I just got home from the Crossroads Gun Show in Phoenix and have a few observations I think might be of interest:
This show opened to the public at 9:00am and the line to get into the show was still very long at 11:00am which was the last time I looked. I don't remember seeing a feeding frenzy like was occurring at the ammo vendors ever before. You would never know we're in a recession if you were standing by one on the ammo vendors tables. Price gouging is rampart and ,for example, a box of 1000 large pistol primers was going for $80.00! The last time I bought these I paid under $20.00 per box. Price gouging on anything ammo related was across the board but I think this gives you the idea.
The was a nice selection of doubles including several Parkers Elsies,Foxes etc. I was sorely tempted to buy a decent Lefever I found priced under $300 that had a poor,but easily fixable, stock repair. The sporting gun dealers I talked to said business was slow. IMO;and for whatever it's worth, now is an opportune time to start hitting the shows and looking for doubles as I expect to see continued price softening as the tactical gun buying mania continues.
I'll be glad to answer any questions.
Jim

The gun and ammo manufacturers have just announced their Salesman of the Year: Barack Obama.

Jolly

That's almost exactly what the market was in Tulsa this spring.

I went to Crossroads this morning, too. The lines and crowds were horrendous, and the only things selling were black rifles and ammo. Saw some nice vintage things and may return tomorrow.

I've seen lots of the same in Alaska but, I've sold more guns in the last month than I had in the last 18 months. All were at least 70 years old. I don't understand it but I do like it.

I have been seeing this in OH and PA for the last few months. Ammo and black guns are the only things selling. At one show I had a nice Nitro I was walking around with for sale at a modest $425.00. I had a lot of inquiries but no buyer. I was outside having a smoke with a friend and he suggested I lower my price. I said "OK watch this". The next two people that inquired I responded that I wanted $100.00! Neither of them reached for their wallets. It's very strange out there right now. Nice doubles at bargain prices are just sitting there waiting for new homes.

Ever been on the business end of a double 12? Seemed pretty "tactical" to me!

Just did the big antique gun show in Novi, MI this past weekend. I had a table full of various old gun related "stuff" plus a couple guns and I did real well selling. Well meaning to the tune of about $500, part of which I turned into ammo at good prices. Found 12 boxes of short 10 gauge paper shells, some trap loads, and some 16 gauge hunting loads all for fair prices.

Couple other guys I know that had tables did alright as well, and I know a friend moved a Colt double at a good price. This weekend there's another little show nearby that I'll probably attend. This is mostly a black guns and pistol ammo type deal but I've got a lead on some 10 gauge ammo from a guy there so I'll go pay my $4 door fee to check it out.


Destry

The last time I paid $4 to get in a gun show was 1980 sumpin!!

I went to this one a couple months back and that's how much it was. Did seem cheap but it's not much of a show, if it was more than $5 I'd probably pass.

DLH

Well....here in Dixie (Mississippi)the black guns and pistols still reign at shows but I went to a small one this weekend and did notice that the bushmonster ARs were priced around $1,000 to $1,100 for a basic model, which is $200-$300 lower than a month ago. Show was not very crowded for a Sunday afternoon which was a pleasant change to be able to peruse the overpriced wares the "Used Car Salesmen" had on their tables.

At $1,000 to $1,100 this is still almost double what they were selling for last year. There's a LOT of money being made right now ripping off panic stricken buyers. As I pointed out earlier; the asking price for large pistol primers was $80 which is over four times what I paid the last time I bought them.
Hopefully some sensibility will eventually return to the market as it did after the gun ban in the 90s. I'm fortunate myself in that I well stocked up in just about every area and can afford to wait this out.
Jim

The matter was even an item here on British t.v. yesterday about the run on ammunition and guns more for self protection than sporting purposes over in the U.S. Lagopus.....

Watching the phenomena with interest, who are the panic-stricken buyers? I can't imagine members here being panic-stricken by anything. Are they first-time gun buyers? Why are tens, maybe hundreds of thousands, millions of Americans scared?

No fear or panic, simply voting with our pocketbooks against the policy of Chicagoization.

We're scared of becoming like Nova Scotians.

