Author Topic: 'Gun Violence Prevention Activist' Walks into FL Gun Shop, Asks for Something That Will Kill 200 Peo  (Read 727 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online PeteS in CA

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
'Gun Violence Prevention Activist' Walks into FL Gun Shop, Asks for Something That Will Kill 200 People

Quote
Here's one for the Florida Man files. Fortunately, the only thing this idiot managed to hurt was his own feelings.

WPTV in West Palm Beach:

Quote
Port St. Lucie police are asking the public to help identify a man who asked a Walmart clerk about buying a weapon that can kill a large number of people...
"Can you sell me anything (or a gun) that would kill 200 people?" the man asked.
The clerk replied, "That isn't funny," and the man responded, "I know," and asked again if they could sell him anything that would kill 200 people.
...
In time-honored liberal fashion, this genius ended up proving the exact opposite of what he intended to prove. His point was supposed to be that people planning a mass-murder can just walk into a gun shop and get what they want. But instead, what happened when he told the clerk he wanted to kill a bunch of people? He got a scolding from the clerk, and then a visit from the cops. His threat was taken seriously. And now the whole world knows what an idiot he is.

Disproving what he intended to prove ...... own-goal!!!  :silly:

Offline The Ghost

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,612
I think saying he is weapons grade stupid is apropos in this instance.
"The disdain of a small minority should never, absent legitimate grievance, take precedence over the majority."

Offline dfwgator

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 12,447


"Can I have 10,000 bullets, please?"

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 43,336
  • We got 'im now!®
Reminds me of Mark Kelly when he tried to buy an AR-15 from a Tucson gun dealer shortly after his wife Gabby Giffords got shot by a lunatic.  He boasted openly about how he wanted to prove this before he picked up the gun.  The gunshop owner threw him out of the place, barring him from ever entering his store again.  And Kelly did not get the AR-15.
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline Jazzhead

  • Radicalized
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,832
Reminds me of Mark Kelly when he tried to buy an AR-15 from a Tucson gun dealer shortly after his wife Gabby Giffords got shot by a lunatic.  He boasted openly about how he wanted to prove this before he picked up the gun.  The gunshop owner threw him out of the place, barring him from ever entering his store again.  And Kelly did not get the AR-15.

This is actually an argument for expanding background checks to sales at gun shows or requiring private sales to be effected through a licensed gun dealer.   A reputable licensed gun dealer, like a reputable owner of a liquor store,  has an incentive to police sales since he risks losing something very valuable to him - his license.   
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Online InHeavenThereIsNoBeer

  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,783
What I want to know is why they referred to Walmart as a "gun shop".
My avatar shows the national debt in stacks of $100 bills.  If you look very closely under the crane you can see the Statue of Liberty.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 43,336
  • We got 'im now!®
This is actually an argument for expanding background checks to sales at gun shows or requiring private sales to be effected through a licensed gun dealer.   A reputable licensed gun dealer, like a reputable owner of a liquor store,  has an incentive to police sales since he risks losing something very valuable to him - his license.

You've been told I don't know how many times that gun shows require background checks, but you keep on posting that leftist canard.  You are either not paying attention, or you are lying to a crowd of people who know better. 
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline Jazzhead

  • Radicalized
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,832
You've been told I don't know how many times that gun shows require background checks, but you keep on posting that leftist canard.  You are either not paying attention, or you are lying to a crowd of people who know better.

I type in real time,  and if I misrepresented the facts regarding transactions at gun shows, I apologize.    I don't frequent such events.   

But my point remains valid  -  private sales should be effected through the medium of a licensed gun dealer,  because the gun dealer has an economic incentive to police the transaction

Here is a statement that I found on-line:

Quote
Currently, federal law requires background checks (through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System) only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for 78% of all gun sales in the United States.

Do you disagree with it?   Facially, it appears that 22% of all gun sales do not involve background checks.  What is your objection to closing this loophole? 
« Last Edit: August 09, 2019, 02:18:12 PM by Jazzhead »
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 43,336
  • We got 'im now!®
I type in real time,  and if I misrepresented the facts regarding transactions at gun shows, I apologize.    I don't frequent such events.   

