GlockSpock

Like screaming "Fire!" in a theater.   :rant:

  I've been reading some about it ever since you posted it earlier. It is certainly eye opening as to the mindset that some in the government have. Also, I would think that statistically you would be very safe betting that in the history of our nation something like that has actually taken place. History is written by the winners and the people whom control the media, and dead people don't make very good witnesses. 

  Imagine if all manufacturers created an "embargo" with New York. Imagine if Glock, SIG, etc all decided to not sale anything to NY. Imagine the NYPD attempting to purchase duty weapons and getting turned down. 

@9:24 :pleased:   :cool:  :ugh:

    Address: 5085 Highway 11 South, Calhoun, TN 37309 Phone:(423) 336-2675  

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/01/14/germans-build-successfully-test-laser-weapon/?intcmp=features

Just caught a snippet on Fox about an upcoming segment on (I believe) a professor catching flack over claiming that Sandy Hook was staged. Should be interesting to watch if you can catch it.

Using the "even if it only saves one child" argument is very poor thinking indeed. I am not taking away the value of human life here, but is one child's (or adult's) life really worth the Republic we live in? We could ban cars 100% and save probably a thousandfold of lives per day, but we don't. Lets ban swimming pools, even if it only saves one child's life, it is worth it. Lets ban electricity, even if it saves only one child's life, it is worth it. Lets ban candy, even if it saves only one child's life, it is worth it.    "One child's life" gives some people a fuzzy feeling inside, so they eat it up. They bask in the warm, fuzzy feeling they create and throw logical thinking out the door.    Banning certain types of firearms may save a single child's life, but must you ignore the multitude of innocent people who died because they couldn't defend themselves legally with the types of firearms you just banned?

  100%   I once had someone tell me that laws must have been recently passed requiring ammo to be registered. Their logic in this was an article they read on the internet mentioning "unregistered ammo". The same goes for "unregistered guns". Lots of "good old Americans" in my family believe 100% that guns are legally supposed to be registered to whomever owns them.    Unregistered Firearm Unregistered Ammo Unreported Sales Terms like these are being used to program minds into believing that things should be a certain way. Then, someday down the road when legislation comes up requiring those things, a very large percentage of people will think to themselves "But I thought that was already required! If it isn't, it should be! Sure I'll support this!". 

Would you have rather they kept "normal pricing" and be sold 100% out of ammo?     Equilibrium.   Equilibrium is where the supply meets the demand. The point in which these two meet is the market price. Anything below the market price and you have a shortage. If, magically speaking, right now 7.62x39mm rounds were going for 25 cents a round, there would be a huge shortage. You wouldn't be able to find it anywhere, at all. That's assuming that 25 cents was as high as they could possibly sale.    Personally, I like knowing that I can buy something (even at a higher rate) due to the market adjusting, vs not being able to buy something because I literally cannot find it. I don't know what people are actually paying for 7.62x39mm ammo, but if they are paying for it at $1 per round, all that would happen if it were currently going for 25 cents a round is people would buy four times as much. It would disappear 400% quicker. If they are paying $1 per round, it is based upon the fact that the supply cannot keep up with the demand. The demand for II Amendment related stuff over the last month has skyrocketed. The only things that can bring price back down are two possible things:   Supply catches up with demand. Demand falls.   Both of those are based upon what the speculation of legislation is.   If the suppliers feel a ban is coming, do you think they wish to invest capital in expanding production lines? If demand feels a ban is coming, that means they have to purchase everything they want now.    If the suppliers don't feel a ban is coming, do you think they will invest capital in expanding production lines in order to meet the current demand? Perhaps. It depends on how much capital they need to invest vs expected return. If demand feels a ban isn't coming, do you think they will pay inflated prices?   Also, I offer this bid of supposed wisdom. People keep complaining about inflated prices. Well, I've also heard the following logic promoted around here, "Don't sale anything that you would regret selling if a ban were to pass". In other words, even if you could sale your AR-15 for $3000 that you only paid $1000 for, is it really worth it if a ban comes within this year? Over the next decade, would you rather have your AR-15 or an extra $3000?    I take that logic and ask the other side of the same coin. If you do not have an AR-15, and you know you want one, is $3000 worth the security in knowing that you have one that you can own today? What if legislative talks this week go haywire and not in our favor? Then AR-15 prices will jump even more. $5000? $10,000? It all depends on demand and supply. If you do not have an AR-15, and want one, and you knew 100% that a ban would pass within a few months, what would you pay? Would you rather have that AR-15 over the next 10 years, or the $3,000, $5,000, or $10,000 that it costs to purchase it. That is called opportunity cost.    There are those that say a ban won't pass. Many people said that in '94. Hell. Remember, supposedly the Hughes Amendment didn't pass. Try paying the taxes on a newly manufactured machine gun as a citizen and see how that goes for you. Look at healthcare. How much of the country was and is against it? Guess what we have now. Tell me the ban won't pass. I hope you are right. But what if you are wrong? One, five, ten years from now, are you going to be spiteful at how much "price gouging" went on in 2013, or are you going to be spiteful that you didn't buy a few more magazines and possibly a gun or two and some ammo? If a ban passes, I doubt it will be the first.    I don't agree with the accepted concept of "price gouging". In order to believe in price gouging, I claim that you must first believe that the seller has an obligation to sell you something. If you own a gas station and a national crisis such as 9/11 happens, who says you have to sale your gas in the first place? What if you wish to keep the tanks full so that you know you have a steady supply for yourself for a while? You might say to yourself, "I am keeping this gas, but if someone wants to pay me $100 a gallon, I'll sell them how ever much they want". A few people might take you up on that, and you might make a huge return on a percentage of your initial investment. But if the price is capped (price ceiling), look what happens. People buy a lot of it and then it is all gone!    Some will disagree with me. I know. Some will agree. I have a very strong belief in the free market system. 

  I think that is right, but I also believe that they don't keep much ammo on hand. They have just enough ammo to "get to the armory" in a sense. I think this is the case anyway. Nevertheless if true...a much better attitude that some places in the world.

One must ask the question "Causation or correlation?".    People who take psychiatric drugs are already unstable. Is it the drugs or the fact that they are already unstable that creates such a mental environment to commit such an act?

  I've read the sequel and it is good. I've not read the prequel yet though but will sometime soon. The author is an example of what I consider a good working author. He isn't someone like some/most writers that dedicate their entire time to writing. He works a job, and writes small stories such as this one. And due to the internet, anyone can do this now! You can essentially be a self published author, but your imaginative ideas in an book form, and make some extra cash. The more books he writes (if they are all roughly the same quality), the more known his works will be. I don't know if a person would "get rich" from doing so, but I would say it would be a pretty good extra chunk of change.    Sometime I may try it just to see how it goes.   Other than of course being about zombies and guns, I appreciated how supportive of freedom the author seems to be. 

  I went ahead and sent a supportive email to the Gmail listed, but I also carbon copied it to his official .gov. I did get a response from his Gmail. All it consisted of was "Thanks".    :shrug:

As well as a drunk facing prohibition.   :waiting:

The good news here guys...maybe he doesn't plan on being in office for the foreseeable future?

  Basically "We will let this slide because of who you are, but we cannot let others use this as an example to do the same,".

  http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/58165-very-important-rep-joe-carr-is-looking-to-file-a-bill-to-protect-our-rights/#entry881816   Let him know if you haven't already.

  Interesting. I did not know that.         Well, something in the form of what Wyoming has proposed recently would probably be a step in the (more) right direction.

  I sent him an email stating support for such a bill and have yet to hear back from him. I hope he does submit such a bill. But until a few pro gun bills pass into law into Tennessee, I will still be skeptical whether or not Haslam will sign any of them. I also have no idea whether congress has the support to override such a veto.    I would like to discuss with a representative about how likely some of this stuff is to be passed. Haslam has opposed a few things that would seem common sense to many people on the forum here.

I actually think it would be quite cool if we reduced the number of likes to five per day. Then, like mikegideon suggested, we can create a market for "likes". Out for the day? Find someone to loan you some! Then you are indebted to that person, and must repay in the form of a comment in one of their threads supporting their position on something.   /This post is useless

HB0010 (to me) isn't as much about protecting the 2nd Amendment, but more about protecting the budget against something the feds would be requiring. In essence, it is saying that we (TN) aren't going to do this unless you pay for it.   HB0010 isn't all bad though. Imagine if every state in the union passed a similar bill, stating that they will only cooperate if the Feds pay for it. That would in of itself be a blow against certain gun control measures.

HB0010 was introduced by Faison in the House and and the equivalent bill in the Senate is SB0040 introduced by Niceley. The origination of this thread is supposedly Rep. Carr is interested in introducing more legislature (hopefully even better than HB0010).

It is my understanding that the Federal Government currently makes no money off of background checks. TN Government does, but that is besides the point here. I agree that part of the "battle" is that there is possibly money to be made. For example Walmart would benefit greatly if private sales were banned. If the Federal Government sticks a $5, $10, $100 fee for a background check, yes that will add up quickly as long as they don't restrict ownership so much that legal sales drop drastically. If/when registration finally arrives, fully expect taxation to arrive at the same time or shortly after. Registration...Taxation...Confiscation.

Pity but I completely understand. Great feature but I also understand how plugins tax a server. Thanks!