Looks like the md AG is going after every Moco gun store

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Curious why is it up to the state or federal government to determine which passengers are a risk for flights or pharmacists or doctors who are pill mills but gun stores are responsible for what customers who pass background checks do?

Pharmacies got sued for their role in the opioid epidemic as well. It's a similar level of responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well they didn't go after the ones (two, I think, TK Defense in Gaithersburg and Optimal Zero in Rockville) that didn't repeatedly sell to a gun trafficker.

TK Defense is a transfer-FFL only, and she’s winding down her Maryland business. I like Kat, but her dwindling hours are unworkable for me anymore.



As for the other shops being sued - it’s all politically motivated. The AG is trying to force all FFL’s out of business. This case is just to make an example.


How is a FFL supposed to justify NOT selling to a black guy who can pass the background check and fills out the forms stating it’s not a straw purchase? If they refused to sell to him, the very same AG would be suing the shops for discrimination.


This guy was a straw purchaser. He committed a felony every time he made a straw purchase.

Is HE being sued by the state? Nope. He’ll get a plea to single count in federal court and do 18 months.

But this is about shutting down gun shops. I bought a gun at Atlantic today just because it’s being persecuted by corrupt politicians.

Me, I choose to see politicians who are listening to their constituents and trying to cut down on the number of senseless murders in this country. But you do you. God forbid we get in the way of your gun hobby.

well I know how we could reduce HPV related cancers, by outlawing promiscuity. Think of all the lives that could be saved given you don’t care about rights

We can reduce HPV related cancers by providing the HPV vaccine.

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/the-hpv-vaccine-reduces-risk-of-cancer-for-all-not-just-women-new-data-show

but you could eliminate them by banning promiscuity. Don’t you care about saving lives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious why is it up to the state or federal government to determine which passengers are a risk for flights or pharmacists or doctors who are pill mills but gun stores are responsible for what customers who pass background checks do?

Pharmacies got sued for their role in the opioid epidemic as well. It's a similar level of responsibility.

would you support lawsuits against pharmacies for filling birth control or abortion drugs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious why is it up to the state or federal government to determine which passengers are a risk for flights or pharmacists or doctors who are pill mills but gun stores are responsible for what customers who pass background checks do?

Pharmacies got sued for their role in the opioid epidemic as well. It's a similar level of responsibility.

would you support lawsuits against pharmacies for filling birth control or abortion drugs?

No, but I would support putting you in jail for torturing analogies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious why is it up to the state or federal government to determine which passengers are a risk for flights or pharmacists or doctors who are pill mills but gun stores are responsible for what customers who pass background checks do?

Pharmacies got sued for their role in the opioid epidemic as well. It's a similar level of responsibility.

would you support lawsuits against pharmacies for filling birth control or abortion drugs?

Where are you going with this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious why is it up to the state or federal government to determine which passengers are a risk for flights or pharmacists or doctors who are pill mills but gun stores are responsible for what customers who pass background checks do?

Pharmacies got sued for their role in the opioid epidemic as well. It's a similar level of responsibility.

would you support lawsuits against pharmacies for filling birth control or abortion drugs?

Where are you going with this?

you opened that door. This is the consequence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Bars and liquor stores are the only place where covid doesn’t spread. Drunk, covid free and helplessly disarmed is the way to go.

Don’t forget stoned and stupid on legalized weed. A stoned population is a compliant population. Hence the need to get the black community hooked on drugs in the 70’-80’s to tamp down that whole upitty civil rights movement causing all that ruckus in the 60’s. Now they need the rest of American stoned, too. Will make the end game a lot easier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well they didn't go after the ones (two, I think, TK Defense in Gaithersburg and Optimal Zero in Rockville) that didn't repeatedly sell to a gun trafficker.

TK Defense is a transfer-FFL only, and she’s winding down her Maryland business. I like Kat, but her dwindling hours are unworkable for me anymore.



As for the other shops being sued - it’s all politically motivated. The AG is trying to force all FFL’s out of business. This case is just to make an example.


How is a FFL supposed to justify NOT selling to a black guy who can pass the background check and fills out the forms stating it’s not a straw purchase? If they refused to sell to him, the very same AG would be suing the shops for discrimination.


This guy was a straw purchaser. He committed a felony every time he made a straw purchase.

Is HE being sued by the state? Nope. He’ll get a plea to single count in federal court and do 18 months.

But this is about shutting down gun shops. I bought a gun at Atlantic today just because it’s being persecuted by corrupt politicians.

Me, I choose to see politicians who are listening to their constituents and trying to cut down on the number of senseless murders in this country. But you do you. God forbid we get in the way of your gun hobby.

well I know how we could reduce HPV related cancers, by outlawing promiscuity. Think of all the lives that could be saved given you don’t care about rights

We can reduce HPV related cancers by providing the HPV vaccine.

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/the-hpv-vaccine-reduces-risk-of-cancer-for-all-not-just-women-new-data-show

but you could eliminate them by banning promiscuity. Don’t you care about saving lives?

You won’t stop promiscuity by banning promiscuity.

Also my promiscuity is not killing your child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious why is it up to the state or federal government to determine which passengers are a risk for flights or pharmacists or doctors who are pill mills but gun stores are responsible for what customers who pass background checks do?

No, you're not curious. You're trying to make a rhetorical point, and you're trying to do it by comparing air travel and medication to guns.

DP

It’s an excellent question, comparing 3 different things that are all tightly regulated.

And it’s a good question, too. Why DOES the govt say who can fly or not, or who can prescribe or obtain narcotics, but the govt leaves it up to the store to decide who should be able to buy a gun.

It’s totally incongruous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious why is it up to the state or federal government to determine which passengers are a risk for flights or pharmacists or doctors who are pill mills but gun stores are responsible for what customers who pass background checks do?

No, you're not curious. You're trying to make a rhetorical point, and you're trying to do it by comparing air travel and medication to guns.

And you seem to more interested in insulting and attacking posters rather than engaging in a discussion and addressing points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well they didn't go after the ones (two, I think, TK Defense in Gaithersburg and Optimal Zero in Rockville) that didn't repeatedly sell to a gun trafficker.

TK Defense is a transfer-FFL only, and she’s winding down her Maryland business. I like Kat, but her dwindling hours are unworkable for me anymore.



As for the other shops being sued - it’s all politically motivated. The AG is trying to force all FFL’s out of business. This case is just to make an example.


How is a FFL supposed to justify NOT selling to a black guy who can pass the background check and fills out the forms stating it’s not a straw purchase? If they refused to sell to him, the very same AG would be suing the shops for discrimination.


This guy was a straw purchaser. He committed a felony every time he made a straw purchase.

Is HE being sued by the state? Nope. He’ll get a plea to single count in federal court and do 18 months.

But this is about shutting down gun shops. I bought a gun at Atlantic today just because it’s being persecuted by corrupt politicians.

Me, I choose to see politicians who are listening to their constituents and trying to cut down on the number of senseless murders in this country. But you do you. God forbid we get in the way of your gun hobby.

well I know how we could reduce HPV related cancers, by outlawing promiscuity. Think of all the lives that could be saved given you don’t care about rights

We can reduce HPV related cancers by providing the HPV vaccine.

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/the-hpv-vaccine-reduces-risk-of-cancer-for-all-not-just-women-new-data-show

but you could eliminate them by banning promiscuity. Don’t you care about saving lives?

You won’t stop promiscuity by banning promiscuity.

Also my promiscuity is not killing your child.

kinda like how there are shootings in gun free zones?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Simple rule: there should be the same limit on purchases per year for boys getting guns and girls getting abortions. 1/person/year seems fair.

As a gun owner, I’d go for that. I’d take that deal, with a few caveats:

1) all current federal and state gun laws are nullified, in exchange for 1-gun-per-year.

2) no new gun laws again, ever.

3) stealing a gun is a hanging offense.


Deal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious why is it up to the state or federal government to determine which passengers are a risk for flights or pharmacists or doctors who are pill mills but gun stores are responsible for what customers who pass background checks do?

No, you're not curious. You're trying to make a rhetorical point, and you're trying to do it by comparing air travel and medication to guns.

one is a constitutional right, the other two are not

The full text of the Second Amendment is: 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.

You do not have a constitutional right to conveniently buy guns for your hobby of collecting guns.

The guns I collect are all military in nature and suitable for militia use.


Cry harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious why is it up to the state or federal government to determine which passengers are a risk for flights or pharmacists or doctors who are pill mills but gun stores are responsible for what customers who pass background checks do?

Pharmacies got sued for their role in the opioid epidemic as well. It's a similar level of responsibility.

would you support lawsuits against pharmacies for filling birth control or abortion drugs?

Where are you going with this?

you opened that door. This is the consequence.

+1. When you grant yourself the moral authority to control others, you also grant them the authority to control you. This is what the other side of the coin looks like - and it’s coming for things you care about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious why is it up to the state or federal government to determine which passengers are a risk for flights or pharmacists or doctors who are pill mills but gun stores are responsible for what customers who pass background checks do?

Pharmacies got sued for their role in the opioid epidemic as well. It's a similar level of responsibility.

would you support lawsuits against pharmacies for filling birth control or abortion drugs?

No, but I would support putting you in jail for torturing analogies.

DP

If you find them torturous, perhaps your mind isn’t as sharp as you thought.