Fox reports: fear causes gun buying

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
Fearful gun owners and wanna-be gun owners snapped up ammunition and weapons because they feared Barack Obama was going to try to ban gun sales.



It never happened, but that doesn't mean the fear of a ban went away.



"If he wins the election, he's got nothing to lose, so a lot of people think he's going to go after guns if he gets a second term," Parsons said.



fear_t517x500.jpg


 
\\(())// said:
Fearful gun owners and wanna-be gun owners snapped up ammunition and weapons because they feared Barack Obama was going to try to ban gun sales.



It never happened, but that doesn't mean the fear of a ban went away.



"If he wins the election, he's got nothing to lose, so a lot of people think he's going to go after guns if he gets a second term," Parsons said.



fear_t517x500.jpg


Click to expand...

It's called paranoia.
 
Gatorman said:
It's called paranoia.
Click to expand...

No. It is called legitimate concern. Similar spikes in gun and ammunition sales can be seen in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected. In politics, if a person has been in office of some kind long enough, there is a record. President Obama's record isn't favorable toward gun owners. I know he hasn't done much these past 4 years but his record goes back further than that and to gun owners, it ain't good. Many think that if he is elected to 4 more years (and I think he will be) that he'll essentially have nothing to lose and start to try to "accomplish" things he didn't during his first four. Are folks afraid or paranoid? You might can call it being afraid if you want but paranoid needs defining:

paranoid - resembling paranoia
paranoia - ...characterized by by delusions of persecution......excessive or irrational suspiciousness

When you look at Obama's past record, there is nothing deluded or irrational about the suspicions of gun owners as to what he would do given the opportunity. So paranoid isn't a valid descriptor, IMO.
 
leaningright said:
No. It is called legitimate concern. Similar spikes in gun and ammunition sales can be seen in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected. In politics, if a person has been in office of some kind long enough, there is a record. President Obama's record isn't favorable toward gun owners. I know he hasn't done much these past 4 years but his record goes back further than that and to gun owners, it ain't good. Many think that if he is elected to 4 more years (and I think he will be) that he'll essentially have nothing to lose and start to try to "accomplish" things he didn't during his first four. Are folks afraid or paranoid? You might can call it being afraid if you want but paranoid needs defining:

paranoid - resembling paranoia
paranoia - ...characterized by by delusions of persecution......excessive or irrational suspiciousness

When you look at Obama's past record, there is nothing deluded or irrational about the suspicions of gun owners as to what he would do given the opportunity. So paranoid isn't a valid descriptor, IMO.
Click to expand...

rightwingers have been paranoid about firearm legislation for as long as I have been alive and had an awareness of such. It didn't start with Bill Clinton. What the rightwingers are experiencing post the election of President Barack Hussein Obama is as close to clinical delusional paranoia as it gets and is evidenced by what they say, how they say it and how they demonstrate how they feel about it. If the government truly did it's due diligence concerning firearms and firearm safety it would declare all the nuts to be the nuts they truly are, confiscate their weapons and forbid them from owning other weapons ever again and under penalty of law. That is my opinion and it is shared by many millions that only have firearm safety as a major concern. If President Barack Hussein Obama would push for this type enforcement, which he certainly hasn't, I would be in total support of his efforts in that regard.
 
Gatorman said:
rightwingers have been paranoid about firearm legislation for as long as I have been alive and had an awareness of such. It didn't start with Bill Clinton. What the rightwingers are experiencing post the election of President Barack Hussein Obama is as close to clinical delusional paranoia as it gets and is evidenced by what they say, how they say it and how they demonstrate how they feel about it. If the government truly did it's due diligence concerning firearms and firearm safety it would declare all the nuts to be the nuts they truly are, confiscate their weapons and forbid them from owning other weapons ever again and under penalty of law. That is my opinion and it is shared by many millions that only have firearm safety as a major concern. If President Barack Hussein Obama would push for this type enforcement, which he certainly hasn't, I would be in total support of his efforts in that regard.
Click to expand...

And what would define a "nut" in this instance according to you and the millions "that have only firearm safety as a major concern?" Statements such as that are exactly what the millions of firearms owners look at and get legitimately concerned about. I still contend that it is not paranoia. When you look at what the Feinsteins, Pelosi's, Kennedy's and such want and think of when it comes to "firearms safety" it is nothing like the rights the 2nd ammendment guarantees.
 
Gatorman said:
rightwingers have been paranoid about firearm legislation for as long as I have been alive and had an awareness of such. It didn't start with Bill Clinton. What the rightwingers are experiencing post the election of President Barack Hussein Obama is as close to clinical delusional paranoia as it gets and is evidenced by what they say, how they say it and how they demonstrate how they feel about it. If the government truly did it's due diligence concerning firearms and firearm safety it would declare all the nuts to be the nuts they truly are, confiscate their weapons and forbid them from owning other weapons ever again and under penalty of law. That is my opinion and it is shared by many millions that only have firearm safety as a major concern. If President Barack Hussein Obama would push for this type enforcement, which he certainly hasn't, I would be in total support of his efforts in that regard.
Click to expand...
first, your opinion is a totally bullshit opinion spurred on by your own fear of guns. Second, your idiocy of firearm prohibition enforcement would result in a higher body count than nazi germany, but if you feel froggy, bring it on. Third, it's not the governments job to supervise and train the people, it's the other way around. That's the way the framers wanted it and the only reason you and other progressives want it the opposite way is your total disregard for the intelligence of americans, which then brings in to question your own intelligence and sanity. Fourth, the many millions who share your opinion should immediately surrender themselves to the nearest looney bin because you can't see past anything but your own petty wants and desires, the surest sign of mental instability.
 
leaningright said:
And what would define a "nut" in this instance according to you and the millions "that have only firearm safety as a major concern?" Statements such as that are exactly what the millions of firearms owners look at and get legitimately concerned about. I still contend that it is not paranoia. When you look at what the Feinsteins, Pelosi's, Kennedy's and such want and think of when it comes to "firearms safety" it is nothing like the rights the 2nd ammendment guarantees.
Click to expand...

It doesn't take a doctor to diagnose that jerk that showed up on the Capital Mall with an assault weapon and an automatic handgun strapped to his leg as a genuine nut. He needed to be locked up and the key thrown away. If you want to talk about what the framers intended I'll be glad to agree that our citizens be armed with flintlock muskets and Bowie knives. We live in an entirely different era and our laws need to reflect that. If I have to choose between the right to own automatic assault weapons or not I choose to err on the side of the overall safety and genuine interests of the population at large. I would also support outlawing the ownership of dangerous weapons by the general population and strict enforcement of laws prohibiting weapon ownership by certified nuts and criminals completely. My attitude on this subject will eventually prevail more to my side of this issue than with any so-called right to be a gun carrying/owning nut. There are damned good reasons why everybody doesn't own a Thompson machine gun.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
first, your opinion is a totally bullshit opinion spurred on by your own fear of guns. Second, your idiocy of firearm prohibition enforcement would result in a higher body count than nazi germany, but if you feel froggy, bring it on. Third, it's not the governments job to supervise and train the people, it's the other way around. That's the way the framers wanted it and the only reason you and other progressives want it the opposite way is your total disregard for the intelligence of americans, which then brings in to question your own intelligence and sanity. Fourth, the many millions who share your opinion should immediately surrender themselves to the nearest looney bin because you can't see past anything but your own petty wants and desires, the surest sign of mental instability.
Click to expand...

First, my opinion is as valid as your own and I have the wherewithal to advance my side of the issues to about any degree I desire. I am a gun owner and a former member of the NRA and I am NOT fearful of weapons. Second, just what do you base your senseless and fearmongering warning about nazi Germany on? I believe you just make shit up as you go along and you ain't that good at it, dumberthananyoneIevermet. I guess feeling froggy gets my ass out of bed everyday and on the activism trail pushing for the type legislation that I feel advances my own priorities so you might ought to be ready for some pretty good countering as I have a pretty good record so far for being on the side of legislation that gets passed in one form or another. Third, it is the very purpose of the government to promote the general welfare of the population. We could talk a lifetime about that but in this instance I believe the government has every right and responsibility to make and enforce good legislation to protect the society from itself whether either of us like or appreciate it or not. Again, you need to read some books. They do wonders for your understanding. Fourth, everybody is nuts except you, right? Riiiiiiight.
 
Gatorman said:
It doesn't take a doctor to diagnose that jerk that showed up on the Capital Mall with an assault weapon and an automatic handgun strapped to his leg as a genuine nut. He needed to be locked up and the key thrown away. If you want to talk about what the framers intended I'll be glad to agree that our citizens be armed with flintlock muskets and Bowie knives. We live in an entirely different era and our laws need to reflect that. If I have to choose between the right to own automatic assault weapons or not I choose to err on the side of the overall safety and genuine interests of the population at large. I would also support outlawing the ownership of dangerous weapons by the general population and strict enforcement of laws prohibiting weapon ownership by certified nuts and criminals completely. My attitude on this subject will eventually prevail more to my side of this issue than with any so-called right to be a gun carrying/owning nut. There are damned good reasons why everybody doesn't own a Thompson machine gun.
Click to expand...

So I will address three parts of the post above.

First, the italicized portion: The dispute over what "arms" means has gone on for decades. While flintlocks muskets and bowie knives were what were available when the 2nd was written, advancements in personal weaponry have taken place and more potent, higher capacity weapons are available now. For either of us to try to determine the "intent" of the framers is futile. But to enforce what you propose you will have to ammend the constitution.

Now the bolded part: To me this is the most far-reaching part of the anti-gunner's arguments. And it is what gets them marginalized by the general population...just as the "we should all be able to have a tank" group is marginalized. We have gone from saying that the 2nd allows ownership of "flintlock muskets and bowie knives" to "I would support outlawing the ownership of dangerous weapons by the general population..." Now that flintlock musket and Bowie knife (both are "dangerous weapons") are taken out of the hands of the "general population" ... as well as anything deemed to be a "dangerous weapon" by the powers that be. Not good. Again, statments like this marginalize the anti-gunner.

Now to the underlined part: I agree completely with this and appreciate your acknowledgement that it is "strict enforcement" of these already existing laws that we need and not any new laws.

To your opening sentence, I agree that someone like that is a "nut." While you are probably right that your "attitude on this subject will eventually prevail" it doesn't stop folks like me joining with people I may disagree with politically in other areas to stem/slow that prevailing. The reason I say you are probably right is that our society is leaning more to the European way of thought....a way many of the founders seemed to have hoped to leave overseas. But to my chagrin, that seems to be the way we are headed....in more areas than just gun control.
 
leaningright said:
So I will address three parts of the post above.

First, the italicized portion: The dispute over what "arms" means has gone on for decades. While flintlocks muskets and bowie knives were what were available when the 2nd was written, advancements in personal weaponry have taken place and more potent, higher capacity weapons are available now. For either of us to try to determine the "intent" of the framers is futile. But to enforce what you propose you will have to ammend the constitution.

Now the bolded part: To me this is the most far-reaching part of the anti-gunner's arguments. And it is what gets them marginalized by the general population...just as the "we should all be able to have a tank" group is marginalized. We have gone from saying that the 2nd allows ownership of "flintlock muskets and bowie knives" to "I would support outlawing the ownership of dangerous weapons by the general population..." Now that flintlock musket and Bowie knife (both are "dangerous weapons") are taken out of the hands of the "general population" ... as well as anything deemed to be a "dangerous weapon" by the powers that be. Not good. Again, statments like this marginalize the anti-gunner.

Now to the underlined part: I agree completely with this and appreciate your acknowledgement that it is "strict enforcement" of these already existing laws that we need and not any new laws.

To your opening sentence, I agree that someone like that is a "nut." While you are probably right that your "attitude on this subject will eventually prevail" it doesn't stop folks like me joining with people I may disagree with politically in other areas to stem/slow that prevailing. The reason I say you are probably right is that our society is leaning more to the European way of thought....a way many of the founders seemed to have hoped to leave overseas. But to my chagrin, that seems to be the way we are headed....in more areas than just gun control.
Click to expand...

I do not appreciate being referred to as an "anti-gunner" as I fully embrace the rights to responsible firearm ownership and operation. I have never been anti-gun and am not now by any stretch. I do appreciate, however, that you have considered what I've said on this subject. We are not very far apart, don't you know? To ignore such would be a total failure on either of our parts.
 
I wasn't referring to you specifically as an anti-gunner but some of the things espoused in your post fall in line with many of the anti-gunners in this country. You are correct in acknowledging that we do share some common ground and it shouldn't be ignored. When folks talk politics that is often the case. Just take a look at congress.
 
Gatorman said:
If you want to talk about what the framers intended I'll be glad to agree that our citizens be armed with flintlock muskets and Bowie knives. We live in an entirely different era and our laws need to reflect that. If I have to choose between the right to own automatic assault weapons or not I choose to err on the side of the overall safety and genuine interests of the population at large.
Click to expand...
which puts you squarely on the opposite side of the framers. how do you feel about that?
Gatorman said:
I would also support outlawing the ownership of dangerous weapons by the general population and strict enforcement of laws prohibiting weapon ownership by certified nuts and criminals completely. My attitude on this subject will eventually prevail more to my side of this issue than with any so-called right to be a gun carrying/owning nut. There are damned good reasons why everybody doesn't own a Thompson machine gun.
Click to expand...
no it won't, because it will eventually spark another revolution, one WE will win.
 
Gatorman said:
First, my opinion is as valid as your own and I have the wherewithal to advance my side of the issues to about any degree I desire. I am a gun owner and a former member of the NRA and I am NOT fearful of weapons. Second, just what do you base your senseless and fearmongering warning about nazi Germany on? I believe you just make shit up as you go along and you ain't that good at it, dumberthananyoneIevermet. I guess feeling froggy gets my ass out of bed everyday and on the activism trail pushing for the type legislation that I feel advances my own priorities so you might ought to be ready for some pretty good countering as I have a pretty good record so far for being on the side of legislation that gets passed in one form or another.
Click to expand...
I have the framers debates and arguments on my side. you have touchy feely emotions on your side.

Gatorman said:
Third, it is the very purpose of the government to promote the general welfare of the population. We could talk a lifetime about that but in this instance I believe the government has every right and responsibility to make and enforce good legislation to protect the society from itself whether either of us like or appreciate it or not. Again, you need to read some books. They do wonders for your understanding.
Click to expand...
you mean books like the federalist papers? the anti federalist papers? the constitutional convention minutes? the commentaries on the constitution as it was presented to the people to vote on? yes, it does wonders, maybe you should read them yourself. If you did, you'd learn that the role of government is to protect our RIGHTS!! ALL OF THEM!! not some bullshit 'feel safe' environment.

Gatorman said:
Fourth, everybody is nuts except you, right? Riiiiiiight.
Click to expand...
no, there are a handful here that are completely sane. you, on the other hand, are a lunatic asking for slavery.
 
Gatorman said:
I do not appreciate being referred to as an "anti-gunner" as I fully embrace the rights to responsible firearm ownership and operation. I have never been anti-gun and am not now by any stretch. I do appreciate, however, that you have considered what I've said on this subject. We are not very far apart, don't you know? To ignore such would be a total failure on either of our parts.
Click to expand...
what does 'shall not be infringed' mean?
 
leaningright said:
I wasn't referring to you specifically as an anti-gunner but some of the things espoused in your post fall in line with many of the anti-gunners in this country. You are correct in acknowledging that we do share some common ground and it shouldn't be ignored. When folks talk politics that is often the case. Just take a look at congress.
Click to expand...

Hopefully we can maintain that overview and relationship. Thanks, lr.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I have the framers debates and arguments on my side. you have touchy feely emotions on your side.

you mean books like the federalist papers? the anti federalist papers? the constitutional convention minutes? the commentaries on the constitution as it was presented to the people to vote on? yes, it does wonders, maybe you should read them yourself. If you did, you'd learn that the role of government is to protect our RIGHTS!! ALL OF THEM!! not some bullshit 'feel safe' environment.

no, there are a handful here that are completely sane. you, on the other hand, are a lunatic asking for slavery.
Click to expand...


OMG!!!!!! :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top