Skip to comments.Obama Supporters 'Not Responsible Enough To Own A Firearm,' AZ Gun Store's Sign Declares
Posted on 11/18/2012 6:10:07 PM PST by Evil Slayer
It was reported over the weekend that the owner of a gun store in Arizona is telling Pres. Obama's supporters he doesn't want their business.
Cope Reynolds, the owner of Southwest Shooting Authority, a gun store located in Pinetop, Arizona, took out a full page ad in a local newspaper that read: "If you voted for Barack Obama your business is not welcome."
The New York Daily News reports that Mr. Reynolds also posted a sign on the store's front door:
"If you voted for Obama, please turn around and leave! You have proven you are not responsible enough to own a firearm."
It is not known how Reynolds will identify Obama supporters and it doesn't seem likely that one would admit to having voted to reelect the president if they wish to purchase a gun at his store.
In an emailed statement, Reynolds wrote: "Obviously, this is nothing more than a political statement. Of course, it would be impossible to enforce. If they don't say anything, we'll never know. They could purchase whatever they wanted, and they would probably get a big kick out of thinking they are rubbing it in our face as they walk out the door."
Despite Mr. Reynold's personal attempt at "gun control," it has been widely reported that gun sales are on the rise though the reason behind demand varies from source to source. One theory suggests that citizens are stockpiling arms out of concern that President Barack Obama will tighten regulations on assault weapons, even ban them outright in his second term.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
“It is not known how Reynolds will identify Obama supporters”
The ones who plan to purchase a gun using an EBT and whose brain is missing.
There’s about a 95% chance I could spot one the minute they walk through the door by using a wee bit of profiling
Are party affiliation lists available to the general public. Got an idea.
I love me some Cope Reynold’s!!
If one of them says “Kin I git me a huntin’ license here?”, then he’ll know that’s one of the Obots trying to fit in with real Americans.
The man is dead on target.
Obama supporters are not smart enough to own weapons
Judge by the ones that do, going around spraying neighborhoods with Uuzi’s and Mac 10’s, and killing everyone but their intended target. Robbing gas stations,, every large city has a contingent of Obama voters with guns who prove this man’s point.
At first glance, he has a 93% or 73% chance of being right in certain cases! Better odds than Vegas
Once again, are party affiliation lists available to the general public?
Good ole Pinetop-Lakeside. The most unrepresented community in the nation.
On the Navajo County Board of Supervisors, we are now “represented” by someone from the Apache Reservation where they pay no taxes. In the State Legislature, we are “represented” by two Navajos from up north. They don’t pay any taxes either. In the State Senate, we are represented by another Navajo, a former lobbyist for the Navajo Tribe. None of these are taxed, yet they have a say in the spending of our tax money.
This is the reverse of taxation without representation, which put us at war with England. It is representation without taxation. How bizarre can you get?
To top it off, a “non-partisan” committee re-districted us in such a way as to allow the Rep we kicked out of office two years ago, Ann Kirkpatrick (D), back into the House of Representatives in Washington. You see, the snakelike district boundaries are drawn in such a way that she was able to get back into office by campaigning as a “friend of the Indians”.
YES...you can get party affiliation lists...it’s public record in your county elections office....although you may have to pay for the info
>>Are party affiliation lists available to the general public. Got an idea.
From the Pima County, AZ Recorder’s Office website:
— begin quote —
“Is the voter registration record a public record?”
Yes and no. Portions of the voter registration form are public record while other portions are deemed confidential by statute. The portion that is public record is your name, residence address, mailing address, phone number, year of birth, occupation and party affiliation. However, Arizona law restricts this public information by prohibiting its use for any commercial purpose. This information may only be used for election or political activity.
Not sure whether refusing service due to party affiliation would fall under commercial or political activity
I can tell an Obama supporter a mile away..they always have that “DUH” look on their face
An easy way to identify an Obama voter:
When they enter the store, ask them to loudly read the following: “Obama is an awful, racist and anti-Christian president who has caused terrible damage to the United States, cursed our allies and befriended our enemies, and done his level best to ruin our economy. I swear that I have never voted for him.”
No Obama supporter could ever say something like that without his head exploding.
Choosing not to engage in a commercial transaction is not commerce; only the act of selling is.
Of course that was before the court decision that not buying health insurance is engaging in interstate commerce.
We now live in a new world where the law changes from day to day and only means what the powers that be says what it means.
Buy RGR stock.
an unpredictable government/laws is a third world trait.
Buy RGR stock.
It’s a fact that most criminals are likely to vote democrat if they vote.
the owner isn’t wrong.
Ban “assault weapons?” However such may be defined, are they now being sold by U. S. dealers?
I want to put out an ad that says..
Liberals/Marxists and Obama supporters need not apply.
“It is not known how Reynolds will identify Obama supporters”
That’s easy. Its the ones wearing the baggy pants, a backwards ball hat and wanting to buy a TEC-9.
This situation might seem funny, or something you agree with (on the surface), but it really hurts gun owners and sellers in the long run. We ARE better than the dark side.
Obama’s supporters should be wearing hockey helmets
That’s just it, I don’t think they WOULD apply. A job would only mess up their assistance.
Explain ‘Dark Side’
“While I understand the sentiment, we must hold the Second Amendment higher than than voting history,”
The second amendment does not require any gun retailer to do business with anyone. Leftist democrats are completely free to open a gun store too. Nobody’s second amendment rights are imperiled when a man will not sell a gun to a person who voted for Obama. Obama has a stated goal of ending the firearms ownership.
True Obama supporters wouldn’t be caught owning a gun to begin with....
Some Leftist is going to claim that this is racist.
The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right and the right to purchase, lawfully, firearms and ammunition is, as a reasonable person would see it, a civil right.
Not selling a product to a person on the basis of political affiliation runs against all that, does it not?
Slightly changing the topic, I want to take Dems and gun grabbers shooting, and encourage them to own a piece (for home protection). They just might learn that gun ownership is a solid comfort (as we know), and asking anti-gun folks to take a few steps in our shoes is more likely to convince them than all the verbal arguments we might have.
Here, I'm thinking Democrat/Marxist/anti-colonialist/anti-Second Amendment, haters of the American Way.
You know, Dark Side.
You have a civil right to own a gun, but this in no way demands a dealer who detests you, to sell you one.
For example, we have a right to free speech, but if i demand DU let me post conservative articles lest they violate my free speech rights, it would be seen as incorrect of me. They would correctly say that my rights can be satisfied by any number of other avenues.
A civil right, demands nothing from another person. Free speech doesn’t require that i listen or give you a soapbox.
Your right to a gun, doesn’t mean a specific someone must sell you one if they think it’s bad business. What if they disagree on the price? What if a businessman decides that he cannot in good conscience, sell an 85 year old woman a .460 Weatherby Magnum for home defense? He knows her family will spread stories that he sold her something she cannot lift, and will hurt her with recoil. He thinks it will hurt his business, because people will think he was unethical. His decision as a businessman does not violate their civil rights.
And in this case he does not want to empower the very people who want his business closed.
Your right to be free from search without a warrant, or double jeopardy doesn’t require anyone to lift a finger. Freedom of religion doesn’t mean San Francisco bookstores must sell Bibles.
And maybe he’s just a good businessman. He just got free advertising coast to coast and ensured his core customer base will be even more loyal.
As to encouraging Dems to own guns, i think that is good on a few levels. In a functional adult, it encourages independent thought, the view that they are an individual.
Second, William Raspberry situations are bound to occur where leftists use a gun to protect theirselves. This is a huge teachable moment.
They will sometimes interact with the shooting community when they need an accessory, when they need ammunition, if it needs a repair, or when they want to practice.
Last, as laws grow more restrictive, they will slowly experience government as their adversary who restricts them and steals from them. Everytime they hear something bad about gun owners, they will have a moment where they think “Say, I own a gun and I’M nothing like that!”.
So your idea is not without merit.
This sounds unnecessary to me. None would want to.
If a Democrat buys a gun, does it then get inspired to go make drive by shootings, rob banks, etc.?
So far the gloating and smirking is a dead giveaway.
See the sign
That's a brilliant turn of phrase and a rallying cry, which is now my tagline. Thanks Migraine.
These freeloaders are bleeding us dry. If you don't pay income tax, you don't have the right to vote for politicians that spend taxpayers' money.
If thats what you really believe you don’t know much (maybe anything) about liberals/liberalism. Most liberals are gun owners. Certainly there’s a segment that isn’t, held up by the media for public consumption to perpetrate the myth. In the liberal mind gun ownership isn’t the question — its that you’re allowed. Liberals view themselves as morally and intellectually superior, above reproach, Mary Poppins in every way. You OTOH will never pass muster for ideological reasons. In their eyes you’re second class in need of a ruler to rein in your baser tendencies toward self sufficiency etc. Therefore, guns should be banned. When they say banned they mean for you not them. Like OCare once guns are sufficiently banned there will be waivers to go around to liberals only.
As a sort of corollary liberals have no problem with shooting people who oppose their views. They see it as perfectly right...think of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin etc etc.
Self ping for later read.
You’re welcome. I am honored.