CBS Washington:

WASHINGTON, D.C. (CBS Washington) — A gun company advertisement that warns of impending gun control compares President Obama to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

The USAAmmo ad shows side-by-side pictures of Obama with Hitler, Stalin and other dictators who committed atrocities across the world. The ad, which is also accompanied by a video, warns that gun control is imminent and foreshadows that the U.S. could face millions in casualties if they are not allowed to defend themselves.

USAAmmo states that “tyranny is knocking down the doors of American cities daily” and that Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and other gun control advocates “are secretly conspiring American Citizens of the right to bear arms.”

Trace Williams, director of operations for USAAmmo, defended the ad that was emailed Monday. He told CBS Washington that “Obama and his various czars are infringing on the rights of Americans to own guns.”

As a gun (or 2) owner, I simply find this ad over the top and unacceptable.  Furthermore, it is a lie.  I don’t recall seeing, hearing or thinking that the president is going to round up everyone’s guns.

The fact that ammo and guns sales have soared since the ad went out on Monday doesn’t really flatter its customers.  the video linked in the blockquote is extreme bad taste.  Why must people push others off a cliff to get them to buy ammo.  How about competitive prices, low shipping costs and reliable fast service as the hook rather than exploiting others and using fear of genocide as an advertising tool? 

Ads like this hurt the 2nd amendment cause.  USA Ammo should try to educate folks rather than stir up hotheads.

The President of the United States should not be with posted with that rogues gallery.  It is insulting to America and sends a bad message to the rest of the world.

21 Thoughts to “USAAmmo: The lowest hanging fruit of all”

  1. Second Alamo

    “Why must people push others off a cliff to get them to buy ammo.”

    You mean like the Democrat’s tasteless ad of a Republican pushing Granny off a cliff? (Sorry, that bit just jumped out at me.)

    1. @SA, it was intended to….

  2. marinm

    This thread reminds me. Need to buy more ammo, more food supplies, more medical supplies.. More firearms.. Most stock survival shelte…wait, what?

    1. I would be ashamed to admit I was such a sheeple. Call Glenn. He has quite a deal going.

  3. marinm

    My iPhone and iPad Beck App (I’m not on a first name basis with him..) tell me what to think and give me the daily talking points….

    1. You have never sounded like Beck a day in your life. Glenn either.

  4. Starryflights

    Those gun advocate idiots have been predicting an “imminent” gun ban for the past 30 – 40 years. It never happens. I can’t believe how many people are moronic enough to fall for those lies.

  5. Censored bybvbl

    The scaredy-pants must be easily parted from their money. I guess these tactics must work.

  6. Cargosquid

    That company has a bad ad. I wouldn’t buy from them.

    Hmmmm….gun ban in the last 20-40 years….. AWB. Feinstein trying to ban guns. Katrina illegal confiscation. Gun Control Act of 1968. Various restrictions of rights by states and cities.

    Obama is a smart politician and knew that openly trying to reenact gun control was a non-starter. Of course…if the environment could be changed…if a pro-gun control mindset could be invented….thus Fast and Furious was born.

    So, yes. I agree that the ammo company is idiotic. Its hyperbole is over the top. I just won’t buy ammo from them. I like Lucky Gunner ammo, primarily because they let me shoot machines guns for free….. 🙂

    CheaperThanDirt is also good. Also, support your local ammo supplies.

  7. marinm

    I prefer to stay off ‘lists’ when purchasing ammo over the interwebs. Local vendors, gun shows, reloaders. So many options.

    At least its not as bad as it was 3 years ago when there was a massive ammo shortage.

    Doesn’t Feinstein have a concealed permit in CA?

  8. Steve Thomas

    Pehaps over the top, but I must agree with their basic premise. A 2nd term Obama will appoint perhaps 2 Supreme Court Justices. The Heller decision, affirming the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was a 5-4 decision. All it will take is the appointment of 2 anti-2A justices (Kaegan and Sottamayor are anti-2A) and Heller can be overturned. Additionally, the Obama administration has expressed its support for the IANSA treaty. Since treaties have the force of law in the US, should the President sign this treaty, it will be a direct contradiction of the 2nd Ammendment. Essentially, gun ownership in the US would be governed by UN Charter. Rebecca Peters, who successfully headed up the gun-grabs in the UK and Australia, is heading up the NGO pushing for the IANSA treaty ratification at the UN.

    In as much as pro-choice advocates believe every move to limit abortion is an infringement of a woman’s right to choose, as affirmed in Roe v. Wade, those of us who have rejected the “collective right” argument of the gun-control crowd see Obama as a threat to the right to keep and bear arms. We see most liberal Presidents as a threat to this right, especially those who have publically expressed opposition to the right of individual, private ownership of firearms. Obama is one of these Presidents.

    1. Steve and I understand each other perfectly as far as pro choice and 2nd amendment causes.

      I have never heard Obama express opposition to private ownership of guns. I don’t neceessarily think it would even cross his mind with a Supreme Court appointment. I think it just goes with the territory.

  9. Cargosquid

    “Essentially, gun ownership in the US would be governed by UN Charter.”

    Essentially, gun ownership in the US would be governed by those willing to shoot back…..

  10. Cargosquid

    You know..that’s a good observation.

    Would we allow our OTHER rights to be controlled in the way the 2nd Amendment is? Would we change the use of our 1st Amendment rights if a treaty said that its use was offensive in some ways? Or if the Supreme court decided that free speech wasn’t that free.

    Shall Not Be Infringed is much stronger language than “Congress shall make no law” but the 1st is interpreted more broadly.

    All I ask is that the 2nd be treated the same as the others.

    1. What idiot would let our laws be decided by UN charter? Sorry….

      Cargo, interpretation interpretation interpretation. There are people out there who feel as strongly about the 14th and you do about the 2nd. I feel as strongly about several court cases although I will say right up fron they aren’t amendments.

      Cuccinelli having a northern VA base is not what it seems.

  11. Steve Thomas

    “What idiot would let our laws be decided by UN charter? Sorry….”

    One who has the authority to sign binding treaties on behalf of the United States of America, which do indeed have the force of law within the US, upon ratification. This includes IANSA.

  12. Morris Davis

    @Steve Thomas

    First, IANSA is an organization, not a treaty. Second, a treaty isn’t binding until the President signs it AND the Senate ratifies it by at least a two-thirds vote.

  13. Steve Thomas

    The treaty, of which IANSA is a main proponent, and the President has indicated a willingness to sign, is a major threat to the 2nd Ammendment rights of Americans. These are the facts. Therefore, my assertion is valid: the basic premise of the advert is also valid, although expressed in terms intended to evoke a strong emotional response.

Comments are closed.