All they's good for is KILLIN' people!

[JN01]

"All they's good for is KILLIN' people!"

Really? So if you sell me one of these, I HAVE TO kill someone with it? :banghead:

 

[brickeyee]

All they's good for is KILLIN' people!

And sometimes there are people who deserve to have their actions stopped, and they occasionally die while being stopped.

 

[holdencm9]

I would pretended have to agree, then acted shocked and appalled that such a "reputable store" could even sell evil black rifles, then asked how he sleeps at night being a corporate death salesman, and then asked to speak to another clerk who--unless they exhibited similar views--I would purchase an AR from. [\sarc]

 

[C5rider]

I'm thinking that his reply was in response to the amount of interest that these guns have in that department. I'm really not sure if he's a sportsman/enthusiast or, if he's just there to punch in a sale. Could go either way.

I'll be back in that store before too long and the opportunity to find out may arise in conversation. He was pretty chatty up until then. Maybe he remembers me...

Mainly, my posting was to bring to light how segmented we can become if we let it. Maybe we should go to our local ranges and hold a national "Try My AR Day!" just to introduce folks to them.

 

[Warp]

If somebody told me ARs (or whatever) were only good for killing people, I'd say something like "I disagree, but even if that was all they were good for...so what?"

 

[jcwit]

Well in fact in reality that is what they were originally made for!

 

[ole farmerbuck]

....I think Walmart needs a new sales clerk at the gun counter.

I agree. Whats he even doing there? There is a guy like that at the Walmart I shop. He managed to get me delayed the other day and I have a CCH and a P I N! Figure that one out

 

[barnbwt]

The argument
"Semi-autos are only used by people who can't shoot"
is right up there with, and of the same logic as:
"What do you need that kinda gun for?"
and
"All they's good for is KILLIN' people!"

Let's ban cars with over 100 horsepower while we're at it, seeing as we're all so pragmatic all of a sudden . All they're good for is speeding!

The selfish concern of Fudds (an ugly word, and I don't like using it. But single-syllables carry more weight than descriptive phrasings) for their guns alone is what is reprehensible; that they would horse trade the rights of their fellow man for their own. The poem quoted above is a potent allegory, not because of the "Nazi's took all the guns" trope, but because of the selfish, immoral passivity of the speaker, which allows bad things to transpire under their watch.

In a way, you can't blame them. How many times do we see the EBG advocate defend his ownership of EBGs by carefully pointing out that any firearm can be a killing machine? Why does he feel compelled to do that--so that, when if the AWB gets revamped and passed (not that it's likely to happen), the walnut and blue steel guy will lose his guns, too?

The EBR guy is compelled to point out the "threat" of hunting rifles because it is factual and pertinent to the stated goal of the legislation being promoted. A Fudd distances himself solely out of short-sighted, selfish concern for his own property. Many would even prefer that EBRs remain the "boogeyman" to distract the gaze of the gun-grabbers from, again, their own arms. There is nothing more noble than looking after your own self interest (basic Objectivism), but when you sacrifice the rights of your fellows to do so, you inevitably doom yourself as well. It is the height of naivete to think the wood/steel single shots aren't next on the list after the EBRs, since they do carry just as much "risk" as the reviled weapons.

TCB

 

[awgrizzly]

Yes, the things were originally created to kill people. But what people were they created to kill? In every case, from the musket to the M16 and beyond, the people they were created to kill had to be killed. If a person wants to debate the propriety of wars they had better know of a way to avoid them. So far no one has come close.

However, the M16 is already illegal without registration, fees and oversight, so the subject is moot. ARs, civilian AKs, and other modern military styled weapons offered for the civilian market are not created just to kill people and are very good for other purposes. They are not military weapons and are no different than any other gun other than features, appearance and color (as we all know the term 'black gun' no longer applies).

However, it matters very little what the original purpose of a gun was and the intention of the inventor. As with all guns, from the blunderbuss on, the purpose and use of the weapon is up to the user. I have a number of ARs, most of which I have assembled, and I find them the very most fun to shoot of all guns I have shot. And after thousands of rounds I have yet to shoot or try to shoot a single person. It comes down to one issue, the thing is a pipe that goes bang and propels a projectile toward a target. What that target is is up to the shooter, not the gun. This applies to all guns, whether a BB gun or a howitzer, and any other characteristics or personifications attributed to them by some person are constructions of that person's mind and his problem alone. What that person said means squat.

That's all that needs to be said on this subject.

 

[Neverwinter]

So was the bow and the javelin. And yet those see much more usage recreationally rather than criminally, as with guns.

It is very difficult to reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into, or if you can't get them to let go of the fallacious precepts that led them there. Many times they will refuse to consider the evidence which might lead them to question what they believe. You can locate their cognitive dissonance, and that's the best place to argue from. One of their beliefs has to give way for the other.

 

[huntsman]

The selfish concern of Fudds (an ugly word, and I don't like using it. But single-syllables carry more weight than descriptive phrasings) for their guns alone is what is reprehensible; that they would horse trade the rights of their fellow man for their own.

After WWII there was strong resentment for certain types of handguns in this country, I don't think all of those men(many were GI's) were Fudds

I used to work with a Nam Vet who was a gun guy before he went in country after he got back he never touched a gun again.

I try not to presume that I know what everybodys motives are unless they come out and tell me.

 

[General Geoff]

Killing and death are sometimes necessary.


"Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."

 

[holdencm9]

After WWII there was strong resentment for certain types of handguns in this country, I don't think all of those men(many were GI's) were Fudds

I used to work with a Nam Vet who was a gun guy before he went in country after he got back he never touched a gun again.

I try not to presume that I know what everybodys motives are unless they come out and tell me.

I think there is a big difference between vets who were conscripted to fight and saw terrible things in war, and Fudds. Obviously that is not what anyone is talking about, but you make a valid point not to assume anyone's "reasoning" if you can cal it that, or motives for disliking something.

However, regardless of life experience, it is still not okay to infringe on anyone else's rights just because they don't like it. That would be like someone being against any and ALL forms of alcohol because their dad was an abusive alcoholic. I will respect their opinion, and feel bad that they had the terrible experiences that made them feel that way, but I will still enjoy myself a brew or cocktail whenever I feel like it, provided I am not a guest in their home.

 

[Baba Louie]

...when I started asking about the AR-platform rifles that were in the well-lit display case,...

After his response I would have agreed with him, smiled and said "Yup. Now let me see one of those. I've been thinkin about buying one you have for sale".

I received similar treatment at BassPS a few years back when sales clerk got quite smug about their policy of only selling "Hunting Rifles". My reply of "Coyotes and such can't tell the difference between an AR or a bolt action I reckon" didn't phase him. A couple of years later Remington came out with their R15, nowadays BPS sells a slew of other AR format "killin' machines" in varying shades of black.

The times, they are a changin'. But not really. Haters gonna hate, Lovers gonna love and loudmouth opinionated sales clerks can be found everywhere.

Smile at everyone you meet... and make the sell.

 

[huntsman]

However, regardless of life experience, it is still not okay to infringe on anyone else's rights just because they don't like it.

people will always bring emotional baggage to this type of issue and it's just someone's opinion until those someone's join together and change the law then you have infringement.

Till then it's just talk.

 

[holdencm9]

Yeah but as others have discussed, if other gun store employees share these views and make legal purchases "a hassle" or otherwise a pain in the neck, or make the person feel like they are being judged negatively, I'd say that is infringement.

 

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

Some people are just not going to like certain guns. It is their right. Some can be shown that a firearm is only as dangerous as its owner. Others will never like them. All we can do is not let it bother us. It is sad that the clerk said this, but he is entitled to his own opinion.

 

[k_dawg]

Personally, I would call the human resources department at corporate. Tell them they have an employee who is talking to customers about 'KILLN' people'. Maybe you should also call corporate security.

Hopefully, good riddance to that idiot.

 

[k_dawg]

I would agree that there are a significant number of firearm owners who believe there is 'no need to own' a pistol or EBR.

There are also many firearm owners who believe it is fine for their own kind to own certain firearms, and not the 'undesirables'.

 

[1911Tuner]

Yeah but as others have discussed, if other gun store employees share these views and make legal purchases "a hassle" or otherwise a pain in the neck, or make the person feel like they are being judged negatively, I'd say that is infringement.

Nope. Not unless they try to block the sale outright.

Till then it's just talk.

Bingo.

Personally, I would call the human resources department at corporate. Tell them they have an employee who is talking to customers about 'KILLN' people'. Maybe you should also call corporate security.

Hopefully, good riddance to that idiot.

So, you'd lie and try to get the guy fired because of his personal beliefs and exercising his right to verbalize those beliefs.

Interesting...

 

[ArfinGreebly]

I can see it's been a few months since I posted this.

Remember, these have no "legitimate sporting purposes."




A little later, I'll dig up an old post from late 2006 or early 2007 in a thread that had a title surprisingly similar to this.

It's pertinent in this context.

Well, I found it, but it's not as good a fit as I thought. Therefore I will simply post a link to it:

[post=3164978]Here ya go[/post].

 

[holdencm9]

Yeah but as others have discussed, if other gun store employees share these views and make legal purchases "a hassle" or otherwise a pain in the neck, or make the person feel like they are being judged negatively, I'd say that is infringement.

Nope. Not unless they try to block the sale outright.

Well in that case I guess we shouldn't mind arbitrarily raising "clerical" fees for permits to carry, or purchase, or extending the waiting period to purchase by a week or two. Or limiting you to one gun purchase per year. Or taxing ammo, a nickel per round. Nothing blocked outright but lots of infringing goin' on IMO. To me, if you have the right to own one, you also have the right to buy one without a lecture or guilt trip.

 

[barnbwt]

ArfinGreebly, my favorite "Genre Mixing Firearm Ad" has to be the Thompson:

Cowboys and Gangsters--Awesome
(Even if it's a good SD shoot, I feel kinda bad for those poor banditos with their SAA's and lever guns )

However, regardless of life experience, it is still not okay to infringe on anyone else's rights just because they don't like it.

Hey, it's the logic that's used to justify every restriction on free mens' liberty throughout history, again! The "rightness" or "wrongness" of the citizens' propensity to shackle their peers (themselves) has never stopped it before.

I have a theory that all tyrants truly do detest taking freedoms from their subjects--but find it necessary nonetheless...

TCB

 

[r1derbike]

ArfinGreebly, my favorite "Genre Mixing Firearm Ad" has to be the Thompson:

Cowboys and Gangsters--Awesome
(Even if it's a good SD shoot, I feel kinda bad for those poor banditos with their SAA's and lever guns )


Hey, it's the logic that's used to justify every restriction on free mens' liberty throughout history, again! The "rightness" or "wrongness" of the citizens' propensity to shackle their peers (themselves) has never stopped it before.

I have a theory that all tyrants truly do detest taking freedoms from their subjects--but find it necessary nonetheless...

TCB

Those cowboys and horses never had a chance!

 

[Sky]

tried to post a pic....didn't work

http://i.fra.bz/3kpp