Rights aside, why do we NEED guns, in the USA?
- Thread starter Martin Aston
- Start date
- Status
XavierBreath
Member
Let's suppose at my gun store I decided to not sell guns to people with sunburned necks who wear overalls or ball caps. Especially those characters with no sleeves on their T-Shirts. Aren't those shirts called "wife-beaters"? As in a history of domestic violence? As in ineligible to purchase firearms? If they wear cowboy boots, why shouldn't I just call the police when they leave? It is, after all my perogative and my right. That does not make it acceptable, does it?
It is fundamentally wrong to "deem" someone "suspicious" based on his skin color and the clothing on his back.
Cousin Mike
Member
Martin Aston said:
FTF said:
Well at the very least, we can be happy that you folks are so happy to identify yourselves so readily.
I'm sure stormfront.org has room for you two... I'd imagine you'd find the crowd over there to be more welcoming of your beliefs, rhetoric and business practices.
jnojr
Member
You're waaayyy off base. We didn't have a standing army because the Founding Fathers saw it as a tool that would inevitably lead to oppression. The Federal government was to have a few strictly-defined powers, and everything else devolved to the states. A standing army wasn't necessary... in a time of war, an army would be raised, and then disbanded when no longer needed.
Martin Aston
Member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2006
- Messages
- 17
Thanks, Saturnine, for being able to appreciate where I'm coming from instead of presuming that analogous examples are any indication of some kind of elitist bigotry going on. Some people are maybe just a little too keen to jump to conclusions based on some sense of defensive personal insecurity.
As is any business' right we can refuse service. But we only do so in obvious cases and we never do so with any beligerance or overt negativity. We are, for the most part, deliberately polite to everyone irregardless but we take our business seriously.
C'mon, we're not selling burgers. We're selling firearms and we believe that we have a responsibility to the community to be satisfied that we've done everything we could to insure that the person we're selling it to is a responsible citizen. But how do any of you think we would, or should feel if we sell a gun to someone who does go and uses it to take an innocent life? Who's responsibility, and who's guilt should that belong to? Us for selling it to them because they have a Right? The feds for approving their application? Or the society that we live in that makes the disaffected and disenfranchised amongst us think, for an instant, that violent crime can be cool?
@MachIVshooter; most of our business is done online and all that that entails, along with shop trade, keeps us all pretty busy most of the time. You were lucky to find a shop owner who was prepared to take you under his wing. Not everyone is so fortunate. My father died when I was six and my single mother didn't have a whole lot of time for my gun interests either. A little too busy working her butt off to keep food on the table. I learned what I could through the sources that were available. Like I said, Guns & Ammo and the local public library. I never found my Yoda...
Before I registered on this board I read through some of the threads and thought I was joining an open minded community of people with a shared enthusiasm for weaponry. I expected some political comments that I probably wouldn't agree with but I didn't expect to find so much aggressive defensiveness or such a willingness to jump to conclusions. Some, like Saturnine, seem to be open minded enough to see the line I'm pursuing but most are clearly finding it expedient to be simply reactionary.
OK, so I've obviously made a mistake and come to the wrong place and I guess I'll just go an find my online amusements elsewhere.
Sorry for the intrusion.
As is any business' right we can refuse service. But we only do so in obvious cases and we never do so with any beligerance or overt negativity. We are, for the most part, deliberately polite to everyone irregardless but we take our business seriously.
C'mon, we're not selling burgers. We're selling firearms and we believe that we have a responsibility to the community to be satisfied that we've done everything we could to insure that the person we're selling it to is a responsible citizen. But how do any of you think we would, or should feel if we sell a gun to someone who does go and uses it to take an innocent life? Who's responsibility, and who's guilt should that belong to? Us for selling it to them because they have a Right? The feds for approving their application? Or the society that we live in that makes the disaffected and disenfranchised amongst us think, for an instant, that violent crime can be cool?
@MachIVshooter; most of our business is done online and all that that entails, along with shop trade, keeps us all pretty busy most of the time. You were lucky to find a shop owner who was prepared to take you under his wing. Not everyone is so fortunate. My father died when I was six and my single mother didn't have a whole lot of time for my gun interests either. A little too busy working her butt off to keep food on the table. I learned what I could through the sources that were available. Like I said, Guns & Ammo and the local public library. I never found my Yoda...
Before I registered on this board I read through some of the threads and thought I was joining an open minded community of people with a shared enthusiasm for weaponry. I expected some political comments that I probably wouldn't agree with but I didn't expect to find so much aggressive defensiveness or such a willingness to jump to conclusions. Some, like Saturnine, seem to be open minded enough to see the line I'm pursuing but most are clearly finding it expedient to be simply reactionary.
OK, so I've obviously made a mistake and come to the wrong place and I guess I'll just go an find my online amusements elsewhere.
Sorry for the intrusion.
Cousin Mike
Member
Yeah, sorry we're not open minded enough to share your generalizations of people based on appearance, race, fashion, or whatever else you judge people by.
If you had simply left some of the posturing out of your original post, nobody would have a problem with what you posted, myself included. We know you don't sell candybars. But there is a big difference between a JDLR situation, and trying to pander to the crowd about your store policy of denying the "brotha's" based on what YOU decide their intentions are.
Guess you chose to pander that mess to the wrong crowd.
P.S. - I don't think your opinions on the 2nd amendment helped much either.
If you had simply left some of the posturing out of your original post, nobody would have a problem with what you posted, myself included. We know you don't sell candybars. But there is a big difference between a JDLR situation, and trying to pander to the crowd about your store policy of denying the "brotha's" based on what YOU decide their intentions are.
Guess you chose to pander that mess to the wrong crowd.
P.S. - I don't think your opinions on the 2nd amendment helped much either.
XavierBreath
Member
Obvious cases like a brother with bling wanting an SKS?
Is a white boy with bling wanting to see an SKS OK?
Is a brother without bling wanting to see an SKS OK?
Is a brother with bling wanting to see a Weatherby OK?
The last time I was asked for an ID prior to being shown a requested gun, I had $1200 cash in my pocket and I asked to see a used custom Colt 1911. After the demand that I show my ID, I was insulted enough to simply walk out and buy another gun somewhere else. I know what state I am a resident of, where I can legally buy, and that I am eligible to buy. If I am required to prove that before a dadgummed sales person will show me merchandise, under the guise of protecting his valuable time, then I will shop elsewhere. Period.
How about assigning responsibility for gun crimes to the person who pulls the trigger? This is not rocket science. By even entertaining anyone else is responsible, you are falling straight into the anti-gunner's trap. You have been suckered by their rhetoric. Individuals are responsible for their own actions. You sold a gun. The buyer used it to commit murder. The buyer/shooter is the criminal, not you. Glock is no more responsible for murder than Bud's Guns is. The murderer is the person who pulls the trigger, nobody else.
You didn't get the back slapping attaboys you expected for your statements. Instead, you had them held up for examination of what they were. You have found an open minded community. You have found one that accepts black men who wish to defend their families. You may want to take a look at who is being defensive and jumping to conclusions here.
I am still waiting for clarification on these points..
The shop you work at only caters to whitetail hunters?
Or perhaps your shop makes sales decisions based on skin tone and fashion?
Or do you make decisions regarding a person's character based on skin tone, fashion, and their predilection for "going after whitetail"?
Which is it?
That might be a good idea.
SoCalShooter
Member
I have my guns for self - defense, defense of family, and use the for hunting. I think you hit the nail on the head repeatedly, some people I have met who own guns really really should'nt, the whole "GANGSTA" style is concerning but I try not to judge a book by its cover, most of the youngins grow out of it and those that dont well they dont own the guns legally anyways, apparently its more "gangsta" to get them illegally. This is my view though and I dont know how it is accross the rest of the country, I do live in the DPRK so things are pretty screwed up as it is here.
Axman
Member
I suppose that you only would sell to a guy that pulls up driving a camoflage Jeep, comes in wearing camoflage army surplus fatigues, a green beret and a "Rambo" knife on his belt? Or maybe you'd only sell to the guy that comes pulling up with the big 4x4 Dodge Power Wagon with the rifle rack in the back window, then comes in wearing flourescent orange and smells of smoked venison?
How's that for stereotyping?
XavierBreath
Member
Whether an act is acceptable is not contingent on it being legal.
lurkersince03
Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2006
- Messages
- 176
^ This entire thread is exactly why I don't post in Legal and Political (in this case, I was shown this thread and had a laugh at everyone who posted).
Yesterday, 10:59 PM #45
Leanwolf
Suppose that left wing liberal responded with, "Well gee, maybe you will have to mix your own gunpowder, and cast your own bullets." Do you think gunpowder could be legislated, or lead ?"
Hmmmmm somehow I do not see that a firearm and ammunition are the same thing. I see these, as two mutually exclusive, physical items. Will the left fool with ammunition ? Well out here in California, efforts are made to require unique serial numbers marked on a shell case, when fired, that could then be used to determine the gun fired from, and search the state's gun owner data base to find out who owns that gun. If they accomplish that, as stupid, as it sounds, I can see those folks eventually banning metallic cartridges, which I do not see, as messing with the right of the people to keep, and bare arms.
Leanwolf
Suppose that left wing liberal responded with, "Well gee, maybe you will have to mix your own gunpowder, and cast your own bullets." Do you think gunpowder could be legislated, or lead ?"
Hmmmmm somehow I do not see that a firearm and ammunition are the same thing. I see these, as two mutually exclusive, physical items. Will the left fool with ammunition ? Well out here in California, efforts are made to require unique serial numbers marked on a shell case, when fired, that could then be used to determine the gun fired from, and search the state's gun owner data base to find out who owns that gun. If they accomplish that, as stupid, as it sounds, I can see those folks eventually banning metallic cartridges, which I do not see, as messing with the right of the people to keep, and bare arms.
ZeSpectre
Member
Because bad men will not disarm good men must not.
-nuff said.
-nuff said.
Need is irrelevant. Americans do and have millions of things they don't need. It's call "pursuit of happiness". Having a gun for the fun of shooting is no different than having a souped up hot-rod for the fun of racing. Both are dangerous, both have restriction on their use in public, but both should be totally free to use in a safe manner, even if only for entertainment.
The idea that we shouldn't have something we need is contrary to humanity. We don't need art, music, theater, emotions, love, fun, luxury, etc. But those things make life worth living. We are not animals who live to eat,reproduce, and die.
The idea that we shouldn't have something we need is contrary to humanity. We don't need art, music, theater, emotions, love, fun, luxury, etc. But those things make life worth living. We are not animals who live to eat,reproduce, and die.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
First and foremost, there is no way to tell if somebody is guaranteed to be irresponsible as to handling a firearm. Nor can one tell about some intended nefarious use. No law speaks to responsibility, now, for future actions taken later. Laws provide for punishment for improper actions after the action has occurred. (I'm deliberately omitting the "conspiracy" stuff.)
Sure, in today's world, it's appropriate for a gun store to worry about the federal law about straw purchases. However, it's always been appropriate from a moral standpoint, as laws against felons in possession have been around since before even the GCA of 1968.
I used to work gunshows. I know of many of us who gave some thought to "hinky" sales, laws or no laws. Unfortunately, right, wrong or indifferent, every individual has his own idea of "hinky".
Regardless, a buyer's irresponsibility after a purchase of a gun, a knife, a car or a claw-hammer is not the seller's problem.
As far as "need", that's not even an issue. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights says that the purpose of all ten amendments is to restrain government from abuse of power. Ergo, there is an established need already built into our fundamental document. Without the Second Amendment, there are merely left what might be renamed the Nine Privileges. Further, restraints on government cannot simultaneously be restraints on the individuals who are the only means to restrain the State from an abuse of power; that's contradictory.
As far as this thread, politeness will prevail--and that's not negotiable.
Art
Sure, in today's world, it's appropriate for a gun store to worry about the federal law about straw purchases. However, it's always been appropriate from a moral standpoint, as laws against felons in possession have been around since before even the GCA of 1968.
I used to work gunshows. I know of many of us who gave some thought to "hinky" sales, laws or no laws. Unfortunately, right, wrong or indifferent, every individual has his own idea of "hinky".
Regardless, a buyer's irresponsibility after a purchase of a gun, a knife, a car or a claw-hammer is not the seller's problem.
As far as "need", that's not even an issue. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights says that the purpose of all ten amendments is to restrain government from abuse of power. Ergo, there is an established need already built into our fundamental document. Without the Second Amendment, there are merely left what might be renamed the Nine Privileges. Further, restraints on government cannot simultaneously be restraints on the individuals who are the only means to restrain the State from an abuse of power; that's contradictory.
As far as this thread, politeness will prevail--and that's not negotiable.
Art
arthurcw
Member
AMEN!!!!!
