• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AR-15's back in stock...big time

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
zinfamous said:
well i know it sure ain't say nuthin 'bout no dried plants being illegal, neither!
Click to expand...

🙂 nope. it actually says people have some sort of right to pursue happiness, and the entire concept of the document outlines the moral law that if you dont mess with anyone, nobody should be able to mess with you.
 
wirednuts said:
🙁 i am really disappointed i actually had to quote the constitution
Click to expand...

See how you got it wrong now?

wirednuts said:
🙂 nope. it actually says people have some sort of right to pursue happiness, and the entire concept of the document outlines the moral law that if you dont mess with anyone, nobody should be able to mess with you.
Click to expand...

You need to put down the weed for a second 😛. You're wrong again. The Constitution doesn't mention "happy" or "happiness."

Go ahead and Ctrl-F:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
 
Last edited:
wirednuts said:
🙁 i am really disappointed i actually had to quote the constitution
Click to expand...

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"[9][10] but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
 
The point of the thread, I think, is that the gun industry uses legislative uncertainty to manipulate supply and prices. Not exactly a novel behavior. Energy and gas companies, agribusiness and many other industries do the same thing. Its a serious pita for gun enthusiasts because the gun grabbers and gun makers get them coming and going. Root cause- politicians exploiting grief.
 
Older people will remember the gas "shortages" of the 70's. Since everything is based on futures, when they THINK there will be a shortage, they stockpile and create it on purpose so they can control it as it happens.

Business 101. Well maybe 102. So when they saw this legislation in the works, filling warehouses and feeding the hysteria was a no-brainer.
 
Today: My local gun shop has American Eagle .223 20rd boxes, $12.99. ($.65/ea)
Hornady .223 was $34.99 for 50. ($.70/ea)

Still pretty high.

They had ~30 ARs though.
 
Makes sense to me.

1. HUGE demand in the face of oncoming ban after Sandy Hook, orders skyrocket.

2. Manufacturers ramp up as much as possible to meet demand, takes a few months for changes to become noticeable.

3. Ban fails, demand plummets. Stores overstocked.

Ammo will be slower due to higher continuous demand, but should behave similarly fairly soon.
 
wirednuts said:
civilians shouldn't be allowed to own guns. actually im not sure where in the constitution it says they are allowed to but i digress. i have been to jail 3 times for possessing a dried plant... but if i would just stockpile a small army of munitions thats totally OK because those cant hurt anyone else.. its not like the entire purpose of guns is to kill or anything... but that dried flower stuff- that effects EVERYONE around you, putting their lives in danger!

#sickofstupidity
Click to expand...

Stop breaking the law and you won't go to jail. It's really pretty simple.
 
Guns available is nice, but still need ammo. It'll be next year before things get back to close to normal on ammo.
 
I've never understood the hording that goes on during a Democrat presidency. It makes no fucking sense whatsoever. The gun nuts scream bloody murder and make a run on guns and ammo which drives the price up but nothing changes and then supply catches up with demand.

Idiots. I guess the gun and ammo manufacturers profit.
 
irishScott said:
Makes sense to me.

1. HUGE demand in the face of oncoming ban after Sandy Hook, orders skyrocket.

2. Manufacturers ramp up as much as possible to meet demand, takes a few months for changes to become noticeable.

3. Ban fails, demand plummets. Stores overstocked.

Ammo will be slower due to higher continuous demand, but should behave similarly fairly soon.
Click to expand...
The sad thing is that it was completely clear that there would be no federal ban on AR-15s or any other assault rifle even immediately after Sandy Hook.
 
rockyct said:
The sad thing is that it was completely clear that there would be no federal ban on AR-15s or any other assault rifle even immediately after Sandy Hook.
Click to expand...

It was? Obama came out in support of such a ban fresh from re-election, the mainstream media was parroting the Brady Campaign and presenting their usual uninformed "expertise", and the public was in emotional shock. Conditions seemed primed for Obama to push a ban at least through the Senate, and then strong-arm Republicans in the house.

It wasn't "clear" that an AWB would fail until Harry Reid announced he wouldn't allow it to be part of the main bill.

Ever since Clinton, and as continually renewed by the acts of people like Governor Cuomo and the state of California, I think gun owners have a right to be a little paranoid. I find it extremely sad that we have to resort to NRA lobbying to protect a core right.
 
oldsmoboat said:
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"[9][10] but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Click to expand...

thats not the constitution

my apologies for muddying up documents. i know the difference between doi, constitution, bill of rights, etc... i was speaking in terms of all of them collectively as many people do.
 
wirednuts said:
thats not the constitution

my apologies for muddying up documents. i know the difference between doi, constitution, bill of rights, etc... i was speaking in terms of all of them collectively as many people do.
Click to expand...

The Declaration of Independence is not law, the Constitution is. Likewise SCOTUS is the sole interpreter of the Constitution with legal standing. If they say the Constitution means something, that's what it means under law. Their word is effectively the fine print of the Constitution.
 
irishScott said:
The Declaration of Independence is not law, the Constitution is. Likewise SCOTUS is the sole interpreter of the Constitution with legal standing. If they say the Constitution means something, that's what it means under law. Their word is effectively the fine print of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

the constitution protects the doi

the scotus might have the power to declare guns are legal for everyone, but thats not the point. it does not mean they interpreted the law as intended by the authors.
 
I actually saw boxes of .223 at Walmart a few days ago. Granted, it was about $12.49 a box for 20 (double what I'd pay, normal price), but still. I haven't seen 9mm/45 ACP/.223/5.56/22LR in Walmart since around when Sandy Hook happened.
 
wirednuts said:
the constitution protects the doi

the scotus might have the power to declare guns are legal for everyone, but thats not the point. it does not mean they interpreted the law as intended by the authors.
Click to expand...
What do you think the authors meant?

I think it's pretty obvious they meant that citizens had a right to bear arms, just as it is now. The reason for that is also pretty obvious if you aren't completely ignorant of history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top