Obama Re-election Causes Weapons, Ammo Sales and Gun stocks to Soar

Filed under News, Prepper Watch  
November 7, 2012 Posted by:

Leave a comment

After last night’s election results, many in the country are worried about the real possibility of more restrictive gun laws and even a coming assault weapons ban.

AR15As the stock market plunged over 300 points today, stocks from firearms manufacturers Smith & Wesson and Ruger shot through the roof. Smith & Wesson was up over 7 percent, and Ruger ended the day up by three percent.

But it’s not only gun stocks that are surging. From what we’re hearing, Gun Stores are seeing huge spikes in both tactical rifle sales and ammo sales. The stores we talked to said they were seeing a huge increase in people buying AR-15s and AK-47. They also tell us, that ammo for these guns is flying off the shelf faster than they can restock it.

This really shouldn’t be a shock. Last month we covered President Obama’s debate comments on banning weapons like the popular AR-15 rifle.

During the debate President Obama said:

…”What I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.”

With his re-election only hours old, it’s unclear when the President will put his calls to renew the ban into effect.

Gun owners aren’t waiting to find out. I suspect that just like after his election in 2008, we will likely see a huge spike in gun sales, with it becoming increasingly harder to find certain types of ammo.

Comments

Responses to " Obama Re-election Causes Weapons, Ammo Sales and Gun stocks to Soar " Please share your thoughts...

  1. John says:

    I love guns and shooting and hunting but trends like this just make me think allot of really stupid people own guns

    • Syn says:

      I’m afraid you’re right John. In the 1920′s at the height of the Tommy gun’s popularity, the average gun owner had no desire to run out and buy one. The only people they were useful to were gangsters and other people on the wrong side of the law. Farmers, ranchers and hunters (even big game) knew they didn’t need a 10 round or more clip to hit their target. These newly panic stricken people remind me of the Y2K’rs. They’re so paranoid.

      • Michael says:

        You miss the point of the second amendment. It’s not the right to hunt. “well armed militia” my friend. Genocides happen every day. Governments kill their people every day. Countries go to war and civilians are often at their mercy. What makes you so arrogant to think that it can’t happen here?

        • Rocky Night says:

          Thank you Michael for saving me a lot of typing.

          John and Syn if you don’t get it then I feel sorry for you. Please read some history and you just might understand.

        • Voice of Reason says:

          When the government decides to take guns from its citizens, it doesnt matter how many guns you have or how “hi-powered” they are, they will have a bigger arsenol at thier disposal. All they have to do is say you have a mental issue and then they take everything. If a police officer or soilder come to your door today and said they were here to confiscate your guns, are you going to kill them on your doorstep? As much as i personally dislike the police, no one wants to kill a cop because of they know what will happen. Most people will hand them over and try to win a court battle saying they have a right under the 2nd ammendment. Guess what, its to late after they take them….

          • Steve says:

            Voice, There should be ample warning before then. Also the police work for citizens and if that changes so does the relationship. Be sure to keep your waepons at mulitple sites.

    • Nick says:

      What good is an Assault Weapons ban going to do? Do you realize how many people actually own an assault weapon these days. The number of gun owner is 10 times what it was when Clinton first introduced the ban the first time. At least 50% of gun owners these days have some type of assault weapon. There are so many AR15′s/AK47′s/SKS rifles and various sorts already owned by people that it doesn’t make any sense to ban them any more. I own 4 guns that would be considered an assault weapon and don’t see the need to go out and buy anymore just because they MIGHT get banned…….I guarentee, that they will not get any type of weapons ban passed……..And, if they do, those of us who own these guns can raise the price and sell them to the DIPSHITS that are looking to buy them after they’re gone.

      • Rocky Night says:

        Nick they passed Obamacare before they even knew what was in it. Never underestimate the stupidity of our politicians.

        • weaponkid says:

          no kidding

  2. RedNeck says:

    I really don’t get how you can call us stupid for wanting to make sure we can get our hands on these weapons before they’re banned. Did you not watch the debates? The guy said outright that he was going to BAN THEM!

    • John S. says:

      The other guy actually signed a ban on assault weapons. Obama has not passed one restrictive gun law, he actually expanded them by allowing guns in National Parks and on amtrak trains. But your right he’s coming to take our guns.

      • RedNeck says:

        It’s really pretty pathetic how delusional Obama supporters are. Is it mental illness, stupidity or dishonesty that causes them to completely ignore what the guy himself said in the debates. In case you missed the quote above, or missed it when he said it in the debate HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO TRY TO BAN ASSAULT RIFLES.

        It really doesn’t get any clearer than that. When the President himself says his intention is to ban a whole class of firearms there is nothing conspiratorial about it.

        • Syn says:

          Don’t get your panties in a bunch, Red. You can still go nuts on the range without needing an assault rifle. In fact, no true marksmanship is needed to use one. They were not invented for hunting or the range. They were invented for warfare only. You need to calm down. Banning assault rifles doesn’t take away anyone’s constitutional rights.

          • Cookie69 says:

            You do realize that the constitutional right is there so that we have weapons too protect ourselves from a tyrannical government right? That is to include so called assault weapons.

          • SonOfSam says:

            Syn, the problem with your logic is that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN “ASSAULT” RIFLE. There are bolt actions, semi-automatic and full auto. The only kind used by the armed forces for actual “assaults” are full auto, precisely the kind of guns which are not sold to us civilians. The whole assault weapons horseshit is about banning certain types of rifles because they “look scary” It’s utter and illogical nonsense, pushed by scheming power hungry politicians, and parroted by clueless asshats like you

          • 2heavy says:

            I smell a troll. Take a deep breath people. The second amendment is NOT about hunting. It is quite simply to protect us from our government.

          • Mountain Prepper says:

            Folks like you are why we have problems, your arrogance and ignorance of our rights is tragic.

            This is why the NRA has become a whore for the elite, the republican neocon progressives, and for “hunters” who don’t understand that the second has nothing to do with duck hunting.

            Move to the UK they have lost of rights – just up your statist elitist ally.

          • The Survivalist says:

            You are really dense. You make uneducated statements and try to pass them off as fact. I am an inactive Marine and a professional shooter and to your ignorance assault rifles are used for marksmanship competitions such as 3-Gun (which is nationally recognized by the way). Additionally it is a violation of my constitutional rights as the power given to the government does not include the right to choose which firearms I am allowed to own. Lastly, I wonder if you would have the same opinion of assault rifles if there was a riot in your town and your wife and daughter were raped in front of you because you couldn’t reload your side by side shotgun fast enough to defend them. Criminals will always get there hands on whatever type of gun they want regardless of any type of legislation )hell Obama allowed them to take a truck full into Mexico where they were used to shoot one of our own boarder guards). It is the law abiding citizen who suffers under these laws. That’s why criminals have full auto machine guns (which by current law require an FFL to own and no felony convictions) on the streets and people in Washington DC and parts of New York aren’t even allowed to own a gun. The government was created to have very limited power and really only intended to oversee the states themselves, no govern them as a parent. But that requires an understanding of constitutional history you do not appear to poses.

          • Semper Gumby says:

            You obviously don’t know anything about Marksmanship. The AR/M-16 platform is indeed a range weapon, ask any Marine. Taking away any right whether it is semi-automatic or not is WRONG!

          • weaponkid says:

            yes it does, and what will stop them from taking the of the guns away. like in the UK.

          • stepabove says:

            taking away the piont of the second ammendment is the only thing it does do

            Find a dictionary Look up militia

            Like or not that is the frame of reference

            Sorry

        • Miyagi says:

          Syn, the controversy is what the definition of an “assault” rifle is. If you were to look at a semi-automatic AK-47 and a traditional hunting rifle…what’s the difference? You could argue magazine size, but that’s not the gun, that’s the magazine. It all comes down to aesthetics unless you get down to exact model #s of guns that would be banned

          • Eugene Farley says:

            As was noted Romney is the only politician to ban assault weapons. the President may try, but there are quite a few organizations that will fight for our rights, the NRA is one of the main ones. The SKS is not considered an assault weapon, any weapon described as a carbine is off the list. The key to the differences is the magazine. The SKS has a fixed magazine and the AK though it uses the same round is considered an assault weapon because of it’s ability to use high capacity removable magazines. Those weapons with detachable high capacity magazines and bulk sale of ammo is what will be hit first, trouble is once that has been done there is no telling what will be next.

      • Stefan says:

        I guess we might as well sell all our AKs, if they stop importing the ammo we’ll have to buy ammo from the Mexicans. And we all know how well that worked for the Confederacy. f you wait until the ammo becomes almost completely unavailable you wont be able to give your AK away.

  3. TommyToe says:

    PREACH IT!!!!amen Cookie69…preaching to the choir…agree 100%

  4. Red Dawn says:

    I love how John and Syn, are calling gun owners “stupid”, but yet, both of them have multiple grammatical and spelling errors throughout their posts! Please, Syn! You can save all the reasons that you have to “disarm all law abiding Americans”! We all know what your agenda is.
    Why not focus on all the people that have guns illegally! Oh yeah, that’s right! They don’t follow the laws, so it makes us no safer really!

    • jim says:

      Exactly!!!! well said.

  5. jim says:

    Here is the problem I have with this whole assault weapons ban…. ITS A SEMI AUTO RIFLE, Its not a machine gun. If you ban them Criminals still can get weapons and cause mayheim.. We will be the only ones without them. Crime dosnt obey laws BO may introduce…. Chicago, New york???? Does this ring a bell anyone?

  6. Prepping Preacher says:

    well, once again the opposition to our Republic has successfully gained more ground… it appears to me that they have managed to achieve one of the basic goals of defeating a large and nearly overwhelming opponent: divide and conquer… by establishing a division between assault and non-assault weapons, there is now a “side to choose” resulting in pitting one against the other and that has been demonstrated in these responses to the article… well done, folks and while you’re bickering why not both sides make copies of the keys to your storage where you keep your preps then mail them to 0bamination… if you’re pro “guns” what possible difference could it make to you what another owns or doesn’t..?? worse yet, why would any gun owner seek to push his will onto another in agreeing to limit what can be purchased and owned..?? in all honesty, if my enemy has a loaded up humvee with pierce-proof armor and is a mutiple-arms platform, i want one as well… 2, in fact… methinks it’s time we applied the “good fences, good neighbors” principle here… btw, for you “limiters”, i’ll vote as well as ACT otherwise in defense of your right to own firearms and, God forbid, you or your loved ones are in the situation to need more than 2 rounds from a break-stock weapon, maybe one of us will be near enough and fast enough and find mercy enough to put 5 or 6 rounds in each of your assailants…

  7. north says:

    No matter what ban comes into effect, criminals will still get these weapons, For an average every day citizen to get these firearms is like pulling teeth, for a criminal to get these weapons is just a matter of a few hundred dollars “in the hood”,un like you or I it dosnt cost them hundreds of dollars on lisecing fees and background checks and waiting periods. Look at detroit every firearm in detroit is illegal. And there has all ready this year been over 200 gun homicides. So legal or not criminals are going to get them either way

    • weaponkid says:

      at this rate I will not ever be able to buy a firearm. :{

  8. weaponkid says:

    this is stupid! whats next are they are going to ban certain knives because the look “tactical”?

    • lonnie says:

      I am tired of this guns can not kill it takes person to pick up and pull the trigger. Its just a tool
      Ok lets outlaw everything that can kill How about cars, baseball bats The list can go on for ever
      It takes a person to kill so put the blame wear belongs and not on a object.

    • stepabove says:

      They already do, Most states have laws against having double edged or dagger style knives

      it’s already to late

  9. Eugene Farley says:

    This is just my opinion. It seems that a lot of people are worried about what someone else has or doesn’t have. what I have or don’t have in my gun safe should not be the subject of discussion by another person. What others have or don’t have is none of my business either. I am more curious about why people think it is their right to limit others in their pursuit of safety. And safety is what this is all about. I feel safe with what I have to defend myself and that should be the criteria for anyone. If you feel safe with just a baseball bat then that is your business, I wouldn’t, but if you do hey more power to you. the government would be best served, and we would also, if they simply went after illegal weapons. The trouble arises when they go after the legal weapons instead and leave people defenseless.

  10. rev. dave says:

    The idea that banning SOME weapons isn’t infringing any rights falls apart on several historical and legal levels.

    1) The Founders’ intent was that there was no infringement of any kind on any kind of weapon. We defeated British troops partly because we had BETTER weapons than the ‘world’s best army’, and virtually every household had a gun or three.

    2) Any curtailment of the Second Amendment is based on weak, incorrect and specious interpretations of other articles in the Constitution. It just doesn’t hold up legally. The Bill of Rights is NATURAL rights of men under God, and are not granted by any government other than Him (whatever name you call Him by).

    3) The biggest ‘fail’ in the concept is obvious if you apply it to other rights. How readily would anyone accept a portion of our society making a ban on free speech – so you can only say certain things in public or be subject to fines and jail time? Not ‘fire in a crowded theater’, but your opinions about events or persons or ideas? How willing are you to accept that you can be searched on the street any time an official wants to so that so long as he is only searching for certain ‘banned’ properties? Maybe a gun, maybe birth control, maybe a crucifix. Is that OK?

    What about the right of cops to just walk in at 3 a.m. and search your home for drugs – no warrant needed because only searching for drugs doesn’t infringe on your ‘right’ to be safe from ‘unreasonable’ searches? Is that OK? How about searching for evidence of kinky sex, or private sex videos? That could be banned someday too you know.

    I don’t think I need to continue do I? I believe my point is made. So do you still think that ‘a little infringement’ doesn’t negate your rights’?

    Do you still think you have ANY rights at all if you let government start to cut into them and say ‘well you still have most of that left’? And do you understand that the only guarantee you have as a citizen that government won’t snoop on what kind of banned underwear you have on or what you do in your bedroom is the fact that more than half of adults in this country are armed and an unknown number are willing to use them?

  11. rev. dave says:

    OOPS! Apologies – that should have read “any time an official wants to DO that so long….”. I’m a terrible proofreader and I’m sorry.

  12. leonard says:

    There is a word that describes people like John and Syn….they are Fudds.

  13. rorak says:

    Im guessing most of you missed where Romney said he would ban assault weapons? But I guess that doesnt matter considering all the times he switched positions. After the election, anyone who thinks Romney is not a liar please go get help!

  14. Rick Hedgecock says:

    Question! What makes a rifle an assault weapon?
    Wake up guys. I have a Ruger 10-22, with 25 round
    clips. I use it for target shooting. It has the
    assault type stock, and a laser site. Do you think
    that would fit the criteria of an (assault) weapon?
    The most widely owned gun in the US probably is the
    .22 caliber. The way it reads, I believe you can
    technically kiss your .22 goodbye if the assault
    weapon ban is passed. Any thoughts?
    The Rock

  15. Dan says:

    If anybody here remembers correctly, the original Clinton ‘Assault Weapons’ ban – 1994-2004 – banned the production of “NEW” “Assault weapons” (“Assault Weapon” being a general term for any semi-auto rifle with a bayonet lug and/or a folding stock). And I also believe it banned the production of “NEW” ‘high-capacity’ magazines (any magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds). During the ban you could STILL buy “assault weapons,” and high-capacity magazines as long as they were built prior to 1994.

    The original ban was to ban the PRODUCTION of ‘assault weapons’ and high-capacity mags, and not the purchase – OR OWNERSHIP – thereof.

    Don’t any of you remember, prior to 2004, going into gun stores/shows and being able to buy “pre-ban” 30 round magazines and assault rifles? I do.

  16. Dan says:

    And also, if another assault weapon ban is enacted, I’m willing to guarantee you will still be able to buy them, and own them…

    If not, and they come knocking at my door trying to take mine away… well, let’s just say they’ll be staring at a 75 round drum and an ex-infantryman that knows exactly what to do with them.

  17. Dan says:

    And adding on to my previous post….

    Anyone who is willfully infringing upon your legal right to own a firearm is technically considered an “enemy of the state.”

    Don’t let anybody infringe upon your lawful rights. If need be, go out like a true American, fighting for your rights.

  18. josh says:

    I served in the military and I can tell you that their arsenal is not as large as what you think, obama screwed the pooch when he cut back the size of americas forces by 60% in the last 4 years oh and less than one percent of America’s total population joins the military in the first place so who really out numbers who here. Not to mention that on the news just this morning that in the past week in 3 states alone over 4000 americans are petitioning for their states to secceed from the U.S. Obama winning this election has already brought the down fall of this country and us “gun toting rednecks” are just getting started!!! Oh and by the way… I was an Army trained sniper I dont need an AR just a nice deer rifle or a 22 with a scope “shoot ‘em in the head shoot ‘em til their dead!” thats the cadence the Army taught me and that is the code I live by… come get my guns by all means but make sure you come with a tank otherwise theres gunna be a lot of blood shed!!

  19. WW says:

    Gentlemen, let’s recall the constitution of America as our forefathers intended: The right to bear arms, regardless of type.
    Hitler did not massacre millions overnight. He acted like our present government; a rat, cautiously nippling away at the fruit of freedom. Then the creature takes larger, more aggressive bites, until there is nothing left—except maybe a little rotted core.
    Rats should not be fed or bred.

Tell us what you're thinking...