The Gun thread

A friend of a friend who is "in the industry" mentioned that the current worry is a $0.50 tax per round. I don't think that will come to pass, all taxation bills have to originate in the House and I just don't see that flying. There just is no way there will be a $50 tax on 100 rounds of .22LR.
 
They may try to do it on the higher rifle ammo though, hardly anyone can afford it as it is. Lets have a bunch of gun owners that can't afford to practice with their guns, that'd be great.
 
Holy shit, what's with California and Texas?!?
 
Holy shit, what's with California and Texas?!?

I'm guessing they are just huge

Pretty much this. Those aren't per capita numbers, they're just counts. California has an estimated population of 38 million, Texas has an estimated population of 26 million. New York is the next closest state at almost a third less: 19 million, along with Florida. After that is Illinois at 12 mil.

Texas also has the problem of having absorbed most of South Louisiana's criminal population after Hurricane Katrina, spillover from the war in Mexico plus cross border raiding and smuggling along the border area. The numbers are, however, trending down again, at least in the case of the Louisiana sourced crime.
 
Thanks, I didn't account for that.
 
The stupid, it burns.

Time to email your senators and representatives. And tell them to beat the stupid over the head.
 
The stupid, it burns.

Time to email your senators and representatives. And tell them to beat the stupid over the head.
I'm preparing a letter to my rep already. However, one of the MA senators is John Kerry and writing to him about guns would be akin to trying to drive a nail into a concrete wall using my forehead.
 
I'm preparing a letter to my rep already. However, one of the MA senators is John Kerry and writing to him about guns would be akin to trying to drive a nail into a concrete wall using my forehead.

Not to mention that in both MA and NY too many people support idiotic gun laws...
 
A fantastic article about the Second Amendment in Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrenc...certain-virtues-of-a-heavily-armed-citizenry/

It is time the critics of the Second Amendment put up and repeal it, or shut up about violating it. Their efforts to disarm and short-arm Americans violate the U.S. Constitution in Merriam Webster?s first sense of the term?to ?disregard? it.

Hard cases make bad law, which is why they are reserved for the Constitution, not left to the caprice of legislatures, the sophistry and casuistry of judges or the despotic rule making of the chief executive and his bureaucracy. And make no mistake, guns pose one of the hardest cases a free people confronts in the 21st century, a test of whether that people cherishes liberty above tyranny, values individual sovereignty above dependency on the state, and whether they dare any longer to live free.

A people cannot simultaneously live free and be bound to any human master or man-made institution, especially to politicians, judges, bureaucrats and faceless government agencies. The Second Amendment along with the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent individuals? enslavement to government, not just to guarantee people the right to hunt squirrels or sport shoot at targets, nor was it included in the Bill of Rights just to guarantee individuals the right to defend themselves against robbers, rapers and lunatics, or to make sure the states could raise a militia quick, on the cheap to defend against a foreign invader or domestic unrest.

The Second Amendment was designed to ensure that individuals retained the right and means to defend themselves against any illegitimate attempt to do them harm, be it an attempt by a private outlaw or government agents violating their trust under the color of law. The Second Amendment was meant to guarantee individuals the right to protect themselves against government as much as against private bad guys and gangs.

That is why the gun grabbers? assault on firearms is not only, not even primarily an attack merely on the means of self-defense but more fundamentally, the gun grabbers are engaged in a blatant attack on the very legitimacy of self-defense itself. It?s not really about the guns; it is about the government?s ability to demand submission of the people. Gun control is part and parcel of the ongoing collectivist effort to eviscerate individual sovereignty and replace it with dependence upon and allegiance to the state.

Americans provisionally delegated a limited amount of power over themselves to government, retaining their individual sovereignty in every respect and reserving to themselves the power not delegated to government, most importantly the right and power to abolish or replace any government that becomes destructive of the ends for which it was created. The Bill of Rights, especially the Second and Ninth Amendments, can only be properly understood and rightly interpreted in this context.

Politicians who insist on despoiling the Constitution just a little bit for some greater good (gun control for ?collective security?) are like a blackguard who lies to an innocent that she can yield to his advances, retain her virtue and risk getting only just a little bit pregnant?a seducer?s lie. The people either have the right to own and bear arms, or they don?t, and to the extent legislators, judges and bureaucrats disparage that right, they are violating the U.S. Constitution as it was originally conceived, and as it is currently amended. To those who would pretend the Second Amendment doesn?t exist or insist it doesn?t mean what it says, there is only one legitimate response: ?If you don?t like the Second Amendment, you may try to repeal it but short of that you may not disparage and usurp it, even a little bit, as long as it remains a part of the Constitution, no exceptions, no conniving revisions, no fabricated judicial balancing acts.?

Gun control advocates attempt to avoid the real issue of gun rights?why the Founders felt so strongly about gun rights that they singled them out for special protection in the Bill of Rights?by demanding that individual rights be balanced against a counterfeit collective right to ?security? from things that go bump in the night. But, the Bill of Rights was not a Bill of Entitlements that people had a right to demand from government; it was a Bill of Protections against the government itself. The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights.

That is why the most egregious of the fallacious arguments used to justify gun control are designed to short-arm the citizenry (e.g., banning so-called ?assault rifles?) by restricting the application of the Second Amendment to apply only to arms that do not pose a threat to the government?s self-proclaimed monopoly on the use of force. To that end, the gun grabbers first must bamboozle people into believing the Second Amendment does not really protect an individual?s right to own and bear firearms.

They do that by insisting on a tortured construction of the Second Amendment that converts individual rights into states rights. The short-arm artists assert that the Second Amendment?s reference to the necessity of a ?well-regulated militia? proves the amendment is all about state?s rights, not individuals rights; it was written into the Bill of Rights simply to guarantee that state governments could assemble a fighting force quick, on the cheap to defend against foreign invasion and domestic disturbance. Consequently, Second-Amendment revisionists would have us believe the Second Amendment does little more than guarantee the right of states to maintain militias; and, since the state militias were replaced by the National Guard in the early twentieth century, the Second Amendment has virtually no contemporary significance. Gun controllers would, in effect, do to the Second Amendment what earlier collectivizers and centralizers did to the Tenth Amendment, namely render it a dead letter.

The truth is, the Founders understood a ?well regulated? militia to mean a militia ?functioning/operating properly,? not a militia ?controlled or managed by the government.? This is clearly evidenced by Alexander Hamilton?s discussion of militias in Federalist #29 and by one of the Oxford Dictionary?s archaic definitions of ?regulate;? ?(b) Of troops: Properly disciplined.?

The Founders intended that a well-regulated militia was to be the first, not the last line of defense against a foreign invader or social unrest. But, they also intended militias to be the last, not the first line of defense against tyrannical government. In other words, the Second Amendment was meant to be the constitutional protection for a person?s musket behind the door, later the shotgun behind the door and today the M4 behind the door?a constitutional guarantee of the right of individuals to defend themselves against any and all miscreants, private or government, seeking to do them harm.

The unfettered right to own and bear arms consecrates individual sovereignty and ordains the right of self-defense. The Second Amendment symbolizes and proclaims individuals? right to defend themselves personally against any and all threatened deprivations of life, liberty or property, including attempted deprivations by the government. The symbolism of a heavily armed citizenry says loudly and unequivocally to the government, ?Don?t Tread On Me.?

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence said, ?When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.?

Both Jefferson and James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, also knew that their government would never fear a people without guns, and they understood as well that the greatest threat to liberty was not foreign invasion or domestic unrest but rather a standing army and a militarized police force without fear of the people and capable of inflicting tyranny upon the people.

That is what prompted Madison to contrast the new national government he had helped create to the kingdoms of Europe, which he characterized as ?afraid to trust the people with arms.? Madison assured his fellow Americans that under the new Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights, they need never fear their government because of ?the advantage of being armed.?

But, Noah Webster said it most succinctly and most eloquently:

?Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.?

That is why the Founders looked to local militias as much to provide a check?in modern parlance, a ?deterrent??against government tyranny as against an invading foreign power. Guns are individuals? own personal nuclear deterrent against their own government gone rogue. Therefore, a heavily armed citizenry is the ultimate deterrent against tyranny.

A heavily armed citizenry is not about armed revolt; it is about defending oneself against armed government oppression. A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government.
 
We could be seeing the rise of a "gun culture" in India. Women all over India are seeking permits for firearms due to lack of faith in the police.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/01/indian-bus-rape-delhi-rush-guns

Hundreds of women in Delhi have applied for gun licences following the gang rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman by six men in a bus in the city last month.

The news underlines the widespread sense of insecurity in the city, deep before the incident and deeper now, and the lack of faith in law enforcement agencies.


The ashes of the victim of the attack ? who died on Friday after 13 days in hospitals in India and Singapore, and was cremated in Delhi in a secret ceremony under heavy security on Sunday ? were scattered on the surface of the Ganges river, sacred to Hindus, in northern India on Tuesday.

The case has provoked an unprecedented debate about endemic sexual harassment and violence in India. Tens of thousands have protested across the country, calling for harsher laws, better policing and a change in culture.

Politicians, initially caught off-guard, have now promised new legislation to bring in fast-track courts and harsher punishments for sexual assault. The six men accused of the attack are to be formally charged with murder later this week and potentially face execution.

Indian media are currently reporting incidents of sexual violence that would rarely gain attention previously. In the last 24 hours these have included a teenager fleeing repeated abuse by her brother, who was allegedly assaulted on a bus by a conductor, a 15-year-old held for 15 days by three men in a village in Uttar Pradesh and repeatedly assaulted, an 11-year-old allegedly raped by three teenagers in the north-eastern city of Guwahati and two cases of rape in the city of Amritsar.

One case reported on Tuesday involved a woman, also in a village in Uttar Pradesh, who suffered 90% burns after being doused in kerosene, allegedly by a man who had been stalking her for months.

There were signs that a further taboo was about to be broken when one of India's best-known English-language television presenters asked viewers who had experienced abuse from a family member to contact her.

The rush for firearms will cause concern, however. Police in Delhi have received 274 requests for licences and 1,200 inquiries from women since 18 December, two days after the woman and a male friend were attacked in a bus cruising on busy roads between 9pm and 10pm.

"Lots of women have been contacting us asking for information about how to obtain licences. Any woman has a threat against her. It's not surprising. There are fearless predators out there," said Abhijeet Singh of the campaign group Guns For India.

Delhi police received around 500 applications for the whole of 2011, up from 320 the previous year.

Hundreds of women had come in person to the police licensing department in the city, the Times of India reported.

"We had to patiently tell them that one needs to have a clear danger to one's life to be given a licence. However some ? said that with even public transport no longer safe in the city they just cannot take chances," an unnamed official told the newspaper.

There are estimated to be 40m guns in India, the second highest number in the world after the US. Licences are hard to obtain and most are illegal weapons, many manufactured in backstreet workshops. Official ownership levels remain low ? three guns for every 100 people ? but in recent years the number of women holding arms has risen. Most are wealthy and worried about theft or assault.

There are fears the attack will lead to further restrictions on women in India, who already suffer significant constraints.

Elders in Matapa, in the poverty-stricken Indian state of Bihar, banned the use of mobile phones for teenage girls and warned them against wearing "sexy" clothes. They claim the move will check rape cases and restore "social order". Other villages nearby are planning similar bans, locals said.

One member of parliament in Rajasthan, the north-western state, also called for a ban on skirts for schoolgirls to keep them away from "men's lustful gazes". Banwari Lal Singhal said private schools allowing students to wear skirts explained increased sexual harassment locally.

Matapa is in southern Bihar's Aurangabad district ? the region from which one of the Delhi gang-rape accused, Akshay Thakur, comes. The order was issued after a formal meeting with villagers, council officials and school teachers on Sunday. "Almost every villager pressed us to ban the mobile phones use by the schoolgirls saying they are proving quite dangerous for the society and corrupting traditional values," the local village council head, Sushma Singh, told the Guardian on Tuesday.

Protesters were angered by the news. "Our sister will have died in vain if all that is happening after is our fear is greater and ladies are more unfree," said Deepti Anand, a 21-year-old student in Delhi who has attended demonstrations most days in recent weeks.
 
One store owner's SitRep of the state of the industry in the US: http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/15tvv8/thoughts_on_2013_the_good_the_bad_and_the/

Hello everyone, your favorite merchant of death here again here to wax poetic about the insanity that is going on and will continue to go on for the foreseeable future.
This is an actual messages from an extremely paranoid person I got this morning. This is just one of a dozen messages I will get today speculating on the future.
What are your thoughts on a good 7.62 suppressor? I'm considering a 300BLK SBR build. Is there a can you would recommend? If possible (and I understand if it isn't) I was thinking of buying the 7.62 can instead of the Saker 5.56...and just have the 7.62 run dual duty? Part of my concern is that if this AWB goes through, silencerco won't bother releasing the Saker. Just a thought.
Wow. Just wow.
This is an example of the kind of thinking going on. There is a school of thought that believes congress can get gun control legislation proposed AND through committee, through the floor and signed by POTUS in one day.
For all you people who did not do so well in US history: The last time congress moved this quickly, the president requested the congress act in a speech at 12:30, the senate approved almost immediately, the house approved at 1:10 and POTUS signed it at 4:30. The date was December 8, 1941 and the legislation was the US declaration of war on Japan.
But there are people that believe this will happen!
Presently, here's a short industry SITREP:
I can't buy anything right now. There's nothing in stock. On anything. EVERYTHING IS ALLOCATED.
Dealers like myself are holding back inventory because we can't afford to be seen as "That gun dealer". You all pointing fingers at Cheaper than Dirt are the kind of folks that we are trying to avoid.
Dealers are going to Gander Mountain, Cabelas, etc and buying all the AR's and PMAGS they can get because big box stores do not use adaptive market driven pricing.
Hunting season is coming to a close. Larger big box retailers want to get seasonal merch off the shelves and you'll see some discounting there if they have stock.
People are still buying predictably bannable items by the shopping cart.
Speculative buying has shifted from the dealer to the consumer.
This is bad for a number of reasons, but I digress.
Talking to other dealers, here's what I think is going to happen. Other dealers have mentioned scenarios that I will cut and paste here that I agree with, and I will not take credit for 100% of things here but I will copy and paste it as I agree with it.
Smaller dealers will GO OUT OF BUSINESS. Those dealers that special order guns for $20 above cost are going to take money, put in orders and get pissed off customers because they cannot fill the order.
New dealers will not have any access to product whatsoever. Two months of no product means they are going to go under by June/July, when business traditionally slows down for anyone in the discretionary spending industry.
Existing dealers will have very restricted access to product. Prices will rise. They have to. A function of unprecedented demand with zero inventory have to make prices rise. It is inevitable. With no inventory, dealers are looking towards new sources of revenue. This includes custom work, doing things they would not normally do, etc etc. Prices on labor, transfers, etc - are all going to rise.
Vendors will stop discounting on tier and business relationship. It will be a free for all with product. Free shipping is off the table.
January 3, Congress comes back in session. They will debate their proposed legislation. The media will whip this into a frenzy, driving existing people that are in panic mode to dig their heels in and panic harder. Every swinging dick with an iPhone will get a push notification along the lines of "Senate Bill BABYKILLER-B-GONE has been introduced today."
Tax refunds will begin rolling out the third week of January, making most blue collar gun owners flush with cash. Coupled with the media hysteria surrounding congress, demand will further increase. Supply will further decrease. Prices will increase yet again. The guy with 200 AR15's that he's hoarded over the years will triple or quadruple his money and retire to a small island in the dutch west indies. The push for firearms will be unprecedented making 2008 look like childs play.
Dealers will buy what they can, not what they want. The fudd gun store in town is going to have nothing but 22LR derringers, and they will be selling them by the case. A Glock 38 in 45 GAP will be an allocated item and people will be lining up to buy them at list price. Magazines and magazine parts will exceed 1994-2004 levels of pricing, even with a flooded supply as people with product get to control the price. Hysterical buyers will pay $125 for a Glock magazine, $75 for an AR15 magazine, and so on.
After the 2008 election, dealers who had ordered (and pre-paid in many cases) 50 AR's in January 2009 suddenly were doing whatever they could to cancel orders. Some things stayed tight until November or so. Sales died because of no customers. The speculative money ran dry and they were caught holding the bag. If no legislation passes, the prices of predictably bannable items will fall through the floor.
Dealers that ride through 2013 will prove to be sustainable. Dealers that are unable to ride through 2013 will go by the wayside. Pressure will be put most on the one - five employee operation. Large gun dealers such as big box stores will not be impacted adversely. Expect to see smaller gun dealers layoff or furlough employees as there is no product for them to sell.
The only thing that can save gun rights for the time being is for the entire country to be drunk and hungover from new years for the next three and a half weeks to let the news cycle die down. If something can break the gun control news cycle, this becomes a dead issue. I'm not praying for it, but I wouldn't mind any of the following:
Nuclear accident in some country 3-5000 miles away from CONUS.
Earthquake in Haiti.
Hurricane hitting New Jersey.
Earthquake in California. Nothing major, I'll take a 3.5 or a 4.
Flooding in the midwest from global warming.
Hell, I'll even take locusts at this point.
Lets see how far off I am.
 
He's already off on several items - Magpul is churning out mags by the trainload now and they have not raised their price. Some of those Brownells back orders are starting to ship and Cabelas now has them back in stock in significant quantity at the pre-Panic prices (limit 2 per person) as do some Academy stores. Hundreds of them per shipment (so every couple of days).

Further, many of the arms makers are catching up with demand by hiring extra shifts. Last time they didn't want to hire in more help because they didn't have solid orders. Now some of them have two years of backorders at prior production levels and they are taking steps to deal with it.
 
Last edited:
Saw this today whilst stumbling around. Massive levels of want here. Mosin Nagant Rifle Crate Table.
9305a73f.jpg


Full info and build HERE.
 
We could be seeing the rise of a "gun culture" in India. Women all over India are seeking permits for firearms due to lack of faith in the police.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/01/indian-bus-rape-delhi-rush-guns


Sadly, they have a point. Unlike police in the USA, Indian police are easily bribed by money and ministers and have a severe "two faced" attitude when it comes to law enforcement. India being a huge democracy has many leaps and bounds before issues like these can be resolved.
 
Sadly, they have a point. Unlike police in the USA, Indian police are easily bribed by money and ministers and have a severe "two faced" attitude when it comes to law enforcement. India being a huge democracy has many leaps and bounds before issues like these can be resolved.
Just like in the USA, the police in India won't protect you...
 
Top