Assault Weapons Ban Won't be in Dems' Gun Bill

reply to post by abeverage


Very simple.
Was there or was there not a push to make certain types of firearms illegal to purchase?
Is there or is there not a push to make certain mags illegal to purchase?

The push is from the Govt, not the manufactures.

But, since people were scared that the Govt was in fact pushing for the above things, means the most in sales.
The Govt created the panic. The manufacturers are just doing the business as always.

Originally posted by abeverage

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by abeverage

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by abeverage

 

Uhhhhh the manufactures didn't change their prices to the resellers. The prices were increased by the retailers selling to the public.

edit on 20-3-2013 by macman because: (no reason given)

No they just sold more of them! Then retailers made a hefty profit...

Yep that the economic side of the thing....some folks made some money. However dont see this thing as something driven by money.

Gun sales last year topped 2 Billion Yep not about the money

Read down in the article and see when the last boom (pun intact) was...1994 what??? Why??? Think about it

You would have to be stupid not to invest in S&W before a liberal Dem is elected then sell your guns during their term. Hang on to a few for a second term and then cash in your stock at the end. Then if a Rep is elected wait 2 years and buy all your guns back CHEAP!

Well if your suggestion is that gun owners are being victimized by a ramped up price gouging there may be some truth. But the price of guns/ammo like everything go up under certain conditions so we dont take it very personal.

Yea 1994 I was around then and a outspoken critic of the anti gun movement. It was in the 90s that I stocked up and still have most of that stock. The prices then are nothing like they are now for several reasons. Even after WACO gun and ammo prices and buying are nothing like they have been here of late.

Having said that the hype and rhetoric back in the 90s wasnt much diffrent that it is now but on some points worse. Its just that folks are way more aware and way more of us are aware of what looks like a clear intention on the part of the press and the government to weaken the 2nd amendment. Even WACO took about 10 years to settle into the minds of many and thus a large part of the reason ammo is off the charts today.

As well as the election of another anit gun democrat to the white house and the reaction as far as sales spike early on to this and at a steady pace was pressure let out that was still there from the Clinton years. All a dem had to do is start running their mouth about guns and that ammo just starts flying out of the gun shows and gun shops....whatever the cost. To add fule to this, 2nd amendment constitutionalist types tossed off any trust in the republicans to protect this amendment with any fortitude.

One thing proposed back in the 90s was to require ammo makers to use a type of powder that would naturally decompose in storage. This proposal was made by the USAG Jannet Reno. This one thing here did more to set off a spark of ammo buying back then but was nothing like today for reasons above.

reply to post by Logarock


Maybe I am just wondering out loud about the pattern, and the greed that seems to go with it. I wonder how much of it is actually just posturing to drive prices up and how much is actually the belief that guns truly should be outlawed.

I am one who knows that if you outlaw them only outlaws will have them. I do not however feel the need to have an AR15 either (other then the fun factor)...

reply to post by abeverage


Many many people keep AWs with the 2nd amendment in mind with all other reasons being peripheral.

As far as the money changers in the temple....at this point many consider that the lesser evil. Its does nothing to sour me from my second amendment rights.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by WaterBottle

 

Yeah, never mind the fact that the "People" don't want this crap Law. it is all just the Gun lobby and the NRA

Sure sure.

Because politicians listen to people

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Finally, a hard fought battle won. I wouldn't let my guard down just yet. They are libel to slip this in as an amendment somewhere.

reply to post by WaterBottle


Oh and they are listening to "the people" now and pushing the anti-gun agenda?

Poop called, said vomit stinks.

Originally posted by bjax9er
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

damn i really wanted to see a vote on this...

You will get to. Her Bill will be added as an amendment to what's left of the existing one.

Originally posted by SpaDe_
One thing that will hopefully be a big positive to come out of this is that the fair weather panic buyers will now flood the market with the guns and ammo that they all panic bought. Would be nice to see shelves stocked again, and prices returned to normal.

There are plenty of guns for sale around my way. Ammo is the problem, and that shortage is not caused by the panic buyers but by the government who are showing no signs of slowing down.

Originally posted by CB328

This isn't a Win nor is it a victory... The price you will pay as American Citizen will be great.

Yes this is extremely disappointing. Delinquents' egos are deemed more important that human life.

What is truly disappointing is that so many of our citizens have the emotional drive, and intellectual deficiency of a 14 year old.

It is somewhat refreshing though to see that there are far less people falling for the propaganda than the current regime tries to portray.

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by CB328

 

it is not the weapon! It is the person that holds the tool, that decides if it is for good or bad , just because a few go over the edge, makes the rest of us look bad. Any one at ant time could lose it, should the rest pay for it? No.
Drunk drivers drive cars, does that mean all car drivers are drunk? or should we ban cars? the drivers? or make laws to prevent drunk drivers?, and they really do not prevent them... only if they are pulled over.

I hate to say it but you are wasting valuable time. Your arguments are based on common sense, the mortal enemy of progressives.

Originally posted by david99118
hmmmm...i thought assault weapons, fully automatic weapons designed for war, were already illegal? i remember 1 guy getting a felony conviction and 5 years in prison for simply having a gear that, when added to several other parts, could turn a semiautomatic rifle into a fully automatic rifle.



additionally, i get the feeling this gun control stuff is not about disarming but actually arming the civilian populace. i just have this feeling, therefore no proof or evidence, that the government knows something bad is going to happen and that most people will be left to fend for them selves. that is not to say i think the government is being benevolent . just not as devious in the ways people accuse them of being. so what could the problem be? invasion? act-of-god? tom cruse coming out of the closet? who knows.

edit on 20-3-2013 by david99118 because: (no reason given)

I can see where your argument is coming from but it is flawed on at least one level. The Federal government is doing everything they can to dry up the supply of ammo. Not very effective if they want to arm the population. If they wanted to arm the civilians all they would have to do is have Obama go on T.V. and say it is for the kids and every ignorant progressive in America would be as armed as their savings and credit would allow.

One last point I would like to make is that gun rights advocates need to be very careful in falling into the terminology trap that is set by progressives. What I mean is that I have seen many just in this thread referring to the rifles that were part of the ban as assault weapons.

There is no such thing as an assault rifle. It is a term used for its scary sound, and one that will for years be pounded into the heads of the people until they agree to "get rid of those dangerous assault rifles" It is a term that is poll tested, and proven to invoke fear. The problem is once we allow the term to be used it will become easier for people to rationalize getting rid of just the "assault rifles". As I said, there is no such class of rifle, and so by agreeing to get rid of them gun grabbers can fit the description to include any gun they wish.

Maybe I am reading into the term too much, and it is really no big deal, but I just wanted to give those of you who care about your rights something to think about.