Gun Control Group Sets up Fake Store, Shames First-Time Buyers. Anti-2nd crowd in a tizzy

originally posted by: NavyDoc
So if someone put up a fake abortion clinic and then shamed the customers who came in, would it receive as good a reception from the left?


The mags are illegal.

It's against federal law to set up a storefront advertising guns for sale without a FFL, regardless if you actually sell any guns or not and the 30 rnd mag in the back of the video is illegal in NY as well. Will they be prosecuted for breaking gun control laws or are liberal activists exempt form the same laws they push?

I see the gutless pukes who put up the video disabled comments, LOL. Typical.

My first thought as well.

originally posted by: here4this
A couple of times , I had to go through batteries of tests just to show I was in good enough health physically and mentally to have surgeries to help save my life.

Yes, those were medically necessary to preserve your health. But the tests, etc., LEGALLY forced on abortion patients are not medically necessary for the health of the woman. They are simply put there to stall and get her to change her mind.

I don't want to take this further off topic, but just think about the hypocrisy of the two situations... You all can squirm all you want, but fact is, if you support one, and not the other, there's some hypocrisy in there somewhere. I'm leaving the thread now to prevent further thread drift.

Thanks for your response.

a reply to: WilsonWilson

Being armed is how the colonists won their freedom from the inbred kings and queens of europe.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
I didn't see ANY shame... I didn't see any customer looking ashamed. They looked sad and had second thoughts about what they entered the store for. Remember... this is edited. I'm sure there were some who got pissed when they found out what it was about, and went elsewhere to buy a gun.

Edit: So I found out that not only were the guns not the actual ones in the shootings, they're not even real guns. So they WERE lying. I can't support this. Not only is it against state law, it's dishonest and frightens people with lies. I can't support it. Source

originally posted by: NavyDoc
So if someone put up a fake abortion clinic and then shamed the customers who came in, would it receive as good a reception from the left?

If all they did was tell the truth about abortion, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But if they DID shame, lie, or make up crap like so many websites and organizations do, I would take issue with it.

So... would you be as repulsed by a fake abortion clinic and call them "gutless pukes" if they disabled comments?

Yep.

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
a reply to: macman

I'm not American i just cant believe that is so ingrained in you, that anybody who wants to change the gun laws is something you would consider Un-American, that IS weird.

We also believe in the freedom of speech and we quite often object when people try to silence free speech. DO you find that "weird" too--to call someone who wants to infringe upon free speech as "anti-American"?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: doompornjunkie

Well here's the thing. You are trying to analyze a sale pitch here and trying to push an argument that not including your above pitch is a lie of omission on the part of the salesperson. So would it also be a lie of omission if a sales person gave your above pitch but neglected the one in the op?

Saying "this gun was used by a 5 year old kid to kill his brother" is a lie. The actual gun used would have been destroyed or in an evidence locker as posted above. Saying "this is the same model of gun used" would not have been a lie but would not have had the same emotional impact.

Fools. Why didn't they go on to say which type of guns were used to save lives, as well? Because it would hurt their agenda. They really need an education but I have a feeling that even if somebody tried, they'd refuse to listen.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
So if someone put up a fake abortion clinic and then shamed the customers who came in, would it receive as good a reception from the left?

So, to you and all who starred your post: What would you think about a LAW that forced gun buyers to go through a "clinic" and learn certain "negative information" about the item they were considering purchasing? Would you approve of tests, waiting periods and other limits on the purchase of this product? What would to think of the legislators who would support such laws?

Because MANY states have just that for women who want an abortion. Do you support these laws that make women wait, take tests, and time limits on their own personal medical care?

Since YOU brought up the abortion analogy and all...

Many states have the same rules for buying a gun, and all except for Alaska and NH have the same rules for getting a CCW--you can't get away from buying a gun without a big list of mandated disclosure. I just bought a new LMT AR10 and had to sign a paper that stated I understood all of the bad things that a gun can do and that I had to keep it out of the reach of children. It's already here, so what's your point?

I disagree with a law that states a woman has to hear bad things about abortion specifically before she has one. I'm for LESS government, remember?

OTOH, by law I have to disclose all of the possible risks and side effects and bad outcomes of EVERY medical procedure I do, so why should abortion be any different?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: here4this
A couple of times , I had to go through batteries of tests just to show I was in good enough health physically and mentally to have surgeries to help save my life.

Yes, those were medically necessary to preserve your health. But the tests, etc., LEGALLY forced on abortion patients are not medically necessary for the health of the woman. They are simply put there to stall and get her to change her mind.

I don't want to take this further off topic, but just think about the hypocrisy of the two situations... You all can squirm all you want, but fact is, if you support one, and not the other, there's some hypocrisy in there somewhere. I'm leaving the thread now to prevent further thread drift.

Thanks for your response.

How do you know which tests are medically necessary or helpful or not? An ultrasound would be definitely helpful before an abortion because placing a trocar through a placenta previa would be a potentially fatal event.

I understand that some of those rules are designed to slow up abortions, but I also understand that some of those rules actually bring up abortion to the same standards of care as similar procedures as well.

a reply to: NavyDoc
That is precisely the point I was trying to get across . Even though the surgery that I was going to have that required to have those tests (BTW the period of time lasted for 2 months) seemed like it was a very simple procedure carried more risk than some of the other options. Most of the 3 month period that I had to wait , was giving me a chance to weigh those other options and make a choice. And , believe me , I had to listen to all the gruesome details of all the possible outcomes for each one.

a reply to: NavyDoc

That this is even being considered as a serious point of contention is ridiculous imo. What about when people refer to the Winchester Model 1873 or Colt .45 "Peacemaker" as "The gun that won the west?"

"Dude, this is THE gun? FORREALS?"

Personally I think this was a ridiculous stunt with minimal real world impact but the degree of consternation it's causing some people is also laughable. The extreme view points are dominating every conversation. On one end of the spectrum are the people who think banning guns will stop people from killing one another and on the other end are the people who have endowed guns with equally magical powers.

I think of guns in much the same way I look at cars. They have legitimate uses, people should have them if they want but they can also be used in an unsafe and criminal manner so register them, license the owners and keep them out of the hands of small children and mentally ill people.

I may parrot what some have already said but stick with me on this one.

First of all, WOW!!

This groups tactics are off the rails right now. This is disgusting and insulting.

The abortion example used by another poster was spot on.
What if someone setup a fake abortion clinic and showed the clients zip-lock bags of baby parts and told them how this bag could have been little johnny, who could have been president or a good contributor to society?

Yeah its sick and I would not condone that either...

How about if a security guard or policeman came in that store? Would they grill him all the same? I mean police officers have family's and they are able to practice safe gun practices. Are they the only people on the planet that are qualified to save my life in the event I need help?

If we flip this on its head you can quickly see how its very one sided. This just shows me examples of what not to do and how unsafe storage practices can jeopardize peoples life. Not everyone gives their emotional disturbed child who plays first person shooters all day an AR for Christmas. Its just plan wrong and it does not represent the majority of the population.

I hope some how, some way, someone sues the snot out of the group that did this. There are many other productive ways to talk about firearm safety and this is plain ole FEAR based tactic that down right stinks.

Better yet!
How about setting up a gun store and displaying all the weapons that have SAVED lives? Lets tell the story of Susie Q who after working late went to the parking garage to get in her car and was ambushed by a sick pervert. Lets tell about how since Susie Q had a firearm to put him on his ass, Susie Q now can continue her life raising 3 beautiful children and having a happy life.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Take a breath and re-read the posts. You stated that using bullying and lying was disgusting.
I stated that is what the Anti-2nd crowd does.

Nothing more, nothing less.


If I wanted to attack you, you should know I would take you head on.

heres the propaganda video:

a reply to: NavyDoc

Fair enough. This is true. I certainly am not trying to defend this tactic in the OP.

If we were to place the same restrictions on speech as we do on firearms, I wonder how many would be behind the effort?

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Cops shouldn't be the only people allowed to set up sting operations. If I want to catch out a group of prostitute using police officers, I should be within my rights to place a gift horse before them and record all their indiscretions.

What I find weird is a foreigner telling me MY country's laws are weird...

a reply to: HomerinNC

We in the UK are about as foreign as your great x 8 grandparents were.

Some among us understand you better than you understand yourselves, because we aren't bound by all your historical and political baggage.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: Rhiannon
a reply to: macman
Anti 2nd imo are Anti-American. These are the same control freaks that lobbied against prayer, against nativity scenes, etc...

I wish they would move to one of the many countries out there that don't allow guns and stfu. Where do all these 'organizations' get $$$ from? Who pays all these anti-american activists, politicians, lobby'ists anyway? Must be nice to never have to work to pay bills.

People that use Shame to try and manipulate other people are disgusting vile creatures.... imo

I agree that this is a shameful thing, and the Anti-2nd crowd are doing more damage to their cause than good with this ill-conceived campaign. If it were me in that store, I'd follow up by asking "Approximately how many school children will a single round from this AR-15 pass through?" Then I'd buy two. If only to see the looks on their faces.

However, to address your second sentence, Religion and Government should never, ever mix. When religion and government mix, you get things like Saudi Arabia, or the ISIS Caliphate. Do we want that in the US? I sure don't.

I think the control freaks are the ones who decide that you can't have a nativity scene anywhere because it offends them or if you have it somewhere they have to see it then if you can't likewise express every single religious viewpoint point including Satanism and an atheistic mean-spirited attack on all beliefs and believers as stupid, then you can't have it. Not the mixing of government and religion as one.