Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Gun Advocates Have the Edge

4842f0e8-110f-4b8d-acad-3e5b02769c57

“Is there an actionable takeaway, here? Yes. It’s still early days in the grand scheme of the presidential run, and the latest carry everywhere petition is set to be just one of a flurry of pro-gun actions from the Republican candidates and public between now and November. The situation in the Middle East and Europe looks likely to give gun advocates the edge from a public sentiment perspective, and in turn, give the Republican candidates the edge in any type of pro/against arms debates. This is only going to fuel growth in gun manufacturers further.” – Matt Winkler in Guns Everywhere Petition Highlights Rosy Manufacturer Outlook [at 247wallst.com]

BFG-Long-Logo-Blue-JPG-220x39

comments

  1. avatar James in AZ says:

    Stock price rising by 100bpts in 3, 2, 1…

  2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    March was the 11th straight month of record background checks.

  3. avatar Chier DuChien says:

    If Hillary gets a democrat Congress, the US will be looking at Australian Style Gun Control. Even pellet rifles will be registered. Military look-a-likes will be banned. Sorry.

    1. avatar younggun21 says:

      I think you meant the Supreme Court. Hillary can’t do anything about who is or is not in Congress.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        You think. Who is in charge of counting votes? Isn’t DOJ involved in contested elections and recounts? Or do you suppose Hillary and her gang would never dream of moving a decimal point “accidentally”, or such?

        1. avatar Jim Jones says:

          How do you explain Bush beating Gore then?

        2. avatar JasonM says:

          States count votes, not the feds.
          And in every state I’ve paid attention to, they count the votes at a local level, with representatives from both major parties present.

          Fraud in the vote counting would be difficult. The best fraud comes from having those who cannot legally vote do so anyway (e.g. non-citizens, convicted felons, the deceased). Democrats seem to be better at that one.

      2. avatar Chier DuChien says:

        A democrat Congress will pass Hillary’s Australian Style Gun Control into law.
        Remember Feinmstein’s “Turn them all in Mr & Mrs. America” ? That WILL happen.

        SCOTUS will turn anti-2nd Amendment with any Hillary appointee.

        Australia’s gun control advocates are now calling for Report & Reward + mandatory prison terms to increase compliance. American gun control advocates will follow suit.

    2. avatar Merlin says:

      It’s all the matter of perspective, numbers and capabilities.

      Australia confiscated something like 600K guns altogether. Wisconsin alone now has over 300K concealed carry licensees.

      I don’t see how she will do anything even close to the Australian style confiscation with 320 million guns. At best/worst, she might be able to accomplish something like that in California, NY and a few states in North East, but hardly more than that. At least without an outright rebellion and an open conflict.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I think you vastly overestimate the number of guns in America. Why, I bet if Hillary orders confiscation, fewer than a million would be turned in. Possibly fewer than 100,000.

        1. avatar John L. says:

          On the other hand, there will be a massive surge in plumbing and sewer repair supplies being purchased.

        2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

          Yep. The great weakness of the prohibitionist response is a phenomenon called “patterned evasion of social norms”. Passing a law against something doesn’t necessarily make it go away. Trying to confiscate guns would be a monumental and costly fail even greater than trying to ban booze during National Prohibition. But that won’t stop libtards from trying.

        3. avatar JasonM says:

          There are way more guns than that. There are probably 300-400 million in this country.
          Unfortunately to reach 98% or more of them, she’d have to dredge up all the lakes, rivers and coastlines in the country.

      2. avatar HP says:

        What’s even worse for her is that what they tried to accomplish here in NY didn’t even work. Even the most liberal estimates suggest 95% non-compliance when people were ordered to register their rifles.

        Ramming legislation through will bullying and other various totalitarian tactics is easy enough (see Andrew Cuomo’s entire political career) but actually forcing people to abide by those laws, well that’s a different story entirely.

    3. avatar Mack Bolan says:

      I think you forget what happened the last time a Government tried to confiscate arms from Americans.

      1. avatar James in AZ says:

        Not anymore.

        We can never organize a rebel force like that anymore, with the govt having control of all communication channels and MUCH GREATER force disparity between us and governmental forces. It used to be muskets vs muskets. Now it’s slightly better muskets vs Apache, Abrams and A10.

