Gun nuts threaten gun store owner for selling gun they don't like

Yep, he was going to sell the wrong kind of gun, the kind your 3 year old can’t shoot his playmate with when you’re in the next room, the kind that can’t be used by thieves if they steal it from you, so they threatened to burn down his store, threatened him with unspecified violence, and finally he backed down. And “apologized for messing up” according to the story.

Because Freedumb, that’s why.

Wow. I’m kind of amazed by the moon logic here. “Oh my god, an innovation that makes guns safer and more secure! If the government mandated that, it would be the end of the world! OH MY GOD THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO MANDATE THAT!” These people are fucking insane.

In Rockville of all things. We’re not talking about Bumfuck Oklahoma here. This is amazing.

Gun nuts are fucking psychopaths. There is no behavior that would shock me coming from those dickheads.

I’m a gun nut, and I totally agree with the previous observation.

Yeah, I have nothing but condemnation for the crass idiocy involved here.

I will say it’s no different to me than people who threaten business owners that donate to political causes they dislike, though.

Boycott, yes. Threaten, no. I don’t see the logic behind “We’re for the sale of all guns, except those that feature new technology.”

People threaten businesses, political groups, churches because they either want to direct attention to a cause or they know intimidation will get them what they want. Usually both. Often, the people making the actual threats have been manipulated by more clever, insidious folks with a more complex agenda.

Perhaps the gun would be more accepted if it were to be redesigned a bit, you know, appearance-wise. Maybe with embossed cowboy hats, buckin’ broncos and American flags.

The gun store owner makes the point that, essentially, pro-gun people would like to ban a certain type of gun. That’s pretty rich.


How about if it worked as intended rather than leaving the owner defenseless?

The threats weren’t necessarily coming from locals. I highly doubt it, in fact.

I believe the main objection is a New Jersey law stating that all guns sold in the state would have to be smart guns within three years of smart guns being sold anywhere. Thus, this Rockville store would apparently have been the first to sell these weapons, thus setting the NRA set into action.

Clearly, these people are driven primarily by paranoia.

Why do you hate the free market?

This seems so facile, yet you say it like it’s supposed to be meaningful somehow. As if there’s a bunch of people who believe it’s perfectly fine to threaten business owners based on political causes, rather than simply organizing boycotts against them like every American has the right to do.

Ah yes, bothsidesdoitism in action. Martin, I didn’t realize you subscribed to the official religion of America’s pundit class.

First of all, I hope you’re not equating the perfectly legitimate threat of “I won’t buy your stuff, and I will encourage all my friends not to buy your stuff” with threats of violence and destruction.

Second, if my hope expressed in the previous paragraph is justified, let’s hear about some of these “people who threaten business owners that donate to political causes they dislike,” please. Cites, links, that sorta stuff.

Third, anyone think I should hold my breath while waiting for the NRA and other ‘legitimate’ pro-gun groups or politicians to condemn this sort of brownshirt crap? (I didn’t think so.)

What sides are we talking about again? I just said that threatening a business over the owner’s political donations is no different from threatening a business over what products they sell, at least to me.

I’m opposed to political boycotts primarily because I think they are stupid and foster greater divisiveness but no, a boycott is not the same as a threat.

Here is an article from the Heritage Foundation covering some instances of threats and bad behavior over Proposition 8 donations.

That’s just the first that comes to mind, but being associated with business owners (as I lease to them), I can say that random threats directed at businesses are pretty common and cover a lot of ground. It’s usually just one crack pot calling though, not the sort of organized display seen in this instance with the gun store owner. I know a guy whose primary business is owning a financial services/advisory firm, but one the “down low” he also owned several gambling parlors. Basically little buildings where people go in to play video poker and other gambling type games, often times structured in a way that they can win money but without it strictly running afoul of gambling statutes. One of them was robbed and the local newspaper interviewed him, he agreed to give them a statement as long as they didn’t publish his name in the article. When they went to publishing, they did print his name…he actually got several letters from crazy Christian types threatening to burn his business down due to his immorality.

I would probably guess this doesn’t happen that often, but the fact that it happened at all over something basically so benign suggests to me that there’s a subset of the population willing to randomly threaten people for very little reason.

I don’t know that you can still call the NRA a legitimate pro-gun group. When I was a member in the 70s and early 80s yes, they are little different from a shooting enthusiast/outdoorsman type group. Wayne LaPierre has taken them far down the rabbit hole.

I don’t think you’re going to find anyone defending criminals here.

AFAICT, there are some “smart gun only” laws that ban any handguns that are not smart guns right after the first smart gun goes on sale, so some idiots think that its the gun store owners fault rather than the legislature’s fault.

Since you brought it up, what insidious group or groups might you think were behind those threats?

What law is that?