# Guns are flying off the shelves



## Deaf Smith (Nov 3, 2008)

Around here I've been to several shops. ALL the ARs and AKs are gone! SKSs to. Even some bolt military guns! About the only handguns are the more expensive ones.

One guy today was buying 5 or 6 boxes of FMU 9mm, and this store was not as cheep as Wal-Mart. He was paying through the nose for the ammo! We talked about what might happen and these guys really are afraid.

I told them that even if he was elected, it would take till Jan. before he became president and to relax a bit.

Oh well. It's their money.

Deaf


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 3, 2008)

And if there is eventually an outright ban, they will be able to find out about anything you bought on a 4473 since (IIRC) the dealer has to retain that form and turn over all his records if he ever goes out of business. (de facto registration?)

Personally, I think ammo and training would be a better way to spend the money.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 3, 2008)

At the end of the day they can take away weapons but they cannot take away training.

If tomorrow all my guns were gone it would be at best a temporary setback.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 3, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> And if there is eventually an outright ban, they will be able to find out about anything you bought on a 4473 since (IIRC) the dealer has to retain that form and turn over all his records if he ever goes out of business. (de facto registration?)
> .


 

A good reason to buy used guns.....




Andy Moynihan said:


> At the end of the day they can take away weapons but they cannot take away training.
> 
> If tomorrow all my guns were gone it would be at best a temporary setback.


 
Guns? What guns??:shrug:


----------



## celtic_crippler (Nov 3, 2008)

Thank God for souvenirs and family heirlooms. :ultracool


----------



## Frostbite (Nov 3, 2008)

elder999 said:


> Guns? What guns??:shrug:



Tragic boating accident?  All your guns fell overboard?


----------



## Deaf Smith (Nov 3, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> And if there is eventually an outright ban, they will be able to find out about anything you bought on a 4473 since (IIRC) the dealer has to retain that form and turn over all his records if he ever goes out of business. (de facto registration?)
> 
> Personally, I think ammo and training would be a better way to spend the money.


 
And magazines my boy. Lots and lots of high capacity magazines. Even for guns you don't own. Remember the last assault weapons ban and the price of magazines?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Nov 4, 2008)

elder999 said:


> A good reason to buy used guns.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Why, I was speaking in the purely hypothetical, of course


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 4, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> And magazines my boy. Lots and lots of high capacity magazines.


  I thought having at least 20 magazines was automatically a part of owning an "evil black rifle."


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 4, 2008)

You know gun's and ammo have been flying off the shelves up here as well.  Not just because of the election but also because it is hunting season.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 4, 2008)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> You know gun's and ammo have been flying off the shelves up here as well.  Not just because of the election but also because it is hunting season.



Yes! Yes. It's hunting season!  And there does seem to be a throng of disappointed shoppers hopping from store to store in search of supplies. 

Elk season, isn't it? :lol2:


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 4, 2008)

Are we talking actual proof of a ban or just right wing paranoia here? If I want to go out and buy a shotgun, I'll find a way to do it.


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 4, 2008)

zeeberex said:


> Are we talking actual proof of a ban or just right wing paranoia here? If I want to go out and buy a shotgun, I'll find a way to do it.



I wouldn't really call it paranoia when it's happened before, has been proposed since (in more restrictive form than the first one), and will probably happen again.  And while McCain's track-record of supporting the 2nd Amendment isn't the greatest, Obama's sucks.  

If Obama wins today we'll have an extremely liberal president, democrat control of the legislative branch, and (though this will probably happen whichever way the election goes) some Supreme Court appointments...you do the math.


----------



## 7starmarc (Nov 4, 2008)

zeeberex said:


> Are we talking actual proof of a ban or just right wing paranoia here? If I want to go out and buy a shotgun, I'll find a way to do it.



It's not paranoia, it's an excuse to get a new toy! :shooter:

Seriously, bans on these weapons have happened before with less liberal administration/congress combinations, I wouldn't be surprise if they come up during this one.


----------



## Journeyman (Nov 4, 2008)

First time I haven't had to put up with flak from my wife when I decided to buy a new gun, so I bought three.  She's more worried about Obamunism than I am.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Nov 4, 2008)

not that I would ever suggest anything illegal but it sounds like a good reason to buy from other than gun shops ( street, friends, etc.)


----------



## JBrainard (Nov 4, 2008)

tshadowchaser said:


> not that I would ever suggest anything illegal but it sounds like a good reason to buy from other than gun shops ( street, friends, etc.)


 
I would call myself a liberal but at the same time I am very pro- "right to bear arms." The ultimate irony of the quote above is that studies have shown that the vast majority of criminals get thier guns from the street, friends, etc., not gun shops/shows.
Here's a wild idea: Don't ban guns, enforce the gun laws that are already in place.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Nov 4, 2008)

nope, that would make to much sence


----------



## JBrainard (Nov 4, 2008)

tshadowchaser said:


> nope, that would make to much sence


 
You're right, what the hell was I thinking.


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 4, 2008)

tshadowchaser said:


> not that I would ever suggest anything illegal but it sounds like a good reason to buy from other than gun shops ( street, friends, etc.)



Just so everyone is clear...buying a gun from someone other than a dealer (commonly referred to in the gun world as a "face to face" transaction) is *not* illegal in most places.  I can buy from and sell to friends all day long.


----------



## Korppi76 (Nov 5, 2008)

Well few small questions, as I don't live in USA so I am not quite sure how things are:

a) What kind of regulations there are now about what kind of guns you can purchase?
b) What kind of ban there will/would/might come?

From outside it just seems... odd that people needs to hoard (right word?) guns and ammunitions.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 5, 2008)

Korppi76 said:


> a) What kind of regulations there are now about what kind of guns you can purchase?
> b) What kind of ban there will/would/might come?
> 
> From outside it just seems... odd that people needs to hoard (right word?) guns and ammunitions.



a) It varies from state to state.

b) In the past, Biden (Our New VP) went thru a picture book of firearms and said "oooh, that looks scary, must be a machine gun, It's now illegal" regardless of the function.  This included not only military rifles, military "looking" rifles, but also some single shot hunting shotguns and various other sporting weapons for which he was askeered of the way they looked.

As to hoarding...  People who don't want to lose the ability to hunt, recreational shoot, and who also understand the rulings here in the United States that our Police have no duty to protect us, are stocking up before it happens again so when it comes down the pipe they are prepared.


----------



## Korppi76 (Nov 5, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> a) It varies from state to state.
> 
> b) In the past, Biden (Our New VP) went thru a picture book of firearms and said "oooh, that looks scary, must be a machine gun, It's now illegal" regardless of the function.  This included not only military rifles, military "looking" rifles, but also some single shot hunting shotguns and various other sporting weapons for which he was askeered of the way they looked.
> 
> As to hoarding...  People who don't want to lose the ability to hunt, recreational shoot, and who also understand the rulings here in the United States that our Police have no duty to protect us, are stocking up before it happens again so when it comes down the pipe they are prepared.


Ok thanks.
 I would say I can understand if they want to ban military machine guns but I dont see point with those hunting or non military guns.


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 5, 2008)

Korppi76 said:


> Ok thanks.
> I would say I can understand if they want to ban military machine guns but I dont see point with those hunting or non military guns.



There is no good reason to ban "military type" weapons either...


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 5, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> a) It varies from state to state.
> 
> b) In the past, Biden (Our New VP) went thru a picture book of firearms and said "oooh, that looks scary, must be a machine gun, It's now illegal" regardless of the function. This included not only military rifles, military "looking" rifles, but also some single shot hunting shotguns and various other sporting weapons for which he was askeered of the way they looked.


 
He certainly did!  He even looked at the DPMS pump-action rifle, that has a cosmetic similarity to the AR-15, yet in his absolute ignorance, he didn't know that this gun required that you cycle the slide between each shot.  

Then again, most of his similarly anti-gun friends think similarly...


----------



## allenjp (Nov 5, 2008)

JBrainard said:


> I would call myself a liberal but at the same time I am very pro- "right to bear arms." The ultimate irony of the quote above is that studies have shown that the vast majority of criminals get thier guns from the street, friends, etc., not gun shops/shows.
> Here's a wild idea: Don't ban guns, enforce the gun laws that are already in place.




Preaching to the choir my friend, preaching to the f-ing choir. Many of us have been shouting this from the rooftops for many years now. Especially here in cali(gun control)fronia.


----------



## allenjp (Nov 5, 2008)

Korppi76 said:


> Well few small questions, as I don't live in USA so I am not quite sure how things are:
> 
> a) What kind of regulations there are now about what kind of guns you can purchase?
> b) What kind of ban there will/would/might come?
> ...



Welcome to the U.S. (well, sort of).

I don't know how things are in Finland, but here in the states the right of the public to bear arms was established at the foundation of the country, and it was because the men who wrote the constitution understood that denying the public access to weapons is how many tyrannical governments keep control over their population. Banning the colonists from having weapons was one of the ways the British kept control here before we won our independence. It was so important to them that they put the law into the constitution of this nation right along with the right to free speech, the right to vote, etc...

Because of this law, and the inherent ruggedness of the population here, many, many people excersize their right to keep firearms. But some people here think that we shouldn't have that right because they think that firearms are inherently bad, evil, dangerous, or whatever, and that the only reason someone would have them is because they like violence and want to shoot people. 

The problem is that statistics prove over and over again that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are very responsible with their weapons and don't cause problems. They just live out their lives and for many of them you never even know they own guns. 

But of course criminals, people who would use firearms for illegal or immoral purposes, don't honor the law. So, if you pass laws that ban guns, the law abiding citizens who wouldn't do anything illegal with their guns anyway, won't have them because it's now against the law. In which case, now ONLY the bad guys, criminals, have guns that they obtained illegally in the first place. And all too many of us know that you cannot rely on the police in every bad situation. That is why we train MA or self defense in the first place. 

As far as hoarding, I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you like lawn gnomes, and you have four hundred of them, are you "hoarding" them? No, you're just collecting them. While some might not understand why you would want so many lawn gnomes, or what you're going to do with them, no one would say you were evil, or bad for that. But of course lawn gnomes don't carry the same stigma with them as guns do for many people. Many of us enjoy target shooting, hunting, and other such benign shooting sports. If we happen to have a lot of guns, does that have to mean that we want to overthrow the government, or do some other bad thing with them? Of course not. We just want to do what is fun for us, and at the same time not HAVE to rely ONLY on the police if someone wants to do harm to our loved ones.

Hope this helps you to understand things here a little better...I tried to keep it as concise as possible.


----------



## Frostbite (Nov 5, 2008)

Korppi76 said:


> Ok thanks.
> I would say I can understand if they want to ban military machine guns but I dont see point with those hunting or non military guns.



The logic behind banning "military" style weapons is that it would prevent crime and help protect public safety.  Apparently none of the lawmakers behind the ban read the crime statistics that indicated that most gun crimes aren't committed using AR15s.  In fact, as I stated in another thread a large number of gun crimes are committed using a revolver so even the argument against high capacity magazines is specious, at best.

Basically the assault weapons ban was a way for lawmakers to give the impression they were tough on crime, when, in point of fact, its actual effect on crime was negligible.  Rifles in general are pretty impractical for the vast majority of crimes people commit with guns but since AR15s and the like are "scary looking" it was an easy target for the ban.  Criminals generally want something easy to conceal and dispose of if necessary.  The fact is, you can't stick an AR15 down the front of your pants and even if you could, your average thug couldn't afford one anyway.


----------



## allenjp (Nov 5, 2008)

And if they could afford one, they certainly wouldn't be throwing it away after committing a crime with it...


----------



## CDA4555 (Nov 5, 2008)

Get your rifles while you can.  The next four years should have a multitude of laws that will get the guns out of your homes while the bad guys have the top of the line gear.  Just my opinion.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Nov 5, 2008)

CDNN just upped their prices of magazines for pistols. Bummer. But luckly for me, the local shops I find used Glock mags for $20. Will pick another one up tomorrow. Never can have to many magazines.

Deaf


----------



## Frostbite (Nov 5, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Never can have to many magazines.



If you own more magazines than rounds of ammo for those magazines, that might be too many.  Otherwise, you're right on.


----------



## atinsley (Nov 6, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> And if there is eventually an outright ban, they will be able to find out about anything you bought on a 4473 since (IIRC) the dealer has to retain that form and turn over all his records if he ever goes out of business. (de facto registration?)



FFL holders must retain the 4473 in their bound-book the entire time they are in business and are required to surrender the log to the BATF upon closing the business.

With that form, the BATF can determine that you purchased the firearm, but they cannot determine if you still have it. Private party sales are legal and do not require any paperwork in most states. I know that Colorado does not require the registration of firearms nor permits to have them, so no other paperwork would exist showing ownership/possession of the firearm.


----------



## Korppi76 (Nov 6, 2008)

allenjp said:


> Welcome to the U.S. (well, sort of).
> 
> I don't know how things are in Finland... <good description how things work in USA>.


Thanks that cleared things up.

One more question:
What is considered those military weapons? It looks like military weapon or it is something like 12,7mm machine gun?



In Finland we have to have license to buy guns. But it used to be quite easy to get license. 
But anyway we can get almost all kind of rifles as long as they are semi auto. Rifles and shotguns were easiest to get. 
Two main reasons to get license are hunting and army reserve training. (By law every person who has been in army, has to keep up his/her skills with guns.)
Pistols and revolvers were little bit harder to get.
Machine pistols  or short rifles(?) need some good reasons.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 6, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> At the end of the day they can take away weapons but they cannot take away training.
> 
> If tomorrow all my guns were gone it would be at best a temporary setback.


 At the end of the day they can only TAKE what you give them.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 6, 2008)

zeeberex said:


> Are we talking actual proof of a ban or just right wing paranoia here? If I want to go out and buy a shotgun, I'll find a way to do it.



Paranoia?



> " I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban." -Barack Obama





> Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
> Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
> Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
> Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
> ...


 Paranoia or simply taking Barry-boy at his word?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 6, 2008)

JBrainard said:


> I would call myself a liberal but at the same time I am very pro- "right to bear arms." The ultimate irony of the quote above is that studies have shown that the vast majority of criminals get thier guns from the street, friends, etc., not gun shops/shows.
> Here's a wild idea: Don't ban guns, enforce the gun laws that are already in place.



This may come as a shock......but the idea of actually ENFORCING gun laws against felons in possession of firearms is something that folks like Obama have NO INTENTION of doing......because it flies in the face of ANOTHER principle they hold......that such enforcement would DISPROPORTIONATELY incarcerate felons of color.  

As such they have a fantasy of banning GUNS without punishing criminals.  They want to attack gun makers, gun sellers, and legal gun owners.......ANYONE but the criminals themselves.  They have a fantasy that they can stop the violence by targeting inanimate objects, NOT by targeting those actually engaged in the violence.


Reverend Jeremiah Wright made it clear what he thinks of any laws that will result in minority criminals being sent to prison.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 6, 2008)

> Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons



This begs the question... D'ya think that these legislators, Biden, Obama, etc...

Know what Semi-auto means, or do they just hear the "auto" part and assume it's a "machine gun" or do they know, and just play stupid to get what they want?


----------



## allenjp (Nov 6, 2008)

CDA4555 said:


> Get your rifles while you can.  The next four years should have a multitude of laws that will get the guns out of your homes while the bad guys have the top of the line gear.  Just my opinion.



Just about any semi-auto rifle worth having has been banned in CA for years now. So if anyone wants to know what this feels like just ask me. Oh wait...maybe I can sum it up for you...IT SUCKS!!!


----------



## allenjp (Nov 6, 2008)

Korppi76 said:


> Thanks that cleared things up.
> 
> One more question:
> What is considered those military weapons? It looks like military weapon or it is something like 12,7mm machine gun?



See, it's hard to say because the laws that govern firearm restrictions are state laws. There are 50 states and the laws can be VERY different for each one. The U.S. constitution guarantees the right to OWN firearms, and that's about it. They leave it up to the individual states to decide what types of firearms you can buy, whether or not you can carry them around with you, etc...But everyone pretty much has the right to buy a gun. No license needed, but once you purchase the gun you have to wait 10 to 15 days to actually take possession of it, during which time they do a criminal background check on you to make sure you're not a convicted criminal. 

I live in California, which is generally much more restrictive on guns than, say, Arizona or Texas...


----------



## JadeDragon3 (Nov 6, 2008)

There is no way that the gov. could take your guns away from you.  Do you realize how hard that would be?  They may be able to keep you from buying new ones though.  All you would have to say is that you sold it and don't have it anymore.  It's not against the law to sell your gun, it is against the law to sell it knowingly to a felon though.  To many people with gun though for them to even try.


----------



## 7starmarc (Nov 6, 2008)

JadeDragon3 said:


> There is no way that the gov. could take your guns away from you. Do you realize how hard that would be? They may be able to keep you from buying new ones though. All you would have to say is that you sold it and don't have it anymore. It's not against the law to sell your gun, it is against the law to sell it knowingly to a felon though. To many people with gun though for them to even try.


 
Not true in California. Any transfer of a firearm, even within a family, requires submission of that information to the DoJ.


----------



## Blindside (Nov 6, 2008)

allenjp said:


> Just about any semi-auto rifle worth having has been banned in CA for years now. So if anyone wants to know what this feels like just ask me. Oh wait...maybe I can sum it up for you...IT SUCKS!!!



Aren't the RAA Saiga rifles (not shotguns) still legal?  Sure you are still neutered on mag capacity, but an AK in sheeps clothing doesn't suck.


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 6, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> This begs the question... D'ya think that these legislators, Biden, Obama, etc...
> 
> Know what Semi-auto means, or do they just hear the "auto" part and assume it's a "machine gun" or do they know, and just play stupid to get what they want?



I don't doubt that there are many people who don't have a friggin clue what they're talking about.  However, I personally believe that many of them are working towards the goal of eventually banning all firearms.  The "scary assault weapons" are just the first step along the path.


----------



## Journeyman (Nov 6, 2008)

Proof they are clueless:


----------



## Deaf Smith (Nov 6, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> This begs the question... D'ya think that these legislators, Biden, Obama, etc...
> 
> Know what Semi-auto means, or do they just hear the "auto" part and assume it's a "machine gun" or do they know, and just play stupid to get what they want?


 
Obama and Biden think any gun is a 'machine' and thus a gun is a 'machine gun'. Didn't you guys know that? That's liberal-think.

Deaf


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 7, 2008)

saw this on another forum and though it was funny


----------



## Frostbite (Nov 7, 2008)

Journeyman said:


> Proof they are clueless:



I wondered when someone would dig this up.  Shoulder things that go up are eeeeevil.


----------



## arnisandyz (Nov 7, 2008)

I was paranoid 2 or 3 years ago.  I'm good to go!


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 7, 2008)

JadeDragon3 said:


> There is no way that the gov. could take your guns away from you.  Do you realize how hard that would be?  They may be able to keep you from buying new ones though.  All you would have to say is that you sold it and don't have it anymore.  It's not against the law to sell your gun, it is against the law to sell it knowingly to a felon though.  To many people with gun though for them to even try.



Sorry man, not True in Illinois... they require us to keep a record for 10 years of the person we sold the weapon to, their address, phone number, and if sold in state their FOID (the illinois owners permit) information as well.


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 7, 2008)

From http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

(emphasis is mine)


> *Address Gun Violence in Cities: * As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.



If that isn't a load of horse-**** I don't know what it is.  Considering that paranoia is defined as: "baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others,"  I don't think gun owners are being paranoid about Obama's intentions.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Nov 7, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets


 
Considering what is happening in Mexico, I'd say those 'foreign battlefields' are getting mighty close.

And if they are just for 'foreign battlefields' then why does all the police, FBI, DEA, SS, ATF, etc... use those 'assault weapons'. If they are not good enough for us citizens, then they are not good enough for our police.

Deaf


----------



## Ceicei (Nov 8, 2008)

Added a rifle and a shotgun, along with ammo, to my firearm collection recently.  When more money is available and saved up, I'll get another handgun.

- Ceicei


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 8, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Considering what is happening in Mexico, I'd say those 'foreign battlefields' are getting mighty close.
> 
> And if they are just for 'foreign battlefields' then why does all the police, FBI, DEA, SS, ATF, etc... use those 'assault weapons'. If they are not good enough for us citizens, then they are not good enough for our police.
> 
> Deaf


 
Not to mention, since those weapons were based on Appearance and not function, I wonder how they would fare on the battlefield of today.

Think they are for the battlefield?  Lets pull all the true Assault rifles from our fighting boys, and give them the semi-auto and single shot rifles that are banned, because they "look" military, and see what happens.  Bet we have a mutiny by the Military.

Lets not forget... TRUE military rifles were not banned by the Assault Weapons Ban.  Those were already "banned" (barring exceptions of course) for private ownership by the general public based on their actual function.


----------



## KenpoTex (Nov 8, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> And if they are just for 'foreign battlefields' then why does all the police, FBI, DEA, SS, ATF, etc... use those 'assault weapons'. *If they are not good enough for us citizens, then they are not good enough for our police*.
> Deaf


 But that would be an example of the limited governmental powers/checks and balances that the founders had in mind...can't have that.



Cryozombie said:


> Lets not forget... TRUE military rifles were not banned by the Assault Weapons Ban.  Those were already "banned" (barring exceptions of course) for private ownership by the general public *based on their actual function*.


Which is just as stupid and unconstitutional.

Come to think about it...that quote above about such weapons only belonging on foreign battlefields reminded me of this quote:
&#8220;Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State&#8221; ~Heinrich Himmler


----------



## tshadowchaser (Nov 8, 2008)

While sitting in the Mall lunch court the other day I over heard more than one conversation about guns.  Seem like people in this area are also buying more guns.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 9, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Not to mention, since those weapons were based on Appearance and not function, I wonder how they would fare on the battlefield of today.
> 
> Think they are for the battlefield?  Lets pull all the true Assault rifles from our fighting boys, and give them the semi-auto and single shot rifles that are banned, because they "look" military, and see what happens.  Bet we have a mutiny by the Military.
> 
> Lets not forget... TRUE military rifles were not banned by the Assault Weapons Ban.  Those were already "banned" (barring exceptions of course) for private ownership by the general public based on their actual function.



Actually the only difference between the semi-auto variants and the full-auto variants is that little part on the safety that says 'Full', and the subsequent bullet hose you turn it in to.

And since Special Operations soldiers are buying firearms like the semi-auto Springfield M1A and SOCOM in .308 for use in Iraq and, especially, Afghanistan because they are SUPERIOR to the M4 carbines issued, that speaks volumes.

Full auto fire is actually of limited usefulness from a carbine.  There are two uses for full auto......suppressive fire, which is better from a belt fed machine gun, and extreme close quarters fire.

If you were shooting at me from 75 yards i'd far rather your rifle bet set to full-auto!  A lot of this confusion comes from the confusion between a BATTLE RIFLE and an ASSAULT RIFLE!  In the open distances of Afghanistan, the Battle Rifle is king!


As to the 2nd Amendment, it was PRECISELY military infantry arms that the founding fathers were PROTECTING our right to keep and bear!


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 9, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Actually the only difference between the semi-auto variants and the full-auto variants is that little part on the safety that says 'Full', and the subsequent bullet hose you turn it in to.


 
I'm gonna disagree with this SLIGHTLY.

The difference is Semi-Auto variants fire ONE time every time you pull the trigger, and Full auto Variants fire MORE THAN ONE time for every trigger pull with the flip of a switch.  

