I was shocked. Truly. A gun store owner that would vote for Obama? You have to be kidding. Yet if you believe the video is not faked, then Blue Ridge Arsenal’s owner voted for the candidate that most likely would attempt to restrict firearms ownership.
I for one will not be giving him my money.
The video is here.
The guy definitely did not do Blue Ridge Arsenal any favors. I would recommend Loudoun Guns anyway.
Your so right Joe,
This guy did not do his business any favors. I would not use his range, boycott is more likely.
A black man votes for Obama, and you’re surprised by this ?
If this guy is an owner then he only hurts himself. However, if he is an employee then he deserves a discussion from ownership on keeping his mouth shut while representing the business.
He gets the nitwit of the week award.
So class, where does this fellow keep his head ?
Hypothetical question :
There are two candidates for president, a devout Christian, and a secularist.
The Christian candidate has an anti-gun record consistent with the policies of his/her anti-gun state.
The secularist has a more libertarian record on gun rights.
Who gets your vote ?
#5
How quaint? Is that you, by any chance?
No Votes for Anti Gun candidates. I don’t care if they have a picture of the Baby Jesus tattooed on their forehead.
Dan- I just knew someone would find that photo.
It is amazing what you can come up with when you Google, Head Up Ass.
Lovisa,
It could be any of us that are interesting in seeing your birthplace…
Glad my husband cancelled his range membership at Blue Ridge a couple months ago.
boycotting someone based on who they voted for?
Lame.
You guys are going to hurt his business before Obama even has a chance to! Way to go.
Devil’s advocate, here. You have a candidate that leaves your gun rights alone but is going to raise your taxes another 30%. Then you have a candidate that will keep your taxes in check but will work to enact gun laws. Who do you vote for? You can play this scenerio a million ways. Realisticly, I don’t think this individual voted for Obama on the issues because he would actually be putting his income source out of business (this surmising that he REALLY believes that Obama and the Dems are going to take care of him). Stoner is right-this individual is a non-thinker and needs an adjustment.
Showing Paul Helmke and hearing him say that Obama isn’t going to take your guns. The same idiot that jumped for joy over the Heller decision. Do you REALLY believe him? The head of the Brady Campaign? Isn’t HIS statement just as nit-wittery as the other guys? You think Helmke wants to be out of a job?
Do yourselves a favor-boycott the place and tell your friends to boycott the place and why. Word will get back to management when they see business falling off and the problem WILL be rectified immediately thru store closing or employee firing. In the meantime, the other gun shops would love your business. I recommend Virginia Arms in Manassas. A little pricey but very honest and easy to deal with.
ACT, in general I think boycotts are a fools errand, but that’s just me..
“Showing Paul Helmke and hearing him say that Obama isn’t going to take your guns”
What he is is not talking about is what if I want a new one ?
Dan,
A boycott use to be a very useful tool when it was brought to the collective. It doesn’t much work with only a few individuals on board but I have found that I don’t wish to compromise my beliefs so I still use this tool. There is always somewhere else to go for the same need. That’s just me.
That his how Paul starts. He doesn’t want you to get the new one and then he’ll work on the ones you already have. He and Peters are good friends and allies. Strange bedfellows though. Kinda like the Barbie thing! 
ACT,
A tool to keep you from compromising your beliefs, or forcing someone to accept yours ?
If this one guy’s vote swung Fairfax County for Obama, then I think there is something to debate.
Picked up a couple more pistols just today.
Imagine…Obama has single-handedly helped one industry triple revenue in just two months, and he’s not even in office yet!!!
BOYCOTT= no money =none =out of business
not so lame when a business is hit where it hurts the most.
Dan, on #6, I lean libertarian every time. I think Christianity becomes a little suspect when it is part of the resume.
Stay Puft, agreed there is no reason to throw Obama and his supporters under the bus just yet.
But this guy demonstrates suspect judgment on the face of it. If you were concerned about the right to own guns, you would not have voted for Obama unless you were privy to information that no one else had, that Obama was going to govern away from his record on the issue.
Very odd that some that speak so vociferously of protecting our Constitutional rights, yet speak of boycotting (aka extorting) another who exercises their right to vote as they choose.
Btw, how do you boycott a business you do not frequent ? scratching my head over this one..
You guys are really nuts. You want to boycott the business of a guy who voted for someone who not only has given no evidence that he will take away your precious guns but has even said he won’t, repeatedly.
If you’re going to boycott someone why not boycott the idiots who voted for Bush who has been one of the worst presidents we’ve ever had and who actually tried to do what he said he would do on immigration, which you then acted surprised and indignant about.
Oh wait, those idiots are you. Why don’t you boycott yourselves.
marj, I understand how a boycott functions. What I don’t understand is the logic behind this one.
It seems to go something like this:
Obama WILL ban guns => gun shop owners will go out of business => this gun shop owner voted for Obama => let’s drive him out of business!
It’s like telling your kid he’s going to fall over and hurt himself if he keeps leaning back in his chair like that, and then when he leans back again you kick the chair out from under him and say, “see I told you” …like I said, Lame.
#16
How many arms do you need? How many trained shooters live in your home?
(Two-fisted shooters, I suppose.)
What does that have to do with anything, Lovisa?
How many cars does a person need? Are we going to start restricting car collectors? After all, far more people are killed and injured by automobiles than by guns.
Jack
You don’t buy a car so you can kill someone, at least, I don’t. Of course, it’s possible to run down people with a car, but not nearly as easy as killing someone with a gun.
Lovisa,
Very few if any buy a gun to kill someone, some reasons for buying a gun that I can think of :
Target shooting
Hunting
Preventing someone from killing or causing significant bodily harm to oneself or one’s family.
To provide a disparity of force during the commission of a crime
Very few women buy a car to prevent their being a rape victim do they ?
So what? As you point out, how many can a person use at one time? Two? So if he has two or two hundred, it makes no difference, does it?
Lovisa,
#25
As I’ve said before you do not need a gun to kill someone. There are knives, baseball bats, clubs, steel poles, fireplace equipment, bricks, rocks, silverware, pots&pans, poison,
drowning, strangulation, electric shock…or the missing pencil.
or this thought:
does a gun fire by its self? No …requries a hand, attached to a BODY.
for the sake of discussion, it’s important to distinguish between handguns/assault weapons and hunting rifles. The former are indeed designed to kill people, and tend to be the ones involved in crimes, as opposed to recreation (yes, I understand you can do target practice with a handgun:
It is also extremely important to note that in the 1936 Miller decision, the Supremes ruled against Miller because his weapon was NOT a military firearm.
MILITARY weapons — per the militia clause — are protected. Weapons designed for hunting are not. (However, most long guns used by the military can be used for hunting.)
“The former are indeed designed to kill people, ”
A rather ignorant statement if I do say so, surprised at you SP for throwing this out without a modicum of research. Pistol shooting competitions have the widest participation of all the shooting sports.
For rifle competition, hunting rifles are not typically used. More commonplace are those dreaded black rifles referred to as assault weapons by those who wish to fear monger. SP, assaults weapons used by the military, are fully automatic. These are not your typical Sunday go to shooting meet rifles..
My pistols must be defective, as after tens of thousands of rounds, they haven’t killed anyone.. And even if they did, it would be in defense of my life. Why is this a bad thing ?
Is it terrible of me to value my life or the life of a loved one to an extent that I would take the life of another as a necessary and justifiable defensive action ?
Is that it – those that are anti-gun do not value their lives sufficiently to take the life of another trying to either kill or cause them significant bodily injury ?
dans, I see that you’re getting emotional. I don’t think you really believe that anti-gun people don’t value their own lives enough. Again, it’s a matter of public safety. My friend got held up on her way home from work. A guy came up from behind her, put a gun to her head, and said “give me your purse” They ended up catching the guy. He had a record. It wouldn’t have helped her if she had a gun on her hip. It would have helped her if we could effectively keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Regardless of that rights are or aren’t upheld in the constitution, I’ll be the first to say that there is nothing wrong with using a gun in defense of your life or your family. That’s the reason a lot of people buy guns in the first place, and it’s perfectly honorable.
to be clear, I’m not talking about guns for target practice, of hunting, or home defense. I’m talking about guns being used by criminals to more effectively commit crimes. As long as that’s a serious problem in this country, there will be people out there who want stricter gun regulations.
Now I’m not saying that’s what I want to see personally. I’m only trying to point out the cause and effect of gun crimes and support for more regulations.
Lovisa,
I would only shoot someone to save lives. Only a criminal shoots someone to kill people. Law abiding citizens shoot (and the result might be someone dies) to save lives.
It works like this. If I have a need to shoot someone, it is because that person is threatening life of either me or someone I love (okay, I might possibly shoot someone that was an active shooter out killing people out of duty). Why would I shoot such a person? In order to save the innocent life of the person threatened. People don’t own guns to kill people. I can easily see owning guns for sport, to provide food for the family (hunting), and to save lives (through defensive firearms usage).
SPMM,
Do you see the non sequitur of gun control and reduction of crime?
It is illegal to rob someone. If a person is willing to break that law, they certainly would be willing to break the law regarding guns.
If the perp in the case you cite actually put the gun to the back of the head of the woman, and she was properly trained, it would be one of the most easy escape, control and respond scenarios. Of course the middle of the back would be slightly better (easier to “lock up” the firearm). And if the perp didn’t have a gun, your friend might have just had a steel pipe strike the back of her head, died on the spot, and had the purse taken from her bleeding, soon to be dead body.
SPaMM,
I think both sides of the debate value their lives and security. The question is ‘how to minimize crime and the violence that comes with it.’ No one is suicidal.
I think both sides can agree that each citizen has some level of responsibility for their own security. No one sleeps with the doors unlocked in NYC. Many in the country sleep with a gun in the house. The question is how much responsibility rests with the state for an individuals security, and at what point should a citizen be expected to take matters into their own hands.
What I have seen in states where the individuals right to carry is respected is a drop in crime. In VA when the concealed were proposed anti-gun advocates warned that a wild west, dodge city atmosphere would prevail. Guess what? That did not happen. Actually crime rates dropped. In FL they passed a concealed carry law in 87, since 90 the murders per year have fallen from 1200 to 500.
The issue of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is a net plus for society. Is the 1987 conceal carry law responsible for all the change? No. But the chicken little wailing’s of the gun lobby insisted that the rate would explode. It certainly did not.
The issue of criminals using guns will not be solved with police state tactics that punish law abiding citizens. The police want to protect and serve. The trouble is that when the police are minutes away, you usually only have seconds to respond.
When you consider that we cannot keep cocaine, or other drugs out of the country, how are you going to remove guns from the streets? Stalinist and Maoist style purges would do the trick, but are you willing to go that far?
Face it, anything short of that would probably fail to take the guns form the elements of society you seek to disarm. Because anything less will ONLY take guns from the law abiding. Which is both foolish and unconstitutional.
You are in a free society, which is an armed society. Live with it, because the cure is worse than the disease.
Puffalump — it might have helped if someone ELSE had a gun and stopped the crime as it happened, which would also have prevented all the other crimes he committed before he got caught. Would she have been able to defend herself if the perp had had a knife to her throat instead? No, but another person with a gun could have helped.
“As long as that’s a serious problem in this country, there will be people out there who want stricter gun regulations.”
That is the faulty logic we are trying to correct. Gun regulations on law-abiding citizens INCREASES crime.
SP -
“dans, I see that you’re getting emotional.”
You have not seen me emotional.. poor attempt to misdirect though.
‘ I don’t think you really believe that anti-gun people don’t value their own lives enough.’
Enough to.. please finish the sentence. They don’t value their lives enough provide for their own defense and possibly take the life of another ?
“Again, it’s a matter of public safety. My friend got held up on her way home from work. A guy came up from behind her, put a gun to her head, and said “give me your purse” They ended up catching the guy. He had a record. ”
Do you ask yourself why he was still on the street if he had a record, and a gun ? After they caught the guy, was he back out on the streets ?
“It wouldn’t have helped her if she had a gun on her hip.”
In this case you are probably right. It might be possible that had she a gun, and a little more situational awareness that it might have been prevented. In some cases, taking away the element of surprise can be sufficient to ward off an attack such as this.
“It would have helped her if we could effectively keep guns out of the hands of criminals.”
No one is arguing the need to get guns out of the hands of criminals. What I am arguing is not getting guns out of the hands of the law abiding. There are sufficient laws on the books to get guns out of the hands of criminals, and to get criminals off the street.
“The fact is that guns are more deadly than other items, and their misuse represents a greater threat to public safety”
” I’m talking about guns being used by criminals”
“I’ll be the first to say that there is nothing wrong with using a gun in defense of your life or your family. That’s the reason a lot of people buy guns in the first place, and it’s perfectly honorable.”
“I’m only trying to point out the cause and effect of gun crimes and support for more regulations.”
That’s why this guy has no credibility-he’s all over the place.Get the guns out of the people’s hands and this will punish the criminals. Great logic. And the continued use of the chopstick out of context is liberal lameness.
“Picked up a couple more pistols just today.
Imagine…Obama has single-handedly helped one industry triple revenue in just two months, and he’s not even in office yet!!!”
Monk:
The downside for us is prices will go thru the roof !
” I’m only trying to point out the cause and effect of gun crimes and support for more regulations.”
Puffy
Here lies the disconnect.
The greater number of regulations is in direct proportion to the number of unarmed law abiding citizens. The larger the number of unarmed citizens, the greater the frequency of crime. Period.
Read the following book.
More Guns, Less Crime by John R. Lott
If after reading this book you still believe greater control is the solution then there is no hope for you.
Gun minus criminal= paper weight
Also read :
The Bias Against Guns
Why Almost Everything You’ve Heard about Gun Control Is Wrong
also by John Lott.
I’m not a gun control fan, G., but I think you’re on to some there. Non-criminals never kill innocent people with guns!
Absolutely a true statement..
Kiddin’
How’s Colorado? Are you all settled in so that you can come out and play?
Comments
Leave a comment Trackback