Gun Tweet of the Day: Southwest Shooters Authority Isn’t Helping Edition

As TTAG reported back on the 10th,  Southwest Shooting Authority put up a post-election poster telling Obama voters to FOAD. The Pinetop Arizona gun dealer also ran the poster as a full-page ad in his local paper (the White Mountain Independent). The story of his politically divisive firearms fervor went national, recently running at huffingtonpost.com. Rob Pincus is plenty pissed. The gun guru and TTAG contributor’s Tweet makes no secret of his belief that Romney voting Republicans who intentionally antagonize left-leaning gun owners are doing gun rights a disservice. Earlier today, our Armed Intelligentsia discussed the wisdom of compromising with liberal gun control advocates. Now we need to wonder about marketing. Don’t we?

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

118 Responses to Gun Tweet of the Day: Southwest Shooters Authority Isn’t Helping Edition

  1. avatarTRUTHY says:

    I am a proud liberal, and proud gun owner. For every one Chuck Shumer, there are 100 of us normal liberals.

    • avatarbarnslayer says:

      That may be true but how many of you liberal gun owners are members of the Senate? There may be liberal gun owners…. okay. But if you vote for liberal anti-gun politicians how does that make any sense?

      • avatarIng says:

        I’m another one of those gun-owning liberals, but moderately liberal. I’m an independent voter. I vote my conscience, and sometimes that actually extends to voting for Republicans (not often, but sometimes). There are a lot of things I consider when voting, and a candidate’s intentions with gun control are a big consideration, but not the only one.

        Sometimes you have to play both sides to get what you want. Republicans will generally hold the 2nd Amendment line, so when it comes to guns, the idea is to make sure there’s just enough of them in Congress to prevent the idiots among the Democrats from doing their thing.

        Actually, I shudder to think what would happen to this country if either party were completely unleashed. Especially considering the only legislation they’ve really come together on in the last decade or so is the Constitution-shredding abomination of the Patriot Act. Sometimes I think congressional gridlock is our only hope.

        Barnslayer, you should think of us liberal gun owners as moles — Second Amendment spies, if you will — who can subvert the Democrats’ anti-gun platform from within.

        There are a few hardliners nobody will never reach, but I think most so-called liberals really haven’t thought beyond the Democratic party talking points; they’re not loyal, so much as unenlightened. Get enough people into gun ownership, and eventually (especially if you get women on board; mothers are big on protecting their families) there might be enough liberal gun owners that no politician of any stripe would try to infringe on the 2nd Amendment for fear of being de-elected.

        • avatarPascal says:

          Come to CT to see the experiment. We have 100% dems at the state and federal level and according to the local papers, we have also accumulated $1.8 billion more in debt dispite the govenor telling us how raising taxes would reduce the states deficit. They are just figuring out that raising taxes gave them less revenue in his omission but still intends to stay the course with more new taxes next year.

      • avatarJamie in ND says:

        @ barnslayer, Bingo!!!

      • avatarTRUTHY says:

        I am NOT a one-issue voter. Just because RepubliCONs protect guns doesn’t get my vote. They are ANTI-MIDDLE CLASS, ANTI-WORKING CLASS, and only care about the wealthy. So my vote is for putting effing food on my table. I can’t eat my guns.

        • avatarSammy says:

          And how have things been working out for you in the past 5 years? The Dems are taxing us into oblivion, and that’s pro middle class? The Dems buy votes with policy and open boarder immigration leading to amnesty. I’m on edit or I’d go further.

    • avatarpat says:

      Most liberals who own firearms (not counting felons and gangbangers…who are mostly liberal) are young males who will get older and see the error of their ways. I say that such people should not be ostracised but rather kindly persuaded (when you change someones mind, you create a strong ally).

      • avatarplepgeat says:

        “felons and gangbangers… are mostly liberal?” No, they’re not. They’re mostly apolitical, and tend to be basically Libertarian in their philosophy.

  2. avatarST says:

    Unity in the gun community?Thats hilarious.

    The ONLY thing we all can agree with is that guns are cool.

    Beyond that,fugediboutit.The majority of US gun owners aren’t TTAG viewers.If the history of the UK is a guide,our rights will be whittled away one law at a time while gun owners bicker and take sides against each other based on partisan lines.A big reason England lost their gun rights is because sport shooters turned against hunters who turned against collectors,whilst in the background the blisninnys forged ahead without opposition.

    • avataranon says:

      We are different from the UK gun community in that the Internet was not in full swing when they got f***** and the only voices on the gun side were the Fudds who wanted to play nice with the prohibitionists.

    • avatarHanover Fiste says:

      Settle down. Gun laws are in many ways more liberal now than since the NFA. Gun Ownership is up; Concealed Carry has spread to almost the entire nation; Violent Crime is down. With the exception of price (I miss you $80 cases of 7.62×39) it is a GREAT time to be a firearm enthusiast.

    • avatarS.CROCK says:

      so true, we cant even keep from arguing if someone says a cretin handgun caliber is the best.

      9mm rules all the way!

  3. avatarChris says:

    If liberal gun owners don’t want to be harassed stop voting for Democrats like Obama who supports scum like Eric Holder.

  4. avatarMatt in FL says:

    I’ve often boggled at the scorched earth vitriol that has been directed at those who get out of lockstep, or what is perceived to be out of lockstep, with our side’s “message.” To some degree, I agree with RP. Many on our side have a tendency to go way over the top in reaction to perceived faithlessness, and I’ve often wondered how much it hurts the 2A cause in the long run.

    For example, the RECOIL magazine fiasco… The editor makes some stupid comments, retracts them with more stupid comments, and the world explodes. Lots of people say, “I’m never going to read that traitorous trash again,” ignoring the fact that many who say that had never read an issue prior to the mess. But the back of the bandwagon is very inviting. But sure, there are those who did read RECOIL, and who, if you believe their vitriol, no longer will. Why? Dumbass says dumbass things, dumbass gets shown the door, the show goes on. I’m sure there are a few dozen other people who are involved with the production of that magazine who don’t deserve to lose their livelihoods over dumbass’s comments. Possibly some disagreed vehemently with him when he wrote them, but he was the editor, and therefore had final say on the editorial content. Nothing they could do at that point but put their heads down and try to weather the impending storm. If they’re putting out quality content (from what I understand, they were prior to this), then why would you stop reading them?

    Take that example a step further: one of those “never gonna that traitorous scum again” curmudgeons happens to work the counter at my LGS. RECOIL writes an article on a gun I’m interested in, and I take it into my LGS and say, “Hey, I’m interested in this, and RECOIL wrote thus and such, what do you think?” Curmudgeon behind the counter sees my copy of RECOIL, and decides that because I’m reading traitorous scum, that I’m also traitorous scum, and treats me accordingly. Rude, or contemptuous, or simply condescending, whatever it is, he’s now lost a customer for his store, or if I was a gun newbie, maybe caused me to lose interest entirely in buying a gun. All because of a stupid reaction to a stupid statement made by someone who’s no longer employed at the magazine in question.

    My example may seem far-fetched, but if you’ve been around, you know that guy I’m talking about exists. In five years, if RECOIL is still publishing, he’ll still be referring back to the Jerry Tsai fiasco, and spitting on the magazines reputation because of it. Again I ask, why?

    The RECOIL thing is just one example of this behavior. I can think of a couple others off the top of my head, but I’ve gone on long enough. The gun range owner in question is of course free to do what he wants, and serve who he wants. My only question is, other than stroking his ego, what purpose does it serve to act like that?

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      I doubt many of the people who hate RECOIL magazine now ever liked it or would’ve liked it in the first place. You’re making a mountain out of a molehill, dude. Anyway, this isn’t about a crappy magazine with a stupid editor that said idiotic things.

      This is about a gun store owner being a **** to people who are nominally pro-gun but voted a way he didn’t like. Rather than try to persuade them he just tells them to **** off and gives the bullshit media more fodder. I mean, it’s his right to do that I guess but it doesn’t look good.

      That’s a lot more important than RECOIL’s dealio. No one outside the gun community gave a **** about that rag.

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        I’m not making a mountain out of a molehill, “dude.” That was an example of the behavior I’m questioning, of which this gun shop owner’s behavior is another example.

        I’ve often boggled at the scorched earth vitriol that has been directed at those who get out of lockstep, or what is perceived to be out of lockstep, with our side’s “message.” To some degree, I agree with RP. Many on our side have a tendency to go way over the top in reaction to perceived faithlessness, and I’ve often wondered how much it hurts the 2A cause in the long run.

  5. avatarjwm says:

    We either hang together or seperately. Some how we gun owners need to find a way to work together regardless of our liberal or conservative bias. For me it’s very simple, I’m a one issue voter, my guns. For others I know it’s more complex. But for all those that value gun ownership in the top 5 list of priorities in their lives we are going to have to put aside our differences or explain to coming generations how we lost theit liberty for them.

    In many waqys I consider myself to be a liberal. I support legal weed, a womans right to choose and could care less if the marriege license says Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve.

    But to me the most pressing social issue is preserving some semblance of freedom for myself and those to come. And for that we need guns.

    • avatarbarnslayer says:

      I agree 100%. Gun rights are what separate us from the rest of the world. Those who don’t vote to protect that right don’t appreciate that. The economy, social issues, foreign policy are important but without our liberty here at home the rest is up to the whim of the big brother gov’t.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      “We either hang together or seperately. Some how we gun owners need to find a way to work together regardless of our liberal or conservative bias. ”

      True, but noisy disagreement and posturing need not be always interpreted as violence, either. FACE IT: we’re gonna disagree on some things. That doesn’t mean we’re flying to pieces on the most important issues.

  6. avatarNot Too Eloquent says:

    Gun store owner nor I need Rob Pincus telling us what we MUST do.

  7. avatarST says:

    While the Democrat Party stands for certain individual liberties, the party leadership today and for the foreseeable future is full tilt in favor of civil disarmament via gun control laws. Liberal gun owners here seem to value and understand the 2nd Amendment, which is unfortunate because the Democrat Party leadership is all but working diligently to invalidate it by any means necessary.

    How is it then that liberal gun owners can simultaneously value an individual right to bear arms while also supporting a political party which doesn’t acknowledge the 2nd Amendment at all?

    Im genuinely interested in hearing intelligent responses to this question. In order for all of us to unite for the cause of gun rights, we must first understand each other.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      Because, from the ones I’ve talked to, they don’t place much importance on the 2nd Amendment. They say things like “gay marriage is more important that the Constitution” (seriously had someone tell me that a few months back). That’s why – because to them, guns are just a hobby that they can do without if they lose the right to it, but having a law forcing people to “accept” them sticking it to another dude is a high priority for them (side note, I don’t give a crap if you’re gay or not and the government has no business deciding who can or cannot get married).

      • avatarMilsurp Collector says:

        This I agree with. It’s all about priorities. All my democrat friends think my guns and intimate knowledge of their history is fascinating, but the actual reason behind gun ownership is something they could care less about. I’ve tried so many times to explain the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment in as non-tinfoil hatted a manner as possible to them. None of them care much about it because Captain Skippy is offering free shit for life to everyone and that’s much more important to them. Like I said, it’s all about priorities.

        • avatarHoth says:

          “None of them care much about it because Captain Skippy is offering free shit for life…”

          And they’re making YOU pay for it. Screw them.

      • avatarWilliam says:

        Can folks marry their cats, also? If they’re the same sex, I mean?

        Okay, okay. SOMEONE was gonna say it. *I* think marriage is a failed institution, so I can’t understand why ANYONE would want to have a go at that… and consequently, I’m puzzled as to why gays would want to be just like straight people. REALLY puzzled.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      FYI, ST, calling it the “Democrat Party” is generally meant as an insult. This is perpetuated by right-wing media personalities who think deliberately getting the name wrong makes them look clever.

      It’s the Democratic Party.

      For my answer to your question: see the comments by Castle and Matt In FL below. Their views represent my own quite well.

      • avatarOmegaNerd says:

        Well, if you want to get into semantics, the “Democrat” party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in opposition to the Federalists, and was initially called the “Anti-Administration”. It later became known as the “Democratic Republican” party to differentiate itself from the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. It split in the early 1800s into the Democratic party, led by Jackson and Van Buren, and the Whigs, which later disolved.

        As it has obviously come Full Circle from how it started, we should all start refering to it as the “Federal Administration” party. Or maybe just “Federal United”. F-U for short. I’m also fond of Ingsoc, or just “the party”.

      • avatarSkyler says:

        And that is a classic example of using word choice to change the debate. They’ve been called the democrat party for a very long time but in the past decade they started this fake feeling of offense at the use of their own name. It’s exactly like when Correta King declared that we must no lo ger use the term “black” and now must use the term “African American.” When some unwary speaker uses the wrong term, they interrupt the debate with their fake outrage. They only effective response is to mock them for acting that way. No one does that and so they continue to frame the terms of debate.

        Three cheers for this gun shop owner. He is practicing his first amendment rights to express his opinion. The day people let others tell them what to say is the day we lose control of the debate

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Skyler, please see OmegaNerd’s post above. You’re misinformed regarding the evolution of the party name — the use of “Democrat Party” as a deliberate insult was started by Karl Rove in the mid-90′s.

          If the Democrats somehow succeeded in getting people to use the term “Republicrat Party” or something equally ridiculous, you’d see the same outrage and irritation on the GOP side.

        • avatarWilliam says:

          How do you know that was Coretta King? Or were you trying to make a joke?

    • avatarGreg Camp says:

      One of the reasons that I’m left-wing on many issues is that I believe in individual rights. If I’m not hurting you, I have the right to do as I choose. That goes for guns, pot, gay marriage, and so forth.

      The problem with our politics is that Republicans want to control me at home, while Democrats want to control me in public. I want a different answer.

    • avatarTRUTHY says:

      Very easy to have guns and vote Democratic. I believe in the middle and lower classes actually having a shot in this country. RepubliCONs don’t. They want to abolish unions, minimum wage, unemployment insurance, worker’s comp insurance, health insurance, food stamps, any form of welfare, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and on and on. So keep voting RepubliCON, you’ll have your guns, you just won’t have any money to buy food.

    • avatarSammy says:

      The problem for me is the Democratic party is that it is not democratic but the Progressive Democratic party. Their tactics are those of deceiving weasels and continual rewriting of their history. So there are libs that kinda own guns that voted, repeatedly, for the people who are trying to disarm us for dishonest reasons. Now. Did their actions (votes) help or hurt the country because of their political naïveté.

  8. avatarST says:

    While the Democrat Party stands for certain individual liberties, the party leadership today and for the foreseeable future is full tilt in favor of civil disarmament via gun control laws. Liberal gun owners here seem to value and understand the 2nd Amendment, which is unfortunate because the Democrat Party leadership is all but working diligently to invalidate it by any means necessary.

    How is it then that liberal gun owners can simultaneously value an individual right to bear arms while also supporting a political party which doesn’t acknowledge the 2nd Amendment at all?

    Im genuinely interested in hearing intelligent responses to this question. In order for all of us to unite for the cause of gun rights, we must first accurately understand each other’s perspectives

    • avatarCastle says:

      How is it possible?

      I can only answer in my specific case, but for me it has to do with more important subjects than guns.

      When considering other factors, the sad fact of life is that I have to prioritize and choose the best choice – even if that choice doesn’t support all of my beliefs. Because when it comes down to a choice between someone who supports my fundamental rights and *may* try to take away my gun, or someone who explicitly said that they do not support those rights but would *probably* be less likely to try and restrict/take away my guns…the fundamental rights win out (and those were just one of many factors in the election).

      If something comes up – say, Obama trying to institute an AWB or even something more sinister – then I’ll be out there, doing everything I can to stop it. And if some government agency or the police ever come around to try and unconstitutionally take my gun or any others I plan on getting away, I don’t exactly plan on just rolling over and accepting that right being stripped away.

      In short, it’s a risk assessment, or choosing the best candidate. I don’t pretend that Obama was anywhere close to my perfect choice. He was just better than the only other guy in the race which had any shot at winning.

      The attitude displayed by so many gun owners and establishments – or at least just some vocal owners and places that get attention (like SSA) – don’t help win me over either.

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        The attitude displayed by so many gun owners and establishments – or at least just some vocal owners and places that get attention (like SSA) – don’t help win me over either.

        See my screed above. This is exactly what I was referring to when I said, “I’ve often wondered how much it hurts the 2A cause in the long run.”

        People often wonder how I (and others like me) could even consider voting for Obama over Romney. They are aghast at the fact that someone who is a “gun guy” could even think about it. They feel it should be a no-brainer. But Castle hit the nail on the head: on one hand you’ve got someone who I agree with on a lot of (mostly social) issues, but who has a track record of being anti-gun, and who maybe, possibly, might try to push more anti-gun legislation. (And that against a currently unfriendly Congress.) On the other hand, you’ve got someone with whom I agree on gun issues, but with whom I strongly disagree on a host of (mostly social) issues, and he has stated categorically that changing the status quo on those issues will be a major push for his administration. Not might be, not Wayne LaPierre waving his hands and scaring you, not possibly maybe. Will be.

        How then do you choose? The possibility of a threat to your beliefs, or the guarantee of a threat?

        • avatarCrankyBuffalo says:

          I remain puzzled over the fascination, nay, obsession with the idea that Obama is coming for our guns. The only gun related federal legislation he signed was a bill to expand gun carry in National Parks. Romney, on the other hand, made a temporary AWB permanent when he was Governor.

          On the basis of what they did (and who can ever trust what a politician says, anyway?), Obama seems to be the lesser evil in this arena.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          “The only gun related federal legislation he signed was a bill to expand gun carry in National Parks. Romney, on the other hand, made a temporary AWB permanent when he was Governor.”

          *standing ovation*

          Thank you so much. Im glad im not the only nut job that recognizes this little fact.

        • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

          Golf claps all around for you Sir!!!!
          Claps for everyone else too who caught this!!!

        • avatarJarhead1982 says:

          Oh, you mean that amendment that was added as a poison pill to the credit card reform act? A legislative act that Obama wanted badly, but had too many political irons in the fire to veto the bill and get it reintroduced without the guns in park poison pill, oh yeah, that one!

          Did my research, Obama didnt create that guns in parks reinstatement bill, he just couldnt veto it.

          Wow thats really supporting the 2A, NOT.

        • avatarWilliam says:

          I’m really puzzled as to how you could vote for either one, but especially a guy who would “re-educate” you for your 2-A beliefs, if he had half a chance. It’s not like YOU get a chance to re-educate HIM.

          When we have to choose between those who want us enslaved, that’s a pretty hard choice for someone like me. Would you prefer to drawn and quartered, or burned at the stake, sir?

  9. avatarDracon1201 says:

    I did vote Obama, but it’s because I wasn’t being a single issue voter. I agreed with him on almost everything except gun rights. I could have been a single issue voter, but Romney’s 2A voting history didn’t make me exactly want to vote for him. So instead I went Obama and every Pro-gun Representative and Senate member I could. I figure 4 years where nothing happens is good and gives us time to build our case and find a good candidate for president.

    • avatarAharon says:

      Obama’s 2nd presidency might provide him with the possibility of appointing up to two or even three far-left anti-gun supreme court justices. Something might happen within the next four years that is anti-gun and probably will happen. Beyond four years, if new anti-2A SCJ get appointed the pendulum can swing backwards and beyond from the gains we have gained.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      I’m sure you’re DIGGING his lower taxes and low-cost medical care, right?

  10. avatarWLCE says:

    some conservatives often complain that “no reasonable liberal gun owner would vote for a party or representative that is typically anti-gun”.

    well, sorry conservatives, you are not off the hook either. Supporting statists like Romney and the neo-conservative chickenhawks that favor the 2nd amendment, but seem strangely silent about infringements upon the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments, is just as bad in my opinion.

    Sure, I will not vote for somebody that opposes the 2nd amendment. I will not vote for somebody that supports the war on terrorism, war on drugs, the patriot act, and militarism around the world either. That is why libertarian or, as described by the two party followers, “third party candidates”, exist and why they keep mysteriously taking votes from republican and democrat sides.

    Supporting either party in the current two party paradigm is going against the 2nd amendment and other bill of rights too.

  11. avatarAharon says:

    Public relations and marketing is something we do need to practice. We should not be going out of our way to antagonize the democrat & Obama party faithful. They are, for now, in power. A loose example might be how the obnoxious behavior of a few gun rights owners helped motivate California to ban concealed carry in public. There wasn’t any reason those gun owners needed to walk around in urban areas with their long guns flaunting their 2A right accept maybe to show off like little children.

    • avatarRAN58 says:

      Definitely, Just like the “the obnoxious behavior” of the Black Panthers in the 1960′s led to gun laws then being instituted by Governor Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately we tend to knee jerk solutions and fail to realize that constitutional rights and state rights apply to both the Left and Right.
      And while I agree that better marketing goes a certain distance in stating the gun owners cases, the fact of the matter is that what happened in California only came about because the citizenry had long before failed to exercise their rights. So when a few chose to actually do so, the liberal majority saw it as an aberration, not a right, just as the conservative majority did so in the 1960′s.
      But sometimes it requires the theater of the absurd to awaken people regarding what they are losing. And regarding the legislation that was recently passed, it was merely a final codifying of the directions that California gun laws were headed anyway, no matter whom did what with their firearms.

    • avatargen4n9 says:

      I know, its almost as bad as all of those newspapers flaunting free speech by selling their newspapers in the streets. What a bunch of childish showoffs.

  12. avatarKirk says:

    The least qualified and the most incompetent president in the history of these united states and you voted for him, I don’t trust you with a gun or a car or sharp objects for that matter. I don’t care who you are or what your politics are you’re an idiot.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      And you, Kirk, are part of the problem.

      • avatarKirk says:

        No you are. Your a towel

        • avatarjwm says:

          First time I’ve ever seen anybody called a towel. That’s unique to the point of being weird.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          There is no middle ground between stupid and not stupid.

          There’s a whole lot of middle ground between stupid and not stupid. Off the top of my head, there’s ignorant, and jackass, and arrogant, and intolerant, and obnoxious. Oh, and I’m pretty sure full of shit is in there somewhere, too. A minimum of three of those, but quite possibly more, apply to you in this case.

          I’m not saying you have to invite these people to your family picnic, ffs. I’m simply saying that if you start the conversation by being an insulting jackass and calling them an idiot, you’re not gonna change any minds. But I’m sure you don’t care. You’re probably one of the “I got my guns, the rest of you can suck it” crowd.

          See, I can make sweeping generalizations, too.

        • avatarGreg Camp says:

          Am I a hoopy frood who knows where my towel is?

        • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

          Yes you are a happy frood!! And your towel should be around your neck where it will be safe.
          Do you by chance know where Marvin the Paranoid Robot is??

    • avatarWLCE says:

      but if somebody voted for obama, who are you to not trust them with knives or other sharp objects…or guns for that matter???

      that sword cuts both ways my friend.

      right because Gee dub and herb walkie were much better….*facepalm

      • avatargen4n9 says:

        Both were exponentially better in every way. Far too left of center, but still much better.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          youre shitting me right?

          George W. Bush was NOT better. He is a stupid, vain idiot who invented new words to try to make himself appear more intelligent than he was. His silly malapropisms were a disgrace to this country. He tried to create a fascist empire run by neo-cons. He hired morons as his lawyers, demanded that the Justice Department be filled with neo-con religious jerk-offs from Liberty U.

          He was at the wheel but asleep when 9-11 happened. Instead of paying attention, he went to Crawford to cut trees. He utterly mismanaged the catastrophe that Katrina caused and attempted to obfuscate that by praising Brown, the dunce at FEMA, with doing a good job when the federal government’s response mimicked how a Third World country would respond to a disaster. I never thought I would hate a Republican more than Tricky Dick, but that phoney a’hole Bush surpassed Nixon. Most of all, Bush symbolizes the transformation of America into a land of dogmatic idiots utterly lacking in reasoning capacity–he was America’s chief huckster for the hicks who bloviate about “birth certificate,” “global warming, what’s that?”, he engineered a $4 trillion giveaway program to his cronies in Big Oil, he privatized more governmental jobs than anyone in history to give more sweet heart contracts to his corporate donors, and he led the deregulation of American businesses that led directly to the Great Recession of 2007-08. He lied to the world about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction to show he had more brass than his daddy notwithstanding the loss of American and Iraqi lives. He kept two wars off the books so it wouldn’t look like he was adding to the deficit.

          and thats not even getting into his old man: the iran contra, drug smuggling, murdering son of a bitch that lied under oath about serving the CIA and was directly involved in the assassination of JFK.

          And thats not even getting into grandpappy Prescott Bush, who supported the nazis by financing them and selling them invaluable war material for their effort.

          So no, Gee dub and herbie walker were NOT better in any way and, in most aspects, were more abysmal than obama ever thought of being.

        • avatarWilliam says:

          You mean we “misunderestimated” him? LOL.

    • avatarKirk says:

      On further thought, I really should have said “incapable of using good judgement” rather then “idiots”. BTW You’re a towel is a south park reference as any thread like this degenerates into. “You’re a towel. No you’re a towel” level of argument. I actually tried to edit that out.

  13. avatarspeedracer5050 says:

    Although I respect his right to refuse service to who ever he wants I think he is doing a big disservice to himself, his business, gun owners and future converts to our side.
    We need unity not derision to succeed!
    Just my opinion.

  14. avatarg2 says:

    Guns will be banned by the LEFT the day after Roe VS. Wade is overturned by the RIGHT…. If they give up their straw dogs and BS rallying points, people might actually start paying attention. (and we can’t have that….)

    Can someone please review a Glock 19 or Walther PPQ and make this site interesting again?

  15. avatarMichael B. says:

    There’s no reason to not vote third party anymore. If you think you’re being pragmatic by voting for the “lesser of two evils”, you’re going to pragmatize yourself and everybody else right into the **** can.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      lmao!!!

      very true words!

      My logic goes this way: I dont like either one of the c–k suckers. why would i decide to vote for either one?

    • avatarRyan says:

      All through the election I kept telling my friends, Romney has never shown he is pro 2A. I’m tired of both parties screwing this country. If more people would quit this crap that voting third party is “wasting their vote” because a “vote for the other party” we could get somewhere. I’m actually surprised lately how many liberal friends understand the economic mess we are in and would probably lean Libertarian if there was a real candidate, and they believed there was a chance.

    • avatarHanover Fiste says:

      Vote Cthulu!
      Why settle for the lesser evil?

  16. avatarChad says:

    I agree with Rob Pincus on this issue: It’s all about inclusion!

    Look, we lost the election on social issues. Period! When you have party that rails against gay people and talk about writing discrimination into the U.S. constitution in the form of an amendment, you turn off gay people.

    When Paul Ryan, a brilliant man, when it comes to economics and the budget, said, he would work to make sure Roe Vs. Wade, was overturned. He turned my entire workplace full of women into democrat votes for Obama! How do I know? They were vocal and told us so!

    I am also a firearms trainer on the side. I will train liberals, conservatives, gays or anyone else, who is willing to seek out professional training in order to handle guns safely and effectively to defend themselves or their families.

    Putting up signs, saying your not welcome at this gun range, because you voted for Obama, is NO different than someone putting up a sign saying “NO GUNS”. It turns us off and we go someplace else. How would that liberal gun owner feel, who was about to walk into that business. I know, I would turn around and leave, just like I do, when I see the NO gun signs.

    The fact, this range took this stance, is exactly what makes liberals not like us!

    Mark Walters from Armed American radio, should give this gun range the “Bone Head of the Week Award”. They deserve it!

    • avatarRedleg says:

      Why oh why does an overturn of Roe v. Wade mean a “war on women”? Are all of the women in your office just that ignorant to undearstand that all it would do is to make it the same status it was before? Blue states will still allow abortion on demand and restrict gun rights, and red states will restrict abortion and allow permitless open carry. Vermont would probably have abortion on demand and allow permitless concealed carry.

      If we want to truly talk “freedom” and “liberty, we should be advocating to a return of the understanding of the Constitution of the Founders. Retur n to a time when it was “these United States” of 50 soveriegn states united together for “common defense” and to “promote the general welfare” Strengthen the 10th amendment, have an understanding that the Constitution only restricts the FEDERAL government. Remove all references to marriage, abortion, gun control and hate crimes from Federal laws. If Utah wants to have a “religious test” to hold state office, let them. If you live in Utah and don’t like it, work to change the law or move. If you don’t, it doesn’t really affect you, now does it. If a state wants to institute British style gun control, let them. Again , if you live there and don’t like it, work to change it, or MOVE.

      Our union was designed to provide multiple “labratories of democracy” for all of our liberties, not one federal behemoth run from Mordor on the Potomac.

      • avatarCastle says:

        So…it’s just fine for states to violate the 1st and 2nd amendment? You do realize that not everyone has the ability to just get up and move, right? Because that takes money, and typically the loss of your job.

        • avatarRedleg says:

          That is the Constitution of the Founders. Yes, securing your liberties sometimes demands sacrifice. As someone famous once said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. “

        • avatarRedleg says:

          You don’t think that there are already states with defacto religious tests to hold state office? Abortion? Gay marriage? The church of global warming? A candidate’s answer on some belief on those questions will many times determine for if he gets elected. Not any statements about passing any laws regarding any of those, just a personal belief. If that’s not a religious test, and I don’t know what is.

          Ever hear of “free speech zones?” those aren’t restrictions on the 1st Amendment?

          Don’t we have states where the 2nd Amendment is essentially legislated away?

        • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

          Although all of us gun owners do worry about the 2nd Amendment take a look at other constitutional rights that are slowly going away while we sit blissfully by, for the most part, worrying about our RKBA.
          Check out the fight between the Christians and the Atheist group Freedom From Religion in Santa Monica Ca. Christians are not being allowed to put up unattended Nativity Scenes in Pallisades Park this year because the atheists are offended.??
          Ok what about the right to freedom of religion in this country?? The Christian groups can put up Nativity scenes in certain parks if they get a special permit, some cannot be unattended and on and on and on!!
          I am very supportive of freedom to worship as you see fit for yourself and family but if something religious offends you then be an adult and ignore it or learn more about it.
          My dad and his side of the family are Irish and Scottish, with some being Catholic and some Protestant, while my mom’s family are Irish,Scottish and Quachita Indian, mostly Methodist or Baptist.
          My point being that most everyone in both families have taken the time to learn about and be tolerant of each others religious beliefs regardless of whether they agree with them or not.
          Personally I am a Christian. Having studied different forms of religion I do realize that if we as Americans don’t pay more attention to our other constitutional rights they may be headed the same way our 2A rights are believed to be headed!!
          Ok, getting off soapbox, putting Tin Hat back on, Rant of the Day done for now!!

  17. avatarMC says:

    Between any number of candidates:

    I will vote for the candidate who has the better record on protecting my Gun Rights.

    I will vote for the candidate who has the better record being fiscally responsible.

    I will vote for the candidate who recognizes that our entitlements need serious reform.

    I will vote for the candidate who is most likely to stay out of my way as I try to grow my small businesses, and project confidence.

    I will not vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning.

    I don’t actually care what party they belong to, but as it turns out, it’s only ever been one so far.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      I will not vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning.

      So you only vote for anti-gun, pro-big government, anti-freedom people then?

      If every person that said “I like him, but Gary Johnson has no chance of winning” had voted for him, there’s a good chance he’d have one.

      • avatarWLCE says:

        so your forefathers sacrificed so much in the name of freedom and some people wont even wager a vote. LMAO!!!

        that is truly pathetic. Its not like youre getting it taken out of your ass for voting for who you want in office. You have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

  18. From where I sit – a long way away – it seems inconceivable that a politician as smart as O would ever launch a policy to disarm Americans. It would be as dumb as a politician campaigning to strip women of their right to choose, as dumb as a politician who campaigns to put the state into regulating conduct in the bedroom, as dumb as a politician who sets out to alienate everyone who is not a white, middle-class male. I agree with the great majority here who sensibly suggest that perhaps the best way to persuade others is not to start by insulting them. My own experience, for what it is worth, is the best way to convert non-believers to the pleasures of shooting is to invite them to the range.

  19. avatarMOG says:

    There is a wide gap between public and government. “liberals”/”conservatives”/etc. Some of us own firearms, some don’t, the vast majority that do own firearms are not looking to use them on other people, but firearm owners get blamed for all firearm related issues, no matter they were not personally involved. People that choose not to own a firearm get blamed for every “Ban the guns” statement/policy that comes up, no matter if they are personally involved, or not. True Liberalism is less government, more freedom, the term was hi-jacked by a segment of the Democratic party, because it sounds better than “Socialist Democrat”. People get elected by both sides that may go in directions that the voters never envisioned. Yes, there are “Ban them All” politicians in the government, radicals from radical enclaves, voted in by a lot of people that had no intention of banning ownership of firearms. However, there are few “Arm them all” politicians in sight, mainly because the right to bear arms is taken for granted. Blanket laws are easier to implement, in theory. Make anything illegal/banning it, problem solved. Name a law/ban that is never broken. You have a right not to “bear arms”, but not the right to deny others from doing so. Then it gets prickly, who do we exclude from the list of legal buyers/owners? Convicted Criminals, the mentally deranged, non-citizens, known drunks, under age, over aged, all have to be willing to obey the law, if they chose to break it, who is responsible? Even if firearms were banned totally, the manufacturers shut down, how do you stop the illegal entry weapons? Black market sales out of trunks of vehicles? It is unfortunate that the authors of the Second Amendment did not make two separate statements instead of inclusion in one; A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall be maintained. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon; might have been clearer to future interrupters of the Constitution. But, they lived in a different time, as farsighted as they seemed to be, they never envisioned the mole hills that were to become mountains in the future.

  20. It is very important that Gun Owners accept and befriend any Democrat and all Democrats who own or even might want to own guns. Our continued gun rights depend on everyone appreciating and loving the Second Amendment.

    It is out job to teach non-gun owners and bring them closer to us. You can not shove our views down their throats in one day, you have to spoon feed it to them slowly.

    This is the reason why the NRA has been so successful. They will support ANY candidate, Republican or Democrat, if they will support the Second Amendment.

    At the same time, WE SHALL NOT COMPROMISE the Second Amendment. We want to take back the rights we have lost too.

  21. avatarPeter says:

    Would you feel different if it was a pizza shop that posted the sign?
    Obama seems hell bent on destroying small business in the US, I would like to see more small business owners put up anti Obama supporter signs.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      “Obama seems hell bent on destroying small business in the US…”

      I’d ask you for citations to back up your fantastic statement, but this is a gun blog, and there’s a reason I stay off of Facebook.

      • avatarWLCE says:

        facebook *snickers

        I unplugged that enema nozzle a long time ago and have never felt better.

      • avatarWilliam says:

        REALLY? “YOU didn’t build that; somebody else [i.e., "the government"] MADE THAT HAPPEN.”

        You missed that? Did you also miss GATT, NAFTA, and the rest? I know they began under Bush, but Obama’s no buck-passer in the overseas job hurl, either.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          Does it make you feel smart to go through and reply repeatedly (at present, 14 times) in this thread three months later, with the benefit of hindsight?

  22. Every liberal we can get to the gun range and covert into a Gun-lover is one more person to speak on our behalf to the the powers that be.

    The best thing someone could do is get Obama to a gun range to shoot an AR-15 and AK-47.

    We have to think more in terms of winning over the other side… rather then kicking their ass.

    • avatarDon says:

      Yeah, because while the old minded folks are busy with the tired old liberal bashing they haven’t realized that half the younger gun nuts around here are liberals or independents.

  23. avatarMOG says:

    I still cling to the belief we are all Americans. But, I am nothing but an elderly white man.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      You’re more than that; a LOT more. You’re the sum of the hopes and dreams of each of your ancestors. More than THAT, even.

  24. avatarMilo says:

    Pincus is right – further narrowing the pool of shooters is terrible for us, as shooters, and for the firearm industry itself. The more people who’ve never shot, much less owned, a gun, the easier it is for the electorate to be swayed by scare tactics when it comes to “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines.”

    There’s a level of absurdity to the poisonous atmosphere in the firearm community regarding the dadgum commie pinko liberals as well: the GOP’s fine record on gun rights extends, oh, about ten years. Less for someone like Mitt Romney.
    Ronald Reagan wholeheartedly supported the Mulford Act in California, the genesis of that state’s abominable gun regulations. He later supported the Brady Bill and the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.
    Bush I voted for GCA ’68 as a Congressman and his import ban in 1989 eliminated the availability of a number of firearms in the US.
    Republicans voted in large numbers for the ’94 AWB.
    Bush II is on record as stating that he would have signed a renewal of the AWB had it reached his desk. Supporters can play semantics games as much as they want (he knew it wouldn’t reach his desk!), but his statement is a fact.

    Are Democrats more likely to be pro-gun control? Absolutely, if for no other reason than they are, demographically, less likely to have had personal experience with guns. But Republicans have hardly been the most diehard supporters of gun rights.

  25. avatarChase says:

    “If you set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.” -Margaret Thatcher

    Perfect quote for this situation.

  26. avatarEnsitu says:

    The first time a Republican won an election the Demoncrats killed over 600,000 people then they enacted the most repressive gun laws to that date to aid in the murder (genocide) of an oppressed race. Among this group grew a sub-set known as Progressives who wanted to eugenicize blacks via “Birth Control” andeven more extreme methods When Hitler adopted Eugenics the Progressives changed their name to Liberals

  27. avatarNighthawk says:

    We’ve compromised enough with the Left and the Right is barely doing enough to maintain or restore our rights. NFA, 1968 GCA, Hughes Amendment, AWB, import bans etc, letting states impose bans on capacity and cosmetic features is enough compromise, too much. The slippery slope is still there: “Ban all machine guns” why does anyone need a machine gun, done. “Ban all semi-automatic guns based on machine guns” well they could be converted to a machine gun, done. “Ban all guns with features that make them look like a machine gun” well they look like machine guns and machine guns scare people, done. “Ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds because machine guns are rapid fire and 30 round magazines make the gun look like a machine gun” well, lots of rounds is bad if criminals have them, done. “Ban all auto-loaders” etc etc. Ignore the fact that machine guns are rarely ever used in crime, even when bought on the black market, even when they were readily available. This is the progression of irrational behaviour and thinking. All rights lost, none gained nor restored. it’s about time they start compromising and we start pushing back. Liberal gun owners are an anomaly. I have yet to find any that are all for a complete and total repeal of all these ridiculous gun control initiatives aimed at preventing crime but succeeding only at turning ordinary citizens into criminals. Too many here say “well, Im a moderate liberal blah blah”. Look being pro-environment and non-religious isn’t a definitive characteristic of a liberal. Being a big-government statist is. Liberty with respect to firearms and big government ALWAYS clash.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.