TexasCHLforum.com

strider67 wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

blackgold wrote:I bought a new bushmaster for 950 in the middle of all of this so I can't complain too much. Just glad to own one.
Brian

I don't think you over paid at all for that weapon. Maybe a 100 bucks at most... If even that. There were people on gun broker selling those for double that price.

Stopped by Academy in Ft. Worth on the way home tonight. They had a Sig on the shelf for $1259 (very nice) and guy behind the counter told me they sold a Bushmaster within the last few days for $749...

When you figure in tax I am almost right on the button. do I get a prize or something?

Traded mine for a fair value to get my motorcycle a month back while people were motivated to buy them. I have no real regrets because I use the bike 2000% more than I did the AR, and it is cheaper to feed.

Well the price has dropped on the ones I have left. However the two I swapped off were at the right time and really came out on them. Swapped a .308 DPMS and a .223 Del-ton for shotguns. Had $2000 in the rifles and traded for me a Verona o/u three bbl 30" set(20/28/.410) and new 1100 sporting clays 20 ga for the wife. He wanted $2500 for the Verona and $1000 for the Remington so I came out fairly well as we traded even. Really like the shotguns and still have 7 Dpms rifles to play with.

Panda wrote:The intrinsic value is the same no matter what the market does.

That is a fact, Jack! Thing is, the intrinsic value of a thing varies from person to person and object to object. Merriam Webster defines "intrinsic" as meaning "belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing <the intrinsic worth of a gem> <the intrinsic brightness of a star>." Well, the intrinsic value of diamonds changes daily. If a buyer wants one badly enough and pays $2500 for a $1250 rifle, then that is its intrinsic value.....to him (or her). This is true because your statement implies that the intrinsic value is always the lowest price that the same item might have been formerly available for. But even that intrinsic price is dependent on market forces. So in the end, the intrinsic value is a floating variable which is determined by how badly the person needs to have the item. That can be separate from what the market determines, but it more often than not it isn't. IF, hypothetically, a law was passed similar to FOPA but directed specifically against the proliferation and ownership of semiautomatic AR15s and AK47s, so that more more of either gun could ever be manufactured or imported into the U.S. for sale after 2013, then you could fully expect the intrinsic value of either of those guns to skyrocket exactly the same way as it did for M16s and M60s.

So in the end, the intrinsic value is exactly whatever the potential buyer is willing to pay, and just like the effect of FOPA on fully automatic weapons, market forces (and laws are a market force...which is only one reason why such laws are unjust) can determine a new intrinsic value that is far in excess of what someone is willing to pay for it, and it is no longer in any way tied to its original fabrication cost. For that reason, an M16 has no value to me. I don't want one badly enough to pay the hugely exorbitant buy-in price. But that price is never going to come down........unless you can convince Congress to rescind FOPA and a president to sign it. So the intrinsic value of an M16 is more than twenty times higher than the $800 or so that it costs to mass produce one (SOURCE), that is, unless you have the wherewithal to manufacture one of your own (legally) for $800. Then that is its intrinsic value.........unless you're like me, and then the intrinsic value is $0, because I just don't care enough about owning one to jump through all the legal and financial hoops to make it happen.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Panda wrote:The intrinsic value is the same no matter what the market does.

That is a fact, Jack! Thing is, the intrinsic value of a thing varies from person to person and object to object. Merriam Webster defines "intrinsic" as meaning "belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing <the intrinsic worth of a gem> <the intrinsic brightness of a star>." Well, the intrinsic value of diamonds changes daily. If a buyer wants one badly enough and pays $2500 for a $1250 rifle, then that is its intrinsic value.....to him (or her).

I think you're confusing intrinsic value and market value. The latter is what people are willing and able to pay.

While you're correct that intrinsic value can vary, it's because "the essential nature" itself has different worth. To use your example, diamonds have little intrinsic value except for those engaged in certain industrial processes, and for those purposes synthetic diamonds are often as good as natural. The market value of natural diamonds is dominated by their extrinsic value.

The intrinsic value of a rifle is based on caliber, accuracy, other factors related to function, and how the person will use it. The intrinsic value is unaffected by supply and demand.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Panda wrote:The intrinsic value is the same no matter what the market does.

That is a fact, Jack! Thing is, the intrinsic value of a thing varies from person to person and object to object. Merriam Webster defines "intrinsic" as meaning "belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing <the intrinsic worth of a gem> <the intrinsic brightness of a star>." Well, the intrinsic value of diamonds changes daily. If a buyer wants one badly enough and pays $2500 for a $1250 rifle, then that is its intrinsic value.....to him (or her). This is true because your statement implies that the intrinsic value is always the lowest price that the same item might have been formerly available for. But even that intrinsic price is dependent on market forces. So in the end, the intrinsic value is a floating variable which is determined by how badly the person needs to have the item. That can be separate from what the market determines, but it more often than not it isn't. IF, hypothetically, a law was passed similar to FOPA but directed specifically against the proliferation and ownership of semiautomatic AR15s and AK47s, so that more more of either gun could ever be manufactured or imported into the U.S. for sale after 2013, then you could fully expect the intrinsic value of either of those guns to skyrocket exactly the same way as it did for M16s and M60s.

So in the end, the intrinsic value is exactly whatever the potential buyer is willing to pay, and just like the effect of FOPA on fully automatic weapons, market forces (and laws are a market force...which is only one reason why such laws are unjust) can determine a new intrinsic value that is far in excess of what someone is willing to pay for it, and it is no longer in any way tied to its original fabrication cost. For that reason, an M16 has no value to me. I don't want one badly enough to pay the hugely exorbitant buy-in price. But that price is never going to come down........unless you can convince Congress to rescind FOPA and a president to sign it. So the intrinsic value of an M16 is more than twenty times higher than the $800 or so that it costs to mass produce one (SOURCE), that is, unless you have the wherewithal to manufacture one of your own (legally) for $800. Then that is its intrinsic value.........unless you're like me, and then the intrinsic value is $0, because I just don't care enough about owning one to jump through all the legal and financial hoops to make it happen.

They really don't need to rescind all of FOPA of 1986, just that "poison pill" Hughes Amendment part of the law. Most of FOPA was good or well-intentioned; it removed or ameliorated a lot of the excesses in the GCA of 1968. The reason that the Hughes Amendment was brought in at all was so he could try and shut down FOPA because the liberal-progressive arm of the Democrat Party loved the GCA of 1968. A lot of people hate FOPA because of the closing of the NFA registry, but that was only one small part of that law. It was a very bitter pill, but Ronald Reagan was right to sign that law. The story behind the FOPA of 1986 can be found at the NRA website.

Unfortunate some may have overpaid. Never look at a gain, as imperfect. The ban scare inspired those who needed an AR to finally get one, so it was a less than perfect gain.

i havent lost any money.refuse to pay scare tactic pricing.if people want to pay 200% mark up or more on stuff my savings account will be laughing at you.

If you lived in Boston the past week it would have been priceless.