Advertisement

Archive for Sunday, February 10, 2013

Letter: Run on guns

February 10, 2013

Advertisement

To the editor:

It has long been my observation that the only measurable result of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Clinton assault weapons ban of 1994 was a huge increase in the number of privately owned guns. After both those laws were introduced — and after Barack Obama was elected president the first time — people went out and bought millions of guns and billions of rounds of ammunition that they did not really need, and probably would not have bought otherwise. In fact, it is axiomatic among the shooting public that the current popularity of civilian look-alikes of the M-16 and AK-47 can be traced directly to the panic buying spurred by the Clinton assault weapons bill.  

Another such spree is going on right now. Therefore, I was really surprised to see the headline in the Feb. 6 Journal-World stating that gun sales were down 10 percent last month. Then I read the article. The reason sales are down is that every gun dealer in the country has already sold virtually every semiautomatic gun and every round of ammunition they could get their hands on, and the cupboards are bare.

It makes you wonder why intelligent people would continue to advocate more gun control laws. I guess they must have decided that the 300 million guns already out there just aren’t enough.

Comments

donttreadonme 1 year, 2 months ago

I mentioned the WOD as an example of an "illegal and immoral govt. action" that I don't support.

For that matter, I don't support F&F either. My point was that most people object to it on political, not constitutional, grounds. Because when the Bush DOJ was doing it, not a peep.

You can parse the numbers all you want, but the figures are in the ten of thousands. And it is easier and cheaper to get semi-autos from the US, than stealing them from the Mexican military.

And when did I say that I didn't believe in everyone's rights? Huh, where? Just because I think the NRA is a venal gun sales lobby doesn't mean I give a rat's rump about how many guns anyone has.

If you are really a Constitutional Libertarian and not a GOP apologist, great. Unfortunately, most folks who say they are libertarians now are only interested in liberty from taxes and freedom from a President that's a member of the Democratic party.

I'm also a libertarian, I'm just suspicious of those getting their panties in a twist over F&F because it is small potatoes in the context of all the other abuses of govt.

0

donttreadonme 1 year, 2 months ago

Peacey I did not bring up F&F, I was responding to another poster whining about it.

Support of illegal and immoral actions by our govt.? Well, let's start with the War on Drugs, which has done nothing but escalated the violence in Mexico by making sales of all illegal drugs highly profitable.

I did not say that automatic weapons and grenades were bought at gunstores in the US, I know that full automatics are heavily restricted. That was your mindset coming into the discussion, that anyone who disagrees with your NRA/GOP position does not know the facts.

You're wrong about the source of most guns, because not every Mexican thug is packing an M4. Since 70% of the weapons traced in Mexico have come from the US (per the DOJ stats), then these are semi-auto rifles and handguns. And those are the straw purchases that the NRA doesn't want anyone to figure out, since they are gun sales lobbyists.

By low info voters I mean those who rely on FoxNews and the rightwing echo chamber. Like you, judging from your posts.

0

donttreadonme 1 year, 2 months ago

"Peacemaker4522 days, 22 hours ago You said it yourself, “legal gun dealers”. If they comply with all the applicable laws and the gun later is unlawfully sold/transferred across the border, how are they complicit? "

Hey, I don't care about how many guns are sold and end up in Mexico. F&F is just a drop in the bucket compared to the number of guns heading south. So the only reason to give a rat's rump about F&F is to a) score political points, and/or b) deflect attention from the source of many (most?) guns in Mexico, which is American gun dealers.

“I’m a gun owner, but….” Every time I see or hear that I am reminded of those who still say: “I’ve got friends who are black/Jewish/gay, but…”

Wrong analogy, but I'm sure your friends use that line all the time. My point is that even though the NRA and GOP are whipping the low-info voters into a frenzy over F&F, I know that it is purely political.

And i know a border patrol agent was killed with an F&F gun. But you can't blame that on F&F because "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Right?

Next time, try reading for comprehension and not confirmation.

0

bravocharlie 1 year, 2 months ago

You have to admire the honesty of the poster who comes right out and states that he/she wants to take away all the guns. The 1976 New Yorker quote from Pete Shields is noteworthy, in that it is probably the last honest statement of intent in the national media by gun control proponents. Unfortunately for them, this is a constitutional republic, and the opinion of the many is irrelevant if it is counter to the constitution.

The language most often used by gun control supporters today is "Why are you opposed even to sensible restrictions on guns?" The reason - they know this - is the same reason that women's rights groups are opposed to sensible restrictions on abortion: They know perfectly well that in this context "sensible" really means "Everything we can ram through the legislature under the prevailing political climate." There are already over 20,000 "sensible" gun laws on the statute books of this country, and I defy anyone to provide convincing proof that we are a damned bit safer because of them.

1

gphawk89 1 year, 2 months ago

"The reason sales are down..."

You're exactly right. I was at Cabela's about two hours ago. They had one very-overpriced AR-type rifle. No high-cap magazines of any caliber. No .223 ammunition. They can't sell what they don't have regardless of the demand.

