Price Gouging and the Consequences of Elections

On election day in 2012, I stood out in the cold handing out literature for the GOP candidate for Missouri’s attorney general. I was shivering next to a young man decked out in a camouflage hat and jacket. He was handing out literature for Democrats and we spoke for a while. He was a hunter and shared a few anecdotes about his last hunt. I didn’t care to get into the details of the differences between Ed Martin, the republican, and Chris Koster, the Democrat AG incumbent. Nor did I mention that Koster was whoring himself out to the Humane Society of the United States, ardent opponents of hunting. What I found interesting, though . . .

was that this avid hunter avidly supported Democrats up and down the line. These are the same politicians who are now calling for restrictions on any number of types of firearms. Perhaps he doesn’t shoot ugly black rifles. Maybe he thinks his Marlin .30-30 will never be banned.

I’m a conservative with a wide libertarian streak. I’m a Republican by necessity, usually supporting them as the lesser of two evils, though Ed Martin is a great guy and I think he would have made a great Attorney General.

The problem is that millions of gun owners like my fellow poll worker put many things ahead of their right to keep and bear arms, and are willing to sell out the Second Amendment for whatever the hell else the politicians now threatening gun bans were offering at the time.

Now those same politicians listed on that green piece of paper Mr. Union Hunter Guy was handing out that day at the polls are planning on banning a large percentage of guns being sold today. Against that backdrop, millions of gun owners are in a panic-buying frenzy, snapping up all the magazines, ammunition and guns they can find.

Some of us here have been bitching loudly about price-gouging by resellers of such items as an AR-15 mags, with some prices shooting up from $19 to over $100. I recently went by my favorite gun shop to pick up some .38 ammo, and he they were fresh out. Their mighty Wall of Guns was bereft of anything except a handful of expensive automatics, some cowboy guns and shotguns. Not a Modern Sporting Rifle was to be found.

Price increases are caused by too much money chasing too few products. We have too much demand for the supply right now, and suppliers are probably not keen to spool up production as they face the possibility that government that may do to them what they did to the incandescent bulb industry.

But rather than bitch about “price-gouging,” we need to bitch about a government that can threaten an entire industry and drive up costs for millions of shooting enthusiasts. Some of you —  and you know who you are — need to look in the mirror and ask yourself what your first freedom is, because millions of gun owners either sat out the last election or voted to protect something more important to them than the Second Amendment.

Elections have consequences. We need to start acting like freedom matters and take people at their word when they threaten ours. I hope Mr. Union Hunter Guy thinks about that as he drives from store to store trying to find a box of ammo.

125 Responses to Price Gouging and the Consequences of Elections

  1. avatargloomhound says:

    He will just blame it on the evils of Capitalists and the greedy stores and manufacturing companies.

  2. avatarNazgul says:

    I agree with writer of this article. There are politically correct gun owners that don’t see much difference between a fishing pole, shotgun, or deer rifle. What they don’t realize is that the gun control advocates will come after them next.

    • avatarBill F says:

      Some, like the guy handing out fliers, are politically correct. There’s another slice of gun owners who are are simply unaware. I work for the public and get to talk with loads of people over the course of the day. It’s amazing how many hunters and gun guys don ‘t know what is happening all around them. The older folks seem to have a better handle but a lot of the under thirties crowd couldn’t even tell you who the current vice president is, much less what he’s up to. No offense to the young folks who participate here and keep themselves informed. Reading these blogs and being in good company lends us a bit of false security. Because we’re informed and know how many gun owners there are out there, we assume most gun owners are helping our cause. The truth is many of our own fold don’t read blogs or watch the news and are completely oblivious. The attitude of “They could/would never do that” is more common than we like to think.

    • avatarpat says:

      Those that voted Democrat last time were merely stupid. If they vote democrate again (after seeing what happened), they are traitors.

  3. avatarracer88 says:

    First they came for machine guns, but I didn’t own one…

    Then they came for ugly black guns, but I didn’t own one…

    Then they came for standard capacity magazines, but I didn’t own any…

    Then…

    • avatarLinebackerU says:

      I think it’s a bit overdramatic to compare limited gun regulation to the Holocaust.

      • avatarensitu says:

        OH Realy, and why do you take that stance? The German Jews ‘enjoyed’ “limited gun control” under Hitler. Disarming a people is ALWAYS the final step towards genocide

        • avatarLinebackerU says:

          The post above was referring to the chance that Congress might enact a limitation on the number of rounds in a magazine.

          The Holocaust was an event in which millions of people were murdered by their government.

        • avatarHuman Being says:

          “The Holocaust was an event in which millions of people were murdered by their government.”

          And in that it was hardly unique. The Jewish Holocaust is perhaps the most dramatic of them because of its scale and the cold precision with which it was carried out. But there are lots more.

          How about Serbs (who held the majority of critical posts in the former-Yugoslav government and military) herding Bosnians into concentration camps in the early-mid 90s? They didn’t have German efficiency, but they made up for it with enthusiasm – murdering thousands essentially by hand. They also showed some ingenuity at it – there was a camp near Brcko that was located in a dogfood factory…and they will never know exactly how many people died there.

          If you’re old enough to post here, then this happened in your living memory. It occurs, and the only guarantee to prevent something like it is to have an armed populace.

          So yes, racer88′s metaphor is well taken and appropriate.

        • avatarLinebackerU says:

          You’re right. America in 2013 is exactly like post-Soviet Bosnia.

        • avatar16V says:

          Because Stalinist Russia was exactly like PolPot’s Cambodia, which was exactly like Hitler’s Germany, which was exactly like Mao’s China, which was exactly like Rwanda only a few years ago…

          Which is the only scenario is which governments go crazy and do horrible things to millions and sometimes tens of millions.

          Got it.

      • avatarBLAMMO says:

        Unless you see the “final solution” that most of the disarmers see. The Fudds are fools. They buy the non-sequitur that the disarmers are not after guns that have a “legitimate sporting purpose”. They agree with Andrew Cuomo, that “Nobody needs 10 bullets to kill a deer!!” But the same people who say that will then say “We have supermarkets. Nobody needs to kill a deer.” They are the same people who think that hunting is an abomination to be outlawed.

        And that will be easy. In most states, hunting is entirely regulated by departments of environmental conservation – unelected bureaucrats. Not by the legislature.

        Kiss your duck gun and deer rifle goodbye, Elmer.

        • avatarKen says:

          I’m wondering how long it will be before they attempt an all out ban on hunting in California. The state already owns the animals:

          “Even landowners must purchase licenses and tags to hunt on their own property. Wildlife are a public resource and don’t belong to the people who own the land that the animals may reside on or travel over.”

          And Gov Brown just signed into law that Californians can no longer hunt with dogs. Next will be rifles, then bows, then spears, and finally hunting will be completely outlawed.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          I see your point, but the CA government does seem to understand that we no longer live in a self-balancing ecosystem and without hunters, things will spiral quickly out of control.

          Which reminds me, I have to see about setting up a coyote hunt sometime soon to increase the odds that there will be a reasonable population of turkeys to hunt this spring and fall…

      • avatarRambeast says:

        I’m sure the same was said about the Jews in that era by those that were not. Did you think this through before you post such a short sighted comment?

        • avatarJay Dunn says:

          “You’re right. America in 2013 is exactly like post-Soviet Bosnia.”

          If LinebackerU believes it could never happen here he better hide in the tall grass when the Great Fool-Killer comes.

      • avatarcrndl says:

        the hell it is…wake up :(

      • avatarpat says:

        You are the one comparing it to the Holocaust, by mentioning the Holocaust. He is only saying that its WAY into the beginning of a slipperly slope towards a total gun ban (which would be the end of the Republic).

      • avatarIn Memphis says:

        “You’re right. America in 2013 is exactly like post-Soviet Bosnia.”

        We are a politicaly divided nation. Do yourself a favor and look up the Rwandan geonicide. Find out what happens to politicaly divided nations. Oh and machettes were used more so than guns in that case

        • avatarWilliam says:

          Since we’re on the topic of scale, we need to remember that Stalinist Russia killed more Russians than the Holocaust did, and Mao’s China may have killed half again as much – estimates I’ve seen run 40 million and up!

          Not to play down BOSNIA. I never would.

  4. avatarsquarebob says:

    We do need to bitch about the guv-ment. IMHO it is not “price-gouging”, it is supply and demand and the capitalist system doing what it does best.

    • avatarschizuki says:

      Amen.

      I don’t begrudge the businessmen who need to maintain inventory raising their prices to slow the pace of their store shelves being emptied, but the speculators who are buying up all the ammo just to re-sell it at gun shows are parasites. They’re as bad as the house-flippers of the ’00s, distorting the actual supply/demand curve while contributing nothing to the economy.

      • avatarMr aNINNYmouse says:

        I think it’s not a case of sellers “raising their prices to slow the pace of their store shelves being emptied”, but rather – as squarebob said – capitalism at work.

    • avatarTim McNabb says:

      I am with squarebob – we can have all the product we want at market prices, or we can have scarce product at prices fixed below the market.

      However, this is not a blog on free market economics, but about guns.

      • avatarensitu says:

        This is Goverment driven panic buying, how much food would you buy if DIFI and her ilk wanted to institute Common Sense Food Control?

        • avatarJan says:

          That comment made me think how many people went out and bought big gulps before they were outlawed in NYC

        • avatargulp says:

          7-11 is not included in the soda ban. (because they are a store, not a restaurant/don’t have health inspections)

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Out of curiosity, if 7-11 isn’t included, which part isn’t? I thought the ban included bottled drinks >16 oz. Are they allowed to sell monster Big Gulps but not 1 liter bottles of Coke, or how does that work?

        • avatarLemming says:

          The ban on hi-capacity fructose syrup feeding devices in NYC is pretty confusing. On the news last night they were interviewing a deli owner who can no longer sell them. He was lamenting that the 7-11 down the block still can, and how much other business he’ll lose due to this.

    • avatarGeoff says:

      And If not for the threat of Goverment shutting down the industry these elevated prices and demand would see a slew of Production expansion by existing manufactures as well new start up companies jumping in to meet the demand… unfortunately in the current environment the prices will keep going up because no one wants to get burned.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      I completely agree. It’s NOT about profit. IT’S ABOUT GREED.

      • avatarneo297 says:

        I believe it is about greed when items not in short suppy are skyrocketing. Driven by the fear mongerers on our side of isle. The more people scream that ALL of our guns, ammo etc. are going to be taken there will be a run – on everything. I shoot mosins there is NO shortage of 7.62x54r world wide and therefore no dealer should jack up prices like they are now. $75-$90 dollars for 440 round spam can, $137 per 880 case in December now a 400 round can for $179 thats BS and places like cheper than dirt who do that I hope go out of business. Items that are currently targeted i.e. black guns, pmags etc. they should fall within the realm of supply and demand but if we see companies gouging then we need to be unified in our anger and not support them. That may not be realistic but as long as someone out there is willing to pay the higher prices there is no incentive for a suplier not to maximize their profits.

