How dare you threaten to shoot me! Shoot the politicians. Take them out on the street and shoot them. How dare you threaten to shoot me.
Is that a giant bottle of booze?
Threats against churches, political groups, and businesses at large, or specifically against the gun store in question? Because, that particular gun store represented a keystone “domino” falling, that could start a landslide of sorts. The
issue is more complex than “Smart guns save lives” or “Your damned ‘smart gun law’ will ban other guns”. These are politicians playing power games with a Constitutional Right. No one is as insidious as a politician.
You’re still playing that sly “hint” game. Are you saying you think the NRA is behind this, or are you saying the Democrats are?
If that is true, I fully endorse the “gun nuts” action.
Thank you. I believe the relevant passage is this:
I don’t think it means the first time a gun shop owner in that state offers one for sale, though. It says “deemed to be
available for retail sales purposes”, which would be the first time the manufacturer of said weapon puts it on the market. That ball is already in motion.
You fully support domestic terrorism?
You’re an idiot. Even though I don’t support the laws involving “smart guns”, I also don’t support advocating violence.
Way to give ammo to the other side.
That’s a good question. How do you effectively disarm a population of potential voters in a Democracy? This is one of the ways to realize that goal. Who, then stands to gain the most from disarming the People? I’d say the Authoritarians (in this case, the Government) stand to gain the most, so I suppose they are behind the movement to gradually disarm “you”.
You support death threats and threats to burn stuff down?
I asked you who was supposedly behind the threats towards this shop owner. Are you or are you not claiming that the Democrats are behind it?
This is a fantastic gun control/nut thread. We clocked a total of 24 consecutive posts of defensible positions before the thread left the rails. (Previous record: 5 posts, I would guess.) Good work guys!
Thank you, RTF, for posting this thread. I was going to if you hadn’t.
Only two things I can contribute:
-
I am agog at the levels of crazy gun nuttery is rising to. Threatening violence for selling a safer gun? Do they really think safety equates with diminished rights?
-
It seems some people in this thread want to support the crazies, but not overtly. I’m seeing this in the form of intentional ambiguity. Looking at you, SirGalahad.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
If it is true that once the “smart” gun is offered for sale in one store, the clock starts ticking until only “smart” guns are allowed for sale everywhere in the state, then I support the “gun nuts” using any method/pressure short of breaking laws (or even breaking laws in “civil disobedience” sense) to prevent that from happening.
No - that’s not retail sale. Retail sale is through an FFL to an individual. Unless the manufacturer is offering direct sales which it doesn’t appear to be doing.
Threats of violence are bad and should be punished according to the law.
Smart gun politics are bad and politicians who engage in it should be voted out of office and the state should be sued into compliance with the second amendment.
I’d say the individual who made the threats is a useful idiot puppet manipulated by elements of the media and of carefully managed “gun-culture” dis-information. I gather Politicians from both sides of the aisle benefit from, (and so are ultimately responsible for) his actions. That was easy.
You said you fully support the actions of those “gun nuts”(your words, not mine). How would you describe their behavior?
Defending their Constitutional rights.
But the manufacturer making it available is what makes it available for retail sale.