This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Black Friday Gun Sales Break Records

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Even as Joe Sixpack was maxing out that last credit card on useless gadgets (but not flat screen TVs as Corning was so nice to warn), he was making sure to have enough in store for that one final Plan Z purchase. Guns. As KNDU reports, "Gun dealers flooded the FBI with background check requests from shoppers,  smashing the single day record with a 32% increase from last year." USA Today has more: "Deputy Assistant FBI Director Jerry Pender said the checks, required by federal law, surged to 129,166 during the day, far surpassing the previous high of 97,848 on Black Friday of 2008." And in reality, the number is likely far greater: "The actual number of firearms sold last Friday is likely higher because multiple firearms can be included in a transaction by a single buyer. And the FBI does not track actual gun sales." And while Saudi Arabia is warning that women driving leads to the end of the world, in America women are now the marginal guy buyer: "Some gun industry analysts attributed the unusual surge to a convergence of factors, including an increasing number of first-time buyers seeking firearms for protection and women who are being drawn to sport shooting and hunting. Larry Keane, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said 25% of the purchases typically involve first-time buyers, many of them women. "I think there also is a burgeoning awakening of the American public that they do have a constitutional right to own guns," Keane said. Yet Keane said last Friday's number appeared to defy complete explanation. "It's really pretty amazing," he said." Indeed it is, and unlike Europe, where with the exception of Switzerland the best the local rioters can do is some imported (from the US) tear gas, when the Arab Spring finally makes landfall, it will be time to use up those one way international frequent flier miles (assuming of course that American and soon others don't cancel them).

More from KNDU:

In the Tri-Cities, sporting goods stores say they've seen an increase in sales in the last four years. Griggs in Pasco saw a 25 % increase in sales from Black Friday last year.

 

Wholesale Sports in Kennewick has an increase of 35 percent%.

 

"Normally it's electronics and people are out there looking for that screaming hot deal, and we were discussing that maybe women were out doing that shopping and their husbands were out buying their own Christmas gifts," says Charlie Grigg, whose family owns the ACE Hardware Griggs store.

 

Grigg says more than half of the calls that come into the store are for the gun department. They even had to put in extra phone lines to do background checks. Managers from both Griggs and Wholesale Sport say the presidential elections have a big effect on sales.  Sales went up four years ago when Obama was elected into office and they say with the new elections around the corner, many fear the President will work on changing gun control laws during his second term in office.

And for the attention and reading challenged:

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 12/03/2011 - 22:56 | 1942892 Normalcy Bias
Normalcy Bias's picture

Well perhaps, but the guys with the guns can prolly go 'find' some chronic.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 22:13 | 1942803 ultimate warrior
ultimate warrior's picture

USA! USA! USA! FUCK YEAH!

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 22:15 | 1942805 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Families that spray lead together, stay together.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 22:23 | 1942823 OMG
Sat, 12/03/2011 - 22:24 | 1942825 Zeff
Zeff's picture

In the longrun, we're all dead

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 22:36 | 1942850 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Yeah, so who cares if you live to be 95........the last thirty of which were spent at Gitmo for believing that the U.S. Constitution meant exactly what it says.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 22:25 | 1942829 LasVegasDave
LasVegasDave's picture

Without the second amendment there would be no first amendment.

If you are an American and dont own a gun (or several) I seriously question your sanity

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 22:45 | 1942833 Bansters-in-my-...
Bansters-in-my- feces's picture

" american women are now the marginal guy buyer"

huh...????

We all knew this.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 22:29 | 1942837 max2205
max2205's picture

Reagan oct '87:

Ronald Reagan
1987: Book II

Location:

District of Columbia
Washington

Font Size:

 Report Typo

Share

The American Presidency Project

Promote Your Page Too
The President. Well, it just seems like yesterday. [Laughter] Well, please be seated.
And I would like to start with a statement here. I'll start by saying it sure is good news to have Nancy back home, and she's doing just fine.

Stock Market Decline

Over the past several days, though, we Americans have watched the stock market toss and turn. It's important that we understand what is happening and that a calm, sound response be the course we follow. While there were a couple days of gains after several days of losses, we shouldn't assume that the stock market's excess volatility is over. However, it does appear the system is working. So, while there remains cause for concern, there is also cause for action. And tonight I plan to take the following steps to meet this challenge.

First, I will meet with the bipartisan leaders of Congress to arrange a procedure for deficit reduction discussions that will be productive and constructive. I'm appointing my Chief of Staff, Howard Baker, and my Treasury Secretary, Jim Baker, together with my OMB Director, Jim Miller, to lead the White House team. And I urge Speaker Jim Wright, Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole, and House Minority Leader Bob Michel to appoint their representatives so this process can begin immediately.

Second, I'm putting everything on the table with the exception of Social Security, with no other preconditions, and I call on the leaders of Congress to do the same. This situation requires that all sides make a contribution to the process if it is to succeed and that a package be developed that keeps taxes and spending as low as possible. I'm able to announce tonight the final deficit figures for fiscal year 1987, which show a reduction from $221 billion in fiscal year '86, to $148 billion this year, or a deficit reduction of $73 billion. This change occurred not only because of a one-time improvement in revenues but because of reduction in spending.

Third, I'm calling on the Members of Congress to join with me in sending a strong signal to our economic partners that trade markets should remain open, not closed, and that America will withstand any calls for protectionist legislation.

And fourth, I'm creating a task force that over the next 30 to 60 days will examine the stock market procedures and make recommendations on any necessary changes. Heading up this three-person team will be former Senator Nick Brady.

When we faced challenges before, this country has resolved them by pulling together, and now is the time for all of us to take a good hard look at where we stand as a country and as individuals. Adjustments can and will continue to be made to keep this country on the path to fiscal prudence and continued economic strength. And now, Terence [Terence Hunt, Associated Press]?

Q. Mr. President, the stock market plunge demonstrates that there is a crisis of confidence about economic stability and the leadership of our government. Are those fears warranted, and how serious is the threat of a recession or something worse?

The President. Well, first of all, the indices, the index that is used for judging whether we're sound economically and so forth, has been up and increasing 10 of the last 11 months. And with the great employment that we have, with the fact that we have reduced that double-digit inflation, and the prosperity that is ours out there, the one thing out of such a happening as the stock market that could possibly bring about a recession would be if enough people, without understanding the situation, panicked and decided to put off buying things that normally they would be buying, postponing purchases and so forth. That could bring on something of a recession. It's happened before.

But I don't think that there's any real reason for that. I think that this was a longoverdue correction, and what factors led to its kind of getting into the panic stage, I don't know. But we'll be watching it very closely. I approve very much of what the exchange is going to do with regard to the next 3 days that trading is going on, and quitting 2 hours early to give them a chance to catch up with their paperwork, which is the reason for that. But this is I think purely a stock market thing and that there are no indicators out there of recession or hard times at all.

Deficit Reduction and Taxes

Q. Let me ask you sir, also, why did you change your tune on tax increases from "over my dead body" to "keeping any increase as low as possible"?

The President. Well, I am going to meet with the leaders of the Senate, because it is high time, after about 6 1/2 years of trying-on my part, I know—to bring down the deficit and get us on a path which the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bill was supposed to do for us toward a balanced budget. And if that was any factor in shaping peoples' confidence, I'm going to meet with them. Now, they will have an agenda. They will have their program. But I have mine.

Now, I submitted a budget program early in the year, and as they've done every year I've been here, they've simply put it on the shelf and have refused to even consider it. But my program had $22 billion of additional revenues in it. I've said additional revenues. There are other things you can do that are not a deterrent to the economy, such as taxes can be. But what I've said was, all right, I'll listen to them and what they have in mind as an answer to this problem, but I expect them to listen to what I have in mind. And the bulk of these $22 billion have nothing to do with taxes. As a matter of fact, I could claim that we have about $5 1/2 billion of that $22 billion already. And the Congress has said I can't use it for lowering the deficit—that is the sale of assets and debts that we have accomplished just in recent weeks.

U.S. Policy in the Persian Gulf

Q. Mr. President, your Persian Gulf policies have caused widespread confusion and fear that reprisals on both sides will lead to wider hostilities, more terrorism. Did you miscalculate? And is there any limit to these policies? I'd like to follow up.

The President. Helen [Helen Thomas, United Press International], I don't think that we miscalculated anything at all. We're not there to start a war. And we're there to protect neutral nations' shipping in international waters that under international law are supposed to be open to all traffic.

They, on the other hand—the irrationality of the Iranians—they have taken to attacking, as they did with this most recent incident—that was Kuwait and an oil loading platform offshore, which they fired, evidently, a Silkworm missile at and caused damage to it. We've said that if attacked why, we're going to defend ourselves. And we're certainly going to continue this task. And we've now been joined by a number of other nations in keeping the sealanes open. But I don't see it as leading to a war or anything else. And I don't think there's anything to panic about. I think we've done very well.

War Powers Act

Q. Mr. President, you've said you don't think the War Powers Act is constitutional. But do you think that you have the right to obey the laws that you pick and choose?

The President. Well, other Presidents have thought so, too. As a matter of fact, we are complying with a part of that act, although we do not call it that, but we have been consulting with the Congress, reporting to them, and telling them what we're doing—and in advance, as we did with this latest strike. But they have other things in there that we think would interfere so much with our rights and our strategy and so forth.

Let me point out that since 1798 there have been a few more than 200 military actions by the United States in foreign countries. Now, we have only been in 5 declared wars in our entire history. About 62 of these more than 200, there was action by the Congress, either through appropriating funds for those acts or passing resolutions or Senate ratifying a treaty or something. But the bulk of them, somewhere around 140 of them, were by American Presidents that, on their own, put American forces in action, because they believed it was necessary to our national security and our welfare.
Yes?

Deficit Reduction and Taxes

Q. Mr. President, despite your earlier answer, it's been made clear by you and your aides that new taxes are a possibility as you go into these negotiations on the Hill. And many of us are wondering. In 1984 you promised not to raise taxes, and you may recall that same year Walter Mondale said that it was time to level with the American people. He said Mr. Reagan and I will both raise taxes, but the difference he said was that you wouldn't tell anybody. Now, aren't you going against your own campaign pledge if you're about to negotiate some new taxes?

The President. No. And you have me in a spot in which I don't feel that I can continue discussing these things or future actions. Because for about a quarter of a century I was doing some negotiating for a union against the employers, and you don't talk in advance about strategy or about what you will or won't do, or there's no point in having negotiations.

So, I just want to tell you that when we negotiate I'm going—as I say, on my side, I've got $22 billion. Now, $23 billion is all we're looking for in a reduction. And most of mine, as I say, are revenues that are not taxes and all. But let me also point something out that I think all of us ought to understand: why I feel so strongly about the tax situation, and resorting to taxes to curb a deficit when they'll do nothing of the kind.

In all these years, of these 59 months of expansion, our tax revenues—now I believe that this expansion we are having is largely due to the tax cuts that we implemented early in our administration but for all this period of time the percentage of revenues is about—well, it's about 19 percent every year of the gross national product. Now, the gross national product has been increasing in size quite sizably. So that if we are getting revenues that are still 19 percent of that larger gross national product than the smaller, it would indicate that the revenues are sufficient. But the problem is that the deficit is—or I should say, wait a minute, the spending I should say of gross national product—forgive me—the spending is roughly 23 percent to 24 percent, so that it is what is increasing while revenues are staying proportionately the same and what would be the proper amount that we should be taking from the private sector. And I think that this is something we have to consider if we are going to maintain prosperity.

I will say this with regard to taxes and our sources of revenue: They must not be something that has an adverse effect on the economy.

Q. To follow up on that, Mr. President, do you consider some taxes perhaps less harmful than others? Perhaps sin taxes—alcohol, tobacco? Are they less harmful to the economy than perhaps an income tax increase?

The President. Well, let me just say that there are some taxes, such as the income tax, that have a more definite effect on the economy than some other taxes; but I am not going to discuss anymore of what we are going to do in this.

Q. Mr. President, let's stay on this if we can. On Monday you said despite the plunge in the stock market that the economy was sound. On Wednesday you said it had turned around. Now, today you are ready to meet with the Congress. What has caused this transformation after months of refusing a budget summit?

The President. No, I haven't been refusing. I submitted, as I have to every year under the law, a budget. And a budget that provided for revenues, as I pointed out here. And the Congress wouldn't even look at it. And the manner in which we arrive at our budget is so much different than anything the Congress does.

We, with the men and the women who have to run the programs—that are the heads of the Departments and the Cabinet members—we spend weeks and hours every day, for a long period of time, with them and their expertise in running them, deciding how much money they require to perform the task that the Congress has imposed on us with that program. Then we send that up to the Hill. And those Congressmen-who don't have any idea about running those programs, they just voted to pass a program to do a certain thing—they turn around and say oh, no, you need millions of dollars more to achieve the objective than you've asked for.

Well, I think it's kind of a stupid setup. And this is what we've been trying to do for a long time—is arrive at the ways in which we can reduce spending and so forth. But now, with the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings program, with the sequestering provision that has been passed, we have to get together and make a decision.

Q. If I could follow, sir, I'm wondering if it took a crisis to bring you to the point where you were willing to meet with Congress and whether, if you had met before, you might not have in some way averted the market crisis this week.

The President. No, I think it's been a crisis ever since I presented a budget and that they never will even look at them. If they had looked at our budgets, last year the cumulative deficit would have been -$207 billion less than it turned out to be.
Trude [Trude Feldman, Trans-Features]?

Q. Back to the Gulf, Mr. President.
The President. Yes.

Soviet Role in the Persian Gulf

Q. What kind of cooperation are you getting from the Soviets in restoring some stability to the Gulf and in ending the Iran-Iraq war?

The President. Well, the Soviet Union joined us in 598. That was, as you know, the U.N. resolution, the Security Council. They joined us in that and supporting that. Now, Iran is the only one of the two that has refused to accept it as yet. We're still pushing on that before we move on to the followup, which was what do we do if they won't accept it. We're still holding back on that, because the Secretary-General of the United Nations is still seeing if he cannot persuade Iran to cooperate. If they don't, then we will have to face, in the Security Council, the adoption of the second proviso, which is the arms embargo on Iran.

But they have been cooperative, and they did go along on the resolution.

Q. May I follow up? Are you finished?
The President. Yep.

Middle East Peace Settlement

Q. And what are the prospects for a peace conference under joint U.S-Soviet sponsorship?

The President. Oh, well, we had thought, in going along for a long time with the others that believed that the Arab nations were still technically in a state of war with Israel, that they and Israel could get together and should get together. Some of them have, such as the great efforts that King Hussein of Jordan has—how far he has gone to try and bring this about. But it just hasn't worked. And more and more, the word has been uttered that we should form an international group to help them come together and bring peace. And we finally have gone over to explore that. That's what the Secretary-General has been doing in the Middle East. And so far, Israel prefers not to go that route. They

Q. Meaning Mr. Shultz.
The President. Yes.

U.S. Presence in the Persian Gulf

Q. Mr. President, earlier this week, the U.S. attacked an Iranian oil platform in the Gulf. But despite that, today Iran fired another Silkworm missile on Kuwait. Do you really think you can stop the Ayatollah?

The President. Well, the Ayatollah is in a war, and if he's going to go on with provocative acts against us or anyone else, then he's running a great risk, because we're going to respond. We're not going to sit there. And we have to feel that, on the basis of everything he said and everything he's done, that if we did not retaliate as we did recently he still would have done again what he did the first time. We're going to try to point out to him that it's a little too expensive if he's to keep that up.

Q. Mr. President, if I could follow up: When this whole operation started, the U.S. had 5 ships in the Gulf. Now you have more than 30 in the area. Can you set any limits on the U.S. involvement in the Persian Gulf and tell us how long this escort operation is going to continue?

The President. No, I can't tell you how long that will, but I can tell you that I believe we're just the same as—we have a fleet in the Mediterranean, and we have one in the Caribbean, other places of that kind. We've had naval forces there since 1949. And we have to have them as long as it is necessary to take action to keep international waters open to commerce and trade. And no nation has a right to close those, particularly when it's not involved with their enemy that they're at war with, but when it's neutral nations.

The Nation's Economy

Q. To restore public confidence in the economy, do you think it would be a good idea for you to urge more banks to lower their interest rates, as a couple have done this week?

The President. Well, I think they have done that on their own, and I think it was a very wise thing to do.

Q. What about business? Do you think that businesses should lower some of their prices and take a little bit less a profit to encourage more sales— [laughter] —to keep this economy going?

The President. I'm not going to make suggestions like that to them. I think that's up to them. And as I say, there are no signs of deteriorating economy out there in the economy. We have the highest percentage of the potential work force at work—employed today—than we've had in the entire history of the United States.

All right, Sam [Sam Donaldson, ABC News].

Deficit Reduction and Taxes

Q. Mr. President, I've listened to what you've had to say tonight, and it's still not clear to me that you will accept and agree to a budget compromise package that contains higher taxes. Will you?

The President. Sam, as I've told you, I can't discuss in advance what I will or won't do, but I'm going to tell you I have not changed my opinion about ever accepting a tax that will have a deleterious effect on the economy. And most tax increases do.

Taxing is not the policy wither the problem with the deficit. The deficit is due to too much spending. Every dollar of increased revenue since 1980—and that means including our tax cuts—every dollar of increased revenue has been matched by $1.25 of increased spending.

Q. Sir, you feel very strongly about this, obviously.
The President. Yes.

Q. You've been one of the leading proponents of supply-side economics. What went wrong?

The President. What went wrong with what? Supply-side economics?

Q. Why are we in the economic mess that we are in today?

The President. Because for more than half a century that was dominated entirely by the Congress of—both Houses of the Congress by one party. They have followed, beginning with what they call the Keynesian Theory, deficit spending—openly deficit spending on the basis that they claimed that it was necessary to maintain prosperity, that you had to do it, and it wasn't hurtful, because we owed it to ourselves. And some of us said year after year that this would keep on to the point that it would get out of control. And it has, just as we said it would. And they've got to give up that belief in that. I think I'd like to point out to them that Maynard Keynes didn't even have a degree in economics.

Q. The Democrats
The President. What?

Q. It's the Democrats who did it?

The President. Well, you can look up and see who dominated both Houses of the Congress for the last 50 years.

Q. Mr. President, you've taken great delight, in your appearances over the last 6 months or year, in saying that there will absolutely be a veto of any tax increase that reaches my desk. You've said that in a number of different ways. Now, in light of the crisis on Wall Street this week, are you going to stop saying that, sir?

The President. You're all trying to get me into saying what am I going to do when I sit down at the table with the other fellows. And I'm going to tell you that I'm going to do what I think is absolutely necessary for the economy of the United States. And I still happen to believe that taxing is something—well, I think it's what brought on the troubles that we had when I came here.

Q. Sir, but it sounds like you're still basically opposed to any increased taxation, whether you call it revenue increases or tax increases.

The President. No, there are many sources that we've pointed out. I'm in favor of a number of pay for services—that there are some things that government does for, say, a particular group of people, a service that's performed. I don't think that the taxpayer should pay for that service when it is limited to one particular group. They should pay a fee for that service.

Q. Are you still against tax increases?

The President. They'll find out when I sit down there.

Q. Mr. President, while your budget talk has been conciliatory over the past few days and a bit this evening, earlier this week you flatly blamed Congress again, out on the South Lawn, for the deficit. Doesn't the White House equally share in this mess?

The President. Well, just a minute. The President of the United States cannot spend a nickel; only Congress can authorize the spending of money. And for 6 years now, I have repeatedly asked the Congress for less money, and they have turned around and given more to spend, and done it in such a way that I can't veto it when they put it all together—instead of appropriations—in a continuing resolution. We haven't had a deficit—or, a budget since I've been here.

No, the Congress is the one that's in command, and we have to persuade them that what we've asked for is enough to support the programs as determined by the people who work those programs and who run them. And every budget that I've sent up there has been put on a shelf, and I've been told that it's dead on arrival. And then we are faced, someplace after the first of the fiscal year, with a continuing resolution containing 13 or so appropriation bills. And I think that I was perfectly justified in saying that a President is not responsible for this. You can go back all the way to 1931; we've been running deficits.

Q. Mr. President?
The President. Yes, wait just a.—

AIDS Commission

Q. There's been dissension and disarray on your AIDS panel. Even Cardinal O'Connor, one of the most prominent members, has said that he thinks perhaps his time should be better spent working against this plague on the local levels. What are you going to do about this?

The President. Well, a couple who've quit—we're going to replace them. We've appointed a new Chairman of the Commission. We think that it has to have a variety of skills, because it's a very complex problem. So, we have as much representation as we can get from the business community, from medicine, from education, and so forth. And we have two vacancies to fill. And I'm still hopeful that we'll learn something and find out if there are more things and better things that we can do with regard to this terrible plague.

We have spent more money every year-increased—on AIDS. And next year—well, in the present fiscal year, now that October 1 has passed, we'll be spending over $1 billion on AIDS. And I think we need a Commission, someone to help and advise us on how best we can spend that money.

Q. Do you believe, sir, that the panel will be able to finish its report on schedule?

The President. I'm hoping that they can and have to assume they can.
Now, this gentleman here, I—

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

Q. Yes, Mr. President, back on the economy and trade: Your comments tonight on trade: Many economists think that one quick, sure-fire way to give the economy a big boost would be to create, in effect, a Common Market for North America. Now, you initiated these talks with [Canadian] Prime Minister Mulroney, and [Treasury] Secretary Baker recently completed the negotiations. But the Canada-U.S. trade pact is being vigorously opposed, especially in Canada and in some parts of the U.S. Is there any way that your office can be put behind this to give it the needed push?

The President. Oh, you bet that I'm behind it. The problem is right now there's a Parliament in Canada, also, that has to pass on it. And I understand they're somewhat reluctant about a few points. I think the trade agreement that we reached with them is one of the foremost things that has happened in this area in history. Here we are these two great partners—and we're the greatest trading partners in volume in the world, between us. And this would just be a tremendous step forward for all of us.

Q. Well, sir, to follow up: Would you be willing to go back to Canada and try and get some of those Canadian legislators together and talk to them, as you just have here?

The President. I'm not sure that I could do any better with foreign legislators than I'm doing with our own. [Laughter]
Andrea [Andrea Mitchell, NBC News]?

Strategic Defense Initiative

Q. Mr. President, now that an INF deal is all but wrapped up, the next step would be strategic weapons. The Soviets have said that they are willing to give you the big cuts in those missiles that you've always wanted if you would agree to some limits on strategic defense testing. Now, a lot of experts have said that that would not require slowing down the program for the foreseeable future. Why have you told your negotiators that they cannot even discuss this issue with the Soviets?

The President. Because if you put it on the table as a bargaining chip, then it becomes a bargaining chip. And we have said that this, a real defense against nuclear weapons, can be the biggest factor in hopefully one day making those weapons obsolete, because I heard my own words come back to me the other day from Mr. [Soviet Foreign Minister] Shevardnadze, when he said to me what I've said a dozen times in some of the parliaments and legislatures of the world: A nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought. And the best way to ever bring that about is to perfect this plan, which we think can be perfected, and then be able to say to the world here is a defense against nuclear missiles. And we'll make it available to the world in return for the world giving up nuclear weapons.

Soviet-U.S. Summit Meeting

Q. Well, with the likelihood, then, at least of a summit here in the United States to sign the treaty on the medium-range missiles, what kind of summit do you envision with Mikhail Gorbachev? What would you like him to see in this country, and where would you like to take him? And how do you think
The President. Oh, Andrea—

Q. that would affect superpower relations?

The President. Andrea, we don't have a word yet or a date yet as to whether he's coming. We have a belief that this is going to take place, and I want it to take place very much. But also I hope that when it does that—he's never been to this country before—that he would have time to see a great deal of America. And I think it would be good for him to see this and to see things that he couldn't accuse us of staging them for him. Let him see it.

Now, yes, I've thought about—knowing something about the quarters that they have for beach homes in the summer and so forth—I've thought it would be kind of nice to invite him up to our 1,500-foot adobe shack that was built in 1872 and let him see how a capitalist spends his holidays.

Robert H. Bork

Q. Well, comment on the Bork confirmation. You said, "If they reject him, I'll give them someone they will dislike just as much." That seems a defiant statement. Both you and the Senate have fulfilled your constitutional duty. The people exercise their democratic privileges by expressing their opinion. The majority of the Senators rejected Judge Bork, and according to the polls, the majority of the American people. So, while it appears your defiance was aimed at the Senate, weren't you, in reality, defying the working of democracy in America, while advocating democracy around the world?

The President. I think that this selection of a judge—and what you were referring to as democracy—I think was totally out of line with what the procedure should be. We were not electing a political figure that could then be turned out of office by someone's votes—and for the first time in history, to go out and have private interest groups of various kinds pressuring individuals to vote a certain way on this. What I meant was that I will try to find, if he is turned down when they vote—and we have had the testimony of some of the greatest minds in the field of law in the United States, and including the former Justice and all as to his qualifications—I will try to find somebody that is as qualified in the same way that he is.

I think that this thing was politicized, and I think that Judge Bork was one of the first ones that said, regardless of what happens to him now, we must all make sure that never again does this process that has been so dignified as a confirmation by the Senate of an appointee of the President turned into a political contest, as if people were voting on it. And I think if you would compare the qualities of the people who testified for him—and their qualifications, I should say, not quality—I think they were far superior than most of the people who were against him.

Q. You said it was politicized. It wasn't politicized from the beginning because of the fact that I remember about 2 years ago when Senator Paul Trible asked the Black Bar Association of Virginia to recommend a black person for a Federal judge. And I quote from Senator Paul Trible's letter; he said: "Recommend someone who shares the conservative philosophy of President Reagan." And it's pretty hard to find a black—you know— [laughter] —who shares it. [Laughter] And so, and then you said again that you had pressure interest groups. Isn't that what happens in America? Special interest groups—I don't know whether you're talking about the civil rights people and women and all. They're American citizens, and don't they have that right to do so? And then, well, I guess that's—answer those questions.

The President. Well, if it was to be that way, then we would have early on decided you would elect judges by public vote. And they decided that that was probably not the way to get those with the best qualifications.

But on the racial question, I realize that there are some who believe that somehow I have a prejudice in that way and am a racist. And that is one of the most frustrating things to me, because I was on the other side in that fight long before it became a fight. And I would like to point out that the head of CORE, the Committee on [Congress of] Racial Equality, was one of the witnesses testifying on behalf of Judge Bork.

Note: The President's 42d news conference began at 8 p.m. in the East Room at the White House. It was broadcast live on nationwide radio and television.
Citation: Ronald Reagan: "The President's News Conference," October 22, 1987. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=33594.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33594#ixzz1fWrLkVrP

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 22:31 | 1942838 Bansters-in-my-...
Bansters-in-my- feces's picture

Ps....

Shoot'm up.....Bitchez...!

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 22:32 | 1942842 rambler6421
rambler6421's picture

Guns, gold, and a getaway plan.- Gerald Celente.

 

libertarian86.blogspot.com

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 23:14 | 1942865 razorthin
razorthin's picture

When the SHTF, you will need to Kill to eat (rodents, lagomorphs and birds, of course ;)) and kill to not get eaten.  So what are you waiting for?  I recommend the Kel Tec P11.  Will only cost you about 6 silver dollars.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 23:23 | 1942946 JohnG
JohnG's picture

Lovely weapons.  Pistol caliber, folding, easy to conceal, rugged, accurate, and durable.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 22:49 | 1942875 bernorange
bernorange's picture

I'll take a phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 22:51 | 1942880 jomama
jomama's picture

i've never even shot a gun until recently - never believed in them, and even i bought a springfield operator.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 22:58 | 1942898 Normalcy Bias
Normalcy Bias's picture

Nice. It's a tack driver!

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 22:55 | 1942887 non_anon
non_anon's picture

Yee! Haw!

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 23:22 | 1942930 kehops
kehops's picture

OT or not, I live accross the river from Ottawa (Canada's capital) where the Department National Defense's shooting range is and I've never heard it more active than in the past 2 weeks, and I've been here for 5 years.  Playing war games or practicing for war, who knows, but with all the shit going on lately it kinda makes you wonder/worry.

On a more positive note, Parliament just voted down the long riffle registery, which would have obligated every Canadian riffle owner to register as such.  Talk about knowing your enemy.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 23:26 | 1942957 navy62802
navy62802's picture

They're getting ready for an invasion of Iran. On the same note, the US Navy jets down here in Virginia Beach have been doing alot of extra training in recent weeks. It's been all over the local news.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 23:43 | 1942995 kehops
kehops's picture

That's just scary...Invade Iran - who gives a fuck about Russia and China.  Seems likle war is the now the only way to "new" oil discoveries.  Or just step #157 in TPTB agenda.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 00:23 | 1943118 navy62802
navy62802's picture

You're right, it is very scary. What most people don't take the time to think about is the impact on oil prices. Oil out of that region would skyrocket overnight, as the Iranians would shut down the Straight or Hormuz with mines. Russia and China would likely side with Iran, and we'd have WWIII. Nevertheless, US forces (and it seems Canadian forces) are sharpening their blades for precisely such an action.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 00:38 | 1943155 kehops
kehops's picture

How much % of daily oil production comes out of Iran anyway?  They can't be stupid enough to think they can invade IRAN over "nuclear prolification" (ie: oil)  without waking a few sleeping giants...poke poke.  Someone will benefit somewhere (at the top), but for the average man, woman and child, it means unsustainable oil prices and/or WW3.  My poor kids...

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 00:51 | 1943178 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

I have heard varying stats, anywhere from 30-60%!

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 23:17 | 1942933 Reptil
Sat, 12/03/2011 - 23:27 | 1942963 JohnG
JohnG's picture

Great find.  A little C6 take care of a bunch of those......

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 23:25 | 1942956 s2man
s2man's picture

Ouch.  they have traced your IP addresss and put you on the hit list.  Of course, all of us ZH'ers are already on their list...

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 23:27 | 1942960 navy62802
navy62802's picture

Haha, yep. We've been on the hit list for a long time now. I consider it an honor.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 23:31 | 1942967 s2man
s2man's picture

Just for the record, my ex got all my guns in the divorce. 

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 23:48 | 1943009 StormShadow
StormShadow's picture

That's a shame. All mine were lost in a tragic boating accident

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 00:15 | 1943097 UP Forester
UP Forester's picture

That is appalling.  Good thing I only bought one from a store, and promptly sold it because I was afraid it would jump up and shoot me.

Those things are dangerous, and I would never own a brand new, off the shelf firearm.  I might consider owning well-used firearms previously owned by someone who proved, by firing it at least several hundred times and owning it for years, that it would not jump up and shoot me.

In that case, I would even consider a straight-up trade for FRNs.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 00:28 | 1943129 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Sorry to hear about that.  Yeah, it happened to me too.  Lost my gold in the same accident.  Damn!

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 18:29 | 1944959 Jena
Jena's picture

Mud slide here.  It was just awful.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 02:56 | 1943356 Mary Wilbur
Mary Wilbur's picture

Don't worry. If the Stop Online Piracy Act passes Zero Hedge as well as the rest of the internet will die.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 23:28 | 1942965 onlooker
onlooker's picture

 

With the upcoming election, Democrats need to consolidate their base, especially the far left and the unemployed.

 

Nothing rallies the Democrats more than the gun threat. They must rally the troops. Politico has a top page ad to “Help President Obama”. And our President does need help to get reelected. The gun issue is a sure fire (pun) Democrat issue.

 

It fires the emotions and avoids the, in your face and in your wallet facts, of the American economy in destruct mode.

 

Not to say the Republicans seem to be educating the voters to the ongoing disaster.

 

It is ALL bullshit. The PUPPET Masters at work.

 

I do not know if voting matters or not in this rigged game, but

 

lets give it another go

 

Vote, vote smart, learn and educate. These are critical times when we must get it right.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 23:38 | 1942987 MrBinkeyWhat
MrBinkeyWhat's picture

You can pry my gun from my cold dead hand.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 01:46 | 1943266 TSA gropee
TSA gropee's picture

I think that's their general idea.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 23:43 | 1942994 monopoly
monopoly's picture

As I said in an earlier post.

"Change you can believe in."

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 03:01 | 1943244 UP Forester
UP Forester's picture

This article shows not all will go for "Chains you can believe in."

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 23:43 | 1942999 monopoly
monopoly's picture

I am sorry. But I just paid close attention to the Santa picture and I am LMAO and am in tears I am laughing so hard. That is just perfect.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays. :))))

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 23:46 | 1943004 High Plains Drifter
Sat, 12/03/2011 - 23:50 | 1943015 cathrynm
cathrynm's picture

Not just the Swiss.  Gun ownership is also legal in Finland. 

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 00:17 | 1943103 LongOfTooth
LongOfTooth's picture

The sound is better at this link:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTcBgs2huRo&feature=related 

 

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 00:46 | 1943170 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

One of my better moments.  Thank you!

