The Obama Gun Effect

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

And people die when "stupid" gets combined with guns.

People die a lot more when stupid gets combined with cars. Do you give people that collect super fast cars this much of a hard time?

Get over yourself. People are allowed to be interested in things that you yourself are not interested in.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

And people die when "stupid" gets combined with guns.

People die around "stupid" in all situations.

People die around "stupid" drunk drivers in completely legal cars (see Ted Kennedy). People shoot their own leg (Plaxico Burress) when they are stupid and drunk. Stupid people cause problems everywhere.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

People die a lot more when stupid gets combined with cars. Do you give people that collect super fast cars this much of a hard time?

Get over yourself. People are allowed to be interested in things that you yourself are not interested in.

Super fast cars? People dying? Big issue? Sorry, dude. You just managed to make no kind of sense whatsoever.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Yeah, and you get a big fat hardon the more deadly those weapons get.

No. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true. I enjoy collecting the weapons of liberation. For example, the German K98 Mauser bolt action rifle is the best bolt action rifle ever constructed and every modern bolt action is a copycat of the advances of the German rifle. The Mauser men were geniuses. Their guns were great.

But, I don't own any German Mausers marked with original German stamps. I own several K98 Mausers that were "captured" by other countries fighting for liberation. The "capture" Mausers were "sanitized" which means that the Nazi stamps and deadheads and Eagles were all buffed/ground off. Then, the weapons were stamped by the capturing country as their own. Millions of those guns were captured and held in storage to be used against Germany (or any other invading country) for the future. As the history of warfare moved away from the bolt action gun in favor of semiautomatic (and later fully automatic) weapons, the storage of the bolt actions guns were liquidated with a high percentage of those guns sold to the ever eager and willing US market. So, the K98 Mausers that I own (and there are many of them) are all historical examples of defiance of the Nazi movement.

So, Chum, the opposite is true.

[chumdawg]

A collector wouldn't have any problem getting along with society. You, wmbwinn, seem to have problems getting along with society.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Super fast cars? People dying? Big issue? Sorry, dude. You just managed to make no kind of sense whatsoever.

Classic Chum. My post made perfect sense but let me explain it to you.

Many, many more people die when stupid meets cars than when stupid meets guns. So my question was, do you make fun of big time car guys that spend all their time getting their cars as fast as possible.

They also serve no tangible, beneficial purpose, other than to drive at dangerous speeds.

So my question is, do you hold those guys in the same level of contempt that you apparently do guys that collect guns?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Classic Chum. My post made perfect sense but let me explain it to you.

Many, many more people die when stupid meets cars than when stupid meets guns. So my question was, do you make fun of big time car guys that spend all their time getting their cars as fast as possible.

They also serve no tangible, beneficial purpose, other than to drive at dangerous speeds.

So my question is, do you hold those guys in the same level of contempt that you apparently do guys that collect guns?

You aren't making any sense. You are comparing souped-up car deaths to gun deaths?

What the hell are you thinking?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

A collector wouldn't have any problem getting along with society. You, wmbwinn, seem to have problems getting along with society.

I have no problem getting along with society and am a very friendly person. I am routinely applauded for how easy I am to work with and how affable I am in society. That charge is laughable.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You aren't making any sense. You are comparing souped-up car deaths to gun deaths?

What the hell are you thinking?

Come on Chum, you're not this dense. Cars kill way more people than guns? Right?

You're making fun of gun collecting. I'm pointing out that other hobbies servie no tangible benfit other than to interest the hobbiest, and some could even be considered as dangerous.

This is not rocket science.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I have no problem getting along with society and am a very friendly person. I am routinely applauded for how easy I am to work with and how affable I am in society. That charge is laughable.

What would it take for you to shoot someone?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Come on Chum, you're not this dense. Cars kill way more people than guns? Right?

You're making fun of gun collecting. I'm pointing out that other hobbies servie no tangible benfit other than to interest the hobbiest, and some could even be considered as dangerous.

This is not rocket science.

I'm not "making fun" of anything. I don't think you fully appreciate the importance of this discussion. As such, you can go now.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

What would it take for you to shoot someone?

1)they shoot at me or point a gun towards me
2)in some other mechanism (such as road rage), they attempt to use overwhelming force against my person or that of my wife or children
3)to protect those around me under the same conditions named above
4)if I were a law enforcement officer or member of the military and such was required in my job description at the time

I have never shot anyone nor have I ever been pushed far enough to do so. I hope that it never happens.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

1)they shoot at me or point a gun towards me
2)in some other mechanism (such as road rage), they attempt to use overwhelming force against my person or that of my wife or children
3)to protect those around me under the same conditions named above
4)if I were a law enforcement officer or member of the military and such was required in my job description at the time

I have never shot anyone nor have I ever been pushed far enough to do so. I hope that it never happens.

Boy, I bet you salivated at those possibilities.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Boy, I bet you salivated at those possibilities.

Again, I am not the sick man you seem to think that I am. A number of great authors have said (to paraphrase) that we write from our own experiences.

Your continued push to contend that I have a dark need to kill causes me to wonder what is driving you in your experience.

I have no dark need to kill. I have no need to kill at all. I'm content destroying paper targets.

Once upon a time, you said that you had killed a man with a FN FAL rifle. I figured at the time that you were bullshitting and trying to 'egg me on'. Which is it?
1)you did kill a man with a rifle
2)you are searching for a dark side to my hobby

And, lastly, do you have a dark need to kill someone lurking in your mind???

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Again, I am not the sick man you seem to think that I am. A number of great authors have said (to paraphrase) that we write from our own experiences.

Your continued push to contend that I have a dark need to kill causes me to wonder what is driving you in your experience.

I have no dark need to kill. I have no need to kill at all. I'm content destroying paper targets.

Once upon a time, you said that you had killed a man with a FN FAL rifle. I figured at the time that you were bullshitting and trying to 'egg me on'. Which is it?
1)you did kill a man with a rifle
2)you are searching for a dark side to my hobby

And, lastly, do you have a dark need to kill someone lurking in your mind???

I killed a man with a FN FAL rifle? Boy, you really fit the stereotype. It's not just you who wants to kill everything in sight...everyone does.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You can deny it all you want. But there's no denying the image you have of a guy jerking off alone in his room to his *amazing* collection of things that can freakin' KILL people.

You can freakin' KILL people with pencils. Hell, you can freakin' KILL people with your bare hands.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

you continue to demonstrate your complete ignorance. Let me give you a few examples to make it simple for you.

The Israeli Military Industries (IMI) exported to the USA in 1989 the Hadar II. It was a "Sporting Firearm" based on the highly effective IMI Galil (a military weapon). It was altered in several ways to satify the US laws to have it qualifed as a "Sporting Firearm". It had a small 5 round magazine, a heavier wood stock with no pistol grip, no threaded barrel, and no bayonet (knife) attachment, and no grenade launcher attachment.

The Feinstein Ban was legislated and it listed several COMPANIES that could no longer import guns to the USA. IMI was on the Ban list because IMI also makes the Uzi.

So, the Hadar II was only imported into the USA in 1989 (one year only). The gun sold for around 700 dollars back then.

Once the ban was in place, the gun now sells for about 2300 dollars. The demand for the gun remains high enough to push the low availability to drive the price up.

The Hadar II imported in 1989 is a completely legal gun and can be traded/sold in the USA with no restriction (at least no restriction other than the usual laws that govern all gun sales). IMI simply cannot import more of them. IMI can import the parts for the gun so long as they don't import the receiver (the central piece of the gun). US companies can make receivers that are clones of the IMI receiver. Section 922r of the NFA laws states that a gun can be assembled from an imported parts kit so long as no more than ten parts in the gun are imported. So, you can use ten IMI parts and find the other parts made in the USA and legally assemble the gun.

The Galil itself is another lesson for you. The Galil is Israeli's recreation of the famous AK47. The Galil is perhaps the premier class of AK47 inspired weapons in the world. There are a few equally impressive AK47 inspired weapons and which one is "best" is a matter of opinion.

Anyway, the Galil is made by IMI. The civilian versions of the Galil that were exported by Israel to the USA before 1989 are completely legal guns (they are "pre ban" in regard to the Feinstein ban) and can be bought/sold/traded with no restrictions other than the usual restrictions in play for all weapons. The civilian versions of the Galil differ from the military Galil in that:
1)not fully automatic
2)no grenade launcher

Anyway, if you have an original 100% IMI Galil imported into the USA before 1989, then you have a gun that routinely trades for 3K to 4.5K; they previously sold for around 1000 dollars when they arrived in the states...

Anyway, there are a few examples for you to ponder.

The guns that are already here which guns arrived legally remain legal and can be traded legally. When new supplies of new guns are banned, then the guns already here double or triple in value.

no, "ignorance" is believing that buying all this ammo and guns because of an expectation that it will be "banned' is a profitable investment.

oe there is the "ignorance" that is driving all these purchases of guns and ammos based on the belief that there is some draconian new regs coming down.

but keep it up, the gun merchants enjoy the boom in business.

[Rhylan]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Millions? So sad, so sad...

Sad compared to the millions more that unions spent to get him elected? Or any other group of like-minded individuals? Everybody's got their interest to protect and their own opinion on who threatens it, right or wrong.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I'm not "making fun" of anything. I don't think you fully appreciate the importance of this discussion. As such, you can go now.

The "importance of this discussion"? That's a hoot.

You are making fun of him. That's all this is, you making fun of something you don't get. Which is common for ignorant people. But during the election you claimed ignorant people were only voting for the repubs, so I'm confused.

[Flacolaco]

I think Tony Romo had a lot to do with all this aggression and 'discussion' last night.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, "ignorance" is believing that buying all this ammo and guns because of an expectation that it will be "banned' is a profitable investment.

oe there is the "ignorance" that is driving all these purchases of guns and ammos based on the belief that there is some draconian new regs coming down.

but keep it up, the gun merchants enjoy the boom in business.

Whether or not a ban is enacted, guns will continue to increase in value. I have owned guns most of my life, and every gun I own is now worth much more than when originally purchased. A ban simply accelerates the increase in value, as wmbwinn described (IMI Hadar II, IMI Galil, etc).

I went to the Fort Worth gun show in mid November, and the placed was completely packed. As I was leaving, someone commented on how busy it was. His friend said, "This is what change looks like, Comrade."

And speaking of Change, it looks like your Messiah is pissing off his own people....

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I think Tony Romo had a lot to do with all this aggression and 'discussion' last night.

Why, because the "gun-slinger" mentality failed?

[alexamenos]

I've never owned a gun before...well, I've got an ancient .22 that wouldn't slow down an angry bunny rabbit, but I've never owned a grown-up gun before. Maybe I should buy one before they're outlawed by Obamanation. Any recommendations? Just something that'd mortally wound a crackhead or a social worker should the need arise....and something not too loud. I don't like loud noises.

In times past I've never gotten too bent out of shape over "gun control" one way or the other. The NRA and Republicans invariably chatter endlessly over whether one can hunt a deer or shoot a crackhead, but really the heart of the "gun" issue is the ability to defend oneself from the central government, not deer and crackheads.

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson

It's a quaint 18th century notion that armed masses are essential to the preservation of liberty, because armed masses means that the central government can't gain a monopoly on the use of violence. Orwell, in one of my favorite little essays says, "The age of the Rifle was the Age of democracy", echoing the sentiment that the degree of dispersion of political power is directly related to the dispersion of the means of violence....or political power comes out of the end of the barrel of a gun as someone else said...

...but I digress...

The Fed Gov has a monopoly on the means of violence, so that ship has long since sailed. You and I don't stand a chance of standing up to our government. We're its little bitches whether we like it or know it or not. For an example of what one might expect if one trys to defend oneself from the forces of the Federal Government, see ca. Waco Texas, April 1994.

At least....that's what I've long thought, but as I watch the ascendancy of 4th generation warfare I'm reminded atom bombs and stealth bombers and aircraft carriers aren't perfect weapons in every situation....I'm reminded of this and I bet Obama is too, hence when Obama quite carefully qualifies,

"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."

I'm willing to bet that "lawful" is going to get a lot more restrictive, and I'd sooner take a crackheads word. I think I will go buy a gun, or two. I might like to have something that I can convert into an semi or an automatic. Any recommendations?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I'm willing to bet that "lawful" is going to get a lot more restrictive, and I'd sooner take a crackheads word. I think I will go buy a gun, or two. I might like to have something that I can convert into an semi or an automatic. Any recommendations?

That's EXACTLY why people are buying up guns now, as quickly as they can.

As for recommendations, my personal favorite "assault rifle" is the Israeli Galil, but there are several good ones. The Bulgarian SA-93 is a nice gun too. You could also get a 12 gauge Saiga, which is basically a 12 gauge shotgun on an AK47 platform (semi-auto).

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by jefelump

That's EXACTLY why people are buying up guns now, as quickly as they can.

yeah, and what I belabor to point out is that not only is Obama a flaming liberal commie, but he's a flaming liberal commie in a climate where the powers-that-be, I believe, are s---ing in their pants scared about maintaining control.

[u2sarajevo]

Didn't people do this same thing when Clinton won?

I guess it's good for the economy? At least for anyone in the gun industry. Lord knows Wal Mart needs the money.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

Didn't people do this same thing when Clinton won?

Hell, I remember lefties buying guns for the first time in their lives when Bush won in 2004 (but for somewhat different reasons...)

The sky is ALWAYS falling, Chicken Little...

[92bDad]

Chum's comments are offensive.

From myself, I do not own a gun, never have...maybe some day I will, but for now, I don't.

Now, I have gone to the range and fired various handguns as a civilian. I have even taken my sons to the range and taught them how to fire at a target and how to handle a weapon in a safe way.

Basically, my goal was to educate and enable my sons to be safe in the event that they go to someone's house and come across a gun.

With that, we had a great time at the range. So much so, that my older son kicked our tails in his groupings. He was consistantly putting his shot groups of 3 rounds on a dime at nearly every distance in the range.

I also handled various weapons when I served in the military, and yes as a soldier we have a much higher purpose or agenda behind our weapons.

Now today, it is my CHOICE to not own or carry a weapon. I believe we should continue to support our ability to choose what is best for our homes and our families.

Just as someone believes in their choice to give a child two dad's, or to kill a child still in its mother's womb...then I should have the ability to choose if I own a weapon or not.

As for shooting weapons at a weapons range, that is a fun activity. It's a competitive sport, just like going to the batting cages or to the driving range. Their is one difference...first I noticed that as my sons handled the weapons and fired down range, they began to gain some huge respect for the power they were holding, as well as an appreciation for the responsability behind it.

I would trust my son's if they joined the military or some form of law enforcement and they had to make a drastic decision of using their weapons.

Guns are not to be taken lightly and saddly in the wrong hands they are deadly, but no more deadly than a 2 ton piece of metal with 4 wheels and an engine. Just remember, it takes people to kill people...guns or no guns, if someone is bent on killing another, they will figure out a way to take action.

Perhaps the government should learn to enforce the laws they have on the books, rather than create new laws.

[Arne]

Dr. Paul's latest Texas Straight Talk:

Gun Control: Protecting Terrorists and Despots

Tragically, over the Thanksgiving holiday, the world was reminded how evil and cruel people can be. According to emerging accounts of the events in India, about a dozen well-armed and devastatingly well-trained terrorists laid siege on the city of Mumbai, killing almost two hundred people, and terrorizing thousands.

Regardless of the reasons, the indiscriminate shooting on masses of unarmed and defenseless people is chilling and reprehensible. How were these terrorists able to continue so long, relatively unchallenged, killing so many?

India’s gun laws are her business, of course. However, once the shock of these events and the initial reaction of fear passes, Americans should take away a valuable lesson about real homeland security and gun control from this tragedy.

Gun control advocates tell us that removing guns from society makes us safer. If that were the case why do the worst shootings happen in gun free zones, like schools? And while accidents do happen, aggressive, terroristic shootings like this are unheard of at gun and knife shows, or military bases. It bears repeating that an armed society truly is a polite society.

The fact is that firearm technology exists. It cannot be uninvented. As long as there is metalworking and welding capability, it matters not what gun laws are imposed upon law-abiding people. Those that wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns. Gun control makes violence safer and more effective for the aggressive, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government.

History shows us that another tragedy of gun laws is genocide. Hitler, for example, knew well that in order to enact his “final solution,” disarmament was a necessary precursor. While it is not always the case that an unarmed populace WILL be killed by their government, if a government is going to kill its own people, it MUST disarm them first so they cannot fight back. Disarmament must happen at a time when overall trust in government is high, and under the guise of safety for the people, or perhaps the children. Knowing that any government, no matter how idealistically started, can become despotic, the Founding Fathers enabled the future freedom of Americans by enacting the second amendment.

In our own country, we should be ever vigilant against any attempts to disarm the people, especially in this economic downturn. I expect violent crime to rise sharply in the coming days, and as states and municipalities are even more financially strained, the police will be even less able or willing to respond to crime. In many areas, local police could become more and more absorbed with revenue generating activities, like minor traffic violations and the asset forfeiture opportunities of non-violent drug offenses. Your safety has always, ultimately been your own responsibility, but never more so than now. People have a natural right to defend themselves. Governments that take that away from their people should be highly suspect.

http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?...ngdetail.shtml

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Arne

Dr. Paul's latest Texas Straight Talk:


http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?...ngdetail.shtml

And Ron Paul actually nails one one the head.

BINGO

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Whether or not a ban is enacted, guns will continue to increase in value. I have owned guns most of my life, and every gun I own is now worth much more than when originally purchased. A ban simply accelerates the increase in value, as wmbwinn described (IMI Hadar II, IMI Galil, etc).

I went to the Fort Worth gun show in mid November, and the placed was completely packed. As I was leaving, someone commented on how busy it was. His friend said, "This is what change looks like, Comrade."

Just a FYI -- it is your type that is pissing me off. Not because you aren't right, and don't have the right to buy a few more guns and ammo, but because my salary hasn't increased at the speed of the cost of guns -- especially since the first week of Nov. So I can't increase like I would like to.

I thought I'd pick up a few, but good grief the $$$$. I talked with a friend who has a FFL and he told me they sold more guns the first week after the vote, than they had all year previous.

Not that I have a need for another weapon, but I would like a good hunting/military style .223 for my son and they are outrageous right now.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Arne

Dr. Paul's latest Texas Straight Talk:


http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?...ngdetail.shtml

That increases my respect for Ron Paul. Ron is right on many points. He just has a few weird quirks.

But, he is absolutely correct on guns.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Just a FYI -- it is your type that is pissing me off. Not because you aren't right, and don't have the right to buy a few more guns and ammo, but because my salary hasn't increased at the speed of the cost of guns -- especially since the first week of Nov. So I can't increase like I would like to.

I thought I'd pick up a few, but good grief the $$$$. I talked with a friend who has a FFL and he told me they sold more guns the first week after the vote, than they had all year previous.

Not that I have a need for another weapon, but I would like a good hunting/military style .223 for my son and they are outrageous right now.

Look at the Century sporter "Golani" Galil clone. Price has actually fallen. They are on backorder at most places right now. But, they can be found. If you want a military style gun, that one is available. Now, if you want a AR15, good luck.

If you want an inexpensive hunting .223, look at Rossi or New England Firearm/Harrington and Richardson.

[wmbwinn]

Alexamenos: If you want one gun for multi-purpose applications with great effectiveness, then that one gun has to be a 12 gauge shotgun.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, "ignorance" is believing that buying all this ammo and guns because of an expectation that it will be "banned' is a profitable investment.

oe there is the "ignorance" that is driving all these purchases of guns and ammos based on the belief that there is some draconian new regs coming down.

but keep it up, the gun merchants enjoy the boom in business.

I would be willing to bet you 10 thousand dollars that my gun collection and ammunition will increase in value at a higher rate than the S&P500 on the stock market for at least two years.

If you are so sure that I am wrong, take me up on the bet.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Look at the Century sporter "Golani" Galil clone. Price has actually fallen. They are on backorder at most places right now. But, they can be found. If you want a military style gun, that one is available. Now, if you want a AR15, good luck.

If you want an inexpensive hunting .223, look at Rossi or New England Firearm/Harrington and Richardson.

Dalmations, I was going to suggest NEF (New England Firearms) too. I just saw one on gunbroker.com for less than $100. However, it's a break-top action, which means single shot. No semi-auto.

I was just looking also at the Galil/Golani sporters on gunbroker.com, which is what I bought (before the election, I haven't bought any guns since the election), and there are several of those available, ranging from $700-$900. However, I bought mine from a wholesaler, not at auction. Check out www.classicarms.us. They don't have any listed right now, because they sold out, but I'm sure they will have them again.

If you're going to hunt with a .223, double check the gun laws. I don't know if it's an issue or not in TX, but in some states it's illegal to hunt deer with a 22 caliber bullet. Varmints I'm sure are fine anywhere.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I killed a man with a FN FAL rifle? Boy, you really fit the stereotype. It's not just you who wants to kill everything in sight...everyone does.

Chumdawg, I apologize. I got your own quote off slightly when I went from pure memory. So, I researched it and found your exact quote.

Here is the link:
http://www.dallas-mavs.com/vb/showth...340#post902340

It is post #39

Now, as I said originally: I think you were just bullshitting me and trying to get some sort of sick response out of me.

My response then is the same now: see post #40

So, sorry your memory is not as sharp as mine...

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Just a FYI -- it is your type that is pissing me off. Not because you aren't right, and don't have the right to buy a few more guns and ammo, but because my salary hasn't increased at the speed of the cost of guns -- especially since the first week of Nov. So I can't increase like I would like to.

I thought I'd pick up a few, but good grief the $$$$. I talked with a friend who has a FFL and he told me they sold more guns the first week after the vote, than they had all year previous.

Not that I have a need for another weapon, but I would like a good hunting/military style .223 for my son and they are outrageous right now.

another cheap option that you can probably find is the Saiga AK47 inspired .223

But, if you want an AR... they aren't available hardly at all right now. Too high a demand.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Hell, I remember lefties buying guns for the first time in their lives when Bush won in 2004 (but for somewhat different reasons...)

The sky is ALWAYS falling, Chicken Little...

Paranoia is only a heightened sense of reality...

(funny one liner from an old college professor I knew who worked in the Manhantan Project with Einstein, Enrico Fermi, and company)

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

Didn't people do this same thing when Clinton won?

I guess it's good for the economy? At least for anyone in the gun industry. Lord knows Wal Mart needs the money.

Yes, and Clinton managed to get the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 passed. That is the "assault weapons ban" that was allowed to expire.

again, I do not think I and others are over reacting.