Wednesday, October 17, 2012

...and everyone in the bubble rejoiced!

It has to have been tough being in the bubble these past few years. I mean, everybody you knew was in favor of renewing the assault weapons ban that had been stricken down by the NRA and their bought-and-paid-for stooges in the GOP, fat-cat good ole boys who were only too willing to dance to their gun industry masters' tune, since they were profiting by flooding the inner cities with guns and probably laughed when African-Americans were slaughtered for those profits. Racists.

Anyway, everybody at work in the newsroom is in favor of a new ban. Everybody at the cocktail party the other night was in favor of it, too. And the only person at the beach house last weekend who was against it was your hick brother-in-law from Texas. Or Arizona? Anyhow, one of those redneck states.

So thank goodness that the president came out and said what needed saying last night!
President Obama tonight said he’s interested in seeing an assault weapons ban reintroduced, breaking his silence on the legislation, which has persisted in spite of at least five mass shootings during his term.
Well, there we go. Barry decided it was safe to lick the third rail, live on prime-time TeeWee. And why not? Everybody he knows is in favor of an Assault Weapons Ban; it's just common sense gun control.

What I love about this is how every time he gives the gun control issue the most tentative touch with the tip of his tongue (what he actually said was "Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced,") the media grabs him by the back of his head and turns it into a great, big sloppy slurp ("Obama Calls for Renewal of Assault Weapons Ban" blares the headline.) These guys are writing the NRA's ad copy for them.

Another thing I found interesting, in the same way I find the things that scurry off when I overturn a large rock interesting, was a remark by one commenter on a firearms forum I frequent, a member who came of pistol-buying age in '94:
Every AR & AK Pattern 'Modern Sporting Rifle' in our respective stables will immediately regain all of its value, and as time progresses that value will increase.
That's Quisling talk, right there*. That turns my stomach almost as much as the guy I heard saying that he didn't want the Hughes Amendment repealed because then his modest collection of Stens and HK94 sear guns would nosedive in value.

*As well as displaying a shaky grasp of economics. An object has its intrinsic value in an open and unrestrained market. Putting artificial constraints on supply skews values: Witness the aforementioned Sten guns, which should be priced closer to a muffler than to the used car to which it's bolted.


Yrro said...

Well... shit... I really wanted to vote for Gary Johnson.

How much can I trust the Republican House...

KM said...

How much can I trust the Republican House

Just to be sure we better elect a Republican Senate too.
If this dipstick gets re-elected Washington gridlock will the only thing we can hope for.

Joseph said...

Reminds me of the time a family member exclaimed about his life insurance policy "When I die, I get $100,000!" Uh, no.

Robert said...

The media and gun control groups (but I repeat myself) reaction to Obazero's statement is akin to the reaction of a 14 yr old when the object of her affection smiles at her once while passing in the school hallway. The next several days are filled with her gushing to her friends that so-and-so is totally in love with her, and pages upon pages proclaiming so are written into her diary each night.

Ken said...

Scratch a Fudd, find a garden-variety rent seeker.

Pakkinpoppa said...

But...but...if the ban is introduced, I can sell half my Block magazines and one of my Eh Kay rifles for a pile of green stamps! And still have enough to last my life, eff the rest of you, I get mine and my son gets to sell what I haven't used up for a fortune!

I remember a buddy of mine selling his 4 Glock mags in May of 2004 for a small fortune. I asked him why, and he said, the ban won't renew and people are still paying stupid prices for things.

I remember the day before the vote we had a Fun Show. A guy was walking around with his "pre ban" collapsible stock Colt AR15 (with a flash hider and bayonet lug!). He was asking 15 or 1800 for on the cardboard sign taped to a dowel rod stuck down the barrel.

If we get another "assault weapon" ban...that'll suck. I don't have nearly enough of them to pass out to the neighbors anymore.

Ron Larimer said...

I liked how he had to take a big swallow before mentioning the assault weapons ban.

He knew he was about to lick the rail, he knew that 100 million gun owners would be fired up about it, but he also knew that if he didn't say it he would be crucified by his base.

He was between the proverbial rock and a hard place and he knew it.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Oh, that's just great! Now every Cletii and Fudd at the Fun Show will be selling ARs for $2000 with a "OBAMA GUN BAN COMING! BUY NOW!" sign taking up half the Table Space.

And the Idiots will go for it.

Sigh! Guess I'm not going to be able to afford to buy myself a Christmas Present after all.

Thanks Barry.

Scott J said...

And what was Mitt's response? To proudly point out he banned guns as a governor.

Anonymous said...

Re: "That's Quisling talk, right there."

I've had a similar reaction to yours when I was in a gun shop and the owner began expounding how he only offered half the slide fires he bought for sale. The other half were being stored in a safe waiting for them to be banned, and those already possessed to be given a tax stamp. He said it was his retirement plan.

I don't mind his putting them or anything else back in case of negative action by the government, but the glee in his eyes and voice betrayed that he was looking forward to such a ban because he would be rich.

ToddG said...

The "mainstream" media's reaction to this simply proves how completely out of touch they are with mainstream Americans. As Tam pointed out, now they'll do the NRA's job for them. As they trumpet Obama's public support for a ban many of them want, they make sure the message is delivered loud and clear to the sportsmen, hunters, and other gun owners in major battleground states like PA, OH, VA, and FL.

That Obama felt the need to "energize his base" by voicing support for something he's so carefully avoided over the past three and a half years shows us just how desperate his handlers must be right now. They're willing to risk undecided voters just to make sure bored liberals actually get out and vote.

I'm in VA on a pretty regular basis and whereas Northern Virginia was literally littered with Obama bumper stickers four years ago, now you would barely know there was an election coming up in two weeks.

Tom said...

I don't think Obama took much risk in giving the AWB a nod. The people that will vote for him wouldn't care if it were resurrected, and the people that won't vote for him wouldn't change their mind even if he came out and said he wouldn't support it.

JohninMd(HELP, SRSLY!) said...

For the OFFICAL RECORD, I'm not all giddy about Mittens. But I hope we all know the absolute goat-fuck that's waitin' in a 2nd term with THIS P.O.S. in office. and a vote for Johnson or anyone else is a vote for Obama. Ryan & the Tea party can keep Romney on a more liberty-prone course, gun-wise. The Senate needs a good cleaning, with a LOT of disinfectant. The bitch of it is, as strongly as I feel, I gotta count on _YOU_ guys, 'cause I'm stuck in enemy territory. Nothing I can do here in the "free" state of Maryland execpt try to get an ex-Secret Service dude elected to the Senate. Bongino by name. But going forBarry, sure as hell. Shit, my so-called "Representive" is Steny Hoyer, Pelosi's lap dog!

Tam said...


"The people that will vote for him wouldn't care if it were resurrected, and the people that won't vote for him wouldn't change their mind even if he came out and said he wouldn't support it."

Those two categories aren't where the risk is. The political risk in the issue comes from the NRA stampeding otherwise apathetic single-issue voters who might have stayed home or "protest voted" for Johnson or Goode into holding their nose and voting for Mittens.

Tam said...

Scott J,

"And what was Mitt's response? To proudly point out he banned guns as a governor."

Doesn't matter; this is the Silly Season. Perception is Reality.

Patrick said...

Tam has it spot on. Single issue gun voters were already on the fence between voting Mittens and staying home. Obama just modified that choice - now it's either Mittens or a gun ban. Thanks, Barry.

@ToddG: Agree 100%. Will note that this might get some of the suburban union guys in PA and OH to buck the union and go with their guns.

Some of the left saying he was, "just talking about AK-47s."

That should not reassure them. First, they don't know what an AK47 even is. And secondly, we all know that they never stop with one gun. They want all of them. Everyone who takes 2A rights into remote consideration knows this. The liberals say "AK-47" and we all hear, "guns, in general". The left think they made a narrow statement, but we all know how big their ban umbrella will be if they ever get the chance.

This and the gas statement ("You probably will pay less for gas under Romney") pretty much suggests he has abandoned the center. He's gotta get the left out somehow, and taking these stark positions is all he has left. Thing might work.

Frank W. James said...

What everyone forgets or simply doesn't know is if you read the Congressional Record on the hearings for the Hughes Amendment that created the 'pool' of civilian legal machine guns and outlawed the possession of new machine guns after 1986 it was one of the stalwarts of the machine gun community that argued and testified FOR the damn ban.

Dolf Goldsmith's testimony makes Quisling look like a patriot in comparison and yet even Kent Lomont (God Bless His Soul) and a number of others (some very high profile in the gunwriting community) defended that low-down, double-dealing, back stabbing P.O.S.

So when it comes to opening up the registry on NFA devices, BEWARE the enemy is not those opposed to gun ownership, but its actually those who already own them!...

All The Best,
Frank W. James

Blackwing1 said...

Tam, I read the first paragraph of this post and had a quick fit of the giggles...that sounded a LOT like Jeff G.

Have you been catching his posts on zeroing in his SCAR over on Protein Wisdom?

Kristophr said...

President Barky knows he has lost this.

He is just doing job interviews in advance for his next job, as fundraiser and leftist issue mouthpiece.

Expect even more third rail peeing to come ... once your heart has stopped, you can pee on that third rail all you want.

Sigivald said...

The political risk in the issue comes from the NRA stampeding otherwise apathetic single-issue voters who might have stayed home or "protest voted" for Johnson or Goode into holding their nose and voting for Mittens

Well, I'm still voting for Johnson.

But that's because I live in Oregon, and the President would have to eat a live baby on live TV to lose Oregon.

Chris said...

Well i just took advantage of a sale on 30 rnd 223 pmags for just a little over 10 clams a pop. I got 2 dozen of them for myself,to use, and have,period. I have no desire to "vault" them for any reason,or anyone.
Free markets and all aside,screw any "gun" owners who stash for future cash,off the backs of anyone! Great post.


Ken said...

"But that's because I live in Oregon, and the President would have to eat a live baby on live TV to lose Oregon."

He'd still carry Portland.

perlhaqr said...

Sigivald: I don't know if even that would do it.

Steve Skubinna said...

Sigvald, he'd claim it was either an extremely late term abortion, or assisted suicide. And carry Oregon.

Ed said...

The value of any given item is only determined at the time of the transaction when there is a meeting of the minds and agreement on price between a willing seller and a willing buyer.

"How much you want for that black rifle? $2000? I will give you $500 for it." This not a meeting of the minds.

A quick check on line tells me that Colt sold base M4 carbines to the government for $800 in 2007, but that the total with rail system, BUIS, seven magazines and a sling was $1200 per carbine. The last Colt M4A1 was delivered to the government in November 2011 at cost of $1221 per weapon.

Remington has won a contract to be a second source of supply to the government at a base cost of $673.10 per weapon without accessories. Please see:

Isn't competition in an open market wonderful?

BTW, these are full auto carbines.
Contact your representatives to peal all gun control laws. They are costing us dearly.

Ed said...

"Peal" and "peal" again --> "repeal"
Repeal all gun laws as costly to us all. Open the markets. Do not infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

JMD said...

It's a sad state of affairs when people see government restriction of freedom as a sound investment.

There are several layers of short-sightedness here. The first is to assume that a new AWB would be the same as the old AWB. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe a new ban wouldn't grandfather in previously owned weapons and magazines. Maybe it wouldn't allow transfers (even to heirs). Maybe it would ban all AR and AK variants, not just certain models or those with certain features. This is not a path we want to venture down.

Another layer here is that Obama doesn't like to play by the rules. Many gun owners are probably relying on the fact that an AWB wouldn't pass the house. First, we don't know what the makeup of the house will be three years from now. Second, since when has Obama let that stop him? With enough lawmakers willing to turn a blind eye (and a complicit media), he could do an incredible amount of damage through executive order. We don't want to give him that chance.

Justthisguy said...

Tam, you have expressed dislike for me in very harsh language, but believe me, Ma'am, I am completely with you on this question!

After we conquer those horrible bad people, maybe we can get back to fighting each other, again?