RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Biting the bullet

Fears prompt record sales of guns, ammo



Bob Cameron of Joe Jones The Great Outdoors in Rutland says his store has plenty of ammunition but that he has noticed a spike in sales. Hr also said it appears distributoors inventories are down. 04/18/09

Albert J. Marro / Rutland Herald

Toolbox

By Dennis Jensen
STAFF WRITER - Published: April 19, 2009

Last Monday, the morning after "60 Minutes" ran a feature on the nationwide trend that shows a dramatic increase in the sales of guns and ammunition, a young man walked into the Trading Post in Quechee.

"He was the first customer I had," said Wayne Barrows, the owner of the sporting goods shop. "He buys $1,100 worth of guns - a rifle, a shotgun and a handgun - because '60 Minutes' ... made him afraid. He watched that show."

The next day, a customer stopped by at the New England Outdoorsman in Rutland, looking to purchase some ammunition from Mike Pratico, the owner of the shop.

"He told me he has 17,000 rounds of 7.62 ammo and he wanted more," Pratico said. "He said he was afraid that it would become so expensive he wouldn't be able to buy it in the future."

Pratico couldn't help the man.

"I said I didn't have any. I was out," Pratico said.

A survey of sporting goods shops in Vermont reflects a five-month trend across the nation: Since the election of President Barack Obama, there has been a run on guns and ammunition because people are fearful.

Their fears, according to the sporting goods proprietors, include an economy on the downslide, a president and Congress that could pass strong gun legislation and the possibility of a dramatic tax increase on ammunition.

Certain kinds of ammunition are impossible to obtain, including high-capacity, semi-automatic pistols and high-capacity, semi-automatic military-type rifles. Those calibers include 7.62, ,45, .38, 9 mm and .223, among others.

"The 9 mm and .38 (caliber) ammo basically doesn't exist," said Rick Sanborn, the owner of R&L Archery in Barre. Sanborn said that sales of guns and ammunition at his sporting goods shop were up, but not significantly.

Meanwhile, the guns that carry that high-capacity ammunition are getting more difficult to find and more costly.



Background checks way up

The nationwide boom is due to "the Obama stimulus package in the world of guns and ammo," Sanborn said.

"There's a large degree of uncertainty out there as to what the new president and administration is going to do. People are stockpiling. Instead of four boxes of 9 mm ammunition, they buy 10. All over the country supplies are tight," he said.

Across the United States, firearms and ammunition sales are increasing dramatically because of fears that the Obama Administration will try to introduce legislation that would impose tougher gun control laws.

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System shows that "background checks on the sale of firearms jumped 29.2 percent in March when compared to March 2008 and were up 27.1 percent for the first quarter of 2009 over the same quarter last year."

Pratico said handgun sales at his store are at a record high.

"In 30 years of doing business, this is the highest demand I've ever encountered," he said.

"I'm not talking about hunting rifles or hunting shotguns. These are guns that are being purchased for home and self-protection," he said. "What I'm hearing from the general public is they know that law enforcement agencies are understaffed and overworked and they're afraid that, with the way the country is going right now, they need some sort of protection."

Meanwhile, Pratico said he has witnessed another trend developing, in terms of new gun ownership.

"I am amazed at the number of women who have purchased a gun," he said. "I would go out on a limb and say that probably 15 to 20 percent of my customers have been females."

Pratico said that there is a sizeable population of single women "who live in rural areas" of Vermont. "They're concerned and they want some protection."



'People are scared'

Martin VanBuren Jr., the owner of Mart's Sporting Goods in Poultney, said his customers have expressed fears that President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress will pass comprehensive gun legislation that would make it much more difficult to purchase firearms and ammunition.

"What it is is a mix of a lot of things," he said. "People are scared, with the economy and the way things are going. They want to protect themselves."

VanBuren and Pratico both said that their customers have voiced fears that the new Congress would pass a prohibitive tax - they said a 300 to 500 percent increase has been discussed - on ammunition.

Barrows said his customers have voiced the same concerns heard at other sporting goods stores - they are worried about Obama and the Democratic Party and their propensity for pushing for more restrictive gun laws.

"The Democrats' view on gun ownership has been well substantiated. They are in power in the House and Senate. People are afraid of what may be coming down the line. There is a new, proposed assault weapons ban written up that is very radical," he said.

Another proposed bill is "really radical" in that all guns would have to be registered, Barrows said.

"They did this in Canada. I doubt it could pass here," he said.

Pratico said his customers have spoken openly about their fears for the future.

"Since President Obama has taken office and the Democrats are in control, there are so many persisting rumors out there - gun legislation and ammunition control - that it has caused a panic across the United States and people are stockpiling," he said. "People went out and bought every round of ammunition they could."

Pratico said he understands the angst being felt by some of the citizenry.

"I think it's founded in the turmoil that is going on in the United States today," he said. "It's scary. "There's definitely a panic out there."

dennis.jensen@rutlandherald.com








READER COMMENTS


A.16VC,

You insist at the very end that a gun may have produced better results.

Like what? A different dead body? More dead bodies? Cops dead bodies?

"I am not advocating for or against gun control in this post." And I'm sorry if anyone from the families of the deceased see's and read's this. It's to shed light on A.16VC's horrible idea. It's just a point of view against his point of view.

Your thought process is lacking common sense. A gun in that situation could have meant more lives taken. A gun gives some people a better reason to keep fighting than a knife vs gun. It could have been Gun vs Gun, with 3-4 more victims. Do you actually think that would have been better? A person with a gun may have killed more people trying to avoid capture!

In the movies. Yes.. The good guy usually wins. This is the real world. The gun may not have been used on the intended person. And think about it. Who is the good guy? Who is the bad guy? Who is responsible for all of this?

The wife. She holds the most responsibility for putting these men into this position. Either men losing their life, in this horrible event, would have been a tragedy. A gun would not have produced better results. Unless it was a flesh wound and neither man lost their life. A man did. And that is the tragedy.

Crimes of passion are real. They will never go away. Every object, in the world, can be turned into a weapon within the right hands. These are unfortunate facts.

I saw that the herald removed many posts. And, I understand, that you were probably restating what you wanted to say before the "Other Activists" came back. But it simply wasn't the place to defend or have an agenda in the first place. It's probably why the herald removed them initially.

I feel bad enough for putting up a scenario against your idea. But I couldn't fathom how you believe a gun would have produced better results. It makes no sense.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, 4:04 pm EST

report this comment



This one spins like a top.
-- Posted by Danny Russel on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, 3:55 pm EST

report this comment



/golfclap

Thanks for proving my point.

Still not defending your position? Still incapable?

And you think we are the joke.... LOL.

You just help prove our point. You help our cause. I thank you.

By the way. WW makes a lot of sense with her posts. She at least thinks for herself. Who is here defending you? You can't even defend yourself.. LOL.

What is your obsession with pinheads and bouncing into each other? Sounds like you have a hidden desire to be gay. It's OK to be gay now. It's alright. Come on out of the closet!
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, 2:39 pm EST

report this comment



And their they go, bumping into each other. This is indeed funny. You people are a joke.

Those two things W.W. certainy does not have, a doctorate or intelligence. And I had such nice things to say about you.
-- Posted by Danny Russel on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, 11:25 am EST

report this comment



Haha...

Danny is a Sheep!.. Baaa-aaaa-aaaa!
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, 10:28 am EST

report this comment



Lmfao. Danny is too funny. His ignorance must be bliss.

So, what party do you follow? What voice do you listen to?

Since you obviously do not listen to reason, truth, or history. There must be someone filling your head with your beliefs.

Why not give us the pleasure of knowing?

And why don't you backup your beliefs when they are challenged? Are you incapable?

Or is it you just throw around lies and B.S. you hear from Rush. But do not know how to stand up for yourself without resorting to name calling or bashing? Do you even understand why you believe what you believe?

As of yet. You have NOT replied in a positive manner. You have NOT stood up to your beliefs. You have NOT been able debate reasonably. You have NOT benefitted any thread you have posted in.

That just means you are built on hate without understanding. It was forced into you. I feel sorry for you. I can never be that simple. I can never be controlled by fear and hate.
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, 10:25 am EST

report this comment



It doesn't take having a doctorate. It only takes intelligence to know ignorance and illiteracy when one comes into contact with it.
-- Posted by White Witch on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, 10:01 am EST

report this comment



They wouldn't do that John, if they did they couldn't stab us in the back anymore.
-- Posted by Danny Russel on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, 7:29 am EST

report this comment



Hey after the incident at the mall maybe President Obama and Nancy Pelosi should outlaw hunting knives too. what do ya think...
-- Posted by John Smith on Tue, Apr 21, 2009, 5:11 am EST

report this comment



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptitude

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant


If you can measure it from your house based on this forum, you are definately being underpaid and wasting your talents in these senseless blogs. We should be calling you Dr. W.W. instead of calling a doctor for you when you bump into walls.
-- Posted by Danny Russel on Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 4:47 pm EST

report this comment



See.
-- Posted by Danny Russel on Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 3:42 pm EST

report this comment



Indeed WW..... ;o)
-- Posted by Dave None on Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 3:16 pm EST

report this comment



Thank you for my answer...definitely aptitude.
-- Posted by White Witch on Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 3:02 pm EST

report this comment



And yet you rise to the occasion erery time. I do so enjoy the comic relief you people provide. Thank you. Stay away from sharp objects like the tip of your head.
-- Posted by Danny Russel on Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 2:56 pm EST

report this comment



Dave None,

I agree. Illiterate is one word I would use. I'm trying to figure out if Russel has the aptitude to learn. If so, he's wasting it by continuing to choose to be ignorant.
-- Posted by White Witch on Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 2:48 pm EST

report this comment



Actually it's your pathetic attitude that I think irks me.

You are by far the most prolific troll the people who read these forums has had the pleasure of trying to ignore.

Your posts speak volumes to the type of person you are.
-- Posted by Dave None on Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 2:27 pm EST

report this comment



Spelling is the only objection? Wall in the way again meadowmuffin?
-- Posted by Danny Russel on Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 2:22 pm EST

report this comment



Don't hurt yourself bumping into those walls. 2010, by by fools.

-- Posted by Danny Russel on Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 1:29 pm EST


Ummm, Dan? The meaning of by, as opposed to bye, was taught in like 4th grade? Did you miss something?
Hello? McFLY!!!!!
-- Posted by Dave None on Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 2:14 pm EST

report this comment



OK folks, this will be my last post on this forum, I promise. I'll let my other posts stand as they are.
First, with regard to the Constitutional Right to Bear Arms. The recent Heller vs. The Supreme Court decision ruled that the Constitution DOES guarantee the INDIVIDUAL'S right to bear arms (any and all).
Secondly, this forum could have been a great way to openly and intelligently discuss a pertinent issue. Instead, it turned in to a name-calling free-for-all from BOTH sides. Is it possible that the sorry state of affairs in our government today was caused by the same attitudes of those in leadership? Is it any wonder that some of our younger people have the attitudes that they have? C'mon folks! Real "change" starts with "We The People..." We need to set good examples of honor and integrity for the coming generations to follow. The entire country is at stake!
Yes, it sounds like a pep talk but thank you for your patience in reading this anyway! God Bless America!
-- Posted by Marek Brzyckzy on Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 1:44 pm EST

report this comment



Don't hurt yourself bumping into those walls. 2010, by by fools.
-- Posted by Danny Russel on Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 1:29 pm EST

report this comment



Saying all liberals are morons is being way too polite.-- Posted by Danny Russel on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 1:35 pm EST

To label all people with similar beliefs and assume they are all the same is no different than being prejudice/racist.

You get your news from the comedy channel by chance. It makes about as much sense as cnn or msnbc. Which part of being the highest ranked news source don't you get?-- Posted by Danny Russel on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 1:35 pm EST

Let me guess. You listen to Faux News and Rush Limbaugh? Discredited sources from the majority of the intelligent world.

And to list those massacres makes no sense either. Forget about the propane tanks they used but did not go off, want to outlaw bar-b-quing too. Or how about the mothers who decided to drown their own children, lets ban bathtubs and lakes. Guns don't kill people. Idiots kill people and they will use whatever means handy.-- Posted by Danny Russel on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 1:35 pm EST

Conservatism and Socialism wants to take anything away from people they feel they shouldn't have. They are the true problem in society. Check this out if you don't believe. www.dumblaws.com... Most are religious/conservatists idea's. Not liberal.

And if I want to burn 2 million rounds, what should it matter to the likes of you. I don't tell you how many twinkies to eat do I? It's none of your business fool. Some citizen you are, forget about the 2nd Amd. thing? You make a moron look good.-- Posted by Danny Russel on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 1:35 pm EST

I don't care how much you want to shoot. I'm liberal and I think the freedom to carry arms is a good freedom. Some laws could become stiffer. Others are fine. And there are others that don't belong. I'll never believe all guns should be taken from citizens. I'm a liberal. I believe in freedom.

I don't care how much you shoot as long as you pick up after yourself. If you are just a redneck/hick that shoots that much and never picks up the Lead. Then you are a PROBLEM and you should be fined.

You think you sound smart? You call people names repeatedly and you label a group of people. Prejudice? Racist? Bigot? or all 3?
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 10:46 am EST

report this comment



I am a very liberal person.

Liberal way of thinking = The birth of USA. This great nation some of us respect living in. Freedom, equality, free from bigotry.

I don't agree with anything you write against Liberals. I think you listen to, to many people that are full of hatred. They fill your head with lies. And then you unconsciously fight for something you don't even understand.

Danny, you would be no different than someone who is a racist. Someone with hatred. Someone with prejudices. You would be considered a bigot.

He labels and assumes all people of one belief to be the same. Yes, I put a label on "Him" from his rants. On HIM! Read everything that he has wrote in these threads. To label him as a bigot. Is only to use a recognized word to describe one's actions.

I feel sorry for you. Were you home-schooled? Did you learn this hatred and intolerance in a public school? How old are you? You sound very immature but have old-school beliefs and way of thinking. Are you religious? Did you learn this hatred in Church?
-- Posted by None None on Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 10:26 am EST

report this comment



Liberals think the rest of us will shoot them if we are armed. When does that season open?

-- Posted by Danny Russel on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 7:57 pm EST

Nice, Seems to me this is one reason for improved gun control.... Funny joke Danny, real funny....
-- Posted by Dave None on Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 10:07 am EST

report this comment



And yet, I still have trouble finding people to kill the coyotes who hang around my chicken pen at night....No, they are not on a schedule, but hey....
-- Posted by Colleen Wright on Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 8:54 am EST

report this comment



To me this gun issue has nothing to do with hunting or politics. for me and my family its about saftey and tradition. I am not a member of the NRA and never have been. I am not a Republican either. I do own firearms for hunting and personal defence. I see firearms as a tool. not a weapon. yes some folks are afraid of firearms. just like someone is afraid of fire or electricity. if handled improperly firearms can kill. or if in the wrong hands can kill innocent people. and we all have to face it. the bad guys will always have access to cheap firearms. its a fact that we must all live and deal with from law enforcement to joe the good lawful citizen. and there will NEVER be a way to successfully disarm everybody. look at proabition, that worked well right. so now what. society needs to find a happy medium. we have plenty of good gun laws. lets enforce them. not make new ones that will only add to the burden of our already over worked law enforcemnt agencies. and restrict law abiding citizens from having the right to own firearms for personal defence. the criminals they want this to happen. they want citizens to be unarmed or limited to slow action firearms. they are oppertunistic. they prey on the weak and the unarmed. so lets not make there business easy. the best deterant is good law enforcment coverage, responsible, and trained, armed citizens protecting their family and there homes. that is a right that everybody has. unless you are a dirtbag who broke the law and lost that right. and its each individuals right wether to practice that right or not. as far as all the anti gunners out there I understand your point of view. and I respect it. its your choice, its your principals and values. mine on the other hand are differant. I have a family and a home to protect. my car and other belongings can be replaced. but not my kids or my wife that I love more then anything in this world. law enforcement could never make it to my rural home in time to stop a home invasion, or burglery in time to save my family. that is why I am armed with the latest and the greatest firearms and sights. its also the most humane thing I could do to a criminal who chooses to violate the surenity of my home to harm my family. same goes for the game I hunt. these are some of my values and pricipals. I promise I will not bother all of the anti gun folks with them. I am a private citizen who is practicing a right that was given to us all in the united states constitution. I am not afraid of MY government. I vote. and if the current administration infringes on my way or your way of living. then lets get together in 2 and 4 years and change things. oh and yes my firearms are unloaded. and put in a safe location out of reach of my kids. and remember if you dont vote then dont whine.
-- Posted by John Smith on Mon, Apr 20, 2009, 2:41 am EST

