Missouri gun shop refuses to sell to Biden supporters.

[IndyDave1776]

So - guns shouldn't be sold to people who might commit an unlawful act at some point in the future? Sounds a lot like gun control to me.

I am not talking about abridging rights. I am talking about talking about putting myself in the position of the shopkeeper refusing to sell guns to people who I suspect may act on the words of the people they vote for and use those guns on me sooner rather than later--right back to the Lenin quote about the capitalists selling the commies the rope to hang them with. THE SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS THOSE PEOPLE FROM THE GOVERNMENT, NOT FROM ME, NOT FROM ANY GUN SHOP OWNER.

 

[NKBJ]

The 2nd Amendment Protection Act, something going on in Missouri in case nobody saw it.
Probably will have the collective weight of globaloneyists all the way to Davos crushing the life out of it but could be interesting to observe just the same.

2021 Bill List

www.senate.mo.gov

 

[marvin02]

I am not talking about abridging rights. I am talking about talking about putting myself in the position of the shopkeeper refusing to sell guns to people who I suspect may act on the words of the people they vote for and use those guns on me sooner rather than later--right back to the Lenin quote about the capitalists selling the commies the rope to hang them with. THE SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS THOSE PEOPLE FROM THE GOVERNMENT, NOT FROM ME, NOT FROM ANY GUN SHOP OWNER.

I got it now:

Business owner decides who can own guns = good

Government decides who can own guns = bad

But - only if you agree with the business owners reason.

 

[drillsgt]

I got it now:

Business owner decides who can own guns = good

Government decides who can own guns = bad

But - only if you agree with the business owners reason.

Customer can go somewhere else and buy a gun.

 

[marvin02]

Customer can go somewhere else and buy a gun.

So - all the rants I've read on INGO about the big box stores when won't release a gun unless the 4473 comes back approved, ignoring the fact they can release the gun after 3 business days are wrong because:

Customer can go somewhere else and buy a gun.

The fact that inventory is so low right now doesn't matter because:

Customer can go somewhere else and buy a gun.

Delaying when someone gets a gun doesn't matter ( you know because they may have pesky issues like a threat against their life) doesn't matter because:

Customer can go somewhere else and buy a gun.

You realize that the freedom to own a gun is meaningless if there is no one who will sell you a gun?

 

[SarahG]

So - all the rants I've read on INGO about the big box stores when won't release a gun unless the 4473 comes back approved, ignoring the fact they can release the gun after 3 business days are wrong because:



The fact that inventory is so low right now doesn't matter because:



Delaying when someone gets a gun doesn't matter ( you know because they may have pesky issues like a threat against their life) doesn't matter because:



You realize that the freedom to own a gun is meaningless if there is no one who will sell you a gun?

While I see your point, I think forcing private businesses to serve a person they don’t want to do business with can be a very slippery slope. They have a right to deny services.

 

[drillsgt]

So - all the rants I've read on INGO about the big box stores when won't release a gun unless the 4473 comes back approved, ignoring the fact they can release the gun after 3 business days are wrong because:



The fact that inventory is so low right now doesn't matter because:



Delaying when someone gets a gun doesn't matter ( you know because they may have pesky issues like a threat against their life) doesn't matter because:



You realize that the freedom to own a gun is meaningless if there is no one who will sell you a gun?

Here's an idea, keep your mouth shut that you voted for biden and go buy your gun.

 

[larcat]

You realize that the freedom to own a gun is meaningless if there is no one who will sell you a gun?

This is a good example of what I was talking about above. It's basically orthodoxy in many Dem circles that the lawful commerce in arms act (or whatever the exact name is, forgive my memory) is bad. New gun owners probably don't realize that without it and with some sort of precedent from the 9th circuit or similar there wouldn't have been any firearms to buy when they go ally felt that they needed one...

When you pick you mossberg 500 up at Bass Pro, you don't get a pamphlet explaining that.

I've got 4 close friends to friendly acquaintances in IL who all applied for FOIDs in March. Two have purchased firearms since then. Only one now firmly will make 2A an important part of voting decisions and that's with me explaining/advocating. Maybe that's a failure on my part, but I also am not in the business of fighting with friends over politics and I'd prefer to be here as a resource rather than a scold.

 

[larcat]

While I see your point, I think forcing private businesses to serve a person they don’t want to do business with can be a very slippery slope. They have a right to deny services.

This is such a rough issue right now.

Bake the cake.
Kick Parler off AWS.

I don't have a coherent, consistent take on it all, but we have to figure this **** out as a society.

 

[marvin02]

Here's an idea, keep your mouth shut that you voted for biden and go buy your gun.

So the new requirement you wish to impose for gun ownership is to concede freedom of speech? When businesses were banning MAGA hats and shirts the tune was different. I mean couldn't those folks just go to another business? Why the complaints then?

 

[drillsgt]

So the new requirement you wish to impose for gun ownership is to concede freedom of speech? When businesses were banning MAGA hats and shirts the tune was different. I mean couldn't those folks just go to another business? Why the complaints then?

It's a private business it's not a freedom of speech issue, yes, if your business is not wanted somewhere you go elsewhere, it's easy. It's like if a business has a no guns sign, if you want to go in then go in just don't announce you're carrying.

 

[MCgrease08]

While I see your point, I think forcing private businesses to serve a person they don’t want to do business with can be a very slippery slope. They have a right to deny services.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the shop should be forced to sell anyone a gun. I know my point is that it seems short-sighted and counterproductive to alienate people who have the potential to become an ally in the fight against new gun control laws.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the shop should be forced to sell anyone a gun. I know my point is that it seems short-sighted and counterproductive to alienate people who have the potential to become an ally in the fight against new gun control laws.

Explain please how we should look at people supporting elected officials who have openly said that all our social media posts should be archived to make lists followed by establishing reeducation camps, and that no one right of Mao should be allowed in any position of public trust down to police and animal control and even consider the idea of these people being allies. You would do better counting on the Ayatollah.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So the new requirement you wish to impose for gun ownership is to concede freedom of speech? When businesses were banning MAGA hats and shirts the tune was different. I mean couldn't those folks just go to another business? Why the complaints then?

We have to tiptoe around those dicksuckers so what's the problem with the street running both ways?

 

[Lushamania]

It's a private business

You're right. This matter is as black and white as that, whether you agree or disagree on the motivation(s). I am certain that our Civil Rights laws don't cover "political affiliation."

It's like if a business has a no guns sign, if you want to go in then go in just don't announce you're carrying.

That's not a very good analogy; should've stuck with your first one.

 

[MCgrease08]

Explain please how we should look at people supporting elected officials who have openly said that all our social media posts should be archived to make lists followed by establishing reeducation camps, and that no one right of Mao should be allowed in any position of public trust down to police and animal control and even consider the idea of these people being allies. You would do better counting on the Ayatollah.

Read through my other posts in this thread. I explain clearly why I think some of these folks can be reached and have their opinions changed. I am an an example of it.

 

[drillsgt]

You're right. This matter is as black and white as that, whether you agree or disagree on the motivation(s). I am certain that our Civil Rights laws don't cover "political affiliation."


That's not a very good analogy; should've stuck with your first one.

Sure it is, if you're a hypocrite biden voter that wants to buy a gun It's all nonsense anyway it was just a post that upset the snowflakes, how is he going to know you're a biden supporter anyway.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Read through my other posts in this thread. I explain clearly why I think some of these folks can be reached and have their opinions changed. I am an an example of it.

First, I would argue that you are a rarity.

Second, no one was proposing the we place trust in you while those you supported politically were calling for going all Third Reich on us.

 

[SarahG]

Read through my other posts in this thread. I explain clearly why I think some of these folks can be reached and have their opinions changed. I am an an example of it.

As a person who in my earlier 20s was far left enough to have books published by Crimethinc, I tend to agree with this.

 

[MCgrease08]

First, I would argue that you are a rarity.

Second, no one was proposing the we place trust in you while those you supported politically were calling for going all Third Reich on us.

There are a whole lot of people out there that just don't follow politics as closely as most here do. They may be ignorant about what they voted for. We have an opportunity to educate them.

We can't hold the position that schools are indoctrinating our nation's youth and that they're all brain washed while also being unwilling to help "un-wash" their brains.

How many people find Christ through someone yelling at them that they're going to hell? Not many. It's the same concept here. Screaming at people that they voted wrong only drives them to dig in deeper to their current belief system.

ETA: I don't think I am all that rare. Look how many people were red pilled under Trump. Look how popular the "Walk Away" campaign was. Look at the state wide races in the last election. Republicans gained way more seats in the house than anyone expected. The extreme actions of Democrats and the push to shut down speech shows you just how scared they actually are that people might be turning away from them.