CNN: Trump hurts gun sales
CNN Money reports that Donald Trump being president hurts the gun industry, you know, because he doesn’t appear to be coming for our guns.
Every time there was a gun crime, Obama would blame the legal owners and tried to restrict ownership – and because the Clinton Administration “grandfathered” guns during the assault weapon ban, folks figured that they would stock up on what they thought would be banned, driving demand up, artificially. Since Trump hasn’t made any sudden moves on legal gun owners, no one is stocking up;
Gun makers and sellers favored Trump for president, as did the National Rifle Association. But people stocked up on guns and ammunition because they expected, or at least feared, that Hillary Clinton would win and seek tighter gun control.
But she didn’t win, and gun sales began dropping the next day.
Ruger CEO Christopher Killoy said stores that sell guns were left with inventory they couldn’t get rid of.
“I think there was a big hangover coming out of the election cycle that had to be worked off,” he said on a conference call with analysts.
Yeah, well, I’m sure gun manufacturers are happy that there’s no Hillary cutting into their inventory with new restrictions – like New York’s seven bullet limit on magazines, or California’s “bullet button”. There are lots of reasons o be upset with Trump, but the fact that he’s hurting gun sales isn’t one of them.
Besides, some of us have all the guns and ammo that we need. Time for prices to go back down.
Category: Guns
Guns? What guns? I don’t own any guns….
I used to have some guns, but there was this terrible boating accident and they all were lost.
Such a shame too.
MAYBE it’s time for me to buy some guns to replace the ones in my collection that were lost in a lake…
What’s wrong with a slingshot? Or hornet spray?
Paint stripper in a can. Hit somebody with that and there will be an immediate need for them to break contact.
36oz ash wood Louisville slugger, Willie Mays signature model, works for me for the last 40+ years, I still can be the free swinger of my youth, when necessary.
there are many places a woman can take a spray can she isn’t going to be able to as a matter of practicality take a baseball bat.
A sturdy cane would be more practical. Hapkido has a whole subsection of technique devoted to the use of a cane for self defense.
In addition to wearing my Ruger “Security Six” .357 magnum service revolver, I also use a Cold Steel sword cane when walking, and I have both of those items with me when I’m riding in my Powered Mobility Cart.
The Cold Steel sword cane is no toy.
It looks innocent, just like any other cane, but it’s heavier.
The sword is very stout, and it’s designed so that both the sword and its scabbard can be simultaneously employed in combat.
There is a You Tube video demonstrating the capability of the Cold Steel sword cane.
Hopefully, I’ll never have to use either my service revolver or my sword cane.
When I go to Scottish functions where I’m attired in my kilt, I carry a traditional Highland cromach (i.e., a long, stout walking stick), and of course, as part of my Highland regalia, I’m wearing my sgian dubh, dirk, and baskethilt broadsword.
Bingo. A cane can go anywhere you can go. Most folks won’t look at it twice.
And a cane, properly applied, is a number ten can of whoopass.
Downside? They are predator magnets. Of course, that also implies “hunting over bait”…
“Downside? They are predator magnets. Of course, that also implies “hunting over bait”…”
Yeah that’s a consideration. Walking as though one is fully aware and upright, not presenting the cane as an indication of vulnerability would help decrease the possible invitation it sends.
Something to consider when recommending them, anyway.
Those of us who on occasion need them do not necessarily get to choose how they present. But one can certainly exploit that appearance.
Also, LEOs can on occasion become somewhat churlish if one walks self-assuredly with the the cane over the shoulder, or wielded like a handy thing not a needed thing.
good points
I do occasionally run into an elderly lady with a cane at the grocery store.
She once left her cane on her grocery cart, so I took it out to her in the parking lot.
She admitted she only carries it as a self-defense weapon, because she can’t carry a brick in her purse any more.
My Aunt used to cut a section of lead pipe to fit the bottom of her purses. She was the terror of muggers in Shadyside, having brained several of them and destroyed much dental work. She was very fit, and played tennis extremely well into her sixties.
ROFLOLMFAO
That’s just freakin awesome! good on her!
AWEsome.
Good for your aunt!
SWEET!!
Powerized
I dunno Ex, but I’ve got my trusted cast iron just in case my hornet spray runs out
My 9-inch cast iron sits on the stovetop, waiting… always waiting….
Spray em with Evening In Paris. My grandma wore it and it was enough to keep me away.
I’m just hoping that I’m finally able to afford the firearms and ammunition I’ve been coveting for so long….
and that the price on .45ACP comes down a lot more.
nevermind the .45, i am more interested in .22 LR.
$36+ for a box of 500 was and is ridiculous! My varmints around my house were given a alibi for the last 5 or so years and hopefully prices will drop enough that i can stock up on some CCI with out having to take out a 2nd mortgage on the house!
Try typing gunbot.net in your browser. It searches for then categorizes online ammunition by price.
For example: If you’re looking for .22LR, select the RIMFIRE link, then RIFLE, then select the caliber and follow the quicklinks.
The site produces a registry of quite a few on-line ammunition dealers, and the links direct you to their site if you decide to make a purchase.
I use this site to find and purchase the M-1 Garand ammunition I like to use.
I’ve found this site is oftentimes cheaper than buying ammunition at gun shows.