I mean… Walking aside, why do we need legs? We invented the wheel many moons ago. Haven’t we, as a people, out grown the need for legs?
Yes, you do, indeed, have the right to refuse anyone you see fit. Please do. I encourage it. It is a unique business model to narrow your clientele as much as possible. I would consider it a community service if you continued to experiment with this.
If “Brother Bling” has an SKS to protect his family then that is fine by me. Although I would seriously suggest he also get a HD Shotgun, .357 revolver, and an EBR with standard cap mags because you just never know when you may need them. Then there is the need for a Semi auto hand gun. And if he's going to get the .357 anyway, why not encourage a .357 lever carbine. That is my favorite gun combo and can be had pretty cheaply. It’s just different tools for different needs. Now how many guns it that? That's a boat load of guns "Brother Bling" would perhaps be buying over the years.
Also, you missed a great chance to infect him with the C&R virus. If he has interest in the SKS, I might also encourage him to get into C&R. Imagine a bunch “Brother Blings” running around with SMLE’s and K31’s. Ah, to dream. Those poor Mil Surps need homes, dontchaknow.
Or am I off base here? When you said he wasn’t out for whitetail, what did you mean?
I’m not good with euphemisms.*
*Please Note: Author in a sarcastic mood after reading intro post.
Sylvan-Forge
Member
Martin Aston,
If you are interested in a comprehensive website covering the second amendment and constitution, check out http://www.constitution.org
If you are interested in a comprehensive website covering the second amendment and constitution, check out http://www.constitution.org
SolaScriptura139
Member
Since when did the purchase of firearms have to be relegated to hunting? Our second amendment rights aren't specifically for hunters. It doesn't matter what perceived reason a person buys the gun for, they should have the right to buy one. You can't sit around and judge people because of how they look. How do you know that Mr. Bling is going to take that SKS and blast somebody? If there's a good example of racial profiling, it's that statement right there.
greener
Member
Darned interesting comments on this thread.
The thread starts with "do people NEED" firearms? The only way "need" should ever come into a firearms purchase is that I "need" to demonstrate that I'm legally capable of purchasing the firearm and I "need" to demonstrate that I have the financial capability. I've purchased 4 handguns in the last 8 months. I didn't "need" one of them. Need had exactly ZERO to do with the purchases. I'm lucky enough to live in a state that some group hasn't decided to limit my purchases on the basis of what they think I need. It's about like having to prove that I need a new fishing rod.
The comments about the "brothers with bling" not buying an SKS for whitetail. An SKS fires 7.62mm ammuntion. Are you telling me that I couldn't take a whitetail at 100 yards with that. An M14 is not a hunting rifle, but there was a time I wouldn't have a problem with putting a 7.65 mm round in a whitetail at 300 yards with an M14 with iron sights. If I were buying something for deer hunting, I'd probably buy a rifle more suited to hunting, but what the "brother" is wearing when he buys the firearm and what he intends to do with it may have absolutely no correlation.
One of the posters was absolutely adamant about anyone purchasing a firearm needing a CCW course. I've been shooting since the late '50's. I've given rifle and pistol instruction instruction, been responsible for range operations with up to 2000 people qualifying and have been responsible for artillery safety. Now, explain to me in small words what training I need to go down to my local gunshop and buy a 1911, or any other firearm? I'm not an expert, but I'd guess I have more than a passing acquaintence with firearms. I just got a CCW and in Virginia they have the sense to recognize that there are folks out there who probably don't need a course in firearms handling and safety. I don't "need" a CCW, I just wanted one.
As for the folks behind the counter weeding out lookers and buyers, those that do in my case, probably lose sales. When I decide I want a firearm, I do a lot of looking before I buy. You may have talked to me 3 months ago to and get the sale today. I'll let you know if I'm looking or buying. If you aren't too busy to let me look, then you might get a sale. If I'm looking and you have customer who is buying, I don't mind waiting until you have time to waste on me.
The thread starts with "do people NEED" firearms? The only way "need" should ever come into a firearms purchase is that I "need" to demonstrate that I'm legally capable of purchasing the firearm and I "need" to demonstrate that I have the financial capability. I've purchased 4 handguns in the last 8 months. I didn't "need" one of them. Need had exactly ZERO to do with the purchases. I'm lucky enough to live in a state that some group hasn't decided to limit my purchases on the basis of what they think I need. It's about like having to prove that I need a new fishing rod.
The comments about the "brothers with bling" not buying an SKS for whitetail. An SKS fires 7.62mm ammuntion. Are you telling me that I couldn't take a whitetail at 100 yards with that. An M14 is not a hunting rifle, but there was a time I wouldn't have a problem with putting a 7.65 mm round in a whitetail at 300 yards with an M14 with iron sights. If I were buying something for deer hunting, I'd probably buy a rifle more suited to hunting, but what the "brother" is wearing when he buys the firearm and what he intends to do with it may have absolutely no correlation.
One of the posters was absolutely adamant about anyone purchasing a firearm needing a CCW course. I've been shooting since the late '50's. I've given rifle and pistol instruction instruction, been responsible for range operations with up to 2000 people qualifying and have been responsible for artillery safety. Now, explain to me in small words what training I need to go down to my local gunshop and buy a 1911, or any other firearm? I'm not an expert, but I'd guess I have more than a passing acquaintence with firearms. I just got a CCW and in Virginia they have the sense to recognize that there are folks out there who probably don't need a course in firearms handling and safety. I don't "need" a CCW, I just wanted one.
As for the folks behind the counter weeding out lookers and buyers, those that do in my case, probably lose sales. When I decide I want a firearm, I do a lot of looking before I buy. You may have talked to me 3 months ago to and get the sale today. I'll let you know if I'm looking or buying. If you aren't too busy to let me look, then you might get a sale. If I'm looking and you have customer who is buying, I don't mind waiting until you have time to waste on me.
----------quote-----------
I think the right to own a gun is a right so deeply engrained in the American cultural psyche that we're wasting our time and energies defending it. Ban any honest responsible American from owning or carrying a gun? Ain't gonna happen. Isn't it that level of personal freedom that defines us as Americans?
---------------------------
I wonder where you live. I used to live in Chicago. Technically, subjects of Chicago are American citizens, but they are certainly prohibited from carrying guns and are prohibited from owning many kinds of guns including any kind of handgun, and any kind of semiauto rifle with interchangeable magazines.
"Ain't gonna happen?" It already has happened in Chicago and Washington DC, and it's trying to happen in San Francisco.
I think the right to own a gun is a right so deeply engrained in the American cultural psyche that we're wasting our time and energies defending it. Ban any honest responsible American from owning or carrying a gun? Ain't gonna happen. Isn't it that level of personal freedom that defines us as Americans?
---------------------------
I wonder where you live. I used to live in Chicago. Technically, subjects of Chicago are American citizens, but they are certainly prohibited from carrying guns and are prohibited from owning many kinds of guns including any kind of handgun, and any kind of semiauto rifle with interchangeable magazines.
"Ain't gonna happen?" It already has happened in Chicago and Washington DC, and it's trying to happen in San Francisco.
Ryder
Member
That may seem out of the ordinary but it's not illegal to do so around here.
Try to keep an open mind. The majority of PEOPLE are good. How ironic if this bling covered person could save your life in a bad situation but was unable to assist because of a previous "bad impression" you had.
I have had black men come to my rescue twice. Total strangers with a sense of honor. Imagine that, believe that. Don't shoot yourself in the foot!
Mike, would you or a mod mind editing out the link to the white supremacist website? This may not have been your intent, but they recruit this way and giving them a plug doesn't help any....
Since I've already chimed in now, I guess I'll put out my thoughts on the thread. Please don't take it upon yourself to deem whether someone "needs" a gun or not, regardless of what race they are or what clothes are on their back. It's the same sort of hypocrisy as many anti-gunners have, the politically connected or wealthy wanting bodyguards and guns protecting them, while trying to bar possession by us mere commoners. It's disgusting to call yourself pro-rkba while trying to take that right away from another american that's trying to legally purchase arms within that right, because you don't like his skin color or clothes.
Since I've already chimed in now, I guess I'll put out my thoughts on the thread. Please don't take it upon yourself to deem whether someone "needs" a gun or not, regardless of what race they are or what clothes are on their back. It's the same sort of hypocrisy as many anti-gunners have, the politically connected or wealthy wanting bodyguards and guns protecting them, while trying to bar possession by us mere commoners. It's disgusting to call yourself pro-rkba while trying to take that right away from another american that's trying to legally purchase arms within that right, because you don't like his skin color or clothes.
- Status
