Consequences; unintended and unfortunate.

President Obama has inspired an economic stimulus, albeit limited, of another variety. It is one that San Fran Nan would very likely disapprove of, regardless of the economic effects. The fear of an assault on the Second Amendment predicted before and after the election, has caused a record breaking surge in gun and ammo sales.  Now if we can just find a way to guard against this Keynesian assault on our economy.


  1. Just last week, I ran into one of my friends who told me that most gun and ammo stores are out of product and that their shelves have been cleaned out. Can anyone else confirm the same?

  2. My wife and I took our concealed carry permit course two weeks ago yesterday, and I stopped by WalMart en route to pick up some ammo for my 9mm. The clerk said they hadn’t had any 9mm in 6 weeks. Hmmmm.

  3. Looks like the 2nd and 10th amendments are on the way out the window.

  4. Sportsman’s warehouse has been out of home defense shotguns since November, and most of their reloading supplies are gone too. I had to go to Dillon Precision in Scottsdale just to get powder; no store in the East Valley has had any in stock for the last three months.

  5. Tucson Vice says

    I hope they do tighten things up. It seems like all you need in AZ to own a gun is a face and a heartbeat.

    Why is it that as I read this post and it’s comments, I can’t help but hear them all in a thick cartoony southern accent?

    You folks are hilarious.

  6. Well, honey pie, when you git sum lernin on the Constitution come on back round here and we can visit on it.

  7. Adolf Hitler “tightened things up” during his ascent to power. Would you care to explain your “tighten things up” comment in further detail, Herr “Tucson Vice?” Or is it Comrade “Tucson Vice?”

    In the US, we have a document call The Constitution, and it absolutely guarantees US citizens a right to possess firearms. Which part of this do you not understand?

  8. And before you leap on my typo and launch an ad hominem tirade accusing me of being a bumpkin, I meant to type “called” – not “call.”

  9. Iris Lynch says

    TV, be scared, it IS true that all we need is to be alive to buy guns and ammo. Isn’t it interesting that so many people came to the same conclusion without collusion? That is to say, they believe we are going to need guns and ammo. I hope they are wrong, but it is better to be prepared, than to be sitting around making fun of people.

  10. Iris,

    “I hope they are wrong, but it is better to be prepared, than to be sitting around making fun of people.”

    Why do you lie? Seriously. A few posts back you were advocating secession, and I have to believe you are not naive enough to think something like that would happen without and insane amount of bloodshed and destruction of major American cities (and over a spending bill, no less).

    You cannot speak and advocate destruction out of one side or the mouth and speak to the better angels out of another.

    Can someone show me a gun bill currently being considered in the House or Senate that takes away your guns? Or is this just more panicked textual diaarhea?

  11. Tucson Vice says


    I couldn’t care less about your typos.

    I’ll take comrade Tucson vice because it sounds neat, but I doubt my military superiors would like that much, especially as I sit here in Afghanistan (with a 9mm strapped to my leg and an M-16 sitting next to me by the way).

    Actually, You aren’t given a right to bear “firearms.” Read it again (assuming you’ve read it before). As in most parts of the constitution, the second amendment isn’t very specific. This was done on purpose.

    You have the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn’t say that you are entitled to a certain number, kind or size of “arm.”

    It is for this reason that I am not allowed to keep and bear rocket launchers, dirty bombs, switchblades etc. These are all arms. I can’t have them, despite my second amendment rights. I can’t imagine you would want the average joe to have them either.

    Besides this, I think it says something in there about a well regulated militia, right? If I’m not mistaken, we have a well regulated militia. It’s called the national gaurd. My bet is that you aren’t a member of it.

    You aren’t a bumpkin because of your typos. If you are a bumpkin, it is because you are quoting a document that you clearly haven’t read or understood.

    Also, the Hitler bit is cliche (this means that it is overused, John). You can do better.

  12. Tucson Vice – thank you for your service in Afghanistan – I admire those who serve our nation in uniform. And thank you for conceding the fact that The Constitution deliberately avoids a formal definition of which kind of “arms” Americans may bear, hence also avoiding a formal definition of which kind of “arms” Americans may NOT bear. My point is that if you’re looking to The Constitution to justify your “tightening things up” comment, you’re barking up the wrong tree – you will find no grounding in The Constitution for that position. To put it in your vernacular, The Constitution does not say that I am NOT entitled to a certain number, kind, or size of “arm.”

    I agree that a “well regulated militia” is a good addition to our various forms of defense, but the Second Amendment clearly states that it is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” The right of the PEOPLE, not just the military, not just sworn peace officers, but the PEOPLE. I agree that folks shouldn’t be running around with “rocket launchers, dirty bombs, switchblades, etc.” but The Constitution guarantees that you don’t get to apply that restriction to common firearms.

    Thanks for the vocabulary lesson in regard to the word “cliché.” I’m well aware of Godwin’s law –'s_Law – which you might deem applicable in this case – but my Hitler comparison is valid, because he actually did call for a “tightening up” of things regarding firearms, recognizing that disarmed volk cannot fight back. And I appreciate your encouragement to “do better,” but I don’t need to do any better. I have on my side the most important document in the history of the world, which for 220 years has guaranteed my right to bear arms. And in the spirit of the blog post to which we refer, I will continue to purchase numerous firearms and stock up on ammunition and strongly encourage my friends to do the same. I promise you there will be no “tightening up of things” in my world . . .

  13. Tucson Vice says


    Please show me where the constitution states that you can not apply any restriction to the ownership of firearms. If you can show me that phrase or one at all similar, I’ll concede the whole thing right now.

    The fact is that you do not have the constitution on your side. You are arguing that it says things far more specific than it actually does. You are arguing that there is a distinction made between one kind of weapon and another.

    The constitution makes no distinction at all between what you call common firearms and a rocket launcher. No distinction whatsoever. Having said this (and it is a fact), than I am glad that we both agree on modest and reasonable restrictions on the ownership of arms (not firearms–there is no such word in the 2nd amendment or the constitution)–limits to the 2nd amendment.

    It does say “people” in the second amendment. It also says, as a precursor,

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    So clearly, the text assumes that the people (who at the time were required to be available for malitia and expected to own “arms”) WERE the militia. Obviously this is no longer the case. Given that we now have an organized, government regulated militia, what on earth would your posession of a fully automatic AK-47 as a private citizen who is unaffiliated with the national guard do to further the preparedness of a well regulated milita? Nothing. And that is why the courts have ruled such laws as constitutional.

    I must stress this: the Constitution makes no mention of firearms and in no way distinguishes common firearms from any other kind of arm. It does not use the word firearm anywhere within it’s text. The distinction is not there, and has never been proven to be there. While some state constitutions may make these kind of distinctions, the U.S. Constitution simply does not.

  14. So,Tucson Vice, if I read you correctly, your position is that the term “arms” in the Second Amendment does not refer specifically (and certainly not exclusively) to firearms. So was the intent of the Framers to ensure Americans unfettered access to steak knives and baseball bats?

    Also, it appears that you are taking the position that only government-controlled militias ought to be granted unfettered access to firearms. How is it that the first part of the Second Amendment can refer to firearms, but the second part is nondescript – not specifying firearms. You can’t have it both ways.

    You are correct that modern interpretations of The Constitution are all that really matter at this point. And you are also correct that some courts and judges have attempted to impede Americans’ right to bear arms. Courts make terrible mistakes all the time – particularly activist courts who are interested in insulating the government from the displeasure of the people. You strike me as the kind of person who interprets The Constitution as a document that restricts rights. Those of us who truly love freedom (as did the Framers) interpret The Constitution as a document that grants rights. And at the end of the day, you have not made a case for WHY Americans should be prohibited from bearing arms. Good luck with that . . .

Leave a Reply