Patrick-Hope

Shazam! It’s almost as if Americans are rational actors, responding to the threat of potentially higher costs, increased regulatory hurdles and more scarcity by stocking up on a given item. That’s USA Today’s Kevin Johnson’s incredulous takeaway from the news that August NICS checks were the highest since the system was created. The NSSF’s Larry Keane attempts to explain this mysterious phenomenon for the economically challenged: “Whenever there is a call for gun control, sales increase.” Eloquent in its brevity, no? You’d think that someone in the Obama administration could have explained this effect to the President’s admirers at the McPaper . . .

The good news is, Mr. and Mrs. Gun Owner, you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

“We’re not at all threatening any one’s ability to get a gun,” (Virginia Delegate Patrick) Hope said. “What we’re talking about here is common sense legislation. I don’t think any one is threatened by background checks.”

I know I feel reassured. Then again, I live in Texas.

The man named Hope has obviously put dozens of minutes of thought and reflection into his next move in the wake of the televised Roanoke shooting. Yet shockingly, there’s no Change involved at all.

“I chose background checks, not because it would have prevented (the Virginia shooting) but because this would be easiest to pass,” Hope said. “We will not be able to prevent every single incident. We need to do something.”

So an “assault weapons” ban or perhaps a magazine capacity limit would have been peachy, but Hope knows they’re political non-starters. And coming out for a proposal like that might have hurt his reelection prospects. Better to practice the art of the possible (getting something done) and then move on from there.

One more time (with feeling): “injustice collector” Vester Flanagan bought his pistol legally. He completed an ATF from 4473 and was cleared by our regulatory overseers. So expanded background checks would have done diddly to prevent his narcissistic, ballistic cri de coeur. And unlike the bogus benefits of anything Delegate Hope would like to see enacted, gun owners’ (certainly those in the Old Dominion) concerns about their continued ability to keep and bear the arms of their choice aren’t illusory at all.

Keane said the gun purchases prompted by calls for new restrictions are “certainly legitimate to the person exercising their fundamental civil liberties protected by the Second Amendment.”

“The concern that anti-gun politicians are seeking to infringe and restrict the right to keep and bear arms is very real and well-founded,” he said.

Wait! It wouldn’t be a proper mainstream media article about firearms if we didn’t see what the Brady Campaign thinks of August’s gun sales blowout.

“When gun sales rise, more and more weapons find a set of dangerous hands to call home,” (Dan) Gross said. “There are people in this country, people like felons, fugitives, and domestic abusers who we all agree simply should not have guns.”

The part of Gross’s quote mentioning that felons, fugitives and domestic abusers are precisely the people least likely to be deterred by more background checks must have gotten left on the cutting room floor. If only USA Today had another column inch to devote to the story.

45 Responses to USA Today’s Revelation: More Calls for Gun Control Mean More Gun Sales

  1. But of course it’s only the people who already own guns that are just buying more. No new gun owners whatsoever. No-sir-ee

    • As narrow minded as it is, I’ve used the fact that I am gay to get a significant number of men and women who were on the fence about it, to go to the range with me and shoot. Almost all of them are now redpilled, so to speak, and do not see guns as the dangerous horrible death machines that the media makes them out to be. The rest are starting to see that “bans” do not work.. which is better than nothing I guess.

      I honestly have no clue why I “come off as less threatening because I’m gay,” but whatever is required to spread the truth I guess.

      *Edit: All of the people I took to the range are now new, responsible gun owners, I should mention.

        • Short version for our Pink Pistols group
          a. We use Meet-up for events.

          b. Have about 250 Meet-up followers; many are straight. Generally, LGBT POTG aren’t obvious as is the case with LGBTs in general. My gaydar often fails. Gay men bring straight women friends and vice-versa, straight men bring buddies. I’ve given up trying to guess orientation. Nobody cares.

          c. Generally we have more fun and better food than other events; attendees tend to be better dressed and less grungy.

          d. Women don’t get hit on & treated more equally v. what I sometimes see elsewhere.

          e. LGBTs are disproportionately represented in shooting club and range events. Don’t know why. Maybe because many are single and lack family commitments, but we pitch-in and get stuff done more than others.

          f. LGBTs have lots of activism experience. Used to organizing to effect change. Latest: appealing to LGBT social groups (e.g., runners, hikers, etc.) to participate in Pink Pistols events. Registered for Community TV training to promote shooting on public access cable + Youtube. No LGBT orientation or identification, but to promote more awareness of shooting sports and leverage influence with elected officials. Stay tuned (literally).

          Pink Pistols was born out of fear. It was begun when gay bashing was not uncommon and “gay panic” was an accepted as justification. The national Pink Pistols website still promotes a message that all but some LGBT tinfoil hats dispute. It’s about as relevant as urging blacks to arm for fear of KKK lynchings.

