“And so, it has come to this.”

This story is gaining traction. Hard to tell whether it’s just being driven by a desire to push stories or if it’s really an emerging phenomenon.

Guns! Guns! Guns!: Assault rifles, high-capacity magazines flying off local shelves following election

In yet another article covering the recent rush on guns and accessories:

Two other local gun shop owners approached by the Odessa American reported similar rushes on guns, especially assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, which are capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

“High-powered assault rifles with high-capacity magazines” is how the story is told. Except, of course, that the weapons aren’t “high-powered,” they aren’t “assault rifles,” and the magazines aren’t “high-capacity.”

The high-cap magazine term is a place where the pro-gun side allowed the other side to frame the debate. 20 and 30-round magazines aren’t “high” capacity, they’re “standard” capacity. But no one, and I mean no one, sees it that way.

Magazines and ammo will be the next battleground.

Noticed in a reader email over at Instapundit:

I somewhat resent the characterization of the current wave of gun buying as “panic”. Prices are going up, yes, but everything’s quite orderly, calm, and reasoned.

Agreed. I don’t care for the “panic” description, either. But what else do we expect from the media? Many (most) of them can’t conceive of owning a firearm for any reason, so it must look quite irrational to them.

Cam Edwards observes that Ignorance Is Bliss when pointing out an op-ed written by a college student. The piece by Sally Sanderson in the Michigan Tech Lode:

The bottom line is this: the Constitution ensures that United States citizens have the right to bear arms, yet it does not define for what purpose. Therefore, it is left for those of us following today’s laws to decide how to interpret the words written over 200 years ago.

She uses Wikipedia(!) as her first reference and includes this:

Though [the Second] Amendment seemingly does reserve the right for individuals to bear arms, it is confusing in the way it is written. The beginning of the sentence causes one to infer that an individual can bear arms if part of a militia, which should be used to ensure “the security of a free state.” However, the second part of the statement could be interpreted differently, as: individuals’ rights to bear arms will not be taken away. According to a Web site sponsored by the United States Senate, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt2.html, “there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects.”

As Cam writes, she seems to be unaware of the Heller decsion.

Now, Michigan Tech is located in the near-wilderness of the Upper Penninsula, but I guess if she’s getting published on the internet, she should be able to do some research and follow a bit of news on the internet, too. (via Sebastian)

Those watching things closely may have noticed a trend:

• Gun sales jump (Utah)
• Area gun sales spike (Alabama)
• Gun sales rise in Ohio, stay flat in Ross County (Ohio)
• Gun sales shoot up after Election Day (Colorado)
• Gun sales up, supplies down (Texas)
• S.D. gun shops see rise in sales (South Dakota)
• Gun, ammo sales increase in Churchill, Lyon counties (Nevada)
• Local gun sales increase since election (Arkansas)
• Gun sales shoot way up (Maine)
• Hawaii gun sales shooting up
• Fear Fuels Gun Sales Locally (West Virginia)
• Gun Sales Are Up Since Obama Election (Kentucky)
• Fear of ban increases gun sales (Mississippi)
• Finger on safety as gun sales shoot upward (Idaho)
• Gun sales rise as owners fear stricter controls (North Carolina)
• Gun Sales Boom Ahead of Obama Presidency (Tennessee)
• Gun Sales Booming Since Presidential Election (Nebraska)
• Gun sales, permits climb following election (North Dakota)
• Gun Sales Rise As Buyers Anticipate Political Change (Washington)
• Gun Sales Shoot Upward in Springfield (Missouri)
• Madison gun sales soar (Virginia)
• Some stores see surge in gun sales (Pennsylvania)
• Firearm sales surge following election (Wisconsin)

These are all from the past two or three days and aren’t simply re-runs of AP items in different papers. All of these have considerable, if not exclusively, local content. I could easily have included many, many more.

No doubt, the media coverage is feeding the flames a bit. As is the fact that hunting seasons are kicking off or underway in most states right now. But the trend is unmistakable.

It doesn’t seem to be localized to the bitter, clingy parts of the nation. Or to the red states.

Ride Fast to Bill Schneider, who took exception to the term “Fudds”:

Some, a small minority, may have jokingly called you Fudds, or maybe mocked you. Your guy, Zumbo, called me a terrorist. Who’s the nasty bastard now?

Like I said recently, the whole Fudd thing is pretty dumb. I don’t think it’s all that terrible (certainly not akin to “terrorist”) but it’s also pretty dumb and very unconstructive.

There’s nothing the Brady types like more than to see gun owners shooting at each other.

Arizona Rifleman: Imagine my surprise hen I saw an ad for Front Sight appear on Fark

Fran Quigley:

Glock 23 fully automatic pistols, Uzi nine millimeters, Colt 44 magnum Anacondas. Some cost less than $100.

Fully auto Glock 23s? Really?

Then there this from the writer’s companion:

He points to a Springfield XD 9 millimeter semi-automatic pistol. “Not legal in California,” the box reads. “The only things these are used to hunt for is people,” Zelenka says.

No exaggeration there.

And regarding all the pants-wetting over the gunshow loophole, Tam happened to be at the same show and sold a gun. It seems that her experience didn’t quite fit Quigley’s narrative.

Yeah, so, that was my totally unregulated experience with selling to “anyone who plunked down the cash,” Mr. Quigley. But don’t let me disturb your preconceived notions with any pesky facts; you obviously went to the show expecting to see something, and anything you saw was going to be bent through the lens of your own perceptions.

Is Obama Testing The Waters?

Clayton Cramer has a strange post-election poll from Zogby International that asks a lot of questions about hypothetical policies and what effect they would have had on someone’s voting. Here’s an example:

If you knew Barack Obama supported a plan to place a 75% excise tax on the sale of firearms - where a $500 rifle would now cost $875 with tax, would that have made you…

More likely to vote for Obama
Less likely to vote for Obama
No difference
Not sure

There are quite a few firearms-related questions in there. It will be interesting to see what the results of this poll are used for. (via Instapundit)