        And we no longer have vox populi support. Back then there was no mass media for general brainwash. Now we the brave are the paranoid minority.

        A total gun ban is possible, but door-to-door confiscation is very unlikely. We can only resist passively by non-compliance. And trust me, our guns are not that much of a concern anyway, at least in the short run, if they decide to install a tyranny.

        We can only hope for the best that our servicemen would not turn the muzzle on us, while we prepare for that final, bloody, almost-zero-winning-chance, last stand.

        1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

          If our military could win a war with Apache, Abrams and A10, we wouldn’t still have boots on the ground in various parts of the Arab world.

        2. avatar Sian says:

          Discounting the obvious posse comitatus issues that would instantly invalidate any government to try such, and that less than 50% of active service personnel would participate in action against American citizens, Where is all that military hardware going to operate from? Canada? Our air power is successful overseas because they don’t have to be based inside the conflict zone.

          Our domestic military bases are far from secure, and all it takes is a couple of riflemen to disrupt an airbase for hours.

        3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          Some 30,000 ISIS hooligans have held off several countries’ militaries for a couple years now. I’m not sure how many Taliban there are, or Mujahideen before them, but they dispatched the U.S. and U.S.S.R. eventually. Ditto the British and Indians before that.

          It’s silly when people suggest that the U.S. government would indiscriminately carpet bomb U.S. cities. We don’t even do that to our enemies overseas. It already takes some 500,000 police officers to keep the peace in the U.S., and that’s with only criminals causing troubles and with armed citizens defending themselves. The government doesn’t have anywhere near enough troops to occupy the U.S., especially while having to maintain overseas deterrents.

          Nobody wants Civil War II. Personally, I prefer a constitutional convention and lawful, peaceful desegregation of the U.S. into several more suitable countries.

          Nevertheless, a full on assault on its own people and occupation of the U.S. as a conquering force cannot be achieved.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. There are a lot of places where our government might try to (illegally) use the military against US citizens. Like drugs, gangs, tax collecting, maybe arresting the opposing political party. Gun control wars will never be one of them. Those in the fighting branches of our military are not anti-gun, Duh! If given their high tech killing machines and told to go forth and kill, I think most of them will do just that. Those in charge will be very disappointed in the military’s selection of targets, though, since it will probably start at the steps of the US Capitol, and proceed down the street to the White House. Deducing that doesn’t take a lot of brain cells, which means no one will authorize issuing weapons of any kind to highly trained soldiers who oppose the government’s tyranny. Eventually, I’d guess, field commanders will issue them anyway, after which the war will be over except for the executions.

        5. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “It used to be muskets vs muskets. Now it’s slightly better muskets vs Apache, Abrams and A10.”

          Oh, please.

          Just how long do you think those military bases can last when their power lines are cut by hunting rifles many miles from the base, when semi-trucks of food and fuel stop attempting to resupply them?

          The advantage is *always* on the insurgent’s side…

        6. avatar JasonM says:

          I’ll throw in my two cents:

          During the Revolution, there was not overwhelming support for expelling the British. The majority didn’t care much either way. A significant percentage supported the crown (they mostly moved to Canada and Florida after the war). And the original drive for the war was just to get the British to agree to some terms (Benedict Arnold switched sides after the British agreed to those terms, but the congress rejected the agreement).

          All it takes is a very vocal minority to push an entire country into serious change.

          And the people who mention ISIS and the Taliban are correct. We could also throw Vietnam and every other colony that gained independence from the western powers in that list. No army can control a population that wants to be free of that army for very long.

  4. avatar gs650g says:

    If CT is an indicator compliance will be thin at best.

    1. avatar Chier DuChien says:

      Persons with families to support are risking major damage if they are caught with illegal firearms. The legal costs alone will wreck your financial situation. Lose your job, sell the house and no college for the kids, either. Your own neighbors will report you to get the reward.

      1. avatar HP says:

        That’s a fear, though it hasn’t actually happened. At least not yet.
        Go ahead and outlaw certain types of firearms. That doesn’t mean the guns are turned in. It means they stay hidden in a closet.

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        … and those neighbors will wake up with an extra hole in their heads. I have a low tolerance for collaborators.

        1. avatar James in AZ says:

          Yes

          Make an example of the first mole.

          Better kill the whole family and lay ’em on the street

          Seriously

      3. avatar Wiregrass says:

        Not in my neighborhood.

      4. avatar gs650g says:

        People with several kids and baby mommas aren’t worried about consequences.

  5. avatar jans says:

    We POTG must support and disseminate the concept of jury nullification. This works to nullify bad laws and prosecutorial and police abuse on a case by case basis. It is the reason the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers is in the Bill of Rights. Judges do not inform jury members of their duty to judge the law as well as the offense. And people have gone to jail for passing out panphlets explaining that right.

    1. avatar Chier DuChien says:

      You folks are not thinking ahead.

      Jury nullifiers will return home from their court service to find their home being searched by BATFE.

      The BATFE will round up all those Form 4473’s and know exactly where to look for guns. All those people who posted photos and details of their cute rigs on ArfCom or made comments here will be hunted down and disarmed pretty quickly.

      1. avatar Vv ind says:

        By whom? 3 or 4 LEOs get hurt or heavenforbid, killed, during the first day of ‘confiscations’. They quickly realize they don’t really stand a chance. Everyone goes their separate ways, mass civil disobedience ensues..publicly and without much fear

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Absolutely, PRECISELY correct. Assuming anybody is stupid enough to even attempt it in the first place. 500,000 cops vs 80 million gunowners, whose names and addresses are unknown? Good luck with that.

      2. avatar gs650g says:

        Your posts seem to indicate you’re a fan of confiscation and that you have a misplaced confidence in the ability to actually carry it out. Do you think the government is managed well enough to embark on a 4473 expedition?

        1. avatar Vv ind says:

          I think you misread, try again. You said ‘posts’ meaning plural, please cite my other posts supporting confiscation. Thanks, I’ll wait patiently

        2. avatar Vv ind says:

          You were aimed at chier, my bad

      3. avatar HP says:

        There aren’t enough agents in the ATF to look at 4473’s and round up guns. There aren’t enough members of the entire law enforcement community to do that. There aren’t even enough members of the military to do that. All of them combined would still be woefully insufficient to do that. The door to door confiscation thing will just never, ever happen. Not because the statists don’t want it to, but because it’s physically impossible.

  6. avatar Smith says:

    I would guess easily a third of the police and the military would be solidly on our side. In places like Wyoming, Alaska, etc, people who openly supported confiscation would be a small minority.

    1. avatar James in AZ says:

      Ensuring the military and local law enforcement wont turn on us is much much more important than whatever guns, ammo, or constitutional rights stuff

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Pretty sure most would be a small, dead minority pretty quickly.

  7. avatar ptrog says:

    yes we do and i think its because of the internet and people being able to instantly fact check.

  8. avatar Steve says:

    Too bad we’re going to lose what should have been the easiest presidential win…

    A vote for Trump is a vote for Clinton, period.

    1. avatar gs650g says:

      Have a little more faith my friend

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      Quit dreaming. Trump will steamroller the Hitlary. Cruz, on the other hand, is in the pocket of the banks just like the liberals’ fearless leader.

      1. avatar Steve says:

        Steamoll? Have you seen ANY of the current polls? Trump loses every damn time by wide margins.

        Who does the GOP put up against the 2nd most disliked candidate in US election history (Clinton)? The SINGLE most disliked candidate in US election history: Trump.

        1. avatar Mack Bolan says:

          The GOP has spent more money attacking Trump then they have spent on propping up all of the establishment candidates combined. The only person to blame for a GOP loss this election is the party itself. May it forever rot like the collection of shitebag, globalist, babyboomer fvcks it represents.

          The aforementioned vitriol goes likewise to the Cuckservatives for Clinton camp AKA #NeverTrump

          As for your claim that Trump loses in the general to Clinton, is a meme popularized by the same sackless morons mentioned above. Trump beats Clinton easily in the general.

          Why? Because working class men will not vote for Hillary. They will line up behind Trump because they want to keep their jobs and their guns and in general, be men. Sanders voters will simply stay home. There simply aren’t enough feminazi’s, old hippies, and illegals left to carry Hillary to the White House.

        2. avatar SteveInCO says:

          @Mack

          Have you got ANYTHING whatsoever to back up your thinking on how the general election would go (other than bullshit being slung around in a Trumproid echo chamber)?