          The Pink Pistols groups I’m familiar with promote shooting sports for all the same reasons echoed here – not as a defense against homophobic vigilantes.

          Want to support LGBT shooting? I’d suggest donating money, time, and supplies to a Juniors program in your community. Some might turn out to be LGBT, but all will become familiar with firearms and ideally become enthusiastic about our sport.

        • Nailed it with youth programs. The next generation is the future of the Second Amendment. If not taught to cherish it, it will succumb to the antis. The best gateway is a safe environment and FUN!

        • “Want to support LGBT shooting? I’d suggest donating money, time, and supplies to a Juniors program in your community.”

          RF –

          TTAG being based in Austin, is that something worth considering?

      • It’s not like it’s hard to tell that gun control is BS. Just open your eyes and read anything other than Facebook posts and it becomes glaringly obvious why we need guns.

        And hey… good on you. I’ve tried my best to bring the good word about guns, so to speak… Or at least to try to dispel any BS floating in the toilet bowl of internet discourse. RL too, but being that I look like a viking and sound like a Deliverance extra it can sometimes to make people here on the left coast to listen. <,,<

      • @Emfourty Gasmask: I think your relative success is probably because you have destroyed one or more of their perceived stereotypes. Great work and please keep it up. I would think that gay people are more at risk for violent attacks than the general population. Makes sense to take precautions to protect yourself. Take care and glad to have you in our ranks.

      • As narrow minded as it is, I’ve used the fact that I am gay

        @Emfourty Gasmask, that’s pretty much the antithesis of “narrow minded.” You probably changed a few minds about guns and gays, separately and collectively. Good job all around.

      • Nce. I got into firearms on the self defense front, so one of the larger issues I have with gun control is how it is *always* used to persecute certain classes and I love to see free exercise of rights by oft-persecuted classes fighting in the other direction towards actual, true equality.

        Good on you for taking it one step further and doing whatever it takes to educate those around you.

  2. The two people wearing the Hope shirts look like they have a liberal college degree and have been appropriately indoctrinated in the hallowed halls of Marxist learning. Being around colleges for some time, you can sort of pick up on things like this.

  3. “need to do something”

    Great idea. Why don’t we allow constitutional carry, open or concealed, nation-wide for every American and cheer every time a law abiding citizen puts down a critter engaged in criminal enterprise?

    works for me

  4. The focus on the short term profit is a very American capitalist notion, but it occurs in this case because of fear, whether well founded or not, that the supply will soon be curtailed or eliminated altogether. In the long run it profits no company to have their merchandise regulated or removed from the market. We may laugh and call BO the best gun salesman since Clinton, but like his predecessor, he is taking the long view. Thankfully, so is the NRA and company. The price of freedom is eternal vigilence.

  5. The current occupant of the White House promised us Hope, Change and a fundamental transformation of our country. I would say the addition of 100 million privately owned firearms (each and every one of which was sold with a background check) during his two term administration is a legacy he can be proud of, even if he isn’t.

    Of course, he does not deserve all of the credit. Shannon’s Sugar Daddy, Soros, Gates, Allen and all of the other billionaires who, collectivly have spent over 100 million dollars during the past eight years, pushing gun control, have added to the public concern that is driving gun sales.

    Do these fools know which side they are on?

    • “Gun Control, opiate OF the Left.” Fixed it for you. One little word can make a difference. Though I am sure that most on here knew what you meant.

  6. “The current occupant of the White House promised us Hope, Change and a fundamental transformation of our country.”
    Well he’s given us 2 of the three, Change for the worst and a transformation into something that little resembles the United States that our forefathers looked to build. I do have hope though, hope that someone who truly loves America is elected in 2016. Sadly, I don’t think that will happen.

  7. At the risk of someone breaking out the flammenwerfered here I’ll actually say that there could possibly be a good balance between actual reasonable on gun control. Disregarding any constitutional arguments (not that they should, of course) you could probably fairly easily find a balance.

    Of course anyone that’ spent a half hour on the internet know that no gun control activist actually wants reasonable gun control. They’re Jihadist. Fortuneteller they’re mostly incompetent idiots, for the most part. But kind of like real terrorist they only have to win once. We have to keep winning forever.

    • “At the risk of someone breaking out the flammenwerfered here I’ll actually say that there could possibly be a good balance between actual reasonable on gun control.”

      Impacting the law abiding, or the criminal element?

      I’m interested in hearing what you have to say, but as you mentioned, I’m not interested in giving them one inch. They will ALWAYS want more until they have ALL.

  8. winning is having a friend at church just tell me an hour ago that she needs a gun to put down the critters who want to break into her house to steal her stuff. . . . while her son is in jail for theft. She clearly gets it.

    • @Dirk: Perhaps you can volunteer to help her find the proper training and education to go along with her purchase. Just so she does not become a statistic that hurts our cause.

