R&M Gun vault in East Longmeadow owes us a BIG explanation.....

[Junior314]

Has nothing to do with coddling. People can have different view points without being told to shit in a hat. Open debate can actually change someone's mind, outright dismissing of them is exactly what the insane left does. Nobodies opinion matters but their own.

Here’s the issue.

What they support infringes on other people’s rights. It’s that simple.

I’d ask you to point to where the owner is in this thread debating.

 

[AFAR/PFAR]

Because not all gun owners have the exact same beliefs. Believe it or not some only want a shotgun for turkey hunting and nothing else. They either have no reason to care about other things or may even believe the anti 2a stance. 2a might mean something different to other people

2A as written is pretty darn hard to misinterpret.

I have no patience for people who want to put conditions on 2A just because they only go rabbit hunting and can't see a need beyond that. Those people are as bad if not worse than the hardcore antigun folks.

 

[SwampYankee42]

If it’s R&R in Belchertown I could also mention the one and only time I went there to check out handguns and no one would talk to me. They acted like I either didn’t exist or was someone’s disgruntled wife. So I left and never went back.

Nailed it. They are allergic to money or something.

 

[drgrant]

Has nothing to do with coddling. People can have different view points without being told to shit in a hat. Open debate can actually change someone's mind, outright dismissing of them is exactly what the insane left does. Nobodies opinion matters but their own.

Gun owning fudds are a waste of time. They should be dismissed because they should know better but still choose to spew stupidity. My rights are not a matter of "difference of opinion". Why should I coddle people who clearly want to support the state murdering me and stealing my shit, via supporting shitty laws? I'd much rather talk to people (non gun owners) who don't know any better, at least they have an excuse.

 

[Maxam Munitions]

Here’s the issue.

What they support infringes on other people’s rights. It’s that simple.

I’d ask you to point to where the owner is in this thread debating.

He is not here. I am. I hold pretty much all the same beliefs as you and most people on this forum, except for the one that we need to attack anyone with opposing beliefs.

I am asking y'all these questions because I like to understand why people are saying the things they are.

 

[Maxam Munitions]

Gun owning fudds are a waste of time. They should be dismissed because they should know better but still choose to spew stupidity. My rights are not a matter of "difference of opinion". Why should I coddle people who clearly want to support the state murdering me and stealing my shit, via supporting shitty laws? I'd much rather talk to people (non gun owners) who don't know any better, at least they have an excuse.

You ever stop to think your idea of a funny owning did may not know better? What if someone had a shotgun handed down to them through family, or just bought one because they remember shooting trap as a boy scout? Many times they don't know any better because when they have talked to someone like you they get dismissed or attacked instead of just asking why.

 

[ScottS]

You ever stop to think your idea of a funny owning did may not know better? What if someone had a shotgun handed down to them through family, or just bought one because they remember shooting trap as a boy scout? Many times they don't know any better because when they have talked to someone like you they get dismissed or attacked instead of just asking why.

You're now conflating an experienced gunshop owner's rank display of self-interest over rights--he's the guy under attack here--to some novice yearling who got Grandpappy's prized shotgun, and just needs a warm, guiding hand out of Fudd-land.

Stick to the subject at hand.

 

[Maxam Munitions]

Gun owning fudds are a waste of time. They should be dismissed because they should know better but still choose to spew stupidity. My rights are not a matter of "difference of opinion". Why should I coddle people who clearly want to support the state murdering me and stealing my shit, via supporting shitty laws? I'd much rather talk to people (non gun owners) who don't know any better, at least they have an excuse.

You're now conflating an experienced gunshop owner's rank display of self-interest over rights--he's the guy under attack here--to some novice yearling who got Grandpappy's prized shotgun, and just needs a warm, guiding hand out of Fudd-land.

Stick to the subject at hand.

I was responding to his post. He said gun owning funds are a waste of time. He did not mention the store owner.

 

[Junior314]

He is not here. I am. I hold pretty much all the same beliefs as you and most people on this forum, except for the one that we need to attack anyone with opposing beliefs.

I am asking y'all these questions because I like to understand why people are saying the things they are.

Exactly he’s not here. And he deserves every attack he gets because he knows better. Stop pretending otherwise he doesn’t need you to be his white knight. Even after he got caught with his pants down he doubled down on his original statement.

We have enough problems to deal with without FUDD gun shops adding to the mix. Your straw man argument is a waste of time.

 

[AFAR/PFAR]

I hold pretty much all the same beliefs as you and most people on this forum, except for the one that we need to attack anyone with opposing beliefs.

The problem is their opposing "beliefs" are an attack on everyone's rights granted by 2A.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Has nothing to do with coddling. People can have different view points without being told to shit in a hat. Open debate can actually change someone's mind, outright dismissing of them is exactly what the insane left does. Nobodies opinion matters but their own.

This matters and nothing else but the owner is unaware of it.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[drgrant]

You ever stop to think your idea of a funny owning did may not know better? What if someone had a shotgun handed down to them through family, or just bought one because they remember shooting trap as a boy scout? Many times they don't know any better because when they have talked to someone like you they get dismissed or attacked instead of just asking why.

Lol most of the fudds I am talking about are not some kid who inherited one gun. They are people who have been exposed to the system in places like mass that should know better, like this shop owner. Or even people who have a number of guns. They speak as a source of authority sort of way on these issues. I'm not talking about some rando guy with an FID whose opinion required a shovel to locate.

Regardless, I still don't care. Why would I want to waste time trying to deprogram some retard that has already gone full dunning kruger (they strongly think they know something) when there are several times the number of nons that have a chance at being brought to "at least not anti" because they're actually trying to learn something? It's pretty clear which is a better use of resources.

 

[TrenchKnife]

Hey, welcome to NES. We love jackwads that join up to spew garbage. "random gun shop owner 'cause he had an opinion."????? Hate to tell you, Fuddboi, random is not the case, and f*** his opinion. You antis joining recently, thinking you are fooling us, are just too obvious.

OK, I'll take up this pissing match.

Let's first start with "thanks for the welcome". So you know, calling me anti is like calling or current president a coherent one. so take your fuddboi (whatever that is) to the cleaners.

Second, my comment was sarcasm faced at the vitriol here, aimed at someone not present. I didn't realize when joined up here that the discourse was insult first, second and third, and then avoid a cogent argument only to make accusations with every poster not aligned with your "fudd everybody" attitude.

3rd, you and too many misinterpret the 2a. yes we have the right to bare arms, as we should; I also agree those "rights" should not be infringed (and we shouldn't be so limited by the state/feds in our ownership); what's missing ... it is the state's (whichever you're in) REQUIREMENT to uphold those rights and if needed at the cost and effort of a militia to do so.

But this is where you have failed: you couch jocky your sanctimonious position on gun rights, berate anyone not championing your forum post and bully those in disagreement. your failure is the inability to debate, conversate, argue your position. do better. if not for you, for all rights of all citizens.

and finally, where does this shop owners opinion, (right/wrong/indifferent) infringe on your right to arms?

(nevermind, don't answer, I've already made up my mind on what you would write) - see how that goes?

(shight, don't answer that one either, I can only imagine the insults i'll get)

 

[Junior314]

OK, I'll take up this pissing match.

Let's first start with "thanks for the welcome". So you know, calling me anti is like calling or current president a coherent one. so take your fuddboi (whatever that is) to the cleaners.

Second, my comment was sarcasm faced at the vitriol here, aimed at someone not present. I didn't realize when joined up here that the discourse was insult first, second and third, and then avoid a cogent argument only to make accusations with every poster not aligned with your "fudd everybody" attitude.

3rd, you and too many misinterpret the 2a. yes we have the right to bare arms, as we should; I also agree those "rights" should not be infringed (and we shouldn't be so limited by the state/feds in our ownership); what's missing ... it is the state's (whichever your in) REQUIREMENT to uphold those rights and if needed at the cost and effort of a militia to do so.

this is where you have failed. you couch jocky your sanctimonious position on gun rights, berate anyone not championing your forum post and bully those in disagreement. your failure is the inability to debate, conversate, argue your position. do better. if not for you, for all rights of all citizens.

and finally, where does this shop owners opinion, (right/wrong/indifferent) infringe on your right to arms?

(nevermind, don't answer, I've already made up my mind on what you would write) - see how that goes?

(shight, don't answer that one either, I can only imagine the insults i'll get)

Any gun shop owner who is quoted agreeing with infringements on the 2A is a complete tool.

Any action taken by government whether it be local, state or federal to regulate anything firearms related is an infringement and any gun shop owner who is in “agreement” with that is no friend of ours.

 

[ScottS]

OK, I'll take up this pissing match.

Let's first start with "thanks for the welcome". So you know, calling me anti is like calling or current president a coherent one. so take your fuddboi (whatever that is) to the cleaners.

Second, my comment was sarcasm faced at the vitriol here, aimed at someone not present. I didn't realize when joined up here that the discourse was insult first, second and third, and then avoid a cogent argument only to make accusations with every poster not aligned with your "fudd everybody" attitude.

3rd, you and too many misinterpret the 2a. yes we have the right to bare arms, as we should; I also agree those "rights" should not be infringed (and we shouldn't be so limited by the state/feds in our ownership); what's missing ... it is the state's (whichever you're in) REQUIREMENT to uphold those rights and if needed at the cost and effort of a militia to do so.

But this is where you have failed: you couch jocky your sanctimonious position on gun rights, berate anyone not championing your forum post and bully those in disagreement. your failure is the inability to debate, conversate, argue your position. do better. if not for you, for all rights of all citizens.

and finally, where does this shop owners opinion, (right/wrong/indifferent) infringe on your right to arms?

(nevermind, don't answer, I've already made up my mind on what you would write) - see how that goes?

(shight, don't answer that one either, I can only imagine the insults i'll get)

So, what's the over/under on how long this guy lasts, ban or quit?

 

[Deleted member 67409]

I'm very disappointed that the shop owner hasn't come on here to get this thread deleted. Or threatened to sue for defamation. I'd rate this thread 5/10, needs improvement.

 

[daekken]

3rd, you and too many misinterpret the 2a. yes we have the right to bare arms, as we should; I also agree those "rights" should not be infringed

With spring here and summer right around the corner, thank GOD for this. Otherwise, things would be unbearable.

 

[TrenchKnife]

Any gun shop owner who is quoted agreeing with infringements on the 2A is a complete tool.

Any action taken by government whether it be local, state or federal to regulate anything firearms related is an infringement and any gun shop owner who is in “agreement” with that is no friend of ours.

OK, so he's a complete tool and no friend of ours. whoop F-N eee.

now explain to me how an opinion "infringes" on your rights. is your position that weak that you cannot take this guy down with concise points?

I'll do it for you....

"I’m on board with most of what he’s talking about." ... anyone who agrees with our current president has been seriously misled. Our president severely spews misinformation with everything he says as has been proven by even the "left leaning" entertainment news venues. every citizen is in jeopardy of the fallout worse than the goofyness that spewed out of that last oval office occupant.

"I have no problem with registering homemade firearms, gun kits, that type of thing." ... this is an opinion supporting an infrigment. this is what should be taken as an issue and countered with facts of our existing fed/state laws and our judicial precedents. don't have time to go looking that up, but if you take issue with his opinion, this is the statement to argue against.

"That is an excellent idea." ... pure subjective opinion; don't waste time even acknowledging it.

"I disagree a little bit with the pistol brace situation” ... an opinion that infringes on our rights, simply flat outright. this is the only fact that we could disassemble. again, citing laws and precedence, we could show that opinion is actually anti2a. a counter argument would be the same old drawl that the stock don't make the object a firearm and therefor has no bearing on any definition of what makes a gun a gun whether it pistol, rifle, cannon or railgun.

SO, can any one else here come up with the "actions taken" by this shop owner, other than spouting some words from their mouth?

 

[Junior314]

OK, so he's a complete tool and no friend of ours. whoop F-N eee.

now explain to me how an opinion "infringes" on your rights. is your position that weak that you cannot take this guy down with concise points?

I'll do it for you....

"I’m on board with most of what he’s talking about." ... anyone who agrees with our current president has been seriously misled. Our president severely spews misinformation with everything he says as has been proven by even the "left leaning" entertainment news venues. every citizen is in jeopardy of the fallout worse than the goofyness that spewed out of that last oval office occupant.

"I have no problem with registering homemade firearms, gun kits, that type of thing." ... this is an opinion supporting an infrigment. this is what should be taken as an issue and countered with facts of our existing fed/state laws and our judicial precedents. don't have time to go looking that up, but if you take issue with his opinion, this is the statement to argue against.

"That is an excellent idea." ... pure subjective opinion; don't waste time even acknowledging it.

"I disagree a little bit with the pistol brace situation” ... an opinion that infringes on our rights, simply flat outright. this is the only fact that we could disassemble. again, citing laws and precedence, we could show that opinion is actually anti2a. a counter argument would be the same old drawl that the stock don't make the object a firearm and therefor has no bearing on any definition of what makes a gun a gun whether it pistol, rifle, cannon or railgun.

SO, can any one else here come up with the "actions taken" by this shop owner, other than spouting some words from their mouth?

What’s your point exactly? We are all well aware that the owners statements are his opinions. I don’t have to “disassemble” anything. He said what he said.

My point is if the owner agrees with people who do have the power to infringe on my rights he can f*** off. ESPECIALLY as someone who owns a gun shop.

 

[TrenchKnife]

So, what's the over/under on how long this guy lasts, ban or quit?

LOL ... you're stuck with me now. so the likelyhood is "ban" at 20/1.

 

[TrenchKnife]

What’s your point exactly?

as I said: "you couch jocky your sanctimonious position on gun rights, berate anyone not championing your forum post and bully those in disagreement. your failure is the inability to debate, conversate, argue your position."

Spouting off from the mouth with little to no substance is also a disservice to our 2A.

 

[Satcom]

Probably Banned

LOL ... you're stuck with me now. so the likelyhood is "ban" at 20/1.

I think the point of disagreement here is that yes he has opinions but so do we. This is THE MOST IMPORTANT FIGHT left. The Commies will stop at nothing to disarm the United States. The Gun culture is a small group that is in the way to doing that. Every time the sleazy propagandist for the Commie party can get one of us to slip up and talk to them, they get to prop up a Gun owner that agrees with their propaganda. That then becomes propaganda that is used for a long time. Commie politicians spout it on cable shows, it makes it's way onto congressional hearings and then gets repeated as fact. "Even shop owners agree with our proposals, see look at this commie fudd shop X". This is why we cannot tolerate shops and owners like this place. There is no place for them in this fight.
Sorry, your views are outdated. We are in a war and the sooner all gun owners realize this and get on board, the quicker we can try to fix this doomed country.

 

[Junior314]

as I said: "you couch jocky your sanctimonious position on gun rights, berate anyone not championing your forum post and bully those in disagreement. your failure is the inability to debate, conversate, argue your position."

Spouting off from the mouth with little to no substance is also a disservice to our 2A.

Right so you don’t have one.

 

[Wooderson]

SO, can any one else here come up with the "actions taken" by this shop owner, other than spouting some words from their mouth?

The shop owner has effectively put another round in the anti-2A chamber, and done so in full awareness of how this game is played.

When the antis go shopping for opinions to parade, they don't go to the local gun club.

They find themselves "heroes" who have been trained with the use of similar arms prior to deployment overseas (although you'll note its rare they've actually used them at the point of contact).

They search out manufacturers willing to co-opt their brand for contractual access and cut-outs in the law. See DD recently.

And they find themselves shop owners willing to give quotes to put on campaign ads, and to assemble their claims of "HUNDREDS OF INDUSTRY LEADERS AND RETAILERS AGREE WITH US".

The shop owner has made a choice, and done so knowingly- whether out of the conviction of his heart, or that of his bottom line. He is welcome to deal with the consequences.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

3rd, you and too many misinterpret the 2a. yes we have the right to bare arms, as we should; I also agree those "rights" should not be infringed (and we shouldn't be so limited by the state/feds in our ownership); what's missing ... it is the state's (whichever you're in) REQUIREMENT to uphold those rights and if needed at the cost and effort of a militia to do so.

Sorry, what does that mean? I have read it a dozen times and tried to parse it out, but don't understand it.

 

[Junior314]

The shop owner has effectively put another round in the anti-2A chamber, and done so in full awareness of how this game is played.

When the antis go shopping for opinions to parade, they don't go to the local gun club.

They find themselves "heroes" who have been trained with the use of similar arms prior to deployment overseas (although you'll note its rare they've actually used them at the point of contact).

They search out manufacturers willing to co-opt their brand for contractual access and cut-outs in the law. See DD recently.

And they find themselves shop owners willing to give quotes to put on campaign ads, and to assemble their claims of "HUNDREDS OF INDUSTRY LEADERS AND RETAILERS AGREE WITH US".

The shop owner has made a choice, and done so knowingly- whether out of the conviction of his heart, or that of his bottom line. He is welcome to deal with the consequences.

But that’s just like words man.

 

[Asaltweapon]

He is not here. I am. I hold pretty much all the same beliefs as you and most people on this forum, except for the one that we need to attack anyone with opposing beliefs.

I am asking y'all these questions because I like to understand why people are saying the things they are.

Because we should ALL be done with that term "compromise". We have given in too much and look what it got us... more of the same BS.
The cold hard fact is Biden was a liar when he told that worker we are not coming for your guns.

WAS THAT NOT CLEAR ENOUGH INTENTION?? Come on man. Open your damn eyes and ears.

 

[DPR]

as I said: "you couch jocky your sanctimonious position on gun rights, berate anyone not championing your forum post and bully those in disagreement. your failure is the inability to debate, conversate, argue your position."

Spouting off from the mouth with little to no substance is also a disservice to our 2A.

I believe a person is either anti-2A or pro-2A. The current political climate does not allow for opinions on gun rights, compromises or anything that could be described as common sense. Agreeing with any proposed infringement on gun rights is simply not acceptable these days.

 

[TrenchKnife]

But that’s just like words man.

They provided a better position than to just insult and shout down the other posts here. I dare you take your stance to the local goverment in your town of choice and have the opinion's owner taken to task. have him closed down for not supporting the US or State constitution or the town charter. (you'll have to cite your states const as mine says it will uphold the US constitution, and my local town charter reiterates that and the support of the state const. unfortunatley I have my own efforts to get my state to uphold it's const as "they" obviously violate the US const)

do something about it.

 

[Grendizer138]

I personally dont't share their view, but I'm not so much of a brick wall to say they are bad people. As a matter of fact my neighbor would give you the shirt off her back(not something you would want to see) and is a great person in general. She is my friend and I respect her views.

Y'all need to stop seeing every issue as a live or die issue, everyone is an enemy if that's how you view it. Many times simple respect works. Not everyone is a Karen.

I get what you’re trying to say, and I agree that a gun-owner that supports gun control isn’t necessarily a bad person; however they certainly aren’t my friend in this fight, in fact they are counterproductive at best and adversaries at worst.