Turning The Market Against Itself
March 2nd, 2009 by 
Kevin
I’ve long held that the Obama administration is not going to try a new Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), at least not under the form it too previously. It’s a hugely divisive issue during a time when many Blue Dog Democrats are already going to be worried about their prospects in the 2010 elections. They know as well as anyone else how badly the Democrats got stopped the last time they tried an AWB.
Especially when the same results, or even better (from their perspective) can be achieved through other, less visible, means. Second Amendment supporters frequently argue that firearms are simply a tool, firearms don’t fire on their own. As such guns don’t kill, people do. That same line of thought is the Democrats best weapon. Firearms are just a tool and without ammo they are a virtually worthless tool. Ammo….the Achilles Heel of firearms.
If any legislation is going to take place, it’s likely to be to place a high level of tax on ammunition or else an outright ban on the importation of foreign ammunition. Both would essentially accomplish the same task, making ammo so expensive as to make it’s use prohibitive to the common citizen.
Of course it would also have exactly the same ill effects as well. Criminals would have plenty of ammo, but law-abiding citizens would be too concerned about feeding their families than spending cash on ammo on the off chance they need it to defend themselves.
However, today in reading through some firearms related developments and continuing ammo shortages and skyrocketing prices for both ammo and firearms, it occurred to me that legislation isn’t even needed. Just the high probability of Obama being elected was enough to drive prices through the roof. The election only furthered that trend. This has also contributed to the ammunition shortage the private industry has been under since 2007. As a result price increases have far outpaced other goods and risen past when many enthusiasts are willing to pay.
All the Obama administration has to due is continue the threats of AWB and float rumors of further firearms legislation. There are certainly enough firearms-related bills already in Congress to provide ample material for such rumors. Buyers are going to be scared and want to stockpile as much as they can gather. Suppliers will be reluctant to sink capital into an industry that may very well get regulated to death by future legislation. Continuing the rumors and making the occasional half-assed threats will keep prices high and supply inadequate.
Effectively the Obama administration will have accomplished the same results as a ban, without the messiness of pursuing the necessary legislation. And so far the continued talk, without a lot of substance coming out of the White House and Congress, suggests this is exactly the path they are taking.
[Crossposted at True North]
Email This Post
| 
Print This Post
Posted in The Messiah, This Is My Rifle, This Is My Gun, True North | 
9 Comments »
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:43 am
Here’s what I don’t understand, and maybe why this line of attack on the 2nd is likely to be successful. How much ammo do I really need to defend myself? One or two well-placed rounds should suffice, yes? But this isn’t about self-defense, is it? The animosity towards the second amendment is by those who do not want it used as the ultimate guarantor of liberty, because that would require a LOT of ammo. The question has to be what these anti-gun nuts are really afraid of, whether it is that you will defend your own life, or threaten their dictatorial rule?
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:08 am
Yeah good luck being the homeowner trying to defend himself who has never practiced with his firearm at the range.
Even ammo needs for practice aside, one or two well placed rounds do not generally suffice. Even shots to the vital organs take time to have a debilitating effect. This concept will be familiar to any police officer, or even any hunter.
You keep firing until the threat is no longer a threat. That advice is frequently misstated as “shoot to kill” which is inaccurate (and illegal). And in a self-defense situation most of your shots are going to miss, even by a well-trained shooter, thanks to the effect stress, flight-or-fight, and adrenaline have on the body. As evidence of this, please reference ANY police shooting.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:26 am
Thanks for pointing out my obvious ignorance on the subject. But unfortunately the people wanting to make these laws are even more ignorant than I am. My basic question is as to their motivation. Are they trying to protect criminals, or themselves? Or is that redundant?
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:39 am
When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.
- George Washington
The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.
- George Washington
Firearms grant power in that they represent the ability to resist evil of any sort. Whether it be the common criminal or the tyranny of government. Politicians like their citizens helpless, because they are easier to control through fear. Firearms represent freedom from government control.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:00 am
So, if I understand your answer to my question correctly, the answer is “both”? It isn’t a question of whether they are morons or just plain evil. Obviously they are evil morons.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:08 am
In short, yes.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:28 pm
The problem is simple, the pro-firearms people deal from facts, reality and experience. The anti-firearm people deal from emotion, unrealistic ideas, and a lack of experience. They get their ideas from TV and from propaganda.
Why do they want to deny law abiding citizens the right to protect themselves… what part of ‘When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.’ It hasn’t worked in any of the countries or states that have tried it. It seems that the concept of a black market is totally foreign to them. Laws haven’t stopped drugs, haven’t stopped illegal (as opposed to legal) firearms used in crime, drunk driving (and cars kill a LOT more people than firearms do). They wear rose colored glasses and live in a make believe world where they think that they can reduce violence by removing any deterrent. Armed citizens prevent more violence and crime than police do. Its fact. Even the criminals say it… they are more afraid of the armed (concealed carry) citizen than they are of the police… because they can’t tell who is and who isn’t carrying and able to defend themselves. Cops are obvious, concealed carry citizens aren’t. It works, it’s proven to work… but the anti-firearms people can’t see past their emotions to the reality of the value of concealed carry.
Stoney
{who believes that every honest and sane adult has the right to keep and bear arms, but doesn’t believe that every honest and sane adult SHOULD keep and bear arms… only those who are able and willing and responsible enough to ensure that they are trained in the safe use of firearms should keep and bear them… but all it takes is a few among the many to deter the bad guys.}
March 4th, 2009 at 5:15 am
“An armed society is a polite society.” — Robert Heinlein
March 5th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
“A disarmed society, with the antisocial still armed cause they don’t obey the laws, is a deadly society.” — Stoney
Anyone want proof, look at the murder rate in DC under their weapons ban…