Let’s take of that little blind spot of yours:
“1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.”
You support terrorism.
As I said, I don’t accept that definition.
Reality sucks for you, then.
Ok. Terr supports terrorism according to the dictionary and most people, but not according to his own personal definition. I can accept that. Having read a little of the self serving justifications of Sendero Luminoso I’m guessing his stance isn’t an unusual one.
According to dictionary.com definition, (“the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes”) a lot of US government actions qualify.
It might not be out right terrorism, but it’s definitely making terroristic threats. Duh.
So that gives you the right to act like the fucking mafia? And they’re NOT the only ones on the market, and if you don’t want them to be, the correct way to stop that is to lobby the politicians. NOT to go and threaten some innocent merchant who’s only exercising HIS right of free enterprise. Boycott the store, speak out against him, but DON’T PROPOSE BLOWING UP HIS FUCKING BUILDING, YOU FUCKING MORON.
I don’t like the KKK, but I’m not going to go out and threaten to bomb their headquarters. Because they have a right to freedom of speech.
This guy selling these guns is NOT violating your second amendment rights. He’s not taking your guns away – he’s selling a product that other people are interested in. If nobody wants to buy the gun, he won’t sell it anymore. God, what did you pour on your cheerios growing up, bleach?
According to the post above, they will be the only ones on the market, by law, if that merchant starts selling them. If that is not true, I fully support this merchant and others selling them as much as they want.
His actions (again, if that law exists as described) directly lead to violation of the Second Amendment rights.
Then boycott the store, protest, lobby your congressmen, etc. Just because you have the right to bear arms doesn’t mean that gives you unlimited rights to do what you want, and threaten other, law-abiding citizens with violence. That merchant does NOT make the laws – he’s not a politician.
A right to bear arms doesn’t mean you have say, the right to shoot anyone who annoys you.
There was no shooting anyone.
That’s pretty weak shit man. Lawmakers are the ones who crafted that bullshit in New Jersey. The shopkeeper is only one step in the process created by the State. It’s pretty shit to attribute blame to him without also the state legislature. If it’s time to start the revolution the first on the wall shouldn’t be the store owner - far from it. He is not personally violating anyone’s rights.
Fuck I want constitutional carry across all 50 states but the way to get there is not to threaten violence. We are still at the first box (ballot) stage.
You don’t have the right to THREATEN to shoot anyone, either. If I were to call up my neighbor and say, “I’m gonna come over there and kill you now”, I can’t just say to the police, “Well, I didn’t SHOOT him, I just told him I would!” They’d still throw my ass in jail.
You really have no idea how the law actually works, do you?
No, the actions of the New Jersey government leads to the (purported) violation of 2nd Amendment rights. If as you assert the law in question violates those rights, then the courts will strike it down. SCOTUS has been rather 2nd-friendly of late.
This guy is just trying to run a legal business. Thinking that you have grounds to threaten him is vile and repugnant. At most you have a complaint against the legislators of NJ.
His actions directly lead to Second Amendment rights violation (again, if that law exists).
And of course the legislature is to blame. But so is the shopkeeper. He is aware (or if he wasn’t, he was made aware) that his actions will directly lead to violating the Second Amendment rights of people. I am glad he decided to desist.
Absolutely disgusting “interpretation” you’ve got there.
Your opinion is noted. And ignored.
If the store owner gets an ounce of blame then the legislature should get metric fuckloads. But we don’t see lunatics threatening them (some probably do). He says he didn’t know-and when informed he demured. Talking to him worked. Threatening him was a crime. Can you see the difference?
Even if he wanted to sell it and did so - it’s still the fault of the legislature. This strategy of harassing store owners is stupid anyways. An anti could and probly will just get an FFL themselves just to open a shop that sells this one gun. Why they haven’t already I don’t know. Maybe fascists are inherently retarded. Either way this guy is nothing compared to the fascists in the state government. If you place blame equally among those parties you are so fucktarded you hurt the cause.
Like threatening shop owners for political purposes?
You also ignore dictionary definitions and reality itself, so I find myself in good company.
You just contradicted yourself. And yes, they get more blame. But they are liberal morons. He is a gunshop owner. He should know better.
A misdemeanor in defense of liberty.
And his.
And why the fuck would you blame the store owner anyways - this is obviously a ploy to ban guns. The legislature for whatever reason couldn’t do it outright so they pull this bullshit. Do you also blame every single person who voted for their state legislator in New Jersey? Is it also acceptable to threaten them - I mean their actions are allowing violations of the 2nd amendment.
I have no idea how this is relevant to the thread, but fuck yes. If another country is occupying us, it’s total fucking war and anything goes.