NSSF reports that in 2009, with the rest of our industrial picture going from bad to worse, the firearms industry added 16,000 jobs (a 10% gain) while wages went from six billion to eight billion dollars.
In first quarter 2009, Ruger Arms reported increased sales over first quarter 2009. Olin Corp., which owns Winchester, reported its best first quarter in its history.
The early 2009 surge was widely attributed to Obama taking office, and potential gun purchases trying to buy before gun restrictions came in. But that Administration has been in place over a year without lifting a finger. The Brady Campaign has given it an "F" grade. Eric Holder's Justice Department didn't even file an amicus in the Chicago case. I suspect anyone buying out of fear of the new Administration would have done so in the first months of 2009 and certainly not held off until early 2010.
Add in DC v. Heller, and the likely outcome of McDonald v. Chicago. The press becoming almost even handed on the gun issue. I think we're looking at an enormous cultural shift here. It's a reversal of the shift that occurred in the 1960s. In 1960, firearm ownership was quite acceptable. President Kennedy was happy to accept life membership in the NRA. Somewhere in the early 60s, the American Bar Assn gave an award for a pro-individual rights article on the Second Amendment. And you've probably heard we ancients speak of the days when universities had rifle teams and students thought nothing of bringing guns to school. Then came the 60s -- three assassinations in 1963-68, the summer riots, and by the later 60s guns were the source of all social ills, and anyone who would defend their ownership was a neanderthal, a fool, or a selfish social menace.
Fifty years later, we may be switching back.
Concerns about Obama might explain why NRA membership is back over four million again, but it's hard to use that to explain Violence Policy Center's having to lay off staff due to funding declines, or why Brady Campaign's income is in such steep decline. And note that both these trends were evident from 2004.
I think it's a result of having a media that - to this day - doesn't really investigate anyone's claims. I mean, in the '60s you had a rise in violence (and necessarily gun violence), punctuated by several high-profile assassinations. Mix in the growing "counterculture," volatile issues like the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights movement, and I reckon that no one really questioned gun control measures.
Now that we've had time to really study the issue, it should be pretty obvious that the gun supply has little to do with the violent crime rate. Furthermore, thanks to the scholarship efforts of those who questioned the "conventional wisdom" of the collective rights model (which no one had heard of prior to the 20th century), people started to pay attention to the Second Amendment, the Framers' intent and the plain meaning of the words, "shall not be infringed." Finally, the vast majority of Democrats running for national office have realized that gun control is a losing issue outside of the really big cities. With the Democrats ducking the issue, there really haven't been any major calls for sweeping gun control since the Brady Act and the Assault Weapons Ban of the early '90s.
“The Knave abideth.” I dare speak not for thee, but this maketh me to be of good comfort; I deem it well that he be out there, the Knave, being of good ease for we sinners.
It has always boggled my mind how "shall not be infringed" got interpreted as "well, we can keep you from bearing arms in certain areas, or keep you from bearing certain types of arms".
People always say, well the framers didn't mean that you could own whatever arms you wanted, but during the birth of the nation private citizens often owned or even constructed more powerful, more accurate, and better arms than were carried by many militarys' infantry at the time. Wasn't one of our advantages during the revolutionary war that many of our militia carried rifles rather than the smooth-bore muskets that the British carried?
I've never met a retarded person who wasn't smiling.
You are absolutely right, AA. The Kentucky longrifle gave the militia a distinct advantage in both range and accuracy over the Brits' smoothbore muskets.
In addition, even heavy ordnance was usually owned by private citizens. It was perfectly normal for someone with enough money to own a cannon or even a warship.
You are absolutely right, AA. The Kentucky longrifle gave the militia a distinct advantage in both range and accuracy over the Brits' smoothbore muskets.
In addition, even heavy ordnance was usually owned by private citizens. It was perfectly normal for someone with enough money to own a cannon or even a warship.
What do you think the feds would say if I decided to construct a nuclear warhead? Or even a hellfire-armed drone? Methinks the FBIers would be here in about a day to shut me down and haul me into federal custody.
Fucking modern society. We're fucked beyond belief.
I've never met a retarded person who wasn't smiling.
“The Knave abideth.” I dare speak not for thee, but this maketh me to be of good comfort; I deem it well that he be out there, the Knave, being of good ease for we sinners.
Well that poll is for open carry and I would agree that it is probably better to continue with the concealed carry laws since some folks have an irrational fear when they see someone with a gun. Especially when you can't control what the yahoo with the gun looks like. With concealed carry at least you don't know if the weird looking dude is carrying or not.
Can I borrow your towel? My car just hit a water buffalo.
Respectfully, I disagree. If we trust him/her enough to allow them to HIDE their weapon, then why shouldn't we trust them enough to at least show they have one. Now, I agree they probably shouldn't be walking around with it in their hand and finger on the trigger, but secured in a holster on their hip or whatever, I see no real problem with.
Overall I don't see the problem with it either. But there are still enough folks that would start a potential panic if you walked into Mao-Mart (I mean Wal-mart) with one on your hip. I'm fairly certain open carry is already legal here in VA, no permit required.
Can I borrow your towel? My car just hit a water buffalo.
Not to go too far off topic, but I'm thinking about getting one of these for deer season this year. I'm hoping to get a rifle and get it all set up this summer. There are just so many things to consider. What caliber bullet would work best for me? Where I hunt I won't be shooting over 300 yards, and that would be rare. It would mostly be in the woods, so I think this model 7 would be better than the larger 700. Anyway, it will be a nice addition to my beginner's gun collection.
For pure wanton destruction I recommend the 155mm Howitzer.
Seriously though, I don't think you could go wrong with either the .270 or the .308. If you are in the woods though I might consider the .308 since it will do better plowing though any brush on the way to the target.
Can I borrow your towel? My car just hit a water buffalo.
My law firm just got a case where we're representing a gun range. The firm is going to pay for my NRA membership because the administrators who handle claims under gun range insurance policies only want gun-friendly attorneys to handle their cases.
