An “Obama bounce”… in gun sales?
posted at 12:31 pm on September 9, 2012 by Erika Johnsen
What with all of the Keynesian-ish methods with which President Obama has tried and spectacularly failed to stimulate the economy and to provide boosts to various politically-favored economic sectors, I have to confess that it’s just the tiniest bit gratifying that one of the few industries coming through the economic downturn with superbly flying colors is probably the one industry that many hardcore liberals would like to see shut down altogether. In 2008, gun sales surged after President Obama’s election, part of the explanation for which was that people feared a progressive gun-control crackdown. It was quite the healthy bounce for the world of firearms, except that the bounce hasn’t let up — at all.
Although nothing too drastic has come out of the current administration in terms of gun regulations (alas, but for that dastardly NRA and their horrid lobbying money preventing us from having a real conversation about firearms in this country, oh the humanity!), it seems that the prospect of a second Obama term (in which he’ll no longer be thinking about reelection and will hence have more, cough cough, “flexibility”) isn’t doing anything to quell the boom. CNBC reports that the gun industry has seen sustained high sales during Obama’s tenure, and is still going more than strong as we wend our way towards November:
Smith & Wesson stock Friday was zooming, thanks to a stellar earnings report. The firearms maker also boosted its outlook for the rest of the year. Because of the strong business, its backlog of orders more than doubled from the same quarter last year, the company is concentrating on boosting production and building inventory.
“We are underserving the market at this moment, we all know that, and that’s a great opportunity going forward for us,” CEO James Debney said in a conference call with analysts.
And another gun maker, Sturm, Ruger & Co., also hit a milestone of sorts in terms of meeting consumer demand. It produced its one-millionth gun of the year…well ahead of last year’s pace.
“It took us nearly all of 2011 to build one million firearms, but in 2012 we accomplished it on August 15th,” said Ruger President and CEO Mike Fifer in a statement. …
“I should put Obama’s picture on the wall up there,” said one New Jersey gun salesman, asking not to be identified. “I’d name him salesman of the month!”
Besides the possible cultural explanation that gun ownership is simply becoming more acceptable (bipartisanship, huzzah!) and that shooting sports are becoming more popular, there’s also the theory that the terrible economy itself is fueling people’s fears of extreme-survival scenarios, and they’re taking precautions. Either way, because of President Obama directly or because of the awful economy he’s fomented, the liberals’ hero has been a catalyst for gun sales like no other. I do so hope the irony isn’t lost on them.
The Democratic National Committee’s platform at their convention last week was pretty iffy as to their gun-related agenda, but most definitely left the door open for further gun-control measures — here’s what they had to say, for your interpretation:
Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
O’bama actually lost the college graduate vote in 2012.
Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2013 at 4:43 PM
Fixed.
Del Dolemonte on May 18, 2013 at 4:44 PM
You’re not being mocked (and not asked to die, btw) because you don’t know what skeet shooting is. You’re being mocked because you didn’t know what skeet shooting is and proceeded to make an ass of yourself anyway.
IOW, you are proud of your ignorance.
Tomblvd on May 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM
You sure posted like you knew, Cliff Clavin.
If your mother had of taken it on the chin that night you wouldn’t be here to torture us with your silliness.
arnold ziffel on May 18, 2013 at 5:13 PM
Nonpartisan, it’s obvious that you often don’t know what you’re talking about.
What confuses us is why you make claims as if you did.
That tells us that you really are never sure about what you do and don’t know. Your inexperience is glaring.
blink on May 18, 2013 at 5:24 PM
Nonpartisan’s last post was at 9:10 this morning until “it” posted again at 4:23, and yet “it” was responded to all day.
Come on people, giving her too much attention.
Barred on May 18, 2013 at 5:27 PM
really? REALLY?
cuz I wrote this
now, if you’re familiar with English context, you’d realize that the phrase ‘from my understanding’ leaves room for the speaker to be wrong and is explicitly stating that it is not a fact
nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 5:28 PM
Me no familar mit de Englis. Butt could you tell me Harvard story more again?
arnold ziffel on May 18, 2013 at 5:44 PM
I’m pretty sure that most skeet shooters are in a enviable economic bracket.
Cindy Munford on May 18, 2013 at 5:48 PM
there’s no story. Went to Harvard Law, got my JD, didn’t take the bar, never practiced. end of story.
nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 5:49 PM
Yes, because only a “bumblehick” could have cursory knowledge of firearms or shooting sports.
Maybe you should stop listening to the mentally-edfective old fool Obunghole picked as his VP and STFU about things you know nothing about. Imbecile.
Walter Sobchak on May 18, 2013 at 6:01 PM
Please go read the Texas law. My goodness you’re dense.
Google doesn’t even know what the f uck you’re saying . Do you?
Using such words does not excuse you from your idiocy.
CW on May 18, 2013 at 6:02 PM
You never took the bar because you don’t know sh!t about the law and never could have passed, and you never practiced because nobody would hire you to represent them in traffic court.
Walter Sobchak on May 18, 2013 at 6:03 PM
Harvard politely asks that you cease and desist with your lie. Something about sullying their brand.
CW on May 18, 2013 at 6:05 PM
A. Why did you waste your parents’ money on a Harvard Law degree if you weren’t going to take the bar or practice law?
B. You don’t even understand simple legal concepts like the parameters of self-defense. Nobody believes your story about being a law grad from *any* school, T14 or not.
Good Solid B-Plus on May 18, 2013 at 6:05 PM
High school is in doubt.
CW on May 18, 2013 at 6:07 PM
In unrelated news: White House posts photographic evidence that Obama is a bumblehick.
The Schaef on May 18, 2013 at 6:13 PM
If you had even the remotest notion of your own stupidity, you’d die of embarrassment.
Wendya on May 18, 2013 at 6:14 PM
What it demonstrates is that you don’t know what you are talking about and, more importantly, too lazy to spend a minute or two on google to educate yourself before making an ass of yourself.
I also find it highly enlightening that the only response you have to any post is one that has nothing to do with your alleged specialty, law.
Why are you afraid to answer all the legal questions?
Tomblvd on May 18, 2013 at 6:18 PM
Unicorn? Homosexual? Man? Black man?
CW on May 18, 2013 at 6:19 PM
That was a twofer. nonpartisaned is the gift that keeps on giving.
CW on May 18, 2013 at 6:21 PM
Having nonpartisan answer legal questions would be as funny as bayam commenting on economic and finance issues.
blink on May 18, 2013 at 6:23 PM
And ANY type of scientific issues.
blink on May 18, 2013 at 6:24 PM
My comment really wasn’t to nonpartisan.
My comment was really a warning to anyone that is tempted to comment on something that they don’t understand.
blink on May 18, 2013 at 6:26 PM
why does everyone feed the troll ……
yeah I made a comment too … but enough is enough ….
we should ignore it … maybe it will go away …
at the very least the level of comments will go up.
conservative tarheel on May 18, 2013 at 6:27 PM
CW on May 18, 2013 at 6:28 PM
1 perp was wounded, the other two got away.
Too bad it wasn’t a 3 body bag night.
The best way to lower the crime rate is exterminate those committing the crimes.
leereyno on May 18, 2013 at 6:29 PM
Guilty as charged. Asking a lot there mr. tarheel. You want quantity or quality? ;)
arnold ziffel on May 18, 2013 at 6:42 PM
While we are on the subject of guns did you know Bill Maher owns two?
Wigglesworth on May 18, 2013 at 6:44 PM
nonpartisan,
Never took the bar? Oh Lordy, did you break your mama’s heart? I can’t imagine investing all the time and money and not taking the bar. Even if you had become disillusioned with law and decided never to practice, didn’t you want the satisfaction of knowing you could have?
Or maybe your ego is healthier than most and doesn’t need that kind of validation. I just find it astonishing!
Nana on May 18, 2013 at 6:45 PM
I find it astonishing that the Troll can spell “law”.
kingsjester on May 18, 2013 at 6:46 PM
Mahrer: “Twelve home invasions in my neighborhood in the past year.” Really Bill, Is your neighborhood all of Los Angeles County?
arnold ziffel on May 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM
I will take quality … however the owners of the blog probably want quantity
because of ad revenue ….
conservative tarheel on May 18, 2013 at 6:50 PM
LOL
conservative tarheel on May 18, 2013 at 6:51 PM
Irrelevant. They already had shown that they were armed. This no longer becomes “burglary” as you quaintly put it. This just ONE of the crimes they committed.
They were armed. They threatened. The homeowner believed that the home invaders (not just burglars) had means and were a clear and present danger. Justified in any reasonable person’s mind.
But then, Liberals aren’t reasonable. We know that based on the past few years as we’ve attempted to engage them. They spout, insult and run away.
ProfShadow on May 18, 2013 at 7:02 PM
Hey guys, be nice! You are arguing with Obambutt’s replacement for Holder as the next AG. He/she/it is perfectly qualified for the position, based on the qualifications of Obambutt and HOLDER. NP has the same qualifications as Obambutt. NP would probably be a great improvement.
Old Country Boy on May 18, 2013 at 7:06 PM
You’re sorry you’re not a small town in Pennsylvania?
http://www.ejpix.com/photos/location-details.php?location_id=13918862&location=bumblehick-pennsylvania&lat=40.98734&long=-75.13883
OK, fair enough. I’ve always been sort of put out that I’m not Cape Canaveral, FL.
clear ether
eon
eon on May 18, 2013 at 8:10 PM
Are you incapable of understanding the hypothetical that I posed or do you think changing the subject will absolve you of your ignorance?
Read my hypothetical again, idjit.
Resist We Much on May 18, 2013 at 8:34 PM
I’m sorry to feed the troll, but I got here late. Must I suffer because I’m old?
You spent a hundred thousand dollars for nothing? Are you one of the “top one-percent”? Or did you “borrow” the money? If so, are you planning on trying to pay it back?
I doubt it. You sound like the classic lib, who is taught that the world will rape you and only GovernmentMan can save you.
I have the feeling you get your learned helplessness from hippy parents.
Or maybe just cold, unfeeling parents. I don’t know which, but a healthy dose of testosterone would do you wonders. Call and see if Obamacare will cover any problems men have (assuming that word applies to you.)
Squiggy on May 18, 2013 at 8:35 PM
OK folkz stand back, I’ve had a stiff martini and am preparing another…I believe I am Nonpartisan’s intellectual equal, let me at him/her/it…..
JFKY on May 18, 2013 at 8:52 PM
It would be interesting to know what Nonpartisan’s undergraduate degree was. Womyn’s studies? Black Studies? Organizing fluff? Of course, like that of her mentor and hero Obambutt, it is not really any of our business. We already know that Nonpartisan is more qualified than Obamabutt and Holder.
Old Country Boy on May 18, 2013 at 9:04 PM
What was going on in your mind when you thought that a gun, an inanimate object, could distinguish whether one was shooting skeet or something else? Serious question.
anuts on May 18, 2013 at 9:06 PM
CW on May 18, 2013 at 9:24 PM
I attended Harvard, passed all the classes but did not get my degree…and the Harvard Definition of “Bumblehick” is:
A Mouf-breathin’, sister-lovin’ Gun-fondlin’ Christianist G*D-bag….
Now most of you hayseed hickz haven’t been to Harvard so it’s understandable that our hi-falutin’ language may be a bit puzzling. It’s just best you leave the hard thin’in to us Harvard boyz/girlz, ‘Kay?
JFKY on May 18, 2013 at 9:32 PM
You need to bang your head repeatedly against a brick wall to be his intellectual equal.
Kingfisher on May 18, 2013 at 9:34 PM
Well said, sir. I wonder how many children he could have fed with the money that was used to get his education…that…he…admits…he’ll…never…use.
Kingfisher on May 18, 2013 at 9:38 PM
My guess is that nonpartisan obtained his/her/its degrees by sleeping with the professors.
Kingfisher on May 18, 2013 at 9:40 PM
Why we even need a castle doctrine law is beyond me. Proof we have sunk far into the abyss.
JellyToast on May 18, 2013 at 9:42 PM
Dood/Doodette that’s what the ~150cc of Vodka was supposed to do….
I don’t know what Vermouth does to a person but I can attest to 147cc of Vodka.
JFKY on May 18, 2013 at 9:50 PM
Really drunken sinner that I am, I still see the need for society to provide legal limits to the use of force by citizens, or agents of the State, for that matter.
Sure locked in my closet I can use a firearm, but not locked in my closet, someone around my garage, may I shoot..chasing them down the street?
Legal doctrines are good, they provide guidelines for action.
JFKY on May 18, 2013 at 9:52 PM
That would be the very moment that I feel either I or someone on my my property (family, friends, guests, whatever) is threatened.
