership. Providing for safe gun ownership is not infringing. Prohibiting the sale of ammunition is not infringing.

[hjmick]

The second amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms if you are part of a well regulated Militia. Doesn't mention individuals. Doesn't mention private ownership.
Registering guns is not infringing ownership. Providing for safe gun ownership is not infringing. Prohibiting the sale of ammunition is not infringing.

Merriam Webster online dictionary:

Main Entry: mi·li·tia
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈli-shə\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date: 1625

1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service

2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service




According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.



In most instances, it is the citizen member's responsibility to own and maintain his or her own weapon for service in a militia. We see an example of this if we look to Switzerland.

[Little-Acorn]

The second amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms if you are part of a well regulated Militia. Doesn't mention individuals. Doesn't mention private ownership.
Registering guns is not infringing ownership. Providing for safe gun ownership is not infringing. Prohibiting the sale of ammunition is not infringing.

You know, you can set your watch by gabby's posts.

Every time arguments like these get debunked and discredited, you be sure of one thing: After a certain amount of time has gone by, she either forgets what the debunking facts were, or assumes that others will forget. After enough time has gone by, she will re-post her wishful thinking, like clockwork, as though they had never been disproven, and sit there hoping that someone will believe her.

Death, taxes... and gabby's convenient doublethink. Some things never go away. :cheers2:

[red states rule]

The second amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms if you are part of a well regulated Militia. Doesn't mention individuals. Doesn't mention private ownership.
Registering guns is not infringing ownership. Providing for safe gun ownership is not infringing. Prohibiting the sale of ammunition is not infringing.


I am sure that before holding up the liquor store, the criminal will make sure his gun is properly registered with the government - and will make sure his ammo is purchased legally

[gabosaurus]

LittleMan, I have a job. Don't know about you.


1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service

2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Sounds like the National Guard to me. Any of you members of the National Guard? If not, which militia are you part of? When did you organize?

This "definition" tells me nothing at all. Actually, it sounds more like the "citizens groups" proposed by Obama that many of you are upset about.
You are going to have to do better than this.

[Yurt]

The second amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms if you are part of a well regulated Militia. Doesn't mention individuals. Doesn't mention private ownership.
Registering guns is not infringing ownership. Providing for safe gun ownership is not infringing. Prohibiting the sale of ammunition is not infringing.

there are so many threads about this going on right now, so i won't repeat them verbatim, though i suggest you read them...

you do realize that the supreme court has ruled your interpretation is wrong:

District of Columbia v. Heller

[gabosaurus]

The courts have been wrong. You have said so in this forum. Perhaps that ruling will be overturned soon.

[hjmick]

Sounds like the National Guard to me. Any of you members of the National Guard? If not, which militia are you part of? When did you organize?

This "definition" tells me nothing at all. Actually, it sounds more like the "citizens groups" proposed by Obama that many of you are upset about.
You are going to have to do better than this.

The National Guard, to the best of my knowledge, issues weapons to the troops and collects them when a Guardsman's service is complete.

By providing the definition and commonly held explanation of the term "militia" I was attemting to address this portion of your post:


The second amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms if you are part of a well regulated Militia. Doesn't mention individuals. Doesn't mention private ownership.

Again, at the time, and even today in some countries, a militia is comprised of private citizens. The members of a state sanctioned militia are expected to own and maintain their weapons. This being the case, the 2nd takes into account the ownership of guns by private citizens.

How does a militia differ from Obama's proposed civilian national security force?

"We can not continue to rely only on our military to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

Where do you suppose this funding, power, and strength will come from? To achieve a level of power and strength equal to the U.S. military, it will come from the government. To my knowledge, militia's were and are generally volunteers who paid/pay their own way. Think Minutemen, and I don't mean those guys cruising the border.

[Little-Acorn]

The courts have been wrong. You have said so in this forum. Perhaps that ruling will be overturned soon.

HAAAA HAAA HAA HAA HAA.....!! :lol:

You know one of the best results of the DC v. Heller case?

Liberals have finally dropped their longtime insistence that "The Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is!"

They got very quiet about that, once the Heller verdict was announced. That alone was worth the price of admission...... :salute:

P.S. Looks like Gabby's found a sucker after all. Now she and hjmick are arguing over who exactly is the militia... and completely ignoring the fact that the 2nd amendment does not base its ban against gun laws, on any kind of militia or military participation at all.

In modern language, the 2nd amendment means, "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted."

Gabby hasn't a leg to stand on. But she's apparently forgotten that. It's only been pointed out on this forum thirty or forty times.

[hjmick]

Nah, I'm done. It's obvious that there will be no agreement between us as to what constitutes a militia. There really is no discussing the issue with those who would deprive others of their constitutional rights. I suspect the 1st will be next.