Arizona gun dealer tells Obama voters, 'Turn around and leave!'

[matty 810]

If you voted for Obama--you should be LOBOTOMIZED.

[reloaderguy 30]

If you voted for Obama--you should be LOBOTOMIZED.

 

And we have a winner. Well said!

[usnmars 136]

Props to this guy. If he was somewhat local i would drive out of my way to give him my business. I for one know what it feels like to have an entire industry shut down. I am an oil driller, and i for one am sticking to my guns and my bible.

 

Ps....... what is the difference between Obama and Osama? ------------BS.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

i highly doubt people will actually turn around and walk away. its more of a statement of his beliefs then him actually finding out who you voted for and then showing you the door

 

this, thanks

[JrzyGuy30 0]

I hope this becomes a trend!

 

http://www.examiner....round-and-leave

 

+10000! Love it

[Qel Hoth 33]

I think he meant mad, as in crazy.

No need for ad hominem attack against W, and it is kind of a non sequitor anyway.

 

Does anyone think there may be constitutional issues involved with this though? Is there a constitutional basis to force a retailer to do business based on the 2A rights of the customer? Businesses can practice "censorship" to some extent, but many retailers and malls are seen as a place of public accomodation where discriminatory practices are illegal, and some businesses are even prevented from banning certain demonstration/speech if it is deemed a quasi-public space, or place of public accomodation.

 

I can sympathize with the business owner's rights, but is he also violating the 2A rights based on political ideology?

 

 

10:5-4 Obtaining employment, accommodations and privileges without discrimination; civil right.

 

4.All persons shall have the opportunity to obtain employment, and to obtain all the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of any place of public accommodation, publicly assisted housing accommodation, and other real property without discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, familial status, disability, nationality, sex , gender identity or expression or source of lawful income used for rental or mortgage payments, subject only to conditions and limitations applicable alike to all persons. This opportunity is recognized as and declared to be a civil right.

 

NJ's anti-discrimination law, political party affiliation is not mentioned.

 

It's his business, let him do as he pleases, though I never thought that making political statements with your livelihood was a particularly great idea.

[TK421 2]

If you voted for Obama--you should be LOBOTOMIZED.

 

If you voted for Obama a lobotomy probably wouldn't make any difference. LOL

[dino71 7]

Props to this guy. If he was somewhat local i would drive out of my way to give him my business. I for one know what it feels like to have an entire industry shut down. I am an oil driller, and i for one am sticking to my guns and my bible.

 

Ps....... what is the difference between Obama and Osama? ------------BS.

 

Come on Eric, don't you read the papers? Obama took out Osama (not to mention many other bad guys) because "W" couldn't find his ass in the dark with both hands.

[deadeye74 5]

 

Come on Eric, don't you read the papers? Obama took out Osama (not to mention many other bad guys) because "W" couldn't find his ass in the dark with both hands.

 

Actually, Osama could have been taken out by Clinton on a few occasions but he would not give the order. All the pres does is say yes or no to the operation. The CIA, military, and other special services are the ones who finds these guys and get them in the crosshairs. All the president does is give the ok to take them out. Let's not discredit the SEAL team that actually performed the operation by giving credit to the person sitting behind a monitor in the situation room.

[SgtToadette 59]

I saw this elsewhere on the interwebs and found it incredibly stupid, to say the least.

 

Is it their right as a business owner to refuse business to whom he wants? Yes, of course it is. Nobody is disputing that.

 

Let's ask a hypothetical question, shall we? If the issue of gun control becomes a big issue in the next decade, do we want more people on our side or same as we have now (or even less)? The reason I refuse to support the NRA is because they operate on the latter premise. We in the firearms community should be open to the liberals and/or democrats among us and actively pursue their potential as allies in the political battle.

 

Gun rights is NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE. I am living proof of that. It irks me to no end when I see terms like 'libtard' and the such floating around because it accomplishes nothing but contribute to the stereotypical gun-nut circle-jerk while simultaneously turning away people who might have otherwise been a potential supporter. We should have all learned by first grade that you don't make friends by calling them names. In politics, having friends means having more voices and more votes.

