Obama Win Triggers Run on Guns
| More news stories on Barack Obama |
|---|
Howard Witt, Chicago Tribune, November 12, 2008
A week after the election of Barack Obama, gun buyers across the country are voting with their feet, flocking to gun stores to stock up on assault rifles, handguns and ammunition.
Some say they are worried that the incoming Obama administration will attempt to reimpose the ban on assault weapons that expired in 2004. Others fear the loss of their right to own handguns. A few say they are preparing to protect themselves in the event of a race war.
But whatever the reason, gun dealers in red and blue states alike say they’ve never seen anything like the run on weaponry they’ve been experiencing since Election Day—surpassing even the panic buying in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
{snip}
But anecdotal reports from around the nation suggest the sudden surge of November gun-buying is far surpassing the normal hunting-season spike that often occurs this time of year.
At the Memorial Shooting Center in Houston, which shares a building with a church, managers said they sold out of assault weapons a day after the election and are now adding new orders, at more than $1,000 each, to a monthlong waiting list. In Colorado, state authorities said they set a record for background checks on gun purchasers on the Saturday before the election—and the requests have been growing ever since.
And in Obama’s home state of Illinois, business at gun stores is brisk.
{snip}
Obama’s record on gun rights is conflicting enough to give ammunition to either side.
His campaign Web site said he “respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms” and promised that he would “protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport and use guns.”
Seeking to reassure gun owners, Obama told a campaign audience in Ohio in October: “I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away.”
But Obama also has said he favors “common sense” gun laws, and as an Illinois state legislator he voted to support a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons and tighter restrictions on all firearms. He has said in the past that he opposes allowing gun owners to carry concealed weapons.
And Obama’s controversial comment last April that some rural Americans “cling to guns or religion” in difficult times suggested to many gun owners that he was fundamentally hostile toward them.
The sum of those positions prompted the National Rifle Association to warn its members during the campaign that Obama “would be the most anti-gun president in American history.”
{snip}
One expert sees a darker motive driving some post-election gun purchasers.
“Why are white people buying assault weapons?” said Ben Agger, a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Arlington who wrote a book about the Virginia Tech slayings. “I almost hate to say it, but there is a deep-seated fear of the armed black man, because Obama now commands the military and other instruments of the justice system. They are afraid Obama will exact retribution for the very deep-seated legacy of slavery.”
Email Howard Witt at hwitt@tribune.com.
(Posted on November 14, 2008)
Comments
The media kept saying that it was because of 2nd amendment issues, but I avoid monocausal explanations for matters sociocultural. Not that 2nd amendment issues aren’t a cause, but I agree with Agger — white fear of black crime and arrogance-fueled hate crimes is the main reason.
Posted by Question Diversity at 6:04 PM on November 14
“I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away.”
________
He won’t, but he will appoint Supreme Court Justices who might.
Posted by at 6:18 PM on November 14
“Why are white people buying assault weapons?” said Ben Agger, a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Arlington who wrote a book about the Virginia Tech slayings. “I almost hate to say it, but there is a deep-seated fear of the armed black man, because Obama now commands the military and other instruments of the justice system. They are afraid Obama will exact retribution for the very deep-seated legacy of slavery.”
Great example of why sociology is the dollar store of the social sciences.
Posted by at 6:34 PM on November 14
They are afraid Obama will exact retribution for the very deep-seated legacy of slavery.”
What? If that is the case, why didn’t we increase arms purchases when Colin Powell was running the military? Obama is a Democrat from Illinois, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the U.S., especially Chicago. Yes, alot of people think there will be stricter gun laws. But it would be political suicide to take the gun ban to the extreme. At least until his 2nd term.
If Ben Agger would do some research, he would also know that Obama is half-Kenyan. His bloodline has nothing to do with the U.S. slave trade, which was mostly Eastern Africa. Unless his wife pushes his button to do that. Obama is President, not Emperor. There needs to be alot of law changes before he does the military junta on White America.
Posted by at 6:59 PM on November 14
No doubt millions of Americans weren’t listening when the following came out of our president-elect’s mouth:
“I don’t [yet] have the votes to take your guns.”
—Barack Obama
Americans are not going to just “cling” to their guns and religion; they’re going to exercise their constitutional rights to do so, no matter how much Obama hates it. This recent run on gun sales is a more powerful statement than any vote cast for Obama via an electronic voting machine.
Posted by at 7:56 PM on November 14
“Why are white people buying assault weapons?” said Ben Agger, a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Arlington who wrote a book about the Virginia Tech slayings. “I almost hate to say it, but there is a deep-seated fear of the armed black man, because Obama now commands the military and other instruments of the justice system. They are afraid Obama will exact retribution for the very deep-seated legacy of slavery.”
Getting information on guns from a politically correct academic is like getting data from a feminist to find out how many males are rapists. Both are so bogus as to be useless.
I wonder if this Ben Agger might even want to give any consideration at all to why whites are buying guns, because of the ibcredibly high rates of black on white violence, and also because the Obamanation said in July, 2008, that, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set,” We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
If he’s not telling us that he’s going to have a civilian army on a par with the military (Probably mostly non-white) then pigs fly for certain.
Posted by mitch at 8:21 PM on November 14
This is the tripe that the media and people like Agger fantasize about. They really believe every black and liberal are reincarnated Nat Turner and John Brown. And what does obama have to do with the institution of slavery? Other than his white mother may have had ancestors that may have supported the institution. Obama could use the military to attack some pro-slave country in Africa. Other than that; What ax does obama have to grind with people who legally owned slaves? When will this insanity end? Do this people want a race riot? Whites have already been threatened by the media regarding an obama loss. I really believe these ungrateful people will not be satisfied until the entire country resembles Uganda or South Africa. DeoVindice
Posted by GrayGhost at 8:27 PM on November 14
“Why are white people buying assault weapons?” said Ben Agger, a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Arlington who wrote a book about the Virginia Tech slayings. “I almost hate to say it, but there is a deep-seated fear of the armed black man, because Obama now commands the military and other instruments of the justice system. They are afraid Obama will exact retribution for the very deep-seated legacy of slavery.”
Such a ridiculous comment from a Sociology “professor” does not surprise me in the least. Sociology (aside from African American “studies”) has got to be the most anti-white college major in America today. Somehow they always find a way to make white people the villain…
Posted by at 8:38 PM on November 14
Obama’s “assurances” about not taking anyone’s guns are as hollow as Hitler’s claims of wanting “peace”just before the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939.
The same people trying to assure us about Obama, are the same ones who assured us that the government would never come after our guns.
Of course, that was before Hurricane Katrina came into the town of New Orleans.
Posted by Soprano Fan at 9:13 PM on November 14
“They are afraid Obama will exact retribution for the very deep-seated legacy of slavery.”
You mean for the very imaginary legacy of slavery? Oh, excuse me. You’re a sociology professor. Of course you don’t mean that.
Posted by Tim in Indiana at 9:50 PM on November 14
“Great example of why sociology is the dollar store of the social sciences.” Posted by at 6:34 PM on November 14
- Good comment. I just had lunch with a friend I haven’t seen in a while. We’re both retired. She has a Ph.D. in biology and I have a Master’s in biology. We were discussing sociologists and how most don’t seem to have much in the brains department and we came to the conclusion that they became sociologists because they couldn’t cut it in the real sciences. You know, things like calculus, physics, chemistry, genetics, etc. I have a part-time job in a sociology department so I know whereof I speak.I keep my head down and a very low profile at work. I need the job.
Posted by at 10:14 PM on November 14
Dont let them take your guns away.
The politicians in the UK did just that after one madman killed some children and now ONLY criminals have guns.
They need a pretext - its easy to get one.
Dont give in. The first step to a socialist police state like the UK is to disarm the populace.
Posted by Geoff M at 4:13 AM on November 15
Obtaining a firearm is not the problem, keeping them from the gestapo will be the catch. They would be better served with a club if they are unwilling to use a gun. PS. are we to believe only whites are purchasing guns, or is this a statistic that only reflects legally obtained firearms?
Posted by WHITE SLAVE at 9:23 AM on November 15
Soprano Fan…
brush up on your history. Hitler had no interest in war, except for the USSR, and then only in the medium term. The Z Plan (rearmament) ruled out war before 1946 - Germany had other problems at the time, i.e. reconstruction and recovery.
Anyways… “the military and other instruments of the JUSTICE system”?
Posted by nokangaroos at 10:19 AM on November 15
I think that we all need to calm down and wait and see. This “sky is falling” mentality will only serve to weaken our case. If Obama becomes drunk with power, we need only to wait ‘til the off year elections and start putting opposition congressmen and senators back in Washington.
The ” Epiphany” did not occur. In Philadelphia and it’s environs Black violence hasn’t waned. Four students at Rowan University have been assaulted and robbed on Campus and this morning it was announced that a Rowan coed was stabbed in the head during a dispute with her boyfriend, also a Rowan student. The race of the two was not revealed. That’s generally a clue. There’s also been a rash of home invasions directed at off campus student residences at Temple University perpetrated by two armed black men.
This is just one city and we can be sure that these incidents are increasing in every metropolitan area where there is a sizeable Afro population.
I’m hoping that the law abiding Black community will see what a negative impact this type of behavior will have on the perception of them by non- blacks and will motivate them to do what they haven’t done for years i.e. begin to solve the problem themselves.
Posted by at 11:32 AM on November 15
Guns are nearly sold out in most southern Ohio gun shops, the same with ammo. It’s easier to find a wii than it is to find the weapons you want.
Posted by at 1:17 PM on November 15
Obama “says he’s in favor of common-sense gun laws,” Irwin said. “Well, what people up north think is common sense is something different from us down here in Texas. The criminals have all this illegal stuff. I don’t want to fight them with a handgun if I can get an AK. I’m entitled to that. I should be able to defend my home.”
Nail on the head. Couldn’t have said it better.
In my estimation, the Democrats have long since established themselves as the pro-crime party. All of their laws concerning crime are aimed not at punishing the criminal or making his crimes unprofitable, but at outlawing more and more behaviour and curtailing more and more freedoms of the law-abiding. The idea is a simple one: force the subjects to live at the mercy of the criminal class, and they will submit to anyone who will protect them from it, no matter what the cost of that protection might be or even how effective it is. It’s been working like a charm in crime ridden cities for years.
On he matter of firearms, this is one ofthe precious few areas where I’ve seen any substantial differences between the two major parties.
As for Obama’s idea of “common sense” gun control, read up on the case of Hale DeMar, of Wilmette Illinois. This man’s house was invaded twice in twenty-four hours, by the same perp. After the first break in, he called the police, who took a report but basically said there wasn’t much else they could do. The next night, when the burglar broke in again, DeMar shot and wounded him.
The shooting itself was ruled justified, but Wilmette had outlawed all handgun ownership, and sought to prosecute DeMar for owning one (he had purchased it legally, before the ban was imposed). The charges were dropped due to public outcry, and a bill was passed in the Illinois legislature to prohibit prosecution of of people who use legally purchased firearms to defend themselves in their homes.
Twenty senators voted against that bill. One of them was Barack Obama.
Translation: Barack Obama voted to allow the prosecution of legitimate self defense, even in one’s own home.
Buy ‘em if you can afford ‘em, load ‘em if you got ‘em. This has the promise of really hitting home.
Posted by BW Sam at 2:01 PM on November 15
To nokangaroos:
I stand by my statement - Hitler claimed he didn’t want war - he even signed that peace treaty with Stalin. He then attacked the USSR on June 22, 1941 - Operation Barbarossa.
As far as the “military and other instruments of the justice system”… don’t know where you got that from, but it wasn’t from my post.
Posted by Soprano Fan at 3:16 PM on November 15
“…are we to believe only whites are purchasing guns, or is this a statistic that only reflects legally obtained firearms?”
Haha, great point White Slave! Somehow in places like Chicago where you can’t legally own a handgun even with a firearm owner’s license, the blacks still manage to shoot and kill each other in the hundreds…
Posted by Stone Greaser at 3:33 PM on November 15
Soprano Fan: The Germans attacked the Russians to prevent the Russians from attacking first. Russian armies were already massed near the frontier areas. That’s why so many of them were overrun early in that campaign. Both sides were well aware that the treaty was temporary. The Russians just didn’t realize how temporary. But make no mistake: they would eventually have attacked Germany, just as they did Finland and the Baltics.
Posted by Xenophon at 9:01 PM on November 15
Soprano Fan…
pardon my jerky style. The lower part was an unconnected quote from above article that struck me as somewhat alarming. Obama/Emanuel will mean paramilitary homeland security/thought police.
Posted by nokangaroos at 9:09 PM on November 15
I wonder how many people who voted for Obama are now buying up all these guns? Probably a fair number I would think? They can’t all be Republicans. Doesn’t seem to make any sense. It reminds me of the opinion polls in wartime U.K. where a majority of Britons supported Churchill and ALSO felt the direction of the war was going badly. Since he DIRECTED the war effort these views weren’t very rational.
Posted by at 12:44 AM on November 16
His Grace had applications sent out to all who want jobs, about 10,000 at His disposal. They all have to say whether or not they own a firearm.I can not think of a single good reason why a government official would need to know if you are armed that is not an aid to tryanny.
Last year 11,000 white people were massacred by African Americans, whites only wacked about 1500 blacks and most of them were cop killings.What is the nonsense about Barak causing a race war? We have ahd an ongoing race war since 1973.In that time over 200,000 whites have become kias. We have had more whites killed since 1980 then we lost in W W-1.
Charles B. Tiffany
kissimmee, Florida
Posted by Charles B. Tiffany at 6:03 AM on November 16
“His Grace had applications sent out to all who want jobs, about 10,000 at His disposal. They all have to say whether or not they own a firearm.I can not think of a single good reason why a government official would need to know if you are armed that is not an aid to tryanny….
Charles B. Tiffany
kissimmee, Florida
Posted by Charles B. Tiffany at 6:03 AM on November 16”
Good post.
And if you lie and say no, how will they prove it?
THROUGH REGISTRATION RECORDS.
Starry-eyed liberal - “Oh but we don’t have registration requirements in (my state).”
Response - “BATFE Form 4473. We’ve had de facto registration ever since that form has had to be filled out prior to buying a gun.”
Posted by Wild Eyed Charlie at 12:23 PM on November 16
Deep down, most people distrust and fear their government. They have seen that campaign promises amount to nothing when the incumbent candidate assumes office. Because of his background and Democratic majorities in Congress, many people trust Obama even less than other politicians to preserve their Second Amendment rights. While I doubt a president Obama will outlaw all firearms, he is Likely to restrict or severely tax certain classes of firearms and ammunition—just like California and New Jersey. A new product liability legal assault on America’s remaining firearms industries seems nearly certain as well.
Posted by Sardonicus at 2:50 PM on November 16
Soprano Fan, you gotta get out more and stop watching the History Channel. All these Good War homilies are the reason why we’re in this predicament in the first place.
Posted by at 3:05 PM on November 16
Obama wants to establish a “Civilian National Secrity Force” - his own Tontons Macoute, staffed by Black Panther type flunkies.
If he tries to send Huey Newton Jr., or Eldridge Cleaver Jr., to MY house to confiscate my guns, those panthers will be dead from lead poisoning.
Posted by Soprano Fan at 4:47 PM on November 16
Common sense people!. If it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck then it must be a duck.
So Obama looks, talks, like a _ then he is what your gut feelings tell you. Face it, you’ve been pimped by the best.
Posted by Latisha at 11:21 PM on November 16
Everyone I talk to about this sham election; friends, acquaintances and strangers alike are ALL talking “revolution”. Obama is a documented communist and closet Muslim who hates whites, pure and simple. He and his Globalist handlers are about to find out that the feeling is mutual…
Posted by at 7:52 AM on November 17
It looks like it will be a busy first few months for Barack Obama— his initial picks for his Cabinet and his expected choosing of Republicans as well as Democrats for that body may not make for as peaceful a start for his Presidency. One wrong move and America’s honeymoon with him will be over; there are too many problems now with the economy, no-win wars and a foreign policy that is still vague.
2009 is going to be very interesting year….
Posted by Bob Smith at 1:00 PM on November 17
First, what exactly is the argument between our two historians—is it whether or not Germany invaded Russia? I suggest both read Pat Buckanan’s best book, The Unnecessary War. Hitler was always anti-communist and his war aims did not include the conquest of Britain. He always looked to the East both for purposes of “living room” for the German people and to confront and destroy Soviet Communism. He made multiple attempts to avoid war on what was to become the Western front, especially war with Britain. He repeatedly sought to put the English at ease by restating his intention to insure survival of the British Empire without change. The real cause of WWII in the West, the War between Germany and England and France, was the duplicitous nature of British politicians, not any of Hitler’s positions.
Anyone who doubts this, need only consider for a moment the true nature and significance of “Dunkirk”. The British Expeditionary Force was surrounded by overwhelming German forces, including panzer divisions which could have easily completely wiped it out of existence. Yet, at Hitler’s orders, the German forces simply stood and looked on as most of the British force was allowed to escape across the English channel. This took place after England declared war on Germany (recall that it was England and France who declared war on Germany, not the other way around). There is only one rational explanation of Dunkirk and that is that even after the English declaration of war against his country, Hitler still was reluctant to spill English blood. If one still is not convinced I suggest taking a close look at the beginning of the terror campaign from the air. It was not Germany which first made the conscious decision to target civilian population centers with no military significance. It was not Germany which consciously developed the concept of “total war” and the technique of “fire bombing”. England was the author of all of these decisions and tactics. The first civilian population center deliberately targeted by bomber command was a German city. It was not until English boomers had repeatedly struck such civilian targets that Hitler was forced by his own leadership to retaliate in like manner.
In terms of firearms and 2nd amendment issues it would be impossible to find a major political figure more opposed to both. The threat that an Obama administration poses to gun ownership is the primary reason that there was such a massive movement by gun owners as well as some new gun owners to purchase supplies of weapons and ammunition. Yes, there was also no doubt some consideration of the possibility of future use of such supplies. It would be foolish to purchase a firearm without any intention of ever putting it to use. It will require far less time for Obama and his congress to pass anti-gun legislation than to form an effective paramilitary force. There is likely also a much less obvious movement taking place of gun owners beginning to catch their weapons and ammunitions in the likely event of wholesale gun confiscation. This is only the beginning of a national conflict unlike any yet known as some 80 plus million gun owners prepare to defend their rights against a tyrannical, extra-constitutional government. Its outcome will determine the future of this country in the most fundamental sense possible. No one should be uncertain of which side he is on or of whether or not to begin preparing to resist the unconstitutional exercise of central government power. Once the citizenship is disarmed, should such a day come, there will no longer be anything even faintly resembling constitutional government here.
Posted by at 11:32 PM on November 17
It is not fear that is driving this feeding frenzy over buying arms and ammunition; it is outrage…
Posted by at 8:17 AM on November 18
Posted by Wild Eyed Charlie at 12:23 PM on November 16
“Response - “BATFE Form 4473. We’ve had de facto registration ever since that form has had to be filled out prior to buying a gun.””
That’s why #1 on the gungrabbers hit parade has just about always been “closing the gun show loophole”, where I give you money, or something in trade, you give me gun. Free enterprise, everyone wins, and no snoopy gov’mint paperwork.
Incidentally, fear of armed (and/or under influence of drugs) blacks is one of the reasons we have gun laws and drug laws to this day.
Posted by Superman at 12:51 PM on November 18
The entire expression “assault weapon” is just one more meaningless creation of the anti-gun lobby. An assault weapon is any weapon used to assault someone, in which case a stone is just as much an assault weapon as a semi-automatic AK47. Please do not foolishly buy into the anti-gun zelots world by using their terminology. The really is no such creature as an “assault weapon”. The are rifles which are semi-auto, select fire and some capable of fully automatic fire which means nothing more than that with the trigger finger kept on the trigger the rifle will, unless there is a malfunction, continue to fire until the magazine is empty. A select fire rifle typically has one additional setting, the three round burst which involves the firing of three rounds per trigger pull. All of the rest is pure rubbish and is known to be so by anyone who has ever spent any time in the military, police or at the local gun range. Only liberal anti-gun zelots use the term “assault weapon”.
Posted by at 12:22 AM on November 19
The US Supreme Court has already ruled that the Second Amendment does mean an individual right to firearms, and there isn’t a bloody thing the Obamanation can do about it.
Forever disallowed firearms, I still bought a crate of flechettes for my coilgun.
England was not the instigator of mass saturation bombing, 11:32. The German Luftwaffe flattened part of Rotterdam in 1940 after the Netherlands - an inoffensive neutral country - had surrendered.
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 12:45 PM on November 19
Seeking to reassure gun owners, Obama told a campaign audience in Ohio in October: “I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away.”
since when does any president have the authority to “take” anyone’s property - gun or otherwise ?
Posted by at 5:57 PM on November 19
“…If he tries to send Huey Newton Jr., or Eldridge Cleaver Jr., to MY house to confiscate my guns, those panthers will be dead from lead poisoning….”
Posted by Soprano Fan at 4:47 PM on November 16
Believe it or not, in this strange world, White-hating, pathetic criminal and murderer Huey Newton’s Black Panthers once stood up for gun rights:
Discover the Network reports:
“…On May 2, 1967, some thirty Party members armed with rifles and shotguns marched into the California State Assembly at Sacramento to protest a proposed arms-control law…”
BTW: Newton is no longer with us, getting exactly what he deserved:
”..He was released from prison in early 1989…On August 22 of that year, a destitute, chronically stoned Newton was murdered by a black drug dealer he had failed to pay…”
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1524
Guess he was eventually abandoned by all those rich White and Jewish liberals who generously supported him and his ‘revolutionary’ activities throughout the years (up to and including murder) when his ‘cachet’ became tiresome to them.
Bon
Posted by BonBon at 10:16 PM on November 19