Sign in or 
Location: null
Discussion: Where'd you buy that gun?
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
BigLoki |
Where'd you buy that gun?
May 15 2012, 12:43 PM EDT
I had this link put up on my facebook by 4-5 different people:http://beforeitsnews.com/story/2132/896/Who_Is_Buying_American_Firearms_Companies_Why.html Now, me being me, I dug on it for a couple hours before I passed it on. I came to the conclusion that George Soros has nothing to do with this move, nor is he an "evil man". What I DID find is that, aside from the fear mongering the article tried to inflict, it does raise an issue that disturbed me a bit... Freedom Group, does indeed own Marlin, Remington, DPMS, Dakota Arms, Bushmaster, and some others. Along with a good portion of the US ammunition manufacturers. They control somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of the US Arms Industry. Now, I'm not saying that Freedom Group is a sinister organization, nor am I trying to hint that they are up to something. I simply am wondering: Does anyone else find it a bit disturbing to know that one organization controls so much of such a controversial industry? ___________________> 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?
Keyword tags:
None
|
|
BigLoki |
1. RE: Where'd you buy that gun?
May 15 2012, 12:43 PM EDT
<Contd.>Love them or hate them, guns are a "hot button" topic for most of America. Just for instance (again NOT implying anything, or trying to paint a false picture; I'm only voicing my own somewhat paranoid, and possibly unfounded concerns, but let's face it, we talk about zombies, so....) IF it were to come about that a ban on guns is impossible, but the government has not given up on the idea, just the legislation. Would it not be possible to ban the import of foreign guns? After all, there are plenty of US manufacturers. What if those US manufacturers (The 1 actual manufacturer) suddenly decided not to sell to civilians, and raised the price of civilian ammo through the roof? It wouldn't be illegal, and it wouldn't infringe on our right to bear arms. It would simply be a company, doing something that they are well within their rights to do. The government "would not be able to interfere" with said company's decision not to sell to the civilian market. It would be a simple, effective, LEGAL, and indisputable way to disarm the public slowly. No new guns, no new parts, no foreign guns or parts, and ridiculously expensive ammo. Again, I'm not implying it is happening, I'm not implying it's intended to happen... I just wonder is all. I want to know if this is an area of concern for anyone else, if it is, what would/could you do. If not.. well, It's not the first time I've been alone with my paranoia.....hahaha 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
Filadog |
2. RE: Where'd you buy that gun?
May 15 2012, 2:23 PM EDT
The whole thing about George Soros buying up US gun manufactures is of course just an internet email myth.http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/freedom.asp The gun bussiness in the US is a big dollar industry, I actually think last year more guns got sold to civilians in the US then any other year. I would not be surprised if this year is even bigger Going have to explain to me why anybody would want to spend millions for a succesful bussiness just so they can not stop making something and not make any money. People buy bussiness so they can make and sell things to make money. I think if a group of bussiness got together and decided and agreed to not to make something or raise the price there would be an anti trust issue Even if a Group of gun manufactures did get together and agree to stop making guns for some reason I think there would be others that would be only to happy to jump in and take advantage of the vacum and start making them especially since the demand is so strong for them Gun owners are a very paranoid group and of course lots of groups such as the NRA and gun and ammo sellers are pretty quick to take advantage of it. My crystel ball tells me get ready for ammo shortages and more mass panic buying as we get closer to the election and if Obama wins things will get really crazy 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
Sharpie41 |
3. RE: Where'd you buy that gun?
May 15 2012, 7:03 PM EDT
Even if the 80% stop making civvie guns, the 20% will, and will make a fortune
2
out of
2 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
Oakspar77777 |
4. RE: Where'd you buy that gun?
May 15 2012, 7:17 PM EDT
Last year, private US citizens bought 14 million new firearm transactions (multiple purchases might not have resulted in multiple background checks) according to the FBI. That is a gun per person for 5% of the population in a single year. No chance of the US running out of firearms in any of our lifetimes. Ammo manufacture has been at full capacity and expanding for the past three and a half years. There is no chance that will slow before November (and if I was an ammo company, I would want my warehouses STUFFED in case the current administration is retained, as there would certainly be a second run on ammunition). Of course, I could live a non-apoc lifetime on the ammo I already have, and I doubt that I am alone. Also, it is no secret that given demand, US borders are wide open to illegal import. Do you find this valuable? |
Zombot |
5. RE: Where'd you buy that gun?
May 15 2012, 7:20 PM EDT
It reminds me all too much of something Umbrella Corp-esque. If you haven't seen the presentation about who had a hand in facebook, take a look (can't find it, but i've seen it). If the same sort of thing were happening now, wherein a bunch of politicians, say, anti-gun types, were involved in this corporation in very hidden ways, then suddenly did just what Loki is suggesting, it'd be a great way to, at least temporarily, cripple the 2nd Amendment. Legal proceedings of that variety could take months or years, especially if politicians were involved in backing it from the shadows.I'm not sure where they could go with, since I think if it happened, I wouldn't be shooting for funsies anymore, but it would set the gov up to impose martial law a bit easier, methinks. I'm with you on the paranoia, Loki...there're too many things happening that seem a bit too coincidal to be coincidental... 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
11ACRBlackhorse |
6. RE: Where'd you buy that gun?
May 16 2012, 11:28 PM EDT
| Post edited: May 17 2012, 3:31 PM EDT
As Filadog and Sharpie stated. Even if all the other stock holders would go along with losing money for someone else's political agenda. You still have lots of other companies willing to fill all the slack they can. Then all those unemployed workers will go to the competition and or start up their own gun company. All that gun savy will get used one way or another.This is just another scare tactic by some to rally the pro gun types. Wrong headed and counter productive in my opinion. And I can see the same thing as Filadog and Sharpie hinted about. Buy now and all you can now. Because it is gonna get crazy fast. Do you find this valuable? |
|
BigLoki |
7. RE: Where'd you buy that gun?
May 17 2012, 11:10 AM EDT
I hope nobody thinks I'm trying to rile up any gun owner uprising. I just found some of the facts about that situation, while I was trying to see if there was anything to that article. Just seems odd to me that one parent company was allowed that much of the market.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
11ACRBlackhorse |
8. RE: Where'd you buy that gun?
May 17 2012, 3:40 PM EDT
"I hope nobody thinks I'm trying to rile up any gun owner uprising. I just found some of the facts about that situation, while I was trying to see if there was anything to that article. Just seems odd to me that one parent company was allowed that much of the market."And why not? As stated earlier if they get stupid with costs or who they sell to. Other companies will gladly fill the void and fast. There are more gun companies now than almost ever before. And the longer this gun boom continues there will be a steady increase of gun makers. I don't like anyone controlling that much of anything. But then it is constitutional and legal. So how we gonna fix it. You want to give the government the power to keep companies small or what someone can own. I would rather trust a business even run by a looney like Soros. If nothing else he still is a businessman that wants to get even richer. Not all greed is evil. lol Do you find this valuable? |
|
Oakspar77777 |
9. RE: Where'd you buy that gun?
May 17 2012, 4:56 PM EDT
If you are really concerned about control, then the people to take shots at (figuratively) would be the LAPD. They do an annual gun turn-in program that pulls thousands of guns off the streets each year and has been growing by leaps and bounds.They give prepaid Visas in values of up to $200 for each gun turned in (more for handguns and assaults, less for long guns). At first, this sounds great - getting guns out of the hands of thugs. However, a "no questions asked" form like this is really a licence to fence stolen firearms. Furthermore, it increases the value of guns in the system (a "cash for clunkers" with guns). Since the greatest obstical gun control faces is the number of guns in the system already, anything that reduces that glut of firearms is a bad thing. Unless, of course, the LAPD is turning around and reselling those firearms (at a profit) outside of LA. In which case, it is a brilliant plan, as that would make money for the police in a bankrupt state and would move guns from the inner city back out into the suburban and rural populations where they do less damage and more good. Of course, that makes sense, so it likely isn't happening in California. Do you find this valuable? |
|
BigLoki |
10. RE: Where'd you buy that gun?
May 17 2012, 5:49 PM EDT
"And why not? As stated earlier if they get stupid with costs or who they sell to. Other companies will gladly fill the void and fast. There are more gun companies now than almost ever before. And the longer this gun boom continues there will be a steady increase of gun makers.Well, that was essentially what I wondered about. The legality of it. I remember not too long ago, "Verizon" caught hell for buying out competitors, and were "urged" not to make a bid for "Sprint", citing antitrust laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law I'm not as fluent as I would like to be in "legalese" so, that was part of my issue. I don't disagree, that other companies would step up to the plate, were there to be a void left. Do you find this valuable? |
