When your legislation fails, take your anger out on Fox News.

[zsdersw]

I wouldn't worry about them. At the rate Obama, Biden, and Pelosi are going they'll make sure that this issue stays at the forefront for a loooong time. They're the best gun salesmen ever.

They have been the best gun salesmen ever, but I doubt they will continue to be.

 

[unokitty]

Too bad for the gun companies that the defeat of this bill and other restrictions will cause demand for guns/ammo to crater.

One of Obama's few successful economic stimulation efforts has been his stimulation of the gun manufacturing industry.

Still, you are welcome to feel bad for them should you want.

Me, my regret is that I didn't invest in gun manufacturer's stock prior to Obama taking office.

Uno

 

[zsdersw]

Still, you are welcome to feel bad for them should you want

I feel bad for the end of this wave of increased demand. It's coming, don't kid yourself... and the legislative defeat of additional gun restrictions is one of the things that will bring it about.

Fact: Bubbles burst, sooner or later.

 

[unokitty]

Wow I don't think I have ever seen numbers this overwhelming in a poll since 911. Why would anybody oppose background checks?/

Kind of makes you wonder how powerless Obama must be, don't it?

Uno

 

[Zargon]

Toomey-Manchin wasnt horrible, it onyl added checks to gun shows, and didnt require them if you had a system in place, like in IL any FOID holder wouldnt have a bg check.

in states that have CCW(ie every other state) permit holders wouldnt go through a bg check



I wasnt able to get in the details of what the checks would require if they were run.

jpeyton seems to though

any bill that requires you reporting to the feds what weapon I am trying to buy is an immediate no vote for me

so yeah, you can put in a bill that it cant create a gun registry while providing all the information needed electronically to make a gun registry

dickheads

 

[PokerGuy]

I feel bad for the end of this wave of increased demand. It's coming, don't kid yourself... and the legislative defeat of additional gun restrictions is one of the things that will bring it about.

You would think at some point demand would start to taper off, but with more states attempting to strip people of their rights and take away their guns, I think you're going to see a lot more purchasing for a while.

 

[zsdersw]

You would think at some point demand would start to taper off, but with more states attempting to strip people of their rights and take away their guns, I think you're going to see a lot more purchasing for a while.

The bubble will burst.. it is only a matter of time.

 

[corwin]

The bubble will burst.. it is only a matter of time.

I just hope the idiots out there panic buying ammo will stop soon, it's really damn annoying to not be able to buy any unless I want to camp out at a store when they unload a truck

 

[umbrella39]

I honestly couldn't tell you. I've never once watched or read anything from MSNBC. Unlike a good portion of the right I don't need to be told how I'm supposed to think.

/thread

Just because sheep need to be told how to think and need daily affirmation makes the grazers think surely people with opposing views must need/do the same thing... Just because you guys pick your nose and eat it doesn't mean we do, too. Nasty fuckers.

 

[PokerGuy]

The bubble will burst.. it is only a matter of time.

At some point sales will slow down, but I don't see it as a bubble. As long as gun rights are under assault (and it's obvious they are and will be for a long time), you'll see people buying and stocking up. Also, if the percentage of the population buying weapons continues to increase, then the buying won't just be existing owners buying more because of fear of gun grabbing measures, it will be increased buying because of new customers.

 

[zsdersw]

At some point sales will slow down, but I don't see it as a bubble. As long as gun rights are under assault (and it's obvious they are and will be for a long time), you'll see people buying and stocking up. Also, if the percentage of the population buying weapons continues to increase, then the buying won't just be existing owners buying more because of fear of gun grabbing measures, it will be increased buying because of new customers.

 

[Texashiker]

The people in every poll support it over 80%. Sounds like the people fucking lost.

I am calling you on your every poll 80% of the people supported the expanded background check comment. Two polls, two different sites, 92.99% - 93% opposed the expanded background check.

http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=298572

http://www.survivalboards.com/2013-04-18/did-you-support-the-expanded-background-check/

As for your comment saying the polls will have a wide range of error, what is more democratic than allowing people to vote?

 

[frowertr]

The bubble will burst.. it is only a matter of time.

I hope you are right as ammo is tough to find. I only have a couple thousand .223 rounds and now that spring is here I'm ready to head back out to my shooting/hunting lease and start target practice again.

 

[thraashman]

I am calling you on your every poll 80% of the people supported the expanded background check comment. Two polls, two different sites, 92.99% - 93% opposed the expanded background check.

http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=298572

http://www.survivalboards.com/2013-04-18/did-you-support-the-expanded-background-check/

As for your comment saying the polls will have a wide range of error, what is more democratic than allowing people to vote?

So I'm going to go over to a white supremacy board and ask if black people should be allowed to vote and when the poll comes back with 90%+ saying they should that will be proof that the people support removing the right to vote from black people ... God you're a total fucking idiot, I honestly didn't think a human being could be as stupid as you've just proven yourself to be.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Libs are angry because the bill didn't make it to the house. Obama knew the bill would die in the house and was banking on beating up on the reps in the house in 2014. He lost that chance, which is why he threw a hissy fit.

The Senate always requires 60 votes, unless it's reconciliation. That is how the Senate works. You're frustrated now because you believe this bill should pass. But it did not have enough votes. Would be the same situation if it were defeated 45 yes votes to 55 no votes.


Think about it. Would this bill have ever passed the House of Representatives with a straight yes/no vote? No. It got defeated in the Senate. Even if passed it would never have made it to the President to sign into law. So what are we arguing?

You want this bill passed while someone else does not want this bill passed. Argue that, not about the fine details of the voting process.

 

[Texashiker]

God you're a total fucking idiot, I honestly didn't think a human being could be as stupid as you've just proven yourself to be.

You said "all" polls. I have provided you with two polls to dispute the "all" statement.

You have yet to post a link to a poll to backup your statement.

 

[QuantumPion]

Those polls that claim 90% of Americans are in favor of background checks are kind of, well bullshit.

Why? Look at the questions. They are asking people that probably know nothing at all about current gun regulations in a very generic way if they are "in favor of background checks". Of course 90% of people are in favor of background checks. What they fail to mention is that, hey, we already have background checks. If you sat down and explained to all of these people what current regulations we have and what the effect of the new regulations would be, the number of people in support of it would be closer to 0%.

 

[rpsgc]

Those polls that claim 90% of Americans are in favor of background checks are kind of, well bullshit.

Why? Look at the questions. They are asking people that probably know nothing at all about current gun regulations in a very generic way if they are "in favor of background checks". Of course 90% of people are in favor of background checks. What they fail to mention is that, hey, we already have background checks. If you sat down and explained to all of these people what current regulations we have and what the effect of the new regulations would be, the number of people in support of it would be closer to 0%.

You mean like asking people if they're in favour of banning dihydrogen monoxide? Or ending women suffrage?

:awe:



Yeah...


You can get support for virtually anything if you phrase it just right.