Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Gun sales increase... Is it panic?

This is topic Gun sales increase... Is it panic? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005622

Posted by Tyler Potts (Member # 4952) on 11-16-2008, 01:27 PM:

So my roommate comes in last night saying he wants to buy a couple of guns. I kinda laughed it off, but he has a family with deep pockets got a tongue ring with just as much thought so I decided to listen.

I realize this borders on political, so I'll keep it brief and stick to opinions and guns. He told me Obama will be increasing gun taxes so that's why he wants a few (then rattled off a few manufacturers).

I searched CNN and all I could find was this article about a gun store owner receiving more business.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/11/obama.gun.sales/index.html?iref=newssearch

Is all of this just scared people buying without looking at facts? As far as I can tell our pres-elect is pro 2nd ammendment.

I went to Bud's Gun Shop and a pop up informs me that they're receiving a huge increase in sales and to expect things to be slow.

Any reason for this hype?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-16-2008, 01:44 PM:

In the interest of keeping this non-political, here is my non-opinionated observation from watching and reading the news: A lot of people think Mr. Obama will try to put more gun restrictions on, and/or raise taxes on them, therefore they're buying more guns than usual. There are also people who think the economy is going to get so bad they will need guns to protect their property.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-16-2008, 03:11 PM:

I don't think Obama's going to have time to even think about that... There was a guy runnning for US Senate in Wyoming that was a gun control freak... I saw hiz ads on the toobe while traveling around over there, needless to say that is the wrong state to run in and try to talk about gun control... He didn't come close to winning.

Tyler... I think what you meant to say is that he has more dollars than sense!

Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-16-2008, 05:34 PM:

I think it's just a lot of people reacting to a stereotype attached to the party beginning with "D". Oklahoma's Governor is a member of that party, but is in favor of gun ownership. Lots of other members of that party are as well.

About the only thing I've seen attributed to the President-elect in relation to new gun legislation is raising taxes (possibly by a lot) on ammunition. IMHO, that ploy doesn't make any sense. It would just encourage a lot more gun owners to get reloading equipment.

I agree the act of drafting new gun control laws ranks way down on the list of priorities for the incoming administration. Chances are any new gun laws will be drafted by state governments, which is already the case. More conservative states (like Oklahoma) are far more gun-friendly while states like California have very restrictive laws already.

I'm going to get a conceal carry permit pretty soon, but not because of any change in political leadership. Times are getting tougher. City governments have less and less money to pay police officers, fund jails and prisons, etc. There's less money for programs in rehabilitating people addicted to harmful, illegal drugs. We may see a serious uptick in crime rates. Lawton, OK isn't all that dangerous a town, but it was a pretty rough place in the early 1970s when the local economy was in the toilet.

It's already up to any individual to protect himself. Through my own experience, I know cops aren't going to be there to prevent you from being robbed. They're going to be there to investigate the crime after it happened. At best, a strong police presence will only discourage crime. People have to make smart choices to avoid higher risk situations. With police departments being cash strapped those smart individual choices will be more important than ever.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-16-2008, 11:19 PM:

I have been planning to buy a new rifle like an AR-15 for some time, now. I have finished my 10-22 and, as much as I like to shoot it, I want to build another gun.

Recent events have only spurred me on to buy it sooner rather than later.

No, I don't think the new President will immediately move to outlaw guns. He's got bigger fish to fry, just like others have already said.

However, I do see a more liberal-leaning government ahead which is more willing to dabble in "social engineering", promote its own agenda over the will of others and, generally, create a whole series of laws which, by themselves, do not outlaw guns or anything else but, overall, tend to restrict people's freedoms in the name of "The Good of the Many."

The problem is twofold. First, once the government takes freedom away from the people it rarely gives it back without some sort of upheaval. Second, changes like that often happen gradually so that, by the time people realize their freedom is gone, it's too late.

In short, it's a slippery slope. Once we start down that path, it will be very hard to return.

To be honest, I don't see EITHER major American political party, Democrat OR Republican, as looking out for my interests. They are BOTH suspect and I don't trust either party to take care of the country's problems in an effective way. The government looks out, purely, for its own interests.

That's why I'm moving my time line forward.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 11-19-2008, 08:52 PM:

I agree with you Randy. Something like the Brady Bill could easily get reinstated. I would, however, be more concerned about the newly elected in your own state over federal. Most gun restrictions come at the state level.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Through my own experience, I know cops aren't going to be there to prevent you from being robbed.

They are not obligated or expected to. I agree that we are all inherently responsible for our own safety. Relying on law enforcement to prevent you from being robbed is like relying on your janitor to ensure you are serving quality popcorn. That is not their job and all they can do is look at what is left behind.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-19-2008, 09:06 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I think it's just a lot of people reacting to a stereotype attached to the party beginning with "D". Oklahoma's Governor is a member of that party, but is in favor of gun ownership. Lots of other members of that party are as well.

There's also the thing that if a person says "gun control" to a group of people in a big city they generally picture getting guns off the street and out of the hands of criminals whereas if you say "gun control" to a person in a traditionally hunting area that person might picture someone trying to keep him from having his hunting rifle.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-19-2008, 11:37 PM:

quote: Chad Souder
They are not obligated or expected to.

Actually, a lot of police departments like to throw around that "we're protecting the public" vibe. Some departments even plaster that "to protect and service" stuff on their patrol cars. Thankfully none of the ones in this region stoop to that nonsense.

On the topic of gun control, it's unfortunate that the polar, all or nothing sides of the argument get the most talk time on TV and propel the most legislative effort. I have no problem with reasonable regulation, such as a background check when you're buying a handgun. I have no need for a military assault style rifle, but banning those kinds of weapons won't make a dent in street crime since they're not nearly the most common kinds of guns used in street crime. It's those cheap, little small caliber jobs that are doing the most damage.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 11-20-2008, 08:50 PM:

I just meant that law enforcement officers are not required to protect you or enforce the law. In other words, if you get robbed, you cannot sue the police for not stopping the robbery or if they see someone speeding, they are not obligated to give that person a ticket. I agree with you about their marketing schemes. I don't particularly care for the "Dare" program or the "To Protect and Serve" slogan, but I know most cops are in it for the right reason. At least around here they are. The hypocritical thing to me is people complain and whine about cops until they need one. Then they complain and whine about what took them so long.

In general (and this is real obvious) gun control laws by definition only restrict people who obey the law. Criminals by definition do not obey the law. Keeping that in mind, if anyone can make a convincing argument for any gun law - any law at all - I'm listening.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 11-21-2008, 10:30 AM:

quote: Tyler Potts
As far as I can tell our pres-elect is pro 2nd ammendment.

How did you got that impression? I am here in Pennsylvania "clinging to [my] guns and religion."

quote: Tyler Potts
I searched CNN

Well there's the answer to my question.

[ 11-21-2008, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Joe Tommassello ]

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-21-2008, 10:40 AM:

quote: Joe Tommassello
How did you got that impression? I am here in Pennsylvania "clinging to [my] guns and religion."

How did you get the impression he was wrong? Obama hasn't made any indication one way or the other. I think he's savvy enough to understand that gun control laws wouldn't go over well and would only increase the panic.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-21-2008, 10:56 AM:

During the campaign, the President-elect said during one particular speech that he was in favor of gun ownership. I can't remember which one specifically. But he also did say something about a tax on ammunition during another speech before becoming a presidential candidate.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-21-2008, 11:36 AM:

Actually, they may both be right. The president-elect has been both for and against the Constitutionality of the DC gun ban.

I think there is an underlying panic among certain quarters of the population for various reasons. At least that's what I'm hearing from folks that I talk to. Not just panic about the pres-elect, but also about the world's economy. I'm not sure that I agree with it all yet, but I am certainly watching a lot of things a lot more closely than I normally do.

It never hurts to stay informed and educated.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 11-21-2008, 01:30 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
How did you get the impression he was wrong?

Like Mark Marshall said above...it never hurts to stay informed and educated.

Go to Google, click the "News" option at the top of the page and search for "Obama gun ownership" and it will be abundantly clear. Funny...none of those links lead to CNN!

Posted by Tyler Potts (Member # 4952) on 11-21-2008, 01:50 PM:

Maybe its coming off wrong, but I was looking for a legitimate source of news as to why my roommate heard he needed to buy guns now, and when I searched CNN (which last I checked is still pretty reliable with news) I got nada. I did find this before CNN though:

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

And it was pretty middle of the road. Can you enlighten me Joe on your CNN jabs?

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 11-21-2008, 02:11 PM:

Sure Tyler.

CNN news coverage heavily favors Obama and the Democrats. Likewise Fox News Channel favors Republicans. That's why you didn't find anything about Obama and gun control on CNN.

On that link you provide in the first paragraph President-Elect Obama says "I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right..." WTF???

Posted by Tyler Potts (Member # 4952) on 11-21-2008, 02:18 PM:

Haha, while conservative I avoid Fox news at all costs, far too biased. I've never really thought of CNN as favoring but good to keep in mind.

But yeah, as far as ontheissues goes, it just left me more confused. I guess its like, "I'll support your right to smoke, but also support the cause keep you from smoking anywhere public."

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-21-2008, 02:23 PM:

This thread I think is starting to get into politics

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 11-21-2008, 02:25 PM:

Interesting direction Tyler. I am not a smoker but believe that the anti-smoking movement is extreme. Smoking is prohibited in a public building...so you have to walk through a cloud ten times thicker right outside the door instead!

Another interesting point...President Obama is a two-pack a day smoker. They have kept that well hidden while they show him heading to the gym every morning.

For the record NBC/MSNBC are the most biased news station. They had to remove two commentators from their election coverage because of their overt favoritism.

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 11-21-2008, 02:50 PM:

It is hard to say what will happen regarding purchasing guns. Again, I would be more concerned about what happens at your state level. My guess is that the only thing that will come from the federal level is cosmetic and capacity restrictions, like what the Brady Bill introduced. I am going to stock up on magazines now. What may become more difficult is selling guns. The idea being discussed of no longer allowing a person-to-person sale could lead to the end of the traditional gun show and cripple internet-based exchange sites. Currently, all guns must be shipped from an FFL to an FFL, but there are a lot of local person-to-person sales that originate on sites like Guns America. Requiring all sales to go through an FFL would increase the cost of guns as well, obviously.

quote: Joe Tommassello
Another interesting point...President Obama is a two-pack a day smoker. They have kept that well hidden while they show him heading to the gym every morning.

Do you have a source for this claim? And for the time being, he is still President-Elect Obama. He hasn't been sworn in yet.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-21-2008, 03:13 PM:

quote: Joe Tommassello
On that link you provide in the first paragraph President-Elect Obama says "I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right..." WTF???

The argument is that every right we have has some reasonable restraints to it. Like it is illegal for a health care practitioner to give out your health information to someone who you haven't approved, but if your doctor gets back a positive result for a test for tuberculosis he/she MUST report that to the related state health agency. Or even though you have the right to free speech, libel isn't covered. Or right to bear arms. They set a reasonable rule for what kinds of arms you are allowed to have (like excluding you from having automatic assault rifles).

That's their argument, though in the end criminals don't give two shits about what the law says.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 11-21-2008, 03:39 PM:

Chris:

The Constitution doesn't give you the right to hide the fact that you have a communicable disease. It does guarantee you the right to bear arms. So why can't I do it in the city of Philadelphia where seven cops have been murdered in the last two years? Sure reasonable limits on gun purchases make sense...but that is not what we are talking about. I personally don't care if "gun shows" disappear entirely. But law abiding citizens should be able to purchase and carry firearms for their protection ANYWHERE in the United States. Our Constitution says so.

quote: Chris Slycord
That's their argument, though in the end criminals don't give two shits about what the law says.

Amen Chris!

quote: Chad Souder
Do you have a source for this claim?

Oh for Pete's sake!!!! Go to Google and search for "obama smoking". It's not that hard to get information folks!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-21-2008, 03:43 PM:

quote: Chad Souder
What may become more difficult is selling guns. The idea being discussed of no longer allowing a person-to-person sale could lead to the end of the traditional gun show and cripple internet-based exchange sites.

I have mixed feelings about that. It would be a pain to involve an FFL (or two different FFL merchants) when buying/selling a firearm person to person. There's pros and cons about the situation. Family members sell or give firearms to other relatives. I have a really nice late 1970s Ithaca shotgun I inherited from my Great Uncle Owen. The "con" side is that lots of underground sales of weapons for more sinister purposes take place person to person.

I think anyone selling firearms at a gun show booth should have the necessary setup to run instant background checks and all that good stuff.

quote: Joe Tommassello
Another interesting point...President Obama is a two-pack a day smoker. They have kept that well hidden while they show him heading to the gym every morning.

It's common knowledge the President-elect is a smoker. He has also been trying to quit. The notion that "they" are trying to hide that information makes me start thinking of people wearing tin foil hats.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-21-2008, 04:12 PM:

quote: Joe Tommassello
The Constitution doesn't give you the right to hide the fact that you have a communicable disease. It does guarantee you the right to bear arms.

I never said the Constitution gives you the right to hide a communicable disease. What I was trying to imply, and you didn't get, is that the laws we have that protect us as individuals are also written in such a way to simultaneously keep public safety.

So while, HIPPA requires that doctors keep health information confidential, a disease such as TB is seen as being something that needs to be reported for public safety. So your right to privacy is reduced to some extent for the good of the people.

Posted by Todd McCracken (Member # 4718) on 11-21-2008, 04:51 PM:

Could have something to do with stuff like this.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 11-21-2008, 05:04 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
It's common knowledge the President-elect is a smoker. He has also been trying to quit. The notion that "they" are trying to hide that information makes me start thinking of people wearing tin foil hats.

I only bring it up to demonstrate my point about news outlets covering particular stories and/or candidates selectively. It is hypocritical to focus so much on his healthy routine without telling the whole story.

quote: Chris Slycord
I never said the Constitution gives you the right to hide a communicable disease. What I was trying to imply, and you didn't get, is that the laws we have that protect us as individuals are also written in such a way to simultaneously keep public safety.

The second amendment says - and I quote - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You are making my point. The Constitution GUARANTEES us certain rights not implicitly but directly. State and local governments should not be inhibiting these rights by disallowing them. Regulating gun purchases is indeed a public safety benefit. Needing a permit to carry is cool too to weed out high-risk candidates. But saying no one in a certain locale is permitted to own a gun (like in DC) is in direct opposition to our founding documents. Apparently four out of five Supreme Court justices can't read.

As for health information it is nearly a joke. In spite of all the good they pretend they are doing they are still ass backwards. In the state of Pennsylvania you used to have to get a blood test to get a marriage license. Thus if you had a venereal disease you could get a shot of penicillin in the butt before you spread it. Now that it's not politically correct to out someone with AIDS they have done away with the blood test. What kind of fucked up logic is that?

quote: Chad Souder
I am going to stock up on magazines now.

Smartest guy in the debate! Obama won't take your guns...he'll just put a $10 tax on every round.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-21-2008, 05:45 PM:

quote: Joe Tommassello
You are making my point. The Constitution GUARANTEES us certain rights not implicitly but directly. State and local governments should not be inhibiting these rights by disallowing them. Regulating gun purchases is indeed a public safety benefit. Needing a permit to carry is cool too to weed out high-risk candidates. But saying no one in a certain locale is permitted to own a gun (like in DC) is in direct opposition to our founding documents. Apparently four out of five Supreme Court justices can't read.

And your point is a nonsequitur to what I was talking about the whole time.

Obama said that cities and states can constrain the right. Constraining doesn't mean removing. For instance, the permits constrain the right as do banning certain fully-automatic weapons and requiring a waiting period. All of those constrain the right but within reason.

quote: Joe Tommassello
As for health information it is nearly a joke. In spite of all the good they pretend they are doing they are still ass backwards. In the state of Pennsylvania you used to have to get a blood test to get a marriage license. Thus if you had a venereal disease you could get a shot of penicillin in the butt before you spread it. Now that it's not politically correct to out someone with AIDS they have done away with the blood test. What kind of fucked up logic is that?

I don't see why a blood test was needed to begin with. Why should the tax payers foot the bill for you to get a diagnostic procedure?

edit: To be clear, I don't agree with a ban on guns but I'm not remotely sold on the notion that Obama's gonna ban them either.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 11-21-2008, 05:54 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
I don't see why a blood test was needed to begin with. Why should the tax payers foot the bill for you to get a diagnostic procedure?

They didn't. You had to get one first before you applied for the marriage license. It was in 1981. Whatever they were checking for there is a lot worse now so it makes no sense to go backwards. In Mexico you need a blood test AND a chest x-ray!

quote: Chris Slycord
Constraining doesn't mean removing.

Thank you. In Philadelphia they REMOVE your right to carry. You gave me the correct word. In D.C. not only don't they want to remove your right to carry but to even OWN a hand gun in your home. Do we agree on the difference?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-21-2008, 06:18 PM:

No one has the "right" to carry a handgun. Not even here in Oklahoma. That is a privilege, and it is a privilege that should only be granted to people who satisfy certain requirements set by the state to gain a carry permit.

Carry privileges are different from rights of gun ownership like being able to keep a firearm in your house for home defense or legally transporting weapons to a hunting area or gun range for sporting purposes.

I don't think the District of Columbia's gun ban will last. Eventually courts will dismiss it as being unconstitutional.

However, states can vary qualification rules on conceal carry permits to their own discretion. Here in Oklahoma it's not difficult to get a carry permit. You just have to take a 1 day class, shoot 50 rounds at a firing range to demonstrate competence with the weapon, get fingerprinted and pay various fees amounting to near $200 for the 5 year permit. Some states (or cities like New York City) demand that you have some legitimate pressing need for the permit -such as some lady who has an asshole psycho ex-boyfriend stalking her.

As "easy" as it seems to get a carry permit in Oklahoma, it is also very easy to get it revoked. There are strict rules regarding where you can and cannot conceal carry a gun. For instance, if you get pulled over by a police officer and you're carrying by law you must produce your permit and notify the officer you're carrying even if he doesn't ask. Failure to notify gets you fined $500, charged with a misdemeanor and you lose your permit for 1 year.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 11-21-2008, 06:43 PM:

Well, this thread was fun while it lasted. [Roll Eyes]