As the Election Nears, Americans Continue to Buy Guns by the Millions

FBI nics background sept 2020

Courtesy FBI

It’s no longer surprising each month when the FBI issues its monthly report of the number of National Instant Check System background checks they’ve done the previous month. Since the beginning of the pandemic — and then accelerating in may when social unrest spread nationwide — Americans have been buying guns faster than any time in history.

The National Shooting Sports hasn’t yet come out with their official adjusted background check number that’s a good indicator of gun sales for September (the FBI’s NICS totals do not equal gun sales) but the NSSF’s Mark Oliva told us this:

NSSF’s September 2020 adjusted NICS figures are 1.6 million, a 61 percent increase over September 2019, where figures came in at just over 1 million. This elevated trend is in keeping with what the firearm industry has witnessed since March, when adjusted NICS figures topped 2.3 million, an all-time one-month record.

Since then, NICS figures have been between 1.6 and 2.1 million. At this pace, it is possible we could witness more than 20 million background checks for the sale of a firearm in 2020, widely eclipsing the strongest year on record of 2016, when 15.7 million background checks were conducted for the sale of firearm.

This indicates that there is a continued desire for Americans to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. It’s plausible that this number could actually have been higher, but inventories are low due to months of sustained high demand.

This has been a year unlike any other, where law-abiding Americans are seeing for themselves the need to be able to protect themselves and their families. September also brought with it increased attention by voters to the two presidential candidates. It cannot be discounted that threats by Joe Biden to confiscate, ban, register and regulate out of existence the firearms American want the most are driving sales.

Background checks for firearm sales typically rise during election years in response to threats of gun control. As previously stated, this is a year unlike any other and voters are faced with a choice unlike any other. On one hand is a candidate who has stood for preserving Second Amendment rights. On the other, is a candidate who is on the record as backing forcible confiscation of lawfully owned firearms. The biggest threat to Second Amendment rights today is Joe Biden and gun buyers are reacting to that threat.

 

 

 

comments

  1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    And why not, what with the DemoCommies doing all they can to destroy the Constitution and the republic,thru any and all means necessary.
    2020 will become known as the year of the awakening and run on arms and ammunition.

  2. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

    “…. It’s plausible that this number could actually have been higher, but inventories are low due to months of sustained high demand……”

    Dan I think this is a very important point. I’d bet that if the LGS shelves were full of $560 Glocks, $500 AR’s and $400 shotguns the sale numbers could be double what they are.

    The gun stores are full of people trying to buy guns that are simply not in stock and not available for backorder.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Klaus

      Count on it, you nailed it, no toys left at the toy store and yes they are also out of battery’s for the toys.

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        Went to my favorite LGS yesterday. They had a ton of 9mm the day before. Yesterday nothing(I was curious-don’t need any!) Had a few guns at somewhat reasonable prices. Including cheaper Tauruses. I’m sure they’re gone already…I hope they don’t vote DIM😕😕😕

    2. Agree. The number of guns sold could have been a good 50% higher if shelves had been full. If not more.

      1. avatar Debbie W. says:

        We attended a recent Gun Show and the prices for everything were just too high. I was shopping for a Sarsiimaz Sar 9 which is a budget Glock and none were found so I ordered one at a good price. After the purchase price, shipping and FFL transfer the total is around $375.00. That’s $204 less than the walkout price for a Gen 4 Glock 17 at Academy. TTAG Sar 9 review was not so great while other reviews are more positive. If the link below works just focus on the gun.

        https://youtu.be/l1Jwbu9JlvQ

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          What language is that?

        2. avatar Debbie W. says:

          It’s Turkish, Sarsilmaz HQ is in Turkey.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It’s Turkish, Sarsilmaz HQ is in Turkey.”

          Talk about complexities. Turkey is officially an Islamic (Mohamedian) state. Turkey is officially a member of Nato. Greece is a member of NATO. The US is a member of NATO. Turkey buys weapons from Russia. Turkey buys weapons from the US.

          I would not consider spending a dime on products made or assembled in Turkey (or any other Islamic country).

          https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-france-turkey-analysis-idUSKBN2481K5

          https://www.newsmax.com/marekjanchodakiewicz/greece-turkey-nato/2020/09/18/id/987571/

          https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/01/turkey-case-study-whats-wrong-nato/

          https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/turkey-greece-ancient-rivalry-matters-now-victor-davis-hanson

        4. avatar Debbie W. says:

          Sambo sez….”I would not consider spending a dime on products made or assembled in Turkey (or any other Islamic country”.

          You are talking Turkey I am talking Sarsilmaz. The US Military buys weapons from Salsilmaz. A very old established company and now with a USA based facility in AL.

          Are you in a habit of going negative? If it’s not a laundry list of crap about Lincoln it’s products from Turkey. Do not exclude throwing China, Russia, etc. in the pot. While you’re at it throw the device you use to post here in the trash too since it’s most likely made in China. And if you own a Kalashnikov, etc. throw that in the trash too.
          Furthermore… Two years into the Civil War and presto, chango on a dime “Slavery” just popped up out of nowhere. Never during the fist 2 years of the Civil War was slavery any issue even though the Republican Party began years before because of slavery and of course Lincoln was a Republican. You musta forgot to factor in anything that takes the wind out of your silly sails.

          Everyone under the sun uses Glocks including drug dealers, terrorists, bad guys, etc. That does not stop good guys from using Glocks. Furthermore…If anyone wants to criticize Lincoln like a democRat call Mark Levin and discuss it with him. And like I said…Good Luck With That.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The US Military buys weapons from Salsilmaz. A very old established company and now with a USA based facility in AL.”

          And that makes it OK to prosper what will soon be a radical Islamic country?

          The US Army buys their berets from Communist China, through a British front.

          My money, my choice of who to prosper. All the profits from the US agent of Salsilmaz got to the parent company; its how things work. I wouldn’t buy Canik, either.

          Oh yeah, I used to work for a US defense company who subcontracted work to Turkey (when it was still a secular government).

          My money, my choice. No need to provide justification beyond that.

        6. avatar possum says:

          Sarssimaz is the word I said when I rubbed a magic lamp., But before the thing could answer me, someone came and took the lamp away, I looked , around, a lousy candle’s all I found. Sarssimaz, sarssimaz, where art thou?

    3. avatar BLAMMO!! says:

      Who wants to be the one standing in the middle of a sold out, empty gun store while everyone outside is strapped?

      1. avatar GunnyGene says:

        Good point. 🙂

    4. avatar NJ2AZ says:

      plus factor in however many guns were sold to CCW holders where the store didn’t have to ping the bgc system

      1. avatar Mercury says:

        Never understood why the NSSF bothers subtracting non-sales NICS codes when most of those are for permitting, and it’s a safe bet that permit holders collectively buy on average at least one gun per holder per year. On paper they’re trying to make the data more accurately reflect sales figures, but we can all agree they’ve done exactly the opposite and had a closer numerical correlation to sales before altering the data.

    5. avatar Sivartius says:

      Now mostly what’s left is high-end weapons. That being said, here in Idaho the LGS has more than a half dozen ARs in stock (though they may be higher end ones, I didn’t check, plus plenty of rifles & some handguns. The local Sportsman’s warehouse is pretty much the same, but a little more. Handguns are what are really flying off the shelves here. That & ammo.

  3. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    What are they buying? My last range trip I walked past the gun counter 2 $1500 HKs left and some overpriced beat up M1a’s in the rifle case. It was the first time this range had more pistols for rent then the entire inventory.

  4. avatar jwm says:

    As recently as a year ago I scoffed at the idea of a CW2. Now I’m not so sure. The fascist, hate filled left is pushing as hard as they can for violence.

    They are going to be sorry when they get what they pushed for. We need to take lessons to heart from the failures of the first CW. Lincoln pushed for healing the nation. Reuniting. As a result we have statues in places of honor of men that were essentially traitors.

    If CW2 jumps off we need to replace the statues with places of public executions for the leftist traitors that caused it.

    Healing can come after the cancer is cut out.

    1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

      You’d better be careful about that. Lincoln avoided a never ending simmering insurrection by honoring the south and taking an attitude of reconciliation. The men who fought for the CSA were not traitors. They were not trying to seize control of the existing government or undermine it in service to some foreign power. They were trying to exercise the same right of secession claimed by the 13 colonies when they revolted against England. If you want to condemn Lee and the rest then you also must condemn Washington, Jefferson, et al on the same grounds.

      As far as executing traitors, a lot of us on your side in CW 2 will not stand by and watch you execute people merely for their beliefs. You damn well better have some evidence that they were combatants or materially supported combatants.

      The goal will be to restore the constitutional federal republic, perhaps with a few more safeguards added to prevent a repeat of what has happened. It will not be to kill all of those who don’t fully agree, and many of us are prepared to use violence to that as much as to stop communism.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        If there is to be a CWII,this time it won’t be between the north and south it will be between Marxist’s and Americans.

        1. avatar Martyn says:

          It’s not Marxists who are the problem. Karl Marx said, “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.” That’s the essence of the 2A right there.

          The Democrats are statists, not true socialists.

      2. avatar jwm says:

        They’re not trying to secede. They’re trying to overthrow. The very meaning of treason.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          “They’re trying to overthrow.”

          They’ve been very open about their plans to create a permanent political majority. Every decision made by Congress should be about what’s best for the country. Democrats are for whatever is best for The Party.

      3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “As far as executing traitors, a lot of us on your side in CW 2 will not stand by and watch you execute people merely for their beliefs.”

        Re-read what JWM wrote, with an emphasis on comprehension.

        OK?

        Whoever gives the orders to violate civil rights has proven by their actions their guilt. It wasn’t an ‘idea’, it was an *action*… 🙂

      4. avatar jwm says:

        Crimson. Washington and the rest were condemnd as traitors. They were subjects of the crown. Washington even served as an officer for the British in the French and Indian wars. I don’t remember ever hearing of any statues in their honor in England. And if they had failed they most certainly would have hanged.

        1. avatar Mercury says:

          Then your argument is that the States and their residents are subjects of the Federal Government in the way the colonies and colonists were subjects of the British crown? You may want to rethink that position.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Then your argument is that the States and their residents are subjects of the Federal Government in the way the colonies and colonists were subjects of the British crown?”

          Actually, you are correct. We the People have devolved to the condition that the federal government us self-established, self-sustaining. The states (small “s” intentional) are simply precincts of the sole sovereign national government). The concept of sovereign states whom the federal government serves is too bizarre and complicated to manage day-to-day.

          Where the Constitution declares that laws processed through the national legislature and signed by the president take precedent over state law, you have a joint fracture. When the central committe decides to regulate every aspect of life for the individual, states are essentially superfluous. If the central committee will rule over the populace and issue all the applicable laws, what is the remaining purpose of the states, except as agents of enforcing federal rule?

    2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      “…..Lincoln pushed for healing the nation. Reuniting. As a result we have statues in places of honor of men that were essentially traitors….”

      Desiring to withdraw from a voluntary union does not make one a traitor.

      Nor was slavery more than a side issue after two years of conflict.

      It was about money and power. That’s the only thing Lincoln wanted.

      1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        More truth not taught because of history being rewritten.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “More truth not taught because of history being rewritten.”

          That is a factor, certainly. However, to understand what was really going on (which forwarned events today) requires one to be able to consider more than one idea at a time, and complex ideas at that.

          You would perhaps be amazed at the number of people, even “boomers” who do not know that four slave-holding states remained in the union throughout the war.

      2. avatar John Bryan says:

        It certainly was about money and power – money and power derived from buying, selling, and owning human beings. Without the South’s addiction to their “peculiar institution” the likelihood of the Civil War occurring would have been rather small. Regardless of whatever cherry picking you care to do over Lincoln’s quotes about abolition the fact that his election was the touchhole for sparking succession pretty much tells us what the Southern leaders thought his presidency represented.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          “It certainly was about money and power”

          Correct. Money and power, not race. Why did some black Americans own black slaves? Answer: because they could. They had the money and the power to do so. Why did black Africans sell other black Africans? Answer: because those future slaves were often captured enemies. Why did white industrialists in America practically enslave white immigrants and their children? Because they could. Because they profited from it. It’s ALWAYS about money and power. Race was merely an excuse.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “… the fact that his election was the touchhole for sparking succession pretty much tells us what the Southern leaders thought his presidency represented.”

          Yes, Lincoln’s potential acquiesence to unconstitutional legislation regulating slavery; he would sign such legislation.

          One cannot take the 1860 inaguration of Lincoln as the starting point for the the move to secession. There is a decade of federal government attempts to control what the constitution did not specifically authorize….abolishment of slavery.

          Whether slavery was good or bad is irrelevant in a “nation of laws, not men”. What did the law establish or permit? The “supreme law of the land”, the Constitution, literally makes no statement regarding slavery. Thus, in a constitutional republic, in order for the central government to regulate/abolish slavery, a constitutional amendment was required. The abolitionist movement would have none of that, and attempted many devices to regulate the matter, each of them unconstitutional as related to federal control over slavery in every state.

          The States retained to power to regulate slavery, entirely. Some States abolished slavery inside their borders, some did not. This is the essance of federalism, and precisely as envisioned by the founders (the amendment process was the vehicle provided for the eventual ending of slavery).

          Since the abolitionist States had no power to extend abolition to all the stages via force of national legislation, but the intent was clear, the slave States faced a decision, one factor going all the way back to the actual idea of a voluntary constitutional republic. “Is the constitution a one-way affair?” That is, are States obligated to remain in a compact that is being suborned by other States? That question was settled not according to law, but to force of arms (abolition of slavery was not “settled” until ten months after the end of CW2, the 13th Amendment).

          As an exercise, let’s begin with the 13th Amendment, and suppose that an actual war had not arisen. Now, if several states decide that even though the amendment process was conducted properly, are they obligated to remain in compact with States with whom they have visceral disagreement? If yes, by what justification contained within the compact? If no, what is the process for withdrawing from the compact? Unfortunately, we can never really know. Rather than adjudicate the matter in the federal courts/Supreme Court, the “Southern” States simply declared themselves independent of the United States. Then those States made the critical error of trying to enforce their independence by force of arms.

          As odd as it sounds, “the North” determined, after victory in the war over secession, that a constitutional amendment was necessary. If “the North” really believed that mere national legislation was sufficient means to abolish slavery, why the need for an amendment doing so…only after war victory was complete? Indeed, if national legislation, other than an amemdment, was a legitimate exercise of federal power, why was that power not invoked to establish “Prohibition”?

          For some reason, it was decided the only proper means of declaring a nation-wide ban on consumption of alcohol was via a constitutional amendment. The take away? Slavery was really bad, so only legislation was necessary to end it, but demon rum was not so bad as slavery thus a constitutional amendment was required.

        3. avatar jwm says:

          Sam. The constitution did not ban slavery? So that means that we can bring slavery back? Interesting concept.

          Default on your student loans, into chains you go.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The constitution did not ban slavery? So that means that we can bring slavery back? Interesting concept.”

          Correct. The constitution does not mention “slavery” at all. The first ten amendments did not mention slavery. Nor the eleventh or twelfth. It was/is the 13th that abolishes slavery. The contemporary answer to your statement is, no, we cannot just “bring back slavery”.

          However….

          The 13th Amendment is a result of a political process contained in the base document of the Constitution. Therefore, it is still legally possible to institute slavery by repealing the 13th Amendment. Doing so would bring about an entertaining moment, as various interests try to have the repeal overturned by the SC. What fun. Delcaring that the constitutional process of ratifying an amendment is unconstitutional. The courts would use the justification that the motive for repeal was abhorent to the spirit of the constitution, therefore the repeal is unconstitutional. Even more fun. Declaring that the Constitution requires acceptable motive as an element of ratifying an amendment.

        5. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          Tariff of 1828 or ‘The tariff of abominations’, which ever you prefer to call it, is another good starting point to learn about some of the reasons for conflict in 1860.

        6. avatar Edwin schrade says:

          Lost in history, the North were the first to have slaves.

      3. avatar Debbie W. says:

        democRats and their useful idiots are always trying to rewrite history. If it’s not Lincoln being a money hungry self-server or the Civil War wasn’t nothing about slavery it’s something else. Anyone can say and twist anything they want for political gain. All I can say is it took one hell of a man to pen the Gettysburg Address. And Blacks were unbelievably thankful to Lincoln for the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War therefore slavery was a component of the Civil War.

        The big problem ignored today? Black Americans belonging to the democRat Party makes as much sense as Jews belonging to the nazi party. Perhaps 200 years from now Americans will look back on this time and wonder why The Party of Lincoln sat around and allowed the descendants of slaves to be suckerd in by the democRat Party and worse, allowed the insanity to ever continue?

        Anyone who wishes to bad mouth Lincoln should call Mark Levin and make their case. Good Luck With That.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “And Blacks were unbelievably thankful to Lincoln for the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation”

          The proclamation freed exactly no one, not even in the four slave states that remained in the union. The proclamation applied only to the seceded States because Lincoln could legally declare martial law in those states (even though a martial law decaration was unenforceable).

          Slavery was not “an issue” until two years into the war. The original justification was that the union was inviolable, no State could simply dissolve their participation. Note that a way was unnecessary to abolish slavery; a constitutional amendment would do nicely. Wonder why that didn’t happen until December 1865?

          Note: the constitutinal issue that led to secession could just as easily be the legislative banning of firearms in private hands, because a repealing or modifying the Second Amendment did not have enough votes.

        2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          @Debbie..

          “…thankful to Lincoln for the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War therefore slavery was a component of the Civil War…”

          A war time measure to induce slaves behind enemy lines to revolt. Lincoln wanted to create another front in the ongoing conflict. Pawns in the bigger scheme of things.

          Question-How many former slaves died of starvation after slavery ended and why did lincoln not care?

          I certainly am no democrat party member, but you know who would be if he were alive?

          The mad dictator himself..lincoln. He is not the person you were taught about. That person is a myth.

          And Mark Levine is wrong on this subject. I’ve heard him rant before..meh.

      4. avatar possum says:

        King Cotton and free market restraints

    3. avatar Phantom30 says:

      Think about it, this will not be a civil war (CW2) it will be a revolutionary war (RW2). These people are characterized as those who want to over throw the Constitutional Republic. This is treasonous and worthy of the fullest capital punishment. The threat of these cowards will devolve into ambushes and sniping where they are at least risk from armed citizen. The counter is surveillance, but that also devolves into a tyrannical enforcement architecture. Or, things must be well in neighborhoods using integrated watch networks. Lots of things to think about. Being full armed and ready is only part of the problem. Having drones, watch cameras, trip lighting, and communication are still important parts of move, shoot and communicate. All this enables counter snipers. These functions apply in all neighborhoods, urban, suburban, and rural. People think rural is a sanctuary. Not really, a single house in a rural area is very easy to compromise with a couple flanking snipers.

      1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        Some of the most horrific home invasions I have ever heard about happened in remote “sanctuaries”. Quiet and remote also means help will never know unless you tell them and will take a long time in arriving. Also unless you are running a compound with fully manned watches good luck detecting the average wandering meth zombie let alone someone who has a rudimentary understanding of maps and observation. Not that city and suburban settings are any safer if things go bad.

        1. avatar LazrBeam says:

          I’m thinking some appropriately placed Claymore’s would be handy but, hey, that’s just me.

        2. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          If not for the pesky legal issues I would advise toe poppers over claymores for perimeter defense. Less cleanup more easily maintained and if you ever want to know who is snooping around just check out what’s hopping.

        3. avatar Phantom30 says:

          Exactly, it takes eight people to stand watch, even with electronic surveillance.
          As for toe poppers and clay mores. A blank shotgun shell trip wire will work and is legal in some states
          Post EMP is when it really gets hard.

  5. avatar Mad Max says:

    Heck, even reloading supplies and percussuon caps (!) are in short supply.

    The five mail order places (well known sites) that I usually buy reloading supplies from were all out of large and small rifle and pistol primers from all manufacturers when I looked on Thursday. Just about all primers except .50 BMG were sold out.

    Y’all think somerhing’s a commin’? /s

    1. avatar RGP says:

      And the reloading components are being bought by people who don’t reload. Check the listings on Guns America or Gun Broker etc… Primers are available online if you want to spit out $250 or more for a carton of 1000.

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        Fortunately I am very well-stocked and, if I remember correctly, primers were $35/1,000.

        Got plenty of factory ammo on-hand (I’m told I have enough for a battalion) and reloading supplies on hand.

        I’m interested in finding out how command, control, and comms will work after the SHTF. Something is comming but I don’t understand how an organizational structure will materialize and evolve.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          Consider it to be ad-hoc.

          Who do you trust locally? Organize with them…

    2. avatar GunnyGene says:

      There’s always another war on the horizon.

      ****************************

      Through a Glass, Darkly (Patton):

      “So forever in the future,
      Shall I battle as of yore,
      Dying to be born a fighter,
      But to die again, once more.”

    3. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Short supply?…more like no supply.

      I am hoping by Dec time frame that the selves start to be replenished.

      Never seen anything like this.

      1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        2008, 2012 for the overall pattern but it is a wider population this time around.

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          Even during those times I could find shotgun reloading supplies.

          People have hoarded primers and selling them on gun broker. Is worse than the .22 hoarders this time around.

        2. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          Primers I can find in small amounts as well as powder. Bullets in common calibers and desired grain weights are getting to be unobtainioum.