          I didn’t think so.

          Not one single scientific poll, taken of randomly sampled Americans (rather than self-selected ones in an echo chamber) shows Trump having a prayer of a chance against Hillary. You can poll your internet buddies all you want, and decide you know how broad demographic groups are going to vote…but that’s all utterly worthless.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Polls are bullshit composed by the highest bidder. Meaningless. There is a furious attempt to keep Trump from being the candidate, with George Soros going so far as to fund a candidate with zero chance, just to attempt to keep Trump from amassing 1237, so that the nomination can be bought by/for someone else. Soros is not doing that because Trump would lose to Hillary, he is the one spreading this manure, he knows better than to believe it.

        4. avatar Geoff PR says:

          @SteveInCO

          Look at what has been happening in the primaries.

          Democrat turnout has been much *lower* than normal, while Repub turnout is much *higher*.

          Trump is attracting blue-collar Dems by the *millions*. They’re not interested in what the Dems are selling.

          If the HildaBeast is the Dem nominee, expect Dem turnout to be far lower. The kids want Bernie. No Bernie, the Dem kids stay home.

          I fully expect the RNC to deny Trump. Then all Hell breaks loose…

        5. avatar Steve says:

          Fine, let’s make a bet.

          If Trump beats Hillary, I’ll run around naked and donate money to Trumps re-election.

          If Hillary beats Trump, you admit that you were wrong and you helped elect an anti-gun democrat in to office for at minimum of 4 years, and any gun control passed at the federal level is to be blamed on those who supported Trump in the primaries.

        6. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Seriously, alleging that poling data is faked at Soros’ request is all you’ve got?

          It’s true that some blue collar dems are crossing over to vote for him, but is it enough? The polling data indicates no.

          Besides…it’s just barely possible they’re doing that to sabotage the GOP, just as many conservatives crossed the line in ’08 to vote for Hitlary.

          Like I said, you all have offered NO proof, just speculation. The polls are real evidence…so you have to make allegations about them as well in order to make a “case.”

  9. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    Woo-the donald is owned by banks. How do you manage 4 BK’s without complicity? Snake oil salesman at BEST. Ted Cruz has done everything he said he would. AND the only candidate I trust on GUNS. Period. Anyway thanks to my gubmint check I’m stocking up…I got nothing to lose.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      So the fact that his wife WORKS FOR Goldman Sachs is completely irrelevant? Really?

      Cruz has flip-flopped on immigration so many times, I don’t even know what his current position is.

      As for Trump… Please tell me more about how someone who has taken not $1 from banks for his campaign (unlike Cruz) is beholden to them.

      1. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

        I can’t even sell insurance with a BK-I should trust someone who mismanaged his gambling establishments/ hotels/hiring illegal Polish workers? Donnie stands for NOTHING-except donnie. I’m just fine with Heidi having a brain. Instead of just a pair of pouty lips…not that having a good looking wife is bad. I got one…

      2. avatar peirsonb says:

        At the very least Trump is beholden to banks the same way we all are. Unless your assets are 100% buried in mayonnaise jars one keystroke can seriously damage your calm.

        Not to mention the havoc the IRS can wreak in your life.

      3. avatar Mack Bolan says:

        People overlook the truth so they can believe the lies they keep telling themselves.

        Cruz is bought and paid for. Much like the hookers he liked to frequent in DC.

        1. avatar Accur81 says:

          Cruz stood firmly against Obamacare and for the 2nd Amendment. There is no politician in the race closer to him on the Constitution. I supported Rand Paul, who is also hard core pro gun and pro Constitution, but he’s well out of the race.

          Every politician has influences and financial interests. Few support and defend the Constitution in both word and deed. Cruz does.

  10. avatar wrightl3 says:

    The hilldabeast can’t take all of the 400 million guns in this country.

  11. avatar DerryM says:

    In order to do any serious damage Hildabeast would have to win the Presidency and the Demoncrats would have to win control of Congress. Either eventuality is preventable and preventing both is very possible. With gun sales at record levels over the past few years and the very real threat of Muslim terrorist attacks within the Continental 48, the American People are not going to stand for being disarmed.
    Talk of a new civil war is problematic, BUT if some contiguous States were to defy a Federal attempt to disarm us, it might become feasiblet. Things are generally so vastly different than in 1860 that I think it would require several States to “rebel” by outright refusing to comply with any Federal Confiscation Law one might conceive of. A new civil war needs a geographical focal point possibly more than a political focal point. There are so many “ifs” and variables that I have trouble seeing it happen and don’t really want it to when the simple answer is to vote against the Democrats everywhere possible and try to buy some time to see if we can get out of the morass the Obama Administration has created.
    BTW- have you seen good ol’ Ted Nugent’s viral list of reasons to vote for Trump?
    If not check here : https://www.intellihub.com/ted-nugents-20-reasons-to-vote-for-trump-goes-viral-liberals-terrified/

    Nugent is not endorsing Trump, but his list will make you nod in agreement because Ted effing nails it!

    1. avatar Alejandro says:

      You say possibility of terror attacks, but there have ALREADY been attacks in cali, attempted attacks in texas, and others.

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        Yep, I should have written the “possibility of further terror attacks” and probably should have written “the certainty of further terror attacks”.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      That is a pretty strong case for Trump!

  12. avatar RCC says:

    Figures here in Australia are that there are now more legal firearms than before the ban. Of the 600 000 handed in about 250 000 were semi auto.

    Estimates are that somewhere between one and three million were never handed in and all the bans did was make a lot of law abiding people into criminals if they are ever caught

    As I have said before here I don’t like the current laws but if banners get their way it is hard to get things reversed

  13. avatar Sam I Am says:

    I would love to jump on this as encouragement, but just yesterday Investor’s Business Daily reported Smith&Wesson and Ruger sales are tanking. While background checks are up a bit, declines in sales of handguns (down 13..%) and long guns (down 8%) were the weakest in the last decade. Stocks are being downgraded by analysts. Those guys have way more data to indicate trends than the gun industry has. Think I’ll stay with the projections of stock analysts to indicate the direction of gun rights.
    http://www.investors.com/news/smith-wesson-shares-plummet-xx-cut-key-level-on-downgrades/

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Interesting story. Is there something else, besides guns and licenses, that causes NICS checks? Because if not, I fail to see how continuing all-time record numbers of checks can result from declining sales.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Police can run NICS checks for a number of reasons that deal with people rather than gun purchases or CCW cards. Federal agencies use NICS to review job applicants and for security clearances. The NICS itself does not identify the purpose, only the agent requesting. Don’t think there is any gun industry member who would venture that NICS checks are some sort of proxy for gun sales.

        The analysts views are predicated on inventory levels across the country, and production capacity compared to actual production. The article pointed out that one of the most important factors in the analysts’ view is the near complete draw-down of inventory, with no ramp-up in production to accommodate a gun buy rate equivalent to the last 12 months. As an investor, one would expect to see a company build ahead of anticipated sales because stock-outs lead to alternative sales for competitors who are properly situated to handle a demand increase.

      2. avatar Raoul Duke says:

        Not everyone is buying a new gun. With how durable and long lasting guns are there are still millions of used ones around that people are still buying and selling.

  14. avatar Accur81 says:

    If Hillary is elected, she’ll appoint anti-gun justices. Incremental gun control will continue. Confiscation programs, which already exist in CA, will grow and expand. Gun grabbers are evil and patient. Some of them are even aware that many civilians are better shooters than government employees, and that some government employees are are disturbingly patriotic. Some might even dare to question or refuse orders!

    Hazards and costs for gun ownership will increase at every turn, and anti-gunners will continue to celebrate every school shooting as “proof” that all civilian gun owners are terrorists. Defensive and legitimate gun uses will be categorically ignored.

    Ironically, a Ted Cruz victory would likely results in a decline of gun sales. Gun rights would be relatively safe and would likely expand. NRA and other donations would likely decline.

    I have the audacity and hope that Ted Cruz will win. If not I’m voting for Trump or as far from Hillary as possible.

  15. avatar jandrews says:

    The situation in the Middle East and Europe WOULD lead any reasonable person to support the individual right to bear arms.

    Too bad there are plenty of unreasonables out there.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Gun Advocates Have the Edge http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/04/daniel-zimmerman/quote-day-71-12/" title="Email to a friend/colleague">
button to share via email