65,376,373 guns sold during Obama's term and still counting!

page: 15
14
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 12:36 AM
link   
That number is incorrect, I just bought me a Glock this afternoon, make it
65,376,374
=)




posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Ya I'll just say ...........I'm taking the 5th on this one...and I 2nd this !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Xtrozero
 

i can account for 1

it was before his 2nd election tho, so i'm not sure it really counts.


I got a 380 for concealed about 6 months ago. My wife loves it...


I just picked up a Mossberg 500 and a high end 300 blackout AR from my FFL today...well I also have 80 30 rounds mags...hehe So I'm sure they count or just add +2 today to the total.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


And that doesn't count private sales either.

This is just more evidence that the vote was a sham IMO. A lot of people who did not have weapons before or maybe only had one or two weapons like Grandpas old shotgun or .22 are buying weapons like battle rifles and glocks etc. I find it hard to believe a majority of Americans actually voted for this ass clown...

edit on 13-2-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Yup, the NRA launched a very good propaganda campaign to satisfy their gun corporation overlords.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   
This makes me sick! You America make me sick. Go jump of a bridge!



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by abeverage
 

What I honestly lack here is any link between Obama, Biden and any gun interests for money. Unlike Darth Vader and his ties back to Halliburton under Bush, there aren't any clear links here.

That leaves me doubting any deliberate move here to run up gun sales. Quite the opposite, I think the higher sales drive people like Obama and Feinstein insane as they see each number as another to have to get BACK some day.

Who knows tho.... games within game, eh?



I see plans within plans...



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I have to say something about this fantasy notion of a "gun show loophole" as it's come to be called. As the number this thread is directly based on is, in no small part, a product of gun show commerce, it's certainly relevant.

There IS NO Gun Show "loophole"

The "loophole", as anyone might call it that in the first place, is that private citizens who do not sell guns as a business or regular activity can sell a firearm to another citizen they have no reason to believe cannot own one legally. In other words, a Father can sell to a son, siblings to each other or I could sell a gun of mine to a neighbor, so long as I have no good faith reason to believe he can't buy it.

That isn't a loophole, that's called freedom in America and I'm a little annoyed with the determination to see it regulated away from us. If successful, the chilling effect of Federal Regulations down into the gun show market, while improving the commercial aspects of removing cheap competition, would badly impact the overall activity.

Video Evidence of ...what?

In too many cases, the dealers who they choose to approach and then who they choose as part of their presentation, DO make the sale. That *IS* a problem.

That isn't a problem with the law though. The law already makes it a federal crime to sell a firearm to someone you have any reason to think cannot legally own one or who is circumventing the retail background check for any reason. It already *IS* a crime. The video shows me we obviously can't enforce our OWN laws as they stand now.

Adding more laws to a situation where the biggest problem is simply enforcing what has already been passed is absurd.


I would contend that we are unable to enforce that particular law because it is based on "opinion"...which is virtually impossible to legislate or enforce. Rather than have a law with such vague and unenforcable criteria as "reason to think", why wouldn't we simply expand the current background check system to private sales and transfers? If that is too intrusive then we can start by narrowing the background checks to Private sales conducted at gun-shows? It is called a "loop-hole" because it is not creating new laws but rather filling in a gaping hole in the existing law. "Reason to think"...that is comical in it's ineffectiveness...proving what a private citizen was thinking or should have thought absent any criteria is near impossible. In cases of "probable cause" police are trained extensively and provided with exact legal criteria as to what constitutes it. "Reason to think" in the context of private citizens equals a toothless requirement...and it is structured that way by design.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 

You know I normally avoid replies because you and i clash like flaming oil on polluted water.


Having noted that....... I'm going to shock you, I know I am. I agree with you. At least in part. (and no...the world isn't ending as we speak.. lol)

The gunshow issue is a major problem as that video shows. I can tell you it is NOT a problem like that where I live. If I overheard one of those transactions, I'd turn them in myself the moment the "I couldn't pass" was heard yet the deal still carried on, despite that.

Now it isn't all that subjective. What those dealers in the video did are outright, black letter law, criminal actions. No questions. If those had been federal agents instead of undercover reporters, they'd have been good for some prison time over that. It SHOULD be.....and the current laws NEED to be enforced. They aren't....while people clamor for more of them.

