FBI says record high for U.S. gun sales

[dualstow]

FBI’s National Instant Background Check System shows gun sales hit a record high for the fifth month in a row with 1,795,102 prospective gun owners processed in September.

I kind of want a war hammer from United Cutlery instead.

Oops, forgot the link:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/crim ... cle/446160

[MachineGhost]

That's pretty funny.  Do we know if its the same ol' paranoid fringe set buying up more assault rifles and the like to add to their ever growing Monster Gun Collection, or completely new buyers?

[Libertarian666]

Yes, how crazy of people to think that the government might try to take away a Constitutional right! They would never do anything like that...

[mathjak107]

yeah , of course they can't . ever see our gun restrictions here in nyc ?  they mold and bend the rules just enough to make them fit to what they want them to be .  in fact a nys permit from elsewhere in our state is invalid in nyc . we only recognize our own version of nys permit .

i can shoot anywhere in the state but they can't come in to the city .  go figure .

[Libertarian666]

yeah , of course they can't . ever see our gun restrictions here in nyc ?  they mold and bend the rules just enough to make them fit to what they want them to be .  in fact a nys permit from elsewhere in our state is invalid in nyc . we only recognize our own version of nys permit .

i can shoot anywhere in the state but they can't come in to the city .  go figure .

I thought there had been a ruling that you can carry in NYC with a NYS permit. If I recall correctly, the judge said "NYC is part of NYS, so a NYS permit is valid in NYC". But I can't find that ruling, so maybe I am misremembering.

[mathjak107]

never , no such rule . just the opposite , the law was modified so nys permits are not valid in nyc and courts have up held the rights of locality's to mold the laws to fit their location .

for the most part carry permits are not issued to normal civilians in nyc . we are stuck with a residence permit .

in the nys law you are not allowed out of the residence with it , not even to go to the range or hunt . to get around that fact the nyc police commissioner gives you an actual permission slip signed by him  to shoot at an authorized range and hunt with a proper hunting licence .

we used to have a permit called a target hunting permit . it is a permit that was really a restricted carry permit  as a target hunting license does not exist in nys law

it was restricted to hunting and target shooting by your request since on the application you had to check a box as to why you wanted a permit .

check any other box and you were denied .

so the old permit was actually a restricted carry permit . most folks carried with it since if you got caught it was not a crime , it was an administration violation and they could  take your permit .

nyc finally did away with it and went to  premise permit instead which does have criminal implications if caught carrying .

despite what you hear as long as you have a squeaky clean record you will get a residence permit . i have been active in the shooting sports for more than 20 years and never knew anyone denied unless they lied about incidents in their lives  and were bagged on it .

[dualstow]

That's pretty funny.  Do we know if its the same ol' paranoid fringe set buying up more assault rifles and the like to add to their ever growing Monster Gun Collection, or completely new buyers?

The last time I read news like this, it was definitely new buyers.

[Pointedstick]

That's pretty funny.  Do we know if its the same ol' paranoid fringe set buying up more assault rifles and the like to add to their ever growing Monster Gun Collection, or completely new buyers?

Old buyers as well as new buyers: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self- ... -1993.aspx



And that data point is just 2011! I'd wager the number is even higher now. Obama has been an incredible gun salesman.

[mathjak107]

ammo is in very short supply and  very expensive .  50 rounds of crappy plinking ammo in .38 can run 25.00 dollars . pre obamma it was 8-9 bucks a box . we can't buy mail order directly either . if we  buy out of state at a discount it has to go to a dealer here in ny and they tack on a processing fee .

[dualstow]

You're a gun owner too, mathjak? May I know what you own/shoot?

[Pointedstick]

Yes, how crazy of people to think that the government might try to take away a Constitutional right! They would never do anything like that...

A smattering of articles that I collect on this subject:

http://nalert.blogspot.com/2009/07/flas ... anned.html

https://reason.com/blog/2014/02/18/roun ... gun-regist

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/38 ... -c-w-cooke

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/0 ... rom-Itself

http://www.tallahassee.com/story/opinio ... /19426029/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-et ... 18536.html

http://www.oregonfirearms.org/massive-g ... introduced

http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/05/10/con ... onfiscate/

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/ ... rm-process

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment ... 714-gic1a6

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/01/sa ... eneration/

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02 ... n-in-guns/

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02 ... democrats/

http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/index. ... uld-never/




And finally…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... 9PrBmStG4M

[align=center][img width=400]http://i.imgur.com/7zQAnaH.png[/img][/align]

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them--Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in--I would have done it."

[mathjak107]

You're a gun owner too, mathjak? May I know what you own/shoot?

my wife shoots competitively too so we have a bunch of stuff.

since i like handgun hunting my favorite is my super redhawk 44. mag with Leopold scope .

[MachineGhost]

Whats with the huge drop between 1994 and late 1996?

BTW PS, since you're a former SuperLiberal, is there any chance they see the nuanced delineation between the level of weapons technology available in Colonial times with the prudent need of today's crime prevention? 

[dualstow]

Whats with the huge drop between 1994 and late 1996?

Hootie and the Blowfish.

[Pointedstick]

Whats with the huge drop between 1994 and late 1996?

BTW PS, since you're a former SuperLiberal, is there any chance they see the nuanced delineation between the level of weapons technology available in Colonial times with the prudent need of today's crime prevention?

Well they are constantly saying things like "the second amendment only protects flintlock muskets" and the like. They typically don't respond well when you counter that by the same logic, the first amendment doesn't protect computers, blogging, and magazines, and internet forums from government censorship, only quill pens, 18th century printing presses and handmade pamphlets.

Besides, back in those days private citizens owned cannons, mortars, and heavily armed naval vessels bristling with guns. I don't see an epidemic of liberals supporting people's right to own 18th century cannons today.

As for the drop between 1994 and 1996, it beggars belief to imagine that millions of people discarded their firearms. What is more likely is that in a climate of increasing gun control, fewer people admitted to owning guns. By the same token, it's equally likely that a lot of the recent increases are actually those same kinds of people feeling comfortable admitting it again.

1992 Ruby Ridge, 1993 Waco siege, in a climate of increasing gun control, and the killing of those accused of committing gun ownership crimes fewer people admitted to owning guns...

[MachineGhost]

Well they are constantly saying things like "the second amendment only protects flintlock muskets" and the like. They typically don't respond well when you counter that by the same logic, the first amendment doesn't protect computers, blogging, and magazines, and internet forums from government censorship, only quill pens, 18th century printing presses and handmade pamphlets.

It sounds like they don't really get what the Second Amendment is for and are just universally anti-gun because...?  It seems like an emotional position not reason.

[Pointedstick]

Well they are constantly saying things like "the second amendment only protects flintlock muskets" and the like. They typically don't respond well when you counter that by the same logic, the first amendment doesn't protect computers, blogging, and magazines, and internet forums from government censorship, only quill pens, 18th century printing presses and handmade pamphlets.

It sounds like they don't really get what the Second Amendment is for and are just universally anti-gun because...?  It seems like an emotional position not reason.

You're exactly right: it's emotional: Guns are for killing and killing is bad and we should work towards a world without killing and that means no guns. At its core, there is very little depth to the typical liberal anti-gun position, other than how it fits into the liberal worldview that individual freedom is maximized when dangers, risks, and the consequences of bad decisions are minimized.

[MachineGhost]

You're exactly right: it's emotional: Guns are for killing and killing is bad and we should work towards a world without killing and that means no guns. At its core, there is very little depth to the typical liberal anti-gun position, other than how it fits into the liberal worldview that individual freedom is maximized when dangers, risks, and the consequences of bad decisions are minimized.

So short of the stereotype of mugging them, how do you convert them over to see reason?  I don't understand how one can have a working philosophy based on emotions and expect it to be maintained, not shatter and not fracture without Herculean efforts of denial.  Emotions are like Icarus flying too close to the sun.

[Pointedstick]

You're exactly right: it's emotional: Guns are for killing and killing is bad and we should work towards a world without killing and that means no guns. At its core, there is very little depth to the typical liberal anti-gun position, other than how it fits into the liberal worldview that individual freedom is maximized when dangers, risks, and the consequences of bad decisions are minimized.

So short of the stereotype of mugging them, how do you convert them over to see reason?  I don't understand how one can have a working philosophy based on emotions and expect it to be maintained.  Emotions are like Icarus flying too close to the sun.

For the most part, you don't. Especially old ones. Once someone is past like 25, I think virtually all hope of them changing their mind on fundamental matters is gone.

But you're half right: they need a jolt of reality. Liberals would like to live in a world where there are only beautiful things and happiness and ease and luxury and all struggle and hardship and dirtiness and brutality have been banished to the history books. That we don't actually live in this world is okay as long as they can maintain the belief that we are steadily moving towards it, and, most importantly, that they don't have to participate in any of the struggle and hardship and dirtiness and brutality themselves. A liberal who has fallen on hard times and has had to make difficult choices, face real danger, perform physically demanding work, or protect their property, friends, or family from harm is likely to either abandon the utopian aspect of their liberalism (and along with it their desire for gun control) or become a nihilistic, broken shell of a person, liable to depression and suicide.

There is a reason why conservatives tend to like dirty and dangerous jobs. They thrive in that environment. Liberals wilt in it. By the same token, nearly all artists are liberals, while conservative attempts at art are usually pretty laughable. It's just the way people are wired.

Needless to say these are huge stereotypes, but like I always say, stereotypes exist for a reason.