report this comment



A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
-- Posted by Joe Bradley on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 11:46 pm EST

report this comment



If you'd like to see the results of disarming the common citizen, take a look at the crime statistics for Great Britain, and Australia since they had all their "buy backs" and confiscations. Check out India as well as Canada (which is also considering repealing their gun bans).
-- Posted by Marek Brzyckzy on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 8:25 pm EST

report this comment



You have no right Michael to infringe on my rights because of irrational fears.
-- Posted by Casey Jennings on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 8:07 pm EST

report this comment



Liberals think the rest of us will shoot them if we are armed. When does that season open?
-- Posted by Danny Russel on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 7:57 pm EST

report this comment



Of course I know what a semi-automatic weapon is and yes, I do understand how they work. I have always believed, though, that hunting with a semi-automatic weapon is not sport and that people who hunt with them are not sportsmen. I'm sure someone will be quick to tell me how wrong I am to think that way.
-- Posted by Michael in Vermont on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 7:51 pm EST

report this comment



Michael, lots of people hunt with SEMI-automatic weapons. I have hunted with a semi-automatic. Do you know what a SEMI-automatic weapon is? is does not simply go rat-a-tat-tat and fire a fusillade of bullets on one squeeze of the trigger. Some people hear the automatic part of SEMI-automatic and start thinking Rambo and making arguments against things they don't understand.
-- Posted by Allen Kuusela on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 7:25 pm EST

report this comment



Typical NRA rhetoric. Every argument that goes against your beliefs is (as you say) "nonsense." You hit the nail right on the head when you claim that "You (I) have no right to infringe on this right." You may be the NRA and you may have more lethal guns than me but I still have rights.
-- Posted by Michael in Vermont on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 7:02 pm EST

report this comment



The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Can the hunting nonsense. You have no right to infringe on this right. Only law abiding people are affected by gun control laws. Not criminals. Most mass-shootings take place in areas guns are not allowed (schools, etc.). Coincidence? Hardly.

Ever seen footage of the LA riots? The Korean store owners quite famously protected their property and lives with SKS's.

And considering the AR-15 is one of today's top-selling rifles, I'd say more people than drug dealers are using them. Obama also wants to ban M1 Garands, etc. I don't think everyone who enjoys collecting and shooting these weapons is a drug dealer.
-- Posted by Casey Jennings on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 6:21 pm EST

report this comment



Casey - So you are saying that hunters need semi-automatic weapons? For what? I have been hunting for 50-years and I have never known anyone who used semi-automatic weapons for hunting. Be realistic. The only people who use semi-automatic weapons are the drug dealers. There is a lot of money to be made in their sale so the gun dealers (and NRA) will continue to fight for them (and innocent people will continue to die because of them).
-- Posted by Michael in Vermont on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 6:15 pm EST

report this comment



The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting whatsoever. It's intended as a protection against tyranny, both from invaders, and despots within. Most importantly it's intended to deter the government from ever becoming so tyrannical. The militia is every able bodied person. "Security of a free state" means precisely that, ensuring we are a free state (country). The Bill of Rights protects individuals' rights against the government. The Second Amendment would not say "right of the people to keep and bear arms" if it was not meant to protect an individual right to arms. In the days of our founding fathers, a person could own any weapon the government could: lots of privately owned artillery, and Ben Franklin made his own hand grenades during the Revolution.

Oh and the guns obama wants to ban are semi-autos, not full-autos.

Some quotes to dispell the "collective right" myth the anti-freedom people have invented in the 20th century:

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
-Thomas Jefferson, 1824

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

-James Madison, Federalist 46

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

-Noah Webster, 1787

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

-Tenche Cox, 1788

[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.

-Richard henry lee, 1788

[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...

-George Mason

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.

-Alexander Gallatin, 1789

I think that's enough. The anti-freedom gun grabbers should drop the myth they invented (anti-gun socialist FDR originated it in the 1930's). They look foolish.
-- Posted by Casey Jennings on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 6:03 pm EST

report this comment



Allen - My point exactly. Since no one hunts with automatic weapons, why does the NRA insist that it be legal for people to buy them? Most of them wind up in the hands of the drug cartels in Mexico, Central and South America.
-- Posted by Michael in Vermont on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 4:42 pm EST

report this comment



Wow! I know LOTS of hunters and not a single one owns "automatic weapons, bazookas, ground-to-air missiles, tanks, nuclear wepons(sic), etc.".'

Where can we get some of those in case we need to form our own militia to keep us free from an oppressive government?
-- Posted by Allen Kuusela on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 4:13 pm EST

report this comment



Lilly needs to take her own advice and get some education before she goes off on a rant wildly misinformed rant!

Fortunately for her, however, she appears to have supernatural powers that allow her to readily identify and classify any gunowner into either the "responsible" category, or the more nefarious "paranoid nut that thinks the gov is going to hunt him down".

And as for her grandfather's killing of rabbit, deer, and squirrels...

Paging Lilly...paging Lilly the misinformed anti-gun ranter...you have a call on the white courtesy phone...It's PETA!

__________________________________________________________
-- Posted by Bill O. Rights on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 3:36 pm EST

report this comment



Here is the Second Amendment to the US Constitution in its entirety: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The NRA (conveniently) reads this to mean that everyone can own any kind of firearm that that choose. That is not what it says nor what it means. It says (and means) that each state can maintain a militia and the members of that militia can own firearms. Obviously, that needs to be (and has been) more widely interpreted because citizens need to have the right to own firearms for protection and for hunting and sporting. The question becomes: is there a need for sportsmen to own automatic weapons, bazookas, ground-to-air missiles, tanks, nuclear wepons, etc.? Obviously, a line needs to be drawn somewhere. The question remains - where do we draw that line?
-- Posted by Michael in Vermont on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 3:23 pm EST

report this comment



It seems that everyone here is missing one important point: The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The First Amendment gives all of us the right to speak out for or against any issues that we feel are important, just like we're doing here. The second amendment helps to insure that it stays that way. It's not just about hunting or sport shootin. It's about the constitutional right of every one of us to protect our homes and families against those who would threaten us, especially the tyranny of an oppressive government. Suppose the teachers at Columbine had been armed and properly trained in firearms use, do you think there would have been quite as many casualties? Suppose that the security guards, and yes, even the students at Virginia Tech were armed. Would the perpetrator's body count have been so high? I doubt it. Suppose there were armed citizens on board the planes on 9/11, would the terrorists have been able to complete their mission? Remember that the police only show up AFTER the crime has been committed and they can't be everywhere all the time, and 911 can be as effective as dial-a-prayer. The first line of defense against crime and tyranny is the armed citizen. It's been proven on several occasions that crimes have been prevented by firearms without a shot being fired.
The only reason the "Gun Issue" is important is that the politicians can use it as a tool to garner votes because of the emotions involved. It would not be an issue at all our elected representatives cared at all about their oath to "defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States".
here's some recommended reading: "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms" by Stephen P. Halbrook. It'll shed a whole new light on this issue.
Oh yeah, if things get really bad, I'm going to the guy's house who has the 17,000 rounds of ammo!
-- Posted by Marek Brzyckzy on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 1:50 pm EST

report this comment



I have nothing better to do than get hysterical thinking about how it may become more difficult for me to kill someone. We wouldn't want to focus on...oh, Maybe helping each other? Naah, lets just run as fast as we can to the nearest gun shop! There is some solid thinking for you!
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 1:50 pm EST

report this comment



Saying all liberals are morons is being way too polite.

You get your news from the comedy channel by chance. It makes about as much sense as cnn or msnbc. Which part of being the highest ranked news source don't you get?

And to list those massacres makes no sense either. Forget about the propane tanks they used but did not go off, want to outlaw bar-b-quing too. Or how about the mothers who decided to drown their own children, lets ban bathtubs and lakes. Guns don't kill people. Idiots kill people and they will use whatever means handy.

And if I want to burn 2 million rounds, what should it matter to the likes of you. I don't tell you how many twinkies to eat do I? It's none of your business fool. Some citizen you are, forget about the 2nd Amd. thing? You make a moron look good.
-- Posted by Danny Russel on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 1:35 pm EST

report this comment



The comments posted here speak clearly to the ignorance of firearms and shooting sports.

Lilly, please tell me where I can purchase a gun that can "spray bullets at a phenomenal rate." I'm dead serious. I will glady pay you an extremely handsome fee to broker the deal.

Citizen the same holds true for you. Please advise the manufacturer and model of hand gun you speak of. Also advise exact location of people selling this gun and special parts. Such may be well known, but I've never encountered it. Am equally serious. HUGE money awaits you for arranging this transaction.
-- Posted by Major Taxpayer on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 1:26 pm EST

report this comment



COLUMBINE...VIRGINIA TECH...BINGHAMTON...etc.etc.etc...
-- Posted by Paris Watts on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 12:48 pm EST

report this comment



"Smart Thinking" is the moron. I do believe that assault rifles qualify as automatic. It's also well-known that some hand guns are easily modified into being automatic using parts provided by the same people that sell the gun. An automatic weapon by any other name is still made to kill people, not deer, moose, and ducks.

Anybody needing 17,000 rounds of ammo to hunt ought to give it up. He's obviously a lousy shot and a danger to anybody around him. A Dick Cheney wannabe.
-- Posted by citizen on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 12:44 pm EST

report this comment



Since President Obama has taken office and the Democrats are in control, there are so many persisting rumors out there - gun legislation and ammunition control - that it has caused a panic across the United States and people are stockpiling," he said. "People went out and bought every round of ammunition they could."

This is your Fox News/Hannity/Limbaugh effect. Scare the dickens out of those who don't have too much above the shoulders anyway. The Bush administration caved to the NRA and made assault weapons legal and since then our very own border officials on the Mexican border complain about the dramatic increase in assault weapons filtering into Mexico - along with tons of cash for bribes. We want the Mexicans to clean up their act, but we have an obligation to clean up ours too. How is sending illegal guns all over the world (including Somalia) any different from raising opium poppies in Afghanistan to ship to the US? Just for the record: 90% of the weapons turning up in Mexico in the hands of drug lords come from the US. Source: US Government spokesman. Obama has said we need to meet our obligation to stop the killing. That's what seems to be making Mr. Pratico's customer think he needs more than 17,000 rounds of ammo.
-- Posted by citizen on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 12:37 pm EST

report this comment



http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-09-12-weapons-ban_x.htm

In the link above you will see that what the Dems would like to do is bring the same ban on Assault weapons that then President Bush promised to expand in his 2000 campaign and then during his 2004 campaign with pressure from NRA he went back on his word and allowed it to expire. Obama nor the Dems want to take your riffles, pistols or shotguns away from you.

I don't know about anyone else, but I find this to be very troubling. ("He told me he has 17,000 rounds of 7.62 ammo and he wanted more," Pratico said. "He said he was afraid that it would become so expensive he wouldn't be able to buy it in the future.") Sounds like to me he's getting ready for a small battle.
-- Posted by Scott Grover on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 11:52 am EST

report this comment



Lily, get a brain. "Automatic" weapons are illegal already. They have been for years....since the Bonnie and Clyde days. Liberals are morons.
-- Posted by Smart Thinking on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 11:36 am EST

report this comment



Oh for crying out loud. These fools that think it's some big conspiracy to take away their guns are just fools who listen to the right wingers and the NRA. No one has ever said they would take away anyone's hunting rifles,shotguns or handguns. What is said is they want to stop the sales of automatic weapons, so those idiots who can't use a gun can just spray bullets at a phenomenal rate per minute to kill as many innocent people as possible. You know, the gang members, the drug dealers, and the psychos who walk into schools, businesses, etc to carry out some imagined sort of justice.

My grandfather was hunter, he never needed an automatic weapon to kill a rabbit, deer or squirrel. Neither does my son-in -law. I used to shoot for fun,not to kill, didn't need an automatic weapon to do that either. Neither do skeet shooters, or competition shooters. But then, they do tend to be responsible gun owners, not some paranoid nut that thinks the gov is going to hunt him down.

Seems to me some education would be the better defense against gov anarchy than another gun, a bigger gun, or more ammo.
-- Posted by Lilly on Sun, Apr 19, 2009, 11:21 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout