quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
Yea, no surprise there. The assult-style rifle I special-ordered in November was supposed to be delivered within 4 to 5 months, and when i called last week to see what the deal was, they told me it could be another 8 to 10 months. Seems the factory is working triple shifts, but can't keep up with the demand. 

There is also no recession for the ammunition manufacturers. Between law enforcement, Iraq and Afghanistan and the new dude on Pennsylvania Avenue 9mm ammo is at a premium if you can find it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

The NRA fear mongering?   What a big surprise....I`m w/ PAhunk,the GOA is where normal folks go.The paranoid and frightened go to the NRA for comfort.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire

It's a great sales gimmick: wait for a dem president, start the rumors flying about he's going to take your guns away, and watch the sales skyrocket. It's right up there with price gouging on gas just before the Iraq war started.

Amazing how many gun nuts fall for this crap!

quote:

ORIGINAL: flcouple2009<do most of these people with AK47's and AR15's with a stack of clips and ammo tucked away in their closet really need em?  Nope.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
I don't think it's so much a fear of increasing crime as it is a fear of increasingly strong restrictions on gun ownership. Some of us who've been thinking for a while of purchasing certain types of weapons feel it would be prudent to get them now, in case we can't get them later.

I mean, face it, some of the democrats in Congress have made no secret of the fact that they favor very restrictive gun control laws, and they are now the party in power. And they have a president who made a couple of vague, ambiguous campaign promises to reassure gun owners, but has a historical record of some pretty strong anti-gun statements and positions. In fact, he is specifically on record as supporting a ban on the sale of some of the weapons we are now buying. For some of us, it's just a matter of making sure all our bases are covered.

quote:

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

hmmmmm.....Has anyone seen any difference in the protection of citizens inside the U.S.?.....just curious....is there some unknown army of thugs hiding somewhere that I am unaware of?....some increase in violent crime?....just have to love paranoia....

I don't think it's so much a fear of increasing crime as it is a fear of increasingly strong restrictions on gun ownership. Some of us who've been thinking for a while of purchasing certain types of weapons feel it would be prudent to get them now, in case we can't get them later.

I mean, face it, some of the democrats in Congress have made no secret of the fact that they favor very restrictive gun control laws, and they are now the party in power. And they have a president who made a couple of vague, ambiguous campaign promises to reassure gun owners, but has a historical record of some pretty strong anti-gun statements and positions. In fact, he is specifically on record as supporting a ban on the sale of some of the weapons we are now buying. For some of us, it's just a matter of making sure all our bases are covered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

vote from the rooftop.


And this means what?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

vote from the rooftop.


And this means what?

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

vote from the rooftop.


And this means what?

...i think it means 'fuck democracy, i've got a gun'

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Not sure how she meant it, but it often refers to armed insurrection.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

vote from the rooftop.


And this means what?

quote:

ORIGINAL: janiebelle

It means "fuck tyranny".

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark
Panda, those who believe in restrictive gun laws in Congress have been around a very long time, nothing that new. Passing restrictive legislation especially when it comes to guns, outside a few state legislatures is a different story.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark
I am not a gun fan, nor am I into restrictive gun laws until it gets too excessive weapons...excessive being my definition which probably wouldn't match others opinions who are much better educated on guns than I am. I just get a kick out of the thinking that somehow we are less safe then we were last year. If we are indeed less safe would more of us owning weapons fix the problem?

quote:

ORIGINAL: janiebelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Not sure how she meant it, but it often refers to armed insurrection.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

vote from the rooftop.


And this means what?

I meant it in the classic sense:
Μολὼν λάβε  (Molon labe)
j

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

But you just said you meant it in the Jefferson sense, which is armed insurrection against a tyranical government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: janiebelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Not sure how she meant it, but it often refers to armed insurrection.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

vote from the rooftop.


And this means what?

I meant it in the classic sense:
Μολὼν λάβε  (Molon labe)
j

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda



Well, if you could accept that society as a whole is becoming less safe, then from an individual point of view, it could be argued  that being well-armed is a partial solution. But I don't accept that society is becoming less safe. I would not be surprised if it does become so over the next few years, but right now, the fact is that crime in this country - and particularly violent crime - seems to be getting better rather than worse. Contrary to the media-induced stereotype. I don't think increased risk of personal danger is a very strong argument for "gunning up" in 2009. I think the only rational reason - and it does seem to be supported by the facts at hand - is that there's an increased risk of restrictive legislation, and if we don't get them now, we won't be able to get them later.