My condolences to you Kalifornia folk....higher taxes and no 'assault magazines'

[BaiHu]

http://marketdailynews.com/2012/11/07/senator-dianne-feinstein-moves-to-ban-all-assault-rifles-high-capacity-magazines-and-pistol-grips/

It would essentially ban thousands of firearms and require gun owners to turn them over to the Federal government.

"I don’t have the minutes of the meeting (yet), but sources tell me California Senator and longtime gun-hater Dianne Feinstein’s legal staff held meetings on Friday with FTB/ATF legal staff to discuss a new “Assault Weapons Ban” Madame Feinstein would be looking to push through Congress if President Obama wins reelection.
This same “pretty good intelligence” says the items that would lead to a ban would ban pistol grips and “high-capacity” magazines, eliminate any grandfathering and ban sales of “weapons in possession”."

[butler coach]

if this happens then 1 state down 49 more. I can not even get my simple mind around this...

[Corlissimo]

This same “pretty good intelligence” says the items that would lead to a ban would ban pistol grips and “high-capacity” magazines, eliminate any grandfathering and ban sales of “weapons in possession”."[/I]

Looks like Mini14 sales will go way up.

[ToddG]

Feinstein is a US Senator, not a California state legislator. This proposal is nationwide, not just California.

[Savage Hands]

Feinstein is a US Senator, not a California state legislator. This proposal is nationwide, not just California.


Correct!

[Chemsoldier]

Fear mongering.

Nothing in the article is wrong...but it certainly isnt something that has magically come up on 7 NOV 2012. Feinstein's comments are weeks old (perhaps more) and her feelings on this matter are decades old and have been on the record for decades. BHO's support of another AWB was in his ghost written book when he ran for president in 2008 and was reinforced in the second presidential debate.

The point is well taken that gun control is likely going to be one of the President's hobbies this term. But the purpose of this article is also to stir hysteria, it wouldnt surprise me if it was designed to stoke gun and ammo sales as much as to mobilize gun owners. Just paging through the Market Daily News site feels like a for profit hit site where your alarmist message can be pushed for the right price.

[Savage Hands]

Fear mongering.

Nothing in the article is wrong...but it certainly isnt something that has magically come up on 7 NOV 2012. Feinstein's comments are weeks old (perhaps more) and her feelings on this matter are decades old and have been on the record for decades. BHO's support of another AWB was in his ghost written book when he ran for president in 2008 and was reinforced in the second presidential debate.

The point is well taken that gun control is likely going to be one of the President's hobbies this term. But the purpose of this article is also to stir hysteria, it wouldnt surprise me if it was designed to stoke gun and ammo sales as much as to mobilize gun owners. Just paging through the Market Daily News site feels like a for profit hit site where your alarmist message can be pushed for the right price.


If only that was true, there are articles from a few weeks ago from California newspapers where she was said to say the same thing. She said that she was waiting on Obama to get re-elected before moving forward.

[Chemsoldier]

If only that was true, there are articles from a few weeks ago from California newspapers where she was said to say the same thing. She said that she was waiting on Obama to get re-elected before moving forward.

I dont say its fear mongering because its not true. I call it fear mongering because it is the repackaging of old story information with a new spin:
"The agenda no longer needs to be hidden from public view. With President Obama winning another term and democrats taking control of the Senate, the move to fundamentally change America from within has begun – with a vengeance."

It implies that something has started since BHO's reelection...and then cites the previously known statements from Feinstein as evidence.

Then it throws out some stock activity stuff as a non-sequiter.


It is absolutely true that she wants to do those things, but the piece is deliberately misleading.

Once again, I agree our rights are in peril...but that is an example of s**t journalism.

[Savage Hands]

I dont say its fear mongering because its not true. I call it fear mongering because it is the repackaging of old story information with a new spin:
"The agenda no longer needs to be hidden from public view. With President Obama winning another term and democrats taking control of the Senate, the move to fundamentally change America from within has begun – with a vengeance."

It implies that something has started since BHO's reelection...and then cites the previously known statements from Feinstein as evidence.

Then it throws out some stock activity stuff as a non-sequiter.


It is absolutely true that she wants to do those things, but the piece is deliberately misleading.

Once again, I agree our rights are in peril...but that is an example of s**t journalism.


I'm not a fan of the source either, but our rights are in jeopardy and that needs to be taken seriously. :mad:

[Alaskapopo]

If only that was true, there are articles from a few weeks ago from California newspapers where she was said to say the same thing. She said that she was waiting on Obama to get re-elected before moving forward.

Its the Chicken Little complex. There simply is no way gun control measures are going to get through congress to even make it on the presidents desk.
Ever year this kind of stuff comes up. Even in the first part of Obama's term when it was a Democratic house and senate there was not enough votes to pass any gun control because there are enough Pro Gun Democrates to block it.
Pat

[Chemsoldier]

The dems could make this all really easy. They could end the war on guns. They officially and publicly change their platform and add the following proclamation:
1. The second amendment protects, among other things, the individuals right to KEEP and BEAR arms for self-defense at home and elsewhere.
2. The Democratic Party will not stand in the way of shall issue, permitted CCW expansion.
3. The Democratic Party will not support the enactment of legislation to restrict semi-automatic arms or standard capacity magazines.

These measures would be enough to split the gun owning base of the republican party, which is comparitively libertarian. Many Americans who hold their nose and vote Republican would then feel liberated to vote 3rd party. There are also a handful of people who would vote democratic except for the gun issue.

I know Chuckie Schumer and Feinstein wouldnt go for it, but it would certainly help the younger generation of dems in congress.

I dont like the statist bastards, but it would be a smart move on their part.

[JodyH]

The President may be a lame duck with no worries about re-election, the Senators and Congressmen aren't so lucky.
Gun control is a losing proposition for the near future, too many gun owners on both sides of the political spectrum.
I'm sure we'll get some incremental gun control legislation but I don't see a '94 AWB on the horizon.
The GOP may currently be toothless but the NRA is still a powerful organization.

[Nik the Greek]

The dems could make this all really easy. They could end the war on guns. They officially and publicly change their platform and add the following proclamation:
1. The second amendment protects, among other things, the individuals right to KEEP and BEAR arms for self-defense at home and elsewhere.
2. The Democratic Party will not stand in the way of shall issue, permitted CCW expansion.
3. The Democratic Party will not support the enactment of legislation to restrict semi-automatic arms or standard capacity magazines.

These measures would be enough to split the gun owning base of the republican party, which is comparitively libertarian. Many Americans who hold their nose and vote Republican would then feel liberated to vote 3rd party. There are also a handful of people who would vote democratic except for the gun issue.

I know Chuckie Schumer and Feinstein wouldnt go for it, but it would certainly help the younger generation of dems in congress.

I dont like the statist bastards, but it would be a smart move on their part.

Oh how I'd love to see that happen.

[dbateman]

Don't give them an inch you guy's need to fight any gun bans.

It doesn't matter if you don't have a need for an assault rifle high (normal) capacity mags or run pistol grips.

What matters is they will be coming for your guns next.

Trust me I know us aussies let them wreak our country don't let them do it to yours.

The saddest thing is even the younger shooters coming thru the ranks think all the restrictions are a good thing.
I heard one young fellow saying the ten round mag restriction is a good thing because it stops drive by's ??


I'v just about had enough of this country.

[Dagga Boy]

I predict an Executive order on "weapons of war".....gets rid of that pesky congress.

[Alaskapopo]

I predict an Executive order on "weapons of war".....gets rid of that pesky congress.
The president is not a dictator he can not just freely make laws even under executive order. He would be challenged and would lose.
Pat

[Alaskapopo]

The dems could make this all really easy. They could end the war on guns. They officially and publicly change their platform and add the following proclamation:
1. The second amendment protects, among other things, the individuals right to KEEP and BEAR arms for self-defense at home and elsewhere.
2. The Democratic Party will not stand in the way of shall issue, permitted CCW expansion.
3. The Democratic Party will not support the enactment of legislation to restrict semi-automatic arms or standard capacity magazines.

These measures would be enough to split the gun owning base of the republican party, which is comparitively libertarian. Many Americans who hold their nose and vote Republican would then feel liberated to vote 3rd party. There are also a handful of people who would vote democratic except for the gun issue.

I know Chuckie Schumer and Feinstein wouldnt go for it, but it would certainly help the younger generation of dems in congress.

I dont like the statist bastards, but it would be a smart move on their part.

I agree in fact if they made guns and abortion non issues for both parties I would be a lot happier.
Pat

[MikeyC]

I agree in fact if they made guns and abortion non issues for both parties I would be a lot happier.
Pat
Yeah, but then they'd have to do real work instead of just getting the getting people all riled up.

[joshs]

The president is not a dictator he can not just freely make laws even under executive order. He would be challenged and would lose.
Pat

No, but the executive does have a lot of control over the importation of firearms without additional congressional action.

[TGS]

No, but the executive does have a lot of control over the importation of firearms without additional congressional action.

