View Full Version : Gun industry sees spike in sales (Obama "stimulus" bill may include firearms resticti
Gun industry sees spike in sales (Obama "stimulus" bill may include firearms restictions/ammo taxes)
Capital News 9 ^ | January 6, 2009 | Dave Detling
Posted on January 6, 2009 2:09:51 AM
SARATOGA SPRINGS, N.Y. -- Vic Scuderi is loaded with weaponry. His booth is stocked full of customers who are looking to wipe out his arsenal of firearms. It's business he won't shoot down.
"I've probably seen a 25 percent increase in sales from last year," said Scuderi.
While the economy may be wounded, gun dealers say sales are exploding at the annual Arms Fair at the City Center in Saratoga Springs.
"This is my best show ever. I've sold more ammunition and more magazines than I've ever sold, so in that regard it's been a very good show for me," said gun dealer Richard Pelzer.
Vendors here in the Spa City aren't alone. Across the country gun dealers are reporting a huge spike in sales.
Paul Argento noticed the trend back in November.
"I've spoken to a couple of people and in fact right after Obama was elected president there was more less a run on the bank. I mean everybody was out running and buying guns and ammunition for fear that he was going to stop everything," said Argento
It's rumored, as part of his stimulus package, President-Elect Barak Obama may impose stricter regulations on the gun industry when he takes office.
It would include a tax hike on ammunition and the ban on semiautomatic weapons like hunting rifles.
That fear factor has these enthusiasts gobbling up guns.
"Guns are going out of here too but ammunition seems to be at a premium," said Pelzer.
"There's a lot of buzz about prices going up so people are buying now as their budget allows, probably more than they would have in the past," said gun collector Jeff Germain.
While tax talk and gun control are nothing new, this latest threat just means people will have to hunt around for those killer deals.
It would include a tax hike on ammunition and the ban on semiautomatic weapons like hunting rifles.
I am going to take a stab in the dark here and say that most hunters (I am not one) do not hunt with "semiautomatic rifles" but rather with bolt actions and shotguns. Maybe I am missing something. Has anyone else seen or heard anything relating his stimulus package to gun regulation? I know I haven't.
Littlelebowski
01-06-09, 06:02
What is the source of these "rumors?" There's nothing substantive other than panic buying.
In specific areas of NY State it is legal to hunt big game with rifles, including autoloaders. Semi's are very popular there, Saratoga Springs is in such an area.
I can see them trying to add an amendment to a stimulus package, or some other type of bill that absolutely has to pass. They'll want to try to sneak it in with something else, under the radar, to avoid a big debate. They'll look like assholes afterwards, for worrying about gun control while the economy is in the shitter, but by then it will be too late.
Notice I didn't say no one hunts with semi autos. Also, most if us know when they say "semi-automatic rifle" what they really mean are military styled weapons. Basically whoever wrote that article made a SNAFU and probably doesn't know shit from Shinola.
In specific areas of NY State it is legal to hunt big game with rifles, including autoloaders. Semi's are very popular there, Saratoga Springs is in such an area.
nighthawk756
01-06-09, 08:40
Yeah, this is the first I've heard of anything being in his stimulus. But like Rider said...I could see them trying to sneak it in a bill like this one. But surely the NRA would catch it and get the grassroots campaign going in enough time.....I hope.
Yeah that what I'm thinking- NRA should be able to catch it and cause a rukus. But damn thats so shady, if he does try to pull something like that. Get it passed under the "economic panic"
I am afraid that they will put in some form of gun ban in a stimulus package that most every person the senate will vote for. :mad:
C4
CarlosDJackal
01-07-09, 09:25
It would include a tax hike on ammunition and the ban on semiautomatic weapons like hunting rifles.
I am going to take a stab in the dark here and say that most hunters (I am not one) do not hunt with "semiautomatic rifles" but rather with bolt actions and shotguns. Maybe I am missing something. Has anyone else seen or heard anything relating his stimulus package to gun regulation? I know I haven't.
Actually, a lot of people hunt using semi-automatic hunting rifles like the Browning BAR. The AR-15 has gain popularity with Varminters. Remember the whole Jim Zumbo debacle was because he made a comment about how they should not allow the use of "terrorist weapons" for hunting (as a reaction to being told at just how popular AR-15 pattern rifles have become for Varminting).
A lot of bird hunters also like to use semi-automatic shotguns like the Benellis and Remington 1100.
Smells like fear-mongering. I haven't heard any talk in Congress about anything gun-related, much less gun-related and attached to a yet-undefined "stimulus package".
-B
Notice I didn't say no one hunts with semi autos. Also, most if us know when they say "semi-automatic rifle" what they really mean are military styled weapons. Basically whoever wrote that article made a SNAFU and probably doesn't know shit from Shinola.
Reporters are more worried about cramming as many gun related cliches (i.e., the first whole sentence "Vic Scuderi is loaded with weaponry. His booth is stocked full of customers who are looking to wipe out his arsenal of firearms. It's business he won't shoot down.") in the article to actually do any real research.
Bottom line: I wouldn't consider anything below those asshats, so as bills get introduced it'll be up to the firearms community to keep up to speed and be as vigilant and vocal as possible.
Frankly I'm tired of this "new ban is coming, on noes!" attitude. New legislation may certainly be coming -- but legislation isn't law until it's passed. We all know Obama and his ilk would like to ban our stuff. So what? Ultimately, they can't do it unless we let them...
I thought about this post today- I rescind my initial statement about believing that Obama would do something like that.
He WONT. Why? Because the media has hyped this "economic crisis" to the sky- so naturally the media believing citizens now believe that the US is on the brink of an economic disaster. He needs to pass a stimulus package fast so he needs the support of the GOP and Dems- so by sticking in pet projects (like the ban) will only increase the chances of his bill failing in the House/ Senate.
Not going to happen yet. Like I've said before, it will, but only after some of the current events cool off. That may only happen in a year. But by that time, certain members of congress wont want to touch an issue like this because of their own re-election bid coming up by years end. If no asshole shoots something up in the next year I really dont see anything until his 3rd year, and only if things in the US are calm (think of the climate in 93 or 94)
Business_Casual
01-07-09, 13:35
Please set out exactly how he needs any GOP votes whatsoever? Democrats have majorities in both houses and on January 20th will have the White House.
M_P
And if I deposit the check, how is anyone going to prove how I spent that "Stimulus" money. Who knows what part is "Stimulus" and what isn't in my account. The "Stimulus" was spent on food.
So how would they tell what you spent it on? :confused:
You can always rob Peter to pay Paul. :eek:
thopkins22
01-08-09, 00:27
I remember a port security bill that very few politicians had the balls to vote against, that involved pretty stringent internet gambling restrictions.
If a stimulus bill that also restricts the 2a does come up, it will no doubt be called the "Prosperity and Liberty Act." How they get away with this crap is beyond me.
Unfortunately, we kind of already "let them" by putting certain people into power. If anyone makes fun of California again because of Gov. Schwarzenegger, laugh it up because the new joke is going to be Al Franken in Minnesota. How do you think he feels about guns? If they pull some rotten crap to insert gun control into an economic plan to help all of those beleaguered souls you can bet they will do it, because in the end someone will value that more than our right to own certain types of firearms.
Of course, this is all speculation at this point, but they American public and our politicians have already shown us enough.
Bottom line: I wouldn't consider anything below those asshats, so as bills get introduced it'll be up to the firearms community to keep up to speed and be as vigilant and vocal as possible.
Frankly I'm tired of this "new ban is coming, on noes!" attitude. New legislation may certainly be coming -- but legislation isn't law until it's passed. We all know Obama and his ilk would like to ban our stuff. So what? Ultimately, they can't do it unless we let them...
I've never quite understood how many people have thought Obama would just sort of hang on for awhile before pushing his anti-gun agenda. This emergency stimulus bill is exactly how to get an otherwise unpalatable agenda passed with a minimum of fuss.
I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the addition of pork to every bill that gets passed in congress. The public isn't usually even aware of these add-ons to the bills, just what the main bill is. It's only later that you find out that 7 million dollars was approved for the study of whether or not it takes longer for women to use a public restroom than men. That would never get passed on its own, but attach it to a bill to help inner-city youth in some way and that puppy just flies through congress.
Now attach a few anti-gun riders onto the economic stimulus bill quietly and, BOOM, it's through before America even knows what hit it. And if the pro-gun dems or republicans make a stink then it will be portrayed that they were against the economic stimulus package, NOT the anti-gun pork associated with it.
Not saying it will go down that way, I'm just saying it very easily could.
Gutshot John
01-08-09, 08:57
I've never quite understood how many people have thought Obama would just sort of hang on for awhile before pushing his anti-gun agenda. This emergency stimulus bill is exactly how to get an otherwise unpalatable agenda passed with a minimum of fuss.
Uhm no. "Sneaking" in legislation would not only NOT work, but would result in considerable fuss. Any future AWB will be stand-alone legislation that would be debated openly, any attempt to end-run around this political reality will result in subsequent Democratic defeat in 2010. Sorry but Democrats aren't that stupid. They are politicians and the first rule of politics is to get re-elected.
Obama will "hang on" because there are political realities that need to be considered. Sneaking in such legislation would destroy what little political capital he has built with House/Senate Republicans.
Sorry but the democratic process works, often in our favor. Obama isn't a dictator and he doesn't get to just wave his hand and create law.
PS. I'd like to hear if anyone can name any piece of anti-gun legislation that was "snuck" into another bill like a stimulus bill to become law.
Unfortunately, we kind of already "let them" by putting certain people into power.
That's true, and while I have no doubt that more attempts at bans are headed our way (the timing is debatable), I just think too many people have accepted a ban and given up, and are now either trying to get theirs while they can, or get enough to try and profit off of a ban later. I've got no beef with anyone trying to get what they need in the short term, as long as they're also fighting to ensure it stays available in the long term.
It's not over till it's passed House and Senate and signed. Until then, the fight is on.
That's true, and while I have no doubt that more attempts at bans are headed our way (the timing is debatable), I just think too many people have accepted a ban and given up, and are now either trying to get theirs while they can, or get enough to try and profit off of a ban later. I've got no beef with anyone trying to get what they need in the short term, as long as they're also fighting to ensure it stays available in the long term.
It's not over till it's passed House and Senate and signed. Until then, the fight is on.
+1, I want to be able to continue this hobby!
variablebinary
01-08-09, 09:50
I think this will be tougher than people think. Personally, I just dont see good old boys letting a black man ban anything. It just will not go over well, and could get real nasty.
Bill Clinton was one of "them" and the last ban happened before the age of information so to some degree it was probably easier to get it passed.
A Chicago Liberal Black male telling all the free Mid-western and Southern states to give up the 2nd just seems like an ugly confrontation waiting to happen.
variable,
I never looked at the racial factor of this equation, but you may be right. There are still alot of people with different attitudes and thoughts about certain groups of people and they may see this is a personal attack. In any case we should maintain our vigilance.
I think this will be tougher than people think. Personally, I just dont see good old boys letting a black man ban anything. It just will not go over well, and could get real nasty.
Bill Clinton was one of "them" and the last ban happened before the age of information so to some degree it was probably easier to get it passed.
A Chicago Liberal Black male telling all the free Mid-western and Southern states to give up the 2nd just seems like an ugly confrontation waiting to happen.
Uhm no. "Sneaking" in legislation would not only NOT work, but would result in considerable fuss.
I'm just going to give some quick examples of my point.
Let's use the recent bailout bill.
Here's a relevant link: Critics say bailout bill stuffed with billions in pork. (http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/03/1489413.aspx)
"This is unfortunately how Washington works," said Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "Lawmakers piled billions of dollars of pork into the bailout bill and dared detractors to vote against it. Many of these provisions are tax provisions that benefit narrow interests that have been waiting to hop on a legislative train that was leaving Washington."
The bold type is almost word for word exactly what I said in my post.
Here's just ten of the ridiculous pork add-ons in the bill that you may or may not have been aware of: Link (http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&type=Project&proj_id=1429&action=Headlines%20By%20TCS)
The following are some of the top tax sweeteners in the Senate passed Bailout Bill. Not all the provisions are per se outrageous, but collectively are intended to help Congressional leadership get final passage of the 2008 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.
1. Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children
Current law places an excise tax of 39 cents on the first sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of any shaft of a type used to produce certain types of arrows. This proposal would exempt from the excise tax any shaft consisting of all natural wood with no laminations or artificial means to enhance the spine of the shaft used in the manufacture of an arrow that measures 5/16 of an inch or less and is unsuited for use with a bow with a peak draw weight of 30 pounds or more. The proposal is effective for shafts first sold after the date of enactment. The estimated cost of the proposal is $2 million over ten years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
The Oregon senators were the initial sponsors of the provisions. According to Bloomberg News, the provision would be worth $200,000 to Rose City Archery in Myrtle Point, Oregon.
2. Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility
Track owners want to be able write-off the cost of their facilities on their taxes over seven years - a depreciation timetable many of them have used for decades. But the IRS has wanted to stretch it to at least 15 years and has raised questions whether the increasingly popular tracks really belong in the same tax category as amusement parks.
Auto track owners are simply trying to get out of paying more taxes - which they'd have to do if they deducted less every year. These owners have gotten plenty of tax breaks over the years from states and localities eager to get speedways. The provision would be extended 2 years till the end of 2009 and would cost $100 million. The provision encompasses all facilities including grandstands, parking lots and concession stands.
3. Sec. 308. Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
Extends until December 31, 2009 a rebate against excise taxes charged on rum imported from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. A $13.50 per proof gallon excise tax is applied to distilled spirits imported to the U.S. Under this provision a $13.25 rebate is returned to PR and the VI, and is retroactive back to January 1, 2008. Permanent law sets the rebate at $10.50 per proof gallon, but the PR and VI provisions have generally been in place since the first Clinton Administration. The most recent extension of the $13.50 rebate expired January 1, 2008. Cost is $192 million.
4. Sec. 301. Extension and modification of research credit
The legislation reestablishes and extends the lucrative tax credit for companies doing research and experimentation in the United States. Companies that have benefited from this provision include Microsoft Corp., Boeing Co., United Technologies Corp., Electronic Data Systems Corp. and Harley-Davidson. The two-year extension is estimated to cost $19 billion.
5. Sec. 504. Income averaging for amounts received in connection with the Exxon Valdez litigation
The bailout bill would give a tax break to Exxon Valdez plaintiffs, allowing them to average out their punitive damages awards over three years rather than suffer a one-time tax hit from the Internal Revenue Service, as well as other provisions. Rep. Don Young (R-AK) is a big supporter of this provision. Cost is estimated at $49 million.
6. Sec. 601. Secure rural schools and community self-determination program.
Secure Rural Schools lead sponsors Reps. DeFazio (D-OR), Bill Sali (R-ID); Sens. Wyden (D-OR), Larry Craig (R-ID), are major boosters of this program that expired in 2006. In 1908 the federal government agreed to share logging revenue from Forest Service land with neighboring communities that could not tax the land because it was federal. As logging declined in the 1990s, the "county payments" program was initiated in 2000 to directly provide federal funding, more than half going to Oregon, to deal with the loss of revenue. The original version of this provision was introduced as a bill in early 2007 and was estimated to cost $2.2 billion when the OR and ID delegations came to agreement. To give the package more heft, Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) was added to the package, bringing the total cost to $3.3 billion. PILT provides more general funding to counties for federal lands located within their borders. Sen. Reid (D-NV) talked about the PILT program being one of the important elements of the package when the Senate passed the bailout bill.
7. Sec. 201. Deduction for state and local sales taxes
Allows residents of states that don’t pay income tax to deduct, from their federal taxes, sales tax paid over the course of the year. States that benefit include Texas, Nevada, Florida, Washington and Wyoming. The bailout bill extends this provision for 2 years at a cost of $3.3 billion.
8. Sec 502. Provisions related to film and television productions
In an effort to keep film and television productions in the U.S, they would be eligible for a tax incentive program. Under this program, the cost of production of qualifying films would be permitted to be immediately expensed -- that is, fully deducted from income for tax purposes -- in the year the expenditures occur. This provision also makes permanent other favorable tax treatments for production. Historically Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA) has been a supporter (dating from its creation in the 2004 corporate tax bill). The cost is estimated at $478 million over 10 years.
9. Sec. 325. Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products; wool research fund; wool duty refunds
The tariff relief (duty savings) is intended to benefit U.S. worsted wool fabric producers that use imported fibers and yarns as inputs, as well as U.S. tailored clothing manufacturers that use imported fabrics as inputs. This provision was originally introduced as a bill in December 2007 by Reps. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Melissa Bean (D-IL). It extends current law provisions until 12/31/14, and in some cases to12/31/15. The 2010 to 2015 cost is estimated to be $148 million.
10. Sec. 309. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa
This extends by two years a previously approved tax credit, the American Samoa economic development credit. In general, this credit allows certain corporations operating in American Samoa a tax credit. The possessions tax credit allows these corporations to offset a portion of their U.S. tax liability on income earned in American Samoa from active business operations, sales of assets used in a business, or certain investments in American Samoa. The cost is $33 million, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Now maybe you read the whole text of the bill but I'm betting you didn't know about any of these items before the bill passed. You may have heard about the wooden arrow one after the bill was passed.
My only point in my post was that even the members of congress don't know everything that's attached to these major bills because they are buried in so much legal-ese. That's why there is such a rush to pass a big sweeping bill so quickly after a new President takes office, so only the drafters of the bill will actually know everything contained in it.
There doesn't have to be an AWB attached to this bill to affect you, me, and anyone else who shoots. Maybe it's something as innocent as a federal per round ammunition tax or something else that is likely to get in under the radar.
There may be nothing at all firearms related in the bill. In fact PROBABLY there will be nothing firearms related in the bill. It is a hot button topic, after all. Then again, I wouldn't have guessed there was a wooden arrow provision in the banking bailout bill either. You are right, the democratic process works...BEFORE a bill is passed. It's always easier to ask forgiveness than permission so make sure you've contacted your senators and representatives letting them know that if something is attached to this bill which is firearms related you'll be very disappointed with them. Or just wait and see what happens. That's when democracy DOESN'T work.
BTW, if nothing else, look at the dollar amounts associated with each of those 10 "sweeteners". $3.3 BILLION for just one of them.
Centerfire
01-08-09, 11:57
Now is the time to write your states elected officials and ask them how they intend to vote if such a bill does try to pass (not doubt that it will). Let them know that your vote and possibly there re-election depends on it. Now is the time for us right wingers to organize and make sure leftist nuts are NOT back in office in 2010 or 2012. Lets do this right this time!
Thanks for posting that. You have exemplified exactly why we can't trust 99% of the weasels up on the Hill. Even in these times these turds are milking the American public. Oh yeah, and let's not forget they also gave themselves a raise recently if I recall. Well done, shitbags!
BTW, if nothing else, look at the dollar amounts associated with each of those 10 "sweeteners". $3.3 BILLION for just one of them.
Gutshot John
01-08-09, 13:08
Again while non-controversial pork spending may be snuck in (since everyone gets their own slice of the pie).
Sneaking in something like an AWB is an entirely different matter. Again if it was that easy to do, they would have tried it already.
Politics is like gravity, you can't ignore its laws. It's unlikely we have anyting to fear from Obama until he doesn't have to worry about re-election.
By all means, we should be vigilant, but the chances of sneaking in back-door gun control through the current stimulus legislation is somewhere between slim and none. And slim just left town.
To even try it without substantial and transparent debate would result in electoral disaster in 2010 and honestly not even the Dems are that stupid even if I sometimes wish they were.
I'm just going to give some quick examples of my point.
Let's use the recent bailout bill.
Here's a relevant link: Critics say bailout bill stuffed with billions in pork. (http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/03/1489413.aspx)
The bold type is almost word for word exactly what I said in my post.
Here's just ten of the ridiculous pork add-ons in the bill that you may or may not have been aware of: Link (http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&type=Project&proj_id=1429&action=Headlines%20By%20TCS)
Now maybe you read the whole text of the bill but I'm betting you didn't know about any of these items before the bill passed. You may have heard about the wooden arrow one after the bill was passed.
My only point in my post was that even the members of congress don't know everything that's attached to these major bills because they are buried in so much legal-ese. That's why there is such a rush to pass a big sweeping bill so quickly after a new President takes office, so only the drafters of the bill will actually know everything contained in it.
There doesn't have to be an AWB attached to this bill to affect you, me, and anyone else who shoots. Maybe it's something as innocent as a federal per round ammunition tax or something else that is likely to get in under the radar.
There may be nothing at all firearms related in the bill. In fact PROBABLY there will be nothing firearms related in the bill. It is a hot button topic, after all. Then again, I wouldn't have guessed there was a wooden arrow provision in the banking bailout bill either. You are right, the democratic process works...BEFORE a bill is passed. It's always easier to ask forgiveness than permission so make sure you've contacted your senators and representatives letting them know that if something is attached to this bill which is firearms related you'll be very disappointed with them. Or just wait and see what happens. That's when democracy DOESN'T work.
That's true, and while I have no doubt that more attempts at bans are headed our way (the timing is debatable), I just think too many people have accepted a ban and given up, and are now either trying to get theirs while they can, or get enough to try and profit off of a ban later. I've got no beef with anyone trying to get what they need in the short term, as long as they're also fighting to ensure it stays available in the long term.
It's not over till it's passed House and Senate and signed. Until then, the fight is on.
This is exactly the feeling that I get as well from reading TOS and some other boards. I see topics like 'will this bee legel when uder teh ban?' and think to myself, oy gevalt, am I the only one who realizes that there isn't even a current proposed ban, much less an actual one?
Also, the last bill proposed didn't have a single democracts name on it. It was entirely republicans.
lovetashoot
01-08-09, 14:51
Is not the reason that we have the second amendment to prevent the erosion of our liberties-one of which is granted via the second amendment. I don't see much discussion of exercising the second amendment for its intended purpose. I am in no way suggesting civil rebellion. But isn't an oppressed citizenry supposed to do that? However, if by majority of vote, legislators are put in place per the dictates of our constitution and subsequent laws are enacted that rescind certain "privileges" (and i use the term lightly) am I not supposed to accept that as well? The constitution was written for a dynamic democracy and society. American to the core. But want to be a good American. Whatever that entails.
To quote Mr. Obama , when asked about the return of the AWB: " We can't get there-- not enough votes".
Remington 742 is a great little semi-auto hunting rifle.
To quote Mr. Obama , when asked about the return of the AWB: " We can't get there-- not enough votes".
When was he quoted saying that? Recently?
To quote Mr. Obama , when asked about the return of the AWB: " We can't get there-- not enough votes".
The 'magic' number to get anything passed is 217 or 219, the Dems control 236 seats so have about 17 votes to 'play with'.
Now you have the Blue Dog Democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition) which "many are strong supporters of gun rights and receive high ratings from the National Rifle Association" given the groups Southern Roots. If you figure that maybe 30 of them are Pro-Gun that leaves the AWB needing 13 votes from Repubs.
The other wild card, as Gut Shot has pointed out is that this is a VERY volatile issue now. One then needs to figure that there are Dems not in that Caucus who are also Pro-Gun (FL has a couple Democrat Reps who get A from NRA and GOA and are not listed in the Caucus).
On the Senate side, figure the same thing. And more importantly there is a good chance that Reid will vote NAY on the AWB like he did in 94 and for its Re-authorization. He may not be a model Pro-2A Senator, but he has a bit of a Pro-2A voting record. Not stellar but miles ahead of someone like Kennedy or Schumer or Feinstein.
As some have said, the main job of a politician is to get elected and many realize voting for the AWB they can kiss re-election goodbye, especially those from the South and Midwestern states.
the new joke is going to be Al Franken in Minnesota. How do you think he feels about guns? Well, I spoke to him early in the process, before any votes or recounts. I was very clear about where I was coming from and what my concerns were. Al would only repeat the party line "we won't take your guns . . . senisible gun control. . . . blah, blah, blah" Would not commit to leaving things alone or voting against AWB or over turning Shall Issue. Admittedly most of my concern is regarding carry laws, however.
A Chicago Liberal Black male telling all the free Mid-western and Southern states to give up the 2nd just seems like an ugly confrontation waiting to happen. This just made me laugh. Downstate IL is like a whole different state than Chicago, yet their corruption, tax abuse, civil rights abuses & all that jazz has been squarely on the shoulders of downstate Illinoisans for longer than I have been alive. For crying out loud they couldn't even get this last Chicago governor to come down to the State Capitol of IL to govern.
Chicago style hot dogs are good, Chicago style pizza is pretty good too, Chicago style government is what this country is about to be served and lemme tell ya, having grown up in downstate, ya'll are in for an education in abuse and corruption.
diving dave
01-10-09, 14:48
What I worry the most about in regards to an AWB is that someone, somewhere, will go bonkers with a gun..With folks losing jobs and homes, I think someone will flip. Thats when gun control, with the big help of the media, will push up front and center. Obama wont have to do anything, except sign the bill as it slides across his desk. I pray it wont happen, but thats what I see as the perfect storm thats coming.
When was he quoted saying that? Recently?
September 2008: http://ontapblog.com/2008/09/05/barack-obama-wants-to-take-your-guns-away/
Heavy Metal
01-10-09, 15:54
What is the source of these "rumors?" There's nothing substantive other than panic buying.
Gun restricitons would come out of Judicary, the stimulus bill would come out of Ways and Means. Rules tend to preclude non-tax and spending items from beling included in tax and spending bills.
Remember, the 94AWB was part of the crime bill, not a spending bill.
Ammo tax, mabey but highly unlikely. Gun ban, no, not a spending bill.
Maybe , maybe not:
What I worry the most about in regards to an AWB is that someone, somewhere, will go bonkers with a gun..With folks losing jobs and homes, I think someone will flip. Thats when gun control, with the big help of the media, will push up front and center. Obama wont have to do anything, except sign the bill as it slides across his desk. I pray it wont happen, but thats what I see as the perfect storm thats coming.
There have been a number of mass public shootings or attempts in the last few years: Examples include Virginia Tech, a mall shooting ( in a gun-free zone ) , and of course the Colorado Springs church situation that Jeanne Assam rectified.
The gun-grabbers got no real national level gun ban traction out of any of those incidents. The NICS Improvement Act did no harm (IMO) to the 2nd Amendment cause: too many due process safeguards were added to the bill.
We are still winning.
:cool:
cronus5116
01-10-09, 21:26
I went to sportsmans warehouse this friday, the last time I went was about maybe two to four months earlier, and there was ammo everywhere and the dislplay and back wall were full ( 98% capacity ) when I went this friday they only had two automatic pistols and five or six revolvers in the display ( that usually holds about fifteen auto's on one side and twelve revolvers on the other the back wall that holds a sh%@#load of autos and revolvers, was pretty bare maybe twelve to fourteen guns, there was hardly any pistol ammo ammo ( a box of 25 G.A.P. and a box of 10mm I think). My point is that ever since Obama was elected people saw the end of the world, I think that people need to not act like fools and buy up thousands and thousands of rounds of ammo because of rummors, I dont think it will get any worse than when Clinton was in office, of course I could be wrong and ammo goes up 400% like I heard someone say, but I thik=nk people need to chill a bit and not go nuts, that said the dems are in power, with a majority in the senate, and a democratic president so we might be screwed, but I think there should be a fair warning if it really looks like any major gun bill is about to be passed, then I think people can buy up all the ammo in the world :D.
But like I said I think there will be some restrictions like in the clinton years, I just dont think anything MAJOR.
Should be fair warning. .. . slides over to shoulda been fair warning in a pretty painful hurry (think, no lube). . . . I think I have picked up the most important arms and wish I had more ammo, but I have enough. You get too much and it gets hard to move around, stock too much ammo and they just back a truck up to your joint and take it after the "no knock". Course they don't have to convict you, they'll just be holding it for your safety.
We can pat each other on the back and say it won't be that bad & it'll be a consolation to some that their buddies got "pants" by the thugs too. I told my wife today that I'll probably be branded a traitor before I am called a patriot, but by God I love the U.S. Constitution, the Flag and the Republic. The folks that are saying that the new AWB and other acts of treason by our elected, won't be snuck in are probably pretty right on. The media has been angling for the past 1/2 dozen weeks, from Dr Phil doing a show on the Utah Mall Shooter, to the almost capper of some dumb neo-nazi wannabes . . . a shooting here a shooting there, remember that aweful shooting 4 years ago next thursday "lets do a follow up expose". .. the media is sitting ready to herd the sheeple. When it goes through, it will go right through the front door and become a brutal reflection of IL's racist/ elitist freedom suppression laws.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.