What Stimulated the Gun and Ammo Market?

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

Give up the high-power ones vs give up on many crime victims. Hmmm... that's a tough answer!

how about arm those people so they aren't crime victims?

Yeah that's a guarantee.

Oh noes, I'm getting shot all over by a big, fast gun.

Let me get my big gun to fire back and get those bad guys.

i guess you prefer the 2nd check box then.

Oh noes, I'm getting shot all over by a big, fast gun.

Let me get my big gun to fire back and get those bad guys.

I guess you read what you want to read.

it would be easier if you'd spoiler the rap lyrics.

[HAL 9000 96]

Give up the high-power ones vs give up on many crime victims. Hmmm... that's a tough answer!

how about arm those people so they aren't crime victims?

Yeah that's a guarantee.

Oh noes, I'm getting shot all over by a big, fast gun.

Let me get my big gun to fire back and get those bad guys.

i guess you prefer the 2nd check box then.

Oh noes, I'm getting shot all over by a big, fast gun.

Let me get my big gun to fire back and get those bad guys.

I guess you read what you want to read.

it would be easier if you'd spoiler the rap lyrics.

But of course. Common sense precludes one getting shot all over and having the time to react accordingly.

[natty bumppo 297]

Here is an interesting thought, in United States v. Miller in 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the second Ammendment only protects the rights of citizens to posses military type firearms. That ruling hasn't been revisited but it was mentioned in Distict of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, saying that Miller only addresses the type of firearms that one can posses under the second ammendment. Also, only 6 supreme court cases have referenced Miller and none with respect to any "assault weapon" ban. I'm suprised at that, but would expect based on the weapons specifically mentioned in the various proposed versions of the ban, being military in origin, that any ban would be overturned.

miller was dead by the time the SC heard his case, so was not represented. the only significant finding in the case was that short barreled shotguns were not especially appropriate for military use. this was in reference to the military thinking of the time. interestingly enough, the "master key", a short barreled shotgun clamped to the bottom of an M4 type variant of the M16 has become standard issue within the last 30 years.

scalia and roberts made it very clear in heller that "a type of firearm within common use may not be banned". AR 15 and AK 47 exist in private ownership to the tune of about 15 million examples today. it would be hard to describe that as anything less than common use.

yet it is strange that the Winchester M97 and M12 shotguns were used by American Expeditionary Forces during World War I and were effective enough that the German gov't protested their use in combat. These were simply pump shotguns with barrels at the 20" mark (I think 20").

Of note, the US has used the above models in numerous conflicts since WWI.

Edited March 27, 2009 by Natty Bumppo

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

Give up the high-power ones vs give up on many crime victims. Hmmm... that's a tough answer!

how about arm those people so they aren't crime victims?

Yeah that's a guarantee.

Oh noes, I'm getting shot all over by a big, fast gun.

Let me get my big gun to fire back and get those bad guys.

i guess you prefer the 2nd check box then.

Oh noes, I'm getting shot all over by a big, fast gun.

Let me get my big gun to fire back and get those bad guys.

I guess you read what you want to read.

it would be easier if you'd spoiler the rap lyrics.

But of course. Common sense precludes one getting shot all over and having the time to react accordingly.

happens in the military. don't you have something better to offer than that lame reply?

[HAL 9000 96]

Give up the high-power ones vs give up on many crime victims. Hmmm... that's a tough answer!

how about arm those people so they aren't crime victims?

Yeah that's a guarantee.

Oh noes, I'm getting shot all over by a big, fast gun.

Let me get my big gun to fire back and get those bad guys.

i guess you prefer the 2nd check box then.

Oh noes, I'm getting shot all over by a big, fast gun.

Let me get my big gun to fire back and get those bad guys.

I guess you read what you want to read.

it would be easier if you'd spoiler the rap lyrics.

But of course. Common sense precludes one getting shot all over and having the time to react accordingly.

happens in the military. don't you have something better to offer than that lame reply?

Oh Lord.

Not everyone in the civilian world is GI Joe.

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

Give up the high-power ones vs give up on many crime victims. Hmmm... that's a tough answer!

how about arm those people so they aren't crime victims?

Yeah that's a guarantee.

Oh noes, I'm getting shot all over by a big, fast gun.

Let me get my big gun to fire back and get those bad guys.

i guess you prefer the 2nd check box then.

Oh noes, I'm getting shot all over by a big, fast gun.

Let me get my big gun to fire back and get those bad guys.

I guess you read what you want to read.

it would be easier if you'd spoiler the rap lyrics.

But of course. Common sense precludes one getting shot all over and having the time to react accordingly.

happens in the military. don't you have something better to offer than that lame reply?

Oh Lord.

Not everyone in the civilian world is GI Joe.

you're right, the females would be gi jane.

[HAL 9000 96]

I think that if we want to uphold the 2nd Amendment as the Gun Lobby would like it to be interpreted, then ALL USC and residents should be required to at minimum have some kind of military training. Not necessarily serve like in Israel, but have a boot camp experience plus marksmanship and appropriate training in how to pulverize little furry animals.

That would make for a very interesting population of GI Joes and Janes.

[justashooter 430]

miller was dead by the time the SC heard his case, so was not represented. the only significant finding in the case was that short barreled shotguns were not especially appropriate for military use. this was in reference to the military thinking of the time. interestingly enough, the "master key", a short barreled shotgun clamped to the bottom of an M4 type variant of the M16 has become standard issue within the last 30 years.

scalia and roberts made it very clear in heller that "a type of firearm within common use may not be banned". AR 15 and AK 47 exist in private ownership to the tune of about 15 million examples today. it would be hard to describe that as anything less than common use.

yet it is strange that the Winchester M97 and M12 shotguns were used by American Expeditionary Forces during World War I and were effective enough that the German gov't protested their use in combat. These were simply pump shotguns with barrels at the 20" mark (I think 20").

Of note, the US has used the above models in numerous conflicts since WWI.

the shotgun miller was convicted of having in violation of the 1934 NFA had a barrel about 12". barrels under 18" require NFA registration since 1934. masterkeys have 12-14", IIRC.

[*Robert* 2]

you're right, the females would be gi jane.

Demi Moore!!! Now that's another Hot female!!!

[justashooter 430]

I think that if we want to uphold the 2nd Amendment as the Gun Lobby would like it to be interpreted, then ALL USC and residents should be required to at minimum have some kind of military training. Not necessarily serve like in Israel, but have a boot camp experience plus marksmanship and appropriate training in how to pulverize little furry animals.

That would make for a very interesting population of GI Joes and Janes.

the gun lobby generally wants the 2A to be acknowledged exactly as stated, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." the prefatory clause "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." is just an indicator of one of the reasons for the active clause, but not necessarily invoked, as determined in heller which indicates that the right includes militia practice, but is not limited to such.

[natty bumppo 297]

miller was dead by the time the SC heard his case, so was not represented. the only significant finding in the case was that short barreled shotguns were not especially appropriate for military use. this was in reference to the military thinking of the time. interestingly enough, the "master key", a short barreled shotgun clamped to the bottom of an M4 type variant of the M16 has become standard issue within the last 30 years.

scalia and roberts made it very clear in heller that "a type of firearm within common use may not be banned". AR 15 and AK 47 exist in private ownership to the tune of about 15 million examples today. it would be hard to describe that as anything less than common use.

yet it is strange that the Winchester M97 and M12 shotguns were used by American Expeditionary Forces during World War I and were effective enough that the German gov't protested their use in combat. These were simply pump shotguns with barrels at the 20" mark (I think 20").

Of note, the US has used the above models in numerous conflicts since WWI.

the shotgun miller was convicted of having in violation of the 1934 NFA had a barrel about 12". barrels under 18" require NFA registration since 1934. masterkeys have 12-14", IIRC.

my comment was more in line with one of the gov't arguments in the miller case. primarily with the point of "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia."

[HAL 9000 96]

Which is what happens when you want to literally interpret text that is more than a century out of context.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

I don't know anything about guns and I'm not necessarily a gun abolitionist, although I do feel that more regulation is required. So I will not pretend to know much about gun control or the politics of it. However, I would argue that the Democrats were not "thrown out of office" for voting for the Assault Weapons Ban. They were thrown out of office because Republicans, although falsely, did a great job in campaign for "restoring dignity to the White House." And I would further argue that the reason for the spike in gun sales is because again, "conservative" commentators on FAUX News and radio did a fabulous job in striking fear into the hearts of gun enthusiasts that Barack Hussein Obama would take away their guns and leave them defenseless when he lets all those terrorists into the country. I can't say that all of them feel this way since there is no way of knowing that but there has been some documented proof to support that idea.

Yep - I have a similar feeling about that too. The Democrats fall at the end of the 90's had a lot to do with the sex scandals that Bill Clinton was embroiled in and the way the situation was marketed by the GOPs spin doctors.

I can't imagine how else someone like GWB was able to get elected - it certainly wasn't for his charisma or perceived intelligence, but rather I think for what he represented on paper. Right up until the end of his administration - GWB was an empty suit, a figure of visceral hatred to many and a curiosity to his former supporters, many of whom were disillusioned by his policies and couldn't understand exactly what he was politically.

The same arguments obviously could not stand in the 2008 election, the WH had been so devoid of substance under the Bush administration that the charismatic, well-spoken Obama was more or less a shoe-in. Ultimately it didn't matter that his campaign centered around a vague ill-defined idea of change, but the prospect of another 8 years of someone like GWB (and Palin I think was the final nail in McCain's election chances) was too much for many to bear.

To the previous two posters, resepectfully submitted...if you do not know what current gun laws are and are not familiar with firearms how can you say we need "more regulations"? You are essentially saying "I don't know what the gun laws are but we need more!"

The Democrats themselves acknowledge the fact they lost the '94 congressional elections directly as a result of the "assault Weapons Ban" that same year. Why would someone want to deny what they Democrats admit? It was the mid-90s when they lost power, not the later 90's and it was before the news of Billy Boy copping BJs in the oval office got out.

As far as George Bush? He won the election by ONE electoral vote. Had Gore been able to win his OWN HOME STATE of Tennessee, he would have won the election and even Gore admits it was the GUNOWNERS in his state and West Virginia that cost him the election ultimately. Had he carried Tennessee and West Virgina there would have been no question who won.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

spooky, i am shocked it took 163 posts before someone said that.