January Gun Sales Pick Up Where Record 2011 Left Off
If January is any indication, it looks like 2012 will be a banner year for gun sales, following a record 2011.
The FBI reports that there were 1,377,301 requests for background checks last month. Virtually every background check results in a gun sale.
In 2011 16,454,951 background checks were conducted, shattering the previous record set in 2010 by more than two million. That included 1,862,327 in December, a record for a single month.
January's number is a few thousand more than the average monthly background checks requested last year, so even though it is early, 2012 is on pace to equal or surpass 2011.
Look for background checks and gun sales to skyrocket if President Obama wins reelection. That is what happened after he won in 2008, and even though Obama took no action against guns in his first term, gun owners are suspicious that he would reveal his alleged true anti-gun self in a second term.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
It is ironic that a perceived gun control president, who has done nothing to restrict gun rights whatsoever, would stimulate this response.
If anything, the Miller and McDonald decisions have ensured that Obama really can't do anything to restrict gun ownership.
This is a silly reaction.
I wouldn't call it silly. You never know what angle anti-gun representatives will take in limiting gun ownership. If you will recall, even after the Heller decision you agreed with restricting gun ownership in public housing because the tenets were receiving government assistance.
Nope, its not a silly reaction at all when you can't tell how the elections will turn out in November.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
Even if Obama wins, he can't overrule the supreme court. As I said before, no right is unlimited. The government can only regulate gun ownership within reason. For example, I think keeping guns out of court rooms is reasonable, I think keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is reasonable, I think keeping guns out of the hands of people already convicted of violent felonies is reasonable, and I think barring civilians from going to Walmart and buying a Mark 19 is also reasonable. This being said, my personal opinion on the wisdom of owning a personal gun is irrelevant. It is a constitutional right with far too much support at the moment for it be changed.
Yes... I supported the regulation of gun ownership in publicly funded housing. The court ruled against it, so that's that. I am not willing to try the fool's errand of trying to change the constitution for a situation like this.
We are one Clarence Thomas heart attack away from the dessenters in the Heller and McDonald decisions being in the majority, and their opinion does matter when it comes to deciding what is reasonable. Better safe than sorry if theres a chance you can get grandfathered in regarding that courts decision on what is reasonable.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
Hmmmm.... I wonder if a new majority would overturn Heller or MacDonald? Given how the court tends to increase individual freedoms over time rather than reduce, a reversal would be a serious bucking of this trend.
I know that Lawrence overturned a previous ruling on sodomy from years past, but this was toward more individual freedom - not less.
I don't believe the right of law abiding and stable citizens to purchase civilian firearms would be overturned by a new court. What I could imagine is more restrictions on carry laws surviving challenges that this court would reject.
I don't think that there will even be an attempt to overturn these rulings. I'm thinking more along the lines of the one gun a month laws. Maybe something like a one gun ever law in the name of keeping guns away from drug cartels. Being allowed to own one gun doesn't keep you from owning a gun, or even a particular type of gun. I'm sure that would sound reasonable to someone out there.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
I agree. The basic definition of a "right" is: A human action which is universally accepted as good and proper, when in direct conflict with the law, the right wins, given no wrong doing.
Yes, I know that *anything* can be construed to be wrong doing given the complexity of law, however, the wrong doing I refer to would be that generally recognized by society as not acceptable. Your point about tenants residing in housing receiving government assistance is an excellent example. Above, over and beyond any law or bureaucratic rule all have the right of self defense.
The circumstances of why and how that right is employed is the concern of law enforcement.