0

Alyosha 1 year, 2 months ago

If the NRA receives money from arms and munition manufacturers, and the NRA gives money to political candidates like our own Lynn Jenkins, and the money from the manufacturers comes in part from munitions and arms sales (guns, bullets, e.g.), can we with certainty say that money donated to politicians by the NRA isn't connected to the sale of weapons or ammunition responsible in any murder or accidental death?

Under the circumstances, and given the recent move in KS to make sure union members' dues can't be used for political donations, I find it hard to believe any politician would take money from the NRA, since there's no way of knowing whether or not the donation they take is directly related to a murder somewhere in the United States.

That's just bad optics, as they say, if you as a candidate can't with 100% certainty say you received donations that are not tied to companies that make money providing the materials for shootings and murder.

0

donttreadonme 1 year, 2 months ago

"ljreader5 hours, 33 minutes ago

Wish we could've banned the thousands of weapons deliberately put into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels by this government (Fast and Furious) rather than picking on legal weapons owned by law abiding citizens. Just how do we trace weapons with no tracking devices, and no other method in place to do so?"

Waah! The crying over F&F is just a smoke screen to shield the legal gun dealers who are making big money selling weapons that end up south of the border.

How can you trace weapons when there is no firearm database? Funny stuff.

I'm a gun owner, but all this crying over F&F is just pitiful.

0

OonlyBonly 1 year, 2 months ago

Something I forgot earlier. This is to those whom say, "We don't want to take all your guns.' "Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last week effectively bans all semiautomatic rifles, not just the scary-looking, military-style ones. How so? Under her bill, a rifle that accepts a detachable magazine qualifies as an "assault weapon" if it has one or more of six features, including "a pistol grip." The bill defines a "pistol grip" as "a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip...........Therefore, Korwin says, "any semi-automatic firearm that exists, with anything on it you can grip, is banned."" It's not the only reference to this hidden by the Liberal Propaganda Machine item in the bill... http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/30/does-feinsteins-assault-weapon-ban-cover

0

rockchalk1977 1 year, 2 months ago

A quote from Obama's July 2, 2008 campaign speech.... "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." In a puzzling development, Obama has been buying and storing vast amounts of ammunition in recent months, with the Department of Homeland Security just placing another order for an additional 21.6 million rounds. Why?

http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/020813-643707-obama-homeland-security-vast-ammunition-purchases.htm

4

Gotland 1 year, 2 months ago

Talk of banning guns should be illegal just like yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre.

0

ljreader 1 year, 2 months ago

Wish we could've banned the thousands of weapons deliberately put into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels by this government (Fast and Furious) rather than picking on legal weapons owned by law abiding citizens. Just how do we trace weapons with no tracking devices, and no other method in place to do so? It seems they just put the guns out there and find out where they are once they kill someone. I suppose the plan was for American guns to be involved in carnage, and once the American and Mexican public finds out about our guns being involved, we will all be enraged and demand stricter gun laws. Of course, that backfired because we found out the guns were deliberately placed into the hands of murderous thugs by none other than this administration. Let's start by banning the practice of our government purposely arming foreign criminals.

We need to somehow ferret out the weapons illegally owned by gangs and criminals. I don't own a gun, but don't want to live in a world where only gangsters possess guns. Get guns away from home invaders, gangsters, felons, etc- maybe law abiding citizens will feel less vulnerable and less compelled to protect themselves, families, and properties. No matter how many restrictions are brought into play, criminals will not comply.

0

Enlightenment 1 year, 2 months ago

I think the anti-Obama crowd needs to acknowledge that he had no intentions to alter gun laws until the numerous mass shootings resulted in public pressure for him to act.

Also, i believe that all guns that change ownership (new and used) regardless if the transaction is between a business or two individuals, need to be through a licensed gun dealer entailing a background check and waiting period. To prevent the issue of undocumented gun transfers, create penalties for registered gun owners if their weapons have been used in crimes or are found in the hands of criminals. The crime of the gun's registered owner is selling or allowing a criminal to gain access to a weapon registered in their name.

I believe the penalty needs to be much more severe for illegal possession of a firearm.

2

Richard Heckler 1 year, 2 months ago

Ban and confiscate all military style assault weapons today!!! or ASAP.

Provide a week for owners to turn them in!

Back with federal laws and large fines such as $4,000 per weapon for the first offense

Crush the weapons then recycle the material

Movie Makers/Game Makers Cut the Violent Themes

Now we're on to something.

0

melott 1 year, 2 months ago

Fred, that's wrong. The Panthers carried 12 gauge shotguns. The 68 handgun act was prompted by all the assassinations and attempts to do so, that were done by handguns. (Not that there weren't a lot by rifles, as well...) No one tried to outlaw shotguns. The Panthers used shotguns so that no one could claim they had "concealed weapons."