But my point remains valid  -  private sales should be effected through the medium of a licensed gun dealer,  because the gun dealer has an economic incentive to police the transaction

Only if it can be done in a manner that doesn't make felons out of otherwise law-abiding people.  I've yet to see a scheme that doesn't do that, but I'm open to suggestions.
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline Jazzhead

  • Radicalized
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,832
Only if it can be done in a manner that doesn't make felons out of otherwise law-abiding people.  I've yet to see a scheme that doesn't do that, but I'm open to suggestions.

Well, what about the suggestion I just made?   Require all private sales to be effected through the medium of a licensed gun dealer.   What is impractical or unreasonable about that?   
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Offline rustynail

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,004
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab1se0dkeCU

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 34,217
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Well, what about the suggestion I just made?   Require all private sales to be effected through the medium of a licensed gun dealer.   What is impractical or unreasonable about that?   

So if I want to give a gun to my son for his birthday I would need to put him in my car and drive him to my local FFL holder's place of business and take up his time dealing with me and my son?  Have I got that about right?

Offline Jazzhead

  • Radicalized
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,832
So if I want to give a gun to my son for his birthday I would need to put him in my car and drive him to my local FFL holder's place of business and take up his time dealing with me and my son?  Have I got that about right?

If you want your son to be the owner of the firearm,  then yes.   
"He was born poor, died rich, and never hurt anyone along the way"

   - Duke Ellington, upon hearing of the death of Louis Armstrong

"Not forever.  Just for now"

    - Jay Farrar

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 43,336
  • We got 'im now!®
If you want your son to be the owner of the firearm,  then yes.

Then put me down as Opposed.
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 34,217
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
If you want your son to be the owner of the firearm,  then yes.

Then my answer is a resounding NO!  I've already had to deal with enough government BS just getting the gun in the first place and so has my dealer.

Besides that, your plan is completely unworkable.  Apparently you have NO idea, or simply don't care,  how many firearms are inherited from their previous owners, who btw are no longer in any condition to sign any government required transfer papers, every single day in this country.

Offline The Ghost

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,612
Then put me down as Opposed.

Me too.  I'd rather have a hot poker shoved up my posterior than deal with more GOV regulation that is put in place to punish the 99.9% of gun owners who would never even think about going on a mass killing spree of liberals.....
"The disdain of a small minority should never, absent legitimate grievance, take precedence over the majority."

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,093
Well, what about the suggestion I just made?   Require all private sales to be effected through the medium of a licensed gun dealer.   What is impractical or unreasonable about that?   
Middlemen, unnecessarily.

I want my kids to have a firearm, (keep in mind that's a ~40 year old now), I hand it to them.  No muss no fuss.

Why have both of us drive to town to go through a bunch of hocus pocus to make it legal?

It's my stuff, I should be able to give it away if I want to, or sell it for that matter.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression


There are no "Socialists", no "Progressives", only Communists, with every negative image that totalitarianism might muster, demanding fealty and conformity to their views, with a legacy of 150,000,000 dead and counting.

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,305
This is actually an argument for expanding background checks to sales at gun shows or requiring private sales to be effected through a licensed gun dealer.   A reputable licensed gun dealer, like a reputable owner of a liquor store,  has an incentive to police sales since he risks losing something very valuable to him - his license.

LOL! No it isn't.

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,305
Well, what about the suggestion I just made?   Require all private sales to be effected through the medium of a licensed gun dealer.   What is impractical or unreasonable about that?   

What do you think the middle is going to make on that transaction?

Online PeteS in CA

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
Deja vu all over again.

Folks tend to value less rights they have not themselves exercised.

Bill Cipher

  • Guest
Then my answer is a resounding NO!  I've already had to deal with enough government BS just getting the gun in the first place and so has my dealer.

Besides that, your plan is completely unworkable.  Apparently you have NO idea, or simply don't care,  how many firearms are inherited from their previous owners, who btw are no longer in any condition to sign any government required transfer papers, every single day in this country.

Yeah. That’s what executors and guardians are for.  Don’t be so obtuse. 

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 25,093
Deja vu all over again.

Folks tend to value less rights they have not themselves exercised.
Yep. They are most willing to sacrifice the ones they don't use.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression


There are no "Socialists", no "Progressives", only Communists, with every negative image that totalitarianism might muster, demanding fealty and conformity to their views, with a legacy of 150,000,000 dead and counting.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf