Who should not have guns:

Sydde

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Aug 17, 2009
2,105
2,163
IOKWARDI
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/05/02/fearing-for-his-store-embattled-gun-dealer-sleeps-there/]WaPo:Gun Dealer Threatened over Smart Gun[/url] said:
After word spread that his Rockville store would sell the nation’s first smart gun — infuriating gun rights activists who fear more regulation — Andy Raymond’s phone and e-mail inbox went absolutely berserk.

“The phone was ringing off the hook,” he said Friday morning in an interview. That’s because gun rights advocates think the guns will be mandated. Electronic chips in the Armatix iP1 can communicate with a watch that can be bought separately. Then the gun cannot be fired without the watch.

Somebody told one of Raymond’s workers that the store, Engage Armament, wouldn’t be selling the gun because there wouldn’t be a store — it will burn down. At another point, Raymond picked up the phone and said, “Hi, this is Andy. How can I help you?” The caller said, “You’re the guys selling the smart gun?” Raymond tried to reason with him. But the caller said, “You’re gonna get what’s coming to you (expletive).”

Raymond was clearly shaken, and late Thursday night, he released a video saying he wouldn’t sell the gun and apologized for messing up. He also wrote a message on his Facebook page: “You call me and email me and threaten my life? You come at me, my girlfriend, or my god damned DOG I will put one in your dome. I promise you.” And then he decided to sleep at the store. He stayed til 3 a.m., then went home, and then came back at 6 a.m. to stand guard.

“I thought what I was doing right,” he said. “I didn’t want my shop burned down. I didn’t think people would do that.” He continued: “I can’t have my shop burned down. I don’t think somebody is gonna come shoot me, but somebody could burn down my shop while I’m not here.” Raymond can’t believe the night he endured. “I’m really sorry I got involved in all of this,” he said.
Because freedumb! Bad, Bad Gubmint!

pardon me while I wipe my chin
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
I watched that yesterday and also thought it was thread-worthy material.

A couple of points ...

  • I was flabbergasted when he told the viewer that they should go out and shoot the people who wrote the laws. Now I get what he meant, but that's not a message or mindset that should be promoted regardless.

  • Ironic that a person backed by a wall of assault rifles would be so frightened of death threats.

  • Eye-rolling that he went from blusterous to begging ... saying that he didn't even have the guns in stock, so please forgive him for offending the NRA and gun owners.

All in all it was an incredibly disgusting sign of the times.
 

Sydde

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Aug 17, 2009
2,105
2,163
IOKWARDI
The market is speaking.
So, the market is a bunch of arsonists and violent thugs? This is the point of the title: the people who most crave guns and vehemently decry any kind of restrictions are typically the ones who should not have access to them.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,670
1,745
The market is speaking. Let the cops use them & be the guinnea pigs first. See how they like it
That isn't really the market speaking. These are activists. If it was just the market, it would be determined by sales.
 

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,474
8,051
Somewhere
The market is speaking. Let the cops use them & be the guinnea pigs first. See how they like it
And the people who make threats against someone who might sell one of these are the kind of people who shouldn't be allowed to have guns at all.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,012
Criminal Mexi Midget
So, the market is a bunch of arsonists and violent thugs? This is the point of the title: the people who most crave guns and vehemently decry any kind of restrictions are typically the ones who should not have access to them.
If it were merely the free market asserting itself, this would simply be a case of no one buying the product he's selling.

What we're seeing here is flat out coercion.
those who broke the law should be punished for it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/josephsteinberg/2014/05/04/smartguns/

The State of New Jersey has already legislated that once smartgun technology is available, conventional firearms may not be sold to civilians in the State. One US Senator has considering introducing a bill in Washington that would apply an even stricter law throughout the nation – requiring not only that all weapons imported, manufactured, or sold in the United States be “smart,” but that all conventional arms in civilian hands be retrofitted with “smart” technology. While the likelihood that such a bill would become law anytime soon is next to zero, clearly smartguns will be on lawmakers minds.
 

Renzatic

Suspended

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,012
Criminal Mexi Midget
Yeah, but fortunately we don't live in a country where mob rule is the norm (at least not yet). If it's against the law, speak your piece, report it, and let the police handle it. You don't go all vigilante and threaten to kill the guy's wife and dog, then burn down his place of business.
completely agree with you.
 

Sydde

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Aug 17, 2009
2,105
2,163
IOKWARDI
Yeah, but fortunately we don't live in a country where mob rule is the norm (at least not yet).
You might like to visit lovely Bunkerville Nevada, that would probably at least earn your assertion a qualifier.
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,255
1,063
Of course this just fuels the other side wanting gun regulations.... Do these people who threatened to kill his family, burn his place down, etc actually think they are helping their side of this fight? This just gets the other side wilded up even more because it's these exact people that they think shouldn't own guns (which I agree with. The people who made these threats shouldn't own them. They don't have the maturity to handle the responsibility of gun ownership if they threaten to kill and burn things down).
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,012
Criminal Mexi Midget
Of course this just fuels the other side wanting gun regulations.... Do these people who threatened to kill his family, burn his place down, etc actually think they are helping their side of this fight? This just gets the other side wilded up even more because it's these exact people that they think shouldn't own guns (which I agree with. The people who made these threats shouldn't own them. They don't have the maturity to handle the responsibility of gun ownership if they threaten to kill and burn things down).
we already have plenty of guns regulations.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,384
UK
If it were merely the free market asserting itself, this would simply be a case of no one buying the product he's selling.

What we're seeing here is flat out coercion.
Devils advocate, but couldn't you make a similar comment about the NBA and the Sterling scandal, or the CEO of Mozilla resigning?
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,838
Midlife, Midwest
The market is speaking.
Its obviously NOT the market speaking.

What if I wanted to buy this sort of firearm? There are all sorts of reasons it might be a good choice for me: I wouldn't have to worry about a child accidentally harming themselves. I wouldn't have to worry about it being used against me by a burglar.

I think gun-enthusiasts (and I use that term guardedly) really ought to look at this case and ask themselves some tough questions.

Because once you've decided to threaten violence to try and prevent me from buying a legal firearm, I'm not sure you're really a "Second Amendment" supporter. I think you've become a terrorist.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,670
1,745
Devils advocate, but couldn't you make a similar comment about the NBA and the Sterling scandal, or the CEO of Mozilla resigning?
Even in that case the reason he stepped down may have been due to potential loss of Mozilla customers and staff. Their choice to leave would be similar to a choice not to patronize here. In that case I still disliked it. His beliefs and actions may have been misguided, but that shouldn't render him an employment liability. The point where the opposition was clueless in regards to his possible ousting was in their claim of it being a free speech issue. If an amendment absolved all consequences of speech, defamation laws would all be unconstitutional.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,012
Criminal Mexi Midget
Yes it does.
says you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California
.
I am glad all the stupidity is back firing on CA
http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/2014/01/calguns-foundation-wins-handgun-carry-lawsuit-los-angeles-sheriffs-department-sheriff-lee-baca/

we lost open carry, but we won concealed carry
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/27/surge-in-concealed-weapon-permits-follows-california-court-second-amendment/
Surge in concealed weapon permits follows California court Second Amendment decision
:D:D:D

----------

Its obviously NOT the market speaking.

What if I wanted to buy this sort of firearm? There are all sorts of reasons it might be a good choice for me: I wouldn't have to worry about a child accidentally harming themselves. I wouldn't have to worry about it being used against me by a burglar.

I think gun-enthusiasts (and I use that term guardedly) really ought to look at this case and ask themselves some tough questions.

Because once you've decided to threaten violence to try and prevent me from buying a legal firearm, I'm not sure you're really a "Second Amendment" supporter. I think you've become a terrorist.
read the link posted, you would be limited to nothing but "smart" guns, let the cops test them first , have them buy $1800 dollar .22 caliber guns.
 

quagmire

macrumors 603
Apr 19, 2004
6,255
1,063
we already have plenty of guns regulations.
Maybe, but the people making the threats to kill him, his family, and burn down his store gives the other side ammo( pardon the pun :p) in saying we need more regulation.

In effect, they hurt their own cause( which is preventing more regulation).
 

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2014
1,593
1,224
New Jersey, United States
The State of New Jersey has already legislated that once smartgun technology is available, conventional firearms may not be sold to civilians in the State.
I didn't know that about my state, that makes me happy! Hopefully a similar federal law is passed.

----------

The market is speaking. Let the cops use them & be the guinnea pigs first. See how they like it
How is that the free market speaking? He never even got a chance to attempt to sell the gun because of a bunch of violent "responsible gun owners". Says more about the violent tendencies and mindsets of gun advocates than it does about the free market.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
Devils advocate, but couldn't you make a similar comment about the NBA and the Sterling scandal, or the CEO of Mozilla resigning?
Yeah, there are all kinds of ifs, ands, and buts surrounding those two people.

Eich getting ousted was largely due a failure of leadership. Mozilla is a company that prides itself on tolerance and LGBT rights, so it's no surprise that when the people working there found their CEO both held and acted upon beliefs counter to the company as a whole, they didn't want him representing them anymore, and gave him the boot. That's entirely legit to me.

Sterling? That's a bit more foggy. Just like Eich, he spoke directly for a large group of people. And just like Eich, it turned out that he didn't particularly like some of the people who worked for him. I could understand why the NBA would want him gone.

But it's the way his beliefs ended up being leaked to the press that I take issue with. Yeah, the guy's an ignorant bastard, but just like anyone, he's allowed to voice his own opinion in the privacy of his own home to his own friends, so long as he doesn't directly act in any way that harms anyone. Which, as far as I know, he never actually did. Anything he says or is overheard saying in public is free game, but this was during a private conversation with his girlfriend/mistress/whatever.

Of course, with him being a public figure, and the NBA having to do damage control after the leak, it was all but inevitable that he'd get the boot. I can't say I particularly feel sorry for the guy, either. But the whole thing stank too much of social shaming, which I see as a potentially dangerous thing, and take tons upon tons of issue with.

To sum it up for you, I think anyone should be able to voice their opinion on something, no matter how hateful or wrong I happen to think it is without having to worry about direct repercussions to their livelihood. A CEO or team owner is a public figure, and they're going to fall to the court of public opinion in matters such as this.

But firing a grocery bagger because they voted on Prop. 8 or claimed they hated black people? I wouldn't be kosher with that at all. I can disagree them, argue with them, tell them that they're wrong, but I will only punish them for their actions, not their opinions.