0

Gandalf 1 year, 2 months ago

Hey a woman in McDonalds dorpped her gun and shot her husband,

0

bravocharlie 1 year, 2 months ago

At the time Fred Mertz refers to, there weren't any "assault weapons" out there. "Saturday night Specials" was the buzz phrase for the anti gun crowd, and the Gun Control Act of 68 was intended primarily to keep them out of the hands of black people. If you don't believe it, try to find some other mandatory government form than the 4473 that still requires an applicant to report race. There was a short period where it appeared that scoped hunting rifles would be demonized as "sniper weapons." Then the Clinton ban put a million or so ARs and AKs out there, and they became the new fear. Every step of the way, the media helped as much as they could by reporting every single case they could find where the evil-gun-of-right-now was featured. You can wave your hands all you like in support of "reasonable" gun control laws, but don't be surprised when the only consequences of their passage are the unintended ones.

0

Trumbull 1 year, 2 months ago

I really do not have an educated opinion on this issue. But one thing is for sure. I do not like guns. Never have, never will. But I keep my dog out of this fight.

0

Brock Masters 1 year, 2 months ago

First, your computer is obsolete, but my gun is not. The government wants to make it illegal

1 limiting true military weapons and ammo is reasonable but no to currently available civilian guns and ammo. Compromise - limit civilian guns and ammo to those that civilian law enforcement Sy are necessary for their officers to be on equal footing with criminals. After all civilians deal with the same criminals but without back up.

  1. Absolutely, violent felons, and certain classes of the mentally ill.

  2. Longer sentences for crimes involving violence and guns. Long sentences for anyone illegally possessing a gun. Fund the background check to include the mentally ill, reduce privacy laws so more mentally ill can be included in the database. Recognize we have a mental illness problem and fund programs to help the mentally ill. Find ways to reduce poverty, and promote education

  3. We have more gun crime than some other countries, but some like the UK are more violent. We have more gun crime because we have not banned all guns. We have the 2nd amendment. Other countries don't.

  4. More people arming themselves is not going to solve the problem but if they are law abiding citizens and keep their guns locked up when not in their control it won't hurt.

  5. I think I offered up areas of compromise in the above, but here is another one. Require licensed gun dealers to do background checks and transfers at cost for private sales, but keep it voluntary.

My numbers are correct when I look at it, but they got messed up when posting. So if they are messed up you'll have to figure the response.

0

verity 1 year, 2 months ago

I can no longer use the computer I bought ten years ago or get parts for the cell phone I bought four years ago. But we can argue about that kind of thing forever and not get anywhere.

  1. Do you agree that some guns/types of ammunition should be illegal?

  2. Do you agree that some people should not be allowed to have guns of any kind?

  3. How do you propose to solve the problem we have with gun murders?

  4. Why do we seem to have a bigger problem than other first world countries who have fewer guns?

  5. Do you think that more and more people arming themselves is going to solve the problem?

  6. What is a reasonable compromise? Or is there any?

Disclaimer: Because of personal experience, I have a great aversion to guns of any kind, but I AM NOT advocating the banning of all guns.

This is in reply to Fred Mertz, but anybody feel free to answer.

0

verity 1 year, 2 months ago

". . . if left unchecked they would ban all guns."

And you know that how?

Not even in our Ultra-Secret Anti-Anti-Gun Control Society does anyone advocate banning all guns.

0

msezdsit 1 year, 2 months ago

I guess the point of the lte is that there is about to be a lot of illegal guns out there and the trend will begin to change directions.

0

Centerville 1 year, 2 months ago

Bravo, you are correct. The gun people have seen this before. This is a big spike in demand, a new group of people alarmed by the braying of the nannies. The good thing is, those new gun owners are a welcome addition to the customer base of the future. This should start pretty soon, as the Democrats are looking franticly for a new and shiny topic to divert the low-(in)fo crowd. "Look! A sequester!!!!! We're dooooooomed!!!"

2

bravocharlie 1 year, 2 months ago

I think the point the original writer is making is that the gun and ammunition makers don't need to advertise a blessed thing. This whole business is a headache for them. The president and a couple of well-known Democrat senators have whipped up such a buying frenzy that the manufacturers can't possibly keep up with the demand. Yet if they upgrade and start running three shifts in order to supply what people want now, when the demand inevitably collapses with either the passage or ignominious failure of the proposed legislation, they are stuck with a lot of employees and production capacity that their income will not support.

3

EPluribusUnumNChainz 1 year, 2 months ago

The biggest run on ammo is by good ol' Uncle Sam......

The Department of Homeland Security is set to purchase a further 21.6 million rounds of ammunition to add to the 1.6 billion bullets it has already obtained over the course of the last 10 months alone, figures which have stoked concerns that the federal agency is preparing for civil unrest.

http://www.infowars.com/dhs-purchases-21-6-million-more-rounds-of-ammunition/

May poke a few holes in Mr. Curry's letter.

0

FlintlockRifle 1 year, 2 months ago

Big ""O" IS THE BEST GUN SALES MAN IN THE WHOLE USA

6

Commenting has been disabled for this item.