why are some gun owners complete autists?
anyone got anymore stuff like this?
>restricting your sales to LE, Mil, and first responders
>for a fucking S&W Shield
I have the "credentials" to buy their faggot ass gun, im mad at the thought that people actually take "M&P" to heart and think only they qualify to own one.
"im mad at the thought that people actually take "M&P" to heart and think only they qualify to own one."
you dont see a problem with this? you dont think the mentality that military, police and first responders are inherently better people and are more qualified to own a firearm than you?
>you dont see a problem with this? you dont think the mentality that military, police and first responders are inherently better people and are more qualified to own a firearm than you?
No, because he was never in but he rides that 'Merica dick real fuckin' hard.
>mfw one of my lgs refuse to sell 1911s in .38 super to anyone besides LEOs.
>Government restriction of who can buy what firearm is a violation of the 2nd amendment anyone should be able to buy anything they like for whatever reason, bill of rights, not bill of needs!
>Lol, LEO and Mil sales only, suck it faggots.
I've posted this before but when I was in I had a Sgt who when he saw someone open carrying out in town (camp lejeune-jacksonville area) he would sneak up behind them and shove them or try and grab the gun out of their holster. Then he would lecture them about always being combative and how they are wrong, he believed "stupid civvies" shouldn't even own firearms.
Was probably a blue tag dealer post. OP is probably a troll and you're all probably autistic for biting.
It's similar in spirit and intent dummy.
>Only cops and Milfags should have guns for safety!
>Only cops and Milfags should have guns, because I'm an elitist prick.
Side note, I don't buy products labeled as such.
Eotech says they are for military only
FN shotguns being called "police models"
I almost feel S&W is was worse than Ruger during the early gun control days, and while Ruger's Son's have done much to change their image by selling AR-15's and other tactical weapons, S&W is passive aggressive in labeling their product lines as military and police.
People don't need sling shots. They only want slingshots because they believe other people have sling shots and to make everyone safer, the government should take all of the slingshots away.
hes a recruiter in Oklahoma now so he might get shot, I guarantee he still does that shit, he even believed marines shouldn't own guns unless they were an 03, which was ironic considering he was a faggot ass mechanic
>people in biblical times believed this after Davmanlet and Goliath caused an influx of gang violence with slingshits
on a side note does anyone else have trouble with the captchas? I fucking hate the street signs one.
nobody is disputing the right of business owners to sell to a customer of their choosing.
they're just saying its fucking stupid, and makes said business owner look like a douchebag.
>One is illegal
Hypocrisy is not illegal.
I really don't think you know what hypocrisy means, and that's sad considering you could literally type it into a search engine as you sit on your computer and find a definition.
What you're thinking of is "infringing" on the right to own, which a private party can't be guilty of. Just as a private party can't be guilty of infringing on First Amendment protections by censoring what speech they allow on their private property.
Hypocrisy is neither of those things.
Hypocrisy is saying one thing and your actions contradicting that.
Reddit claims to be a bastion for Free Speech, however they censor what is allowed on their site pretty heavily. That isn't infringing on First Amendment protections because they are a private party, but it is pretty hypocritical.
You're a literal retard, you know that?
Its illegal for a government to deny people guns, it's not illegal for salespeople to deny people guns. It's not hypocrisy. You're salty as fuck over a $350 gun.
>It's not hypocrisy.
It is when you claim to support 2A rights and then sell only to LE and .mil.
Again, you don't know what hypocrisy is. It's very apparent because you seem to be under the impression that any of the multiple anons you're conversing with have ever claimed that it was illegal.
It's literally not hypocrisy.
The government cannot deny people guns. A gun dealer can. This was the argument, that it's hypocritical to not want the government to break the law, but to decide who to sell to.
>This was the argument, that it's hypocritical to not want the government to break the law, but to decide who to sell to.
No, the original post you replied to pointed out the hypocrisy between claiming to support 2A rights and then limiting sales to MIL and LE.
No one ever claimed it was illegal. Is English your first language? Because I suspect it isn't.
>Only shown that you have no idea how things work.
How is that exactly?
You must be doing some pretty serious mental gymnastics bud
We agree that it's not illegal for a company or person to sell only to LE and mil, but you cannot truthfully call yourself aa second amendment supporter if you do. You are also a giant asshole if it's illegal or not.
>wants the freedom to guns
>"but they cant have the freedom of sale!"
You're the one doing the mental gymnastics. You're literally arguing for rights that benefit you, and none for things that don't benefit you.
You can't buy certain light bulbs, plants, chemicals etc if you are not an agent of the government so why is restricting sales of certain guns to agents of the government a surprise? You are either part of the government/ruling class or you are a slave to it.
>The point is that not wanting the government to break the law is not comparable to choosing who to sell to.
Claiming to support 2A rights, thus the right of the individual to keep and bear arms (per US v Miller arms that are protected are those suitable for military use), and then turn around and limit sales only to government employees and agencies, is hypocritical.
And you started on this tirade about how .gov restricting is illegal while a private party doing so is legal, which no one but you ever made an argument about.
Doesn't matter. It's literally not worth getting mad over. That's the whole point of this thread: getting salty over literally nothing at all.
Take your own advice, child.
Except it's not hypocritical, for the final fucking time, because the government CAN'T DO IT. Jesus fuck why don't you get this. It's not hypocrisy to not want your right infringed, but to choose who to sell to.
Literally no one is arguing this.
Calling someone a hypocritical ass hole is not the same as saying it is or should be illegal for a private party to restrict sales.
How do you not understand this?
For someone who is all about freedom you sure hate free speech.
>literally dodging the argument
How salty are you over a fucking Shield?
It's not hypocritical. It's free market. I support free speech even if I think you need to shut up, just as you can support the 2A even if you choose to not sell to everyone. Jesus christ.
Look, the world is a dangerous place. We can't just have people running around with handguns and cop killer bullets. This isn't the OK corral, buddy. If you try to shoot someone you'll just miss and kill a bystander.
Americans only like freedoms that are convenient to them at that particular moment, the soccer mom know got stabbed in the collar bone and then got her neck slashed probably wished she had a firearm right about then.
>It's literally not worth getting mad over. That's the whole point of this thread: getting salty over literally nothing at all.
Welcome to /k/, is this your first time visiting us?
>It's not hypocrisy to not want your right infringed, but to choose who to sell to.
It is literally hypocrisy to think that one should have access to a class of arms protected from government infringement, and then restrict the sales of that class of arms only to government agencies and employees.
>How salty are you over a fucking Shield?
You seem to be under the impression that only one other person is in this thread. There are multiple anons who are pointing out how retarded you are.
>It's not hypocritical.
It is literally the definition of hypocrisy to say one thing and counteract it.
nah that was me, im not even posting anymore just watching the anarchy.
im a milfag too so I actually do have the credentials to buy the shield, its the principle of the matter.
>It is literally hypocrisy to think that one should have access to a class of arms protected from government infringement, and then restrict the sales of that class of arms only to government agencies and employees.
Do we even know that the owner of this shop is a diehard 2A supporter? You're starting off on a supposition and acting like we know it's a sure thing.
>It is literally the definition of hypocrisy to say one thing and counteract it.
I'm gonna spell this out, since you have a bare bones understanding of english.
Supporting 2A means not wanting government infringement of your rights. You don't want the government to tell you that you cannot buy or sell guns, because it's your right under the constitution.
However, it is also your right to choose who to sell to. Meaning you can choose not to sell to someone. This isn't hypocrisy because one is based on the fact that the government cannot deny you the right to own guns. This is why you don't want that and support 2A. However, choosing to only sell to a group of people, regardless of who it is, isn't hypocritical, because you also have that right, as only selling to cops and ex-mil isn't the same as selling "to the government", since both are civilians, which falls under the term "the people". How hard is this?
>if you think that cops and ex mil are the only civilians who should have guns.
Nowhere in the OP was this implied. That one listing was LE and exmil, doesn't mean he only sells to them.
Do Ford manufacturers not fully support automobiles if they only services Ford cars?
>since both are civilians
Police are literally agents of the state.
They are civilian employees of the state.
>You don't want the government to tell you that you cannot buy or sell guns, because it's your right under the constitution.
And then you turn around and don't sell to non .mil or LE.
That's not illegal anon, but it is hypocritical.
Because supporting the 2A is supporting the right of all to keep and bear, not just .mil or LE.
took about 4 seconds to find, seems pricey but thats the price you pay for buying a stupid gun that shoots an even stupider caliber
>because they have the right to choose who to sell to.
No one has said they don't.
But it's hypocritical.
Just as it is to claim to support free speech, and then censor speech you don't like on your private property. It's not illegal, and it's not infringement of 1A protected rights because a private party can't do that.
But it's still hypocritical.
I like that you've shifted your argument from hypocritical=illegal to it just not being hypocritical.
Are you claiming they have more rights than non-cops? It's exactly the same as claiming to support the second amendment and then only selling to whites except that would be illegal.
You're arguing that it's somehow contrarian to sell only to cops, when cops are still civilians.
Police work for the government, they aren't the government. You're still selling to people, and you're just mad that you're not one of those people.
wrong person feg I am in the military, there is literally nothing special about me.
and police do not work for the government, they work for the state. the general rule of thumb is your uniformed regulars work for the city, state troopers work for the state and your cool agencies like the faggy ATF, FBI, CIA etc work for the government.
"you're just mad that you're not one of those people."
this is exactly why I made this fucking thread compadre, this mentality breeds elitism within little cultures and is unhealthy to 2A
The man selling this gun does not have the same intrinsic connection to LE like Ford has with its automobiles. Ford would deny service to non-fords for a multitude of reasons, one of which is being set up to service only Fords. Even if they could service all vehicles equally, their choosing not to would be because of the person, rather the car. Ford does not discriminate because of LE status
Is there a constitutionally protected right to motor vehicles, and does Ford claim to support it while limiting the sales of anything other than golf carts to LE and MIL?
You're not even making a comparison with your example.
How is that hypocritical? They can choose to. If they said that they didn't sell to them because they were afraid of what they might do, that's hypocrisy, because it mimics politic sentiment towards guns.
If you claim to support the 2A (the right of the people to keep and bear arms suitable for military use), and then actively limit sales of your arms to MIL and LE only (to be clear here before you go off on another tirade about the legality, I am not claiming it is illegal), you are a hypocrite.
Yes, you can claim to support 2A while refusing to sell to anyone but LE and ex mil. A self proclaimed Stalinist communist can own a multimillion dollar business and live lavishly. That wouldn't be illegal either. But it would be hypocritical.
this might shock you but I dont delve into celebrity tier real estate, you're comparing multi-million dollar houses to a couple hundred dollar gun that could've saved someone, instead it will be some lame 21 year old cops fuck toy.
>because LE and MIL are still "the People"
They are, as individuals, members of The People.
They are not the totality of The People neither are they The People during the course of their duties per their employment by the state, they are agents of the state.
>neither are they The People during the course of their duties per their employment by the state, they are agents of the state.
Agents of the state are still civilians, which means that on the clock and off, a cop is a civilian, which means they're "the People". This isn't arguable.
Selling to some of the people is not the same as selling to all the people. A person who sells guns only to aa certain group of people, be they LEs or not, cannot claim to support the second amendment because they discriminate.
> Guy marries a fat chick
> Realizes that it fucking sucks
> Goes around taunting OCers (people he thinks are retarded) in the hopes that he will be killed by them, whereupon they get sent to prison
> Two birds, one stone
The man sounds like a genius
Except they can claim to support the 2A, because whether or not they sell to ALL people, they still sell to THE People. If I own a gunstore, I don't have to sell everyone a gun who walks in to support to 2A.
Is it discrimination to not sell to someone who has felonies? What about if they don't have a valid ID? What if they're sketchy and you don't trust their motives?
>If I own a gunstore, I don't have to sell everyone a gun who walks in to support to 2A.
No but if you don't sell to someone who can legally own and has not confessed to you that they intend to commit a crime, but you tell them to shoo shoo because they are black, a religion you don't like, or are not a cop, that's pretty hypocritical anon.
If you do not sell to anyone who can legally own a gun, then it is discrimination. Felons and those without IDs do not qualify for gun ownership. You do not sell to the people unless you sell to all people who meet the legal requirements.
>Explain how it's hypocritical.
>I support the right of the people to keep and bear arms suitable for a military purpose
>Except these people who are otherwise not legally prohibited.
If a restaurant owner in the 60s claimed to support civil rights and refused to serve Blacks when it would have been legal for him to, would that not be hypocrisy? After all, he believes in equal rights for the people and he still serves the people.
Doesn't matter what they meant, you're still in support of it. And besides, the 2A states all people have the right to bear arms, the right to not be denied sale of them by private store owners.
Show me where in the 2A it says that you can't be denied a sale of a gun by a store.
Selling to only X!= I believe only X deserves it. It means I want my market to only be X.
If you don't sell a person a certain gun when they are legally allowed to own it, then it is reasonable to believe that you think they shouldn't be allowed to own it, no? If you think non LEO or mil shouldn't own certain guns like the SW MP, then you do not support the 2A.
> reasonable to believe that you think they shouldn't be allowed to own it, no
No is right. It means I choose to sell to them. It has no implication about how I feel about their worth. It means I only sell to them. You're the one making assumptions with no information to back it up. I can not sell you a car, doesn't mean I believe you don't deserve it.
>b-b-but cars aren't a right!
We're not arguing rights.
When i see stupid shit like this i go out of my way to set up a meet n swap with them. Offering to pay more then asking if they come to me.
One guy listed a stock WASR-10 for $1,200.
Got him to drive 2 hours to my local fun store by offering him $1,500.
He was hella pissed. talking about how his brother was a seal and his sister worked for some government thing and was tracking my IP and he was gonna come kick my ass and take his money.
Look, people selling guns are just like any other store, if you cant get it there im sure theres another place that would love to sell you one. Its not your job to mess with their morals. At this point i am suprised about any mom and pop gun shop selling to sand niggers at all.