Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sydde, May 4, 2014.
Because freedumb! Bad, Bad Gubmint!
pardon me while I wipe my chin
The market is speaking. Let the cops use them & be the guinnea pigs first. See how they like it
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.
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.
That isn't really the market speaking. These are activists. If it was just the market, it would be determined by sales.
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.
those who broke the law should be punished for it.
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.
You might like to visit lovely Bunkerville Nevada, that would probably at least earn your assertion a qualifier.
you are talking about the Government , right?
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.
No. We don't.
fine, CA and many other states already have plenty of regulations, CA does not need any more.
Yes it does.
Devils advocate, but couldn't you make a similar comment about the NBA and the Sterling scandal, or the CEO of Mozilla resigning?
Neither of those examples involved death threats.
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.
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.
I am glad all the stupidity is back firing on CA
we lost open carry, but we won concealed carry
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.
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 ) in saying we need more regulation.
In effect, they hurt their own cause( which is preventing more regulation).
I didn't know that about my state, that makes me happy! Hopefully a similar federal law is passed.
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.
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.