Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 6/6/2009 4:16:12 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/6/2009 4:17:39 PM EST by StephenNW]
Perhaps like many of you, I've noticed that plenty of places now have sub-$500 AK's available. No hassle, no waiting. Some places, like Classic Arms, are even having a sale because they have excess AK inventory right now!

What a difference a few months make! I remember back in January and February, when people were asking - and in some cases getting - $800 for WASR's. LOL!

It seems the panic buying is over, and people are now making peace with the idea that - at least for the next year or two - Obama and Congress aren't going to touch an "assault" weapons ban. They floated the idea in March as a sort of trial balloon, and quickly realized that they didn't have the political capital for it. Yeah, they'll try again. (And fail again.) But we have at least a year or two before they do, if not longer.

Get 'em while they're cheap again.
Link Posted: 6/6/2009 4:26:25 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/6/2009 4:27:14 PM EST
Yup, and now we wait for the friggin ammo to "normalize".
Link Posted: 6/6/2009 6:28:48 PM EST
The panic has slowed, but there will be another panic along soon.
Link Posted: 6/6/2009 6:52:44 PM EST
Originally Posted By -Apocalypto-:
The panic has slowed, but there will be another panic along soon.
Details?

Link Posted: 6/6/2009 7:22:55 PM EST
Originally Posted By JamisonM:
Originally Posted By -Apocalypto-:
The panic has slowed, but there will be another panic along soon.
Details?



They are now saying that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the State... That each State can regulate their gun laws as they see fit O yeah, Sonia Sotomayor is in the middle of it all.... i believe im pretty close on the BS.
Link Posted: 6/6/2009 7:53:53 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/7/2009 5:45:12 AM EST
Our local Dunham's has a full selection of AK's and Golani's at semi-reasonable prices...BUT NO AMMO ANYWHERE!
Link Posted: 6/7/2009 6:43:09 AM EST
Originally Posted By JamisonM:
Originally Posted By -Apocalypto-:
The panic has slowed, but there will be another panic along soon.
Details?



I'll use the current barrel ban as an example. Bush signed an executive order banning the importation of barrels. Now all the AK kits that are imported have the barrels cut. Yes we make new barrels here, but they are not crome lined and increase the final cost of the AK once re-assembed here.

Remember that an executive order does not need the approval of congress, so there is no vote on it.

Today....what's to stop Obama from signing an executive order banning the importation of all AK kits and parts. (He could also ban the importation of all WASR in the same way all Chinese weapons/ammo is banned) Remember that Obama has said he is for the 2nd Amendment
BUT...he has also said that he wants REASONABLE gun laws and specifically used the AK-47 as an example as a gun needs to be off the street.

So here is what COULD happen, Obama signs the executive order banning import of all AK kits and parts, but you can still buy one if it is made 100% here in the USA. (no company currently makes a 100% US AK) What that essentially does is it gets rid off ALL the cheap AKs and leaves us with only an expensive US made one. Can we say AK's starting at $1200? This can be done with NO bill in Congress and no vote.

My point is that there WILL be another panic. The price of AKs is coming down for now. Buy them now if you find a good price because nobody knows what may be in our future. The next panic can begin as fast as it takes for Obama to sign a piece of paper.

And Obama could sign an executive order banning import of foreign ammo just as easy, which would leave us with US made 7.62 x 39 which as we al know is $$$ and NO us manufacturer for 5.45 ammo, but that is a completely different panic.

These are dangerous and scarry times we live in.
Link Posted: 6/7/2009 6:57:29 AM EST
These are dangerous and scarry times we live in.[/quote]

This!

Link Posted: 6/7/2009 8:23:15 AM EST
I was looking at Gun Broker last night and someone was actually asking $999.00 for a WASR-10 ?!?!?!?!?! What the hell is he thinking, when you can now find them for $480.00 shipped?!?!?!?! Some people just don;t get it, I swear. Maybe he lives in North Mexico, oops, I mean South Texas, (no offence to Texas, as I'd really like to move there!!!!!!!!) and is hoping for some Mexican Drug Cartel money.
Link Posted: 6/7/2009 8:45:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By gewamser:
Our local Dunham's has a full selection of AK's and Golani's at semi-reasonable prices...BUT NO AMMO ANYWHERE!


Gun show here yesterday was packed with Wolf 7.62x39 but they wanted $360 - $390 per 1000.

At least it's here. Now if we can let it sit on the shelf a while prices will come back down.
Link Posted: 6/7/2009 9:37:53 AM EST
Originally Posted By -Apocalypto-:
Originally Posted By JamisonM:
Originally Posted By -Apocalypto-:
The panic has slowed, but there will be another panic along soon.
Details?



I'll use the current barrel ban as an example. Bush signed an executive order banning the importation of barrels. Now all the AK kits that are imported have the barrels cut. Yes we make new barrels here, but they are not crome lined and increase the final cost of the AK once re-assembed here.

Remember that an executive order does not need the approval of congress, so there is no vote on it.

Today....what's to stop Obama from signing an executive order banning the importation of all AK kits and parts. (He could also ban the importation of all WASR in the same way all Chinese weapons/ammo is banned) Remember that Obama has said he is for the 2nd Amendment
BUT...he has also said that he wants REASONABLE gun laws and specifically used the AK-47 as an example as a gun needs to be off the street.

So here is what COULD happen, Obama signs the executive order banning import of all AK kits and parts, but you can still buy one if it is made 100% here in the USA. (no company currently makes a 100% US AK) What that essentially does is it gets rid off ALL the cheap AKs and leaves us with only an expensive US made one. Can we say AK's starting at $1200? This can be done with NO bill in Congress and no vote.

My point is that there WILL be another panic. The price of AKs is coming down for now. Buy them now if you find a good price because nobody knows what may be in our future. The next panic can begin as fast as it takes for Obama to sign a piece of paper.

And Obama could sign an executive order banning import of foreign ammo just as easy, which would leave us with US made 7.62 x 39 which as we al know is $$$ and NO us manufacturer for 5.45 ammo, but that is a completely different panic.

These are dangerous and scarry times we live in.


I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - when did Bush implement this executive order?
Link Posted: 6/7/2009 9:42:30 AM EST
I believe the barrel ban was an ATF policy change rather than a presidential executive order.

Link Posted: 6/7/2009 9:48:53 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/7/2009 10:02:58 AM EST
Buy now or be priced out forever!! Where have I heard that before?

I haven't been to a show in a couple of months since the relative height of the last buying spree, but sites like aim and others seem to keep ammo around longer before selling out. decent quality 223 still goes quite fast, but 7.62 hangs around for a while. Wally world is still out of most pistol calibers and 7.62 prices are still very high. Milsurp seems to be the stuff that's getting more available.
Link Posted: 6/7/2009 10:27:14 AM EST
Originally Posted By JCKnife:
I believe the barrel ban was an ATF policy change rather than a presidential executive order.



Looking into it, you are correct, it was the ATF, but it was inacted during the Bush administration, regardless, it does show how easily part kits and ammo could be stopped from importation.

Link Posted: 6/7/2009 10:41:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/7/2009 10:44:17 AM EST by Wyldman]
Originally Posted By -Apocalypto-:
Originally Posted By JCKnife:
I believe the barrel ban was an ATF policy change rather than a presidential executive order.



Looking into it, you are correct, it was the ATF, but it was inacted during the Bush administration, regardless, it does show how easily part kits and ammo could be stopped from importation.



Only because no one dares question the BATFE. They rule through fear of harrassment and reprisal. Truly, they are the definition of "domestic terrorists".

Need proof? Waco and Ruby Ridge spring to mind right quick.
Link Posted: 6/7/2009 11:25:15 AM EST
There is a small gun shop down here with a wall full of WASR's i assume they can't sell because the amount they have is huge for such a small shop. I will be stalking them to see if they let them go cheap.
Link Posted: 6/7/2009 1:56:38 PM EST
Originally Posted By -Apocalypto-:
Originally Posted By JCKnife:
I believe the barrel ban was an ATF policy change rather than a presidential executive order.



Looking into it, you are correct, it was the ATF, but it was inacted during the Bush administration, regardless, it does show how easily part kits and ammo could be stopped from importation.



Yes, it was a change in ATF policy. But, your point is still valid in that these types of restrictions can happen without new legislation.

Link Posted: 6/7/2009 5:54:04 PM EST
Originally Posted By VA-gunnut:
They're still not cheap enough in my book.


Yep!!
Link Posted: 6/7/2009 8:18:25 PM EST
So, could one say with some certainty, that most have gotten their fill and that by the end of the year we actually may see people selling as prices slowly, but continually fall over the summer and fall months?
Link Posted: 6/8/2009 1:32:57 PM EST
Originally Posted By JCKnife:
I believe the barrel ban was an ATF policy change rather than a presidential executive order.




Almost got it.

Actually, it was a "reinterpretation" of an existing law by AG Gonzalez, Bushes second AG.
There was no EO from Bush, he just did not overrule his anit-RKBA choice of AG.
O's AG has retained the more restrictive interpretation.

It's important to get these things right on our side, there is too much inaccurate/fictional crap coming from the anti's.
Link Posted: 6/9/2009 12:11:14 PM EST
Bryan at AIM summed it up best when he said that in the summer sales slump off because people are out pursuing other hobbies. So dealers are forced to lower their prices. Ammo supply has still not caught up, so the prices are not coming down.
Link Posted: 6/9/2009 12:30:55 PM EST
"The buying panic is over. But another one is coming soon." This is how the last panic came about. People making claims like that with no basis other than the fact that Democrats have been elected recently. It started with "Obama's gonna take our guns!" Then everybody buys. Several months later it's only being talked about in the media in passing, not by the administration. And if the media isn't sensationalizing it then you KNOW there's no story there. So the market relaxes a little bit. Well, the old 'Obama's gonna take them' ins't enough to scare people anymore because people that cried wolf for months are now eating their words (or looking like a less-than-credible source of information on their soapboxes). It'll probably come down even further to somewhere not far from where they were in the past.

AK copies were $1250 back in the early to mid 80's when you could get a semi AR-15 for $439. But there were only a handful of them over here, comparitively. There's no shortage of them and they are STILL coming into the country legally, in one form or another. I still don't see them going anywhere any time soon. Gun owners love to sit around and talk about how they're the minority in this country and most people are vehemently opposed to guns. The United States of America, which was founded on guns. It's part of our culture. Anti-gunners kids are sitting in their bedrooms playing video games where they're wasting 50 bad guys a night in the virtual world with a gun. Guns aren't going anywhere in this country because enough people are willing to support lobbying and/or cast their votes. If most all of us get up one day and decide to let our rights fall by the wayside then we might stand a chance of losing them but the gun group, by and large, seems pretty intent on making certain that doesn't happen. Declaring guns in this country would probably be met with more violence then Prohibition in the 30's.

And if 'Obama's takin' our guns' isn't starting a panic anymore then 'There's another panic right around the corner' ought to be the next attempt to create yet another panic. I like the poster that said, "where have I heard something like that before?" You gotta wonder if these doomsdayers cry wolf constantly because they're scared or because they're selling something that they're claiming will be in short supply soon and are looking to make money of people illogical enough to listen to them. This is what got us into this mess in the first place and I said six months ago these people are over reacting. I'm prepared for the fallout this will generate.
Link Posted: 6/10/2009 4:42:25 AM EST
I agree with some points of both sides......however, I do think there will be another panic. That will be when the next assault weapons ban is passed. The actual implementation date isn't that important. Although the 1994 Clinton AWB took about 6 months from his signature to going into effect. Obama knows that there just aren't enough votes right now to pass it. I saw the 2004 expiration of the AWB as a tremendous buying opportunity. I purchased AKs and ARs with as many evil features as possible.....because just a short time ago new ones were outlawed and they likely will be outlawed again. There is an allure to owning something that you can't get any more, plus it is worth a significant premium over the neutered versions.
Link Posted: 6/10/2009 5:41:25 AM EST
I may bite once/if they get to $300 again
Link Posted: 6/10/2009 6:24:08 AM EST
Why are there no more Krinkov kits being imported, perhaps without the barrel to get around the barrel ban? I want one really really bad but don't have $1000 for one at the moment.
Link Posted: 6/10/2009 7:06:28 AM EST
it really sucks cuz I want to buy an AK and money is a bit tight. Doubtful I will even buy one considering they were $200 cheaper last year. Makes me sick that these prices are still holding up, despite the economy and the decrease in demand.

Would love to see how much profit gun manufactures are making this year. Sure this will hold up for quite a while, just like the gas prices.
Link Posted: 6/10/2009 7:32:52 AM EST
Originally Posted By dazzoz:
it really sucks cuz I want to buy an AK and money is a bit tight. Doubtful I will even buy one considering they were $200 cheaper last year. Makes me sick that these prices are still holding up, despite the economy and the decrease in demand.

Would love to see how much profit gun manufactures are making this year. Sure this will hold up for quite a while, just like the gas prices.


Like the housing market, it'll take time for broke and out of work Joe's to relinquish their merchandise for rock bottom prices. Most are just stubborn and pulling their items off the market for now, hoping for a fall/winter rebound. Since online outlets have been dropping WASR prices by about $80-100, it'll smoke out the private sellers just like distressed home builders lowered prices on new homes and smoked out the existing homeowners. You just have to find some loser who desperately needs cash.
Link Posted: 6/10/2009 12:33:40 PM EST
Originally Posted By -Apocalypto-:
Yes we make new barrels here, but they are not crome lined .


For many people this is not a big deal.

Link Posted: 6/13/2009 8:41:45 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/13/2009 9:55:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/13/2009 9:55:42 PM EST by JamisonM]
Originally Posted By Black-Lions:
Yea right.

That's still a bit hight even though it's for 5 rifles.
Link Posted: 6/14/2009 2:50:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/14/2009 2:50:56 AM EST by choobie]
Originally Posted By Black-Lions:
Yea right.


Yeah, also noticed the big goose egg on # of bids too. Might as well asked for $10K for 5 WASRs
Link Posted: 6/14/2009 2:54:48 AM EST
Originally Posted By choobie:
You just have to find some loser who desperately needs cash.

Why is someone who has been caught up in the fallout from a made to order "financial crisis" necessarily a "loser"?

Link Posted: 6/14/2009 3:03:25 AM EST
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By choobie:
You just have to find some loser who desperately needs cash.

Why is someone who has been caught up in the fallout from a made to order "financial crisis" necessarily a "loser"?



You don't get "caught up in the fallout". That's Clintoon liberal lawyer speak, like "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of torture. You either make your payments or are a loser and don't.
Link Posted: 6/14/2009 4:14:47 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/14/2009 5:02:08 AM EST
Originally Posted By choobie:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By choobie:
You just have to find some loser who desperately needs cash.

Why is someone who has been caught up in the fallout from a made to order "financial crisis" necessarily a "loser"?



You don't get "caught up in the fallout". That's Clintoon liberal lawyer speak, like "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of torture. You either make your payments or are a loser and don't.



FACT!


Link Posted: 6/14/2009 5:05:38 AM EST
Originally Posted By Ballistoholic:
Originally Posted By choobie:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By choobie:
You just have to find some loser who desperately needs cash.

Why is someone who has been caught up in the fallout from a made to order "financial crisis" necessarily a "loser"?



You don't get "caught up in the fallout". That's Clintoon liberal lawyer speak, like "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of torture. You either make your payments or are a loser and don't.



FACT!




Link Posted: 6/14/2009 5:54:27 AM EST
not only BS, but you guys are being complete donkey dongs. I got laid off through no fault of my own. The company sank and never resurfaced. B/c I held a professional position, Wal-Mart won't even hire me, I'm "too qualified" and the market is dead here. I'm stuck in a lease and have 2 kids who have been going to the same school for 4 years. Am I a loser? I do whatever I can to make ends meet, and if I have to sell one of my rifles to feed my kids, so be it, but to call me a loser just because you haven't been cut, or work in some crappy industry that never felt the pinch, that's just douchebaggery of the highest level. And while I'm on my soap box here, I think this place is really starting to suck. Must be a bunch of the AR guys invading the AK, b/c the amount of douchebaggery lately has sky rocketed.
Link Posted: 6/14/2009 7:18:40 AM EST
Originally Posted By choobie:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By choobie:
You just have to find some loser who desperately needs cash.

Why is someone who has been caught up in the fallout from a made to order "financial crisis" necessarily a "loser"?



You don't get "caught up in the fallout". That's Clintoon liberal lawyer speak, like "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of torture. You either make your payments or are a loser and don't.


A couple points (I apologize in advance for all the mixed metaphors):
I think there is a middle ground between being a "victim" and getting hit by a truck and surviving. What separates a victim from a survivor is what they do after they experience misfortune. Do they pull themselves up by their bootstraps or wait for a govt bailout?
A person who suffers hard times and has to sell some valuable items for cash consideration is not a loser-unless he has run out of "cake" to eat.

Also, I believe it would be conservative lawyers (along with perhaps most members of this forum) who would use the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of torture.
Link Posted: 6/14/2009 7:23:17 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/14/2009 12:51:29 PM EST by dumbell2]
Originally Posted By nictra:
not only BS, but you guys are being complete donkey dongs. I got laid off through no fault of my own. The company sank and never resurfaced. B/c I held a professional position, Wal-Mart won't even hire me, I'm "too qualified" and the market is dead here. I'm stuck in a lease and have 2 kids who have been going to the same school for 4 years. Am I a loser? I do whatever I can to make ends meet, and if I have to sell one of my rifles to feed my kids, so be it, but to call me a loser just because you haven't been cut, or work in some crappy industry that never felt the pinch, that's just douchebaggery of the highest level. And while I'm on my soap box here, I think this place is really starting to suck. Must be a bunch of the AR guys invading the AK, b/c the amount of douchebaggery lately has sky rocketed.


Your valid argument, was diminished by your last sentence. That being said, best of luck to you and your family, and I am sure that there are plenty of AR-15.com members that would be glad to buy a gun from a fellow member who needed to sell it at full market price.
Link Posted: 6/14/2009 12:18:37 PM EST
Originally Posted By VA-gunnut:
Originally Posted By choobie:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By choobie:
You just have to find some loser who desperately needs cash.

Why is someone who has been caught up in the fallout from a made to order "financial crisis" necessarily a "loser"?



You don't get "caught up in the fallout". That's Clintoon liberal lawyer speak, like "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of torture. You either make your payments or are a loser and don't.




You are 17 and live at home.
Link Posted: 6/14/2009 1:03:37 PM EST
Originally Posted By Hostile1:
Originally Posted By VA-gunnut:
Originally Posted By choobie:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By choobie:
You just have to find some loser who desperately needs cash.

Why is someone who has been caught up in the fallout from a made to order "financial crisis" necessarily a "loser"?



You don't get "caught up in the fallout". That's Clintoon liberal lawyer speak, like "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of torture. You either make your payments or are a loser and don't.





You are 17 and live at home.


While I dissagree with Choobie's viewpoint, he should be able to hold and defend a position without being subjected to personal attack (a liberal technique).
You must admit Choobie's viewpoint does hold some simplistic poetic truth-in a darwinian sort of way.
I would restate it as such, relying on the simple rules of logic:
A loser does not make his payments, but missed payments do not a loser make.
Link Posted: 6/14/2009 2:20:05 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/14/2009 2:26:36 PM EST by choobie]
Originally Posted By dumbell2:
Originally Posted By choobie:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By choobie:
You just have to find some loser who desperately needs cash.

Why is someone who has been caught up in the fallout from a made to order "financial crisis" necessarily a "loser"?



You don't get "caught up in the fallout". That's Clintoon liberal lawyer speak, like "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of torture. You either make your payments or are a loser and don't.


A couple points (I apologize in advance for all the mixed metaphors):
I think there is a middle ground between being a "victim" and getting hit by a truck and surviving. What separates a victim from a survivor is what they do after they experience misfortune. Do they pull themselves up by their bootstraps or wait for a govt bailout?
A person who suffers hard times and has to sell some valuable items for cash consideration is not a loser-unless he has run out of "cake" to eat.

Also, I believe it would be conservative lawyers (along with perhaps most members of this forum) who would use the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of torture.


Let me clarify. A person who leveraged themselves up with rifles thinking they were going to appreciate like the CA housing industry did in '05 is a L-O-S-E-R. Someone who sells his rifle to pay for the mortgage is not a loser. If I've used to term before, it's to stereotype someone who bought into the height of a bubble thinking they could pass off their asset to the next sucker for a killin', and somehow confusing the idea of sitting on your ass making money on a non-productive asset with the thesis of capitalism.

As for lawyers being conservative and using that term, it's a liberal tactic to use PC terms to "soften" another term. It doesn't matter whether the issue plays to conservatives or to liberals. It's Clintoon style tactics. Also, I consider myself a Paleoconservative and would never consider using something like this term to mean something else. Just like "surge" instead of troop escalation. It's politically correct BS.
Link Posted: 6/14/2009 2:23:28 PM EST
Originally Posted By Hostile1:
Originally Posted By VA-gunnut:
Originally Posted By choobie:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By choobie:
You just have to find some loser who desperately needs cash.

Why is someone who has been caught up in the fallout from a made to order "financial crisis" necessarily a "loser"?



You don't get "caught up in the fallout". That's Clintoon liberal lawyer speak, like "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of torture. You either make your payments or are a loser and don't.




You are 17 and live at home.


If by 17 you mean "your 30's" and by "live at home" you mean "own his own house and is NOT behind on his payments". Then you're right, I'm 17 and live at home.
Link Posted: 6/14/2009 3:11:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/14/2009 3:13:11 PM EST by dumbell2]
screwed up quotes-will try again
Link Posted: 6/14/2009 3:16:23 PM EST
Originally Posted By choobie:
Originally Posted By dumbell2:
Originally Posted By choobie:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By choobie:
You just have to find some loser who desperately needs cash.

Why is someone who has been caught up in the fallout from a made to order "financial crisis" necessarily a "loser"?



You don't get "caught up in the fallout". That's Clintoon liberal lawyer speak, like "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of torture. You either make your payments or are a loser and don't.


A couple points (I apologize in advance for all the mixed metaphors):
I think there is a middle ground between being a "victim" and getting hit by a truck and surviving. What separates a victim from a survivor is what they do after they experience misfortune. Do they pull themselves up by their bootstraps or wait for a govt bailout?
A person who suffers hard times and has to sell some valuable items for cash consideration is not a loser-unless he has run out of "cake" to eat.

Also, I believe it would be conservative lawyers (along with perhaps most members of this forum) who would use the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of torture.


Let me clarify. A person who leveraged themselves up with rifles thinking they were going to appreciate like the CA housing industry did in '05 is a L-O-S-E-R. Someone who sells his rifle to pay for the mortgage is not a loser. If I've used to term before, it's to stereotype someone who bought into the height of a bubble thinking they could pass off their asset to the next sucker for a killin', and somehow confusing the idea of sitting on your ass making money on a non-productive asset with the thesis of capitalism.

As for lawyers being conservative and using that term, it's a liberal tactic to use PC terms to "soften" another term. It doesn't matter whether the issue plays to conservatives or to liberals. It's Clintoon style tactics. Also, I consider myself a Paleoconservative and would never consider using something like this term to mean something else. Just like "surge" instead of troop escalation. It's politically correct BS.


