Hypothetical: If you own a gun shop, do you really care who you sell to?

[CLT65]

I've said it before: Second-Amendment people are the only ones who fight for the right of their ideological opponents to be armed.

If they're felons, they're already prohibited. If they just want weapons so they can riot with inpunity, I don't think that's going to end well for them. If they're buying guns for legitimate, lawful purposes like the rest of us (including self defense), then that's their right, and I think most of us will stand up for that.

In reality, the Founding Fathers were anarchists against England and their laws.

They were rebellious against King George and his grossly unfair edicts and actions, but they were certainly not anarchists.

 

[titsonritz]

As private businessmen, they may choose their customers.

Unless you're a cake salesman.

 

[Xaevian]

Unless you're a cake salesman.

Or a florist.

 

[CountryGent]

As long as everyone remains completely in compliance with the laws and regulations, I don't give a damn who I sell guns too. The arsenal of freedom is always open for business.

 

[Diamondback]

If you pass the BGC, are not a straw purchaser, and give me no reason to believe you are a danger to self or others, your money's as good as anyone's.

Unless you are personally known to have advocated for Gun Grabbing, then I wanna see some sign you've had a Road to Damascus moment; I won't sell to "Guns for Me but Not for Thee."

 

[Jasonanddeonna]

I've said it before: Second-Amendment people are the only ones who fight for the right of their ideological opponents to be armed.

If they're felons, they're already prohibited. If they just want weapons so they can riot with inpunity, I don't think that's going to end well for them. If they're buying guns for legitimate, lawful purposes like the rest of us (including self defense), then that's their right, and I think most of us will stand up for that.


They were rebellious against King George and his grossly unfair edicts and actions, but they were certainly not anarchists.

England did not believe it to be unfair, just the "law of the land." Per Wiki:

"Anarchy is a society being freely constituted without authorities or a governing body. It may also refer to a society or group of people that entirely rejects a set hierarchy.[1] Anarchy was first used in English in 1539, meaning "an absence of government".[2] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon adopted anarchy and anarchist in his 1840 treatise What Is Property? to refer to anarchism,[3][4] a new political philosophy and social movement which advocates stateless societies based on free and voluntary associations. Anarchists seek a system based on the abolition of all coercive hierarchy, in particular the state, and many advocate for the creation of a system of direct democracy and worker cooperatives.

In practical terms, anarchy can refer to the curtailment or abolition of traditional forms of government and institutions. It can also designate a nation or any inhabited place that has no system of government or central rule. Anarchy is primarily advocated by individual anarchists who propose replacing government with voluntary institutions. These true institutions or associations generally are modeled on nature since they can represent concepts such as community and economic self-reliance, interdependence, or individualism. Although anarchy is often negatively used as a synonym of chaos or societal collapse, this is not the meaning that anarchists attribute to anarchy, a society without hierarchies.[1] Proudhon wrote that anarchy is "Not the Daughter But the Mother of Order"."

For the United States, Thoreau stated "The government which governs best governs least." Jefferson outlined this with The Declaration of Independence. The founders believed in laissez faire, personal freedom and responsibility, man's ability to govern himself, and the rights of the people to control the limited government which was viewed as a nessary evil. These beliefs are in line with traditional anarchism and even though the term/concept was not created until the 1790s, the Founding Fathers could be considered proto-anarchists towards England, France, etc.

Because of this and the freedoms we have given by our Creator, not government, I also support the selling of guns to law abiding citizens. Although I do not agree with some of the laws that limit the 2A as they are infringement, the Supreme Court has ruled. Perhaps they will change....If you abuse your right by misusing the firearm, then bye-bye.

 

[CLT65]

That's a rather archaic definition of the term "anarchy", not what the average person would expect when you say the founding fathers were anarchists. By that definition most conservatives are hard-core anarchists.

Edit- on second thought, and through a second reading of what you pasted there, no, most people I know are not anarchist by any measure. We believe in the need for government, as did the founders. Government is important, but minimal government, not an absence of government. Just because European monarchs might have seen our system of government as anarchy, doesn't mean it was.

 

[Longwalkhome]

I try really hard to not sell guns to the enemies of the nation even if the nation gives them the rights to buy them. I try to not buy goods from the CCP because they too are our enemy. One day folks will regret supplying our enemies with money and guns. Oh well.

 

[Diamondback]

I try really hard to not sell guns to the enemies of the nation even if the nation gives them the rights to buy them. I try to not buy goods from the CCP because they too are our enemy. One day folks will regret supplying our enemies with money and guns. Oh well.

"Believed Danger to Self/Others" covers a very broad range, though... if a dude's talking about "killin' some fascists" or "killin' some Commies" I'm asking him to leave either way.

 

[Horatius]

I was born legally blind in my left eye, should I not have guns?

Which eye do YOU shoot with? If the good one fire away!

 

[Soli]

After a margarita, rusty nail and some bourbon tonight the most depressing thing is that the first thing that came to mind reading this thread is the arms embargo during the Spanish civil war. That didn't work either.

 

[CountryGent]

After a margarita, rusty nail and some bourbon tonight the most depressing thing is that the first thing that came to mind reading this thread is the arms embargo during the Spanish civil war. That didn't work either.

Cold comfort, but the Republic went out guns a'blaz'n. (Even with some help from American amigos, the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.)

But Spain is now a functional democracy and a beautiful country. Gun ownership is legal there, with a license. (One for the muzzleloading fans, like @Andy54Hawken; having read their laws over the years, I've found any weapon made pre-1870 requires no license. Rock that Miquelet with impunity and party like it is 1899. )

 

[po18guy]

Hypothetically, yes.
Realistically: Your life, your freedom and your FFL depend upon selling to stable individuals with a non-violent history.
As well, you are well advised to use the virtue of prudence. If your sixth sense freaks out, you have no obligation to sell to anyone.

 

[Horatius]

England did not believe it to be unfair, just the "law of the land." Per Wiki:

"Anarchy is a society being freely constituted without authorities or a governing body. It may also refer to a society or group of people that entirely rejects a set hierarchy.[1] Anarchy was first used in English in 1539, meaning "an absence of government".[2] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon adopted anarchy and anarchist in his 1840 treatise What Is Property? to refer to anarchism,[3][4] a new political philosophy and social movement which advocates stateless societies based on free and voluntary associations. Anarchists seek a system based on the abolition of all coercive hierarchy, in particular the state, and many advocate for the creation of a system of direct democracy and worker cooperatives.

In practical terms, anarchy can refer to the curtailment or abolition of traditional forms of government and institutions. It can also designate a nation or any inhabited place that has no system of government or central rule. Anarchy is primarily advocated by individual anarchists who propose replacing government with voluntary institutions. These true institutions or associations generally are modeled on nature since they can represent concepts such as community and economic self-reliance, interdependence, or individualism. Although anarchy is often negatively used as a synonym of chaos or societal collapse, this is not the meaning that anarchists attribute to anarchy, a society without hierarchies.[1] Proudhon wrote that anarchy is "Not the Daughter But the Mother of Order"."

For the United States, Thoreau stated "The government which governs best governs least." Jefferson outlined this with The Declaration of Independence. The founders believed in laissez faire, personal freedom and responsibility, man's ability to govern himself, and the rights of the people to control the limited government which was viewed as a nessary evil. These beliefs are in line with traditional anarchism and even though the term/concept was not created until the 1790s, the Founding Fathers could be considered proto-anarchists towards England, France, etc.

Because of this and the freedoms we have given by our Creator, not government, I also support the selling of guns to law abiding citizens. Although I do not agree with some of the laws that limit the 2A as they are infringement, the Supreme Court has ruled. Perhaps they will change....If you abuse your right by misusing the firearm, then bye-bye.

first We are a Republic not a Democracy on purpose and a meritocracy when at our best. second you are brave to tread so close to Antifa logic on this site

 

[po18guy]

Ngo's post is both humorous and inevitable. They've got to shop somewhere, so I wonder if anyone will pay mind to who is coming into their stores.

Violent, threatening rioters being shot in self-defense? Say it ain't so!



To paraphrase Michael Stipe: "It's the end of antifa as we know it, and I feel fine..."

 

[gmerkt]

Unless you're a cake salesman.

Or a florist.

Merchants are not required to state a reason they are refusing commerce. They would be wise to leave that door closed.

In reality, the Founding Fathers were anarchists against England and their laws.

Ah, but once they established their own government their role changed. In formulating the Bill of Rights, they were establishing the rules of the land for their own government. I'm pretty certain they didn't envision anarchy for their newly established country.

 

[Soli]

@CountryGent Yeah, don't speak/read Spanish but read a ton in English years ago. Got pretty up on WWII - The Preview.

 

[po18guy]

first We are a Republic not a Democracy on purpose and a meritocracy when at our best. second you are brave to tread so close to Antifa logic on this site

A lynch mob is the perfect example of pure democracy. The vote is 49:1

 

[JuglansRegia]

If they are just buying guns now, they have a lot of catching up to do

 

[Longwalkhome]

"Believed Danger to Self/Others" covers a very broad range, though... if a dude's talking about "killin' some fascists" or "killin' some Commies" I'm asking him to leave either way.

I could go into a rant about the world and why people should be more thoughtful about dealing with our enemies but in my opinion its too late now.

Just a short point that should be clear and I use Afghanistan so everyone can see what I am saying. Every invading country for generations tried to change the way those people live and even modern powers offered nation building to them for the last 30+ years. Today Afghanistan is right back where they were when we invaded except far better armed.

No matter what our intentions are and no matter what our reasons are you can't change people who don't want our values. Our enemies here and overseas are the same and if folks support them with guns, ammo, money and training then its suicide.

Just opinion.