quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
I must have missed the source you cited that said Obama and or the NRA are directly responsible for selling a large number of firearms. Please point it out to me.

Top of this page. Post 40

Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MusicMystery
It was a quick grab from Wikipedia, which cites this source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/

But whatever the "actual" numbers, doesn't change the point -- it's a saturated market.

Yet, gun manufactures have doubled their output since 2009:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/

Obama (and a gullible gun-buying public) are the best thing that ever happened to gun manufacturers in the US.

This post, specifically this statement? FSU's Kleck calls this an "Obama effect." High-profile shootings and talk of changing gun laws "motivates gun owners to get more guns, and perhaps some non-owners to get one 'while the getting is good,'" he said. This is despite the fact that Congress has not passed any changes to federal firearm legislation since early 2008.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Isn't a saturated market when there is so much of a product that in order to make any profit you have to cut your profits to the lowest level you can manage? Or to the point where sales drop off to almost nothing?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
I must have missed the source you cited that said Obama and or the NRA are directly responsible for selling a large number of firearms. Please point it out to me.

Top of this page. Post 40

Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MusicMystery
It was a quick grab from Wikipedia, which cites this source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/

But whatever the "actual" numbers, doesn't change the point -- it's a saturated market.

Yet, gun manufactures have doubled their output since 2009:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/

Obama (and a gullible gun-buying public) are the best thing that ever happened to gun manufacturers in the US.

This post, specifically this statement? FSU's Kleck calls this an "Obama effect." High-profile shootings and talk of changing gun laws "motivates gun owners to get more guns, and perhaps some non-owners to get one 'while the getting is good,'" he said. This is despite the fact that Congress has not passed any changes to federal firearm legislation since early 2008.

Isn't a saturated market when there is so much of a product that in order to make any profit you have to cut your profits to the lowest level you can manage? Or to the point where sales drop off to almost nothing?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
I must have missed the source you cited that said Obama and or the NRA are directly responsible for selling a large number of firearms. Please point it out to me.

Top of this page. Post 40

Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MusicMystery
It was a quick grab from Wikipedia, which cites this source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/

But whatever the "actual" numbers, doesn't change the point -- it's a saturated market.

Yet, gun manufactures have doubled their output since 2009:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/

Obama (and a gullible gun-buying public) are the best thing that ever happened to gun manufacturers in the US.

This post, specifically this statement? FSU's Kleck calls this an "Obama effect." High-profile shootings and talk of changing gun laws "motivates gun owners to get more guns, and perhaps some non-owners to get one 'while the getting is good,'" he said. This is despite the fact that Congress has not passed any changes to federal firearm legislation since early 2008.

Isn't a saturated market when there is so much of a product that in order to make any profit you have to cut your profits to the lowest level you can manage? Or to the point where sales drop off to almost nothing?

Hence the need to trump up new business through artificial means.

Which they're doing quite successfully!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
I must have missed the source you cited that said Obama and or the NRA are directly responsible for selling a large number of firearms. Please point it out to me.

Top of this page. Post 40

Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MusicMystery
It was a quick grab from Wikipedia, which cites this source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/

But whatever the "actual" numbers, doesn't change the point -- it's a saturated market.

Yet, gun manufactures have doubled their output since 2009:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/

Obama (and a gullible gun-buying public) are the best thing that ever happened to gun manufacturers in the US.

This post, specifically this statement? FSU's Kleck calls this an "Obama effect." High-profile shootings and talk of changing gun laws "motivates gun owners to get more guns, and perhaps some non-owners to get one 'while the getting is good,'" he said. This is despite the fact that Congress has not passed any changes to federal firearm legislation since early 2008.

Isn't a saturated market when there is so much of a product that in order to make any profit you have to cut your profits to the lowest level you can manage? Or to the point where sales drop off to almost nothing?

Hence the need to trump up new business through artificial means.

Which they're doing quite successfully!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

And?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Which gun grabbers are doing quite successfully, when will you guys figure out that all you accomplish is selling more guns, and turning more people agaist you. Does Obama have stock in Smith and Wesson?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Which gun grabbers are doing quite successfully, when will you guys figure out that all you accomplish is selling more guns, and turning more people agaist you. Does Obama have stock in Smith and Wesson?

I'd hope it'd be Ruger; their stock seems to be performing better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
I must have missed the source you cited that said Obama and or the NRA are directly responsible for selling a large number of firearms. Please point it out to me.

Top of this page. Post 40

Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MusicMystery
It was a quick grab from Wikipedia, which cites this source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/

But whatever the "actual" numbers, doesn't change the point -- it's a saturated market.

Yet, gun manufactures have doubled their output since 2009:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/

Obama (and a gullible gun-buying public) are the best thing that ever happened to gun manufacturers in the US.

This post, specifically this statement? FSU's Kleck calls this an "Obama effect." High-profile shootings and talk of changing gun laws "motivates gun owners to get more guns, and perhaps some non-owners to get one 'while the getting is good,'" he said. This is despite the fact that Congress has not passed any changes to federal firearm legislation since early 2008.

Isn't a saturated market when there is so much of a product that in order to make any profit you have to cut your profits to the lowest level you can manage? Or to the point where sales drop off to almost nothing?

Hence the need to trump up new business through artificial means.

Which they're doing quite successfully!

Which gun grabbers are doing quite successfully, when will you guys figure out that all you accomplish is selling more guns, and turning more people agaist you. Does Obama have stock in Smith and Wesson?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
I must have missed the source you cited that said Obama and or the NRA are directly responsible for selling a large number of firearms. Please point it out to me.