YMMV.
All they show is .17HMR; no .22. On the plus side, .22 is back even in WalMart and while silly expensive for upper-en brands like Super-X or MiniMags at $8-10/100, at least it’s available.
Might be worth noting that per the Ohio gun site Buckeye Firearms, the decline is so serious from 2016 that 2017 is on pace…to be the SECOND highest year for firearm sales in history after 2016. Not exactly time for panic in the head offices…
correction, the .22LR is a separate link and is not listed as rifle rimfire.
(My apologies for the bad instructions). I wasn’t looking at the site, but nevertheless…
Hope it works for you.
Had a ‘roided up guy at the gym tell me once that he didn’t need a gun because he was strong enough to take care of anyone who wanted to come at him.
I responded that I don’t care how big you are, two or three sucking chest wounds are gonna slow you down.
Sam Colt made all men equal.
Guys like him need to watch “Kick Ass.” Wannabe-superhero attacks scumbags with a billy club, gets stabbed (then hit by a car). Upgrades to tazers. Is saved from being murdered by a little girl with swords and no aversion to homicide, who in turn gets saved by Nicholas Cage with a rifle. She upgrades to pistols, wannabe upgrades to miniguns. Bad guys finally lose.
Moral of the story: firepower trumps all.
As a gun owner the only bad thing Trump has done regarding firearms is increased sanctions on Russia and not repealing the sanactions on firearms from Russia like he said he’d do during the campaign. Gun prices finally going back down to reasonable is actually wonderful for consumers. I could give two fucks about whether or not shitty publicly owned gun manufacturers increase their margins.
America’s rifle is super cheap now. Ammo prices are going back to being affordable. I wish the AK market wasn’t such garbage though.
Trump technically did not increase sanctions on Russia.
The senate passed new sanctions with a veto proof super-majority (95 votes).
So Trump had no choice but to sign the new sanctions into law. If he had attempted to veto them they still would have become law and all Trump would have accomplished is seeming to validate the narrative that he is in league with the Russians.
So, Trump -did- increase sanctions on Russia. Yes Major Obvious.
No. That is not what I wrote. And the failure to understand that is on you. CONGRESS passed new sanctions. CONGRESS DID. Not Trump. CONGRESS. Not Trump. CONGRESS. Which is not the PRESIDENT. Trump is the PRESIDENT. Trump is not CONGRESS. CONGRESS is a different institution with different powers than that of the president. One of those powers was to pass a law implementing sanctions. Ordinarily the PRESIDENT has the power to VETO new laws as part of the CHECKS AND BALANCES of our government. However, a CHECK AND BALANCE of the VETO is the power of congress to pass a law with a SUPERMAJORITY. When that is done the CONGRESS is able to pass a law that is NOT ABLE TO BE VETOED. This was the case because the house passed it 419-3 and the senate 98-2. Trump opposed the bill. But he could do nothing about it. The internal politics inquiry on the effect of a veto was that it would be overridden by the Senate 95-5. So Trump had no choice but to sign it. Vetoing it was pointless and only would expend political capital and actually HARM the president’s credibility with respect to Russia. The law was going to go into effect with or without his signature. He would be wasting time, political capital, money, and sacrificing his ability to influence congress in the future, and well as undermining his credibility on the Russia issue if he fought a fight he already lost. When the house and the senate draft and pass laws THEY are the ones that took action. Not the president. Regardless of the president. Unless the president was critical in convincing the congress to act. Which was not the case here. The president OPPOSED congress on this. Weren’t you also the moron that tried to claim that people “leaking” unclassified, nonoperational security, non-privacy act, and non confidential law enforcement information is a crime and called on them to be prosecuted? And when I tried to explain to you it wasn’t a crime to release information that does not fall under one of the… Read more »
I was the one that reminded you that diplo-sourced info is “born classified”, per Fedderal laws, as confirmed by myriad others here with experience with said materials.
Need a pry bar to get that boot out of your mouth?
If Obama gets credit for Obamacare, LBJ for the Great Society, etc, etc ,etc, it is quite reasonable to say that a president that signs a law “did something”.
So, Trump -did- increase sanctions on Russia, by signing, versus vetoing, the bill
Try Decaf, dude. If “Major Obvious” flipped you out, consider that I was being polite not calling you the cliche “-Captain- Obvious”, since you -did- earn your rank, which I respected.
Which you turned into another vowel movement of rage, for some reason.
Just, for once, try mellowing out, just a smidge. “Cerebral Hemorage” is no way to go.
