Americans Bought Enough Guns Black Friday To Create a New Military Branch


A petulant President Barack Obama demanded that Americans talk about gun control over Thanksgiving.

Citizens responded by buying enough firearms in one day to field an entire new military the size of the Marine Corps, with guns left over to equip 2-4 Army divisions.

Mr. President you have your answer.

It was a rousing “screw you.”

Americans Bought Enough Guns Black Friday To Create a New Military Branch - Bearing Arms - Army, Barack Obama, Black Friday, Gun Control, gun sales, Marines


Makes me weep tears of Evil Conservative Joy.


Considering that they are going to allow 200,000 Muslims into this country in addition to 100,000 refugees, we’re going to need to need them.


But those Muslims could also get guns, and if all of them were really terrorists, they each can probably shoot between 2 to 14 people before being taken down.

It takes one bad guy with a gun to do more harm than a group of good guys who want to prevent it.


Well, sure. They could get strawmen to purchase them. Like the last couple of terrorists did.

They could build pipe bombs too.

They could build pressure cooker bombs.

They could build diesel and fertilizer bombs and leave them in a truck, parked in a public location.

They could use knives.

They could learn jui jitsu.

They could make spears.

They could steal an SUV and run through a crowd screaming “Allahu Ackbar!!”

They could poison bottles of Tylenol.

They could build teddy bear bombs and leave them on beaches.

None of that is addressing your point though, since you just want gun control.

These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.


In short, i’m basically right and you’re evading what I said with other possibilities where we do have control and regulations

Though everyone wants gun control, you don’t want a 6 year old handling a fire arm. It’s just where you draw the line. I think we should continue to forbid convicted criminals from having firearms and maybe the people on the terrorist watch list… which they can still get guns


[quote=“JEWilliams, post:6, topic:47886”]
In short, i’m basically right and you’re evading what I said with other possibilities where we do have control and regulations

Though everyone wants gun control, you don’t want a 6 year old handling a fire arm. It’s just where you draw the line. I think we should continue to forbid convicted criminals from having firearms and maybe the people on the terrorist watch list… which they can still get guns
[/quote] Where did you ever learn that “everyone wants gun control?” Secondly, I “handled” a .22 semi-auto rifle when I was 6–under the supervision of instructors at the Indianapolis downtown YMCA, in fact. It’s where I learned to shoot, in fact, and that was in 1948! I was hunting rabbits, quail and squirrels alone with a double-barrel, .12-guage shotgun when I was 12 and I bought my shells myself at a local “convenience store” (though it wasn’t called that at the time. More like a "general store.) The shells were about $1.50/box and I saved my meager 50-cent “allowance” to get them. (There was no “sales tax” in those days.) BTW, that 50-cents would buy a full box of 50 .22 “shorts” back then, too. I’d buy then to “plink” with my best friend’s .22 Winchester pump. My father, who wasn’t really a hunter, taught me proper gun-handling, too, and safety rules in doing so. He kept my stainless, S&W Combat Masterpiece for the last 20 years of his life as protection against burglars since he lived in a remote area of Marion County, Indiana. I took it back after he died in 2003. MY children have been familiarized with guns since at least their early teens and my great-grandson, who is 9, got his first deer last month on a hunt in Mississippi. He used the “youth-model” .243 that his mother and step-father got him for his birthday in October. My daughter keeps her 16-shot, Ruger P89-DC 9mm in her bedside nightstand and is a dead shot with it. (Better than I am, actually.) My son has a double-barrel .12 gauge shotgun, three semi-auto pistols and a 30-30 Winchester mdl 85. My 19-year-old grandson has a single-shot .22 LR rifle and a 20-gauge, single-shot shotgun. My foster son has a .12-guage semi-auto shotgun that I gave him and a mdl 1911 Colt .45 semi-auto pistol. I intend to leave him my S&W .44 Magnum “Dirty Harry” gun in my will, and I gave my foster granddaughter a .38 Special “Lady Smith” S&W revolver when she first moved into an apartment by herself. She and her husband now keep it in the bedroom with a “4-finger-lock” so the kids can’t get into the box where it’s kept.


No. You could not possibly be more wrong. We already have regulations. Your two Muslim friends who just murdered a bunch of their Coworkers in an act of terror did not follow the laws. Pretty simple concept. The laws don’t work where criminals are concerned. Instead, they only serve to control the law abiding.

My point, which actually did address the root of the problem, not just your stupid argument, is so damned simple that you can’t even understand it. That’s all you have proven. The law doesn’t matter because they don’t care about laws.

Your argument is pure, hot, steaming, mushy, peanut and pimento filled crap. It’s excrement. It’s stupid beyond belief that anyone can actually type that filth and expect to have a shred of credibility on a conservative site.

I have seen some stupid posts in my many years, but yours are taking the cake. That’s a urinal cake in your posts’ case. I just want to be clear.

As to the rest of your excrement statement, I had my first rifle at 5. As did my Dad, and my uncle. My daughter had hers at 5. My sisters had theirs at 5.
Many of my friends had theirs around the same age also. Education is the solution for all legitimate concerns where weaponry is the subject matter. As for kids too small to know better, gun safes and common sense work wonders.

My privately owned weapons have taken many lives, but none have been human as of yet.

The line you draw is a line I’ll be happy to obliterate.


Try to remember that these people didn’t have ANY desire to become martyrs. They RAN laughing from the scene before the police could arrive and stop them. If they’d thought that ANYONE was there who could shoot back, they’d have chosen another “gun-free zone” to perpetrate their evil plan, and they fled the police before being stopped and shooting it out with them. They were COWARDS. Judge Nap was right. “Gun-free zones are the most dangerous places in the country.” Why ANY moron would believe that passing another few laws will prevent criminals or terrorists from obtaining a weapon and committing mayhem is a puzzle for the ages.

  1. True up to a point. Just don’t expect me to endorse gun control as a solution (there are reasons why the Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights; and foremost among them was to give private citizens the means to resist a tyrannical Federal government).
  2. Strictly and hypothetically speaking, true. But terrorists are basically cowards. They don’t want any venue where someone can shoot back.
  1. I must have missed where you said anything about other possibilities.
  2. Dead wrong. Not even close to everyone does. That’s why the Democrats in general and Obama in particular are meeting stiff resistance.


Perhaps I misread your post but I do have the opinion that you should spend a little time and read the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act. After reading and understanding these two pieces of legislation please return and we can discuss any additions you think should be included into the acts.

In the meantime - here is a little quiz for you. If by means of a Star Trek transporter or Merlin’s magic we could remove all firearms from this country who will have the first replacements:
A - Law enforcement?
B- The criminals, especially drug dealers?
C- The military?
D- The Private Citizen?

I contend that the best answer is B, the criminal element of our society. As far as the military and law enforcement go the politicians will take so long investigating that weeks would pass before funds are available. As for the Private Citizen, well we are just SOL unless we make our own.

  1. You did read what I said… that everyone wants ‘some’ form of gun control… it’s just where you draw the line. MEANING it’s not a black and white issue, but a grey with nuance. But you’re trying to polarize it. The day when there is a bill where criminals in jail are also allow to have firearms is the day when really have no gun control… But no one is going to do that… so there is gun control.

It’s just where you draw the line


Meaning we already have gun control… gun control where people are please to have. Now I think it’s a little stupid to have your child at 5 years old handle a gun. But it was obvious my statement was an example of a line… if not 6 year old, then 5… if not 5, then 1. But instead of focusing on the over all meaning… you’re attacking my personal line.


Oh… so when you arrest people in your cop days… you let them keep their guns? I think people are too focused on the easy to attack statement… and ignore the context. And because most people ignore the context of my statement, their replies are worthless if not stupid.


… so you want convicted criminals and terrorist to be able to get guns legally?


Gun control that “people” are pleased to have…
Maybe in your world, but not mine.

Yes, about your personal line, keep moving it.
Yeah, that’s the ticket… let’s just move goal posts until we can score.


You don’t have to be a convicted criminal or a terrorist to be placed on the No Fly List. It’s arbitrary.

If someone is a convicted violent felon is a different situation.


No, your statement is worthless and stupid.

Revise your statement and maybe it won’t be.


This is a pretty easy issue. The 2nd Amendment refers to “the right of the people”…NOT “the right of SOME people, depending upon who is currently in disfavor by the government.” The “gun control” issue first came to the fore when some politicians wanted to exclude former slaves from obtaining guns shortly after the Civil War. It re-emerged in the 1930’s when federal cops were found to be “outgunned” by organized crime. The gun control laws of the 30’s were passed–supposedly with the aim of correcting that, but actually to test the waters and see if the American people would sit still for a DIRECT violation of the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately, they DID. The INTENT of the 2nd Amendment was to insure that American citizens could be armed EQUALLY to any arms that might be provided to a standing army so any future, tyrannical government couldn’t “outgun” THEM. A good case can be made that being convicted of a felony causes one to LOSE some of one’s citizenship “rights”…including some of the rights specified in the Bill of Rights, but it makes little sense to prevent someone who’s been convicted of a non-violent felony from having the means to defend himself from violent predators…OR such a tyrannical government. Whether or not a child should have access to a firearm is NOT a decision that belongs with some government bureaucrat, but with that child’s PARENTS, who also bear the responsibility to insuring that their child is well-versed in PROPER handling and safety procedures in handling one, which is ALSO why having a FATHER in that child’s life is important.


In some cases, yes. I didn’t allow them to take them to jail with them, but I DID sometimes give them their guns back after their case had been adjudicated. In one such case, I was called to an apartment building because someone had seen a guy with a gun, ranting and raving at his wife. When I got there, it was a violent, shouting match. I noticed that the husband had the butt of a pistol sticking out of his pocket. I told him to please let me have the gun until their issue had been resolved. He said, “Not until you take away her knife!” The wife had a large cake-knife held behind her back. I took the knife and the revolver (a snub-nosed, .38) and we talked the issue out. I told them I would keep their weapons until the situation calmed down. I secured both in my PD locker. A couple of weeks later, after no further incidents, the husband came to the PD and asked for the gun back because he wanted to “soak” (pawn) it since he needed the money. I unloaded it and gave it back to him. As far as I know today, nothing further ever happened between this guy and his wife.