Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The second amendment is there just in case the first one doesn't work out

Amazing how few people get this simple fact. America gets dummer every day.

Damn you, Poe's Law.

Wow, there is so much stupid stuff in the above post.....it would take too long to address.

Anonymous wrote:"Oh woe is me, I might have to drive farther to buy my guns."

I already do that, lol. And I don't care. I buy online all the time or drive to VA, PA, WV or the free parts of MD. The MD FFL I use is no where near Moco. I try to avoid going near MoCo at all costs. I unfortunately have to drive through to get to DC once in a while.

DP

You have so much bullsh!t wrapped up in a single post it needs to be addressed…

Ok, assuming you actually are a gun owner - and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and take you at your word that you are - then you are one stupid MF’r.

“I drive even farther than that to get to my FFL”… “I try to avoid going near MoCo at all costs!” ok? And? So what’s going to happen when your FFL gets targeted one day to drive them out of business, too? Oh, suddenly THEN it’ll be a problem, right? THEN you’ll care?

“I buy stuff online” - no dumbass, you don’t. Not guns. No one one is shipping a gun to your house UNLESS you have a C&R FFL - and since you didn’t mention it, you clearly don’t. But - (and I’m explaining this for the people here who don’t understand the process) - when you order guns from an online seller, they don’t come to YOU. They go to a local FFL near you (a gun store typically) and then you go there and fill out federal and state paperwork and have a background check run. Then they sit at that gun store for the waiting period to pass, and you come back in 7-14 days and finally receive them. They are NOT coming direct to your house. When you say crap like “I buy my guns online” it gives people who don’t understand the process the wrong impression of what’s happening, and leads them to falsely believe that a person really CAN get a gun shipped directly to their home without any paperwork or background check. So please stop saying sh!t like that, ok?

“I go to VA or PA or WV”….. And when you go to those other states, you definitely are NOT buying a handgun there. Because federal and state laws both forbid that. So whatever you’re doing to other states for, it ain’t for buying pistols. You might PAY for a handgun at a store or gun show in VA or PA, but it still gets shipped to your local FFL back here in MD. At which point, you should’ve just saved the trip and had your local gun shop order it for you in the first place - because that’s where you’re going to wind up anyway to complete the sale and take possession. Again - when you say sh!t like that - it makes people who don’t understand the laws think you can just go to WV and buy a handgun and bring it back to MD. Stop misleading people.

Personally, I think you’re probably just a clever troll, posting something seeded with a bunch of cliches and misinformation to give otherwise uninformed people a wrong impression. But if you actually ARE a gun owner, you’re woefully stupid and short sighted. You think because you live in some less-blue part of the state that this will never affect you. And you couldn’t be more wrong. One day someone will try to force your local FFL’s out of business, too. And then you won’t be ordering anything online or buying something in some other state, because there won’t be any options locally to complete the transfer process. These three shops in MoCo are just the first. Your local shop’s time will come, too.

Anonymous wrote:The second amendment is there just in case the first one doesn't work out

Amazing how few people get this simple fact. America gets dummer every day.

"Oh woe is me, I might have to drive farther to buy my guns."

I already do that, lol. And I don't care. I buy online all the time or drive to VA, PA, WV or the free parts of MD. The MD FFL I use is no where near Moco. I try to avoid going near MoCo at all costs. I unfortunately have to drive through to get to DC once in a while.

The second amendment is there just in case the first one doesn't work out

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

You're the one who's complaining, "Oh woe is me, I might have to drive farther to buy my guns."

I do think it's funny, the idea that if you collect guns suitable for militia use, that somehow makes you a well regulated militia. If you bought out every pair of toe shoes in the store, would that make you a corps de ballet?

It probably would make a person an expert on ballet footwear, and certainly credible in such matters, as they are willing to take such a stake in it.

(And you accuse others of making ridiculous analogies?)

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?

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.

You're the one who's complaining, "Oh woe is me, I might have to drive farther to buy my guns."

I do think it's funny, the idea that if you collect guns suitable for militia use, that somehow makes you a well regulated militia. If you bought out every pair of toe shoes in the store, would that make you a corps de ballet?

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I mean, you have to admit, it’s a LOT safer for maniacs to shoot victims in a gun-free-zone. Otherwise someone might shoot them.

Won’t anyone think of the killers????

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.

Several million AIDS victims from the recent past would beg to differ.

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.

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 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 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 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?