Really? So Trump opposes Russia sanctions. Complains they are unconstitutional. And you think he should be given credit? Obama gets credit for Obama care because he pushed for it, fought for it, made it so democrats that did not support it would pay a political cost, and SUPPORTED IT throughout the process. He did not get credit for it for simply signing it. Trump did the EXACT OPPOSITE OF SUPPORT SANCTIONS. specifically said he OPPOSES THEM. Even after he signed them. HE EXPLICITLY COMPLAINED THAT HE THOUGHT THEY WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THAT CONGRESS HAD INFRINGED ON THE POWERS AND AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT BY PASSING THEM WITH A VETO PROOF MAJORITY. The fact that you are tying to give him credit is ridiculous and makes it transparently clear you have no clue what happened. And Diplomatic sourced info is not born classified. Cite the federal laws that say it is if you think it is. You say confirmed by a “myriad of others” that have with experiences with said materials. Please name someone with experience with diplo-sourced material that said it was always born classified. I worked on an Embassy platform. The DoS spends most of their time working with UNCLASSIFIED information and they do not use intelligence sources and methods (the use of which would cause information to be “born” classified). Let’s apply some common sense to this; First, there are two primary reasons to classify information. First, it provides potential enemies with information about our defense capabilities, technologies, or future operations or plans that if the enemy were aware would cause various levels of harm to national security. This is information the enemy does not know and we do not want them to know. We are protecting the INFORMATION itself. Second, the information was acquired though means that if the enemy was aware of the means the ability to continue to collect information would be compromised and harm our future ability to collect said information. So we classify the information to protect the SOURCES AND METHODS. This is information the enemy already knows but we do not want… Read more »
Your impotent rage-posting is not persuading anyone to agree with you.
But do keep going. Plenty of fence-sitters will move away from your views, just to avoid being associated with you. You may actually be one of the better recruiters for Trump on this forum.
You have become the punchline to a humorless joke, that no one bothers to tell anymore.
“Impotent rage posting”….
Perfectly describes the rantings of the Socialist from Berzerkley.
Did someone say “Impotent rage”? THIS is just how I picture Commissar aka Commissar aka Babbles McButthead in between his rants:
HEY Babbles McButthead, you REALLY like to hear yourself speak, don’t you? Seriously, maybe you need to go to the SafeSpace®™ Store in Namby-Pamby Land and go buy yourself a mudda-fuckin’ bucket of self-esteem!
Your rants remind me of a study published by some Primatologists who hypothesized that the loudest and most boisterous males in a group of monkeys were also the ones with the smallest testicles!
How does that go? “…the empty can rattles the most…”
Because CNN really really cares about how much we pay for guns and ammo.
I think they reported that with glee – seeing it as a sign that they can implement “gun control”.
You’d think gun sales would be booming, what with Obama having confiscated everyone’s weapons and all that.
Confiscation was an extreme. If you think it never crossed his mind, you don’t much about Obama. Additionally, there were and are key figures still in government that would confiscate in a heartbeat, if they thought they could actually do so.
The gun sales were on guns that were specifically being targeted by gun control advocates, Some of the mostly popular models of guns sold in the U.S. as well as associated gear and magazines used in those firearms.
Almost every gun and rifle I own would for example be banned under Feinstein’s proposal.
Joe, how are you still alive? You are proof positive that it takes very few brain cells to maintain life…obama was certainly an idiot, but even he was smart enough to realize that as much as he wanted it, he couldn’t go straight to confiscation. There are plenty of examples of leftists starting small, and ending up at confiscation..
And now I realize i’ve just wasted 3 min of my life arguing with a moron, so I’m gonna stop and grab a cup of coffee
One only has to subscribe to the NRA-ILA to get emails about all the legislation that comes up, especially gun control measures they try to bury within legislation to see that it is reasonable and not a form of paranoia to keep it under scrutiny if you value your freedoms.
A link to the legislation is not biased, it is not contrived, it is not paranoia, it is reality.
Actually, sales are booming, just not quite at last-12-months levels. They are still way higher than the average of 10-15 years ago.
The quantity of .22LR consumed annually is up about an order of magnitude, despite the recent relative scarcity. -Billions- of rounds get sold each year.
Your quip is sort of like calling the #3 car at the finish of a NASCAR race “slow”.
Probably in no small part due to the introduction of fashion colors for the wimmens.
Bubblegum pink ARs, purple pistols….
Is -nothing- sacred anymore?
Maybe you should read the words of one Diane Feinstein on 60 Minutes back around 1995 or so. Her position hasn’t changed since then.
You know Diane–the old bag who has a CA CCW permit while the rest of us proles went around unarmed.
Feinstein…yeah I referenced that hypocrite earler.
other things that spurred the sales included the threat of serializing ammunition and banning lead bullets or forcing a permit procedure on simply buying ammunition of taxing it at a hugely unfair rate ( huge taxes on gun purchases was also an idea).
Any time something costs the manufacturer more to do something, that cost inevitably is passed on to the consumer as a higher price for the product.
People bought more guns out of fear wrought by political propaganda. Scaring gun owners into thinking someone is about to take their guns is a very effective way for republicans to get their constituents out to vote. Getting their constituents to buy more guns and ammunition is just a secondary effect. But the propaganda was bullshit. Obama signed two new gun laws. Both EXPANDED gun rights. The first allowed train passengers to carry bags on checked baggage on a train. Which previously was prohibited. The second allowed gun owners to carry guns in National Parks. Previously they had to be locked in the trunk or glove compartments, unloaded, and stored separately from ammunition. Obama’s “gun control” measures amounted to executive actions and executive orders. Almost all where merely ordering agencies under executive control to actually enforce CURRENT gun laws more effectively. There were a few executive actions that were “more than” merely enforcing current laws. 1. Ordered expanded criminal background checks on gun purchases. 2. Ordered a few agencies that had access to mental health information on prospective gun buyers to release that information to investigators as part of the expanded background checks. (VA had already been required to do so under the Brady act). The biggest controversy concerning this issue was that the Social Security Administration was included. The expanded reporting requirement matched the requirement already on the VA; which was essentially that any person deemed “mentally deficient or incompetant” to the extent that they no longer are able to manage their own affairs can have their mental health evaluation included in the adjudication process on determining their eligibility to own a firearm. Essentially, if you lose your ability to manage you own life you may and likely will also lose your second amendment rights. There is some confusion on this because of the way it has been reported. As though the VA inclusion on this is a “new” development as with the Social Security Agency. But the Social Security Agency expansion into this is the “new development” and since it mirrored the VA requirement the news also usually… Read more »
Just to be clear, I am a gun owner, I own several firearms.