  5. avatarChuck says:

    Amen. I know several people who believe every word their union steward tells them. I could not convince them that a vote for Obama was a vote against their very own interest. And the sad thing is, this won’t do anything to change their minds. One guy actually told me “Romney would do the exact same thing.” You just can’t compete against years of brainwashing.

    • avatarSkeev says:

      During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney had been a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban, and had also said he believed “in the rights of those who hunt to responsibly own and use firearms.” On July 1, 2004, Romney signed a permanent state ban on assault weapons, saying at the signing ceremony for the new law, “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.” The law extended a temporary measure that had been in effect since 1998 and covered weapons such as the AK-47, Uzi, and MAC-10. The same law also modified some other aspects of general firearms licensing regulations.

      Sounds like a wildcard to me. He may have still supported it, he may have changed his mind like he did on so many other issues. I never saw a clear cut win for gun owners in either candidate.

      • avatarTim McNabb says:

        I agree that Romney has a checkered past with guns, but the fountainhead of gun control is the Democrat Party. The likelihood of Romney/Ryan pursuing gun control was – and always would be – wildly less than Democrats.

        National-level Dems have a whole wish list of shit like this that is just sitting in a drawer somewhere waiting for the right opportunity. Gun control is not on the GOP wish list.

        No amount of carping about Romney will justify a person who claims to support the 2nd Amendment voting for Democrats, at least at the Federal level.

        • avatarChuck in IL says:

          Well said Tim.

        • avatarensitu says:

          No amount of carping about Romney will justify a person who claims to support the 2nd Amendment ,, .

          Or any other part of the US Constitution

        • avatarrico says:

          Also, let’s not forget, the real threat to gun rights is from the judiciary. A president Romney would have appointed judges who respect the 2nd amendment. President 0bama?? Well, one more wise Latina on the supreme court, especially replacing one of the more conservative judges, and you can forget all that “shall not be infringed” nonsenese that a bunch of white male slave owners put in the constitution.

          Look at the crap that Cuomo just signed into law in New York. Seven round limit on gun magazines?? “That’s unconstitutional” you say?? What would Supreme Court justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer and one more left wing 0bama disciple say??

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          I am extraordinarily unlikely to vote for a GOP presidential candidate, ever, but… I reluctantly agree with Tim’s characterization of the DNC always having a stack of disarmament legislation sitting in the drawer ready to go if the SHTF, ie Newtown.

          While I continue to believe that Obama had disarmament WAY down the list from his actual goals, he is the head of a party with a vocal contingent of active disarmament advocates, and as we have seen, they WILL surge to the fore if the opportunity arises.

      • avatarNot Anon in CT For Long says:

        The difference is, Romney would have had a lot of pro-gun GOPers whispering (yelling even) in his ear.

      • avatarChris says:

        Skeev is right. Romney was no sure thing, however much you try and retcon his record. There is no guarantee he wouldn’t have sold out the gun control issue in exchange for some other legislation.

        • avatarTR says:

          True enough, but at least you would’ve had Ryan instead of Biden. My favorite quote from the whole campaign was Ryan’s “We don’t have a gun problem, we have a crime problem.” And the proposed solution of trying to take people out of the ghettos instead of trying to take guns out of them.

  6. avatarThomas Paine says:

    normally, if a business had two years of backlogs, they would invest in new equipment, and expand capacity.
    However, with regulation uncertainty, none of the firearms manufacturers are going to tool up and get new machinery, equipment, or new hires.
    We will see backlogs for a long time as long as there is uncertainty in the market.

    Ammo, probably not so much, but hopefully i see more stories on the news about cops running out of ammo, and maybe that’ll wake up some more people.

    • avatarensitu says:

      With the exception of SWAT the average police officer rarely fires his firearm and almost never fires it at a perp so I see this whole “We got no Booolets!” thing as a sham to raise taxes.

      • avatarWilliam says:

        Homeland Security and others buying 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammo – that’s got NOTHING to do with it? You think that doesn’t contribute HUGELY to the shortages? I KNOW that much of it was in .40 cal., but….

  7. avatarjwm says:

    And let’s all learn a lesson from this moment as we should have learned from 2008. Yes, the politics is important. But if you’re properly equiped and supplied every day, you don’t have to suffer during these panics.

    Sandy, Katrina, snowstorms, tornados, earthquakes. If you’re properly set up you don’t need to be stumbling around with a dazed look on your mug praying for FEMA or the kindness of your neighbers.

    The time to have bought guns and ammo was when walmart was flush. When this panic blows over, and it will, there’s going to be a lot of people with over extended credit cards and over valued guns that aren’t worth the price they paid for them.

    • avatarSixpack70 says:

      I predict that after the buying mess is over, people will try to unload their guns for what they paid for them. I see it with classic cars now. People think their car should still be selling at 2007 prices. They sit for sale month after month for a price nobody is willing to pay. The market became soft (not so much for the really rare stuff) but they can’t accept it. I know I won’t pay the premium right now just to get another black semi auto rifle.

      • avatarSkeev says:

        I’ve been thinking the same thing. I’m saving up and getting ready for all of these hoarders and speculators to start dumping guns back into the market.

        • avatarTexicans says:

          +1.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          I’m very much looking forward to picking up some nice AR uppers from nimrods who “never got around to building that rifle”, better known as “people who bought stripped lowers and complete uppers, but couldn’t find lower parts kits anywhere”…

  8. avatarMr aNINNYmouse says:

    “a government that can threaten an entire industry and drive up costs ”

    It occurred to me: This was just another economic stimulus package.

    Doling out billions and discretely extending the mortgage loan modification program so foreclosure rates are not so bad did not get THIS kind of response.

    Just sayin’….

    • avatarcrndl says:

      bingo on your first sentence, and make it more difficult for people to get whatever the product is; the government can allow the market to do their work for them :(

  9. avatarNazgul says:

    The public’s buying spree based on fear is not unwarranted. Many of the Sheeple voted for the so-called progressives, and have now decided that they need to buy firearms before someone tells them they can’t own guns. What’s really sad is that these Sheeple would still vote for the same gun Prohibitionists after they buy their firearms.

  10. avatarChris says:

    There’s 7mm ammo everywhere. I’m sure he’s fine :(

  11. avatarST says:

    I fear this sort of “Gun Run” might become a cyclical experience, much like bank failures were before 1929.

    With a leftist administration , we all know the gun control meme will be fired up again in the event of another mass shooting. With that comes another “run” , and the headaches of late return once again.

    We beat back that assault and have 3 odd years years of quiet. Then 2016 rolls around and another leftist stooge inherits the White House. More empty shelves , especially if the next Democrat is out of the closet and openly supports gun contr.Well be posting about the good ol’ days when the Run of 2012 had at least left 45-70 ammo on the shelf.

  12. avatarRalph says:

    As a fellow “Republican by necessity,” I think this was a great post. Thanks, Tim.

  13. avatarMatt in FL says:

    “The problem is that millions of gun owners like my fellow poll worker put many things ahead of their right to keep and bear arms…”

    It’s not just that people put things ahead of RKBA in overall priority, but they also have a short memory and a shorter attention span. Case in point: the recent brouhaha over “women on the front lines.” Lots of people spewing lots of hot air, and this site was not exempt. I was reading a short article earlier today, and saw this comment underneath:

    The funniest thing is that none of this takes place until 2016. So let’s throw up another flare for everyone to watch while they pick-pocket your 2nd Amendment rights.

    Something to think about, huh?

    • avatarMike S says:

      It was the first thing that occurred to me when I heard about Panetta’s announcement.

      “Hey! Look at this shiny thing over here!”

    • avatarHSR47 says:

      Just like the whole combined issue of the “fiscal cliff” we’re in the middle of has been on the agenda since at least 2010…

  14. avatarLinebackerU says:

    I own several firearms, including a scary black rifle. Still, I challenge the premise that gun rights should be considered the *most important* issue, upon which to base our voting decisions. I can think of a vast array of things I care more about during political races.

    • avatarTim McNabb says:

      Still, I challenge the premise that gun rights should be considered the *most important* issue, upon which to base our voting decisions.

      Your ability to care about other matters rest upon the 2nd Amendment.

      • avatarLinebackerU says:

        That’s just not true. When in my life have I had to defend my right to free speech (or freedom from slavery, or whatever freedom you choose) with a firearm?

        Never. I own guns to protect myself from criminals.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          You haven’t had to defend your right to free speech with a gun, yet, and that’s a good thing. There have been many minor incursions on the right of free speech, and those have been fought through the courts and legislatures, because that’s how our system works. However, if a wholesale abrogation of that right was attempted, the population would react forcefully. If they sought refuge in the courts and did not find it, the 2A protects our final recourse. If that final recourse is no longer available to you, what, exactly stops them from running roughshod over your rights?

        • avatarLinebackerU says:

          “What stops them from running roughshod over your rights?”

          Physically, nothing. Metaphysically, WE are THEM. We live in a civilized society, governed by elected officials. The people who enforce our laws are citizens of this country. The military is populated by our neighbors and friends. Reasonable people behave reasonably, and our society functions.

          As you said, modern Americans defend their rights in court and in politics. We have appropriate names for people who try to affect governmental change with bullets: ‘terrorists’, ‘rebels’, ‘traitors’.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          “Reasonable people behave reasonably, and our society functions.”

          Until they don’t. Keep in mind that every law that’s passed is enforced, at its ultimate end, by the barrel of a gun. To paraphrase what someone wrote recently:

          “Pay your taxes.”
          “No.”
          “Fine, we own your house.”
          “No.”
          “You’re trespassing. We have a warrant for your arrest.”
          “No.”
          “Come out or we’re coming in.”
          “No.”

          Suddenly people are coming in, with guns drawn, over an unpaid tax bill, and assuming you live through it, you probably still have a dead dog. Every law is enforced by the barrel of a gun. What if suddenly those laws are against you? Like, say, “all Jews are no longer allowed to own businesses,” or “you have to pay these taxes, but you get no say in the government that you pay them to.” What then? If the laws of the land are enforced, at bitter end, at the barrel of a gun, then it’s only reasonable that our freedom is also enforced, at bitter end, at the barrel of a gun.

          “As you said, modern Americans defend their rights in court and in politics. We have appropriate names for people who try to affect governmental change with bullets: ‘terrorists’, ‘rebels’, ‘traitors’.”

          Yep, and a couple hundred years ago we attempted to plead our case against a tyrannical government using all the traditional means at our disposal: letters, pleadings, envoys, etc. And when those efforts proved fruitless, we retreated to the final option available to us, that of armed resistance against a regime that would have seen us disarmed. The men who did that, now universally regarded as great men, were labeled rebels and traitors by those who would hold on to power.

        • avatarLinebackerU says:

          I’ll try not to get too far from the original point: I think it’s unlikely that a large plurality of the American people will be justified in rising up in open warfare against the US government.

          Voting for political candidates to be inserted into that government, in order to preserve your ability to try to overthrow that government, seems to be missing the point of democracy.