I'd go so far as to say, to address that problem, it would be a fair thing to regulate gun shows, as a specific event (Or gatherings of people for the purpose of viewing and/or buying/selling firearms ..to be all legalese about it). That is something I'd see as fair, while I know many on the 2nd amendment side would still cry foul for it being too much.

Well.... I'm with you, again, not to shock you too much, in saying SOME LAW is needed. I do not WANT the average homer with a full automatic Uzi or Mac-10 sub-machine gun under their coat in public just because they can and thought it was a dandy idea to be an unsafe moron.

At the same time?? The answer they are PUSHING for in solving the "Gun Show Loophole" isn't to regulate THOSE EVENTS.....but to flat outlaw ALL private party transactions of ANY kind for ANY firearm, period. This is what California did, by example, and it IS illegal out there for a father to give or sell to his own Son. Unintended consequence or not, it's still obliterating a basic sense of freedom to address criminal activity ALREADY outlawed and simply not being enforced with anything like the vigor it needs to be.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Indigo5
 

You know I normally avoid replies because you and i clash like flaming oil on polluted water.


Which am I?.....



Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Having noted that....... I'm going to shock you, I know I am. I agree with you. At least in part. (and no...the world isn't ending as we speak.. lol)

The gunshow issue is a major problem as that video shows. I can tell you it is NOT a problem like that where I live. If I overheard one of those transactions, I'd turn them in myself the moment the "I couldn't pass" was heard yet the deal still carried on, despite that.


Good to hear...but the world has it's share of folks without that ethical foundation....more so when it is the "honor systems" vs. Cash. We need to account for the morally bankrupt margin.


Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Now it isn't all that subjective. What those dealers in the video did are outright, black letter law, criminal actions. No questions. If those had been federal agents instead of undercover reporters, they'd have been good for some prison time over that. It SHOULD be.....and the current laws NEED to be enforced. They aren't....while people clamor for more of them.


Agreed about current laws being enforced first...but I would argue that the NRA has successfully lobbied/legislated to make enforcing existing laws difficult and sometimes impossible.


Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I'd go so far as to say, to address that problem, it would be a fair thing to regulate gun shows, as a specific event (Or gatherings of people for the purpose of viewing and/or buying/selling firearms ..to be all legalese about it). That is something I'd see as fair, while I know many on the 2nd amendment side would still cry foul for it being too much.


I appreciate the "idealogical risk"...if that is a phrase...and I agree. I think gun regulation should be done as conservatively as possible. Small strategic measures where the danger is proven and the effectiveness of changes in law is tested both on effectiveness and potential "infringement".


Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Well.... I'm with you, again, not to shock you too much, in saying SOME LAW is needed. I do not WANT the average homer with a full automatic Uzi or Mac-10 sub-machine gun under their coat in public just because they can and thought it was a dandy idea to be an unsafe moron.


Agreed...in a civil society we have to account for the stupid, unethical or crazy.


Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

At the same time?? The answer they are PUSHING for in solving the "Gun Show Loophole" isn't to regulate THOSE EVENTS.....but to flat outlaw ALL private party transactions of ANY kind for ANY firearm, period. This is what California did, by example, and it IS illegal out there for a father to give or sell to his own Son.


Don't want to be polluted water or flaming oil...but that isn't true.

You can transfer a firearm in CA. You just have to go to a gun dealer and have them process the transfer with a background check....and if it is an antique gun over 50 years old...you don't have to even go to the FFL.



I want to sell a gun to another person, i.e., a private party transfer. Am I required to conduct the transaction through a licensed California firearms dealer?

Yes. Firearm sales must be conducted through a fully licensed California firearms dealer. Failure to do so is a violation of California law. The buyer (and seller, in the event that the; buyer is denied), must meet the normal firearm purchase and delivery requirements. "Antique firearms," as defined in Section 921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code, and curio or relic rifles/shotguns, defined in Section 178.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations that are over 50 years old, are exempt from this requirement.

Firearms dealers are required to process private party transfers upon request. Firearms dealers may charge a fee not to exceed $10 per firearm for conducting a private party transfer. Example:
a.For a private party transfer involving one or more handguns, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00 for the first handgun and $31.00 for each additional handgun involved in the same transaction.
b.For private party transfers involving one or more long guns, or a private party transfer involving one handgun, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00. The dealer may charge an additional dealer-service fee of$10.00 per each additional firearm transferred.

(PC section 12072(d))


oag.ca.gov...



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


You know, at this rate, Guns sold under Obama ticker is going to pass the National Debt ticker.................




edit on 13-2-2013 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


Uh.The Tyrant 0bama and fellow Progressives are working to ban assault weapons and high capacity mags.
Your statement is about as false as it gets....again.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 

I don't know what to do with all this agreement.


On the last point though, Yes, you're right. You can still transfer a firearm in California. The point I was making was that it CANNOT legally be done without involving state authorities for the change of ownership, even among members of the same household.

By contrast, in many mid-western states, the NICs check is run on any licensed purchase and nothing on private party sales. In fact, there are classified ad sites in this part of the country, much like Craigslist, that list firearms. It's what it appears to be....meet and greet for a cash and carry, assuming all are comfortable with the sale at the time of meeting. Online auction sites are similar but those strictly ship to Licensed dealers for the standard NICs check before the purchase/auction is completed.

Personally, I've always handled the private buying/selling like that in a side lot of a major retailer nearby. They have cameras covering everything from all angles and signs to let everyone know that is the case. It keeps honest people honest.


(One meeting I had over there to buy a 9mm handgun was actually done in full view of a cop doing his paperwork and just parked a hundred yards away or so. He took interest for a couple moments then went back to his paperwork when he saw no one had emotional issues to indicate a problem).



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
This is OT but yesterday I around 9-11 pages deep I lost my composure in this thread. This is an apology to anyone I offended. Any my official statement.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Again Wrabbit I'm sorry for going OT I know what I said wasn't directed at you but it was done in your thread, I'm sorry. Have a great day Ladies and Gentlemen.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex

I don't believe Obama is trying to drive up gun sales...I think the NRA and the gun industry are using the fear they know people have of Obama to exploit them into purchasing more guns.

These numbers to me show one thing...good marketing.


You are either delusional, or ignorant. The reason sales have skyrocketed is the fear of an all out ban on that type of weapon. As the past has showed us, those that are grandfathered in may possibly remain but no future sales of whatever banned item can be sold. Then the cost of said banned item goes through the roof. So a smart man would purchase a few AR-15s and hold onto them just in case, then if times get tight, you have a wild card up your sleeve. And if you ever need to use it, well, you have that option as well. If Obama would have not been an idiot, he would have not blown the gun stuff out of proportion and sales would have remained the same. If you think about it, now that Obama has spewed his anti gun retorec, he has single handedly increased the gun ownership of those who may not have bought one dramatically. Fantastic job Mr. President. Another epic fail.

It's a shame you can't vote for him a third time.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Indigo5
 

I don't know what to do with all this agreement.


Shhhhh...Keep it up and they will come revoke my Liberal Commie Obama Worshipper credentials!


Originally posted by Wrabbit2000On the last point though, Yes, you're right. You can still transfer a firearm in California. The point I was making was that it CANNOT legally be done without involving state authorities for the change of ownership, even among members of the same household.


Yah...I get it...But...by "state authorities" please keep in mind you mean your local FFL gun dealer and running a standard NICS....I doubt the local dealer considers himself "State Authorities"....and while I get passing guns on to kids or between family...I don't trust every parent as being unbiased judges as to whether those kids are responsible. It would seem a small thing...even maybe a "special moment"...to go to a gun dealer and legitimize that transfer of a family gun. At worst a small inconvenience to reduce the amount of illicit guns on the street?

That said...Gun shows/private sale/NICS first...let it settle and see what difference is made and if problems arise before considering expanding to private transfers outside the gun show.


Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Personally, I've always handled the private buying/selling like that in a side lot of a major retailer nearby. They have cameras covering everything from all angles and signs to let everyone know that is the case. It keeps honest people honest.




Nice...free security cameras!

Truth is that there are rational things that we can try to limit the availability of guns used in crime...not eliminate, but reduce...

Do I think that banning all guns is the answer? No...Japan is an Island and one full of conformists. The USA has thousands of miles bordering Mexico and a well established pipeline of illicit drugs, the cartels wouldn't miss a beat in packaging up guns along with the drugs...and the USA are the opposite of conformists.

Kids smoke ciggerettes...but I have little doubt that many more kids would smoke if ciggerette vending machines were on school playgrounds.

Just saying there is a rational middle ground that might reduce the easy flow of guns to criminals and if we can do it while letting responsible gun owners go along thier way, then we should TRY it.

But as it stands the NRA screams about confiscation and revolution....and Fienstein authors bills for liberal political points that she knows would never pass...and the middle has no voice...and I do believe the vast majority of Americans are in the middle on the issue.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude

The reason sales have skyrocketed is the fear of an all out ban on that type of weapon.


If only reality agreed with you. Gun sales have been climbing steadily ever since the near economic collapse before Obama was elected...and after the President was portrayed as Kenyan-Socialist hell bent on destroying this country...it just fanned the apocolyptic fears.




Originally posted by network dude

If Obama would have not been an idiot, he would have not blown the gun stuff out of proportion and sales would have remained the same.


20 small children gunned down in a grade school has a way of "blowing" things out of "proportion" for the average citizen. Frankly I wouldn't want to live in a country where that wasn't shocking.
edit on 13-2-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 

Where did your stats come from??

Also, you must have some eye issues, as there was a decline in sales, but ramped up drastically 2010 to 2011.
You are not being honest.

You are also displaying a graph that shows sales have doubled since 1995'ish. Same time frame for the first Unconstitutional assault weapons ban.

And yet, the Tyrant 0bama and his fellow Progressives are on record stating they want another assault weapons ban.

So, this whole BS pitch that the NRA is trumping hype up for sales is just that, BS pitched as talking point truths.

Oh yeah, forgot...How is NY going with firearms rights???


edit on 13-2-2013 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5
 

Where did your stats come from??

Also, you must have some eye issues
....
You are not being honest.



Could not care less about your posts..and won't be responding,...but I'll leave you with this...the graph originates from a RIGHT...PRO GUN...leaning cite...but the stats that supported the graph were solid so I used it....you can find it yourself if you know how to google....I have no interest in playing fetch for ignorant trolls.


Also, you must have some eye issues, as there was a decline in sales, but ramped up drastically 2010 to 2011.
You are not being honest.


December 2007 is when the spike started/first green upward track begins. Correlates to the economic crisis and a full year before President Obama took office. You crack me up.
edit on 13-2-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Sales are driven be many things including the president. First is traditional role the democratic party has made for itself as gun grabbers overall, events such as 911, non events such as 2012. Possible events such as economic collapse leading to societal breakdown to regional events such as Katrina aftermath or earlier Andrew aftermath, to riots such as LA experienced - each has its own proponents who have valid points making them exercise their rights to firearm ownership and rights of self defence.

To those who preach middle ground please understand no matter how well intended you are your solution of 100% background checks under the current system will hand the government the tools to formulate database which can be used in confiscations down the road. The FBI already is keeping a database contrary to federal law so any denials this will be done are moot.

I disdainfully propose that a background check in and of itself is just possible if it is disconnected from recording type, serial, quantity or any other data on the firearm purchase in order to hamper any attempts to develop database containing firearm data on law abiding citizens.

I say disdainful because in essence we are being asked to gain governmental permisson for something we have "unalienable" and "not to be infringed" right to do. It seems when thought about in todays context that this very thing is ripe for abuse depending on who is defining what is criminal. Would it be politically motivated E.O.? Maybe being of a certain political persuation can be declared felonious - I think the whole thing is a pandora box being opened that eventually will be severely abused - I really don't even think its worth the chance to see what happens.

Personally I'd like something like a "scarlet" drivers license or ID issued for felons and mentally adjucated persons, same for domestic violence offenders and those on probation for repeat felony drug and alcohol offences. Put the onus where it belongs instead of putting it upon law abiding citizens. If any of these folks are found to violate this using false ID then a mandatory 20 year sentence should apply with no plea bargain provision written into the law.

Many on this thread have pointed out the lack of enforcement on existing laws and rightfully pointed out why make more when government is unwilling to do anything about that.

The murdered girl from Chicago used as example in SOTU had a murderer who was let go weapons charges three times while on probation - see the problem? - it was not guns per say thats for sure!

The common plea bargaining away of stiff penalties for gun use in crimes is rampant so that DA's can pump conviction records by having easy guilty pleas on lessor crimes - this puts perpetrators of gun crimes right back onto the streets.

The issue of big pharma manufacturing crazies or making them crazier is not covered at all by any governmental investigation or rallying cry from the populance - seems rather than do the right thing - its do the easy thing and penalize those who have done nothing wrong.

In the end its all propaganda driving agendas until current laws are used to fullest extent and big pharmas role in mass shootings is exposed and remedied - until then bug off in regards to my rights.



new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join


ATS Live Radio Presents - The Bear Truth ***On The AIR !!! ***
read more: ATS Live Radio Presents - The Bear Truth - (SE4 EP1)