And I have been effected negatively by California gun laws in that I have a “law enforcement” Smith and Wesson M&P AR that I cannot bring into the state (probably should have sold it) so it sits out of my control in the trusted hands of an associate. A trust that anyone would be a little uncomfortable with.
I also had to get rid of a few dozen high capacity magazines when I moved into the state.
I tend to be pretty classical liberal on gun control. Meaning I recognize the government has a role in public safety which includes some reasonable actions to limit the impact firearms have on society but like all classical liberals; I trust the government to do certain things for the good of society but I DON’T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT.
I believe the 2nd Amendment was intended as a check on both federal power on states and on individuals, and it was also a check on state power on individuals. States were given the power to form militias as a check on federal control over states, and as a protection against armed insurrection within the state, and individuals were given protection on owning firearms as a check on ALL GOVERNMENT power over the rights of citizens.
Essentially an armed citizenry is the ultimate and final check and balance against a rogue, predatory, or authoritarian government.
Wait – YOU don’t trust the government.
Okay, should that be taken at face value? It needs some clarification. Do you mean government in general, as an amorphous, wide-ranging entity? Or do you mean according to which administration is in office?
I’m only asking because according to an interview with Richard Nixon by Willian Safire, Nixon said ‘Guns are an abomination.’ He was referring to handguns, but not to hunting weapons.
I think you need to clarify your statement.
I don’t trust governments. Plural. None of them. However, I recognize that a century of data and centuries of evidence shows that government not only has a role to play in society but that if limited to specific purposes the government can have a massively beneficial effect on society such that things not otherwise possible are possible and there is increased technological advancement, innovation, public safety and health, literacy, education, knowledge, access to information, and prosperity. However, government is never limited to those things, both conservative and liberals want government to do things it is ill suited to do and the result is that the government often becomes a political mess of competing self interests at best and an advocate to the interests of powerful or rich individuals or groups at worst. Worse both sides manipulate through propaganda and political narratives an effort to force the other side to live under their worldview. The role of the government is not and should never be to force people who disagree with you politically to live under your rules. If what someone does is not harming you or someone else then you have no right to try to get the government to control them. Both sides have a hard time with that. Many have a hard time with understanding the way harm can be magnified by large numbers in a society and only seem to think of harm as something that happens between individuals. And unlike the ridiculous assumptions about me on this board; I am neither a communist nor am I a liberal in the modern political context. I have a very classical liberal view. Which is similar to what the theorists our founding fathers based their views on. I have voted for and supported candidates on both sides of the aisle at all levels of government. Bush Sr., McCain, Hunstman are some presidential candidates I supported. I have also rabidly opposed several prominent democrats. Particularly the Clintons. I tend to vote for candidates that actually care about this country and seem to genuinely be trying to do what they believe… Read more »
A “representative democracy” where government policy does not REFLECT the will of the public it represents is NO longer a representative democracy.
All right, I accept your response, but in a society, meaning more than a contained family and more than one person, zero government is anarchy.
I doubt seriously that you want that. The problem with government as an entity is that the simplest form, such as that presented in the US Constitution, is deemed insufficient by anyone who has a specific intent and has to make his/her intent more important than the general good.
There are two simple forms of government, the Mosaic Code, aka the Ten Commandments, and the US Constitution. They are both pared down to the bare bones. Now we have legislation that benefits one group but harms another. That is not government, it is selfishness, regardless of origin.
However, without some rules that put stops on bad behavior, you have anarchy, which condones bad behavior in the ‘every man for himself’ sense.
You can’t have it both ways.
Why the heck do you support that party that -consistantly- tries to disarm folks? California being a stellar example of the incremental disenfranchisement planned?
You -do- see the irrationality of such support, right?
Far too many gun-owning lefties seem to think the Dems won’t actually ban/confiscate, despite a century plus of evidence that they are doing exactly that, in their Jim Crow best. Some Lefties also, foolishly, think they will be in the elite/exempt group that get to keep guns, while all the “wrong” folks get disarmed.
And who is it that determines who the ‘wrong people’ are?
(Damn, that’s bad grammar, but you get the point.)
I think it would be far more productive to ditch every piece of Congressional legislation since Day One, and reboot with only the Constitution and its Amendments. That would piss off a lot of people on both sides, but a great portion legislation is repetitive and unneeded.
I would not mind a reset.
And get rid of half the amendments.
Half? Name some.
I suspect your position is going to be based on limiting the rights and protections of people not like you.
But even then we still would get no where near half.
In other words, they expect the left to follow the example of Hitler (party members in good standing who jack off to Der Führer’s picture five times a day and shoot Jewish slave laborers from their bedroom window before breakfast can have guns. Nobody else, though) rather than that of Stalin or Mao (all guns belong to the State Security apparatus).
Because few politicians on the left ever actually do, The political narrative on guns is primarily driven by the RIGHT and driven by interests groups that want to see right wing politicians elected. People have to be motivated to come out to vote. Gun control has been proven to be an effective motivator to get conservative voters to the polls. When liberals are asked about their political concerns and what makes them decide which candidate to support gun control is NEVER in the top 5 or even top 10. So no sane liberal campaigns on that since it does little to get the left to show up to vote for them but does encourage more people to show up to vote for their opponent. California is gun control were usually implemented for reasons that had BI-PARTISAN support. Concealed carry was banned in California as a response to Chinese immigrants picking up the habit of carrying concealed weapons. By requiring a permit to conceal carry it prevented foreign immigrants and any ethnic group that was not approved from carrying legally. There was a lot of conflict between Chinese communities and non-Asian American citizens at the end of the 19th and into the early 20th centuries in California over land as real estate values shifted substantially and the real estate of many Chinese communities had become very valuable despite the fact that at the time they were originally settled the land was land that Californians did not want. This was largely due to industrialization. Which caused many citizens to move into cities driving up real estate values in urban areas and causing rural real estate values to fall. Chinese communities had all tended to be pressed into previously undesirable urban ghettos on the outskirts of downtown areas. This led to a lot of community and political struggles over land use, zoning, and pure racist animosity. With many Chinese communities either being threatened and driven out, politically zoned out, or in some cases had their businesses or homes destroyed by arson. Open carry was banned in California as a direct response to the… Read more »
I also do not regard myself as a democrat, nor do I support the party, nor am I registered as a democrat. I also voted against a lot of democrats in the last election. I consider myself a classical liberal. Which by modern US political standards is pretty far left. Just as parties have flipped over time our political spectrum has become a bit of a clusterfuck. We are far more right of center than any other industrial democracy and most people who call themselves conservatives have no real understanding of what one is. Conservatism is not small government. Not classical conservatism. Despite the “small government” narrative of most American conservatives the classical authors and ideas that shape conservative thought are not small government ideas (Thomas Hobbes is the iconic classical conservative). When conservatives talk about “small government” they really only are talking about spending money to help people. The actual policies they support are really as “big government” as it gets. More criminal laws,more prisons, more prisoners, more law enforcement agencies and officers, more penalties, longer sentences, wars on drugs, more law enforcement weapons and equipment, larger military, more military in more places, more military capability, more military equipment, more domestic security, domestic surveillance, more domestic monitoring of specific groups, controls to limit the free movement of specific minority or religious groups… Conservatives generally want to expand the government’s ability to control, punish, use force against, and monitor people. While they oppose the government helping people, providing access to education and opportunity, or providing health services. And this is actually EXACTLY what classical conservatism says government should be. Since I think government is best at investing in people, infrastructure, public opportunity, innovation, access to education, research, the development of technology, and public health and safety I tend to fall on the side of democrats more often and on more issues. On economics my views are quite mixed since neither party has a coherent economic ideology. Despite the propaganda narratives of the parties they do not actually support what their narrative claim they do. Most of the ideas of deregulation… Read more »
Did I misunderstand your support for Bernie Sanders? he would be somewhere to the left of all of the above. He is one of the biggest “big government” types in recent presidential election history.
No. Bernie is not “big government”.
That is just reductionist political nonsense and propaganda.
He wants a government that is right sized for the rules government is best suited to handle.
A military that better fits our actual national security needs (smaller).
A State Department that is more capable of projecting soft power and influence (larger).
Less prisons and prisoners by reducing penalties for non-violent crimes (smaller).
More deregulation and government influence in industry with respect to regulations that are intended to protect established firms, provide corporate welfare, insulate corporations from new challengers in the market. (smaller).
Restructured consumer and environmental protections (generally larger, but many protections were actually lobbied for by industry in order to make it harder for new firms to compete since the price and complexity of entering the industry would be higher).
Bernie advocates more access to education and opportunity through public funding of programs designed to increase education and opportunity. While conservative propagandists try to paint this as “big government” the last century of data suggests this is one of the best and most effective roles for government in that the dividends it pays back over time far outstrip costs. Even the tax revenue at low marginal tax rates it generates more than pays for the investment not to mention the increase prosperity, advancement, productivity, and economic strength it generates for the society overall. It also lower crime rates.
I could discuss every major policy agenda but some are smaller and some a larger government.
The real question is what should government be doing and what should it not be doing or what should government be doing MORE of and what should it be doing LESS of. We have a century of data and largely know the answers to these questions or at least know we are not very close to the answers the historical data supports.
Bernie is closer to “right sized” with respect to leveraging government for purposes that provide major payoffs for the society while minimizing unnecessary or counterproductive costs.
All that education you claim to have and you haven’t even a drop of common sense. You fell for his bullshit hook, line and sinker, you’re a shady salesman’s wet dream come true and I stand by my earlier comparison of you to that Primatologist’s study and hypothesis. You and your posts absolutely reek of low self esteem and insecurity on your part!
Some folks repeat the falsehoods of the left unknowingly. Some do not.
