- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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 1:05 am to Damone
Posted on 10/25/23 at 1:05 am to Damone
quote:
Sorry, I don’t judge who gets to avail themselves of constitutional rights by what politics they prefer.
i was in my LGS a few months ago, and watched the owner turn away two guys that reeked of marijuana. he wasn't going to risk it seeing as to how they'd probably lie about the "illegal drugs" question on the 4473 form.
eta: they were about to fill out the form for a Glock.
This post was edited on 10/25/23 at 1:06 am
0
Posted on 10/25/23 at 2:07 am to jrobic4
quote:
As great as it is to give them a dose of their own medicine, 2nd Amendment still reads "Shall not be infringed"
Changed my emotionally charged opinion based on common sense post.
eta- dudes idea of a "business card" is
This post was edited on 10/25/23 at 2:12 am
Posted on 10/25/23 at 2:29 am to Damone
quote:
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED*
*unless I don’t like what you think
Or unless it's scary looking, amirite Damone?
Posted on 10/25/23 at 2:45 am to stuntman
Here’s another viewpoint….
At what point does one’s right to deny service trump someone’s right to a firearm or vice versa? The store owner “has the right to serve whoever he wants”. Same scenario when the Christian bakers refused to make a gay cake.
If I were the store owner, I’d offer to transfer it to another store in town based on the customer’s preference. I’d then proceed to call that store after they’d left and let them know why I didn’t do the transfer.
At what point does one’s right to deny service trump someone’s right to a firearm or vice versa? The store owner “has the right to serve whoever he wants”. Same scenario when the Christian bakers refused to make a gay cake.
If I were the store owner, I’d offer to transfer it to another store in town based on the customer’s preference. I’d then proceed to call that store after they’d left and let them know why I didn’t do the transfer.
This post was edited on 10/25/23 at 2:47 am
Posted on 10/25/23 at 3:09 am to finchmeister08
Didn't read all the pages, but here's how I see the issue; nobody has a right to a service or a product. Rights don't impose obligations on others.
You do have a right to be armed. That does not mean you have a right to force someone to sell you a weapon. It would be like being able to force a tv station to sell you ad time for a commercial about supporting pedophilia. Sure, you have the freedom of speech to say something crazy like that, but the tv station isn't obligated to sell it to you, and they shouldn't be.
You do have a right to be armed. That does not mean you have a right to force someone to sell you a weapon. It would be like being able to force a tv station to sell you ad time for a commercial about supporting pedophilia. Sure, you have the freedom of speech to say something crazy like that, but the tv station isn't obligated to sell it to you, and they shouldn't be.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 3:14 am to International_Aggie
quote:
Last I checked, the gun store owner isn’t the government. He is free to determine who he engages in business with.
This.
People keep forgetting the amendments are there to protect you from the Government.
Privately owned business should still be able to refuse service to someone.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 5:41 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Yes. It says he ain't getting his hands on the goddamned gun because of the background check. So like I said, the implication that he got a gun without a background check is total bullshite gaslighting.
No. It literally explained the process.
You buy gun online, post for it, have it shipped to FFL dealer…No background check
Go to dealer to pickup said gun…background check.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 6:26 am to Tasty Thrill
Strange how so many come here to defend an arbitrary infringement on a constitutional right with zero due process 
Posted on 10/25/23 at 6:28 am to RFK
Strange how so many come here to defend an arbitrary infringement on a constitutional right with zero due process
Its a private transaction.
The man isn't entitled to the labor of others. I disagree with refusing to transfer, but its no different than restaurants refusing to accept MAGA patrons.
quote:
Its a private transaction.
The man isn't entitled to the labor of others. I disagree with refusing to transfer, but its no different than restaurants refusing to accept MAGA patrons.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 6:33 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
The man isn't entitled to the labor of others.
Got ourselves a real Adam Smith over here
Posted on 10/25/23 at 6:34 am to Damone
quote:
Got ourselves a real Adam Smith over here
Hows it going Che?
Got a bunch of poor black people doing your work so you can plot revolutions? A good comrade is a thinking comrade, force others to work for you.
This post was edited on 10/25/23 at 6:35 am
Posted on 10/25/23 at 6:38 am to RFK
quote:
Strange how so many come here to defend an arbitrary infringement on a constitutional right with zero due process
Strange how you think you're entitled to the labor of a privately-owned company.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 6:39 am to Tasty Thrill
But the Proud Boys aren't? Got it. Never stop moving those goal posts, pubs.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 6:40 am to Tasty Thrill
quote:Try again
Congress.gov PDF file - H. RES. 202
quote:
Prognosis
3% chance of being agreed to
Resolution was introduced, but hasn't been voted on. . .probably never will.
It was never submitted to be passed. It was submitted so GOP candidates can tell their constituents that they "pwned the libs real good".
This post was edited on 10/25/23 at 6:44 am
Posted on 10/25/23 at 6:40 am to RFK
quote:
Strange how so many come here to defend an arbitrary infringement on a constitutional right
Compare and contrast this with big tech censorship and the 1A.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 6:40 am to pankReb
quote:
Strange how you think you're entitled to the labor of a privately-owned company.
Most left wingers do.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 6:41 am to TrueTiger
quote:What if you are against both?
Compare and contrast this with big tech censorship and the 1A.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 6:48 am to Damone
quote:
Sorry, I don’t judge who gets to avail themselves of constitutional rights by what politics they prefer.
But you do.
You're in favor of laws that would restrict firearm ownership of those that are primality of one particular political preference, while at the same time not in favor of enforcing laws affecting people of another political preference.
and for what it's worth the FFL license holder has aright and a duty to refuse to sell a firearm to someone who he reasonably believes could be a threat to themselves or others.
2A supporters and Anti-A2 supporters won't like that in this case though.
But it doesn't change that fact.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 6:50 am to Robin Masters
quote:I believe he can withhold the weapon, unless it is legally disallowed in his state. Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right.
All I know is that you have an absolute intolerance of the store owners beliefs that he has a responsibility to withhold the weapon.
I just think his reasoning is wrong and unamerican. If it comes against Oregon law, I hope he gets sued.
Denying a purchase due to politics, makes me scoff when the GOP complains about the same.
Again. . .Republicans like what commies do, just not who they do it to.
This helps confirm that.
And also that you like to quote poets you clearly don't understand.
Posted on 10/25/23 at 6:51 am to jrobic4
quote:
As great as it is to give them a dose of their own medicine, 2nd Amendment still reads "Shall not be infringed"
2nd amendment doesn’t apply here. Government didn’t infringe. It was a private citizen who decided not to be a part of the transaction.
The first amendment doesn’t give you the right to badmouth an employer or other private citizen and the 2nd amendment doesn’t force a business to sell to anyone. Same as you cannot sue a burglar under the 4th amendment.
Page 6 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News