          Said another way: are gay people better off stockpiling weapons and conquering the state of California in order to defend their right to get married, or should they just elect political candidates who support that right?

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          I agree with you that it’s unlikely. I’m not someone who sees it happening next week, or next year, or in 10 years. But I acknowledge that it has happened, and that it can happen.

          As such, yes, I vote for candidates that would preserve my ability to retain that last, best defense. Or, more specifically, I campaign vigorously against those who would remove my ability to do so. If they were neutral on that issue, I would have no quarrel with them. My quarrel begins when they attempt to restrict my freedom, a freedom acknowledged and guaranteed by the Constitution by which they are supposed to govern.

        • avatarLinebackerU says:

          That’s completely reasonable. I have no problem with factoring in a candidate’s 2A stance to my overall assessment; I just have trouble with the idea of “single-issue voters”.

        • avatar16V says:

          Physically, nothing. Metaphysically, WE are THEM. We live in a civilized society, governed by elected officials. The people who enforce our laws are citizens of this country. The military is populated by our neighbors and friends. Reasonable people behave reasonably, and our society functions.

          Perhaps you really do believe that. I hate to break this to you, but there are plenty of folks enforcing our laws who don’t even think of themselves as civilians. The military is populated with with your ‘neighbors and friends’ if you live next to a base. Otherwise, it’s some kids who will follow orders until Abu Ghraib becomes embarrassing to the higher ups. Yes, most reasonable people behave reasonably and society functions, but that is such a thin veneer it is laughable to suggest it is the natural order of things. From Rwanda, PolPot, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or half a dozen others in recent history the “evil deeds” were carried out by ‘friends and neighbors’ and the government part of “WE”.

          Sandy, Katrina, etc. There is an ‘us/them’ dynamic that is being pushed to benefit a select few, and the ideal of a benevolent government that considers itself public servants is simply not borne out by facts on the ground.

        • avatarLeo338 says:

          ”Said another way: are gay people better off stockpiling weapons and conquering the state of California in order to defend their right to get married, or should they just elect political candidates who support that right?”

          There is a major flaw in that argument. In your scenario gay people are fighting for more rights, they aren’t trying to fight to keep the limited rights they barely have. People are not electing public officials that are publicly out to restrict the rights of gays. They aren’t calling to ban gays from certain cities and threatening to put them in jail if caught. They aren’t out saying gays are what is wrong with our society and as soon as we rid ourselves of them the world will become a utopian dream that we have always wanted. If they were doing all this I am sure the gay community would rebel against the democratic system and that very well may lead to them having to defend their life and rights with arms and I say they would be justified in doing so.

        • avatarLinebackerU says:

          Leo338,

          I disagree. I picked California for a very specific reason: gay people DID have the right to marry in California until that right was repealed by a referendum a few years ago. That’s a right they had, which was taken away.

          And if you don’t think there’s a segment of America who feel gays “are what is wrong with our society”, then you haven’t been paying attention to the Religious Right.

          These people and their allies (of which I am one) didn’t rebel against the democratic system. They challenged the referendum in court, and we voted to institute similar freedoms in other states. That’s how democracy works.

        • avatarLeo338 says:

          Telling gays they cannot get married and attempting to take away a constitutionally protected right are a lot different. This is a bigger issue than gay marriage, and a lot more important to the future of the United States.

          Based on your logic if pols started calling for the extermination of gays they wouldn’t rebel against the government? They should peacefully abide by the rules until hopefully they were able to elect people who didn’t want to exterminate them? Oh, and hopefully they aren’t voting for someone solely based on this one issue right?

          From now on I will be a single-issue voter because the second amendment is the most important issue. Fortunately a lot of Americans are waking up to this realization as well.

        • avatarLinebackerU says:

          I don’t think any of the proposed legislation includes provisions to exterminate gun owners.

      • avatarWilliam says:

        +10

      • avatarLinebackerU says:

        I don’t think any of the proposed legislation includes provision to exterminate gun owners.

  15. avatarAharon says:

    There are still ARs on the shelf in the pic above.

    A friend of mine who has ARs, semi-auto handguns, and is conservative voted for Obama because he didn’t think it would make any difference. Being recently trained as an investor I think that he also believes the Democrats would be better for more artificially stimulating the financial markets.

  16. avatarPPs43 says:

    The leftist meme is, “You don’t need that and its too dangerous.” Funny. because that’s exactly how I feel about politicians. I wonder how the market would respond if 2A supporters, including banks and big business, quit giving money to any politician who wasn’t a rock-solid supporter of the Second Amendment and sent a note saying, “We don’t need you, you’re too dangerous to the Republic.”

    • avatarLinebackerU says:

      You’ve hit on a great point, but it’s not the one you were trying to make: Banks and big businesses don’t withhold contributions based on 2A support because the 2A is *not* the most important thing to those entities.

      Lobbying is only effective if it’s targeted, and an oil company is naturally going to focus its money lobbying for advantageous fossil fuel legislation. The 2A doesn’t actually matter to them.

  17. avatarmiforest says:

    This is exactly why I don’t find it comforting to see people who are liberal in every view except guns . In the end they will vote against us . It’s not just hunters, its target shooters and self -defense as well . I personally know a number of guys who shoot AR-10′s in competition, have CCW’s, lifetime NRA . But they are UAW and they worked for the Obama campaign both times. they vote streight democratic for people like stabenow and levin in the senate are big anti -gun senators.

    maybe my experience doesn’t reflect the wider picture, and some of the UAW guys I know are po gun , but just because someone is pro gun doesn’t mean they will ever vote for a pro gun candidate .

    • avatarTim McNabb says:

      Miforest – this is exactly right. I interviewed seven people from Occupy St. Louis some months ago (see: Occupy St. Louis and The 2nd Amendment) and while all but one agreed that the 2nd Amendment was important – even vital – for liberty, they were willing to support and vote for far-left politicians whose loins ache for the sweet release of gun control.

      • avatarChris says:

        There’s some imagery there I can’t unsee. Thanks Tim.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        they were willing to support and vote for far-left politicians whose loins ache for the sweet release of gun control.

        Until today I did not know it was possible to laugh and gag at the same time.

        Well played, sir.

  18. avatarPPs43 says:

    There are many big businesses that rely on 2A supporters whether they know it or not. Just ask Reed Promotions and the folks around Morristown PA who just saw 80 million $$$ evaporate from their cash drawers.

  19. avatarMikinid says:

    I continue to hope (faintly) that this has taught some of our more liberal breathern a lesson. Today’s democrats will always come for your guns. Either their stated position will change, or they will be forced to toe the party line. The democrats do not tolerate people like Rubio or Rand Paul. Look at what happened to Leiberman. Manchin is going to be a good example of this.
    Some state that Romney supported anti gun legislation, thus he is no different from Obama. His stated position has changed to pro 2a. That is enough of a difference. I cannot imagine this circumstance we are in if he had been elected. Romney’s base hates gun control, and he would have been insane to defy them. Look at what happened to Bush’s supreme court nominations. The base had their way. The democrat base is fervently for gun control. They are having their say. Any vote for a democrat enables this.
    We must learn to vote tactically. Not voting is a half vote swing for Obama. Voting third party is a half vote swing for Obama. Pick the best worst option. Protest votes do nothing.
    To the libertarians, I would say that you are more naturally on the side of conservatives. Many of your values are shared, and if you were involved, could easily be more important to the Republican party. Without your involvement, nothing will change.

    • avatarTim McNabb says:

      I continue to hope (faintly) that this has taught some of our more liberal breathern a lesson.

      It will be taught them if we teach them. We need to challenge our liberal gun-owner friends on the wisdom of their electoral choices.

      • avatarMikinid says:

        Your writing will help, thanks.

        I think many of our libertarian friends get hung up on abortion and gay rights without realizing that much of the conservative base is live-and-let-live. We need to focus on the constitution and bill of rights. There is plenty of common ground there for all of us.

        Personally, I am conservative, but am tending much more libertarian as I age. These are just definitions, however, and tend to cloud the issues. The left actively uses this.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          As a small-L libertarian, I could give a crap about what some segment of a party’s base thinks — I care about what its elected representatives will do. And I have real problems with the GOP’s authoritarian, statist approach to regulating personal freedom, as expressed by the GOP candidates themselves.

    • avatarCarlosT says:

      To the libertarians, I would say that you are more naturally on the side of conservatives. Many of your values are shared, and if you were involved, could easily be more important to the Republican party. Without your involvement, nothing will change.

      Except they’re not. The Democrats want to control our public lives, the Republicans want to control our private lives, but it’s still about control.

  20. avatarJim Barrett says:

    The current situation Tim refers to highlights one of the real problems in our country. In truth, neither of the two major parties really represent the views of the majority of Americans, who tend to be more middle of the road. The problem is that like Tim, many people are either Republicans or Democrats by necessity and vote whichever party is closest to their views on many issues.

    While the Republicans are stronger on gun rights than the Democrats, the fact is that the Republican’s anti-gay, perceived anti-women (pro-life), and perceived anti-minority (immigration policy for example) turn off a lot of people. As LinebackerU noted, while gun rights are important, many folks consider other things higher up on the food chain, and while they don’t intentionally vote against gun rights, the simple result is that the politicians they do support for a variety of reasons end up being against gun rights.

    Until the Republican party can move to the center or until a third party that is more moderate than Republicans and Democrats appears, this sad state of affairs will continue to happen.

    • avatarWeathertop says:

      +10

    • avatarPNG says:

      Yes, +10.

    • avatarLinebackerU says:

      Totally agreed. To a great degree, the Republicans’ tack to the right over the past decade has led to a diminishing of their caucus.

      President Obama himself said that if were in politics back in the 80′s, he’d have considered himself to be a moderate Republican. The spectrum has slid to the right, and it’s vacated Congress of moderates.

    • avatarBdk NH says:

      +1. The Republicans will not win a major election moving forward until they quell the proselytizing that has taken over the party. Since that is unlikely, my hope is for legitimate mainstream Libertarian option in 2016.

    • avatarBill in IL says:

      “As LinebackerU noted, while gun rights are important, many folks consider other things higher up on the food chain, and while they don’t intentionally vote against gun rights, the simple result is that the politicians they do support for a variety of reasons end up being against gun rights.”

      I do not find this to be true at all. Most of the hard core Dems and Reps I know will vote for them based simply on the letter behind their name. I find most people are completely clueless about the issues and are too lazy to bother looking behind the curtain of the MSM. Claiming “other issues” are more important is just a smoke screen for I don’t have time to find out what is really going on and what the EXACT policies the D or R I am going to vote for are. You would be surprised at how many people vote for a D or R just because they were raised in a D or R home, or the old I have always voted for ___.

  21. avatarTRUTHY says:

    The absolute WORST thing about all of this is how the gun-grabbers are trying to insinuate the 2nd Amendment has something to do with “hunting” or “sporting” uses. And people are falling for it.

