Obamanation, One Week Later!

[jdmidwest]

One week later and the rush to stock up on guns and ammo is causing pandemonium at local gun shops. I stopped by my local one and watched the show for a while. Mainly handguns and ammo by the cases. Local CCW classes are booked up for a long time. AR's are selling like hotcakes and prices are going up again. Do you see any of this going on where you live?

Media is helping it a little, here is an article from the Alaska Daily News today, which by the way backed Obama.

Alaska Daily News link

[Buzz]

I'd have to say that the N.R.A. has more to do with it than anything. I got a postcard from them about 2 weeks before the election that said that ammo would cost about $200.00 a case or box( I don't remember). I refused it and let them pay for the return trip to thier trash can. Looks like it worked. Record sales of handguns and ammo. More fear to fuel the economy.

[bigredbirdfan]

Buying Guns, Ammo and hiding their wealth. I love America. God Bless the NRA.

[jdmidwest]

Ammo is just one thing, due to metal prices and hazmat fees on powders, it has really went up in the last year. Lead, copper, and brass are climbing and there are shortages due to wars and hoarding for the coming of the new Messiah.

There has been rumors about the serial numbering of ammo to track it. The technology of this sort of thing would be very expensive. Also, there are movements that are wanting to eliminate lead of any type anywhere. This will add to the costs of ammo. Already some states are banning firearm killed meat to the food bank programs like Share the harvest because of lead poison.

NRA can go to extremes sometimes, but it is a better extreme than the forces that tend to interfere with my 2nd Amendment Rights.

[Buzz]

Ammo price increases are not new. The price of turkey shells are outrageous. I have a registered 357 magnum and the last time I went to buy shells I decided to go for .38 rounds instead, because of the price. I used to be able to buy powder over the counter at one of the local stores, but now you can't hardly find it.

This same thing happened when Clinton won in '92. Nothing new. If I have read anything right, the main regulations would be on assault rifles and clips that hold over 20 rounds. I don't know about you, but I've never needed more than 3 rounds per day deer hunting and most "assault rifles" have no place in hunting of any kind.

Don't get me wrong. I own guns and will always own guns, but to think that a President, any President, would have any chance to take away your 2nd Amendment is naive to say the least, even with the majority of both houses.

[jdmidwest]

This same thing happened when Clinton won in '92. Nothing new. If I have read anything right, the main regulations would be on assault rifles and clips that hold over 20 rounds. I don't know about you, but I've never needed more than 3 rounds per day deer hunting and most "assault rifles" have no place in hunting of any kind.

I have to disagree that Assault Rifles have no place in hunting of any kind. AR15 type rifles are fast becoming the most popular hunting rifle because of its modular capability of swapping out calibers and accessories. Varmits, gophers, deer, hogs, and many other game species fall to a Assault Rifle by millions of hunters each year. Most major manufacturers offer an AR15 style rifle in their catalog now.

Clinton came close to outlawing the famous Remington 742 and other Semi-Auto rifles and shotguns in the first ban. The words SEMI-AUTO were used in conjunction with terms like Machine Gun by the press to heighten the scare.

Don't bury your head in the sand and think it won't happen again, it has before. It was not till the latest Supreme Court decision that you could keep a handgun in your HOME in Washington DC. That right had been taken away from them by local government.

[jjtroutbum]

I don't know about you, but I've never needed more than 3 rounds per day deer hunting and most "assault rifles" have no place in hunting of any kind.

The second amendment has nothing at all to do with hunting. Period.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

George Mason

Co-author of the Second Amendment

during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

George Washington

First President of the United States

Don't get me wrong. I own guns and will always own guns, but to think that a President, any President, would have any chance to take away your 2nd Amendment is naive to say the least, even with the majority of both houses.

I hope your right but Shall not be infringed is the way I read it. And seems he like he sure wants to "regulate."

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/...a.gun.sales.cnn

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_obama.html

Gun laws/restrictions are only restricting the lawful gun owner. Criminals love gun control means more sheep for the wolves when you disarm the would be sheep dogs.

ps. Anyone with a Yugo under folder and a case of wolf for it send me a PM.

[jjtroutbum]

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle (AK-47), walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.

Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA, THIS IS ANOTHER REASON WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."

––Samuel Adams

[retroaction man]

I own guns and will always own guns, but to think that a President, any President, would have any chance to take away your 2nd Amendment is naive to say the least, even with the majority of both houses.

even if the 2nd amendment was taken away that would not get rid if guns. It would only cause a huge black market to explode. you people who think martial law is going into effect or that obama is the anti christ ect ect , need to stop take a breath and cut down your drug intake

[tadman]

I have to disagree that Assault Rifles have no place in hunting of any kind. AR15 type rifles are fast becoming the most popular hunting rifle because of its modular capability of swapping out calibers and accessories. Varmits, gophers, deer, hogs, and many other game species fall to a Assault Rifle by millions of hunters each year. Most major manufacturers offer an AR15 style rifle in their catalog now.

Clinton came close to outlawing the famous Remington 742 and other Semi-Auto rifles and shotguns in the first ban. The words SEMI-AUTO were used in conjunction with terms like Machine Gun by the press to heighten the scare.

Don't bury your head in the sand and think it won't happen again, it has before. It was not till the latest Supreme Court decision that you could keep a handgun in your HOME in Washington DC. That right had been taken away from them by local government.

If somebody needs an assult rifle to hunt with, then in my book they ain't much of a hunter. Now I ain't saying I am God's gift to hunting, but I rarely shoot more that 50 yrds. 75 yrds tops. If I can't get any closer than that, then I don't deserve to harvest. I don't need any AR or AK or any of that junk either. A good .243, 30-30, or .270 in my book is all I need. But I ain't shooting moose around here either so I can see using a larger caliber but, certainly not around here.

Now just where did you come up with these millions of hunters using Assult Rifles to hunt with?