 

Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 23:58 | 1943051 SilverDoctors
SilverDoctors's picture

this is why I don't see a door-to-door confiscation of gold and silver ever occuring in the US.  Not with 100 million guns in the hands of private citizens.

http://silverdoctors.blogspot.com/

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 00:17 | 1943104 cynicalskeptic
cynicalskeptic's picture

Gun obsessed, Constitution quoting, precious metals owning and food hoarding survivalists are all suspect of being 'domestic terrorists' according to Homeland Security.......

I guess that would make pretty much ALL of our Founding Fathers 'terrorists'...........  oh yeah... they WERE, 'traitors' to the British Crown all.......

 

Funny how governments - who according to Anglo-Saxon ploitical theory and law - are given the power to rule by their citizens, seem to view those citizens as traitors when they start questioning the copmptence of their leaders and whether or not they are fulfilling their duties in serving all the people and the nation.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 00:03 | 1943068 lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

Civil war is coming and it' gonna be ugly.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 00:06 | 1943076 robertocarlos
robertocarlos's picture

What's that song again? Don't take it out unless you are going to use it. Don't use it unless you know how to use it." Something like that.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 00:10 | 1943087 cynicalskeptic
cynicalskeptic's picture

People aren't totally stupid.  They see that things are falling apart and that at some point we risk rioting over food and fuel.  People also remember what happened during power outages - when mobs ransacked stores.

Sadly you cannot expect desperate - or criminally inclined - people to behave 'well' or count on government to protect you if things really get bad.

 

I'm astounded at how many people have talked about getting a gun - even those who have NEVER even held a weapon.......

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 02:50 | 1943347 Mary Wilbur
Mary Wilbur's picture

I'm one of them.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 00:15 | 1943088 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

I read the second amendment as one sentience with a comma used for brevity. I believe the terms "militia" and "people" are used interchangeable.

This is a can of worms few recognize and/or want to admit. That is, the militia IS the people and the people ARE the militia.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 10:09 | 1943640 Cloud9.5
Cloud9.5's picture

The militia refers to the whole people.  George Mason  

 

The best evaluations of the second amendment: Yale Law Journal

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 00:15 | 1943099 VelvetHog
Sun, 12/04/2011 - 00:19 | 1943111 dolly madison
dolly madison's picture

The increase is more people waking up.  Even in the liberal online groups people are talking about being glad we have a right to bear arms.  People who in the past might have liked the idea of gun control, are now understanding why we must not lose our guns.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 00:22 | 1943116 xtop23
xtop23's picture

<3 the 2nd Amendment.

Whats left of it anyway...... along with pretty much every other item mentioned in The Bill of Rights.

America IS afterall a battlefield now.

Just ask that neo-con douchebag McCain.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 00:30 | 1943136 VelvetHog
VelvetHog's picture

McCain looks like a penis in a suit with teeth.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 09:45 | 1943611 Normalcy Bias
Normalcy Bias's picture

That's because McCain is a penis in a suit with teeth.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 00:36 | 1943153 San Diego Gold Bug
San Diego Gold Bug's picture

philipat Fool,

  Do you know how many retired military people there are in this country, The Great USA, that own guns?  Can you say Springfield M1A .308 with special Night Force night vision scope (500 yards in the dead of night is nothing)!  It is our right, one of the things that has made us great and help provide not only our freedom but the freedom of others (many of us died saving Europes ass from hitler).  hitler took away the guns and look what happened!  Maybe you should just stay inside and let us continue to do the heavy lifting for you!

A Patriot

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 01:12 | 1943224 Grand Supercycle
Grand Supercycle's picture

SP500 bull vs bear battle reverts to bearish bias after price action on Friday and more downside expected.

My long term indicators have continued to warn of US Dollar strength and EURO weakness and these signals have increased since 2009. The overdue dollar rally should be substantial.

http://stockmarket618.wordpress.com

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 01:34 | 1943251 UP Forester
UP Forester's picture

No shit?  My long term indicators show snow in the northern half of the country, rain in the southern half, and possibility of both in each, with a chance of drought.

Oh, yeah, and the inevitability of all fiat currencies collapsing.  That is all.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 02:26 | 1943310 luna_man
luna_man's picture

 

 

GEEZE...I got hear late, but I can see by the numbers...

"Philipat", you best change your "handle" SOON!...

NEVER SAW SO MUCH RED!!!!

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 02:58 | 1943358 TSA gropee
TSA gropee's picture

Viewing the gun sale statistics brings me to wonder what percentage of those firearms went to first time buyers. Owning a firearm while offering a certain measure of security from a psychological aspect should also spur the owner to seek training on firearm safety and on the myriad of local, state and federal laws regarding them and their use. I doubt that many new firearm owners go into the purchase fully aware of all the responsibilities and realities that come along with firearm ownership. Not the least of which is giving thought to under what conditions they should or even if could pull their weapon and potentially take the life of another or lose theirs as well as the need to shoot regularly to stay in "tune". It is one thing to own a firearm, it is quite another to have the confidence to use it should the need arise, and even then it often doesn't work out as expected. What comes to my mind is the recent SWAT shooting of the Veteran in Tucson whose home was the subject of a drug raid. His wife sensing someone outside yelled to her husband and he fearing for his wife and young son gets his AR-15 and ends up getting hit some 22 times out of 71 rounds fired. According to reports it was a "lawful" kill and no one was disciplined.This to me is telling, first that the fact that 49 rounds fired missed means these some of these guys were probably scared and just fired. Also, there seemingly was litte regard for the wife and child. To me, I saw little if no evidence of "innocent until proven guilty". These days the chances of some militarized law enforcement entering a home unannounced are relatively high and needs to be factored into any decision to draw a weapon.

Nowadays I see it as being imperative to be constantly situationally aware as well as extremely careful not to draw attention to oneself. Know your audience and if that's not possible err on the side of caution.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 03:14 | 1943375 UP Forester
UP Forester's picture

A lot of people who have the means and are situationally aware have already left or are seriously considering leaving.  The rest are arming or seriously considering arming themselves.

There are people (I'm one) that believe there will be a "Martyr Moment" on par with the Algerian fruit-vendor self-immolation, and SHTF.  Then Solzhenitsyn's words will be heeded by more than a few, and due to the current police-state conditions, black-bag squads won't be received too kindly.

I don't think it will matter if people are as well-trained as the jack-boots for very long, as they are the few and the armed populace is the many.  00 Buck and an improved cylinder tends to make up for marksmanship if you're getting bum-rushed.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 03:33 | 1943393 The Heart
The Heart's picture

Wow!

This is better than TV!

What great words shared by so many here. Enlightening too!

I wish my dad was like this guy who is shining some light on the "traitorous Senators" like he is doing here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xKHFW-R4Cs

This is the page he is referring to and the link to how to recall your senators:

 

[apfn-1] LIST OF TRAITOR SENATORS THAT VOTED ON THE DETENTION ACT

Sent: Friday, December 2, 2011 8:28 PM
Subject: [apfn-1] LIST OF TRAITOR SENATORS THAT VOTED ON THE DETENTION ACT

December 2, 2011

Alert to all!

Here is the list of the dirty rotten traitorous senators that voted on the indefinite detention act.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2011-218

Recall all who voted for this and other treasonous acts against the free American People.

http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16581

RECALL ALL THE SENATORS THAT VOTED ON THIS TREASON NOW!

RK

 

If everyone actually got off their duffs and did something to recall these traitor Senators like this ol feller, it would be a better world.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 04:00 | 1943403 dolph9
dolph9's picture

And I thought I was a paranoid survivalist...

Some of the posts here give me a chuckle.  Which is a good thing, you have to be able to laugh at things.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 04:49 | 1943428 msjimmied
msjimmied's picture

Good. I'm tired of seeing pictures of a revolution where the people can only throw stones. It doesn't matter what side you're on with the OWS protests, on some level people got the message. The action of the police with the protestors and the press tells you your rights are gone. The militarization of the police negates the injunction against using the military to quell the people. We did not see the danger of this till now. It's not their fellowmen people are arming themselves against, they are arming themselves against a government they no longer trust. Explain the sudden surge in gun sales if you disagree.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 05:56 | 1943452 saiybat
saiybat's picture

There's a dip on the Saiga IZ-132 real kalashnikovs from the Izhmash factory. It just has a sporter stock and magazine to be legal but that can be fixed. I got mine for $250. Get them while you still can.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 06:05 | 1943459 bullet357
bullet357's picture

Reloading saves money and a person knows what they are shooting. When they (the gov.) bans ammo i will not worry ....I make my own.  When the SHTF which could be VERY SOON i will be ready as most of my friends. Two words to live by in the coming days.  FOOD & AMMO!  When they come for my guns it will be as Charlton H. said "From my COLD Dead hands!"  Latin saying.... Molon Labe... come and take them

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 06:12 | 1943467 bullet357
bullet357's picture

Philipat just remember when they come for you ....could be gov. or gangs of roving shit bags looting and killing when the SHTF ...your last thoughts will be how fu*ken stupid you are.  Time to arm yourself dumbsh*T   brain liberal asswipe.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 06:58 | 1943500 wally_12
wally_12's picture

Hey, UP Forester, I’m a Summertime Yooper near Calumet.

The haze in the fall isn’t burning leaves anymore. The smell of burnt gunpowder fills the air. The neighbors are zeroing in their firearms. My next door, 77 year, old female neighbor carries a .45 walking the dog. You can’t be to careful. A Couger was sighted 4 doors down. Clickondetroit.com had a video of Couger last week.

I asked the clothes dryer repairman about a range to zero in my new scope and he laughed and said a bail of hay in a berm. I asked about wolves protection and he said “shoot & dig, place transmitter on Semi”.

As to the Military supporting the oligarchy when TSHTF, my experience would leave me to believe that the oligarchy should have a good escape plan.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 11:07 | 1943712 VelvetHog
VelvetHog's picture

They're sighting them in for buck season. 

 

That cougar is nothing to worry about.  Its the two-legged Trolls and FIBS that are the concern.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 07:51 | 1943529 sabra1
sabra1's picture

people, if you're gonna buy guns, please buy them in the black market! are people that stupid, to hand in names and adresses? YUP!!!!

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 07:54 | 1943532 sabra1
sabra1's picture

weapon of choice, would be a slingshot and ball bearings! real quiet, and bearings are reusable!

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 08:29 | 1943544 EBR MOD 0
EBR MOD 0's picture

hey wanklord  to quote:

The Federal government has already a comprehensive -and constantly updated- national database of all gun owners in America, so when it is time to implement Martial Law due mainly to social unrest (Google NSPD51), they will order the surrendering of all weapons in exchange for food coupons – HASTA LA VISTA Second Amendment.

now for someone who probably doesn't know jack shit about this, you show it. You ASSume that all sales are on record, well ok, some are but a lot are not and these are only paper and a lot are not. So go back and wank on your lord some more and send some of your paper money to support Obummer and his criminalslike you would have in 1775. You are obviously one of the elitists who will be headed for the rescue camps when it crashes, good riddance. Too bad for you. Hope you get the message dip shit it ain't happening on my watch, please just cross the line and keep walking. 

"I prefer dangerous liberty to peacful slavery" Thomas Jefferson.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 08:49 | 1943559 Dollar Bill Hiccup
Dollar Bill Hiccup's picture

Drone strike in Zucotti park. Would have saved NYC some money on manpower. Damn subversives. The cops could have spent the free time practicing their waterboarding and the art of sodomy with broomhandles.

If the PRESIDENT can order a US CITIZEN indefinitely detained without warrant or judicial review and without trial or hope of a trial, if he can order the assasination of US CITIZENS under the same veil of secrecy and illegitimacy, then the PRESIDENT has bypassed the CONTSTITUITON. He is no longer President, he is KING.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 08:50 | 1943560 Dollar Bill Hiccup
Dollar Bill Hiccup's picture

Dupe, apologies.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 09:13 | 1943579 VT_Republic
VT_Republic's picture

”A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” - George Washington “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson “Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.” - James Madison

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 10:20 | 1943663 moondog
moondog's picture

+1,000,000 The founding fathers knew that the nature of man (and governments) necessitated firearms. They are the modern day crossbow.

“Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.” - James Madison

Well....two outta three aint bad...disarming is coming.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 09:48 | 1943615 GCT
GCT's picture

What wank lord does not understand is there are alot more of unregistered firearms then registered firearms.  We Americans have been collecting them for a long long time and they are passed down to the next geneeration.  You can go to almost any local housing project and buy them proper without registering them either.  No background check involved. 

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 10:51 | 1943688 TheAkashicRecord
TheAkashicRecord's picture

A great YouTube series, "FPSRussia" 

12 Gauge Dragons Breath

http://tiny.cc/2kc4g

 

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 10:57 | 1943695 saiybat
saiybat's picture

Let me remind all of you to donate to the Gun Owners of America. The NRA is a sell out organization.

http://gunowners.org/store/contribute

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 10:59 | 1943700 Lazane
Lazane's picture

hey, this arming of the people to keep and bare arms is just getting going, wait till the real fun begins and the disarming of the people.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 11:16 | 1943745 aerojet
aerojet's picture

All it means is that gun companies have succeeded in tying their products to the consumerist mentality.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 11:25 | 1943772 TheAkashicRecord
TheAkashicRecord's picture

The obese, lower-back-tattooed, slovenly swine fighting over $2 waffle irons at WalMart are not the same people buying ammunition and guns (or PMs). 

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 11:34 | 1943805 PulauHantu29
PulauHantu29's picture

"Fast and Furious"

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 11:35 | 1943809 DanDaley
DanDaley's picture

Being armed is only half about guns; the other half is attitude.  You can have all the firearms in the world, but if you don't  have the willingness to fight for your freedom -and maybe die in the process, then you're about the same as a prisoner in an old Soviet gulag.  The secret is in knowing when to say 'enough is enough'.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 18:38 | 1944981 Jena
Jena's picture

That reminds me of an argument I had a number of years ago with a (liberal) sister-in-law about whether, given the chance, it's better to aim to shoot to wound or kill an intruder.  She favored the former, me the latter.  Neither of us changed the other's opinion.  

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 12:14 | 1943923 TSA gropee
TSA gropee's picture

"From my cold dead hands" I used to say this and thought I could realistically live by it. But I no longer think this way, for the simple reason that I would be dead and nothing would have changed. The internet was most instrumental in changing this thought process for there is an abundance of really good info and it is safe to say that for any given scenario, someone has thought it through and come up with another alternative. The distinct possibility of firearm confiscation is no exception. While it is ego building to think someone would hand TPTB their firearms one bullet at a time it is quite probably not very realistic when it comes right down to it. There is another way, and that is to be compliant and give up a couple of firearms(hand gun, rifle), preferably your older ones that you wouldn't use in self defense anyways. Problem solved, your a "good" and compliant citizen (serf) and you still maintain defensive capabilities.

On a side note, I highly recommend for the casual shooter to attend a tactical hand gun/rifle(if so equipped) course. Shooting from a stationary and vertical position to a stationary non-hostile target is one thing, shooting while under stress, on the move and from different positions is quite another. $200 bucks, your own weapon/ammo gets you a weekend. Money well spent.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 14:13 | 1944347 DanDaley
DanDaley's picture

I agree, most people are not as heroic as they think they are, and when the threat comes down, minds get changed really fast. Most people -even devoted "gun nuts", have never had a weapon aimed at them, much less fired at them, in anger.  It's there that you find out who is "right with Jesus" and who is a mall ninja.  

I think it is a bit naive to think that some gun confiscators would accept a couple of old beaters and take your word for it that you have no more.  More than likely they would assume that everyone has an apocalyptic-sized ammo dump buried in the back yard -and they would waterboard you (or threaten it) just to make sure.  Can you say Spanish Inquisition.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 14:06 | 1944329 Cast Iron Skillet
Cast Iron Skillet's picture

just fwiw - I think we need to start factoring drones into the equation ...

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 15:03 | 1944445 UnderDeGun
UnderDeGun's picture

As far as the FBI numbers go: the massive number of Americans who have their permits/licenses have soared since 2008. This effects the FBI numbers drastically - putting them on the low side. The reason is most CCW\CHL holders are not required to have the FBI check run when purchasing due to their licensure. This considered - the actual sales could have been 3-5X the posted number and no one would know. My wife bought one during this time frame. Her CHL precluded the call to the FBI therefore she wasn't included in their numbers.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 16:37 | 1944707 Strongbad
Strongbad's picture

To all you wankers who think the US military can take on 80 million gun owners: they can't finish off stone-age Taliban in Afghanistan.  Americans have access to much better education, money, vehicles, electronics, radio equipment, chemicals, ordanance, etc (ie, Americans would make way bigger and better IEDs - Timmy McVeigh anyone?)  Also, your average deer hunter in the US (there are about 30 million), can shoot farther and with more accuracy than your average Arab/Afghan insurgent BY FAR.  Not only this, but the USA is WAAAAAY bigger than that country.  I'm not advocating violence, just being realistic about the capabilities we have here versus Afghanis.  Whats more, in Afghanistan and Iraq, there are only a couple big cities to protect - in American there are hundreds.  Can the US afford a Bagdad-style "green-zone" in 100 different cities!??  Also, most of our weapons are made in the USA - can you really count on your supply line when its not only behind "enemy" lines, but the factory workers are "enemy combatants"?

 

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 17:00 | 1944765 pcrs
pcrs's picture

I think they are usually 1 step ahead of their tax slaves. It would not surprise me if they do it all with drones. They round up the most fanatic freedom lovers first in a big surprise raid. You have allready been identified by your IP adress. The drone control requires a massive amount of drones, but they will no doubt outsource the control to a bunch of Indians. The drones probably have enough electronics that you are dead, right after you point a gun at them. They higher some Indians in a computer game contest.

something like that.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 17:45 | 1944869 saiybat
saiybat's picture

Don't 50% of Americans own a gun now? Who are these anti gun people? I've never seen one except on television. Are they all in DC or hiding in their closet? Has anyone ever met this elusive creature that only seems to appear on camera?

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 19:40 | 1945125 JungleJim
JungleJim's picture

That seems like a very risky idea to me, consider that it's well know which politicians have voted against the 2nd amendment going back more than 50 years, your wives and children can be very easily located, your real estate is extremely vulnerable to fire hazards, would you dare to start your car ? Answer a phone ? Lift the lid on the trash can ? And that's just a start.

   There's a lot of Americans out there that take the Constitution very seriously.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 19:40 | 1945126 JungleJim
JungleJim's picture

That seems like a very risky idea to me, consider that it's well know which politicians have voted against the 2nd amendment going back more than 50 years, your wives and children can be very easily located, your real estate is extremely vulnerable to fire hazards, would you dare to start your car ? Answer a phone ? Lift the lid on the trash can ? And that's just a start.

   There's a lot of Americans out there that take the Constitution very seriously.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 22:11 | 1945509 TuffsNotEnuff
TuffsNotEnuff's picture

Occupy Wall Street has a better answer.

  • Nonviolence is the fulcrum.

  • Discipline is the lever.

Same as the Civil Right Movement. Same as the Salt March.

Pledge For Nonviolence

  • As you prepare for Occupy Wall Street, meditate on life, love and the blessings of faith, hope, and charity.
  • Refrain from violence of fist, tongue and heart.
  • Walk and talk in the manner of love; for truth and love are the core of life, neither ambition nor the temptations of control.
  • Sacrifice personal wishes that all might be free.
  • Observe with friends, with false friends and with your foes the ordinary rules of courtesy.
  • Perform regular service for others and the world.
  • Pray or simply ask within to be moved so that all men and women might be free.
  • Remember that nonviolence seeks Justice and Reconciliation – not victory.
  • Strive to be in good spirits and in good health. We are the 99% and we must go in peace.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was inspired by Mohandas Gandhi. Now it is our turn to be inspired by them both.

These nine principles are the same as the civil rights era list from Dr. King. Modified for local conditions, as always.

For example, yelling at a police officer should be weighed against the normal rules of courtesy. No one with Dr. King yelled at police.

People hugging their guns ??? It happens.

 

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 22:35 | 1945569 DanDaley
DanDaley's picture

There were guys like Ghandi and King in Germany, Russia, and Cuba, but they all ran into bullets early on.  Very sad.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!