CDZ And The Number ONE Christmas Gift Is....

[ScienceRocks]

Lol,

Americans enjoy a well paved roads, the hope of a cure for cancer and watching their country lead in thousands of fields. Americans are far more angry with the waste of tax dollars for nation building in Iraq or watching our jobs being shipped over seas.

Yeah, well right now America is buying guns NOT pot holes.

That is the way to the third world as African nations do the same thing.

 

[320 Years of History]

The narrator noted, among other things, that the boost in gun sales is partly attributable to folks' concern that Mr. "Obama will change gun laws." Really? Though it could in fact be so, I find it hard to believe that is in fact among the foremost motivations driving such sales. Are my gun seeking fellow citizens really that stupid? Mr. Obama is in the "lame duck" phase of his presidency with a Congress headed by the opposing party. Why would anyone in their right mind think it's at all probable that Mr. Obama can push through gun legislation that will constrain one's ability to buy a gun? Mr. Obama would need to use a war power to do much of anything that could "have teeth." Are we are war? Congress hasn't declared one, so I'm inclined to say "no."

Moreover, I have an even harder time accepting that guns are the "top Christmas gift for 2015" -- top selling, most often requested, most often given, whatever...unless, of course, the narrator is referring to the top selling item at gun and ammunitions stores -- but I'll wait until after the 25th to find out for sure. Something tells me that even though there were ~2.2 million background checks performed this season, there will yet be several things for which more than 2.2 million units will be bought/given, during the holiday season, as Christmas gifts.

The full story corresponding to that video maybe is here. It's hard to say for sure as the actual video was produced by something called "YT Wochit News," which, though it sort of has a website, provides no information there indicating precisely who the producers, narrators, directors, reporters, etc. are.

Sidebar:

I learned something from the NBC video. In certain states, one can buy, gift a gun to another person in the state, and the recipient does not have to undergo the same background checks as does the buyer.

Talk about loopholes....​

End of Sidebar.

Operation Choke Point!

??? Apologies. I'm not sure what you are trying to communicate to me/us.

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/28/operation-choke-point-forces-bank-to-dump-gun-stor/?page=all

Okay. Are you certain you posted your remark in the correct thread?

Now I've read the article to which you referred me, I still don't see what it has to do with guns being or not being the "number one" Christmas gift. The article describes the situation of a retailer, Powderhorn Outfitters (PHO), whose bank has deemed it a high risk business and thus no longer wants PHO's business. (Operation Choke Point: a credit card fraud probe ensnaring banks that do business with 24 industries deemed “high-risk” by the FDIC.)

Operation Choke Point was focused mainly on gun sellers, payday loan companies and pawn shops. The banking industry was spot lighted because banks could refuse loans to businesses the Obama Administration wanted to ruin.It was a devious Progressive Liberal that stank to high heaven. I pasted the real reason the operation was started. The link covers the banks.


The two primary targets of Operation Choke Point have been the short-term lending industry and firearm sellers. The distaste for both are rooted in leftist ideology. Progressives hate private lending, because they believe people cannot make financial decisions for themselves. In addition, there is ample evidence that the federal government wants to replace private lending with financial services provided by the Post Office. As for firearms, well, we know all about progressives and the Second Amendment.

Democrats need to take a breath and think about this issue very carefully. They should be outraged that Operation Choke Point even exists. If they aren’t outraged, then they need to get pragmatic and help bring it down.

If they sit on the sidelines, do they really believe that their political shenanigans will not be turned upon them? That Operation Choke Point won’t be used to kill operations that Republicans don’t like? What happens when a GOP President gets a look at Operation Choke Point and decides to keep it active? What businesses might be targeted by the righteously indignant victims of government oppression?



Read more: What If Operation Choke Point Was Used Against Progressive-Friendly Businesses?

TY for the info. Appreciate that you shared it.

The thing I'm still trying to figure out is what any of that has to do with Christmas gifts. I see the connection with guns, but the thread is about guns being the number one Christmas gift. I don't see any but the most "out of left field" connection to guns being the number one, two or twenty Christmas gift.

 

[Ravi]

Jesus must be proud.

 

[JoeMoma]

Operation Choke Point!

??? Apologies. I'm not sure what you are trying to communicate to me/us.

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/28/operation-choke-point-forces-bank-to-dump-gun-stor/?page=all

Okay. Are you certain you posted your remark in the correct thread?

Now I've read the article to which you referred me, I still don't see what it has to do with guns being or not being the "number one" Christmas gift. The article describes the situation of a retailer, Powderhorn Outfitters (PHO), whose bank has deemed it a high risk business and thus no longer wants PHO's business. (Operation Choke Point: a credit card fraud probe ensnaring banks that do business with 24 industries deemed “high-risk” by the FDIC.)

Operation Choke Point was focused mainly on gun sellers, payday loan companies and pawn shops. The banking industry was spot lighted because banks could refuse loans to businesses the Obama Administration wanted to ruin.It was a devious Progressive Liberal that stank to high heaven. I pasted the real reason the operation was started. The link covers the banks.


The two primary targets of Operation Choke Point have been the short-term lending industry and firearm sellers. The distaste for both are rooted in leftist ideology. Progressives hate private lending, because they believe people cannot make financial decisions for themselves. In addition, there is ample evidence that the federal government wants to replace private lending with financial services provided by the Post Office. As for firearms, well, we know all about progressives and the Second Amendment.

Democrats need to take a breath and think about this issue very carefully. They should be outraged that Operation Choke Point even exists. If they aren’t outraged, then they need to get pragmatic and help bring it down.

If they sit on the sidelines, do they really believe that their political shenanigans will not be turned upon them? That Operation Choke Point won’t be used to kill operations that Republicans don’t like? What happens when a GOP President gets a look at Operation Choke Point and decides to keep it active? What businesses might be targeted by the righteously indignant victims of government oppression?



Read more: What If Operation Choke Point Was Used Against Progressive-Friendly Businesses?

TY for the info. Appreciate that you shared it.

The thing I'm still trying to figure out is what any of that has to do with Christmas gifts. I see the connection with guns, but the thread is about guns being the number one Christmas gift. I don't see any but the most "out of left field" connection to guns being the number one, two or twenty Christmas gift.

Because you asked the question: "Why would anyone in their right mind think it's at all probable that Mr. Obama can push through gun legislation that will constrain one's ability to buy a gun?" Operation Choke Point is regulation, not legistion. But it is a way to constrain one's ability to buy a gun. It is a way of putting many gun sellers out of business. Thus, people know that the Obama Administration is hostel to the gun industry. This hostility may continue if Clinton is elected. So the reaction for many people is to stock up now for they do not know what the future may bring.

 

[320 Years of History]

??? Apologies. I'm not sure what you are trying to communicate to me/us.

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/28/operation-choke-point-forces-bank-to-dump-gun-stor/?page=all

Okay. Are you certain you posted your remark in the correct thread?

Now I've read the article to which you referred me, I still don't see what it has to do with guns being or not being the "number one" Christmas gift. The article describes the situation of a retailer, Powderhorn Outfitters (PHO), whose bank has deemed it a high risk business and thus no longer wants PHO's business. (Operation Choke Point: a credit card fraud probe ensnaring banks that do business with 24 industries deemed “high-risk” by the FDIC.)

Operation Choke Point was focused mainly on gun sellers, payday loan companies and pawn shops. The banking industry was spot lighted because banks could refuse loans to businesses the Obama Administration wanted to ruin.It was a devious Progressive Liberal that stank to high heaven. I pasted the real reason the operation was started. The link covers the banks.


The two primary targets of Operation Choke Point have been the short-term lending industry and firearm sellers. The distaste for both are rooted in leftist ideology. Progressives hate private lending, because they believe people cannot make financial decisions for themselves. In addition, there is ample evidence that the federal government wants to replace private lending with financial services provided by the Post Office. As for firearms, well, we know all about progressives and the Second Amendment.

Democrats need to take a breath and think about this issue very carefully. They should be outraged that Operation Choke Point even exists. If they aren’t outraged, then they need to get pragmatic and help bring it down.

If they sit on the sidelines, do they really believe that their political shenanigans will not be turned upon them? That Operation Choke Point won’t be used to kill operations that Republicans don’t like? What happens when a GOP President gets a look at Operation Choke Point and decides to keep it active? What businesses might be targeted by the righteously indignant victims of government oppression?



Read more: What If Operation Choke Point Was Used Against Progressive-Friendly Businesses?

TY for the info. Appreciate that you shared it.

The thing I'm still trying to figure out is what any of that has to do with Christmas gifts. I see the connection with guns, but the thread is about guns being the number one Christmas gift. I don't see any but the most "out of left field" connection to guns being the number one, two or twenty Christmas gift.

Because you asked the question: "Why would anyone in their right mind think it's at all probable that Mr. Obama can push through gun legislation that will constrain one's ability to buy a gun?" Operation Choke Point is regulation, not legistion. But it is a way to constrain one's ability to buy a gun. It is a way of putting many gun sellers out of business. Thus, people know that the Obama Administration is hostel to the gun industry. This hostility may continue if Clinton is elected. So the reaction for many people is to stock up now for they do not know what the future may bring.

You know, when I wrote the sentence you linked to, I wondered if someone would hop on it and attempt to assert that by reducing the number of sellers, for example to the extent that initiatives such as "Operation Choke Point" may, demand also decreases. I suggest you revisit your principles of macro and microeconomics courses.

The impact of limited initiatives like "Operation Choke Point" is that of driving buyers to different sellers; the impact is not a reduction in demand. Were it so that the reduction in the quantity of gun suppliers occur to such an extent that the consumer gun market shifts from one of monopolistic competition to one of oligopolistic competition, or to one of monopoly, yes, such actions as "Operation Choke Point" could also affect the quantity of guns demanded. Such an extensive reduction in the quantity of suppliers is not the impact of "Operation Choke Point" or any other initiatives Mr. Obama has implemented. The consumer firearms marketplace remains one of monopolistic competition.

 

[Hossfly]

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/28/operation-choke-point-forces-bank-to-dump-gun-stor/?page=all

Okay. Are you certain you posted your remark in the correct thread?

Now I've read the article to which you referred me, I still don't see what it has to do with guns being or not being the "number one" Christmas gift. The article describes the situation of a retailer, Powderhorn Outfitters (PHO), whose bank has deemed it a high risk business and thus no longer wants PHO's business. (Operation Choke Point: a credit card fraud probe ensnaring banks that do business with 24 industries deemed “high-risk” by the FDIC.)

Operation Choke Point was focused mainly on gun sellers, payday loan companies and pawn shops. The banking industry was spot lighted because banks could refuse loans to businesses the Obama Administration wanted to ruin.It was a devious Progressive Liberal that stank to high heaven. I pasted the real reason the operation was started. The link covers the banks.


The two primary targets of Operation Choke Point have been the short-term lending industry and firearm sellers. The distaste for both are rooted in leftist ideology. Progressives hate private lending, because they believe people cannot make financial decisions for themselves. In addition, there is ample evidence that the federal government wants to replace private lending with financial services provided by the Post Office. As for firearms, well, we know all about progressives and the Second Amendment.

Democrats need to take a breath and think about this issue very carefully. They should be outraged that Operation Choke Point even exists. If they aren’t outraged, then they need to get pragmatic and help bring it down.

If they sit on the sidelines, do they really believe that their political shenanigans will not be turned upon them? That Operation Choke Point won’t be used to kill operations that Republicans don’t like? What happens when a GOP President gets a look at Operation Choke Point and decides to keep it active? What businesses might be targeted by the righteously indignant victims of government oppression?



Read more: What If Operation Choke Point Was Used Against Progressive-Friendly Businesses?

TY for the info. Appreciate that you shared it.

The thing I'm still trying to figure out is what any of that has to do with Christmas gifts. I see the connection with guns, but the thread is about guns being the number one Christmas gift. I don't see any but the most "out of left field" connection to guns being the number one, two or twenty Christmas gift.

Because you asked the question: "Why would anyone in their right mind think it's at all probable that Mr. Obama can push through gun legislation that will constrain one's ability to buy a gun?" Operation Choke Point is regulation, not legistion. But it is a way to constrain one's ability to buy a gun. It is a way of putting many gun sellers out of business. Thus, people know that the Obama Administration is hostel to the gun industry. This hostility may continue if Clinton is elected. So the reaction for many people is to stock up now for they do not know what the future may bring.

You know, when I wrote the sentence you linked to, I wondered if someone would hop on it and attempt to assert that by reducing the number of sellers, to the extent that initiatives such as "Operation Choke Point" may, that demand also reduces. I suggest you revisit your principles of macro and microeconomics courses.

The impact of limited initiatives like "Operation Choke Point" is that of driving buyers to different sellers; the impact is not a reduction in demand. Were it so that the reduction in the quantity of gun suppliers occur to such an extent that the consumer gun market shifts from one of monopolistic competition to one of oligopolistic competition, or to one of monopoly, yes, such actions as "Operation Choke Point" could also affect the quantity of guns demanded. Such an extensive reduction in the quantity of suppliers is not the impact of "Operation Choke Point" or any other initiatives Mr. Obama has implemented. The consumer firearms marketplace remains one of monopolistic competition.

The sole purpose of Choke Point is to drive people out of business that Obama doesn't want to succeed. A thinly disguised plot to ruin people Obama hates. Obama is an evil SOB. That's why people are buying guns for Christmas.

 

[320 Years of History]

Okay. Are you certain you posted your remark in the correct thread?

Now I've read the article to which you referred me, I still don't see what it has to do with guns being or not being the "number one" Christmas gift. The article describes the situation of a retailer, Powderhorn Outfitters (PHO), whose bank has deemed it a high risk business and thus no longer wants PHO's business. (Operation Choke Point: a credit card fraud probe ensnaring banks that do business with 24 industries deemed “high-risk” by the FDIC.)

Operation Choke Point was focused mainly on gun sellers, payday loan companies and pawn shops. The banking industry was spot lighted because banks could refuse loans to businesses the Obama Administration wanted to ruin.It was a devious Progressive Liberal that stank to high heaven. I pasted the real reason the operation was started. The link covers the banks.


The two primary targets of Operation Choke Point have been the short-term lending industry and firearm sellers. The distaste for both are rooted in leftist ideology. Progressives hate private lending, because they believe people cannot make financial decisions for themselves. In addition, there is ample evidence that the federal government wants to replace private lending with financial services provided by the Post Office. As for firearms, well, we know all about progressives and the Second Amendment.

Democrats need to take a breath and think about this issue very carefully. They should be outraged that Operation Choke Point even exists. If they aren’t outraged, then they need to get pragmatic and help bring it down.

If they sit on the sidelines, do they really believe that their political shenanigans will not be turned upon them? That Operation Choke Point won’t be used to kill operations that Republicans don’t like? What happens when a GOP President gets a look at Operation Choke Point and decides to keep it active? What businesses might be targeted by the righteously indignant victims of government oppression?



Read more: What If Operation Choke Point Was Used Against Progressive-Friendly Businesses?

TY for the info. Appreciate that you shared it.

The thing I'm still trying to figure out is what any of that has to do with Christmas gifts. I see the connection with guns, but the thread is about guns being the number one Christmas gift. I don't see any but the most "out of left field" connection to guns being the number one, two or twenty Christmas gift.

Because you asked the question: "Why would anyone in their right mind think it's at all probable that Mr. Obama can push through gun legislation that will constrain one's ability to buy a gun?" Operation Choke Point is regulation, not legistion. But it is a way to constrain one's ability to buy a gun. It is a way of putting many gun sellers out of business. Thus, people know that the Obama Administration is hostel to the gun industry. This hostility may continue if Clinton is elected. So the reaction for many people is to stock up now for they do not know what the future may bring.

You know, when I wrote the sentence you linked to, I wondered if someone would hop on it and attempt to assert that by reducing the number of sellers, to the extent that initiatives such as "Operation Choke Point" may, that demand also reduces. I suggest you revisit your principles of macro and microeconomics courses.

The impact of limited initiatives like "Operation Choke Point" is that of driving buyers to different sellers; the impact is not a reduction in demand. Were it so that the reduction in the quantity of gun suppliers occur to such an extent that the consumer gun market shifts from one of monopolistic competition to one of oligopolistic competition, or to one of monopoly, yes, such actions as "Operation Choke Point" could also affect the quantity of guns demanded. Such an extensive reduction in the quantity of suppliers is not the impact of "Operation Choke Point" or any other initiatives Mr. Obama has implemented. The consumer firearms marketplace remains one of monopolistic competition.

The sole purpose of Choke Point is to drive people out of business that Obama doesn't want to succeed. A thinly disguised plot to ruin people Obama hates. Obama is an evil SOB. That's why people are buying guns for Christmas.

That may be, but even if it is, it isn't going to drive enough suppliers out of the market that results a change in the economic nature of the market from monopolistic competition to that of oligopolistic competition or monopoly. In addition to huge sellers of guns like Walmart, there remain numerous other retail gun sellers throughout the U.S., almost 130K of them in fact. That amounts to about one store for every 2,500 individuals (regardless of whether they are of age to own and operate a firearm) in the U.S.

So if you want to have a discussion of the impact on the market (supply, demand, quantity demanded, equilibrium price, elasticity of price and demand, etc.) of initiatives like "Operation Choke Point," you'll need to first demonstrate that "Choke Point" has actually reduced the quantity of suppliers enough to have a meaningful impact on the quantity of guns demanded. Whether it is intended to reduce the quantity of gun suppliers is irrelevant unless and until it actually does so to a sufficient extent to have the type of impact you fear, that of making guns nigh impossible to buy because there exist so few sellers -- fear shared presumably by those folks who are ignorant not only of economic principles, but also ignorant of logic, as evidenced by their haste to buy a gun before Mr. Obama can effect similar initiatives and buying them "now" on the basis of the "slippery slope" line of "reasoning" offered at the outset of this thread.

 

[JoeMoma]

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/28/operation-choke-point-forces-bank-to-dump-gun-stor/?page=all

Okay. Are you certain you posted your remark in the correct thread?

Now I've read the article to which you referred me, I still don't see what it has to do with guns being or not being the "number one" Christmas gift. The article describes the situation of a retailer, Powderhorn Outfitters (PHO), whose bank has deemed it a high risk business and thus no longer wants PHO's business. (Operation Choke Point: a credit card fraud probe ensnaring banks that do business with 24 industries deemed “high-risk” by the FDIC.)

Operation Choke Point was focused mainly on gun sellers, payday loan companies and pawn shops. The banking industry was spot lighted because banks could refuse loans to businesses the Obama Administration wanted to ruin.It was a devious Progressive Liberal that stank to high heaven. I pasted the real reason the operation was started. The link covers the banks.


The two primary targets of Operation Choke Point have been the short-term lending industry and firearm sellers. The distaste for both are rooted in leftist ideology. Progressives hate private lending, because they believe people cannot make financial decisions for themselves. In addition, there is ample evidence that the federal government wants to replace private lending with financial services provided by the Post Office. As for firearms, well, we know all about progressives and the Second Amendment.

Democrats need to take a breath and think about this issue very carefully. They should be outraged that Operation Choke Point even exists. If they aren’t outraged, then they need to get pragmatic and help bring it down.

If they sit on the sidelines, do they really believe that their political shenanigans will not be turned upon them? That Operation Choke Point won’t be used to kill operations that Republicans don’t like? What happens when a GOP President gets a look at Operation Choke Point and decides to keep it active? What businesses might be targeted by the righteously indignant victims of government oppression?



Read more: What If Operation Choke Point Was Used Against Progressive-Friendly Businesses?

TY for the info. Appreciate that you shared it.

The thing I'm still trying to figure out is what any of that has to do with Christmas gifts. I see the connection with guns, but the thread is about guns being the number one Christmas gift. I don't see any but the most "out of left field" connection to guns being the number one, two or twenty Christmas gift.

Because you asked the question: "Why would anyone in their right mind think it's at all probable that Mr. Obama can push through gun legislation that will constrain one's ability to buy a gun?" Operation Choke Point is regulation, not legistion. But it is a way to constrain one's ability to buy a gun. It is a way of putting many gun sellers out of business. Thus, people know that the Obama Administration is hostel to the gun industry. This hostility may continue if Clinton is elected. So the reaction for many people is to stock up now for they do not know what the future may bring.

You know, when I wrote the sentence you linked to, I wondered if someone would hop on it and attempt to assert that by reducing the number of sellers, for example to the extent that initiatives such as "Operation Choke Point" may, demand also decreases. I suggest you revisit your principles of macro and microeconomics courses.

The impact of limited initiatives like "Operation Choke Point" is that of driving buyers to different sellers; the impact is not a reduction in demand. Were it so that the reduction in the quantity of gun suppliers occur to such an extent that the consumer gun market shifts from one of monopolistic competition to one of oligopolistic competition, or to one of monopoly, yes, such actions as "Operation Choke Point" could also affect the quantity of guns demanded. Such an extensive reduction in the quantity of suppliers is not the impact of "Operation Choke Point" or any other initiatives Mr. Obama has implemented. The consumer firearms marketplace remains one of monopolistic competition.

I never suggested that operation choke point resulted in a decrease in demand. I didn't hop on that.

 

[320 Years of History]

Okay. Are you certain you posted your remark in the correct thread?

Now I've read the article to which you referred me, I still don't see what it has to do with guns being or not being the "number one" Christmas gift. The article describes the situation of a retailer, Powderhorn Outfitters (PHO), whose bank has deemed it a high risk business and thus no longer wants PHO's business. (Operation Choke Point: a credit card fraud probe ensnaring banks that do business with 24 industries deemed “high-risk” by the FDIC.)

Operation Choke Point was focused mainly on gun sellers, payday loan companies and pawn shops. The banking industry was spot lighted because banks could refuse loans to businesses the Obama Administration wanted to ruin.It was a devious Progressive Liberal that stank to high heaven. I pasted the real reason the operation was started. The link covers the banks.


The two primary targets of Operation Choke Point have been the short-term lending industry and firearm sellers. The distaste for both are rooted in leftist ideology. Progressives hate private lending, because they believe people cannot make financial decisions for themselves. In addition, there is ample evidence that the federal government wants to replace private lending with financial services provided by the Post Office. As for firearms, well, we know all about progressives and the Second Amendment.

Democrats need to take a breath and think about this issue very carefully. They should be outraged that Operation Choke Point even exists. If they aren’t outraged, then they need to get pragmatic and help bring it down.

If they sit on the sidelines, do they really believe that their political shenanigans will not be turned upon them? That Operation Choke Point won’t be used to kill operations that Republicans don’t like? What happens when a GOP President gets a look at Operation Choke Point and decides to keep it active? What businesses might be targeted by the righteously indignant victims of government oppression?



Read more: What If Operation Choke Point Was Used Against Progressive-Friendly Businesses?

TY for the info. Appreciate that you shared it.

The thing I'm still trying to figure out is what any of that has to do with Christmas gifts. I see the connection with guns, but the thread is about guns being the number one Christmas gift. I don't see any but the most "out of left field" connection to guns being the number one, two or twenty Christmas gift.

Because you asked the question: "Why would anyone in their right mind think it's at all probable that Mr. Obama can push through gun legislation that will constrain one's ability to buy a gun?" Operation Choke Point is regulation, not legistion. But it is a way to constrain one's ability to buy a gun. It is a way of putting many gun sellers out of business. Thus, people know that the Obama Administration is hostel to the gun industry. This hostility may continue if Clinton is elected. So the reaction for many people is to stock up now for they do not know what the future may bring.

You know, when I wrote the sentence you linked to, I wondered if someone would hop on it and attempt to assert that by reducing the number of sellers, for example to the extent that initiatives such as "Operation Choke Point" may, demand also decreases. I suggest you revisit your principles of macro and microeconomics courses.

The impact of limited initiatives like "Operation Choke Point" is that of driving buyers to different sellers; the impact is not a reduction in demand. Were it so that the reduction in the quantity of gun suppliers occur to such an extent that the consumer gun market shifts from one of monopolistic competition to one of oligopolistic competition, or to one of monopoly, yes, such actions as "Operation Choke Point" could also affect the quantity of guns demanded. Such an extensive reduction in the quantity of suppliers is not the impact of "Operation Choke Point" or any other initiatives Mr. Obama has implemented. The consumer firearms marketplace remains one of monopolistic competition.

I never suggested that operation choke point resulted in a decrease in demand. I didn't hop on that.

Red:
Expand the quotes included in this post and look at the remarks highlighted in blue. Are you honestly telling me that is not a tacit statement contained in the words you wrote?

I don't know how you can believably make that claim other than by attesting also that, in penning the blue-highlighted comments, despite the words you wrote, you either (1) didn't intend to indicate "Choke Point's" relevance as that of it's being a non-legislative means for reducing demand, and you didn't understand that what you wrote implies " 'Choke Point' causes a constraint in demand," or (2) don't understand that the statement "a constraint on people's ability to buy a gun" is synonymous with "a constraint on the demand for guns.

You can certainly make those or other refutations of the tacit meaning of the words you wrote, and I'll accept that as so. In accepting it as so, I ask you, please, to provide a clarification of what cause-and-effect sequence you had in mind when you wrote the comments highlighted in blue?

Did you also use "Choke Point" as an illustration of the Obama Administration's having a "hostile" attitude toward the firearms industry? Yes, you did, but that is not the element of the post with which I took exception. I didn't take up that aspect of your remarks because I don't have a strong and well informed opinion on whether the Obama Administration has a hostile position toward the firearms industry. I could have one if I bothered to rigorously look into it, but I have not done so; therefore I have no comments to make about it.

Do I think that a regulation like "Choke Point" might be indicative of the stance you assert the Obama Administration has? Sure, it can, but not convincingly so; it is just one data point, after all. Moreover, there are a number of other things besides "hostility toward the gun industry" of which the Administration's implementing the "Choke Point" policy can be indicative.

 

[JoeMoma]

The backlash from Obama's hostility toward the gun industry caused an increase in demand.

 

[320 Years of History]

The backlash from Obama's hostility toward the gun industry caused an increase in demand.

Now that I can understand and accept as a potential correlation between the "Choke Point" initiative's/policy's having been implemented and people's response (buying a lot of guns, as Christmas gifts or otherwise) to it. I see the increase in demand (to the extent it exists because of "Choke Point") as irrational behavior insofar as it's based on a "slippery slope" line of argument, but that it (may have) occurred as you describe is something I accept as being a plausible.