King:
That's my loose description of buyers,many of whom are first time firearms purchasers, who fear that they won't be able to buy firearms in the future. There is also pending legislation to either severly restrict the types and quantities of ammunition being sold or to raise the price to unaffordable levels. This is the primary reason(IMO) for the run on ammunition and reloading components.
I personally don't think there's much to fear on either front as the Democrats got a harsh lesson in reality after they enacted the "feel good but worthless" Assault weapons ban in 1994. I don't think they're likely to repeat that fiasco again.
Jim

Gregsy, I expect you meant that in jest, but that tone seems to be standard in reply to King's observations about the USA. I think he asks questions we should be asking ourselves. Nobody likes having an 'outsider' criticise our Country, but often they can see from their angle what we can't.

Why the heck ARE we arming ourselves with combat style weaponry? Surely nobody's stupid enough to think they are gonna be able to defy the government. I don't see any signs of riot or 'end-times' extinction of Law and Order. I'm not fond of our new government, but the Country voted to giv'em a chance and they're entitled to give Socialism their best shot. We'll run'em off if it doesn't work out.

As for myself, I carry a permitted pistol all the time, but I can't think of any need for infantry weapons...Geo

Put on a helmet George. I think I hear incoming.

The Achilles Heel of pure democracy is for 51% to enslave 49%. For a republic, it is the ability of leaders to defy the will of the people. The combination of democratic and republican government characteristics was intended to maximize the strengths while minimizing the weaknesses.

Reading the writings of the founders of this country and framers of our Constitution makes it crystal clear that they considered an armed citizenry an antidote to run-away government. While the vote was orders of magnitude to be prefered over armed interdiction, they recognized that humans are very suceptible to the Siren song of power.

There has been, since the founding of the country, a certain portion of the citizenry who stayed armed for the purpose of forced government change, if it became necessary. The proportion seems to be on the upswing at the moment as the leadership seems to be pointing toward socialism at the expense of individualism. There must be a large number of citizens who have become sufficiently alarmed over future gun and ammo availability to account for the current run. I know a number of first time gun owners who are neither paniced nor scared, but do consider their purchases to be prudent, current conditions considered

The concept that an armed and committed 1% can rule (as opposed to govern) an unarmed, law-abiding 99% may not be currently wasted on Americans. As for a citizen confrontation with the existing government, who would have supposed the Czech citizens could have ever faced down the Communist led Czech Army? You have to keep in mind that most soldiers are citizens first. There is a large gap between a riot and a popular uprising.

What do you suppose would happen if there was a move to eliminate the Presidental term limit within the next couple of years?

A couple of random thoughts:
I for one see no attempt at criticism in King Browns comments above. He just asking some IMO valid questions as a resident of another Country.
IMO; There is a possibility,however remote, of a popular uprising here and I expect if that were to occur the military would side with the uprisers. I think the Obama administration is well aware of this and so far has been treading very softly on those issues likely to inflame Conservatives.
Don't forget 65 Democrat Congressmen have gone on public record in informing this administration they will NOT support a new "Assault Weapons Ban" as they clearly understand what the consequences would be.
Jim

Watching the phenomena with interest, who are the panic-stricken buyers? I can't imagine members here being panic-stricken by anything. Are they first-time gun buyers? Why are tens, maybe hundreds of thousands, millions of Americans scared? - KB


I know a number of first-time buyers, none of whom are panic-stricken. Rather, they are prudent people who really don't like some of the foreseeable futures. I'm sure there is a small % out there who are trying to assure they "get theirs" before it gets more difficult or costly - they may be panic-stricken.

If two million (that would be "millions") USA citizens were scared, that would be about 0.7% which doesn't seem like a particularly large number. On the other hand, there are most probably many millions who are quite concerned, neither paniced nor scared, but concermed and alarmed as to the direction the new crop of office-holders seems to be headed. Could the USA citizenry be goaded into an uprising? Probably, but highly unlikely. There are way too many congressmen who recognize that no interest of theirs is served by being identified as "gov'ment people" on the wrong side of a rising. Should the new administration push so hard as to alienate the congress, then more or less nothing new happens until the next election. Should the administration try to overrun the congress, then a rising would be likely; but that seems unlikely at this time.

Paniced and scared, no, King, I don't see that. I see a rising % of citizens who have just realized that they may no longer be able to depend on the government leaving them alone to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

Rocketman:
If you don't like "panic stricken"* just substitute something else like eager buyers,avid buyers or whatever strikes your fancy. However I was there and it's the first time I've ever observed buyers running to the ammo dealers to get in line.
*I alluded to the fact that many were probably first time buyers in an earlier post.
Jim

Jim, I was not disputing with you, rather trying to explain the USA situation to KB. The news is usually out to cast gun buyers in the most negative of lights, so I imagine off-shore is getting a view of hordes of insane people having a gun feeding frenzy. You are right, I wasn't there. However, I'd ask if it was any different than any other commodity that is in short supply or might be offered at a bargan (relative to prices you have seen lately)? Perhaps you recall some of the near riots over the latest toy or electronic gizzy that is in short supply.

Certainly, no offense was meant!! Pardon, please, if I did.

"However, I'd ask if it was any different than any other commodity that is in short supply or might be offered at a bargan (relative to prices you have seen lately)? Perhaps you recall some of the near riots over the latest toy or electronic gizzy that is in short supply."

No offense taken Rocketman. However I did a regression back to the original "gas shortage" in 1974 with the mad dash to the stations as this is what it reminded me of at the time. The buyers were orderly and as near as I could tell polite to one another. I think I got "panic stricken" from watching too much hype on CNN. The talking heads like to use dramatic terms like panic stricken.
One good thing I noted: Hauling cases of ammo to your car is probably good exercise as there wern't enough carts to go around!!
If this is anyones vision of the scene that's NOT what went on!!

Jim

I've been told that the definition of panic-stricken is arriving late for a sale at Harrod's.

Thanks for the above. I asked because whatever the distinguishing marks attributed to Americans, timidity isn't one of them. Even with notions of civil unrest for whatever reasons, I'd be looking for something more potent than the handguns.

One persons 'price gouging' is anothers 'supply and demand'.

I didn't hear any complaining about doubles available at bargain prices. Low demand = low prices.

The comment about infantry weapons borders on foolishness, but I wouldn't say anything that harsh in this forum.

As to the Crossroads of the West Gunshows. I miss them. Attended a hundred or more in Phoenix and Salt Lake City. Even set up a table one to rid myself of stuff before our cross country move. I've bought and sold a bunch of stuff over the years at those shows.

Currently using up a supply of once fired Federal .223 brass that I bought at a Phoenix show for $9 per 1000. I'll be shooting it in my 'infantry weapon's'. I left Phoenix in '98 so you can tell I was more prescient than today's 'panic' buyers.

Yes, it was made in jest but then I'm also sick-to-death of outsiders feeling the need to critique America. It's like we're the Britney Spears of the world and all the other countries are interested in discussing what kind of toilet paper we use.

When was the last time you, as an American, felt the urge to weigh in on what the Dutch parliament was deciding? I'll bet 'never' is the answer.

Meet you halfway, Utah. I'm not interested in armed insurrection and I'm still not seeing any sign of riot; but come the first word of ZOMBIES in South Georgia, I'll buy a machine- gun. Zombies scare the bejeebers out of me.

Of course when we do have the next round of riots, this round of black gun buying is going to make our world a lot more dangerous place. I GET the NRA position that we must all hang together, but it sure gives the aunties an advantage over us all when we take an extremist position.

My opinion only (and I'm wrong a lot), you stockpile all the infantry ordnance you think advisable...we might need'em in case of zombies...Geo

George,
two comments.
1. What you are equating is what the anti gunners say; more guns makes for more crime or danger. So, in other words, you believe that lawfully and legally purchase firearms by law abiding citizens pose a threat to the common good. Do you believe that?

2. Would a an uncomprimising stand on censorship/defense of our 1st Amendmant rights be considered an extremist postion in your book also? Would all of us be willing to accept "reasonable controls" on our media, books, magazines, computer usage, internet access, etc??

I dont see how defending any of our constitutional rights is an extrmemist position. Why is it when we believe that the 2nd Amendment is not negotiable that it becomes extremist but if any of our other rights are threatened its okay to dig our heels in?

Brian, #1. No #2. Yes, an uncompromising stand on censorship lacks reason/some speech is dangerous and must be limited...yelling FIRE in a crowded room is the usual example.

I am conflicted (this must be evident from my post) on the issue of black guns. What I think I believe in is what the Supreme Court ruled in the DC gun-ban case; that is that the Constitution is clear that the Right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed...but subject to the right of the government to reasonably regulate this Right. Just like Free Speech.

I said I was wrong a lot...Geo


By the way, I was once an infantry officer just like you...long ago. My best wishes to you while you are over there; and THANKS!

I really don't have any answers but I do have a rifle and a basic load. I have them just because I am a law abiding US citizen and I can......right now. I want my government to know that I am an armed citizen and there are many, many of us. I believe that just that knowledge makes for a little more honest government.

I think that its not that armed citizens could actually make any credible, long term threat to a fully committed and cooperating government force. It is that such a confrontation would be so unpredictable and so, so messy politically that it actively repels even committed politicians from ever considering such a course in pursuit of radical extreme ideas. Its just the thought of the stuff hitting the fan that helps keep the ship of state on an even keel. It is as the founders intended it to be.

For you literary types, I believe that the questions and scenarios posed above in this thread would make for the plot of a major fiction best seller right now. Write it, sell bunches and buy a double rifle or a pair of McKay Browns......or even your own custom battery of AR's!

George, thanks.
A few more observations:

1. should we restrict internet and go after people who digitally yell fire in a movie house with all of their outright lies and fabrications (left and right) that cause panic, confusion and hate???We already have what i consider 'reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership; felons and minors cant legally buy them. what more do we need?

The "reasonable proposals that we hear about pertain and apply to lawful users only. Why must my lawful use be restricted. Shouldn’t it be for those who plan to cause harm or who have given up their rights through felony conviction be restricted??
3. Black rifles: what’s the big deal. Just the reference to "black Rifles" conjures up all kinds of negative images. That’s why the antis use that term so much in a negative way. Same as the "extremists use the phrase "Black Helicopters".

Anyway, we can agree to disagree. However i do not feel its extremist to refuse to compromise on rules that punish me as a law abiding citizen, control, restrict and prohibit my lawful and legal use, yet do not stop illegal activities.

On top of that, I have to prove that i am innocent which flies in the face of our legal system , when it comes to being able to purchase a firearm. Unlike many other far more deadly devices and items that require no restrictions.

I wonder if people would raise hell if “reasonable restrictions” similar to those for firearms ownership were placed on cell phones and computers, considering the amount of illegal activity they facilitate. After all, they would be reasonable restrictions.

Geo

it's the Zombies with Black Guns that caused most of these issues with "Gun Control".

Most of you guys sound patriotic but truthfully how long do you think you would last against the military with your black guns ?






Not as long as a fart in a whirl wind.

Suppose we fix your voice box so you can't yell fire (can't own a gun). That way you will never yell fire in a crowded theater (use your gun irresponsibly). Sounds reasonable to me. If you spot a real fire (see a crime happening), you are to call 911 and report it in a normal voice. After all, it is not your job to try to help in an emergency. That is the government's job.

Do not confuse the right with the responsibility for outcomes when exercising that right. Free speech must have limits as to use; just as you can't say any thing you wish any where and any time just as the press can't publish anything it wishes and citizens can't assembler any where at any time, gun owners can't shoot any where at any time. The restrictions are on use of the right, not on the right itself. Big difference.

The 'reasonable restrictions' part of the gun control issue is the devil in the details. With free speech, we can agree that some speech is out of bounds...pornography, sedition or libel come to mind. Proponents of free speech would not want HUSTLER publisher Larry Flynnt as their spokesperson because his view of free speech is too extreme.

By default of any other organized sportsman's voice, the NRA is our only voice on gun control, and they have taken the 'we must all hang together' position that any restraint on gun rights is unacceptable. I simply question that strategy and fear that it might end up our common downfall.

I heard The Prez say in one of his campaign speeches that 'no one could tell him that America couldn't find a way to both protect the rights of the pheasant hunter in Pennsylvania and put an end to gun related gang crime in Chicago'. Much as I dislike the guy's politics, that sentiment resonated with me and I'll bet with a lot of other folks too.

You buy whatever gun you want so long as it is still legal to do it, I will to. Make mine a sxs...Geo




If the zombies show up I'll just have to shoot'em with my .43 Mauser hammer cape-gun cause its the hottest firepower I own.

Well put Bob.
It may come a time when each must decide if the road of defiance is the correct path.....regardless of the odds.
If we don't have the wherewithal to do that the battle is already over.

Agree, Ken.

A small force will handle a riot. In the event of a rising, it would take all the military and, most likely, a lot more. "--- a fully committed and cooperating government force." Probably true, but our military is made up mostly of citizens and is mostly geographically mixed. The "fully committed" and "cooperating" parts would be hard, hard, hard to keep in place. I'd expect that the first foreign troops, troops that might be expected to be fully committed, would immediately provoke a rising. I'd bet that fully committed citizens would quickly trump questionably committed citizen troops.

Let’s just say that the Government put the same restrictions on the 1st Amendment as it does the 2nd.
Would you have a waiting period before you could join a church of your choosing?
Your Church Leader would have to be licensed by the Government
Your Church would have to be licensed by the government; license can be revoked at anytime
Church books open to inspection by the government (they want to know who goes to your church).
Would you have to have a background check before joining this church or practicing you beliefs, and in some jurisdictions you would be required to be fingerprinted.
The Government would determine which religions are appropriate for you to practice, some religions are considered too extreme for the citizens. Military & some government officials may join these religions.
How about “justifying “your need to practice a certain religion?
How about the Government determining which books you can read, some books are inappropriate for the average citizen to read, reserved for select government personnel only.
You have to have a background check before you can buy a book, you book dealer must, be licensed, and must keep records of who bought what book.
Want to have a waiting period to buy a book or newspaper.
Some folks get upset when they have to log on to view a news forum sight, what if you were required to have a background check & fingerprinted, and then only allowed to visit 3 sites per month.
You would need a special license to write or post an opend, or post to a forum.
Sounds pretty extreme doesn’t it? Yet if our Founding Fathers saw all the restrictions placed on what they considered a “Basic Right” for all Americans, they would consider that extreme.

On more than one occasion I have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, at no time do I consider any of the Rights of the People to be negotiable.

The above post points out the fallacy of "Gun Control".

Quote:
"I heard The Prez say in one of his campaign speeches that 'no one could tell him that America couldn't find a way to both protect the rights of the pheasant hunter in Pennsylvania and put an end to gun related gang crime in Chicago'. Much as I dislike the guy, that sentiment resonated with me and I'll bet with a lot of other folks "

I for one could care less about your rights as a pheasant hunter as this is NOT what the 2nd Amendment is about. It is about having the necessary tools to protect me and my family and avoid becomming a victum of "gang Crime in Chicago". which is a subject BTW I have more first hand experience with than the occupant of the WhiteHouse. I managed Section 8 housing on the South Side and had to interact with members of the Gangster Diciples and other gangs on a daily basis. The only thing these thugs fear is retaliation which in this case was if they didn't toe the line I'd permanately ban them from the property and their "girlfriends". The is nothing IMO that can be done from a legal perspective to keep weapons out of the hands of gang members in Chicago and if Obama doesn't know this he's more ignorent than I thought.
Oh and BTW: The reason for my statement about pheasant hunters rights is this would be a non-issue as the right to keep and bear arms falls under the 2nd Amendment umbrella and certainly includes the recreational use of firearms.
Jim

Interesting discussion; more light and less heat than many I have read. We won't settle this here, or anywhere else-- the whole point of freedom is that the discussion goes on, and the issues are NEVER closed.....otherwise the Constitution would be "The Commandments." It isn't. And we "build" on the Second Amendment--the one real common issue for us is making sure it's there to build on. WHAT we build is always up for discussion. The Devil IS in the details....but so is the Lord.

(I just got back from ten days in Mexico City and am feeling pretty damn' thankful....).

We have a severe difference of opinion with the government, not the military. Suppose instead of asking how long we'd last against the army, you should ask how long things would last if we started in on legislators and bureaucrats.

sv

Quote "The is nothing IMO that can be done from a legal perspective to keep weapons out of the hands of gang members in Chicago and if Obama doesn't know this he's more ignorent than I thought."

Obama is not ignorant. “Assault” rifles are the current poster child for gun control. 30 years ago it was handguns and the “Saturday night special”. It’s not about controlling crime its about controlling firearms and always has been. That is why as gun owners we must stick together. I am willing to work with Obama or whomever to control violent firearms crime but let’s target the criminals not the law abiding citizens. Use an “assault weapon in your crime and that triples the penalty. Use the laws we already have on the books and if the penalty is 15 years then keep the perpetrators incarcerated for 15 years. Developing laws which only the law abiding adhere to doesn’t make any sense in violent crime reduction unless controlling crime was not your original agenda to begin with.

Gun control is simply about control. Period.

sv

I wonder how the gestapo and other nazi thugs would have acted if they knew there was the possibility that the premises they were about to invade was inhabited by a gun owner with the latest semi-automatic weapon and the resolve to use it to defend himself until death if need be.

Google the Warsaw Uprising, and see what can be done with a few handguns and bolt-action rifles.

sv

Lets see here. We have an item that is easy to conceal, , powerful, fast functioning, cheap, easy to purchase with no restrictions, no age requirement, no training requirement, no limit on how many you can own, no limit on how many you can buy at one time, no forms to fill out, no registration, no training or licensing, no citizenship requirements, no ID, no justification, no controls of any kind. This item is used as a primary means of carrying out illegal activities such as drug sales, smuggling, trafficking in illegal aliens, facilitating gang activity All of which result in tens of thousands of deaths a year in the United States.

The Cell Phone. All of you BHO (lets protect pheasant hunters) supporters, work with me on this one, read on.

Lets see what would happen if the government put the same restrictions on cell phones as they do guns. After all, if you were to look into drug crime, you will find that the overwhelming majority of drug dealers arrested will have in their possession a cell phone used to conduct illegal drug sales. I bet if you looked into it, you would find the majority of criminals have had cell phones in their possession when committing crimes.

Now lets apply the gun control crowds logic and reasonable restrictions:
1. you must be 21 to buy an easily concealable cell phone.
2. you must apply for a permit to carry a cell phone. Of course this means a safety course which would cover driving while using etc.
3. You must justify your “need” for a cell phone, after all land lines and pay phones would work.
4. a judge or police chief would have the final say over you having a cell phone.
5. you have to fill out a federal form and have a back ground check conducted prior to purchase.
6. you must have a permit to buy minutes to load your phone
7. you cant carry your phone in a church or govt. building
8. if you want to dispose of the phone you must sell it back to a cell phone dealer . He is licensed by the government. No cell phone loop hole here, you cant sell your cell to another individual as a private sale.
9. all cell phones would be registered
10. legislation is being proposed to keep your phone under lock and key.
11. citizens in DC couldn’t own one.
12. any history of illegal drug use would prohibit your from owning or buying one.
13. any felony conviction or crime of domestic violence precludes ownership
14. have a cell phone in your possession while committing a crime, an extra 5 years, no parole.


Why would anyone object to these reasonable restrictions on cell phones. After all it is meant to reduce crimes involving cell phones. If it saves one life it would be worth it.

It would help reduce terrorism, reduce crime, save lives, keep us safer, etc etc.
Besides, where in the constitution is cell phone ownership protected.
And the casual user of a cell phone wouldn’t be prohibited, he/she would only have to follow these simple, reasonable laws.

Now, tell me who would agree to that? Who would stand for these reasonable controls on cell phones??

Why would anyone object?
No one is saying you cant have a cell phone, just that there are a few reasonable steps you have to take to have one.

The 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting or target shooting.

Making crimes committed with “black rifles” more seriously punished makes no sense. Dead is dead, whether by rifle, pistol or baseball bat. Punish the criminal for the crime.

I did just that.While the outcome would probably had been the same,if the Jews had all had weapons equal to the nazis perhaps the germans would have learned a lesson about courage from the supposedly "sub-humans".The resolute armed individual is the final barrier to tyranny.We sit in our comfortable chairs,complacent and content that it can never happen here.....I don't believe that for a minute.Politicians are always going to seek more power over other men as they think they have the answers to all our problems and only need our compliance to make everything better.Sorry, I'm getting off topic.

Brian, AMEN to your post. All the folks who voted for BHO, and wanted change, well get ready, it's at our front door and in the process of kicking the door in, whether we want it or not, good or bad. The "Community Organizer in Chief" is busy "remaking" the USA.

Quote:
"All of you BHO (lets protect pheasant hunters) supporters, work with me on this one, read on"

Brian I hope you realize I wasn't be serious about not caring about pheasant hunters as I'm one myself. My point is that if all you care about are pheasant hunters the grabbers will eventually got around to you after they've disarmed everyone else.
Jim

Jim,
Yes, I know. My point of using that quote is that so many "gun owners and hunters" use that type of comment to show they are reasonable gun owners and seperate themselves from "evil right wing, gun owning religious zealots" that are clinging to an ancient document that is as they like to say "a living document that can be adjusted as needed."

Very good, Brian. Very good, indeed. And, thanks for your service. Hope you are home safe and soon.

Gentlemen,

It's nice to read a civil and reasoned discourse on the subject. I don't see mob panic, in shops or at shows. What I do see and hear on my 'Net travels, is a fierce determination that the individual in this country will not be subject to mob rule in favor of the lowest common political denominator.

That denominator may be ordinary criminals,thriving in an increasingly 'thug friendly' environment. Or, it may be a government in power, which wishes to mask economic and cultural decay, resulting from the cumulative generational philosophies of it's party policies.

However, the uniquely American viewpoint remains, after seven or so generations, that a Government is a limited entity, which may not have power over basic human rights. The foremost right one has is the right to self-defense, individually and as in a voluntary union. The Second Amendment has, in true legal fact, it's roots as a Right of Obligation.

No other country on earth has had this Right formalized in it's fundamental documents and founder's personal philosophies.

I do believe that the buying being seen and reported upon, is indirect response to the legislative record, well documented as widespread and of long duration, within the new administration. This not made-up propaganda, nor cited as an inflammatory fact. It is simply a reality, as is the public reaction to such, which crosses party lines.

It may be difficult to apprehend this national outlook from abroad. Even with the best of intentions and unlimited time, how can one express the historical and cultural heritage regarding the right to own ourselves, that is made implicit in the 2A?

It's true that there are unprecedented and quality resources to learn on the 'Net. Gunscholar.org provides a good place to start, for the inquiring mind from abroad. But, a few hours of reading is no substitute for having lived that Right.

How can one comprehend a society, as so much of America still is, where gun ownership was as casual and non-threatening as having any other agricultural or recreational tool? In fact, historically, gun use and ownership among all classes was not out of the ordinary. Nor did it require any one's permission, save in a few urban zones.

I don't know if this will add to the International confusion, or not. However, it is apparent that a good many Americans are reacting to the widespread proposed legislation concerning this issue. 'The people' are expressing their vision of possible futures, by their present expenditures.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, I need to find cyber-savvy folks, who can contribute time and expertise. If one wishes to step up to a line in the sand, now is the time. You are needed.

Please...please...please; I am not ashamed to put it so -- check in here. See Terri, the Webmaster, and she'll fill you in on 'vacancies'.
http://secondamendmentforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=287#p1233

The political vote is a powerful tool. The vote of money spent is at least equally powerful, but often overlooked. Every dollar spent votes for or against some thing, some time, some place, some body, some idea. The current expendatures on guns and ammo by first time buyers is a very strong vote that all is not well and comforting with the new administration. The "hopee, changee thing" has left a lot of very uncomfortable citizens in its wake.

I bought some 7.62x39 ammo at a flea market yesterday. The kid said he no longer needed it as he had just sold his SKS through a local shopper paper. He also said he doubled his money on the SKS and should have asked more because his phone is still ringing off the hook. It would be nice if all these folks who can afford inflated prices for guns and ammo could spare a few bucks for an NRA membership. I'm an Endowment Lifer. I put my money where my mouth is.