There might be a possible knock on effect if the government bring in laws to stop the sale of certain types of weapons in the USA.

The companies and shareholders and in general the military industrial complex will see profits drop from the sale of these weapons in the USA so will need to find emerging markets or create new markets for the sale of these weapons,possibly flooding other parts of the world with weapons.

What are your thoughts?

Well the 2nd amendment was given to US to keep us free from the rule from the Sceptre of the British Monarchy.

Now that there is already 300 million guns in America it's too late for gun laws to cause any real change.

nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/23...n-call-me-crazy?lite

^^^After the school shooting the NRA want's armed cops in schools now so that's typical.

I think Obama just want's people to know he tried to make America more safe from gun violence.

Same way he want's to cut military spending for education and tax the rich to pay the deficit.

Only time will tell how the Arm's Industry will handle all this, most likely keep making more guns.

they might ban more assault weapons, anything that can fire off multiple rounds and so on, even 5 shot shotguns like the browning were banned in australia for example.

so if they dont ban bolt action rifles and 2 shot shotguns etc, which i do not see them doing, i just think these kinds of guns will keep being made...and sold to people to replace the other weapons banned or bought back perhaps.

Case in point...when someone i know had their 5 shot browning taken by the government in australia...they used some of the buy back money to buy a new 2 shot shotgun, but had to put in more money of their own to cover it. another i know did the same when their pump action was taken, bought a new bolt action 22 rifle. etc etc .

hunting guns that cant fire multiple rounds arent banned in australia if you have a license and store them as required, business as usual i guess.

.......... wrote: Nonsense.
The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution was adopted in 1791, some 8+ years after your Revolutionary war with England ended (Treaty of Paris) .

The primary objective of the amendment was to enshrine the rights of state militias to defend themselves against the future potential of an oppressive US national government.

Any 'real American' would know these things.

Three words: Black market sales.

As novum has said people would just continue purchasing what they can that is legally available. But when they get their fill of that they'll no doubt turn to illegal buying from black market sources. I'm sure a lot (NOT ALL, but a lot) of those militia types have friends in "low places" and would have no problem whatsoever in obtaining exactly what they want through illegal means. Not a judgement, just an observation. And we're all well aware of who runs the black market gun trade. The same people that run dope worldwide.

So, the powers that be benefit all around. Nice, eh?

The arms manufacturers will still score from the outcome of any regulation.

If they ban automatic weapons and the gov't runs a buy back/compensation scheme,
The manufacurers got the original price when the gun was bought.
The government shells out the compensation for removing them.
That compensation will be used to buy new compliant replacements from the arms companies.

Your tax dollars at work.
Ker-ching! to the arms companies

If they adopt the NRA proposal to arm school teachers/security.

Your tax dollars at work.
Ker-ching! to the arms companies.


Meanwhile assholes will be rushing to buy up assault weapons and masses of ammo to stash before the ban comes into effect.
Ker-ching! to the arms companies.

feather wrote:
Boom.

feather wrote:
Either RA is a bit thick and hasnt figured out they work together...







Or he wants us to think they dont work together.

Which one is it i wonder.

And before anyone jumps on those images, well forget the images and look at the foreign policy. We never see US and UK forces working together now do we.

feather wrote:
thats what i was hinting at in my own way earlier..not hard to spot is it

well it is for some people i suppose. sigh.

novum wrote:
*in before somebody screams Photoshop or starts to point out Reptilian shape-shifting artifacts*

Oh snap, sorry nov, just had a DIF flashback....

(Not that I dismiss the Reptilian thing, I'm totally down with it, just not how some people see EVERY little tick, crease or video compression glitch as some sort of "z0mg, joo reppiez R shitfing ryte b4 r eyz!!!")

No, shitfing was not a typo.

I would like to see so much more done than just changes to gun laws but it is a start. I don't think the gun manufacturers will suffer much as the surge has already begun. I assume you just wanted to make a point about profits and so talking about other possible effects is not important. You would hope changes in gun laws would be done to help fight gun crime. I know criminals can break the law to get guns but why make it easy?

Spot on Feather, to protect the US people from a bent governments, not the other way around. Here in the Uk and her colonies, the people are kept in fear by an opressive government/s

I can say that a public using military style assault wespons who don' t know how to use them, would have no real advantage over semi automatic weapons. Basically a well trained attacker would get much better results by well aimed single shots from semi sutos, bursts more than two or three waste amunition and rarely hit their target.

To ban assault rifles to the Rambo's would make no real difference to any uprising, were one to occur, smaller collectives of well trained opps would be very costly to the greater force, LRDG for instance.

There are thought to be around 100 guns USPHP most unregistered and untraceable, all of which would soon becone useless without ammo by the way.

phemohilia wrote:

i-baster wrote:
A lot of things are easy for criminals. What you should be asking yourself is why make it hard for decent people to be armed to protect themselves?
Candy from a baby for the psychos then innit. Ofc you're not a psycho, you're just a sheep, hence why you think that way.

That lot and their fucking guns
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20838925

Merry fkn Xmas for their family, friends and kiddies, eh?

i get where you're coming from mikey, but its about freedom.
we look up to our govt. and beg please save us from ourselves, we can't be trusted

batou wrote:
Thing is, while I know a few gun enthusiasts that are nice folks, the overall majority of the NRA are strong supporters of their government.

Look at the graphs. That's a lot of support and looking up to

www.followthemoney.org/database/topcontributor.phtml?u=1854&y=0

Their leadership is neo-con and wingnut central and VERY authoritarian
www.meetthenra.org/sort-leaders

andyh wrote:
I am a sheep because I don't think people need ar15's for any reason? You think assault rifles change policy in us politics? You think any militia in the states can take on the federal government? You can call me names but it says more about you than me.

i-baster wrote:
GUNS...no-one mentioned ar15's except the media ofc who like to show pics of shotguns in boots of cars instead for some bizarre reason that is somehow perfectly explainable

The topic says GUNS. TBH I'm not surprised you completely missed that either....

andyh wrote:
You know with the constant insults you send my way I think you have a problem with me so perhaps you should just not read my posts.

As for the topic of guns. The proposed law changes are concerned with assault rifles which you should be aware of if you follow current events at all. The original post in this topic cites certain types of weapon also.