Talk Already Starting About Gun Control

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Feltrick
 


So Martin Bashir works for Colt? that's what you're saying isnt it?




posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Maybe that is the only true conspiracy on this board.

I'm just saying that it seems when prices begin to go down talk of a ban brings them right back up. Hell, maybe he has stock in one of the companies!

You have to admit that manufacturers can be manipulative bastards who prey on the fears of people. Someone who was thinking about buying an AR when/if the prices go down will be more inclined to buy one if there's talk of a ban. And as I said, load up on the ammo cause you need at least 12,000 rounds to stop a burglar/home invasion.

People are being manipulated and they don't even realize it.
edit on 2-11-2013 by Feltrick because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Feltrick
 


Of course they are.

But a shop or individual charging 200% over MSRP doesnt help the manufacturer. The manufacturers prices remain relatively unchanged unless there is a prolonged period of hysteria over many months. Like what happened in January.

Remember when Hostess closed and people were selling Twinkies on eBay for $200 a box? Then Hostess just reopened? Conspiracy to make Hostess money?



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
People are posting stats that they believe prove their side in this issue(Ie: who has gun control atm). Let's look at this in totality. This map is quite interesting. It shows, state by state, gun crime. The US average is 2.75/100,000 people.

www.theguardian.com...

Some surprises here.

Ill- 2.93 I would have thought that would have been much higher.
Cali- 3.25 Again, I would have thought higher.

NY- 4.12 That seems right.
Texas- 2.91- Pretty much national average.

SC- 5.41
Miss- 7.46
LA- 10.16


The best states being the Dakotas, Wash and Ore. Around 1.00 and lower. It seems to me that gun control is not the issue here. What this needs is more thought. You can't say it's because of population. Cali has the most people but they aren't significantly above the national average and LA is the worst but with a pop. of under 5 million.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   

intrepid

You can't say it's because of population. Cali has the most people but they aren't significantly above the national average and LA is the worst but with a pop. of under 5 million.


Population density is what's different. Not just population in general.

CA is huge and the most populous state but geographically over 90% of the state is populated by fewer than 100 per square mile.

Numbers like 5 million people are meaningless unless you define the size of the cage holding that 5 million people. 5 million people can get along pretty well when they dont have to interact with one another. Stack them on top of each other like chickens in a corporate farm coop and they'll all be covered in #.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


You bring up a valid point concerning Twinkies. A product taken off the market or even the threat of taking it off the market drives up the price. Manufacturers can cause people to panic buy if they make it sound like their product is going to be no longer available or make an announcement of a shortage. Hmmm, where have I heard that before?

Gas prices anyone? Just a whisper can cause oil prices to balloon up which, in turn, drives up the cost of gasoline. Isn't it incredible that oil can go up one day and the price of gas goes up the next? Yet, when oil prices fall there is a delay in the drop of the price of gasoline.

Anyway, back to firearms and ammunition. More guns sold, puts more money in the pockets of the manufacturer which also puts more money into the pockets of the government thru taxes & fees. It's a win/win for the government since they collect taxes on the manufacturers, employees, gun stores, buyers, etc. It is also a win/win for the manufacturers, stockholders and gun store owners.

Tell me you wouldn't want to be the owner of a store that is selling the hottest product in the market. A product that people will buy over and over again because they can't get enough. A product that can only be sold by certain licensed individuals. Sure, you could buy one from your neighbor, but your neighbor knows the value as well and will also drive up the price, you just don't have to pay taxes.

I don't see how anyone can look at this and not see the conspiracy that lies within or that we are being manipulated. I haven't had a Twinkie in years but I really thought about buying some because they were no longer going to be made. I had a good laugh at my expense over that!



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Exactly, in an apartment building, you can hear your loud idiot neighbors right through the wall. You gotta be doing really dumb stuff to disturb a neighbor in a nearby house. I have held parties with live bands before and neighbors were none the wiser lol. Can't do that in the city or the burbs even.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by rickm
 


The NRA actually doesn't have that much money. Not compared to large corporations. Most of their money also goes to legal fees more than anything else. Don't marginalize your fellow citizen by calling them crazy or nuts. It's dismissive and divisive. Please describe meaningful legislation, and how it relates to firearm statistics, and what impact said legislation would have on those statistics with case studies where it has been tried before in the US.

The NRA is a curious lobby. What's interesting about it is that it's actually one of the very few lobbies that fights for the constitution. Whether or not a firearms corporation is involved in supporting that lobby doesn't matter, because at the end of the day, they are actually supporting your rights. Even though you may not consider yourself as being on "their" side, by default of being a US citizen, you are on their side. Whether you like it or not, again by default of you being a US citizen, the mere fact that they fight for your constitutional guarantees means they are always on your side, whether you hate them or try to destroy them, they are fighting for your rights anyway.

To put it another way, imagine if broadband internet was amended into the constitution as being a right, kind of like what Finland did. Then, with that right being guaranteed, a lobby group popped up looking to defend that right against any opposition, because well lets face it, it's a constitutional guarantee, and they all need to be defended. Lets call them the BLG (Broadband Lobby Group). Then lets say companies like Verizon started to support that lobby group with donations etc. One, it behooves them to do so because they would be stupid business men not to, but two, it also supports the constitution at the same time and the employees of that company believe in the law of the land and the constitution. Would you be against that kind of support for a constitutional guarantee? Do you honestly believe it is ethical to forgo the constitution with legislation instead of amendment for the sake of expediency? Why is it okay to support one freedom advocacy group over another? They're both supporting the same thing and both on your side by the very fact that you are a citizen.

I'll leave you with this: There is a difference between restricting the access of firearms to law abiding full citizen and restricting the access of people not deemed full citizens anymore. The question about the constitutionality of restricting firearms is more to do with questioning the constitutionality of stripping a citizen of any rights whatsoever, firearms being incidental to that. Look, you're obviously reaching the limit of your intelligence on this argument, it seems I can't repeat myself in other words anymore, it's not getting through. Feel free to have the last word, I won't respond, I've made my point very clear to other posters here.
edit on 2-11-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Feltrick
 


You're absolutely right.

Same goes for absolutely anything under threat of government action. Tobacco, alcohol, imported clothing, cars (especially with the threat of a "black box" going into every new car) etc...

Whenever there is a change or restriction on anything coming from any entity whether it's the government or the manufacturer or whoever the value of that product will go up.

It happened to Jarts too back in the day.

2Live Crew records for a while there were flying off shelves at inflated prices thanks to Tipper and Al Gore and their panel of puritan busy bodies.

The simple solution to ending the manipulation is for government to stop threatening action against things. But they wont.
edit on 2-11-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Feltrick
 


I saw the exact same thing happen when I was a teen with the popular cigarette brand newports. There was a rumor that they were gonna be banned. I am not sure if it was a widespread thing, or just a NY thing. People were literally paying three times as much and stockpiling them lol. I made a boatload money off that, or what I considered was a boatload back then.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 

In Australia we adopted a ban on semi automatic rifles after we had the. " port Arthur massacre" where more lives were lost than any equivalent American killing spree. This has been successful in drastically reducing gun related crime in Australian culture fundamentally different in that we have never had the constitutional right to bare arms. If the United States of America was to Pursue a similar policy to Australia I would theorise that it would have the opposite effect in a country where the majority of the population posses firearms. What I could imagine due to the inefficient beurocratic process democracy is burdened with would be the simple removal of firearms from the law abiding citizens who have register their ownership as it is easiest and will look good on paper. One process Australia used was the gun amnesty buy back scheme where the general public are offered above market value for military style weaponry with an amnesty guaranteeing no criminal charges can ever be pressed as well as the option of total anonymity for the transaction . This allowed gun possessing criminals / junkies to obtain fast cash I'm a non violent means. I can't offer a full solution but I can offer a working piece to the puzzle



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I don't, necessarily, see this as all the government's fault. I keep hearing on this board about Rahm Emanuel's great line, "never let a crisis go to waste." I think this line is used by more CEOs than by those working in the Whitehouse. But really, I find the most fault with the American people who buy into this without thinking. People who rail against the "sheeple" have no problem running out, stocking up on ammo and buying another firearm at an inflated price due to a speech.

The losers in this are the consumers. People who enjoy hunting or just going out to the range for some target shooting are being gouged. Others are hoarding ammo and then selling it at inflated prices, but that's capitalism...never let a crisis go to waste.

Guns can't be banned, it doesn't make economic sense and it is written rather clearly in the Constitution. For those in power they have to play to their constituents. Knowing that they can't doesn't mean they can't try. If their base is against guns, then they'll make speeches about banning them knowing full well that it'll never happen, but, they can tell their base that they tried.

If the current administration couldn't pass legislation after Sandy Hook, then I don't see them doing it now.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   

TKDRL
reply to post by Feltrick
 


I saw the exact same thing happen when I was a teen with the popular cigarette brand newports. There was a rumor that they were gonna be banned. I am not sure if it was a widespread thing, or just a NY thing. People were literally paying three times as much and stockpiling them lol. I made a boatload money off that, or what I considered was a boatload back then.


I have never heard of this one before, banning Newports, that's funny! Was it just a rumor or did they actually ban them? I mean, growing up the rumor was that Newport Menthols made your lungs bleed so no one smoked them. Probably a rumor started by the Marlboro corp.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Feltrick
 


Was only a rumor, or they changed their mind about the ban, related to what you heard actually. The rumor said that the menthol flavour came from putting some kind of deadly fiberglass in the filter.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 


Yeah, your wrong on both sides.

The issue of schools? It should be a local decision, not pushed through via federal education department.
And for licensing or a test.

**checking pockets and finds book of constitution** I don't see where it states I must perform a test or be licensed..

Care to show me that in your copy?



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Cabin
 


Hunter's Safety and Driver's Education were not mandatory courses. However they were offered and they should remain available. God forbid you learn something useful in school, right?



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
The entire concept of this thread makes the large assumption that talk of gun control ever stops. The only thing that changes are people's perceptions of what is happening around them.

Take one of my favorite jokes as an example.

I've been seeing Baader-Meinhof EVERYWHERE!



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 




expect in a day or two, a new run at a gun ban. what better way to get people to stop thinking about one of the most draconian laws ever passed like obamacare. by bring up another, draconian threat issues. yes indeed a distraction.


Most of us will ignore it. We aren't criminals. We are Americans with lives and families and... we own guns.

we are NOT criminals.



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


That's hysterical, I always thought it was just an urban legend growing up. Although I seem to recall being told the filters had asbestos but you know rumors. When they came out with Newport Reds, everyone was fine with that, apparently only Menthols were bad!



posted on Nov, 3 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   


the problem with a lot of conservatives is that they don't realize they don't speak for everyone


Yes, it's ironic how they call everyone that doesn't agree with their backwardness stupid and they claim they represent all Americans when they are only 40%- which means 60% don't agree with them.





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join