Top of this page. Post 40

Thank you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MusicMystery
It was a quick grab from Wikipedia, which cites this source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/

But whatever the "actual" numbers, doesn't change the point -- it's a saturated market.

Yet, gun manufactures have doubled their output since 2009:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/05/guns-in-the-united-states-one-for-every-man-woman-and-child-and-then-some/

Obama (and a gullible gun-buying public) are the best thing that ever happened to gun manufacturers in the US.

This post, specifically this statement? FSU's Kleck calls this an "Obama effect." High-profile shootings and talk of changing gun laws "motivates gun owners to get more guns, and perhaps some non-owners to get one 'while the getting is good,'" he said. This is despite the fact that Congress has not passed any changes to federal firearm legislation since early 2008.

Isn't a saturated market when there is so much of a product that in order to make any profit you have to cut your profits to the lowest level you can manage? Or to the point where sales drop off to almost nothing?

Hence the need to trump up new business through artificial means.

Which they're doing quite successfully!

Which gun grabbers are doing quite successfully, when will you guys figure out that all you accomplish is selling more guns, and turning more people agaist you. Does Obama have stock in Smith and Wesson?

Bama? Hello? You OK?

Because that's what I've been saying for a while now. Peddling the "Oh no! Gun Grabbing Obama is coming!" keeps the cash register ringing--to the tune of double the annual sales before the 2008 election...even though it never happens.

In short--we're in agreement here. Imagine.

If he does own Smith & Wesson, he's doing quite well!
http://www.wsj.com/articles/smith-wessons-value-is-fully-loaded-1425328914

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Your paranoia is showing again.

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of banning guns. Try again.

It's not a "plot" -- it's opportunism and manufacturing fake gun-grab crises that, apparently people like you, believe, even in the face of a complete lack of evidence.

And the sales keep going up, even though everybody's already got their guns.

A gullible world, to be sure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Your paranoia is showing again.

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of banning guns. Try again.

It's not a "plot" -- it's opportunism and manufacturing fake gun-grab crises that, apparently people like you, believe, even in the face of a complete lack of evidence.

And the sales keep going up, even though everybody's already got their guns.

A gullible world, to be sure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Your paranoia is showing again.

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of banning guns. Try again.

It's not a "plot" -- it's opportunism and manufacturing fake gun-grab crises that, apparently people like you, believe, even in the face of a complete lack of evidence.

And the sales keep going up, even though everybody's already got their guns.

A gullible world, to be sure.

It was all in the proposed legislation. Clinton actually managerd to get some fairly damaging shit passed. A little paranoia is fine with me, especially if it results in further entrenching gun owners. And not everyone had their AR15's yet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slavemali

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Your paranoia is showing again.

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of banning guns. Try again.

It's not a "plot" -- it's opportunism and manufacturing fake gun-grab crises that, apparently people like you, believe, even in the face of a complete lack of evidence.

And the sales keep going up, even though everybody's already got their guns.

A gullible world, to be sure.

It was all in the proposed legislation. Clinton actually managerd to get some fairly damaging shit passed. A little paranoia is fine with me, especially if it results in further entrenching gun owners. And not everyone had their AR15's yet.

SKS, is a better weapon and loads cheaper... the AR family of weapons....

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Your paranoia is showing again.

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of banning guns. Try again.

It's not a "plot" -- it's opportunism and manufacturing fake gun-grab crises that, apparently people like you, believe, even in the face of a complete lack of evidence.

And the sales keep going up, even though everybody's already got their guns.

A gullible world, to be sure.

There was a provision in the post Sandy Hook package that all semi-automatics would be put in the same classification as full auto weapons. All semi-auto owners would have to go through the same lisensing process as those buying full auto.
They would have been given a break in that they would not have to pay the 200 dollar fee. However they could never transfer the weapon, either by sale or by leaving it to someone. No more semi-autos could be sold. Thus those semi-autos currently in circulation would be the last ones, and as they went back to the government they would disapear. This is a slow motion ban. You may not call for a ban but I'll bet you supported this bill without knowing this was in it. Do you like Austalia's laws, they say it isn't a ban because they allow single shot weapons but everything else is banned. Again big time banning. They make it sound so reasonable but the more you know the more of a ban it becomes. Most of the people who support these things don't support bans but they are disguised as something else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Your paranoia is showing again.

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of banning guns. Try again.

It's not a "plot" -- it's opportunism and manufacturing fake gun-grab crises that, apparently people like you, believe, even in the face of a complete lack of evidence.

And the sales keep going up, even though everybody's already got their guns.

A gullible world, to be sure.

There was a provision in the post Sandy Hook package that all semi-automatics would be put in the same classification as full auto weapons. All semi-auto owners would have to go through the same lisensing process as those buying full auto.
They would have been given a break in that they would not have to pay the 200 dollar fee. However they could never transfer the weapon, either by sale or by leaving it to someone. No more semi-autos could be sold. Thus those semi-autos currently in circulation would be the last ones, and as they went back to the government they would disapear. This is a slow motion ban. You may not call for a ban but I'll bet you supported this bill without knowing this was in it. Do you like Austalia's laws, they say it isn't a ban because they allow single shot weapons but everything else is banned. Again big time banning. They make it sound so reasonable but the more you know the more of a ban it becomes. Most of the people who support these things don't support bans but they are disguised as something else.

If you insist on simply ping-ponging between extremes, my perception is that you and your tribe see ANY legislation as a "slow-motion ban."

It's why I take very little of what you say seriously.