      • no worries. we already discussed logistics of meeting up and training. all good. I have converted about 10 people in my church alone. all former liberals. I say former b/c we also discussed politics. amazing what happens when you help people open their eyes and see it is ok to be conservative. and black. and religious. and pro gun. and for limited government. and strong on defense. Long live the Republic.

  9. “We’re not at all threatening any one’s ability to get a gun,” (Virginia Delegate Patrick) Hope said. “What we’re talking about here is threatening every one’s ability to get a gun.”

    FIFY, you Democrat POS.

  10. For those unfamiliar with how these proposals work, they usually will require everyone to go through an FFL to buy or transfer a gun. Only Illinois has a state administered program that requires everyone to obtain a special card to possess or handle a gun and ammunition. To obtain the card, the state conducts a background check.

    The problem in forcing everyone to an FFL is that many people in rural areas live a considerable distance from one. Those in big cities and the liberal suburbs surrounding them have made it virtually impossible through regulation and taxation for an FFL to operate so these citizens will need to travel a fair distance to visit an FFL. I oppose universal background checks because running everyone through an FFL puts significant burdens on those who follow the laws while doing little for public safety. Also, legal private transfers between friends and family will be impractical and expensive. Gun owners should be in charge of deciding how to manage their property, not the government.

  11. “There are people in this country, people like felons, fugitives, and domestic abusers who we all agree simply should not have guns.”

    No not really. If they are that dangerous then I want them off the street in a hole with a bag of quick lime. Unless they aren’t as dangerous as you are saying they are, but you’d never use fear to convince the sheep would you?

    Too dangerous to own a gun means to dangerous to participate in society.

  12. UBCs? How about a voluntary system that lets the seller call in a private sale just as he would if he was an FFL handling a retail sale. And, of course, there can be no 4473 for a private sale because there’s no way to enforce a record-keeping requirement against a non-professional.

    In return, the seller gets full immunity if the buyer turns out to be a bad guy who fell between the NICS cracks or if the buyer does something bad with the gun.

    There’s a similar system in place on MA, although it does not go all the way. As a seller, I must check the buyers license and, if I want to, I can get a certificate of good standing from the state for the buyer and his license. The certificate inspires confidence and in the unlikely event that the buyer is a bad guy, I have proof that I did all that I was legally required to do and more.

    Who’s kidding who? A private sale NICS check will never be allowed by the gungrabbers because the background check isn’t what the left wants, it’s the 4473. The 4473. Because no 4473 = no record = no seizure.

    • I’ve been advocating public access to NICS since, oh, 1996. It should be able to be used by employers, fathers who want to check out their daughter’s date, babysitters, whomever.

      Democrats invariably recoil in horror at the idea. I’ve reasonably pointed out that lots of jobs require background checks. You can’t volunteer for 4-H without a background check, you can’t become a EMT/paramedic without a background check, you can’t go to work in a defense contract environment without a very extensive background check. There’s lots of background checks being run on people. Why not allow the public to find out if they’re dealing with a felon or domestic abuser before they hire/deal with them?

      As you said Ralph, it’s the 4473. They’re wed to that form.

  13. Not just Illinois Kelly. Similar FOID in some other evil states(like mine). And believe me I’ve bought plenty of AMMO in Indiana without flashin’ the foid…and shot at ranges and handled guns in Indiana. I bunch of shops(and gun shows) don’t give a rat’s azz about Illinois’ rules…or paying CookCounty $25 tax in Indiana or Will co…

  14. When gun sales rise, more and more weapons find a set of dangerous hands to call home,

    Demands more background checks. Believes that when more background checks happen, it means more weapons falling into dangerous hands.

  15. People think if they’re the first ones to use words like “common sense” or “science”, they lay claim to it and the argument is settled.

  16. He says we all agree felines shouldn’t have guns. I don’t agree with that. I know a lot of felons who I would trust with guns way more than most people. Just because someone made a mistake, paid their debt to society, and has now turned their life around doesn’t mean they are a bad person or inherently violent.

  17. Unsurprising: Study Shows Criminals Don’t Buy Their Guns Legally..
    For all of the talk from the anti-gun communists in this country, who want to infringe on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms by pushing unlawful regulations and restrictions, this study should be the rays of sunshine and disinfectant to their lies… but they’ll ignore it. A recent study proves that Chicago criminals did not acquire their guns through lawful purchases at gun stores, gun shows or the internet.
    So, all of the talk about gun laws and more background checks are really, in truth, only for the law-abiding citizen and have virtually no effect on criminals
    So, it is safe to say this is going on all across the country and the only people being stifled in the exercise of their rights to obtain, keep and bear arms are law abiding people. This is exactly why government was given no authority to infringe on those rights at all.
    http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/09/unsurprising-study-shows-criminals-dont-buy-their-guns-legally/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *