SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 212>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Mark Kelly isn't going to get his AR-15, Not from this store anyway< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 26 2013, 1:35 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Store owner Doug MacKinlay said Monday in a Facebook post of his own that he "determined that was in my company's best interest to terminate this transaction prior to his returning to my store."
"While I support and respect Mark Kelly's 2nd Amendment rights to purchase, possess, and use firearms in a safe and responsible manner, his recent statements to the media made it clear that his intent in purchasing the Sig Sauer M400 5.56mm rifle from us was for reasons other then for his personal use," MacKinlay said in the statement.
He added that the store will return Kelly's money, donate the rifle to the Arizona Tactical Officers Association to be raffled as a fundraiser and make an additional contribution of $1,295 -- the value of the rifle -- to the Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politic....fUwSGvF


--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
Wailer Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1756
Joined: Jun. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 26 2013, 4:36 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

What's next  - Are retailers going to start asking customers how they intend to use hammers and then deem whether it is an approved use?

Doesn't any use after purchase constitute "personal use"?

Ultimately, I would suppoort the retailer to sell to whom he wants to...within federally protected limits.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
EastieTrekker Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 26 2013, 4:47 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Seems a bit of a hypocritical move for an owner of a gun shop, who I would assume, is a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment (which he is infringing in this case).

ETA: I realize "infringe" might be a strong word to describe what's going on here.  It's not as though the shop owner is preventing Kelly from making the same purchase at another shop, but it still smells hypocritical, right?


--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice.   ???
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 26 2013, 4:56 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Wailer @ Mar. 26 2013, 4:36 pm)
QUOTE
What's next  - Are retailers going to start asking customers how they intend to use hammers and then deem whether it is an approved use?

Doesn't any use after purchase constitute "personal use"?

Ultimately, I would suppoort the retailer to sell to whom he wants to...within federally protected limits.

I doubt that retailers wood do that with hammers. Unless of course, the idea of banning hammers grew some legs. No, I just think the retailers making his political statement just as Kelly has made his.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
EastieTrekker Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 26 2013, 5:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Mar. 26 2013, 4:56 pm)
QUOTE
No, I just think the retailers making his political statement just as Kelly has made his.

I agree with that.  That was obviously the shop owners intent.  However, I still think he's missing his intended mark, as it were.

I imagine he (the gun shop owner) believes that all Americans of sound mind, with clean backgrounds, and available funds should have the unalienable right to purchase a firearm in this country.  I imagine he feels some of the ideas being tossed around by gun control advocates are an affront to the 2nd Amend.

So then, Kelly decides to purchase a couple guns from him (which he obviously didn't have an issue with initially), but upon finding that his customer might not just be taking his AR-15 to the range, rather to demonstrate the ease in purchasing that particular gun, he decided to cancel the sale.  

In other words, to protest against gun control, he just prevented the purchase of a firearm by an otherwise completely legitimate customer, who had every right to make that purchase.

That's the definition of irony.  It just makes me feel like 2nd Amendment advocates really aren't advocating for the 2nd Amend. rights of ALL Americans, rather their just interested in ensuring that they can PERSONALLY continue to own guns.  Selfish vs greater good...

ETA: Out of the zillions of gun threads that have been posted recently, this one is really an interesting take, IMO.


--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice.   ???
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 26 2013, 5:16 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

There have been a zillion. I don't think this retailer is interested in infringing upon Kelly's 2nd amendment rights. There are so many other outlets for him to exercise that right, and he knows it. Perhaps the retailer didn't want to be "used" to promote Kelly's political agenda. Oh, btw, he didn't miss his intended mark, Mark Kelly!

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
wwwest Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6286
Joined: Dec. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 26 2013, 6:00 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I think that Mark Kelly, and an army of gun control supporters should start having press conferences at gun dealers stores, complete with cameras and reporters, making it clear that they intend show the public how easy it is to get assault rifles, and further that they intend to remove those guns from active use.

Apparently, this could be the best gun control we could possibly get, i.e., gun dealers stop selling assault rifles!!   :p

And even better, the dealers will also give the unsold guns to the police, and make a nice contribution to a gun safety organization.

I really like this trend!  Way to go, Mark Kelly!!


--------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

- John Kenneth Galbraith
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
bigsilk Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1096
Joined: Feb. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 26 2013, 6:07 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Mar. 26 2013, 4:56 pm)
QUOTE
I doubt that retailers "wood" [SIC] do that with hammers.

Please, tell me that was a joke... Please? PLEASE! I beg you, lie to me, if not.


--------------
There are only two things I don't like about people: They take too long to cook and taste like crap when they're done.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
Ecocentric Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4939
Joined: Jun. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 26 2013, 6:08 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

It was a publicity stunt. If NASA trusts the guy to pilot the space shuttle, he shouldn't raise any suspicion when legally buying a gun. I seriously doubt that this gun dealer is so principled with all of his clients.

--------------
"Travel suggestions from strangers are like dancing lessons from God." -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 26 2013, 6:12 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(bigsilk @ Mar. 26 2013, 6:07 pm)
QUOTE

(Montecresto @ Mar. 26 2013, 4:56 pm)
QUOTE
I doubt that retailers "wood" [SIC] do that with hammers.

Please, tell me that was a joke... Please? PLEASE! I beg you, lie to me, if not.

I'm a carpenter! But no, it certainly was a typo. Sorry to disappoint you.


--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 26 2013, 6:14 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ecocentric @ Mar. 26 2013, 6:08 pm)
QUOTE
It was a publicity stunt. If NASA trusts the guy to pilot the space shuttle, he shouldn't raise any suspicion when legally buying a gun. I seriously doubt that this gun dealer is so principled with all of his clients.

Of course he wasn't being principled, it was a publicity stunt, just as Mark Kelly's was a publicity stunt. May have given a bump to sales by people wanting to reward him for cuffing Kelly.


--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
wwwest Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6286
Joined: Dec. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 27 2013, 1:48 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The whole thing is working out for Kelly, expanding public exposure and getting way more free publicity than he would have gotten had the gun been delivered to him as contracted!!

Check out the way it is being used to attract new participants in the Facebook pages of Americans for Responsible Solutions.

Keep banging the drums, you are drawing a crowd!  heh


--------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

- John Kenneth Galbraith
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
Ecocentric Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4939
Joined: Jun. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 27 2013, 1:56 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Really, if you are in favor of personal liberty, why not champion Kelly's legal right to buy a gun for perfectly legal purposes? Is it possible that his sense of good ethics is better than your sense of good ethics? In my eyes, the gun dealer was a hypocrite whose financial loses will quickly be repaid manyfold. Freedom of speech, so long as it isn't photos of murdered children? I think that some peoples' love of things is overwhelming their appreciation for people. That is a corrupt agenda, in my mind.

--------------
"Travel suggestions from strangers are like dancing lessons from God." -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
Old Frank Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1086
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 27 2013, 2:05 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Being a natural-born skeptic, I'm not 100% convinced of Kelly's stated motive when he originally tried to buy the sig sauer.  

Got caught, told a fib, and is now doing damage control?

(Did he  document/discuss his show-how-ez-it is plan with others before he made the original purchase attempt???).


--------------
My favorite compliment: "GrandPa, I've seen other old men, and their faces are a whole lot cruddier than yours is".
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
EastieTrekker Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 27 2013, 2:13 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Old Frank @ Mar. 27 2013, 2:05 pm)
QUOTE
Being a natural-born skeptic, I'm not 100% convinced of Kelly's stated motive when he originally tried to buy the sig sauer.  

Got caught, told a fib, and is now doing damage control?

(Did he  document/discuss his show-how-ez-it is plan with others before he made the original purchase attempt???).

Why on earth does it matter?!?

As long as his intention wasn't for something illegal, why should he have been refused?  That's the whole point here.  

Gun advocates screaming from the hills, that, "Thou shall not stop a US Citizen of sound mind, clean background, from purchasing a gun for any lawful purpose, as protected under the constitution".

Now, that a gun was to be purchased for the completely legal use of demonstrating the ease of purchase, or any other legal use shouldn't matter!  He wasn't buying it to commit a crime, and he was a qualified purchaser.

But because of who he is, gun advocates now support his rights being infringed.  Give. Me. A. Break.  www.youcan'thaveitbothways.com


--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice.   ???
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
3-gun. Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 292
Joined: Feb. 2003
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 27 2013, 4:18 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

After he got called on buying the AR, he said he was not buying it for himself. On the 4473 it ask's if the gun is for you or are you buying it for someone else. It was a "straw purchase" and the seller can not procede with the sell.

--------------
"But the new Admin. is a Master in IDPA"
"MASTER in IDPA..."
"is like C Class in IPSC!"
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 27 2013, 4:32 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(3-gun. @ Mar. 27 2013, 4:18 pm)
QUOTE
After he got called on buying the AR, he said he was not buying it for himself. On the 4473 it ask's if the gun is for you or are you buying it for someone else. It was a "straw purchase" and the seller can not procede with the sell.

And the plot thickens.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
EastieTrekker Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 27 2013, 4:35 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(3-gun. @ Mar. 27 2013, 4:18 pm)
QUOTE
After he got called on buying the AR, he said he was not buying it for himself. On the 4473 it ask's if the gun is for you or are you buying it for someone else. It was a "straw purchase" and the seller can not procede with the sell.

Eh....that's a little misleading.  He may not have buying it for his own personal usage at the local range, but he most certainly was not buying it for someone else's use.  

Why should the way he uses it matter?  What if I want to go buy a gun just to destroy it, or throw it in a lake, or to buy it simply to donate to my local police force?  I don't have the right to do that all of a sudden?

Months and months of debate of how much of an affront to our personal rights it would be for any law that makes it more difficult to purchase a gun.  But now all the gun advocates barely bat an eye at this because of who it was...hypocrisy at its finest.

ETA: By the way 3-gun, your explanation is the best in this thread, but 1.) I haven't seen anything indicate he was purchasing the AR-15 to give to someone else, and 2.) I just find the action by the shop owner still to be hypocritical even in that circumstance because this doesn't really meet the definition of a "straw purchase" in my book.


--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice.   ???
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 27 2013, 4:40 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(EastieTrekker @ Mar. 27 2013, 2:13 pm)
QUOTE

(Old Frank @ Mar. 27 2013, 2:05 pm)
QUOTE
Being a natural-born skeptic, I'm not 100% convinced of Kelly's stated motive when he originally tried to buy the sig sauer.  

Got caught, told a fib, and is now doing damage control?

(Did he  document/discuss his show-how-ez-it is plan with others before he made the original purchase attempt???).

Why on earth does it matter?!?

As long as his intention wasn't for something illegal, why should he have been refused?  That's the whole point here.  

Gun advocates screaming from the hills, that, "Thou shall not stop a US Citizen of sound mind, clean background, from purchasing a gun for any lawful purpose, as protected under the constitution".

Now, that a gun was to be purchased for the completely legal use of demonstrating the ease of purchase, or any other legal use shouldn't matter!  He wasn't buying it to commit a crime, and he was a qualified purchaser.

But because of who he is, gun advocates now support his rights being infringed.  Give. Me. A. Break.  www.youcan'thaveitbothways.com

Really having trouble with your analysis here ET. This store owner is not the government. The bill of rights protects us citizens from the government. This store owner can't "infringe" on Kelly's right because he has so many other options to purchase a firearm. This store owner has a right to refuse service to anyone, so long as he's not discriminating on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc..

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
EastieTrekker Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 27 2013, 4:50 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Mar. 27 2013, 4:40 pm)
QUOTE

(EastieTrekker @ Mar. 27 2013, 2:13 pm)
QUOTE

(Old Frank @ Mar. 27 2013, 2:05 pm)
QUOTE
Being a natural-born skeptic, I'm not 100% convinced of Kelly's stated motive when he originally tried to buy the sig sauer.  

Got caught, told a fib, and is now doing damage control?

(Did he  document/discuss his show-how-ez-it is plan with others before he made the original purchase attempt???).

Why on earth does it matter?!?

As long as his intention wasn't for something illegal, why should he have been refused?  That's the whole point here.  

Gun advocates screaming from the hills, that, "Thou shall not stop a US Citizen of sound mind, clean background, from purchasing a gun for any lawful purpose, as protected under the constitution".

Now, that a gun was to be purchased for the completely legal use of demonstrating the ease of purchase, or any other legal use shouldn't matter!  He wasn't buying it to commit a crime, and he was a qualified purchaser.

But because of who he is, gun advocates now support his rights being infringed.  Give. Me. A. Break.  www.youcan'thaveitbothways.com

Really having trouble with your analysis here ET. This store owner is not the government. The bill of rights protects us citizens from the government. This store owner can't "infringe" on Kelly's right because he has so many other options to purchase a firearm. This store owner has a right to refuse service to anyone, so long as he's not discriminating on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc..

Maybe infringe isn't the right word here.  But I'm just really surprised of all the folks in these forums, that you have absolutely no problem with this scenario.

Yes, he has other options. Fine, I get it. But had the customer just been some other legally qualified gun owner, I have a feeling we'd still be talking about the story here, but from the perspective of why it was so wrong he had his sale rescinded.  What if it was Joe Schmoe doing a film on how sensible current gun regulations are, and just to prove it he was going to buy a used AR-15 and show that he could not just walk out on day 1 with it, but rather had that 20-day waiting period?  Would he have been denied the purchase?

And it's not necessarily true that he has many other options to purchase a gun.  Now that this has gone public, perhaps other gun shop owners would treat him the same way.  Now it becomes infringement.

Isn't this the same "slippery slope" argument made against the gov't?  Private businesses can have the same effect, and did in this case.

Bottom line is he was denied not because of his qualifications, but rather because he wanted to use the weapon to advance his anti-gun agenda.  So 1.) trying to find some part of the law he violated like "straw man" is really just a distraction, and 2.) some people are okay with this scenario just because of his agenda.  IMHO, that's a hypocritical line to cross.

If not infringement, it's utter hypocrisy - would you at least agree with that?


--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice.   ???
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
EastieTrekker Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 27 2013, 4:51 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Also, the 1st Amendment gives us the right of free speech, that no gov't or private citizen may restrict. So why when we get to the 2nd Amendment are we okay with private citizens engaging to prevent that right (even if there are other options)?

--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice.   ???
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
GoBlueHiker Search for posts by this member.
Obsessive Island Hopper...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 15897
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 27 2013, 4:55 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(EastieTrekker @ Mar. 27 2013, 2:51 pm)
QUOTE
Also, the 1st Amendment gives us the right of free speech, that no gov't or private citizen may restrict.

Not quite.  No rights are without limits.  "FIRE" in a movie-theater and all.

ETA: Where the lines are drawn will always be an argument, and drawing those lines is of the main functions of a democracy to determine and constantly reassess.

What Mark Kelly shoulda done to make his point is just bought the gun privately with no fanfare, and then talk about how easy it was to get.  Instead he wanted to make headlines before even making the purchase, and the store owner didn't want to be a part of that.

Were his rights infringed?  I dunno.  Maybe.  This isn't one of those cases I really care all that much about, honestly.  In the end, I don't really care whether Mark Kelly has a gun to wave in front of a TV camera or not, for what it's worth.


--------------
Wealth needs more.  Happiness needs less.  Simplify.

www.RainForestTreks.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 23
EastieTrekker Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 27 2013, 4:59 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(GoBlueHiker @ Mar. 27 2013, 4:55 pm)
QUOTE

(EastieTrekker @ Mar. 27 2013, 2:51 pm)
QUOTE
Also, the 1st Amendment gives us the right of free speech, that no gov't or private citizen may restrict.

Not quite.  No rights are without limits.  "FIRE" in a movie-theater and all.

You're right GBH, and I thought about adding that to my post.

Of course there are restrictions, but I see yelling "fire" in a movie theater as a completely different action then a completely legal purchase of a gun.

A better example in my mind is, if I'm standing in the middle of the Boston Commons and want to talk about Christianity, or how XBox is clearly superior to Playstation, or even something as abhorrent as white power - no private citizen would have the right to "shut me up".

That to me is a better analogy to a private citizen reneging the sale of the AR-15.

ETA: I'm also in total agreement with you on how he "should have" proceeded (though it's only in retrospect that he could have known the publicity route would blow up in his face).  I actually couldn't care less about him in particular, or the general topic of gun control as the debate goes today.  But what really intrigued me in this story, is just how quickly some folks were to serve Mr. Kelly his "just desserts".  

ETA squared: Infringe is really not the right word, as it has connotations of gov't in most folks' minds.  In my defense I was thinking of its use more along definition #2 below

- Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
- Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".


--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice.   ???
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
GoBlueHiker Search for posts by this member.
Obsessive Island Hopper...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 15897
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 27 2013, 5:04 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(EastieTrekker @ Mar. 27 2013, 2:59 pm)
QUOTE
ETA: I'm also in total agreement with you on how he "should have" proceeded (though it's only in retrospect that he could have known the publicity route would blow up in his face).  I actually couldn't care less about him in particular, or the general topic of gun control as the debate goes today.  But what really intrigued me in this story, is just how quickly some folks were to serve Mr. Kelly his "just desserts".

I hear ya', and I agree that the stances of some folks seem more than a little hypocritical in this case.

But I'm not really adding much to the conversation at this point, so I'll bow out and let y'all continue on. :p


--------------
Wealth needs more.  Happiness needs less.  Simplify.

www.RainForestTreks.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 25
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 27 2013, 5:05 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I'm really trying to be fair with you and don't wish to be hypocritical at all. Answer to your first question is no, Joe Schmo  probably wouldn't have been denied the purchase. That though doesn't make the store owner a hypocrite it makes him a man advancing his political agenda, as Kelly was his.

As far as other gun shop owners denying him a purchase, hypothetical. Walmart won't. But it would make sense that all gun shop owners are pro second amendment and now that they know Kelly has an alterior motive to purchasing a firearm, they may be reluctant to sell him one. Perhaps he should have kept his mouth shut until he had secured his firearm. Instead he ran out as if to brag and bolster his political position, in the process making the gun shop owner feel like a stooge, that he was being used.

Somewhat of a little trickster that just wasn't smart enough.

I suspect that Kelly will get his firearm if he really wants one. But of course we know he doesn't, he said as much.

And, I never said he violated the law.


--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
EastieTrekker Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 27 2013, 5:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(GoBlueHiker @ Mar. 27 2013, 5:04 pm)
QUOTE
I hear ya', and I agree that the stances of some folks seem more than a little hypocritical in this case.

But I'm not really adding much to the conversation at this point, so I'll bow out and let y'all continue on. :p

Naaah, your opinion is always welcome, and this is probably the most civil gun-related debate thread going (which is the only reason I've participated for this long).

I wish all the conversations could go like this one.


--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice.   ???
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 27 2013, 5:11 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(EastieTrekker @ Mar. 27 2013, 4:51 pm)
QUOTE
Also, the 1st Amendment gives us the right of free speech, that no gov't or private citizen may restrict. So why when we get to the 2nd Amendment are we okay with private citizens engaging to prevent that right (even if there are other options)?

You can't walk into my yard, my property and give me a cussing. I will call the police, you will be removed and your right to free speech will not have been infringed upon.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
EastieTrekker Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 27 2013, 5:12 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Mar. 27 2013, 5:05 pm)
QUOTE
I'm really trying to be fair with you and don't wish to be hypocritical at all. Answer to your first question is no, Joe Schmo  probably wouldn't have been denied the purchase. That though doesn't make the store owner a hypocrite it makes him a man advancing his political agenda, as Kelly was his.

As far as other gun shop owners denying him a purchase, hypothetical. Walmart won't. But it would make sense that all gun shop owners are pro second amendment and now that they know Kelly has an alterior motive to purchasing a firearm, they may be reluctant to sell him one. Perhaps he should have kept his mouth shut until he had secured his firearm. Instead he ran out as if to brag and bolster his political position, in the process making the gun shop owner feel like a stooge, that he was being used.

Somewhat of a little trickster that just wasn't smart enough.

I suspect that Kelly will get his firearm if he really wants one. But of course we know he doesn't, he said as much.

And, I never said he violated the law.

The the violation of the law wasn't in reference to you, it was reference to the straw man purchase that 3-gun mentioned.  And I'm not hating on you guys here, at all.  Just curious of perspective is all.

From the perspectives of two men trying to advance their individual political agendas, I'm totally fine with that.  that's a better reason (in my mind) then some of the other reasons thrown out there.  And as strongly as some 2nd Amend. advocates are, I can imagine the store owner felt quite "used".  Again I'm fine with that.

I suppose where I differ, is that since he had to wait 20 days for the damn thing anyway, what was he really going to criticize about that particular transaction.  if I were the shop owner, I would have gladly taken his money, and not give 2 dookies about the guy's agenda.  Cash is king.


--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice.   ???
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
EastieTrekker Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 27 2013, 5:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Mar. 27 2013, 5:11 pm)
QUOTE

(EastieTrekker @ Mar. 27 2013, 4:51 pm)
QUOTE
Also, the 1st Amendment gives us the right of free speech, that no gov't or private citizen may restrict. So why when we get to the 2nd Amendment are we okay with private citizens engaging to prevent that right (even if there are other options)?

You can't walk into my yard, my property and give me a cussing. I will call the police, you will be removed and your right to free speech will not have been infringed upon.

No, but with proper clearance from authorities I could have a parade down your street about myriad topics that you may or may not agree with.

But I understand your point.  Your saying your house is your property, and my 1A rights are no good on your property, and by extension 2A rights aren't good on other folks personal property (be it residential or commercial).

I'm not trying to dirty the debate - just help you understand my perspective (which I don't think is that loony).


--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice.   ???
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 27 2013, 5:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

Ok. That's cool. And I suppose that could have worked as well. But apparently, the gun shop owner just couldn't stand the thought of being used and therefore king cash took a back seat. Don't know what else to say ET.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
38 replies since Mar. 26 2013, 1:35 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 212>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Mark Kelly isn't going to get his AR-15
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions