Record gun sales sweep nation

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Sigh...if I am wrong, then where should the line be drawn? It needs to be drawn.

I have no problem with additional penalties for using a suppressor in a crime, but in any case, the line is already drawn. There are already NFA requirements for owning a suppressor. A background check is already required, and so is registration of the suppressor as well as the payment of a $200 tax.

Do you somehow find these current regulations insufficient?

ZV

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
_snip-
Personally, I'm in the market for a nice little Henry Lever-Action .22 but it's nothing to do with Obama.
ZV

I got one of those several years ago. It s sweet little rifle, lot of fun to plink around with.

Good investment too. I paid less than $200 IIRC.

Fern

 

[Xavier434]

To be quite honest, if you guys are spot on correct and I am wrong (not sure) then I am perfectly fine with that. I have been wrong before and I may be wrong now. However, I stand firm in my believe that a line should be drawn and I stand firm in my belief about our criminal justice system and how it relates to the threat of radical definitions of vigilantism. Beyond that, I am only interesting in researching ways to reduce these weapons from getting in the hands of criminals. I don't want to take your guns away to do that unless doing so REALLY worked exceptionally well, but my take on that theory pretty much falls on the same page as most of your arguments. I don't think it will work. I am not a 2nd amendment hater by any means. I don't own a gun, but most of my friends do being that they live in South Florida. I don't bash them for it at all and most of them agree with my stance on the matter.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Sigh...if I am wrong, then where should the line be drawn? It needs to be drawn.

I have no problem with additional penalties for using a suppressor in a crime, but in any case, the line is already drawn. There are already NFA requirements for owning a suppressor. A background check is already required, and so is registration of the suppressor as well as the payment of a $200 tax.

Do you somehow find these current regulations insufficient?

ZV

I am undecided basically. I am curious to explore the possibilities of revision whether that be to make the regs stricter or even more flexible. I don't care which way it goes as long as it works to reduce crime. My suspicion is that stricter regs is the way to go but how we make them stricter is where it gets tricky and I don't have a solution that I am confident in.

 

[spidey07]

google "assault rifle sales" and you get tons of information. This article mentions a 25% increase in registrations over this time last year.

http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=9314179

"According to the FBI there were 62,000 more background checks for gun purchases than around this same time last year, that's a 25 percent increase."

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TallBill
-snip-
Personally, I'll wait until legislation is on the table.

And that would seem to be a much more rational approach to this issue than that displayed by the folks rushing to the store before Obama even sets foot in the White House.

But guns ARE weapons designed primarily to kill, let's not pretend it's like collecting baseball cards.

IMO, bad idea unless you're willing to pay a higher price.

Once the "legislation is on the table" I'd expect supplies to tighten quite a bit.

Edit: Looking at some sites there are already tight supplies for many models.

Fern

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: chucky2
But my Playstation is worth something, while they're worth nothing...actually, shooting them saves us money, it lets us not have to pay for their incarceration.

For those who commit crime it's simple: You take your life and put it into the hands of others and their mercy.

And that's the way it should be...removing that check lets criminals with little else to lose operate with little fear of meaningful consequences.

Chuck

By following that logic you might as well do away with our criminal justice system all together which is obviously ludicrous. Every crime now punishable by death either by those in government or any civilian who gets to them first....are you nuts?

When the criminal justice system is there to catch them before they break/take my sh1t I worked hard for, then the criminal justice system can tell me what I'll do to them should I catch them in the act. They don't want to exist at the pleasure of my rage level, then all they have to do is leave my sh1t alone.

Maybe I'll watch them run away, maybe I'll pop them in the leg, maybe it'll be a little higher up, who knows.

The point is: They exist at my pleasure once they do wrong and are caught in the act. Don't want to be in that position? Don't steal/vandalize, it's that simple.

Chuck

P.S. This is within realistic reason. Offing a 8 year old for swiping a stick of chewing gum is obviously different than stopping the > 20 year old POS running down the street with my late grandfathers wedding ring he just stole out of my house.

 

[Moonbeam]

You really have to be a hideous piece of shit to take the life of an animal for sport.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Sigh...if I am wrong, then where should the line be drawn? It needs to be drawn.

I have no problem with additional penalties for using a suppressor in a crime, but in any case, the line is already drawn. There are already NFA requirements for owning a suppressor. A background check is already required, and so is registration of the suppressor as well as the payment of a $200 tax.

Do you somehow find these current regulations insufficient?

ZV

I am undecided basically. I am curious to explore the possibilities of revision whether that be to make the regs stricter or even more flexible. I don't care which way it goes as long as it works to reduce crime. My suspicion is that stricter regs is the way to go but how we make them stricter is where it gets tricky and I don't have a solution that I am confident in.

I really don't see suppressor laws making a huge impact, not even a moderate one. The vast majority of firearm crime is either gang related or robbery, etc where the gun is brandished openly for intimidation prior to the actual shooting. Those aren't the sorts of instances where the reduced noise of a suppressor would be valued.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You really have to be a hideous piece of shit to take the life of an animal for sport.

Are you a vegetarian then?

ZV

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You really have to be a hideous piece of shit to take the life of an animal for sport.

Are you a vegetarian then?

ZV

As much as I disagree with Moon here, I don't think he's talking about that.

Some hunters kill and then eat their kill, which is cool.

What is sort of lame are pure 'sport' hunters, who just kill shit and have no intention whatsoever of doing anything beyond bragging about what they nailed.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You really have to be a hideous piece of shit to take the life of an animal for sport.

Are you a vegetarian then?

ZV

As much as I disagree with Moon here, I don't think he's talking about that.

Some hunters kill and then eat their kill, which is cool.

What is sort of lame are pure 'sport' hunters, who just kill shit and have no intention whatsoever of doing anything beyond bragging about what they nailed.

Oh, I eat meat too, but it's not necessary to eat meat and as such doing so could reasonably be considered "sport" in the sense that it's superfluous.

As far as sport hunting, I think it depends on the animal. I have no problem with people sport hunting deer, for example. There are too many of them and it's necessary to thin the herds. Or at least, such is the case in the area where I grew up.

ZV

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You really have to be a hideous piece of shit to take the life of an animal for sport.

Are you a vegetarian then?

ZV

As much as I disagree with Moon here, I don't think he's talking about that.

Some hunters kill and then eat their kill, which is cool.

What is sort of lame are pure 'sport' hunters, who just kill shit and have no intention whatsoever of doing anything beyond bragging about what they nailed.

Oh, I eat meat too, but it's not necessary to eat meat and as such doing so could reasonably be considered "sport" in the sense that it's superfluous.

As far as sport hunting, I think it depends on the animal. I have no problem with people sport hunting deer, for example. There are too many of them and it's necessary to thin the herds. Or at least, such is the case in the area where I grew up.

ZV

Agree about the deer. They need to start paying people to shoot them.

 

[chucky2]

They actually had to open up power company land I think here in the Chicagoland area back a few years ago (maybe they still do it?). Tt wasn't that the deer were posing a threat to traffic (at least more than they normally do), it's that because there are no natural predators, and no hunting allowed on that land, the deer heards had literally grown so large, they were starving.

They got a select number of hunters in there, had them take only doe's I think, and I believe they gave the meat to local shelters or something like that.

Nothing wrong with that IMHO...lots more humane than letting the little ones starve to slow and agonizing death...

Chuck

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Agree about the deer. They need to start paying people to shoot them.

They do.

 

[spidey07]

Wow. Looking to pick up some more stuff and everybody is out of stock online. People gobbling them up. Many online retailers even state on their page "due to changes in political landscape please add a few days for processing." Even my buddy who is a dealer (full auto weapons and others) said he's getting absolutely slammed.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: chucky2
They actually had to open up power company land I think here in the Chicagoland area back a few years ago (maybe they still do it?). Tt wasn't that the deer were posing a threat to traffic (at least more than they normally do), it's that because there are no natural predators, and no hunting allowed on that land, the deer heards had literally grown so large, they were starving.

They got a select number of hunters in there, had them take only doe's I think, and I believe they gave the meat to local shelters or something like that.

Nothing wrong with that IMHO...lots more humane than letting the little ones starve to slow and agonizing death...

Chuck

They could shoot them with a birth control dart.

 

[spidey07]

Updating with more recent information thanks to another member, bob4432

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/...a.gun.sales/index.html
"According to FBI figures for the week of November 3 to 9, the bureau received more than 374,000 requests for background checks on gun purchasers -- a nearly 49 percent increase over the same period in 2007. Conatser said his store, Virginia Arms Company, has run out of some models -- such as the AR-15 rifle, the civilian version of the military's M-16 -- and is running low on others."

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Updating with more recent information thanks to another member, bob4432

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/...a.gun.sales/index.html
"According to FBI figures for the week of November 3 to 9, the bureau received more than 374,000 requests for background checks on gun purchasers -- a nearly 49 percent increase over the same period in 2007. Conatser said his store, Virginia Arms Company, has run out of some models -- such as the AR-15 rifle, the civilian version of the military's M-16 -- and is running low on others."

I wonder if any of these geniuses realize Obama's not going to become President for a few months yet.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: spidey07
Updating with more recent information thanks to another member, bob4432

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/...a.gun.sales/index.html
"According to FBI figures for the week of November 3 to 9, the bureau received more than 374,000 requests for background checks on gun purchasers -- a nearly 49 percent increase over the same period in 2007. Conatser said his store, Virginia Arms Company, has run out of some models -- such as the AR-15 rifle, the civilian version of the military's M-16 -- and is running low on others."

I wonder if any of these geniuses realize Obama's not going to become President for a few months yet.

I don't think you understand supply and demand. Most places are already sold out on magazines and important parts.

Geniuses they may very well be. Two outcomes:

1) Nothing changes and folks get what they wanted and will use at the range or hunting
2) AWB gets reinstated according to stated policy and what they have has a value many magnitudes more than what they paid

 

[Bratina8]

First of all, you are an asswipe for hoping that hundreds of thousands of people kill themselves because they made a purchase. I thought we were supposed to stimulated the economy and spend, what do you give a fuck what they buy?

Secondly, these people are not going to the store to buy murder weapons. They are collectors and enthusiasts very aware of the possibility of another assault weapon ban coming down.

Personally, I'll wait until legislation is on the table.

I am with you and can't believe someone is stupid enough to actually say they want new gun owners to shoot themselves!! How much of an American is this psyco? Not much of one. I am a very enthusiastic gun owner and I have only shot targets never people! Duh! I will be prepared as a female if I were accosted by someone. I feel much better carring than unarmed and helpless! It is my right as an American to bare arms and I follow the law to its fullest extent. It's the people who don't follow the law or obtain firearms illegally who you should be mindful of.

 

[JSt0rm]

I am with you and can't believe someone is stupid enough to actually say they want new gun owners to shoot themselves!! How much of an American is this psyco? Not much of one. I am a very enthusiastic gun owner and I have only shot targets never people! Duh! I will be prepared as a female if I were accosted by someone. I feel much better carring than unarmed and helpless! It is my right as an American to bare arms and I follow the law to its fullest extent. It's the people who don't follow the law or obtain firearms illegally who you should be mindful of.

You bumped a 10 year old thread. You are too stupid to own a gun.

 

[Meghan54]

You bumped a 10 year old thread. You are too stupid to own a gun.

And I don't know what naked arms are going to do for anyone, either. "...my right as an American to bare arms...." from the screed above you.

 

[Meghan54]

Oh yeah.....forgot this tidbit.....

U.S. gunmaker Remington seeks financing to file for bankruptcy

Remington Outdoor Company Inc, one of the largest U.S. makers of firearms, has reached out to banks and credit investment funds in search of financing that will allow it to file for bankruptcy, people familiar with the matter said on Thursday.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-to-file-for-bankruptcy-sources-idUSKBN1FT04C

 

[ivwshane]

This thread was enlightening!