A Semi-auto rifle in most cases requires modification to fire burst/auto.  Thats the main difference.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Nov 9, 2008)

Texas law says a fully auto fires MORE than 2 shots with a single pull of the trigger. Note I said TEXAS law, not federal. Unfortunatly federal law trumps state law in this case.

The Swiss have always let their National Millita people take their REAL fully auto rifles home with them yet low crime rate. They even have fairs where everyone comes and competes with their rifles! How I wish we had that here (we have some, IDPA, IPSC, IHMSA, NRA HP, etc... but not a fair for all to come to!)

Just picked up 100 rounds of M885 5.56 for 9 bucks a box of 20 (sad, used to be 3 bucks!) Happly I reload so the LC brass makes real good reloads.

Deaf


----------



## grydth (Nov 9, 2008)

Gun rights has been an issue that has historically been *extremely* costly to the Democrats. Why do people believe Obama is willing to squander his momentum on that?

If there is a true belief that Obama wants to have his whole train jump the tracks just to violate our gun rights, why is everyone buying guns most likely to be the targets of confiscation? Wouldn't a good Mauser or shotgun make more sense?


----------



## Journeyman (Nov 9, 2008)

I think people expect a ban on sales like the 1994 ban rather than a ban on ownership.  After that, who knows?


----------



## Blindside (Nov 10, 2008)

grydth said:


> Gun rights has been an issue that has historically been *extremely* costly to the Democrats. Why do people believe Obama is willing to squander his momentum on that?
> 
> If there is a true belief that Obama wants to have his whole train jump the tracks just to violate our gun rights, why is everyone buying guns most likely to be the targets of confiscation? Wouldn't a good Mauser or shotgun make more sense?



The AWB grandfathered in essentially everthing before a certain date.  Normal capacity mags that ran above 10 bullets/mag were labeled as "LE only" after the AWB passed.  But you could still legally own the regular capacity mags, the general public just couldn't buy them anymore.  Purchasing more mags or potentially banned guns can actually serve as a potential investment as those guns/mags went up in value after the ban.


----------



## grydth (Nov 10, 2008)

I believe Journeyman and Blindside are exactly right on the money in summarizing the 1994 law, and peoples' expectations of the same.

But why the popular assumption that Obama will attack gun rights when it wasn't a major campaign issue, when he has so many pressing problems to address and when attacks on gun rights have proven politically catastrophic to Democrats in the past?

Turn that around - in selecting a gun for self or home protection, why assume that Obama will be 'only as bad as Bill Clinton?'   Recall Sen Feinstein's infamous quote about," If I had the votes, I'd say M/M America, turn them all in."........... well, Obama has the votes...... so why buy guns you think he'll come after?


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 10, 2008)

grydth said:


> Gun rights has been an issue that has historically been *extremely* costly to the Democrats. Why do people believe Obama is willing to squander his momentum on that?


 
You never know...  Bill Clinton and his promises that he wouldn't do anything to affect gun owners, should be a lesson that politicians are not to be trusted.  

Some folks get quite bold when they control both chambers of the Congress, as well as the POTUS position.  Sometimes, they overreach, and end up stretching into a bad position.  

Bill Clinton did this in 1993, first with the tax hikes, and then strong-arming several conservative Democrats into voting for the assault weapons ban.  




> If there is a true belief that Obama wants to have his whole train jump the tracks just to violate our gun rights, why is everyone buying guns most likely to be the targets of confiscation? Wouldn't a good Mauser or shotgun make more sense?


 
Stopping lawful sales isn't nearly as difficult as trying for an outright ban.  

He wouldn't succeed in trying to get a confiscation order done, since he would have to go through millions of people's homes, and in a Gestapo manner, demand that they surrender lawfully purchased property.


----------



## grydth (Nov 10, 2008)

Okay - and let's look at what Clinton reaped...

Clinton's experiences with enraged gun owners should serve as a warning to Obama, and I believe Obama is intelligent enough to take the lesson to heart.

Bill Clinton started with control over both chambers of Congress. After his expedition into gun control, the Democrats took a terrific beating in the mid term elections, and as I recall, Gore later blamed the issue for his loss of at least 5 states in the 2000 election.

So, with gun control not having been a top issue in the 2008 election, and so many pressing other issues to tackle..... I ask why people feel Obama would knee cap his Presidency at the outset; why would he repeat Bill Clinton's course and squander everything he has?

Then again, if people feel Obama is that obsessed with the issue.... why believe he would only go so far as Clinton's half measure. Why not go all the way, break the back of "the gun lobby" once and for all by enforced confiscations?


----------



## Deaf Smith (Nov 10, 2008)

I'll say this.

Watch Obama carefully. Watch him like a hawk. The first hint of him doing any 'Executive Order' or other such thing, alert the NRA, alert your represenitives, post it on the internet all over the place, even contact a few news papers like the Houston Chronical and Dallas Morning News.

We HOPE he will not take any action. But remember he is very inexperienced and no telling what his '300' advisors wisper to him.

Deaf


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 11, 2008)

Well in the Senate one Senator can still filibuster a vote as the Democrats do not have the 60 seat Super Majority.  I do not think that gun issues in general are very high on the Democratic agenda at this time and if they are one Republican Senator will be able to stop it. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 (Provided there is of course enough other Senators of like mind)  Really I think this is a non issue as our country has some super problems that need to be addressed!


----------



## Taiji_Mantis (Nov 11, 2008)

I couldn't agree more, Brian.


----------



## David Weatherly (Dec 15, 2008)

Guns are flying off the shelves where I am too.  Ammo is getting more difficult to find on a regular basis.  The problem seems to be that the stores just aren't getting the full shipments that they order.

David


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 15, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Texas law says a fully auto fires MORE than 2 shots with a single pull of the trigger. Note I said TEXAS law, not federal. Unfortunatly federal law trumps state law in this case.
> 
> The Swiss have always let their National Millita people take their REAL fully auto rifles home with them yet low crime rate. They even have fairs where everyone comes and competes with their rifles! How I wish we had that here (we have some, IDPA, IPSC, IHMSA, NRA HP, etc... but not a fair for all to come to!)
> 
> ...


The Swiss require military training for their population, and can field an effective trained military force of round 2.7 million in short order. I don't think the average American is interested in manditory service, even for the optional 1 year the Swiss can do.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 15, 2008)

Yes Bob, but considering how many National Guard vets we have now with combat experience, I bet our smaller force is alot more effective!

Actually, I kind of wish we had some sort of national service. It would straiten out alot of people who think the government owes them something.

Consider this. Our volunteer military does get their quota full. There may be alot more interest than people think. Not a form of draft, but one where they can serve in many functions, both military and non-military. One year would be fine to me.

Deaf


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 15, 2008)

Good points. Can't say I disagree. Way back when I considered it, but my own semi-pacifist nature wouldn't allow me to do so, though the idea of driving a tank or fighter was "cool" back then. Course, life-long geek I would have been better suited to support than combat.


Bouncing back to the ammo issue, do y'all think that shortage is due to increased demand or reduced supply?


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 15, 2008)

Ammo shortages and price hikes are a result of both increased public demand -- and decreased supply because the military has increased it's demand.

We've been having issues getting ammo to train and qualify more than the bare minimum required because we fell behind the curve a couple of years ago.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 16, 2008)

Bob,

Around here I've seen lots of M885 ammo for sale. Federal Lake City. Good stuff. Around $168 for 400 round case. So much of it I think it's more hysteria than real as for a shortage.

Happly I reload and I have LOTS of brass. At a garage sale I picked up some 10 year old CCI primers. Several 1000 round cartons of small rifle, small pistol, large pistol, and large rifle! They go bang and I paid $5 per 1000! Man was that a deal!

Anyway, I just sit back and let others pay the tarrif on the high prices. I've been a shooter since I was 16 and I'm ok.

Deaf


----------



## David Weatherly (Dec 20, 2008)

Sure is a good time to learn reloading!

David


----------