Really, I opposed Hillary (big government) and Trump (also big government).
Sounds to me like I was not the one who was duped.
Of the party-chosen candidates with a chance to win in the actual race, Trump was least likely to wreck the place, and most likely to steer us away from imitating Venezuela.
Bernie, predictably, turns out to be a “Socialism for thee, but spoils for me” sort. Bet that has to Bern.
Nonsense. You do not understand Bernie’s platform.
And Trump is not only about to wreck the place his presidency is on the brink of being the most catastrophic presidencies in American history.
Oh damn…..you broke out the astroglide while you typed that, didn’t you.
Got a video of Aunty Maxine playing too, I bet.
You are an expert of talking out of your ass and your assface at the same time poodlediklik…
I don’t even bother to read your shit, it’s all a bunch of two faced panaceas dreamt up by a bunch of longhaired maggot infested dope smoking FM types like yourself.
Your theories have been debunked for centuries and you still hold out hope that if we just try it one more time we’ll get it right this time !!!
Move to Venezuela asswipe and leave us alone…
He went BALLS DEEP for BERNIE… until Bernie sold out to Cankles
No, And he didn’t. He did was party members do; support their candidate.
But his endorsement speech and agreement to endorse Hillary was essentially the equivalent of putting her on notice.
His speech of a laundry list of expectation his supporters have for their president and he put her on notice that she is expected to represent them as well.
It was a qualified endorsement that essentially said; “as our candidate we expect you to support these things.”
She ignored the expectations he laid out and she lost the election because she lost both her liberal base and midwestern blue collar workers (who also strongly supported Bernie).
I have read his stuff. Bigger, Socialist, etc, etc. Not buying that snake oil from that snake.
No sale, Commisar. Your credibility just suffered immensely.
Bernie is just “Big Bernie”
What DID Bernie Sanders basically say other than “HEY, lots and lots of FREE SHIT for you if you elect me!!”?
To me Bernie’s a schizophrenic, fun to listen to initially for the comedy, but after several minutes, I just don’t want to hear any more.
Bernie’s as close to the onset of senility as you can get, without the dementia that comes with it. That’ll creep up on him before long, too.
There is a laundry list of gasbags that should have retired and gone home from WDC politics long ago. Feinstein is one of them, Pelosi is another. Both of them exhibit sure signs of the onset of senile dementia. I saw this in my mother after she had a mild stroke and quit eating. Brain starvation doesn’t require a stroke, however. It only requires a shutoff of blood flow, which can be gradual and not noticed unless you haven’t seen someone in a while.
There’s a bunch of congress critters in that state.
Bullshit.
Pelosi on TV: saying Bush instead of Trump AFTER the election.
Even Maxine Waters did the ‘what???’ over that.
Feinstein can’t keep track of anything she says.
It isn’t bullshit, it is recorded on videos of these two speaking publicly.
And probably sweating it out as the FBI crawls up his wife’s ass investigating her for possible fraud that lead to a college closing its doors.
Gunbot is the best place to go for ammo pricing
It is a topsy turly world when an AK costs more than an AR!
“and it was also a check on state power on individuals.”
Oops. I meant;
“and it was also a check on government power on individuals.
At the time the constitution and the bill or rights was signed it was not clear that it was intended to restrict the power of states. It was intended at the time to restrict the powers of federal government since the constitution had essentially expanded the size, impact, power, authority of the government beyond what the Articles of Confederation had done. The bill or rights was intended to keep the newly uncaged beast on a chain.
Maybe prices will drop…
You can get good AR15’s for under $500. 4 big handgun manufacturers had deals all summer long basically throwing rebates and magazines at consumers. New 9mm brass case is under 20 cents per round. Prices have dropped considerably except for the AK market which continues to rise and most good imports are gone thanks to Democraps and McCain’s perpetual warfare against Russia until they are against it.
Numerous pro gun legislation being sat in the house regarding deregulating suppressors.
Republicans need to quit fucking each other in the ass to appease libtard a and get shit done. Hell they have enough control to start up a constitutional convention!
Inventory they can’t get rid of? I’m calling bullshit. Unless they’re referring to Gander Mountain, whose “store closing” sales significantly marked up the price of every gun on their shelf.
Just because we’re not panic-buying doesn’t mean we’ve stopped commerce. This is just more of the Communist News Network’s doublethink on guns. They hope to make anti-2A liberals sound good to us, and vice versa. They really do think we’re that dumb. Fuck ’em.
It IS BS. Bass Pro Shops has a few ammo brands at sale prices now, and will be starting their fall sales before long, just in time for hunting season.
The field “gun owners” has changed. There are now -millions- of first-time gun owners out there. The whole “culture” has expanded. Many, many minorities have discovered that armed self defense is never having to say “lynched” or “gay bashed” or “raped”.
Pink Pistols, for example, is a -left- constituency that has discovered armed self defense as essential.
The number of folks -carrying- guns is skyrocketing over the pre-1985 baseline. Taht is also a sea-change in ownership patters, as those folks are -not- typically owning for hunting or sport.
Some Dems have caught on, and STFU. Others, well, are working on driving out key members of their base.
If I could still find small cans of hair spray, that is as equally effective as pepper spray.
Any aerosol is effective, and spray deodorant would probably do the same thing, in addition to dispersing any unpleasant personal odors in the area.
I am not trying to pick a fight or anything but hair spray is really not even close to as effective as OC sprays or other kinds of pepper sprays.
Jeebus you are in a chatty mood today.
On this rare occasion I have to agree with you. I was an old school cop, we were originally issued a wheel gun and a baton, later followed by Mace. The Mace was marginally effective, real hit and miss so it was usually followed up by the Hickory shampoo. When Pepper came along, it was much better. The latest is the pepper gel, which I hear works even better. I think if you were to spray someone who was intent on attacking you with hair spray, you’d be picking the can out of your ass. I have liberally douched people with pepper and had them laugh at me.
Mace worked great, RM3…..usually on cops. I hated that stuff, it never kicked in until the guy who was sprayed was cuffed and stuffed in the back seat, then, you couldn’t drive unless you stuck your head out the window.
Pepper was marginally better. Unless the guy or gal was whacked on some kinda drug.
Ever actually had hair spray in your eye? I’ve been sprayed with hair spray and OC. No, hair spray doesn’t have exactly the same total effects, but as far as a non-lethal, but obnoxious substance it’s pretty fukking good for gaining an escape or an advantage.
Try taking a shot and sparring somebody not similarly disabled.
Cabbies weren’t allowed to take weapons including pepper spray on Camp Lejeune. Hair Spray (Aerosol not pump)was the favorite option among them. When I was married, my wife was a cabbie for awhile.
At one time worked at the training group in lejeune, which had a non-lethal weapons section, so I’m familiar with and have been directly or indirectly hit with spray, foam, gel, pepper balls, stinger grenades, M203 bean bags and rubber wedges, etc.
Hairspray is not completely ineffective by any means. You have to find a can with the best reach and something that will stream or at least not disperse a gentle mist (though if it gets in your eyes it still sukks)…or take the nozzle off another can for repurposing. It’s not without merit in certain situations.
Relying on a can of spray for self defense without a backup or the willingness to go hands on is a recipe for disaster.
When the taser first came out it was going to be the ultimate in non-lethal. Not even close. Ask Jonn for my email, I have a personal case where we were attempting to arrest a homicide suspect.
you guys keep superimposing scenarios where you can have weapons over top of my scenarios which are the exact opposite of that.
well no fukking shit if you can have a weapon use a weapon
Have you noticed attacks often happen in weapons free zones?
No, more to my point is that people will “arm” themselves with something that is marginally effective and then put themselves in situations that they should have avoided, thinking “well, I have my stun-gun, pepperspray, hairspray” or whatever, so I’ll be ok. I’ve seen it many times, including people with CCW’s. “It’s better than nothing” is not true.
yeah well if your ever in Fort Bragg I’ll be glad to put that logic to test and post the result on Youtube.
Or since you’re apparently a LEO..let one of your peers hair spray you and see for yourself if it doesn’t matter.
I can fight through OC, and I’ve seen numerous Marines do it, because it’s part of the course…it’s hilarious every time.
Is that familiarity at work? Hairspray being new, thus more likely to work?
I got hairspray zapped by a startled girlfriend while trying to enter my home quietly late one night, unpleasant, to be sure, but order of magnitude less debilitating than OC. (Of course, I might not have gotten the full dose of hairspray, and most assuredly got pro-level OC-ed.
Hmm. Any correleation between the hot food lovers and less-effective OC? if someone eats Cayanne pepper like maple syrup in New Hampsire, do they gain resistance to OC from familiarity?
We both know there’s a world of difference between a controlled environment and an actual attack. Most people haven’t been in a fight since high school, most muggers are experienced and have a plan. My point was and is that hairspray or any other marginal weapon should not be your main line of defense. I’ve been sprayed with pepper, part of our training and we had to then fight 1 or 2 attackers while keeping them from grabbing our gun. I’ve also sprayed people to no effect and then had to wrestle them, getting it all over myself. A determined attacker is not going to be deterred by a can of spray. Situational awareness, avoiding bad areas and having a Plan A and B is much better than throwing a can of whatever in your pocket and calling it good.
I agree with many of your points. Of course a LEOs responsibilities in the situation of apprehension are completely different than a victim that just needs to break contact and get away.
Whatever you choose you potentially bet your life on it and no choice can assure a 100% favorable outcome 100% of the time.
I recall a parachuting photographer that frapped in when not both, but all three of his chutes malfunctioned…sometimes shit just happens.
…the result being I’d be gone before you get your mitts on me..not insinuating anything else at all
Respectfully, RM3(SS), you are playing apples/oranges here.
In other words, y’ain’t payin’ attention to the dialogue.
No one here would, I suspect, pick hairspray or pepper spray over a baton or knife, or a baton or knife over a pistol. Given my druther, I’ll take a rifle in some .30 and a sniper hide over the pistol.
That isn’t the issue here. When one is not allowed, for some reason, to have one’s druthers, hairspray (or wasp spray – works on dogs who like to chase bicycles anyway) is a pretty good option.
Heck, in some places they don’t like you to carry pepper spray. When you need something that lets you strike at a distance, and are denied the Constitutional right to carry a gun, hairspray is not an unreasonable option, IMHO.
