Outdoor Wire Names Obama – Gun Salesman of the Year | AmmoLand.com — Unintended consequences at work! Now we are armed to the teeth.
In recognition of the unprecedented demand for firearms by nervous consumers, The Outdoor Wire, the nation’s largest daily electronic news service for the outdoor industry, has named President-elect Barack Obama its “Gun Salesman of the Year”. With the selection, Outdoor Wire publisher Jim Shepherd says it is time the firearms industry recognizes the fact that without President-elect Obama’s frightening consumers into action, the firearms industry might be suffering the same sort of business slumps that have befallen the automotive and housing industries…
As a journalist with more than two decades of national newsgathering experience, Shepherd says he’s never seen anything approaching what he calls the “Obama effect”. In fact, Shepherd says, gun and ammunition sales are at such frantic levels that they have surpassed the panic-buying of Y2K or anything during the Clinton years when the first Assault Weapons Ban was passed. This time, he says, concerned consumers are buying guns and ammunition in anticipation of Obama Administration actions to prohibit certain types of firearms.
“In 1999, the fear was that computers would shut down, crippling the world,” Shepherd says, “Those fears were unfounded. I don’t think the fears of an Obama administration banning guns are unfounded. His record speaks for itself. He’s never failed to support an anti-gun measure, despite saying he supports the Second Amendment.”
Found by Kerry Lutz.
Holy crap, what a bunch of paranoid fraidy cats you Americans are, always so afraid of the boogeyman that you have to arm yourselves to the teeth. What a sad way to live. I thought Michael Moore was exaggerating when he identified you as such in “Bowling for Columbine”, but I can see he was right.
# 35 fpp2002 said, “Holy crap, what a bunch of paranoid fraidy cats you Americans are,”
From what bastion of individual liberty do you hail?
Paddy-O, not from yours, thank heavens.
#35 most likely hails from one of those MANY countries freed by “those crazy americans” and their guns.
If I were going to go out and buy a gun, it wouldn’t be because of a black man in the oval office. It would be because of the nut-job Obama-bots, now they really scare the hell out of me.
“The more things change, the more they remain the same”
Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr
Joe, I never said Americans were crazy, I said they were paranoid fraidy cats.
#41 joe
And everything went down the shitter because of them.
# 38 joe said, “#35 most likely hails from one of those MANY countries freed by “those crazy americans” and their guns.”
Yep, and by its answer. Too cowardly to have done it himself.
#43, Paddy-O, oooh, zing! You are so clever. Great debating skills. I can see why everyone loves you here.
#34–SL==funny you start by advising not to treat the government as if it either CAN or CAN’T do something, on which I agree is a very WISE thing to say, but then you conclude that the government CAN’T prevent ALL crime, therefore people should arm themselves.
You flip/flop between modes of polar thinking as in either/or, when as you first said, the better view for most things is in the middle.
But ALL the arguments for/against guns are well worn. “Welcome to the Jungle, baby!” and the gun nuts that are happy to dwell therein in their paranoid delusion that individuals keep themselves safe in a society of 320 Million.
42,
What do you call the banking bailout? Capitalism-plus? Dumbass.
I know when I went to buy ammo this weekend the shelves were virtually bare. I think it was Obamaphobia.
#45, The government is as capable of preventing all crimes as you or I are capable of never getting sick. Let’s just agree to consider this as close to an absolute at there ever could be one. So while we can assume that some dastardly deeds will eventually slip through the always watchful gaze of the big eye on the hill, the individual targets of those crimes should not be prohibited in their ability to defend themselves. No matter how hard you hope and wish for Officer Smith’s smiling grin to always be just around the corner to whisk you away from danger, there may come a time when your safety is dependent on your own capacity to preserve it.
So you see, my position is the one in the middle, because it allows for both options. You are the one who would take away the guns insisting the government is good enough. As seems to be the usual case, it’s funny how people are so bad that they can’t go unsupervised, yet the government they created and populate is so good and dependable. But keep making silly characterizations about the world being a jungle; it makes your arguments more compelling, I promise.
BTW, I’m not certain how effective it will be on the day 320 million people all decide to break into my house, but against the single guy who does, a .45 will do the job quite well, I can assure you.
When the economy goes south crime goes up and people start buying guns. When crime goes down people are a lot less interested in buying guns.
Even if you can afford an alarm if somebody is coming through the door you have to deal with them for the next few minutes own you own.
Most people aren’t trained martial artists and need something to give them a chance.
#39, joe:
Please list the “Free” countries you mention. All of them.
I grew up with guns. .22 for squirell, 12 ga. shotgun for rabbit, pheasant, dove, and pidgeon, 30-06 for deer. Hell they put food on the table in the 70’s when welfare and food stamps was all there was. Guns for that purpose I can understand. But nowadays most weapons are bought for ‘self defense’. Now that’s just crazy.
Having never been assaulted with an assault weapon let alone a handgun I’m not worried about guns at all.
I want to see a show of hands of how many times you have personally been assaulted by someone with a gun? Can a moderator create a poll?
Let me get this straight, you anti-gun rights people are terrified of the idea your neighbor may have a gun, yet you are accusing the pro-gun rights people of being paranoid?
#55–Hugh==thanks. Its good to hear some sanity. In the USA gun crazy culture has taken over. You can read it here that “studies show that MORE GUNS = less murder.” For what and how the issue of crime and guns can be measured it can even be true at this point of time and societal rot. Thats how low this country has sunk. With the recent SCOTUS determning FOR THE FIRST TIME that gun ownership IS a personal right, I expect it will take a few generations to change this (Obama’s Grandson?).
The USA was born in special circumstances and has been burdened specially. It took 250 years to throw off slavery.
Hopefully it won’t take that much longer to throw off the stupidity of guns.
# 56 bobbo said, “FOR THE FIRST TIME that gun ownership IS a personal right,”
Apparently, you don’t read SC decisions…
Presser v. Illinois (1886)
U.S. v. Miller (1939)
I could site others. But why?
Paddy–I’m just quoting from the article I read. I assume the other decisions were about guns but did not announce the Second Amendment was a guarantee of personal ownership?
Your schlorship while often providing your own unique view, is not such to make me doubt my own initial quick read==unless you care to confirm.
# 58 bobbo said, “I assume the other decisions were about guns but did not announce the Second Amendment was a guarantee of personal ownership?”
You assume wrong. The reason it is coming up now, in the SC, so strongly, is that the gov’t is infringing more heavily on the 2nd amend than in the past…
#59–Paddy==you demonstrate why I suspect your analytical skills which are only CONSTANTLY backed up by your failure to post links.
OF COURSE the DC Gun Control case, which is not coming up but has been decided, is about restrictions on personal ownership and the SCOTUS overruled the DC gun restrictions.
That alone suggests my point and counters yours. If the issue of personal gun ownership had been ruled on before, there would be no reason to do it again. Further, whatever the DC gun case was about, absent a linked, quoted connection that says NOTHING about what the prior cases you mention say.
I trust my memory and posted link better than your own knee jerk quibble and initially demonstrated lack of insight, logic, and understanding of SCOTUS precedents.
You can redeem yourself with links and quotes. Good luck.
# 60 bobbo said, “you demonstrate why I suspect your analytical skills which are only CONSTANTLY backed up by your failure to post links.”
For someone with an IQ above that of a turnip, the names of the decisions is enough…
#61–Paddy==I doubt you could even state what the issue at play here is. No–reading the cases and providing a quote is the standard to be met.
Go on your own snipe hunt. I’ll give you 10 to One odds if you spent the time, you’d come up with a statement that defeated your own position.
Hence, no wild goose chase for me or anyone else that knows your routine.
Do the work required, or be seen for what you are. C’mon==do better. The rest of your life could still amount to something, even if just for yourself.
# 62 bobbo said, “No–reading the cases and providing a quote is the standard to be met.”
You obviously, and predictably, haven’t read many decisions. I’m not going to clog the blog with verbose writings. If you are interested in being educated, read them yourself. Or, stay willfully ignorant…
#63–Paddy-Zero==hah, hah. Proving my point again: the only reason YOU would clog the blog with a verbose posting would be that you couldn’t find the relevant single sentence nor adequately synthesize and restate a paragraph.
Silly man, you wear no clothes.
bobbo, it’s apparent to me that all Paddy-O wants to do is to create enemies with his poorly thought out rants and insults, rather than debate intelligently.
#66–fpp (but really Paddy)==yes, he has more misses than hits. But still, now and then a hit. His input could “actually” be valuable if it had the credibility of a few less misses.
To that end, doing a little more work up front before CONFRONTING someone really is beneficial to all including the original poster. I have thought of posting a critique from time to time and after confirming with the google had to change my thought and sometimes even completely abandon it.
Rather self centered and willfully childish to think others should do your work for you and still expect any respect===especially when more often than not what you post for others to look up is assbackwards.
I want Paddy and others who have CONTEMPT for the truth to continue with their challenging ideas==just get better at it.
#53 gf
I have been assaulted twice by someone with firearms and shot at once and threatened with a shotgun (which I did not see). So, three times.
That’s part of the reason I carry now.
As far as anyone thinking the government (LE) is going to protect you it is idiot to believe that way. It isn’t the job of the government to protect you, just clean up afterwards and sometimes they aren’t worth a shit at doing that either.
It is your right as a human to keep yourself and your family safe.