Ratdog68
Member
LOL A hockey stick with a barrel !!
I gotta agree with ya there !! That's just a strange lookin' thing.
I gotta agree with ya there !! That's just a strange lookin' thing.
Before you buy from Brent Gurtek of French River Muzzleloaders..
- Thread starter green5594
- Start date
- Status
I have a question and maybe a comment about this issue.
I live in MA where staple guns are on the endangered list. I believe in the 2nd Amendment. I write letters, I argue with antis, I vote the way a pro-gunner should vote. I get pissed when I cannot buy certain guns that are on the MA NO-NO list, yet the drug selling puke on my street can legally drive a 3,000 lb weapon even with an impressive rap sheet. I have a Class A permit to carry which they don't give away but they're closing in on me still.
OK, so I'm a loyal pro 2nd-er. I just had to establish that.
But I can honestly say that I do not want everyone owning firearms, especially that drug dealing puke on my street. Selfish? Maybe. But he's the one that's going to give legit gun owners a bad name. Wait until some nitwit who shouldn't own a screwdriver buys a black powder gun at a gunshow and does something stupid with it - that's when they'll come down on the rest of us.
Do you guys really believe that everyone should be able to own a firearm? What about your worst enemy? Or a rapist? Child molester?
I'm not in the mood to be flamed so if you're inclined to attack me for posting this question, go pound sand. Attack my message, not me.
I live in MA where staple guns are on the endangered list. I believe in the 2nd Amendment. I write letters, I argue with antis, I vote the way a pro-gunner should vote. I get pissed when I cannot buy certain guns that are on the MA NO-NO list, yet the drug selling puke on my street can legally drive a 3,000 lb weapon even with an impressive rap sheet. I have a Class A permit to carry which they don't give away but they're closing in on me still.
OK, so I'm a loyal pro 2nd-er. I just had to establish that.
But I can honestly say that I do not want everyone owning firearms, especially that drug dealing puke on my street. Selfish? Maybe. But he's the one that's going to give legit gun owners a bad name. Wait until some nitwit who shouldn't own a screwdriver buys a black powder gun at a gunshow and does something stupid with it - that's when they'll come down on the rest of us.
Do you guys really believe that everyone should be able to own a firearm? What about your worst enemy? Or a rapist? Child molester?
I'm not in the mood to be flamed so if you're inclined to attack me for posting this question, go pound sand. Attack my message, not me.
Shultzhaus
Member
Pohill - I have to agree with you. Gun ownership should require some responsibility. MA is known for its strange gun laws. Maybe you should move down here to Lancaster Co. PA. We would welcome you into our sports club. The regional police use our range for practice, and share with us some of the horror tales of illicit gun use. Felons are regularly sent back to the "slammer" for even possesing a fire arm. There are several cases already here of guys sent up for life for drive by shootings. The number of arrests for illegal gun uses are never reported by the liberal media, because it might hurt their anti agendas. Anyone with a nice collection is labeled as having "an arsenal" in his house. More later
If I move from MA, they win. Other than the politics, I like it here. Right on the NH border, within view of the ocean, ME is 20 minutes away.
I have no problem preventing some people from owning firearms. My short list would be:
Politicians who vote against the 2nd Amendment.
Convicted felons
Criminally insane
Wait, those 3 might be one category.
I always ask anti gun people to name everyone they know who has been hurt by a gun, and then everyone they know who has been hurt by a motor vehicle. Guess which list is alot longer...
The fact that law abiding citizens can now carry their firearms onto federally owned parks is, to me,a sign that we're winning, or holding even. I'm optimistic but wary.
I have no problem preventing some people from owning firearms. My short list would be:
Politicians who vote against the 2nd Amendment.
Convicted felons
Criminally insane
Wait, those 3 might be one category.
I always ask anti gun people to name everyone they know who has been hurt by a gun, and then everyone they know who has been hurt by a motor vehicle. Guess which list is alot longer...
The fact that law abiding citizens can now carry their firearms onto federally owned parks is, to me,a sign that we're winning, or holding even. I'm optimistic but wary.
Shultzhaus
Member
I don't think I would give up a view of the ocean either. I have to drive about 30 Min. to the Chesapeake bay, but just think of all the seafood restaurants down there. I have heard that many Demo. congress people are not all that willing to go along with Pres. "O" on severe gun control. Too many are worried about re-election. What may become a problem future wise is the new Supreme court. You know about us white male extremists, we are a dangerous bunch.
arcticap
Member
This issue isn't about any state's laws about gun show or private party gun sales as much as it's about whether pro-gunners should actively boycott individuals if they personally have a less than staunch stance on the 2A.
1. Is the state regulation of private and gun show sales blatantly against 2A, or is it a moderate stance or can it even be considered to be in the public interest?
While I personally don't want or like additional hurdles and regulations, it's a bona fide issue of debate for those affected by it in Minnesota and Minnesota only. Since very few of us are residents of Minnesota, I don't have a right to claim any harm is done to me by their proposal.
My state requires an authorization for gun show sales but not for private long gun sales. However, if any gun is knowingly sold to a prohibited individual who then commits a crime it can lead to 5 years in jail here.
This state has a hotline for voluntary private sales authorizations and some people just won't sell long guns to individuals without a pistol permit here. Should those individulas be boycotted if they own a business and won't sell a long gun to a non-pistol permit holder in my state?
I couldn't care less because even my local gunshop has a sign in the window that states that they reserve the right to not sell to anyone that they chose not to, and that's their right to refuse to do business with those that they don't want to just like a local tavern owner can refuse to serve someone liquor.
I don't like it but as an American I accept it.
2. Should Brent Gurtek be boycotted for his views?
Well are his views rational, less than moderate, anti-2A, against the public interest or against my public interest as a resident of another state?
Not really. I'm not a resident of Minnesota, and while most support an individual's right to own and bear arms, they also support background checks for dealer gun sales. So if they see that a gun show or private sale loophole exists, then that's a bona fide issue for debate within their state.
If a person like Brent Gurtek had a family member who was slain by a gun aquired by a prohibited person without a background check, then maybe he has a logical and valid reason for holding his point of view for additional enforcement against selling to prohibited persons.
If a class of people are already prohibited from ownership of guns, the only thing that's lacking is the method of enforcement. I don't support additional enforcement, but I can understand why some do.
So should the business of anyone who supports such new enforcement be boycotted?
I think that's a personal choice whether to or not.
There's plenty of Americans who would support it and who also own a business.
Generally, I don't boycott Saudi oil companies that might have employees who donate to terrorist linked organizations whether knowingly or unknowingly, even though there certainly are believed to be many such Saudi individuals.
And I don't try to investigate who local businessman make political contributions to for the purpose of deciding whether to boycott them or not.
That's simply because they're Americans who are exercising their rights, and I'm chosing not to excercise my right to boycott them.
I suppose if they blatantly posted signs in their windows that they support more gun control measures, then I would get angry and boycott them.
But in some places, it often doesn't matter which candidate a businessman supports because all of the candidates from both parties support reasonable efforts to oversee unregulated guns sales to prohibited individuals.
The proposal is not quite as anti-2A as many that are already on the books in some states like assault weapons bans, magazine capacity limits, limitations on the length of knife blades, etc...
What Brent Gurtek says gets an abstention from me as far as touting a political position to boycott him over. I already know that I wouldn't have ever bought a gun from him anyway. And neither would 99.99% of the rest of the American population. There's probably more important fish to fry and issues to rally for and against than what his stance is on a proposed Minnesota state law. If I was a Minnesota citizen maybe I would care more, but since I'm not, I don't care very much about what his opinion his. It simpy doesn't affect me and I have no power or influence over his opinion, nor should I. Stating his opinion seems to me to be more about having the freedom to exercise a 1st Amendment right, whether his opinion is right or wrong.
1. Is the state regulation of private and gun show sales blatantly against 2A, or is it a moderate stance or can it even be considered to be in the public interest?
While I personally don't want or like additional hurdles and regulations, it's a bona fide issue of debate for those affected by it in Minnesota and Minnesota only. Since very few of us are residents of Minnesota, I don't have a right to claim any harm is done to me by their proposal.
My state requires an authorization for gun show sales but not for private long gun sales. However, if any gun is knowingly sold to a prohibited individual who then commits a crime it can lead to 5 years in jail here.
This state has a hotline for voluntary private sales authorizations and some people just won't sell long guns to individuals without a pistol permit here. Should those individulas be boycotted if they own a business and won't sell a long gun to a non-pistol permit holder in my state?
I couldn't care less because even my local gunshop has a sign in the window that states that they reserve the right to not sell to anyone that they chose not to, and that's their right to refuse to do business with those that they don't want to just like a local tavern owner can refuse to serve someone liquor.
I don't like it but as an American I accept it.
2. Should Brent Gurtek be boycotted for his views?
Well are his views rational, less than moderate, anti-2A, against the public interest or against my public interest as a resident of another state?
Not really. I'm not a resident of Minnesota, and while most support an individual's right to own and bear arms, they also support background checks for dealer gun sales. So if they see that a gun show or private sale loophole exists, then that's a bona fide issue for debate within their state.
If a person like Brent Gurtek had a family member who was slain by a gun aquired by a prohibited person without a background check, then maybe he has a logical and valid reason for holding his point of view for additional enforcement against selling to prohibited persons.
If a class of people are already prohibited from ownership of guns, the only thing that's lacking is the method of enforcement. I don't support additional enforcement, but I can understand why some do.
So should the business of anyone who supports such new enforcement be boycotted?
I think that's a personal choice whether to or not.
There's plenty of Americans who would support it and who also own a business.
Generally, I don't boycott Saudi oil companies that might have employees who donate to terrorist linked organizations whether knowingly or unknowingly, even though there certainly are believed to be many such Saudi individuals.
And I don't try to investigate who local businessman make political contributions to for the purpose of deciding whether to boycott them or not.
That's simply because they're Americans who are exercising their rights, and I'm chosing not to excercise my right to boycott them.
I suppose if they blatantly posted signs in their windows that they support more gun control measures, then I would get angry and boycott them.
But in some places, it often doesn't matter which candidate a businessman supports because all of the candidates from both parties support reasonable efforts to oversee unregulated guns sales to prohibited individuals.
The proposal is not quite as anti-2A as many that are already on the books in some states like assault weapons bans, magazine capacity limits, limitations on the length of knife blades, etc...
What Brent Gurtek says gets an abstention from me as far as touting a political position to boycott him over. I already know that I wouldn't have ever bought a gun from him anyway. And neither would 99.99% of the rest of the American population. There's probably more important fish to fry and issues to rally for and against than what his stance is on a proposed Minnesota state law. If I was a Minnesota citizen maybe I would care more, but since I'm not, I don't care very much about what his opinion his. It simpy doesn't affect me and I have no power or influence over his opinion, nor should I. Stating his opinion seems to me to be more about having the freedom to exercise a 1st Amendment right, whether his opinion is right or wrong.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