  6. avatar RGP says:

    Most of the people I’ve seen at the local gun shop for the past couple of months who are buying everything in sight are the same crowd that stocked up on toilet paper then tried to sell it for $20 a roll. A lot of them don’t actually know anything about what they’re buying, they just want to sell it for a profit.

    1. avatar Prndll says:

      Is there any doubt of black market potential?

  7. avatar John in FL says:

    JWM said “As recently as a year ago I scoffed at the idea of a CW2. Now I’m not so sure. The fascist, hate filled left is pushing as hard as they can for violence.”

    Place me in the same category, sad to say.
    I’ve been trying to explain to relatives that Antifa IS an org, and providing historical context for their existence.
    The replies have been “Oh, that was the 1920s, and these aren’t the same people.”

    Um… they have the same flag, the same messages, the same stated goals. Do you REALLY believe that 100 years later, someone accidentally picked the same flag as the 1920s? The SAME NAME? Heck of a coincidence, don’t you think?

    So, I’m a student of history AND forward thinker, and see WAY more parallels between 2020 and 1920 than I’d like to. China is extremely troubling, and my view is that we are currently in the appeasement mode.

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      And there were lots of SJWs and similar goings on in the United States in the 1930s. Lots of Nazi and Fascist sympathizers and, of course, Father Couglin.

      We aren’t too far off from world wide conflict with the US likely fighting a civil war before, during, and/or after that world wide conflict.

      History is rhyming.

  8. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Ok, someone’s gotta do it: C2 was 1861-1865. CW1 was what we call “the American Revolution”. The revolution was not a popular event in the colonies, most people were happy to remain British. There was even a uniformed force of colonists serving the King as part of the British Army in the colonies. The people of the colonies were not united; it was a civil war, with rebels fighting the British Army and other colonists. The “boogaloo” would be CW3.

    After CW1&2, the victors decided not to exterminate the losers. Should we collapse into CW3, I am not encouraged that the aftermath would follow precedent.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Should we collapse into CW3, I am not encouraged that the aftermath would follow precedent.”

      Look at it this way – Traffic will be greatly reduced. Cars, light aircraft, and single-family housing will be plentiful and inexpensive. People will be more polite to each other… 🙂

      1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        a concern of mine is how to identify who is on the side of our constitutional republic and who are the commies. Be a shame if good people that are like minded get killed in friendly fire by mistake.

        1. avatar GunnyGene says:

          All sides in a conflict have the same problem.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Be a shame if good people that are like minded get killed in friendly fire by mistake.”

          As in any national act of retrebution, colleteral damage is just the price of living in the victorious society. “Oooopppss; my bad. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.”

        3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “a concern of mine is how to identify who is on the side of our constitutional republic and who are the commies.”

          In Florida, voter rolls are a public record, available on-line. Names, addresses, and political party are listed… 🙂

      2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        The traffic reduction is the only one of those I’d count on. I’ll more than likely be dead though so I probably won’t complain either way.

      3. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

        Driving to Amalie Arena in a hour or less would be justification enough for me.

        Not really – but it’s a nice thought.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “Driving to Amalie Arena in a hour or less would be justification enough for me.

          Not really – but it’s a nice thought.”

          *snicker*… 😉

        2. avatar jwm says:

          In the case of cw2 arenas will likely be used for POW camps, or staging areas or refugee centers……..

  9. avatar possum says:

    Dicks sold two sets of golf clubs last month

  10. avatar enuf says:

    “Americans Continue to Buy Guns by the Millions”

    Not me, I can’t afford to buy millions. I’ve only bought two guns this year. A Remington R51 on a half price clearance sale (have to admit, it works okay, not a single problem) and a Ruger PC Carbine.

    About eight mags on sale for the R51. I believe in having magazines to spare!!!

    Another ten after-market Glock 30 rounders for the Ruger but I’ve a dozen 17 rounders Ruger SR9 mags for it too.

    Another thousand rounds of 9mm. Didn’t need it, got carried away with that ordering on sale and letting back-order policy at Cabelas/Bass Pro get it to me later, still at the sale price.

    1. avatar LazrBeam says:

      Yes, the R51 is ok but, reassembling that mofo after field stripping is a bitch especially if your fingers have gotten a little oily from lubing.

  11. avatar red wolf says:

    They’ll turn them over to their local police department sometime next Spring, on Biden’s orders.

    1. avatar Void says:

      Perhaps but still voting Trump.

  12. avatar possum says:

    I try to buy my gunms from the back street boyZ, they ain’t got much for sale now.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email