- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Gun Store Owner Refuses to Transfer Firearm to Antifa Supporter
Posted on 10/25/23 at 1:28 pm to Damone
Posted on 10/25/23 at 1:28 pm to Damone
Can't stand Antifa and I hope this one gets killed, but unless the gun shop owner has some legal reason to deny him his property, this is wrong. We don't want to get into a situation where anyone on either side gets the power to usurp your inalienable rights without due process.
1
Posted on 10/25/23 at 1:37 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Right after you show where it talks about anthrax and ricin.
What's "it"? The 2nd Amendment talks about "arms". Those are arms. The point is that absolutes are for children.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 1:43 pm to shinerfan
quote:
What's "it"? The 2nd Amendment
Yes, that's how English works...
quote:
The point is that absolutes are for children.
No, the point is that you're attempting a variation of the smooth-brained "Muh Nuclear Weapons" argument. You're going to fail. I'm just allowing you to do it on your own.
Now...where does "it" talk about anthrax and ricin? It isn't "arms," so try again.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 1:44 pm to Tasty Thrill
I disagree with this. If the guy passed the background check and has no criminal record, he has the right to the gun be bought.
A liberal store owner could then do the same to a “right wing extremist” and y’all would complain about it.
The erosion of rights starts when we start accepting the infringing of rights on those we don’t like or disagree with
A liberal store owner could then do the same to a “right wing extremist” and y’all would complain about it.
The erosion of rights starts when we start accepting the infringing of rights on those we don’t like or disagree with
Posted on 10/25/23 at 1:47 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Yes, that's how English works...
Your sloppy writing is nothing to be smug about. But I guess you don't have much so carry on.
quote:
It isn't "arms," so try again.
This is simply false and you know it.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 1:48 pm to shinerfan
quote:You would have a hard time finding an 18th-century American who would have considered a disease to fall within the category of "arms." Good luck convincing him that the 2nd Amendment means that the government could not prevent you from carrying the blanket of a deceased smallpox victim into the local grocery store.
Where do you stand on anthrax and ricin? The weaponized versions are most certainly "arms".
Of course, edged weapons DO fall within the 18th-century definition of "arms," so I think I will start wearing a Bowie strapped to my leg everywhere I go.
This post was edited on 10/25/23 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 10/25/23 at 1:48 pm to shinerfan
quote:
Your sloppy writing is nothing to be smug about. But I guess you don't have much so carry on.
This is a discussion. Your inability to follow it is on you alone.
quote:
This is simply false and you know it.
It isn't.
I think your issue is that you don't really understand what "Second Amendment absolutism" actually means. Maybe you should start there.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 1:54 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:So you basically believe that as long as they can pass the background check, they are entitled to bear arms, regardless of affiliations or beliefs?
I quite literally don't care about any of that.
I can see the point of this kinda, because if they are a violent terrorist, they’d probably have a record and would not pass the background check anyway.
If they pass the background check, and you still deny them, you are kinda accusing them of conspiring to commit violence.
But, the decision still lies in the judgment of the FFL dealer. There are numerous scenarios where it would be appropriate for the FFL dealer to deny the transfer regardless if the person passes the background check.
Let’s just assume all of the following individuals passed the background check: You are the FFL dealer.
Guy walks into gun shop and wants to pick up a pistol. He looks pissed off at the world and you hear him mumble, “That fricking bitch is gonna get what she deserves now.” Are you going to do the transfer?
Woman walks in and wants to pick up a pistol. She keeps telling you about little green people that keep coming into her house at night and how the government is sending them. And her neighbors are helping the government spy on her. Are you going to do the transfer?
Middle Eastern guy comes in to pick up an AK-47 and wants to buy several hundred rounds of ammo for it. He’s wearing a green Hamas headband. Are you going to do the transfer?
Are you really an “absolutist” or are you going to use your best judgment?
This post was edited on 10/25/23 at 5:38 pm
Posted on 10/25/23 at 2:01 pm to deltaland
quote:If I walked into a gun shop with a MAGA hat on and the owner refused to sell me a weapon, yes I’d be pissed. But that would be his right as the business owner. I’d just find a gun shop with an owner that did not have a problem with my political leanings.
A liberal store owner could then do the same to a “right wing extremist” and y’all would complain about it.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 2:02 pm to bhtigerfan
No, I don't think we should be in the habit of choosing who is allowed to have natural rights based on beliefs.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 2:05 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:You and your wife have the natural right to reproduce. The government cannot prohibit you from doing so.
No, I don't think we should be in the habit of choosing who is allowed to have natural rights based on beliefs.
You don't have a right to copulate on the sales counter in my shop.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 2:09 pm to Antoninus
quote:
You and your wife have the natural right to reproduce. The government cannot prohibit you from doing so.
You don't have a right to copulate on the sales counter in my shop.
First, yet again, I've not once advocated for the gun store's owner to be forced to do anything.
Second, your pitiful example has nothing to do with denial of the right based on belief.
Nice try, NotHank.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 2:15 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I think your issue is that you don't really understand what "Second Amendment absolutism" actually means
I understand what it means in English but what it means in your delusional little universe of one means very little to me.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 2:16 pm to shinerfan
quote:
I understand what it means
You've demonstrated the opposite.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 2:22 pm to Antoninus
quote:
18th-century definition of "arms,"
How about the Congreve rocket? It was a 12-15 foot bottle rocket with a pretty hefty payload but the lack of accuracy made it useless for anything other than indiscriminate destruction within a besieged city. It offered no possible use for personal defense and was very well known to the Framers. Maybe you could strap one of those to the top of your Prius.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 2:29 pm to shinerfan
quote:invented almost 20 years after ratification of the 2nd Amendment, but let's pretend it existed at the time.quote:How about the Congreve rocket? It was a 12-15 foot bottle rocket with a pretty hefty payload but the lack of accuracy made it useless for anything other than indiscriminate destruction within a besieged city. It offered no possible use for personal defense and was very well known to the Framers.
18th-century definition of "arms,"
What the heck point are you trying to make?
Posted on 10/25/23 at 2:30 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Read my post up the page, i edited it.
DisplacedBuckeye
I can see where you’re coming from, but it’s a complex situation with numerous scenarios.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 2:31 pm to bhtigerfan
quote:
Read my post up the page, i edited it.
I can see where you’re coming from, but it’s a complex situation with numerous scenarios.
I saw the edit. It doesn't change my reply.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 2:33 pm to Antoninus
quote:
Of course, edged weapons DO fall within the 18th-century definition of "arms," so I think I will start wearing a Bowie strapped to my leg everywhere I go.
I have no problem with that. Do it.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 2:38 pm to Captain Rumbeard
quote:
Can't stand Antifa and I hope this one gets killed, but unless the gun shop owner has some legal reason to deny him his property, this is wrong. We don't want to get into a situation where anyone on either side gets the power to usurp your inalienable rights without due process.
Maybe, at the point the US Government licenses you to be the transfer agent for a legal firearm, BUT tells you "if the firearm is involved in a crime you could have prevented, knowing what you know about the issuee at the time of transfer, YOU can be charged", then you should be free to make judgements about the issuee as to the likelihood of that happening, and react accordingly.
Page 14 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News