If you’re happy that guns are so popular, thank a Democrat
Well, Obama has been gun salesman of the year for 7 years. But if you want to thank someone for the increasing popularity of AR-15s, thank Bill Clinton:
When Martin KA Morgan was a kid in the 1970s, military-style rifles were only a small sliver of the firearms market in the United States.
Demand was quite low, he said. There was only lukewarm interest in these kinds of guns among consumers.
More than twenty years later, Morgan said, American firearm ownership has been radically transformed. Semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifles they dominate the market, he said.
My overwhelming impression is that the 1994 Clinton crime bill created this new world where everyone owns a AR-15 type rifle, Morgan said in an interview.
Thanks, Bill!
May 26th, 2016 at 7:07 pm
Maybe it’s because of what happened in 1994, but I would say that what’s really increased interest is that by about 2000 you didn’t have to go to that gun shop only your uncle went to that was kind of dusty and not friendly and only Vietnam Vets hung out at.
AR-15s, handguns, AKs, etc. started showing up in Gander Mtn., Cabela’s, Fleet Farm, and even Wal-Mart.
When the AR-15 became something that the average person interested in guns or even some Fudds could touch and see what’s so scary and was accurate at the range and had little kick and couldn’t be converted to full-auto with a paperclip and all that other bullshit told about “black rifles” then they really took off in sales.
Did the market drive interest or interest drive the market? Doesn’t matter because no millions more are owned than ever before.
May 26th, 2016 at 11:36 pm
Don’t leave out Jimmah when passing out the thankyas.
His push to eliminate all small hand guns (called ’em Saturday night specials but couldn’t define the term other than small and concealable; it was precursor to the ban on assault weapons defined as having a shoulder thing that goes up) had me scouring shows, mom & pop shops and hardware stores for all the short blue Smif boxes I could find to resell in our West Palm Beach store at upwards of $500 (in 1978!). I’d even pick up all the vest pockets, baby brownings, bauers, etc. for 100-200 and double our money on ’em…there were NO small handguns available through the distributors.
Call it gouging if you want, but it’s just supply/demand when you “ban” something even if its just perception sometimes. Tell a man he can’t have something and he’ll want it and pay for it, like those $15 HIGH CAPACITY magazines that we all sold the shit out of for $80 in the 90’s.
Yep, them dims call sell them some shootin’ irons…thanks, guys.
May 27th, 2016 at 8:59 am
I disagree with his first statement, that military style rifles were only a “small sliver” of the market. This is bs — the US market in the 50s and 60s was flooded with cheap WWII surplus rifles and pistols. Mausers, Enfields, Lugers, P-38s &c. Anyone could afford one and they were everywhere. You could even buy 20mm Lahti AT rifles and PAK-37 AT guns, not to mention semi-auto rifles like the Garand, Tokarev and M-1 carbine.
May 27th, 2016 at 1:21 pm
@Joe Hooker, well said! And our founders stated that the militia was the people who have a natural, inalienable right to keep and bear the same weapons as were and are common to the soldier. Here is an exemplary quote demonstrating that understanding:
Tenche Coxe: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
That is the DECLARED right enumerated in the 2nd Amendment. And militia in the subordinate clause of that amendment references Article I, Section 8.15-16 by which the Federal Government only has delegated power “for governing such part of (the militia) as may be EMPLOYED in its service.”
May 27th, 2016 at 4:31 pm
“the US market in the 50s and 60s was flooded with cheap WWII surplus rifles and pistols. Mausers, Enfields, Lugers, P-38s &c. Anyone could afford one and they were everywhere.”
True, but back then people were sporterizing military arms, and now they’re doing as much “militarizing” of sporting arms (adding rails, pistol grips, folding or collapsible stocks, muzzle devices and suchlike).
May 27th, 2016 at 4:36 pm
I’ll say that the change was more interest-driven than industry-driven. I remember when the big U.S. manufacturers were afraid to be associated with “militia types” (S&W and Ruger come to mind, but there were several others – they’d bought into the images and caricatures perpetrated by the Progressive movement) and they shied away from scary-looking firearms. The NRA liked expensive double-barreled shotguns and single shot or bolt-action rifles or historical pieces on the cover of American Rifleman rather than modern “assault” styles. I remember writing to them and complaining about it, in fact, and they wrote back, defending their old position.
With a few exceptions it was only after demand, and years of sales patterns, had forced the issue that the Old Guard manufacturers and the NRA began, tentatively, reluctantly, to come on board. That’s how I saw it shake out anyhow, from the 1990s on.
When the ’94 “Ban” expired in ’04, everyone wanted what they couldn’t get for ten years, and it was a bit like someone finally coming of drinking age – party time. Anyone selling folding or collapsible stocks, or 20 and 30 round mags and the guns that took them, made a fortune.
I like to think that I had a small hand in it, by taking the concept of serious up-grades for AKs and banking on it, for one thing. In fact we all had a hand in it, by our purchasing patterns and by our taking a public position on the matter of the 2A being a defense-of-liberty instrument.
The second amendment and military type weapons definitely go together.
The Fudds were wrong all along, but they were accustomed to dominating (and therefore, I dare say, losing) for generations.
May 28th, 2016 at 12:08 pm
“The second amendment and military type weapons definitely go together.” –Lyle
Well said, Lyle!
The Executive Director of Tennessee Firearms Association, John Harris, is a constitutionalist lawyer. I went to a county Republican meeting where he was guest speaker. He explained in some detail why the 2nd Amendment is a political right, not for sporting or hunting, and that our right to own military weapons is declared and protected from government infringement as the quote by Tenche Coxe asserts in my #4 comment.
May 29th, 2016 at 6:41 pm
Lyle
Well, call me a Fudd then…I buy what I like, and I support your right to do the same. But what I like generally has a lot of walnut and maybe a cylinder or a lever somewhere.
June 1st, 2016 at 12:11 pm
@Publius: You’re not a “Fudd” unless you’re willing to compromise my RKBA to protect your hunting hobby.
http://www.memorableplaces.com/m1garand/joinordie.html
@Unc: You can’t forget the fact that the AR-15 design went off patent, allowing anyone to make and market their version. As one of your commenters said at one point, the AR-15 platform became the “small block chevy” of firearms, and everyone wanted to customize their “350 engine”
Don’t believe me? “It’s a wonderful life” largely became the Christmas classic that it is today because someone discovered that they forgot to renew the copyright on the film, allowing anyone to air the show royalty-free for a while. That somehow did wonders to the popularity.