Xoutpost.com - Any Weapon Box for E53?

Xoutpost.com (https://xoutpost.com/forums.php)

- X5 (E53) Forum (https://xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-forums/x5-e53-forum/)

- - Any Weapon Box for E53? (https://xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-forums/x5-e53-forum/107054-any-weapon-box-e53.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcredliner (Post 1118671)

There in nothing in the definition of freedom that states in order to be free you must be able to own guns.

Nope but it is an extreme form of freedom, also an awesome statement of 'how great of a nation' (that can trust their people with personal gun ownership). A nation that can't is an untrustworthy nation in my opinion. (if they only can trust each other to not kill each other by disarming them)

what definition of civility are you using?When attempting to find solutions to a problem there can be no assumptions.

how about:
civilized conduct; especially :courtesy, politeness bemoaned the decline of civility in our politics

It is fair to say that not shooting a neighbor would be civilized conduct but it can be achieved without unarming the entire population. We can always trade freedoms for forced civility (e.g. patriot act), but we can (as a whole) be quite civil and also still have the awesome freedom of owning firearms

I have no problems with looking into any reasonable method to reduce guns being misused. People being held liable for dangerous tools that they should have under their control. I am against any form of registration or numeration; i think that may likely be part of the vegas shooter, as one reporter described 'the cartoonish quantity' of weapons; literally 3x the average used since 1966 at a mass shooting. It doesn't take much of a stretch to see how that will fuel the conspiracy theorist; how much easier would it have been to prevent that tragedy if 'only we knew' how many guns that particular guy had. Adding more fuel to that fire: That two very significant gun freedom bills have been shelved specifically because of the vegas shooting.

The 2nd amendment's main purpose still is valid. It is very much like 'mutually assured destruction' and the biggest factor in it being effective is 'unknowingness'. If the government ever figures out exactly where all the guns are, they will work as quickly as possible to change that location (to their possession). The 2nd also does include personal defense as has been recently concluded by the supreme court NOT just for within militias. This is specifically why people have had some of their 2nd amendment rights restored in chicago, dc, nyc.

Rhetorical means don't bother answering the question, the answer is obvious.

The states allow paragraph was not my post. However, you are making an assumption about what the press or organizations would do. Look it up and see before you assume. I did. I can post the source if it is important.

In my view taking blame must come with a stiff enough penalty to be a strong deterrent. That means to me a significant fine and jail time.

I have no idea how a conspiracy theory fans have anything to do with this but who do they think is conspiring?

Have you seen any holes in your gun control position from this discussion? Anything that has modified you point of view?

What bills have been shelved because of Vegas?

Change the location of their possession? Hide the gun or move? Registering doesn't mean anyone is coming to get it. If one isn't doing anything wrong I see not reason to hide the gun or move.

Your view on taking out some of the US cities is incorrect, can't do that, they exist and those individuals that are the problem could be anywhere. Any calculation to consider easing or adding gun Federal control laws must include all states, all cities, all of everything. It would be a great for the worst cities to do more than what federal law requires. Chicago, for example, is doing things intended to reduce gun violence. May not be working but they aren't just watching it happen and hoping it goes away. http://www.npr.org/2016/09/22/494984...e-gun-violence

Please post link to the Who study you are referencing so I can read it myself. Can't just pull suicide numbers and compare to another country, certainly not all of Europe. You need to see what is included in the numbers, must be per capita among other criteria. Using Japan as a direct comparison does not consider the cultural view of suicide, it is much different than the US. And, using the work apparently to come up with numbers means the numbers are your assumption, not based on substantiated facts. You may see my input as nit picking. Not the case at all. I am very willing to accept facts based on either position.

I wasn't asking for a dictionary definition. It wasn't clear but I was asking what are your personal measures/requirements/components of being civilized.

I am ignorant, which is entirely different that being stupid, about many things. I am ignorant about how to overhaul my transmission. I am not ignorant about how to collect the facts needed to make an informed, rationale decision to measure the scope of the problem and determine practical actions intended to reduce the problem.

FYI, I have keep insults out of this. It would be appreciated if you did as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowz (Post 1118633)

Yeah the whole gun safe part is kind of weird to me too.

Everyone I know and family members and myself included as a child KNEW not to touch our parents guns unless it was for hunting etc and with them being there for that too.

Again with the upbringing angle. Why didn't we ignore our parents and mess with the guns? Because we knew that we would get the immortal crap beat out of us if we did.

Messing with guns was NEVER something that entered our minds without permission.

You just didn't do it. But again we had parents that :

A: Cared.

B: Set an example and taught us how to act in life.

Our parents weren't our buddies or friends. They were our PARENTS aka mom and dad not some committee that could be reason with or ignore or bargained with to get around.

They were the LAW period.

Of course that's one thing that really amazes me now. When I hit the teenage years I was always thinking how things needed changing. How my generation could redo things and that we knew better than the ones that came before us. That my generation could show my parents generation how to do things.

Now? I pray to god that my parents and their parents way of life will return :)

I still find it hard to believe but after seeing how things have changed I realize I was sooooooo wrong then.

If you think it will help if parents return to the way of your parents to solve any gun violence issues there must be a way to make that happen or it is just wishful thinking, shoulda, coulda. Even in your parents days those ways were not universal, nor did individuals brought up in that manner realize it was important to continue that way of upbringing. I think it is impossible to get anywhere close to those ways. Children have too much mobility, social media to find endorsement for what they want to believe, cell phones so there friends can influence them 24 hours a day, TV programing and news that is biased and technology is advancing so fast and will continue to develop faster and faster that changes the parenting playing field.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcredliner (Post 1118682)

If you think it will help if parents return to the way of your parents to solve any gun violence issues there must be a way to make that happen or it is just wishful thinking, shoulda, coulda. Even in your parents days those ways were not universal, nor did individuals brought up in that manner realize it was important to continue that way of upbringing. I think it is impossible to get anywhere close to those ways. Children have too much mobility, social media to find endorsement for what they want to believe, cell phones so there friends can influence them 24 hours a day. TV programing and news that is biased and technology is advancing so fast and will continue to develop faster and faster that changes the parenting playing field.

Oh I know how to return things to the way it was. Being an isp and being involved in the internet even before it was the internet I have seen its effects up close and personal.

The internet is the single most destructive influence in the history of the united states on the home environment. Period.

That's how I make a living too but I will be the first to admit its the single most negative effect on the erosion of the American family.

So removing the internet would go a long way to helping the upbringing part. Isn't going to happen but that doesn't change its effects.

I would hate to suffer thru it with no forums, lack of online entertainment, etc and a 90% reduction in my income but to be honest it would probably be worth it.

As mentioned in a previous post, I agree with crowz on parenting. A LOT can be accomplished through good parenting. I don't, however, think it is the solution to this particular problem. It couldn't hurt, but not the solution.

Most of the US population lives in cities, and not rural areas where guns could even be used in a non-defense capacity. We have ranges here in San Antonio, but it's nothing like going out into your property and shooting some rounds at a target. Just not practical for most. Since MOST of the population wants stricter gun laws, it should happen, what those laws should be is still up for debate (obviously).

I agree with bcredliner on the protection from government stance. If you have romantic notions that the government could be overthrown, or could in some way be challenged, or even be unable to disarm everyone should it so desire... I believe you would be mistaken.

Again, Andrew, you say focusing on that small percentage would have no affect on the other 99% of gun crime. You have no way of knowing that. In all likely hood it will have SOME affect. And again, comparing gang crime to an active shooter situation is not going to help your position. Nobody really cares if gang members are shooting at each other. Yes, you have the occasional innocent bystander, which is sad, but nothing on the scale of an active shooter.

Ultimately, 2nd amendment rights will not be the catalyst for a revolution anyway. The laughable wealth gap will fuel that particular powder keg. And it won't be waged by meeting the Armed Forces, it will be through picking off the perceived most egregious offenders... who, not surprisingly, will probably be many of the professional politicians. Term limits anyone?

Edit: I disagree with that post though crowz. Parents could limit internet influence should they so desire. The problem is; they don't desire. Parents are lazy today. They let TV, tablets, and computers raise their kids instead of taking an active part in using those tools for their benefits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcredliner (Post 1118681)

Rhetorical means don't bother answering the question, the answer is obvious.

which i'm well aware, I was saying it seemed like you had thought the obvious answer was that people 'the powers that be' would never improve things; ask and answer the tough questions and do something about it. I'm saying i'm hopeful that is not the case and that things can be improved. (via legislation)

The states allow paragraph was not my post. However, you are making an assumption about what the press or organizations would do. Look it up and see before you assume. I did. I can post the source if it is important.

I'm just going with the odds, yes of course there might be a 5% case where a new organization actually does simply deliver the news without bias, but on the topic of guns iv'e not seen it in my lifetime so i'm not holding my breath.

In my view taking blame must come with a stiff enough penalty to be a strong deterrent. That means to me a significant fine and jail time.

I agree, but our definitions of what is a proper fine/time may differ. I think that it has to be reasonably small enough that it can pass through legislation but be a proportional response.

e.g.: a kid brings his dad's unloaded pistol to school just to show-n-tell, this should not end in loss of 2nd amendment rights, but a stiff fine maybe $500, some community service… teenage kid takes a loaded dad's gun that wasn't in a safe, robs a store and shoots the clerk, clerk survives, i would be very ok with a month in jail, $2000 fine, and a temporary (say 2 years) loss of 2nd amendment rights.. repeat offenses go up expoentionally. it's a 'starting point' of a discussion to make improvements that matter.

I have no idea how a conspiracy theory fans have anything to do with this but who do they think is conspiring?

They are *quite sure* that the liberals in the government have hired people to kill american citizens to create enough outrage they will give away more liberties to cause a major change of policy; it didn't help when a day after the vegas shooting, the loser in the last election made it political and interjected that 'more would have died if NRA had their way and the shooter used silencers' and senate minority leader responded to the 'slippery slope to disarmament' question with "i certainly hope so" (at least she was honest for a change)

Have you seen any holes in your gun control position from this discussion? Anything that has modified you point of view?

No, not really. I may have honed a few or refined some of my thoughts, but my main points of view are:

guns are here forever, stop wasting time trying to change that

mass shootings are not a big problem in the big picture

most gun problems are mental health derived

2nd highest problem is caused by environment (broken homes, mostly)

Work on the problems based on percentage, don't get distracted by the pointless arguments

absolutely against registration

absolutely pro ccw

I consider myself *far* more open-minded than most 'on my side' of the argument (pro gun, including high-capacity round magazines for sport). I'm open to any discussion that looks positive toward reducing gun deaths but they only are fruitful if they avoid any discussion about the 0.5% Maybe in a couple generations when gun suicide is 3/ vs 12/ 100k and gang/gun crime is half or a third of what it is today, *then* it might make sense to try to improve on the insignificant numbers related to common sport rifles. Here is an example of how the split rhetoric can find a middle ground. 'the left' will try to ban silencers when they won't be ever shown to be a high-risk thing, countless hours will be wasted on trying to ban them rather than moving on to something helpful like having a running list of which Rx should be on a no-fly list for operating a gun, with reasonable penalties for breaking that rule (similar to above).

What bills have been shelved because of Vegas?

The 'hearing protection act' that will make it reasonable for somebody to buy a sound suppressor for firearms. Right now 42 states i think allow the purchase and use but you much jump through a lot of hoops to do so. They simply reduce the dangerous level of sound to a non-dangerous level; they do not 'silence' gunfire by any means; turning for example 160 dB to 130db will not let you sneak up on somebody as a criminal or disguise your location, pure hogwash.

H.R. 38; 'concealed carry reciprocity act'. Would allow a ccw holder to carry in any other states that have ccw. I believe it would be fair to 'bump up the standards' to have a reasonable minimum requirement as in wisconsin, where a class is required, and the automatic ccw states would have to update their laws and require classes to have reciprocity. (as opposed to the current situation which requires you to acquire ccw for about 6 or 8 different states to archive the same effect, and some are really not practical to do at all (get IL CCW for wisconsinite);

Change the location of their possession? Hide the gun or move? Registering doesn't mean anyone is coming to get it. If one isn't doing anything wrong I see not reason to hide the gun or move.
Your view on taking out some of the US cities is incorrect, can't do that, they exist and those individuals that are the problem could be anywhere. Any calculation to consider easing or adding gun Federal control laws must include all states, all cities, all of everything. It would be a great for the worst cities to do more than what federal law requires. Chicago, for example, is doing things intended to reduce gun violence. May not be working but they aren't just watching it happen and hoping it goes away. Chicago Mayor To Address Effort To Reduce Gun Violence : NPR

Please post link to the Who study you are referencing so I can read it myself. Can't just pull suicide numbers and compare to another country, certainly not all of Europe. You need to see what is included in the numbers, must be per capita among other criteria. Using Japan as a direct comparison does not consider the cultural view of suicide, it is much different than the US. And, using the work apparently to come up with numbers means the numbers are your assumption, not based on substantiated facts. You may see my input as nit picking. Not the case at all. I am very willing to accept facts based on either position.

World Suicide Rate Map - Business Insider

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate

A couple of the pages i've been referencing.

Regarding the chicago standard; My belief is that the vast majority of Chicago's problem has to do with corruption plain and simple. If the leaders of chicago didn't do everything to make sure the leaders and the people that ran the city (FD and PD) didn't get an extraordinarily unfair % of the money collected to run the city, they could afford to have programs to boost the lowest income up into middle-class.

I was only saying if there was a hypothetical chicago/nyc/detroit (etc) free usa, the crime statistics would be half, and would not even look bad in comparison to gun-restricted countries.

countries that have banned firearms recently have had no significant change in gun violence in the 20 years or so since the bans took place; Britain had a near doubling in firearm homicide that lasted most of a decade before coming back down to the starting point (of about 10 per 100k) but only after UK put 30,000 more cops on the beat.

australia has had a minor decline ever since the infamous gun ban in gun violence (duh) but what is never mentioned is that assaults have DOUBLED since 1996:

Australian Institute of Criminology - Assault

during that same time, violent crime has dropped 16% in the usa:

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles...ar-20-year-low

the article is a old but five years after the australian ban on guns, the australian bureau of criminology admitted there was no correlation between gun control and gun use in violent crime, and the percentage of violent crimes involving a gun peaked in 2006, nine years after the ban.

By 2006, assaults were up 50% and rape was up 30% overall crime rate went up 42%. 'go gun control'. The graph of assault which is now up 100% from 1996, shows no relief in sight, with sadly an increasing percentage of those assaults affecting the elderly.

At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent. Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

The summary of the article: AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

I wasn't asking for a dictionary definition. It wasn't clear but I was asking what are your personal measures/requirements/components of being civilized.

basically 'follow the golden rule'. Since 'the populace' can't seem to do that without restrictions (in my opinion by abandoning bible-based standards of conduct), we are required to give up some freedoms to force 'the idiots en masse' to behave, and that's part of any society; trading freedoms for civility.

I am ignorant, which is entirely different that being stupid, about many things. I am ignorant about how to overhaul my transmission. I am not ignorant about how to collect the facts needed to make an informed, rationale decision to measure the scope of the problem and determine practical actions intended to reduce the problem.

My use of the term ignorant was the pure sense of the term 'uninformed' not meant as an insult, don't take it that way. I didn't say it by mistake either though i was saying you were ill-informed with that particular statement I can't load the page while typing w/o risking losing two hours of researching and typing. We are all ignorant at times, I was quite ignorant of some very important statistical facts mentioned above that will lend a lot of ammo to my future debates regarding jumping on the gun control bandwagon.

FYI, I have keep insults out of this. It would be appreciated if you did as well.

no insults, just firm rebuttal, don't take offense. Best gun-debate i can recall having in a decade, so thanks for that. As you have pointed out it's usually impossible to have a rational discussion because 'both sides' are guilty of 'you are 100% wrong'.

I did many many hours of research before WI was the 2nd last state to have ccw and right as and after IL became the last CCW state to find a direct correlation to crime to have an 'i told you so' even though I already 'knew the answer' because 48 and 49 states preceded that happening. I require 'cold hard facts' and they just didn't present themselves. I did find out some helpful information in the past couple days doing research for these posts, namely that guns are used for self-defense in the usa as often as 'millions of times per year' with the most skeptical of studies admitting it happens 137 times PER DAY! That's huge. The more realistic number is probably closer to 2700 times per day. (the pro-gun biased surveys claim 5x that number, i'm going with 20% of that number for my reasonable estimate)

In the usa, somebody pulls out a gun for self-defense 114x per hour, and yet only 240 self-defense deaths from guns in a recent year, so the odds of killing somebody in self-defense is quite low; the VAST majority of self-defense with a hand-gun involves drawing a weapon and the threat running away, followed by nothing (no reporting) because too often that involves risk of the gun owner having to relinquish their weapon until the authorities straighten it out, something Chicago is famous for exploiting; taking a legal handgun from a permitted owner just to have one more in the quota for the month. (somebody I know this happened to; it cost him over $1000 in hassles to retrieve his handgun from chicago crooks i mean cops).

A Little Gun History Lesson shows a short history of just how well 'taking everybody's guns' has worked out historically. At least 56 million people were killed by their governments by systematically unarming their citizens than murdering them off. Do i imply that aussie's are in certain doom because of this, no, but the crimes of unarmed robberies climbed to double the rate from 1996 to 2001 and armed robberies nearly tripled in that time frame. something that would be the predicted results when you have law-abiding citizens turn in their guns. the rates declined to their pre-ban rates after about 12 years, and have been declining in recent years. concerning to me is that the sexual assault rate 'just stayed the same' over the past 20 years and is 2 to 3 times the world average (of 1st world countries).

source: Australian Institute of Criminology - Robbery statistics

most crime rates have been stable or in decline for the past twenty years in the usa in spite of gun sale rates on the order of 200% what they were 'pre-obama' (it has been statistically demonstrated that no single person 'sold more guns and ammo' than Barack Obama). I saw a chart yesterday but would take too long to find it, it showed the spikes in gun sales of 2008 november, and 2009 january where one of them was 1.2 million guns sold in a month in the usa (where the normal rate was something like 500,000).

Though admittedly 'too high' gun-related deaths are not 'on the rise' they aren't 'epidemic levels' and almost every type of criminal activity is lower than 20 years ago and declining. The NRA will try to take credit, i deny them that claim, just as the statistics in UK, ireleand and australia have shown there is no significant change in most crime (especially gun related) before and after gun bans. I think there is a strong likelihood that more ccw permits could be related to the trend in the usa of decline in many crime rates, but that must be taken with a grain of salt because the increase in total gun ownership will of necessity increase the raw number of people being injured and killed by accidents and on-purpose (suicide) though i have seen no correlation between homicide rates and gun ownership in the usa in the past 20 years or so at least. Consider, that the total # of guns owned by americans has gone up considerably in the past twenty years, the gun related crimes and accidents have not gone up proportionally so that means that americans are statistically being safer with their firearms which is good.

I have found a few charts that show that states such as florida had murder rates about 30% higher than the national average until CCW was introduced, and it took 2 or 3 years until florida murder rate was effectively identical to the usa average (same for tx); in MI, it didn't seem to make much difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowz (Post 1118692)

:iagree:

Time to move to Indiana and join an Amish community. Said the Guy with over 5600+ postings to his name. LMAO

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewwynn (Post 1118744)

A Little Gun History Lesson shows a short history of just how well 'taking everybody's guns' has worked out historically. At least 56 million people were killed by their governments by systematically unarming their citizens than murdering them off. Do i imply that aussie's are in certain doom because of this, no, but the crimes of unarmed robberies climbed to double the rate from 1996 to 2001 and armed robberies nearly tripled in that time frame. something that would be the predicted results when you have law-abiding citizens turn in their guns. the rates declined to their pre-ban rates after about 12 years, and have been declining in recent years. concerning to me is that the sexual assault rate 'just stayed the same' over the past 20 years and is 2 to 3 times the world average (of 1st world countries).

source: Australian Institute of Criminology - Robbery statistics

most crime rates have been stable or in decline for the past twenty years in the usa in spite of gun sale rates on the order of 200% what they were 'pre-obama' (it has been statistically demonstrated that no single person 'sold more guns and ammo' than Barack Obama). I saw a chart yesterday but would take too long to find it, it showed the spikes in gun sales of 2008 november, and 2009 january where one of them was 1.2 million guns sold in a month in the usa (where the normal rate was something like 500,000).

Though admittedly 'too high' gun-related deaths are not 'on the rise' they aren't 'epidemic levels' and almost every type of criminal activity is lower than 20 years ago and declining. The NRA will try to take credit, i deny them that claim, just as the statistics in UK, ireleand and australia have shown there is no significant change in most crime (especially gun related) before and after gun bans. I think there is a strong likelihood that more ccw permits could be related to the trend in the usa of decline in many crime rates, but that must be taken with a grain of salt because the increase in total gun ownership will of necessity increase the raw number of people being injured and killed by accidents and on-purpose (suicide) though i have seen no correlation between homicide rates and gun ownership in the usa in the past 20 years or so at least. Consider, that the total # of guns owned by americans has gone up considerably in the past twenty years, the gun related crimes and accidents have not gone up proportionally so that means that americans are statistically being safer with their firearms which is good.

I have found a few charts that show that states such as florida had murder rates about 30% higher than the national average until CCW was introduced, and it took 2 or 3 years until florida murder rate was effectively identical to the usa average (same for tx); in MI, it didn't seem to make much difference.

You're orange hair is starting to show when you start placing the blame on 44.

:yikes:

There are no records on how many guns were sold for those period. The spike was base on applications for FOID cards. I'm sure people that already had their FOID cards went out and bought more guns. The spike was also base on mass shooting that occurred.

Here's an article about the gun spike for that period.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-gun-sales/

Read to the end of the article and you will see why the spike happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by upallnight (Post 1118759)

You're orange hair is starting to show when you start placing the blame on 44.

:yikes:

Reporting statistics is 'blaming'? I'm just giving credit. it's widely known and widely reported that Obama was seen as extremely un-friendly to 2nd amendment causes, anybody remember the infamous line 'clinging to guns and religion'? Love the line about orange hair though. I would *love* to have orange hair (to have any hair).

Obama's rhetoric such as wanting to impose a 500% tax on firearms while he was in the Illinois senate is likely why but facts are just facts. It is widely reported that he boosted the sales of guns "to the tune of likely at least as much as 9 Billion". I would love to know who would come in second place to that. $9 billion in gun sales in 8 years more than $1billion a year. He doesn't get full credit, as there were spikes in sales after any mass shooting as people feared having their rights taken away by the left whenever there is a 'field day' event for the 'News' media. (Obama gets credit for anti-gun cheerleader-in-chief due to his reaction to any shooting showing his clear anti-gun bias and politicising murders)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.593c700999fc

http://www.joemygod.com/wp-content/u...s4-660x330.jpg

Gun sales have dropped 25% after Trump was elected:
Gun Sales Have Dropped Since Trump's Election

Also Remington as well as other gun makers have had to start laying off people do to the drop in demand. Kinda really don't need more proof than that. People bought more guns specifically because of Obama. Just exactly how many is up for debate, but when the people that make them have to hire more and more people during the tenure and as soon as that tenure is over they have to lay off employees do to slowing demand, there really is only one conclusion to draw. USA gun production was up nearly double in the past 8 years, and now will cool off and settle in at a new normal for the next 8 ish.

It's true that the monthly sales are estimates because not all background checks = a sale, but the metric is sound for a heartbeat on the relative demand. You are not correct about the ID card it was a background check comparison which will be re-run for every sale (in case you have something new on your record since the last time)

It was really only a '99% sure' thing until Trump was elected and the gun sales immediately slumped. Had #youlost not happened, it's hard to guess if sales would have just remained on a steady climb or actually increased. So, yes there are always spikes in sales when a 'mass casualty event' happens but that is because it's brought to our attention. When many on the anti-gun stance take advantage of a mass-murder to make direct assaults against gun rights, that is why there are spikes, so you can blame the sale spike post vegas on clinton and pelosi I suppose as they were the most vocal anti-gun oh I almost forgot; Speaker of the house, who immediately tabled the two bills that were in the works, that will have an effect on gun sales i'm sure as well.