RSS

The ONE Retail Business That’s Doing Well For Christmas

24 Dec

merry christmas from 1974

Merry Christmas from 1974–Ain’t That America!  (Photo credit: deflam)

Firearm Sales . . . especially the sale of “black rifles” (military-style, semi-automatics like the AR-15).

It’s still possible that President Obama will try to “do something” about gun control by means of Executive Order–but it’s not likely.  Unless there’s another school shooting in the next few weeks, I doubt that Congress will implement any substantial gun control legislation in the foreseeable future.

The Democrats implemented gun control in A.D. 1994 and lost control of the Congress in the A.D. 1996 elections.  They haven’t forgotten that lesson.  The Republicans will openly resist gun control legislation; the Democrats will try to duck the issue.  The probability of significant federal gun control legislation is small.

Those of you who don’t like the 2nd Amendment might just as well get used to our right to keep and bear arms–or start steppin’ towards another country like England or Australia where guns are controlled to the point that they’re almost impossible for law-abiding people to own.

This is The United States of America and We the People are going to keep our firearms.

Here’s a 6:56 video that shows how one gun store has been nearly cleaned out by purchases of “black-rifles,” high-capacity magazines and ammunition in just the past few days.  I see huge implications.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwO51avbXh8

Here’s a little article about another business whose sales soared 500% in the last few days:  the manufacture of bulletproof children’s backpacks and children’s body armor:  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/19/bulletproof-backpacks-kids-body-armor-in-demand-following-connecticut-school/

I’m sure that a lot people in this country and foreign countries will watch that video about firearms sales and read the article about children’s body armor and shake their heads in disbelief and contempt.  They are probably asking, What kind of country is so crazy about firearms that they even provide body armor for children?

I understand their point of view, but I not only disagree with that assessment, I take pride in the previous video and article.

For me, the sudden rise in sales of military-style firearms and body armor for kids only signals that while Americans may be ignorant and self-indulgent–while we’ve played the fool for the past half century and may soon have to pay the fool’s price as consequence of our previous economic stupidities–We are the People of The United States of America.  And that’s sayin’ somthin’.  We may bend, but we don’t break.

Thomas Jefferson once observed,

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

Americans have been afraid of our government for a generation or more.  That fear paralleled a growing police state and rising tyranny.  But the previous video about the sudden sale of “black rifles” and the article about children’s body armor is evidence that we don’t depend on government.  We don’t need you, Obama.  We can protect our children on our own. . . .  More, we don’t fear our government.  We are gearing up (if necessary) for a fight the government can’t possibly win.

For me, that video on firearms sales and the article on child body armor signals a turning point: we’re overcoming our fear of government.  More, I think that turning point ought to scare the hell out every president, congressman, senator, judge and bureaucrat.  I think our government is beginning to fear the People.

And I say Hooray!

I say that’s a first step back towards Liberty!

We are the People of The United States of America.  We may bend, but we don’t break.

We don’t care what the collectivists think.  We don’t care what the rest of the world thinks.  We’re going to keep our firearms.  

Get used to it.

 
15 Comments

Posted by on December 24, 2012 in 2nd Amendment, Video

 

Tags: , ,

15 responses to “The ONE Retail Business That’s Doing Well For Christmas

  1. charles

    December 25, 2012 at 2:00 AM

     
    • Adask

      December 25, 2012 at 3:55 AM

      I don’t doubt that they’ll “do something”. But can they do anything with executive orders that will get past the courts? I won’t be surprised if they make the “gesture” of enacting an executive order that they know won’t get past the courts. Such order might be good for a year or so. Then the courts might quash it. Obama will have looked good to his supporters. The unelected judges will be blamed for supporting the 2nd Amendment. No politicians will be loss office. From a political perspective, the government will have appeared to support gun control,and the courts will be blamed if that support fails. That would be a win/win for Obama and the Democrats. . . . We shall see.

       
      • Flatwood

        December 25, 2012 at 7:43 AM

        @ >We shall see.

        I believe the courts WILL uphold an,or any EO banning at least some type of “guns.” But, We shall see.

         
  2. Shortwave man

    December 25, 2012 at 4:22 AM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCpwMQ8cRRc Check this out……Kay kyser from 1942

     
  3. James Michael

    December 25, 2012 at 8:18 AM

    98% of the EOs are not lawful period as they violate the Constitution of the United States of America, and are Treasonous in fact.

     
    • Flatwood

      December 25, 2012 at 10:06 AM

      Hi, James Michael.
      Re: > 98% of the EOs are not lawful period as they violate the Constitution of the United States of America, and are Treasonous in fact.

      Today, 100% is more accurate, I believe. I also believe 100% of the remainder of what you say is true. BUT those EO’s are still being enforced by the “law” enFORCEment barbarian ruthless savages.

       
      • Flatwood

        December 25, 2012 at 11:25 AM

        P.S. I believe there should be a law against buying guns this time of year, as it violates the “reason for the season,” i.e. PEACE on Earth & good will towards men. HOWEVER, as soon as the “season is over,”….

         
      • Adask

        December 25, 2012 at 12:50 PM

        I know that under Article 4.3.2 of the federal Constitution, Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the territories and Washington DC. I do not know, but I suspect that Congress had delegated much of that power to the President. If that’s true, then it should follow that most Executive Orders are lawful and they are constitutional–within the venue or plane of the territories and of “this state“.

        Conversely, I suspect that the EO’s are unconstitutional and unlawful within the venue of plane of the States of the Union.

        If that’s true, then if you go to court to challenge simply challenge an EO as being facially “unconstitutional” in all cases, you will probably lose about 99% of the time because the EO is constitutional in some “places” (territories, etc.). To be successful at challenging an EO, you may first have to establish that: 1) you are one of the People (not a citizen, inhabitant, occupant, resident, etc.) of one of the States of the Union; 2) all of your relevant activities took place within the plane or venue of a State of the Union; and 3) the EO was unconstitutional as applied within your particular venue (within a State of the Union).

         
  4. Flatwood

    December 25, 2012 at 9:31 PM

    Re: Conversely, I suspect that the EO’s are unconstitutional and unlawful within the venue of plane of the States of the Union.

    Amen !!! However, I believe the “courts of record” do not “see” States of the Union” exisiting as they once did. BUT, IF you are right, then the courts DO have integrity & I find this hard to swallow,i.e., how they can be both ways. How can they be tyrants & honorable also? It depends on how you present your case? If it’s presented wrong & IF they were honorable, they would be merciful & lenient to you/me & others. I stand to be corrected but I am unable to understand how anyone can be brutal & merciful, depending on how the case is presented. We’re either tyrants or we are benevolent. It seems to me that when you or I go into court carrying the Holy Bible & the baliff is ordered to get that out of here, it has no place in this court, that should be a wake up call as to what is next in line. I am aware that there is an extremely rare occasional win, but if everyone lost all of the time that would be too obvious and they can’t have that to deal with. Are you aware that in the “Bond case” she was finally found Guilty as charged? So much for so called 10th amendment rights.

     
  5. mvg-avg

    December 27, 2012 at 1:36 PM

    If they outright ban the second amendment through treaty ,would that only apply in the UNITED STATES? Could one use the 9th amendment to reclaim that right? Maybe the first amendment religious argument ?

     
    • Flatwoods

      December 27, 2012 at 2:33 PM

      Hi mvg,

      What are your thoughts re: these “alleged amendment rights?” I use alleged because secretly, that’s what the courts really think. They are indoctrinated with a privilege only mindset .I also have been told this “in private” by a few judges,off the record of course. In a nutshell, presenting the truth as it ONCE was understood, brings on competency hearing arrangements. There ARE a few rare birds who will say BS, but for the most part this IS the way the grapefruit squirts.

       
  6. Anon4fun

    December 27, 2012 at 3:07 PM

    A couple more from Thomas Jefferson:

    “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

    “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”

    No mention of hunting.

     
    • Anon4fun

      December 27, 2012 at 3:16 PM

      I should qualify by saying these quotes are *attributed* to Jefferson. Even if they are by others, the point they make is correct about the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.

       
    • Flatwood

      December 27, 2012 at 5:09 PM

      RIGHT !!! Anon,
      I saw a video a couple of weeks ago & in essence this son of a biscuit eater said that Jefferson said every law should be “reconsidered” about every 20 years.
      IF my memory is correct, Jefferson said a revolution may be necessary about every 20 years, to keep the laws “as is”. Those are not the exact words, but I know you get the point of what I’m trying to say. I don’t know if you agree or not, but I sort of think you do. I enjoy reading your comments. Thought provoking !! I wish there were a million more like you.

       
  7. MVG-AVG

    December 28, 2012 at 9:50 AM

    Maybe there is a RED DAWN situation getting underway.
    It appears the rule of law is ignored more and more .

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s