Of course, situational awareness and staying inside The Loop so that you minimize your chances of needing to use anything is, naturally, ideal.
Yes, I have hit myself in the eyes with hair spray and it is extremely painful, never mind having to rinse the shellac out of your eyes.
Spray paint is also good. It’s mostly about distractions, making them painful, and making the Bad Guy lose control.
I went to school in a foreign country that didn’t allow even the non-lethals we take for granted. But I always had protection and the mindset of how to use it.
Sometimes, you have to improvise. I was writing about times such as those.
Hot coffee has been used to great effect.
…as has a sudden onset of extreme flatulence with the wind at your back.
Ka-Boooooooooooom?
I have had hair spray in my eye.
And OC, several times.
OC is worse. Stronger, more irritating, more persistent, and It is also resistant to be flushed out.
Still bet if I shot you with either one I’d be gone before you stopped swearing and rubbing yourself to clear your vision.
Lest you all forget, there is always that old classic, fighting with furniture. And you don’t have to go to Eton to learn the techniques.
Sorry Ex. I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with you. While aerosol hairspray is better than nothing, it’s not equally as effective as pepper spray.
The distance at which it can be effectively deployed is one reason. You’d have to be very close to your attacker for hairspray to work, where as pepper spray can be effectively deployed at 10-12 feet.
Another reason is that the pepper spray has a much longer duration of effect.
Finally, though I don’t know this, I’d suspect that hairspray has much less effect on the respiratory system than pepper spray.
Not intending to sharpshoot you here, but don’t want the unaware to think the two are equivalent when it comes to defense options. (Of course a 200 grain Golden Sabre beats both, if we want to play Rock Paper Scissors.)
If we are limiting our counter-thug tools to “things that get past the TSA onto an aircraft without risk of bad paper”, then hairspray has a use. Otherwise, there is much better available.
Oh, I don’t disagree with your assessment, but close contact is frequently what occurs when women are ripped off at train stops or bus stops or even just walking home from the bus. I view it as the same distraction afforded by pepper spray, and since I’ve sprayed myself right in the eye, I can verify that the force of the spray is painful.
Hairspray is also quite flammable as is spray paint, but not as damaging to one’s purse and its contents as a leaky can of spray paint would be. Pepper spray is not flammable, unfortunately. My goal is always to make them run away, if possible. Otherwise, put a brick or a length of 2 inch pipe in my purse. And a prayrbook, of course.
So, hairspray and a Bic?
Starting fluid works much better.
Does it come in a compressed-gas spray canister?I actually thought before I posted this. You mean “starter fluid” like we used to spray in the carburetors of our old cars. That would work.Would it be something one would be likely to carry on one’s person?
It hasn’t surfaced yet in this conversation, but I’m thinking in the back of my mind “how do I explain this to a jury?”
That said, starter fluid isn’t a bad idea.
“That said, starter fluid isn’t a bad idea.”
Why settle for irritation when you can set the attacking sonofabitch on fire and make him/it at least into a medium/rare “Crispy Critter”?
Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
And a Big Mouth, too, Graybeard.
Oh, I wasn’t supposed to say that out loud?
The Bad People don’t like noisy victims.
Which is why I carry either a .45 ACP or .357 Magnum snubnose, the .45 ACP packs all kinds of stopping power and the .357 Magnum does too along with LOTS of noise and a wicked muzzle blast, anyone messing with me in the wrong way WILL meet their doom with plenty of noise, muzzle blast and ballistic DEATH.
And a rape whistle, if you can still find one.
The Bad People don’t like it if you start making noises.
Found it. This company sells a complete set of alarm, puncher to punch attacker, pepper spray and a small stun gun. They also make a kit without the stun gun, which is less expensive.
https://www.selfdefensesuperstore.com/products/personal-alarms-and-protection/the-4-piece-pink-protection-pack
Muzzle blasts tend to be more effective than whistles in getting attention for ladies who find themselves in distress.
Cleanup in alley three……
true but if someone hits you out of your peripheral vision you better have a backup plan, things can get ugly quickly.
I got out of that one once. The guy expected me to be incapacitated. He rocked me, and the look on his face when I spun around was like a deer in the headlights. I wasn’t armed, but luckily he wasn’t either. No big tale of me kicking his ass, he broke contact and I withdrew. Like any jump you walk away from, it was a good day.
Muzzle blasts are fine if you have a gun on you. If you don’t, then what? I am not taking a gun to the grocery store with the idea that I’ll be carjacked in the parking lot and have to shoot it out with someone. That is ridiculous.
If your only solution to something like this is to shoot instead of making attention-getting loud noises in every possible way, which is MUCH MORE LIKELY to scare off an offender, you aren’t using your head. You are only reacting.
I think there’s just a lot of reflexive posting going on and some folks aren’t following the conversation in that regard.
You just need a dragon
You’re right. I do.
One of many fun activities you shouldn’t try at home. Also one of the tricks Sterling Archer is known to be fond of.
I guess it all depends on whose writing the story:
http://freebeacon.com/issues/may-2017-sets-gun-sales-record/
Glancing through the list of stuff one could/should carry as defensive “weapons,” looks like there might be a market around here for the sale of some of those rollerized, drag behind golf bags to carry it all?
Like COL Ripper in Dr Strangelove?