I don't know. Speculating on the future or continued appreciation of assets is a cornerstone of capitalism. Bad timing is just that-it doesn't make a person a loser. And to me, sitting on my ass making money on an ("non-productive" is too judgemental a term and assumes what it proposes to prove) asset is the substitution of brain power for physical labor-a concept well encompassed by my definintion of capitalism.

Also on the topic of defined terms, I feel your frustration, but I do think there are differing standards of treatment of prisoners that are not adequately covered by the term "torture".

Link Posted: 6/14/2009 3:24:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/14/2009 3:28:26 PM EST by choobie]
Originally Posted By dumbell2:
Originally Posted By choobie:
Originally Posted By dumbell2:
Originally Posted By choobie:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By choobie:
You just have to find some loser who desperately needs cash.

Why is someone who has been caught up in the fallout from a made to order "financial crisis" necessarily a "loser"?



You don't get "caught up in the fallout". That's Clintoon liberal lawyer speak, like "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of torture. You either make your payments or are a loser and don't.


A couple points (I apologize in advance for all the mixed metaphors):
I think there is a middle ground between being a "victim" and getting hit by a truck and surviving. What separates a victim from a survivor is what they do after they experience misfortune. Do they pull themselves up by their bootstraps or wait for a govt bailout?
A person who suffers hard times and has to sell some valuable items for cash consideration is not a loser-unless he has run out of "cake" to eat.

Also, I believe it would be conservative lawyers (along with perhaps most members of this forum) who would use the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of torture.


Let me clarify. A person who leveraged themselves up with rifles thinking they were going to appreciate like the CA housing industry did in '05 is a L-O-S-E-R. Someone who sells his rifle to pay for the mortgage is not a loser. If I've used to term before, it's to stereotype someone who bought into the height of a bubble thinking they could pass off their asset to the next sucker for a killin', and somehow confusing the idea of sitting on your ass making money on a non-productive asset with the thesis of capitalism.

As for lawyers being conservative and using that term, it's a liberal tactic to use PC terms to "soften" another term. It doesn't matter whether the issue plays to conservatives or to liberals. It's Clintoon style tactics. Also, I consider myself a Paleoconservative and would never consider using something like this term to mean something else. Just like "surge" instead of troop escalation. It's politically correct BS.


I don't know. Speculating on the future or continued appreciation of assets is a cornerstone of capitalism. Bad timing is just that-it doesn't make a person a loser. And to me, sitting on my ass making money on an ("non-productive" is too judgemental a term and assumes what it proposes to prove) asset is the substitution of brain power for physical labor-a concept well encompassed by my definintion of capitalism.

Also on the topic of defined terms, I feel your frustration, but I do think there are differing standards of treatment of prisoners that are not adequately covered by the term "torture".



I won't dwelve into the subject of torture anymore as it gets too political, and paleo-conservatives like myself have a huge beef with "conservative" neocons (and we don't need to go there).

Speculating is a factor of capitalism, but it certainly is not the cornerstone of capitalism. Capitalism is centered around productivity, not speculation. Factories produce widgets and inventors develop ways of building better widgets by spending cash or obtaining credit. Those people contribute more to the concept of capitalism than some shmuck hoping to make a quick buck sitting on his ass and selling his car/house/painting/AK/AR to the next sucker. If someone makes money off of holding onto a rifle, that's fine and I wouldn't get in the way of it. However, it's NOT the cornerstone of capitalism, IMHO. Speculation is little different than betting on black at your favorite roulette wheel. In fact, I'd rather do the latter because I wouldn't have to wait several years to see if I made money. Never mind the fact that it's not legal to resell rifles en masse as a non FFL.

Those who bought WASRs hoping to "flip" them got what they deserve, and I won't shed one tear for those losers (now I'm using the term properly)
Link Posted: 6/14/2009 3:48:50 PM EST
Originally Posted By choobie:
Originally Posted By dumbell2:
Originally Posted By choobie:
Originally Posted By dumbell2:
Originally Posted By choobie:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By choobie:
You just have to find some loser who desperately needs cash.

Why is someone who has been caught up in the fallout from a made to order "financial crisis" necessarily a "loser"?



You don't get "caught up in the fallout". That's Clintoon liberal lawyer speak, like "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of torture. You either make your payments or are a loser and don't.


A couple points (I apologize in advance for all the mixed metaphors):
I think there is a middle ground between being a "victim" and getting hit by a truck and surviving. What separates a victim from a survivor is what they do after they experience misfortune. Do they pull themselves up by their bootstraps or wait for a govt bailout?
A person who suffers hard times and has to sell some valuable items for cash consideration is not a loser-unless he has run out of "cake" to eat.

Also, I believe it would be conservative lawyers (along with perhaps most members of this forum) who would use the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of torture.


Let me clarify. A person who leveraged themselves up with rifles thinking they were going to appreciate like the CA housing industry did in '05 is a L-O-S-E-R. Someone who sells his rifle to pay for the mortgage is not a loser. If I've used to term before, it's to stereotype someone who bought into the height of a bubble thinking they could pass off their asset to the next sucker for a killin', and somehow confusing the idea of sitting on your ass making money on a non-productive asset with the thesis of capitalism.

As for lawyers being conservative and using that term, it's a liberal tactic to use PC terms to "soften" another term. It doesn't matter whether the issue plays to conservatives or to liberals. It's Clintoon style tactics. Also, I consider myself a Paleoconservative and would never consider using something like this term to mean something else. Just like "surge" instead of troop escalation. It's politically correct BS.


I don't know. Speculating on the future or continued appreciation of assets is a cornerstone of capitalism. Bad timing is just that-it doesn't make a person a loser. And to me, sitting on my ass making money on an ("non-productive" is too judgemental a term and assumes what it proposes to prove) asset is the substitution of brain power for physical labor-a concept well encompassed by my definintion of capitalism.

Also on the topic of defined terms, I feel your frustration, but I do think there are differing standards of treatment of prisoners that are not adequately covered by the term "torture".



I won't dwelve into the subject of torture anymore as it gets too political, and paleo-conservatives like myself have a huge beef with "conservative" neocons (and we don't need to go there).

Speculating is a factor of capitalism, but it certainly is not the cornerstone of capitalism. Capitalism is centered around productivity, not speculation. Factories produce widgets and inventors develop ways of building better widgets by spending cash or obtaining credit. Those people contribute more to the concept of capitalism than some shmuck hoping to make a quick buck sitting on his ass and selling his car/house/painting/AK/AR to the next sucker. If someone makes money off of holding onto a rifle, that's fine and I wouldn't get in the way of it. However, it's NOT the cornerstone of capitalism, IMHO. Speculation is little different than betting on black at your favorite roulette wheel. In fact, I'd rather do the latter because I wouldn't have to wait several years to see if I made money. Never mind the fact that it's not legal to resell rifles en masse as a non FFL.

Those who bought WASRs hoping to "flip" them got what they deserve, and I won't shed one tear for those losers (now I'm using the term properly)


Thanks for the discussion Choobie. I will do a little paleo vs neo research to be more informed.
Link Posted: 6/14/2009 3:56:05 PM EST
Originally Posted By nictra:
not only BS, but you guys are being complete donkey dongs. I got laid off through no fault of my own. The company sank and never resurfaced. B/c I held a professional position, Wal-Mart won't even hire me, I'm "too qualified" and the market is dead here. I'm stuck in a lease and have 2 kids who have been going to the same school for 4 years. Am I a loser? I do whatever I can to make ends meet, and if I have to sell one of my rifles to feed my kids, so be it, but to call me a loser just because you haven't been cut, or work in some crappy industry that never felt the pinch, that's just douchebaggery of the highest level. And while I'm on my soap box here, I think this place is really starting to suck. Must be a bunch of the AR guys invading the AK, b/c the amount of douchebaggery lately has sky rocketed.


Good post.

The jobs will come back. It might be a while though.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top