Stream-of-consciousness thoughts on Obama killing arms importation:
1) Not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.
2) Having foreign companies such as HK, Glock and Walther establish full manufacturing capability here would be good for the consumer and the economy.
3) The milsurp market is pretty much on its deathbed anyway. I'm not aware of any other cool imports that we would lose out on.

[Zhurdan]

Stream-of-consciousness thoughts on Obama killing arms importation:
1) Not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.
2) Having foreign companies such as HK, Glock and Walther establish full manufacturing capability here would be good for the consumer and the economy.
3) The milsurp market is pretty much on its deathbed anyway. I'm not aware of any other cool imports that we would lose out on.

Sometimes the truth is the scariest of all. He could spin it so easily into "It's all about the jorbs! Jorbs, jorbs jorbs!"

[TGS]

Sometimes the truth is the scariest of all. He could spin it so easily into "It's all about the jorbs! Jorbs, jorbs jorbs!"

Well, people have mentioned over the last couple days that we're screwed because they don't think Obama will invest in manufacturing.

Here's some manufacturing. Who really thinks that HK or Glock wouldn't set up shop in the US if they couldn't import for even LE sales?

[LOKNLOD]

Sometimes the truth is the scariest of all. He could spin it so easily into "It's all about the jorbs! Jorbs, jorbs jorbs!"

Coach Z...hurdan?

[joshs]

Stream-of-consciousness thoughts on Obama killing arms importation:
would be good for the consumer and the economy.

How? If HK, Glock, or Walther could offer lower prices by making more of their guns here, why wouldn't they already do this? Presumably, a marginal decrease in price would allow them to reach more consumers assuming relatively normal demand elasticity.

[TGS]

How? If HK, Glock, or Walther could offer lower prices by making more of their guns here, why wouldn't they already do this? Presumably, a marginal decrease in price would allow them to reach more consumers assuming relatively normal demand elasticity.

If they would not have the capability to sell their guns here like now, then what do they have to do in order to sell guns here?

[ToddG]

How? If HK, Glock, or Walther could offer lower prices by making more of their guns here, why wouldn't they already do this?

Because the cost to set up manufacturing outweighs their perceived increase in profit.

Change that equation by dropping their US profit to zero and suddenly the motivation to manufacture in the U.S. could increase.

Glock and HK are already both manufacturing handguns in the U.S. Glock definitely has the market share to increase that production capacity to whatever is necessary. HK may or may not since their market penetration is far less than Glock's. Walther would be more likely to team up with another manufacturer (possibly S&W again) rather than start from scratch with US manufacturing. But that's obviously all just speculation on my part.

[NickA]

Well, people have mentioned over the last couple days that we're screwed because they don't think Obama will invest in manufacturing.

Here's some manufacturing. Who really thinks that HK or Glock wouldn't set up shop in the US if they couldn't import for even LE sales?

Wasn't it Schumer who had the gall to talk about bringing jobs to NY when Remington or somebody moved a plant up there? The hypocrisy is astounding.

[joshs]

Because the cost to set up manufacturing outweighs their perceived increase in profit.

Change that equation by dropping their US profit to zero and suddenly the motivation to manufacture in the U.S. could increase.

I wasn't questioning that Euro gun manufacturers would begin manufacturing guns in the U.S. if required by U.S. law, I think that is very likely. I just don't understand how such a move could be "good for consumers." The only way I can see it being "good for consumers" is if this means something other than lower prices.

[TGS]

I wasn't questioning that Euro gun manufacturers would begin manufacturing guns in the U.S. if required by U.S. law, I think that is very likely. I just don't understand how such a move could be "good for consumers." The only way I can see it being "good for consumers" is if this means something other than lower prices.

Thinking primarily as an HK guy, HK would have no reason to not invest in a significant US marketing program. Parts supply would be plentiful, and they would probably make more guns that interest the US market (P30L LEM w/o a safety) in order to capitalize on the fact that they have a plant in the US. "We can build it without significant investment since we're already making everything here, so why not" sort of thing.

If Glock was manufacturing everything here, then I imagine they would also introduce something that people have been asking for a long time as well: Glock pocket pistols, or a single stack 9mm. Glock is riding on so much marketing and fanboyism right now that they could introduce whatever they wanted and it'd probably sell like hotcakes.

Finally, more gun manufacturers here means more political muscle in favor of the RKBA.

I think those points I've thought of off the top of my head outweigh the fact that Glockophiles might have to pay an extra $20 or so per gun for Glock to recoup the investment costs.

The second part of that point from my stream of consciousness was that it would be good for the economy, which, I can't possibly imagine how manufacturing them here wouldn't help. If they both went "all-ahead full" into the US market/manufacturing it'd probably be a couple thousand jobs between both HK and Glock. Every little bit helps.

Given the thriving rampage that gun sales are right now, I wouldn't be surprised if other manufacturers set up shop here (or contracted another big maker to build their wares), such as Caracal, Armscor, a Russian maker or two, maybe even sporting companies like Blaser, Merkel and Mauser. Glock and HK would be a sure bet, though.

[joshs]

TGS,

Perhaps I just have too much free market bias, but generally I find that market distortions created by government regulation harm both consumer welfare and the economy. If consumers really wanted, and were willing to pay for, the products you mentioned they would already be provided for in the current market. Likewise, if the U.S. were an efficient location for manufacturers to build guns, they would already do so. Increasing jobs in the U.S. without a corresponding increase in demand, means companies would either have to pass the costs on to consumers or shrink their operations elsewhere. I don't see how forcing inefficiency through regulation can be good for the economy.

[TGS]

TGS,

Perhaps I just have too much free market bias, but generally I find that market distortions created by government regulation harm both consumer welfare and the economy. If consumers really wanted, and were willing to pay for, the products you mentioned they would already be provided for in the current market. Likewise, if the U.S. were an efficient location for manufacturers to build guns, they would already do so. Increasing jobs in the U.S. without a corresponding increase in demand, means companies would either have to pass the costs on to consumers or shrink their operations elsewhere. I don't see how forcing inefficiency through regulation can be good for the economy.

Dude, it was a stream of consciousness thought based on "if." You're going way, way deeper than my post was ever intended to.

[ToddG]

If consumers really wanted, and were willing to pay for, the products you mentioned they would already be provided for in the current market.

This. Every time I hear someone say a gun company is missing out by not building XYZ, my first question is what kind of market study led you to the conclusion that such a product would turn enough profit on the investment to be worth the time, effort, money, and risk?

How many of us would have told Taurus ten years ago that a cheesy .410 revolver would make them a fortune and turn their company around?

But you can't throw a rock on the internet without finding some dimwit who is absolutely certain that all the world needs is a 10mm (insert brand) pistol.

[BaiHu]

Because the cost to set up manufacturing outweighs their perceived increase in profit.
.......This. Every time I hear someone say a gun company is missing out by not building XYZ, my first question is what kind of market study led you to the conclusion that such a product would turn enough profit on the investment to be worth the time, effort, money, and risk?

I think Todd hits the nail on the head.

Look, we are in a country at a time where the Keystone Pipeline couldn't get approved. Why is that relevant?

1. Oil is how we do everything. There isn't a thing that you are looking at or touching right now that doesn't use oil.
2. Oil is mainly imported from countries where we spend a lot of our defense budget on so that it doesn't become even more of a cesspool.
3. Saying yes to the pipeline would have brought in about 20k jobs for Americans, but paid for by Canadians.
4. The pipeline would have reduced the overall cost of gas, which is the most regressive tax in this country. Meaning it hurts the poorest of Americans more than richest every day of the week.
5. It would have put more pressure on the OPEC and Russian Oil conglomerates to get their own countries in order.

Do you want to know why Obama said no despite the overall popularity and economic boost of the pipeline? Environmentalists and the hypothetical fairy plan of making everyone drive around in an electric car. A plan where we have no infrastructure to support such a thing currently.

So if he could reduce the pain of our country's malaise with one pen stroke, where it wouldn't cost anything and he failed to do that, what do you think a bunch of gun-hating apparatchiks would do if you decided to make some money by bringing more gun manufacturers from other countries to start up brand new shops?

What many people have failed to realize is that this election wasn't about 4 more years of a Lame Duck president, rather it is about guaranteeing the next couple of decades fall deeper and deeper into a socialist utopian's dreamscape, which to anyone with a sense of freedom and sense of personal responsibility, will call a nightmare.

It is possible that I am wrong, but I'd rather prepare for the worst and make out like a king than expect the best and be caught with my pants around my ankles.

PS Walther breaks from SWHC as of 1/1/2013, which is about 7-8% of SWHC's sales.

[peterb]

The US became a net exporter of petroleum products this year. The world oil price and profitability of exporting refined products is probably doing more to sustain domestic prices than the lack of a domestic supply.
http://moneymorning.com/2012/01/04/oil-companies-big-winners-as-u-s-becomes-net-exporter-of-fuel/

[BaiHu]

What you're mistaking is that we are a net exporter of finished products like gasoline and other fuels, but we are an importer of crude oil.

Your link proves it: "The United States is still the world's largest importer of crude oil, however - although even U.S. oil imports have dropped by 10% since 2006."