[leahcim 680]

 

NJ's anti-discrimination law, political party affiliation is not mentioned.

 

It's his business, let him do as he pleases, though I never thought that making political statements with your livelihood was a particularly great idea.

I agree, just sayin that I could see someone bringing suit on this basis, and using the specious argument that this is a constiutional right denied--I mean look at how they tried to intimidate Joey Vento of his free speech rights at Geno's Steaks.

And now--thinking through how that would play out--I think the owner is an advertising genius, and a lawsuit would probably be great for business.

[leahcim 680]

Gun rights is NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE. I am living proof of that. It irks me to no end when I see terms like 'libtard' and the such floating around because it accomplishes nothing but contribute to the stereotypical gun-nut circle-jerk while simultaneously turning away people who might have otherwise been a potential supporter. We should have all learned by first grade that you don't make friends by calling them names. In politics, having friends means having more voices and more votes.

+1000

Based on your posts, you and I probably disagree on almost everything political/government related. That does not mean we cannot carry on a civil discourse and disagree without resorting to ad hominem attack. When someone resorts to name calling, I just assume it is because their argument is weak and they have nothing left. Plus you never know where you might find common ground.

[jrfly3006 42]

 

 

Come on Eric, don't you read the papers? Obama took out Osama (not to mention many other bad guys) because "W" couldn't find his ass in the dark with both hands.

I thought Navy SEALS took out bin laden? Didnt know Obama was able to fast rope and breech a door..

[ITman 2]

I guess you can not expect much more from red neck country bumpkin thinking........ I guess that gun shop owner is just crying like a little baby that his boy lost....boo hoo. We had a crack head, cocaine taking alcoholic for 8 years and I bet no one ever turned away a "W" supporter. And for someone to say that they hope it becomes a trend well what can you say to that except that I hope you get well soon.

Have you ever heard of any of the following:

Choom gang

Choom wagon

Total Absorption

Roof hits

 

Here's a hint, his first name is Barry

[ITman 2]

I thought Navy SEALS took out bin laden? Didnt know Obama was able to fast rope and breech a door..

Even I could sit at a desk and order a group of elite, exceptionaly talented and well trained young men to take out a target. Now if he flew in with the SEALS then I'd say he got Bin Laden.

[checko 180]

I saw this elsewhere on the interwebs and found it incredibly stupid, to say the least.

 

Is it their right as a business owner to refuse business to whom he wants? Yes, of course it is. Nobody is disputing that.

 

Let's ask a hypothetical question, shall we? If the issue of gun control becomes a big issue in the next decade, do we want more people on our side or same as we have now (or even less)? The reason I refuse to support the NRA is because they operate on the latter premise. We in the firearms community should be open to the liberals and/or democrats among us and actively pursue their potential as allies in the political battle.

 

Gun rights is NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE. I am living proof of that. It irks me to no end when I see terms like 'libtard' and the such floating around because it accomplishes nothing but contribute to the stereotypical gun-nut circle-jerk while simultaneously turning away people who might have otherwise been a potential supporter. We should have all learned by first grade that you don't make friends by calling them names. In politics, having friends means having more voices and more votes.

 

+100

[RedBowTies88 41]

I don't agree.

 

If and when any anti-firearm bill comes along , it will take liberal, conservative and independant gun owners to defeat it. Differences aside, we are still Americans and we ALL have a right to own and bear arms.

 

 

Unless, of course.... you live in NJ.

 

Af far as a business decision it's brilliant. I mean how many customers is he really gonna loose? maybe 5-8%? Now he's earning national reconition which will bring more business to replace them and then some.

[djg0770 481]

If you think gun rights are not a partisan issue, you're fooling yourself. There are a FEW hard core liberals who are gun owners, however MOST liberals are horribly and rabidly anti-gun. Sure, you're now going to show me 6 hard core libs who are pro-gun, great, 6 out of 3 million = an infinitesimal number, mostly equal to ZERO.

 

Occasionally you can get these rabid anti-gunners to back down to "you can own them for hunting, or for protection only in your home"... Yeah, sorry, not much movement.

 

By the same token, I think we miss the boat if we assume all democrats or all gays or all women or all this or all that are anti gun (or pro gun). As this devolves into politics, the problem is not with what's said but with what is said and not refuted. When one group says this other group is against gays or women, if the other group allows that to persist, it's as bad as saying "Yes, we are anti gay and anti women." The failure comes in not responding to this with a clear and articulable answer.

[blksheep 466]

 

 

THIS!!

 

For every whiny liberal who is offended by the signs in his store, he is going to get two people who agrees with him and will frequent his store because they like his attitude.

 

Agreed

[jamesbod 0]

This is still America. The owner can do what he likes as long as he's not violating any laws

[mipafox 438]

More people who didn't vote are coming to his store than people that voted for Obama.

 

He should turn away the people that didn't vote.

 

Now, keep in mind, I am not a fan of getting everybody to vote, nor super-enfranchising the retarded and the completely ignorant. Whether they are on my side or not.

 

But this election was not lost by Obama voters. Obama voters didn't show up. Gun buyers are probably 80%+ leaning of actual Republican, and MOST didn't vote third party, and MOST simply didn't show up.

 

And, I can't explain all of them, but I can explain enough of them for an Obama win.

[TK421 2]

I saw this elsewhere on the interwebs and found it incredibly stupid, to say the least.

 

Is it their right as a business owner to refuse business to whom he wants? Yes, of course it is. Nobody is disputing that.

 

Let's ask a hypothetical question, shall we? If the issue of gun control becomes a big issue in the next decade, do we want more people on our side or same as we have now (or even less)? The reason I refuse to support the NRA is because they operate on the latter premise. We in the firearms community should be open to the liberals and/or democrats among us and actively pursue their potential as allies in the political battle.

 

Gun rights is NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE. I am living proof of that. It irks me to no end when I see terms like 'libtard' and the such floating around because it accomplishes nothing but contribute to the stereotypical gun-nut circle-jerk while simultaneously turning away people who might have otherwise been a potential supporter. We should have all learned by first grade that you don't make friends by calling them names. In politics, having friends means having more voices and more votes.

 

In some respects I must disagree with your assessment that gun control is not a partisan issue, It is a litmus test for one's political ideals and values.

 

My personal politics is more skewed toward a libertarian position than a Republican or Democrat position. I have always looked at gun control as a litmus test for people's political beliefs in general. The mindset needed to support gun control when applied to other subjects is a big government, top down authoritarian, nanny-state mindset. When I use the term "libtard" I refer to the type of mindset that always wants the government to have a solution to a problem or help others by giving rather than educating or empowering. The problem with that mindset is that our government (federal government) is supposed to have very limited powers. When you look to empower a government to give you things you inadvertently and simultaneously also empower that government to take things away from others. The libtard mentality either never considers the ramifications or the counter effects of its well intentions or deliberately demonizes those adversely affected by its actions to divide and pit one group against another to further its agenda. I find that mindset repugnant. In a number of respects the Republitards are no better. That mindset feels big government is OK as long as it supports a more conservative or neo-conservative agenda. The Republican position has shifted left through the years and currently stands about where a moderate Democrat would have stood in the late '50s early '60s. I say if you find yourself on one side or another on any issue it is fine to empower your state government to enact liberal or conservative agendas but it not OK to try to empower your federal government to mandate that everyone in every state should be forced abide by the laws that "some people" find acceptable. The process to create a Constitutional amendment is clear and well defined. If there is something that the federal government absolutely must do a clear and substantial majority of the people should be required to approve the expansion of the government. Many seem to have either forgotten this or are completely ignorant of how our government was intended to function. A simple majority of 537 people should not be the basis for restricting and regulating the day to day lives of 312 million people.

[Avi 12]

I guess you can not expect much more from red neck country bumpkin thinking........ I guess that gun shop owner is just crying like a little baby that his boy lost....boo hoo. We had a crack head, cocaine taking alcoholic for 8 years and I bet no one ever turned away a "W" supporter. And for someone to say that they hope it becomes a trend well what can you say to that except that I hope you get well soon.

It looks like we have an Obama voter in the house, now answer me this you are here so you probably like guns, then why would you vote for someone who said he wants to restrict them and we know that means ban them free AR15 for a coherent answer

[woodentoe 14]

It looks like we have an Obama voter in the house, now answer me this you are here so you probably like guns, then why would you vote for someone who said he wants to restrict them and we know that means ban them free AR15 for a coherent answer

 

Is this prize open to anyone or just dino71? :-)

 

I'd bet even the most ardent Republican could craft a coherent answer to your challenge...when there is a free rifle in it for them.

[Avi 12]

Is this prize open to anyone or just dino71? :-)

 

I'd bet even the most ardent Republican could craft a coherent answer to your challenge...when there is a free rifle in it for them.

No its only for Obama voters with no help from a conservative i dont think progressive socialists have the mental capacity to form a coherent thought

[TK421 2]

It looks like we have an Obama voter in the house, now answer me this you are here so you probably like guns, then why would you vote for someone who said he wants to restrict them and we know that means ban them free AR15 for a coherent answer

 

A liberal gun owner is a conflicted liberal mind. On one hand they understand the liberty and freedom of gun ownership and how the government should be limited in controlling that freedom but they are incapable of applying that lesson to other social issues where the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate.

[woodentoe 14]

No its only for Obama voters with no help from a conservative i dont think progressive socialists have the mental capacity to form a coherent thought

 

Pics of the rifle please.

[SgtToadette 59]

It looks like we have an Obama voter in the house, now answer me this you are here so you probably like guns, then why would you vote for someone who said he wants to restrict them and we know that means ban them free AR15 for a coherent answer

 

I'd rather not blatantly disclose who I voted for and I don't want to get too political (as per the rules of this forum) so I'll keep this answer limited within the confines of gun control. It's possible that while a person may have an interest in firearms, that it isn't the only reason that they support presidential candidate. While Obama is inferred to be the worse candidate on that issue, Romney was not any significantly better. He's gone so far to say:

 

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts...These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

 

So yes, Obama mentioned once that he might maybe want to institute a new AWB, but with a Republican-controlled house, it's fair to predict that the legislation (assuming it even happens) would not go far. Obama has also had a multitude of instances where he could have made gun-control an issue, but barely uttered a word about guns (see: Aurora and Giffords incidents). The idea that he's been secretly planning to get his 2nd term (which was no guarantee as we saw Nov. 6) before he institutes an executive order, seems to be more than a stretch.

[mikelets456 78]

I hope this becomes a trend!

 

http://www.examiner....round-and-leave

 

Good move... he probably only lost one customer. Kind of like a liberal store owner telling conservatives they can't buy any Obama merchandise.

[bulpup 98]

I'd rather not blatantly disclose who I voted for and I don't want to get too political (as per the rules of this forum) so I'll keep this answer limited within the confines of gun control. It's possible that while a person may have an interest in firearms, that it isn't the only reason that they support presidential candidate. While Obama is inferred to be the worse candidate on that issue, Romney was not any significantly better. He's gone so far to say:

 

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts...These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

 

So yes, Obama mentioned once that he might maybe want to institute a new AWB, but with a Republican-controlled house, it's fair to predict that the legislation (assuming it even happens) would not go far. Obama has also had a multitude of instances where he could have made gun-control an issue, but barely uttered a word about guns (see: Aurora and Giffords incidents). The idea that he's been secretly planning to get his 2nd term (which was no guarantee as we saw Nov. 6) before he institutes an executive order, seems to be more than a stretch.

 

 

Can I shoot your free AR-15?