    • avatarTUCO says:

      I’m with you. I’m so sick of hearing “that’s not a hunting rifle”. Fine it’s not a hunting rifle, but the 2nd Amemdment is not about hunting.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Every time that comes up, it needs to be answered with “this is not about hunting, it’s about the right to defend yourself, your community, and your country.”

  22. avatarSilver says:

    Further proof that hunters are amongst the 2A’s worst enemies. The only thing worse than those actively working against gun rights is this fifth column amongst gun owners selling us out.

  23. avatarJoke & Dagger says:

    Tim, I appreciate and agree 100% with your writing today on this subject. You are much more eloquent, polite, thorough and probably more effective than my very blunt postings yesterday on a similar subject in a very contentious thread. Hopefully, we both will reach different people via different approaches. Regardless, your approach via today’s article is outstanding.

  24. avatarTUCO says:

    I agree. One company that I do work for sold more AK’s in three weeks than they had in the two previous months. They have had to hire more people & are running assembly 20 hours a day 7 days a week. While that sounds like a great thing, it is increasing their costs They are also paying more for some components not made in house.

  25. avatarJim B says:

    “The problem is that millions of gun owners like my fellow poll worker put many things ahead of their right to keep and bear arms, and are willing to sell out the Second Amendment for whatever the hell else the politicians now threatening gun bans were offering at the time.”

    Yes, and many gun owners and the NRA are willing to sell out other rights so long as they can keep their gun rights so what’s new? Let’s lock up anyone with the slightest mental disorder and put armed guards in every school, just don’t take our guns damn it!

    • avatarTR says:

      Jim B, maybe you watched a different version of the NRA’s responses to Newtown and Aurora et. al. than I did, but I don’t remember the NRA ‘selling out’ any rights. Nobody is pushing for mandatory lockup of everyone with ‘the slightest mental disorder’. We are pushing for more resources devoted to helping treat those with mental disorders, but I fail to see how that is sacrificing any rights. Same with armed guards in schools, where are the rights lost? It’s a solution to a problem, or at least a partial one, and it doesn’t involve limiting anyone’s rights. I’d say the NRA is doing a pretty good job of not sacrificing or selling out rights. If you have reasons you disagree, please share them.

      • avatarJim B says:

        No TR, I read the same thing as you saw and Wayne LaPierre said that we need “a police officer in every school,” and “an active national database of the mentally ill” after saying that we should not legislate out of panic he starts proposing just that. He proposes things without looking at the reality of risk. His thinking is no different than the gun control crowd.

        I have posted before but I will post it again, bad things happen but they are RARE. There are around 21 children killed in schools every year in the US. There are around 125,000 schools. Therefore any given school has the chance of a student being murdered every 5,952 years. Schools are one of the safest places for children to be. Posting guards in every school for something that may happen every 6,000 years or so isn’t panic legislation? To me it smacks of “do anything so long as you don’t take my guns.”

        What exactly does Wayne mean by an active national database of the mentally ill? He never did clarify that but throws it out there. Others have stated they like the idea and say that it should include anyone that has ever been diagnosed with depression. That is every woman I have known over the age of 25. What would some list like that do? I would say it would prevent people from getting the care they need from fear of being stigmatized.

        The US doesn’t even have the highest rate of spree killing per capita. That dishonor goes to Norway by way of what most statisticians would call an outlier since 77 were done by a single man in one day. Still number two is Finland. The US is number six.

        Wayne LaPierre did just what the gun control people did and went into the “we have to do something” mentality. Of course NRA membership has skyrocketed and maybe that is what it is really about. (OK, I’m being a bit cynical there.) However, Wayne has done such a great job bringing the in cash that maybe it’s time to raise that measly $900K a year he gets to a nice even million. What do you say?

        Yeah, the country isn’t turning into paramilitary police state fast enough already. In addition to the cameras everywhere, the spy drones that are coming, the naked photos and patting down at airports we need police at every school in the country; after all this could happen every 6,000 years or so. Better give those guards AR-15s and ceramic plated body armor. Of course helmets and black uniforms. We got to have those black uniforms. Reflections of the SS you know. 1984 here we come. Or is it 1938? That is not my vision of America although it seems to be that of the NRA.

        I really don’t think the NRA does such a great job of fighting for gun rights. Non-gun owners see them as uncompromising nuts. Yes, that is not entirely their fault because the media presents them that way, but nonetheless that is how they are perceived by a large percentage of the people.

        In the biggest gun rights case of the last half century the NRA was not only absent, they tried to prevent the case from being heard. It was the a man named Robert Levy, a man that never owned a gun, the head of the Cato Institute that brought DC v Heller all the way to the Supreme Court and won the ruling making certain that gun ownership was recognized by the Court as an individual right. The NRA belatedly joined in when they saw that they could not prevent the case from going forward.

        Sorry, but I just see the NRA as another organization whose main goal is to raise money and take care of the hierarchy of their organization. Their constant rants about how we are about to lose our rights if we don’t send them money remind me of the organizations that claim polar bears are going extinct if we don’t send them $19.99 a month. (I never got that one BTW, what are they going to do with $19.99 a month? Buy the polar bear a new ice flow?)

        I don’t think rushing to make legislation of any sort that compromises our freedoms, any of our freedoms is something to do for what is a tragic but rare occurrence. Bad things happen. Some of those things we can do little about without losing freedom or spending extraordinary amounts of money trying to prevent. It is too bad we live in a country that cannot assess risk or odds but then again that is what makes the lottery profitable.

        Give money to them if you like. I won’t. I will give my money to an organization that fights for ALL of our rights, Second Amendment rights included. That is the Cato Institute.

  26. avatarJustLeaveLawfulGunOwnersAlone says:

    “I’m a Republican by necessity”

    You are not alone!

    I disagree with many of the republican principals but I have to sell out many of my other principals to make sure I get to keep my constitutional right to own and carry firearms. A very sad and disturbing proposition. However as long as I feel that the 2A are crucial to protect the rest of our rights, I don’t have much choice but being a single issue voter.

    If only the republican party would distance themselves ever so slightly from the hardcore organized-religion based principals about what I can do to or put into my own body or what I do in my bedroom, nobody would have to worry about another wanna-be King George suppressing the people.
    I am not asking anyone to suppress their views or be not allowed to practice them in their home but when asking for less gov’t, that has to apply across the board, regardless of your personal opinion and choices.

    To over simplify:
    *******************
    no gov’t in my gunsafe
    no gov’t in my bedroom
    no gov’t in my doctors office
    no gov’t in my (non)faith
    no gov’t in my body
    no gov’t in what involves only me, myself and I.

    gov’t can deal with rails, roads and bridges
    gov’t can deal with convicted criminals
    gov’t can deal with emergency services
    gov’t can deal with natural disasters
    gov’t can deal with other countries
    gov’t can deal with taxes
    gov’t should deal with stuff on my behalf that I can’t deal with due to scale or size.
    *********************
    Granted there are political parties more aligned with my views, unless we move away from a two party system, it does not really help us. As long as we can’t even manage our countries finances, tax and wellfare systems, I don’t expect any overhaul of our electoral system.
    I am sure some will say that continuing to put my votes for either party will prohibit any chance of change but bidding on a long term potential while allowing the destruction of our rights in the immediate short term is just not something i can swallow.

  27. avatarTim says:

    Not everyone is a single issue voter. And some that are see freedom for women to make decisions about their own bodies, or for homosexuals to have the liberty to marry as more important issues than gun ownership.

    I don’t think these people should be blamed for being activists for the causes they feel to be most important. Blame a far too simplistic two party system and stereotypical associations of values to political parties. If there were democrats that were pro gun i would vote for them. And there are, but not too many.

  28. avatarjake45 says:

    Ruby Ridge, Waco. Our government started small I am concerned about when they decide to kick it up a notch!

  29. avatarDavis Thompson says:

    Since modern sporting rifles are used in such a tiny percentage of murders (0.4 to 0.8% in 2011 according to the FBI UCR), banning them will have no measurable impact on murder rates.

    Since the new Feinstein ban is so easily worked-around (a quick cosmetic redesign to eliminate the “banned” features and viola, same rifle, different look, totally legal) the passage of such a law will have little to no impact on the number of these firearms in civilian hands.

    Since high-profile mass shooters, if denied semi-auto rifles, can easily switch to other firearms, the proposed law will have no impact on mass shootings.

    Banning assault weapons, clearly, is a useless gesture that can have no meaningful impact on murder or crime. We know this, because we tried it already.

    Then why try to do it?

    Because its a first step. Advocates of gun control know they’re in for a long fight, similar to government run health care. They know it may take them several generations to complete their disarmament of the American population, but they don’t care. That is the goal and any step they take towards it is good news for them.

    That’s why we must resist any efforts to ban any firearm that is currently legal.

    Below is a link to a list of Senators with a B+ or higher rating from the NRA. Clink on a name to link to that Senator’s e-mail contact form (where available.) Tell them that no further restrictions on legally owned firearms will be tolerated.

    http://www.shotmonster.com/senators.html

  30. avatarTotenglocke says:

    The problem is that millions of gun owners like my fellow poll worker put many things ahead of their right to keep and bear arms, and are willing to sell out the Second Amendment for whatever the hell else the politicians now threatening gun bans were offering at the time.

    Says a guy who voted for the vehemently anti-gun Romney. Funniest joke I read all day.

    • avatarTim McNabb says:

      Sorry you could not follow the logic, TG.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        I’m sorry you think voting for an anti-gun politician who said on multiple occasions that he fully supports banning scary looking weapons was “defending our rights”. Romney would be saying the exact crap Obama is and he’d sign anything that hit his desk.

        Just because they’re a Republican doesn’t mean that they’re a fan of the Second Amendment. Seeing how we were going to get a pro-big government, anti-gun, anti-Constitution jackass in office regardless of who won, you’d have been better off voting for Gary Johnson and at least being able to say that you voted to support the Second Amendment.

        • avatar16V says:

          As much as I’ve known Tim is a good guy long before TTAG, I have to agree with Totenglocke.

          Neither one was pro2A, and the thought that Mittens would be on our side was denying his history and public statements.

          They both sucked. Full stop.

  31. avatarDave says:

    It’s not about hunting.

  32. avatarLance says:

    Very good point Ive been saying this all the time stop panic buying and spend time efforts to fight government intrusion in 2A rights.

  33. avatarCarlosT says:

    Tim, from what I’ve read of your writing here, it would seem that your beliefs are well in line with the current GOP platform in most ways, so I’m wondering what it is you feel you’re giving up when casting a vote for a Republican candidate? If you vote for Republicans on the basis of Second Amendment rights alone, what are the issues you also care about you are choosing to sacrifice, knowing they would be better served by voting for some other party?

    • avatarpat says:

      Cant speak for Tim, but smaller gov would be my answer (yes, we spend to much on military, and in the wrong places). The ‘Big Gov’ tax and spend thing the libtards got going on is beyond crazy and demented (probably over 20 Trillion when Barry ends his reign).

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.