Thanks To Obama’s Anti-Gun Push, Guns Are Big Presents For Christmas

Seriously, this guy the gun salesman of the millennium, doing through the Law Of Unintended Consequences

(UK Guardian) This year, among the socks and sweaters, bottles of wine, a large number of Americans will find another present: guns.

Gun shop owners across the US have reported a marked increase in interest in their products over the holidays. In November, the FBI ran more than 2.2m gun background checks, a 24% increase from last year. Gun background checks hit a new record on Black Friday, when 185,345 were processed by the FBI.

FBI background checks, which are processed by the National Instant Criminal Background Check system, are not the most accurate indicator of actual gun sales. The checks are conducted for federally licensed gun purchases and for permits to carry guns. A background check does not mean that a gun was purchased. Shoppers can also purchase multiple guns with one sale, which requires just one background check. However, manufacturers rely on the background check statistics to measure how the industry is doing.

This holiday season, the industry seems to be booming.

Thank you, Obama and gun grabby Liberals! BTW, depending on the state, you cannot just purchase multiple firearms with one background check. Here in Wake County, you would need multiple permits, and pay for each one. Isn’t it great when gun grabbers have a Narrative and refuse to do research?

The sheriff’s office also encouraged everyone giving and receiving guns for Christmas to learn how to take caution with their newly purchased firearm.

“It’s not something you want to purchase, stick in a closet and never use,” explained Brewer. “You need to know how to break it down you need to know how to clean it, you need to know how to use it. Whether that’s going with a family member to practice shooting, we have multiple shooting ranges here.”

Yeah, there’s something I will agree on. I’ll actually go a step further, and possibly take some heat from some gun owners, as I did in a conversation: gun owners, at least first time gun owners, should have to attend a class on how to use one, how to properly handle one, what the laws are, how to shoot one, and just general safety. One of the reasons why Switzerland has so few gun issues is proper education, including the children. There are a few others, but, I’ll ignore the demographic issues.

Louis Cole was browsing the shelves at Adventure Outdoors in Smyrna, Georgia when he was approached by Gabe Gutierrez, a reporter with Today show. Cole already owns a gun. He was there, shopping for his wife.

“Like any good husband, I asked for the list of Christmas items that you’d like to have and one of the items was a firearm,’’ Cole said. “Above jewelry was a firearm.”

In fact, one of the fastest growing segments for firearm ownership is women. As noted at the Daily Beast

Bill Brassard, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, cited the growing influence of celebrities in the sports shooting world such as Eva Shockey, Julie Golob, and Jessie Duff, but most of those interviewed for this piece said more women are gravitating to firearms for the same reason most people have historically: to protect themselves. Cheri Jacobus, the Republican strategist, argued that as women establish more independence in every sphere of their lives, it is only natural that personal protection would be part of that evolution. Citing the heroism of some of the female teachers during Sandy Hook she said, “Gone are the days when women look to men to keep them safe.” She continued, “Female head of households and single professional women rely on themselves for economic security and now for physical security, as well.”

Yet, Obama and the other liberal gun grabbers would like to disarm women, replacing guns with rape whistles and peeing on themselves. Why do liberals want to put women in danger?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

16 Responses to “Thanks To Obama’s Anti-Gun Push, Guns Are Big Presents For Christmas”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Thanks to the ultra-liberal gun laws in my home state, I bought sweet little Walther PPK’s for all my grandkids this year. That bad guy with a gun should think twice before invading little Natalie’s pre-school!

    I violently disagree with William’s big government solution of making US residents undergo mandated, unfunded, not to mention “infringing” government-regulated “training”.

    We don’t require government training to practice free speech, or to practice our religion – why require government training to practice arguably our more basic right to self-defense???

    As clearly stated in our 2nd Amendment:

    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.

  2. Zhytamyr says:

    Read on your form 4473 section 11 A. Turn yourself into the feds for federal felonies equal to the firearms purchased for someone else. Have a great day & enjoy the dating scene in prison.

  3. Jeffery says:

    Turn yourself into the feds for federal felonies equal to the firearms purchased for someone else.

    How dare you attack our esteemed host, Mr. Teach, who headlined: Thanks To Obama’s Anti-Gun Push, Guns Are Big Presents For Christmas.

    Are you implying that it’s illegal for people to buy guns and give them as presents to others?

    Turn ourselves in?? The hell you say! What right do the feds have to tell us how to defend ourselves, and in my case, my family. Do you plan to do the feds work and snitch us all out?

    They can have my granddaughters’ Walthers when they pry them from my cold dead fingers!

    Perhaps you’re not familiar with our Constitution where our unfettered access to weapons is clearly stated:

    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.

    Now, here you come along to support Los Federales in infringing all of our rights to bear Arms.

  4. Dana says:

    Jeffrey is exactly right!

    We don’t require government training to practice free speech, or to practice our religion – why require government training to practice arguably our more basic right to self-defense???

    That is exactly correct! Oh, I know, Jeffrey was trying — though failing rather miserably — to employ sarcasm, but his statement is exactly correct. If “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” then requiring some sort of government training program is an infringement!

    The Fourteenth Amendment specifies that no person may be deprived of his rights to life, liberty or property without due process of law; only upon conviction, in a court of law, can someone’s Second Amendment rights be abridged.

  5. Jeffery says:

    Wouldn’t it be hypocritical for me to obey state restrictions if it contradicts my natural and constitutional rights??? How can one in good conscience rail against government overreach but meekly acquiesce to the unconstitutional laws they “enact”?

    Fortunately, I reside in a state whose legislature is dominated by the Republican Tea Party.

    • Zhytamyr says:

      We just need the right type of legislation and then it’ll all be peachy. If only assault and murder were illegal…

  6. Sua Sponte says:

    If you have your CCW you don’t need multiple permits..

  7. Jeffery says:

    See? Even Dana agrees that requiring firearms training is unconstitutional.

    The Second Amendment is clear. Any attempt by governments to limit our access to firearms is unconstitutional. It’s bad enough that in 1939 the Supreme Court ruled that onerous taxes on and registration of shotguns with barrels less than 18″ did not violate our precious 2nd Amendment.

    Dana: Was the Supreme Court wrong in their ruling?

    Just like today, there was public outcry over recent shootings, at that time the gang warfare of the 20s and 30s.

  8. Zhytamyr says:

    Bless your little heart. You want to make an argument but only know what you’ve read in the comment section of DU. Might you be referring to the ’34 NFA, from 1934? The ’34 NFA was FDR’s effort to enact complete firearm prohibition a la W. Europe. The silencer portion of the law was originally handgun – he didn’t think he could get it passed as originally written even after stacking the courts. Famous bad guys from the era didn’t generally buy their machine guns, they stole them from National Guard armories. Progressives saw it as an opportunity to grow power, as they do now.

  9. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    So you think that people should have training enforced on them to exercise their rights. That is great!! Now we can put standards on people voting, like having an education, being able to read, knowing who the candidate are and not just voting as someone gave you money to do so. This sounds like it could get legs.

  10. Dana says:

    Jeffrey asks:

    Dana: Was the Supreme Court wrong in their ruling?

    Yes, as subsequent cases have noted. While the Constitution recognizes our right to keep and bear arms, the Constitution also gives Congress the power to levy taxes, and thus the Congress could impose taxes on firearms and ammunition. Whether the Congress can impose taxes which are so onerous as to render our natural rights to keep and bear arms, as recognized by the Second Amendment, unusable is something different, and I would say that no, it cannot. The restriction on sawed-off shotguns was based on the interstate commerce clause, but at its heart was a requirement for registration which the law would have required even if the weapon were not transported across state lines; that was an erroneous decision.

    The 1939 case of United States v Miller was wrongly decided, as the Supreme Court recognized in District of Columbia v Heller and McDonald v Chicago, in which the individual right to keep and bear arms was recognized as not being subject to being part of the militia.

  11. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    Just like today, there was public outcry over recent shootings, at that time the gang warfare of the 20s and 30s.

    And most of today’s shootings are gang warfare, simply different kinds of gangs than were seen during Prohibition. The terrorist attacks that the left like to use to push for gun control are actually few and far between, while the much more common shootings, of one black thug by another black thug, barely make the news and, to be blunt about it, nobody cares about them outside of their families. If two hoodlums – black or white or whatever — shoot it out, and one is killed, I call that 50% good; if they both die from the gunfight, I call that 100% good.

    There is a huge logical problem with the left’s call for gun control: I have yet top figure out why, and perhaps Jeffrey can enlighten us here, the left believe that restricting the rights of law abiding people is going to stop the criminals at all. I mean, what part of criminals don’t obey the law don’t the left understand?

  12. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    Wouldn’t it be hypocritical for me to obey state restrictions if it contradicts my natural and constitutional rights???

    That depends: is it hypocritical of you to choose not to own a firearm — assuming that is the case — if the law says that you may not? I don’t think so.

    I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and an absolutist in its interpretation, but I choose not to own a firearm myself. Why? I live in about as safe a small town as you’re going to find, so the chances that I would need a firearm for self-defense are very low. Those odds are not zero, but it is my opinion that they are lower than the probabilities of an accident. I choose not to hunt, so I do not need a rifle. The right to keep and bear arms is not a right which mandates that one be armed, any more than the freedom of speech requires me to speak.

  13. Jeffery says:

    zamfir typed:

    Bless your little heart. You want to make an argument but only know what you’ve read in the comment section of DU. Might you be referring to the ’34 NFA, from 1934? The ’34 NFA was FDR’s effort to enact complete firearm prohibition a la W. Europe.

    Bless your little heart, back at ya. I was referring to what I intended, the 1939 case of United States v Miller ruling on that law. Dana got it right.

    Apology accepted.

  14. Dana says:

    To be fair, United States v Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939) was a case based upon enforcement of the National Firearms Act of 1934. In it, the Court held that the Second Amendment was a guarantee that the various state militia could keep and bear arms:

    The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power —

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

    With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

    Fortunately — though it took far too long — a wiser Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment recognized and protected the individual right to keep and bear arms, without any necessity of belonging to the militia, in District of Columbia v Heller and McDonald v Chicago.

    Think about the time in which the Second Amendment was passed: many Americans lived on the frontier, and needed to be able to protect themselves from the Indians noble aboriginal inhabitants, and hunting was a very important part of feeding the family.

    Further, the Framers were the men who emerged as leaders following our Revolution, a Revolution that the British tried to put down with, among other things, a prohibition on the possession of firearms in the city of Boston. Many of the Framers were men who had fought against the British gun control measures; they would certainly not want the government to have the power to impose such restrictions.

Bad Behavior has blocked 3542 access attempts in the last 7 days.