Obama Encourages Americans to Cease Robust Economic Activity
Given the state of the economy, shouldn’t Obama be encouraging this kind of retail activity?
As gun sales shoot up around the country, President-elect Barack Obama said Sunday that gun-owning Americans do not need to rush out and stock up before he is sworn in next month.
“I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment,” Obama said at a news conference. “Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven’t indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word.”
Seriously. The gun ownership hyperventilating about having a Democratic president is astounding. Somehow these people really think that the Obama administration is going to mean this is their last chance to purchase? While this is obviously ridiculous, there must be someone or some organization that is whipping up this frenzy for their own gain, be it political or economic. Who, pray tell, might it be?
Posted by scott on December 08, 2008 at 1407 hrs
I think you can find them most readily by looking for the tinfoil hats or listening for their discussion of the black helicopters overhead.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 08, 2008 at 1413 hrs
“I think people can take me at my word.” You’re joking, right? That’s hilarious, from any politician, Democrat or Republican. It’s almost insulting, you might as well say “Trust me” or “We’re doing this [insert wasteful/dangerous/idiotic government action here] for your own good”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2008 at 1415 hrs
Okay, Tyler. I challenge you. Go down to your local gun dealer and see what they have available. I’ll give you a solid year to return and fine one thing that isn’t still available because of Democrats in Washington.
Posted by scott on December 08, 2008 at 1417 hrs
According to the article Obama did vote for increases in federal excise taxes on firearms of up to 500%. That would seem sufficient incentive to buy now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2008 at 1437 hrs
Yeah. So said the official mouthpiece of the NRA. Which you can always count on to give a fair and balanced take on any gun issue.
My challenge still stands. What’s not going to be available to you a year from now? I’ll even expand it: what’s going to be taxed out of reach within twelve months?
Guns control sometimes has support at a local level—in places with a lot of gun crime. But come on. There’s so little support for it at the federal level that it’s almost a sacred cow of American politics. Nobody in the white house is going to ban your flipping guns. The idea that they’re going to start disappearing because Democrats got elected is dumb.
You might as well say that abortion is going to become illegal simply because we elected a majority of Republicans to congress.
Regardless of how they might feel, they won’t find any support among their colleagues for signing their own political death certificate.
Posted by scott on December 08, 2008 at 1509 hrs
He has a record, Scott. Now I understand that as a politician he can’t be expected to do or stand for anything, but gun owners must make their decisions based on something and relying on his record to make that decision is no dumber than voting for the man based on his record.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2008 at 1524 hrs
Yet I don’t see anyone leaping to take my bet.
seriously, can’t you just admit that there’s probably some unnecessary hysteria behind the increased gun sales?
Posted by scott on December 08, 2008 at 1528 hrs
How about… large capacity magazines? Semi-automatic rifles that possess accessories that make it look like an assault rifle (pistol grips, collapsible stock, barrel shroud etc.)? Specific weapons like the AK-47 and the AR-15?
You see, all of those items were banned by the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. Actually, the manufacture and import of them was banned, so you could still get them at an inflated price.
I agree with you, Scott, that gun control policy is not likely to be a policy initiative of the Obama Administration for some time, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen after other stuff calms down.
In any case, y’all completely missed my point. We are in a recession and any economic activity should be encouraged. In this case, people are actively purchasing legal products. I realize that Obama may be personally irked by the alleged cause for the economic activity, but surely he wouldn’t discourage it for personal reasons, would he?
Posted by Owen on December 08, 2008 at 1531 hrs
The hysteria seems to be the defense of The Chosen One at any cost. No one has any idea why gun sales may be increasing and to attribute it necessarily to hysteria is hysterical.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2008 at 1532 hrs
Scott… Last time a democrat held the presidency during that administration there were DOZENS of things that recreational gun owners/users could no longer purchase.
With a democrat in the white house, and democrats controlling both houses of congress, it seems to me that “foolish” is anyone who would try to suggest that there is nothing to fear.
Blanket bans of many recreational guns and accessories is NOT unprecedented.
“won’t be fooled again”
You might also know that a huge percentage of gun owners can’t stand the NRA. They feel the NRA is too “pc” and capitulates and compromises too many rights away.
If you ask me, the best part of the NRA is how the mere mention of their name puts the media and liberals in a panty twist.
But seriously.. Go on any on-line gun forum “glock talk” ar-15.com and post a thread asking “what do you think of the NRA” There will be far more negative than positive.
So you may think the NRA is some massive propoganda machine that brainwashes all its followers with fear and sensationalism.
The truth is that its the millions of INDIVIDUALS all over this country who own guns (many of whom can’t stand the NRA because they compromise on rights) who don’t have to wonder. They’ve seen in recent history what happens when a smooth talking liberal takes over washington.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2008 at 1533 hrs
ooops… i just realized i broke my own personal rule of not feeding trolls… You got lucky scott, momentary lapse of reason… I return the floor to you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2008 at 1535 hrs
surely he wouldn’t discourage it for personal reasons, would he?
Christ, lighten up already. The man hasn’t even had one day in office. Give him a flipping chance to do something you don’t like. Something more than ...whatever pettiness this is.
No one has any idea why gun sales may be increasing and to attribute it necessarily to hysteria is hysterical.
Thanks for getting us all back on a more reasonable track! Heh.
Posted by scott on December 08, 2008 at 1536 hrs
“I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment,” Obama said at a news conference.
Scott,
Obama is a Chicago politician. In Chicago, you can’t own a handgun. You CAN’T own a handgun. He’s NEVER fought or even suggested that Chicago’s ban should be overturned.
He HAS said that he believes owning a gun is “an individual right”. This is good, right? He’s also said that he thought the DC gun ban was constitutional… until it was overturned, then he said that “it simply reaffirms what he has always believed”.
There is plenty of reason to question his gun stance and just what he will do when his lib friends start knocking on the door.
Posted by Deibert on December 08, 2008 at 1547 hrs
Blanket bans of many recreational guns and accessories is NOT unprecedented.
Then it should be no problem for you to identify 12 months from now the myriad guns which are no longer available to you.
xxpilot, I’m going to resist—somehow—the urge to visit “glock talk” and just shoot from the hip as it were. No, I absolutely do not think the NRA is brainwashing gun owners nationwide into a sinister and unstoppable political force. Or whatever. And you’re right: I don’t believe they’re primarily about the interests of gun owners. I believe that they are a right-wing political organization whose purpose it is to elect and support Republicans.
But that’s neither here nor there. All I’m saying is that a) it seems unlikely that a Democratic 2008 election is going to result in the kind of gun banning that would merit a nationwide rash of gun sales prior to Obama taking office, and b) that it’s petty to criticize his “there’s no need for this” remarks on the grounds that sales are good for the economy.
I think these are pretty reasonable positions—which means I’ll shortly be called a communist, a troll and an idiot for having them. Yawn.
Posted by scott on December 08, 2008 at 1558 hrs
Why 12 months? Why not 4 years?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2008 at 1610 hrs
Good point. But if we were really talking about something years out in the future we wouldn’t be seeing a spike in gun sales immediately prior to his inauguration. If the concern was that the Illudium Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator might become illegal some years hence, what’s the rush? Why not wait and see if the economy gets better before rushing out to buy one? Still, I’ll bite: 4 years it is.
Posted by scott on December 08, 2008 at 1616 hrs
The rush is an obvious date in January. after which 4 years becomes the time frame, not 12 months. Second, I personally would oppose any such measures, thus your bet is really a bet on my ability to successfully oppose them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2008 at 1620 hrs
your bet is really a bet on my ability to successfully oppose them.
Clever. But if a rash of gun sales is going on, isn’t that a bet against your ability to oppoose them as well?
Or, as Casanova Frankenstein said in Mystery Men: “But I didn’t. I only knew that you’d know that I knew. Did you know THAT?”
Posted by scott on December 08, 2008 at 1630 hrs
As Owne mentioned above, anyone familiar with the Clinton gun ban knows exactly what happened to the PRICES of “pre-ban” accessories and firearms. They went through the roof.
If people wait until a gun ban is actually on the floor of congress to purchase their firearms it will be too late. The run on guns at that point would be so out of control the prices would spike and shortages would abound.
People don’t wait to buy a stock until the “good news” hits the papers. Buy on the rumor, sell on the news is the old adage.
Well, Obama may not have introduced his plans for “common sense” gun laws yet… But ANY wise gun owner knows “common sense gun law” is double speak for “bend over and grab your ankles, this won’t hurt a bit”
Some people who were thinking about getting a gun but waiting for the ‘right time’ are smart enough to know they’d better be gettin while the gettins good.
I purchased my first assault rifle on October 31st along with a pistol grip shotgun (and a s&w;airweight). I figured that knowing I might not be able to buy the AR in a couple years, now was the time.
If you think what you are seeing right now is a “run on guns” wait until Obamey introduces a proposal for some “common sense gun laws”
You won’t be able to get in the freaking DOOR of a gun shop there will be so many people in there.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2008 at 1633 hrs
My point, Scott, is that I would be betting against myself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2008 at 1636 hrs
Hey, you guys may be right. Perhaps the Democratic congress—or even the president himself—will be trying to bring back the old federal assault weapons ban.
I find myself in a middle-of-the road position on guns. I don’t think having more of them significantly decreases or increases gun violence. I don’t think having less of them—short of an across the board ban with a decade to trickle down to the black market—would make the streets any safer, either. And I certainly don’t think that the kind of gun legislation that merely regulates the edges does anything, either. I can read and understand the second amendment and I’m not in favor of any kind of draconian gun ban—nor do I think it’s even remotely possible here both for cultural and Constitutional reasons.
I just find the whole issue to have a lot more sizzle than steak on both sides.
Posted by scott on December 08, 2008 at 1650 hrs
And scott obama doesnt have to make the laws, congress does.
so you can check the leaders of the democratic party and see who is anti gun, and bet your bottom dollor that they will make a bill or slip it into another bigger bill.
and bho will sign it becuase its common sense.
so thats why the rush on sales. get them while you can.
I personally dont think they will ban guns.
Just tax the snot out of the ammo and make it hard to buy.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2008 at 1659 hrs
Thanks for the totally unnecessary civics lesson.
Posted by scott on December 08, 2008 at 1700 hrs
I believe that they are a right-wing political organization whose purpose it is to elect and support Republicans
Sure, Scott.
That’s why they endorsed Kagan with an “A” rating.
There may never be a gun ban. But then, there could be a massive ammo tax, or “inscribed” ammo requirements, which amounts to the same thing.
You’re just another Folkbum. He’s right: the Fairness Doctrine will NOT be brought back. But there WILL be “community oversight boards” involved in station-licensing process—and those Boards’ input will kill off conservative talk-radio.
Posted by dad29 on December 08, 2008 at 1727 hrs
A conservative friend of mine emailed me and said he thought he recognized me annoying Owen Robinson on his blog. I had no idea what he was talking about so I googled the name and arrived here. Gotta admit, looks like fun! Especially the nice Halloween card in the upper left hand corner titled “Ol Army.” I was in the Army a long time ago and they never let me dress like that!
But, about this gun stuff. Why not just ban ‘em all? The only reason our founding fathers wanted us to be able to bear arms and form militias was to enable an insurrection if our government got completely overbearing and irresponsible. Well, our leaders tried that during the past eight years and nothing happened, so what would be the problem with just turning in all our guns now that the new government is going to be great in comparison?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2008 at 1752 hrs
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6257
This has been floating in committee for 1/2 the year. WOn’t take much to get from committee to voteable bill in early 2009.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2008 at 1805 hrs
I think Owen’s on to something here.
Someone should start spreading rumors that when Obama takes office he’s going to ban the sales of automobiles and houses and vacations in the Bahamas or whatever. That way everyone would rush out and buy as much of soon-to-be-banned-product-X before January 20th as humanly possible and…
Presto! End of recession.
Posted by JB on December 08, 2008 at 2328 hrs
To know where Obama is going on the 2nd Amendment as president-we need only look at his record in the IL Senate. He voted in favor of every draconian form of gun control bill that he was able to vote on. As a U.S. senator he was opposed to the Supreme Court overturning the D.C. handgun ban, he has stated during the campaign that he opposes concealed carry laws (even though the legislatures of 48 states have seen fit to trust their citizens to have the ability to defend themselves against lethal attack), he picked one of the most ardent firearm haters/liberty deniers in the Senate as his running mate. Owen’s point is right on target (I know, you gun grabbers hate that kind of talk), any retail sales that help boost this economy should be viewed as good news by all.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2008 at 0544 hrs
BVBigBro -
Scott doesn’t care about Obama record. He only cares about what Obama says. According to Scott what Obama has done in the past is no reflection on what he will do in the future. All that really matter is what he says - even if what he says today contradicts what he said yesterday.
Scott - I have noticed a trend since the election. Every time a post is made criticizing an Obama position, one of your first responses is
“Christ, lighten up already.”
My question is - where has this ‘lightened’ up Scott been the last 8 years? Hell GWB has been more liberal than conservative in a lot of his policies and you bashed him constantly… And when someone told you to get a grip - you said response is was that it was your patriotic duty to bash/criticize the president. SO - should we lighten up - or is it our patriotic duty to criticize the president [elect] - And if we should lighten up does that mean that you apologize for all of the criticizing that you did the last 8 years?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2008 at 0910 hrs
I believe scott is just being a good shill for Obama. He’s kind of the Chris Matthews of Boots and Sabers. He thinks its “his job” to make sure Obama has a successful presidency. And his part of doing that is to do his part to try to calm the waters. Sooth the sheep so to speak. It will be easier to herd all the sheep into the coral of oppresive government when they are calm than when they are up in arms.
How ironic for the liberals… If they want to “keep guns out of society” they elect the very man who sends smart gun buyers out in droves. Millions more guns “on the street”
For all of you (which seems to be just scott) who think “there’s nothing to fear here” you ought to register for the brady campaign email list. They were orgasming all over themselves about what the Obama victory is going to mean for their cause.
Check it out: http://www.bradycampaign.org/
and YES, the bradycampaign wants re-instatement of the mis-named “assault weapons ban”
Its on their FRONT page.
ANYONE who says gun owners have no reason to fear a loss of their ability to purchase the types of weapons they can TODAY for recreation, for personal protection and for patriotic armarment as our founding fathers intended is either categorically ignorant or willfully trying to fool gun owners into a false sense of security so that these guns laws can be sprung upon people when they have less time to stock up and pre-empt them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2008 at 1113 hrs
Speaking of Obama, this is good (another Dem “bites the dust”):
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/rod.blagojevich.charged.2.883170.html
Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich and his Chief of Staff, John Harris, were arrested today by FBI agents on federal corruption charges alleging that they and others are engaging in ongoing criminal activity: conspiring to obtain personal financial benefits for Blagojevich by leveraging his sole authority to appoint a United States Senator
This is the seat vacated by Obama.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2008 at 1233 hrs
Partisanship aside, it’s small benefit to any of us that a “Dem” or a Republican “bites the dust.” What matters is that the criminal and the corrupt are discovered and removed.
Posted by scott on December 09, 2008 at 1239 hrs
What matters is that people realize there seems to be a shortage of “angels” to run these POWERFUL government machines.
In light of this fact what people need to realize is that instead of creating more government which only creates the potential for more corrupt misappropriation of taxpayer money and weilding of government granted power for personal gain, we need less government (or at least to hold the line).
I can’t wait til we have the new government healthcare administration… With hundreds of power-weilding administrators who can use their influence and government buying power at their hands to enrich themselves.
There is a certain amount of government we need. The amount of corruption that can exist within that amount of government can only be policed, not eliminated.
But all this government that we don’t need.. instead of trying to police a problem that just keeps getting worse and worse we ought just exterminate the problem by getting rid of the whole program.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2008 at 1329 hrs
Perhaps you’ve never heard about any of the scandals in the private health care system.
Posted by scott on December 09, 2008 at 1346 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134051
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 10:25 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 105
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 11:33 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).