Othniel on May 19, 2013 at 12:02 AM
.
That is sooo reminiscent of the sorry-assed song lyrics at the beginning of the movie ‘Aladdin‘.
.
If a desperate “father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family” … can’t find valid handouts in this country, he’s not looking hard enough.
If a desperate “father who is unemployed and at his wits end at finding options to provide for his starving family” … is too proud to ask for valid handouts, … and NOT too proud to steal … then he’s unworthy of his family, and his own very existence.
.
Let’s have a reply to that … libfree’
listens2glenn on May 19, 2013 at 12:39 AM
.
…… Or nonpartisan, or any other “lib-troll” who believes they’re equal to the intellectual challenge.
listens2glenn on May 19, 2013 at 12:46 AM
This is the funniest story I read all week!
By the way trolls, keep it up with the stupid comments … hilarious!
I love the one about how a man, with children no less, needs to burglarize a house using a gun. Brilliant!
Has it ever occur to them that burglars that carry guns are armed robbers by definition?
Perhaps the burglars should take classes at Harvard to learn how to be a dumber class of
criminals“desperate men with families to feed”?kregg on May 19, 2013 at 6:42 AM
it doesn’t state who fired first though, if the homeowner fired first, the burglar could technically claim self-defense for return fire.
nonpartisan on May 18, 2013 at 8:52 AM
Check this out, BC. If an armed person is in your home and you are both wielding some fire arm, there is no requirement to allow them, first shot. There are no Marquess of Queensberry rules that apply to gunfire exchanges. More often than not, he or she who fires first, wins.
I do not believe you went to any law school, let alone Harvard Law. As someone above stated, it just doesn’t make sense to spend that kind if money and then abandon the career.
smoothsailing on May 19, 2013 at 7:04 AM
Well Cindy, we learned a new word today. “Bumblehicks” = Landed European Aristocracy.
Huh …?
Jaibones on May 19, 2013 at 7:07 AM
soundingboard on May 19, 2013 at 10:02 AM
Is that you, Barak?
No wonder you don’t know what’s going on in your own administration …spending too much time on HotAir…
Of course, that is irrelevant…
ProfShadow on May 19, 2013 at 12:31 PM
there, fixed it….
May 19, 2013 12:00 PM Central Time….
APACHEWHOKNOWS on May 19, 2013 at 1:01 PM
nonparts gets paid for derailing threads, it gets same pay as the lawn illegals at the big homes of the google bosses….
and it votes as told too
APACHEWHOKNOWS on May 19, 2013 at 1:05 PM
..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit! ..Bullshit!
The War Planner on May 19, 2013 at 2:44 PM
The invaders had already committed assault by this time. Battery is physical contact, assault is the threat of violence. The homeowner, threatened at gunpoint, forced into a closet… had already been assaulted, even if they didn’t physically touch or fire at him. Being assaulted, in his home, by invaders, qualifies for lethal resistance.
And if your assertion was viable, law enforcement would be rendered completely incapable of responding to any form of robbery or violence since the criminals could always claim assault by officers responding with force or even capturing them. The burden of the law starts with those instigating the conflict, assuming that the responders do not respond with a wildly different level of response. Since these invaders had firearms, firearms would be an appropriate level of response.
Do you know what you just taught me on this thread?
…that a single “101 Introduction to Law” class taken by a Computer Science major at a public college in Ohio is more valuable than a law degree from Harvard. Thank you… You made my day!
dominigan on May 19, 2013 at 6:28 PM
No kidding. When I think of “Sheet Shooting” I think of this:
FANCY!
I don’t think of this:
BUMBLEHICK!
Oh… Wait…
wearyman on May 20, 2013 at 10:07 AM
Why do so many of these stories always have to come via a UK source?
Why are US newspaper circulation and revenue cratering?
hawksruleva on May 20, 2013 at 11:28 AM
So this guy came out of the closet AND he is a gun owner too?
flstc on May 20, 2013 at 1:19 PM
They deserve the fruits of their actions. They entered someone’s home with deadly weapons. Everything that family holds dear was at risk. If the burglars died, they deserved it. If more burglars die, fewer will choose home invasion. Let a few scum provide examples that choosing to be scum has dire consequences.
Freelancer on May 21, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3