"but the cold hard reality is that he is going to one day sell someone a $500 AR15 for $1000 or $1500 because that person feels the need to defend themselves and that have no other choice but to pay a market price created not by the open and free market but by restrictive regulation of our fundamental rights..
This is just wrong. You are trying to impute a moral wrong where it doesn't belong. First off, as long as the buyer has the choice to decline the purchase, then it is part of the "open and free market" that we enjoy with one another, irregardless of government intrusion.
Speculators and profiteers are a necessary part of the free and open market. Otherwise said "panicked unprepared buyer " would not have a way to acquire what they are panicked to get.
If Mike did the due dilligance to research and understand future markets, especially when possible political outcomes may adversely impact them, then he should be rewarded for his forward thinking by charging 1500$ for a 500$ rifle that he stockpiled if...the buyer is willing to pay.
To start with...price is never fixed. It is flexible and fluctuates with demand. The gun you get for 700$ today costed me 1500$ back in 2007. It all works out.
Secondly,
And here I qualify my statement with a big "except in case of hardship"
I have a hard time understanding how any gun rights supporter that has looked at the political landscape since 2012, and has failed to deduce the dire need to acquire mass quantities of guns and ammo should be sympathized with. The writing has been on the wall for a long time now. If, at this point, you have failed to prepare...then you deserve to pay triple price. I'm not saying you have to...just you deserve to.
I for one am sick of fence sitters. A lot of gun supporters have been on the sidelines not getting involved in the fight. Well...they might have to pay for that apathy. Some people just need to learn a hard lesson. It will do them good.