Local Gun store owner supports ammo ban

[C-dub]

He contradicts himself in just that one short paragraph. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. If this will shut them up he's for that. And that didn't even take the entire paragraph. That was in back to back sentences.

[smoothoperator]

I bet he really supports it because it means less competition for him. Anti capitalism. It's no different than Commie Country supporting restrictions on gun shows.

[77346]

The owner of Tactical Firearms in Katy, TX was on 740 AM this morning. He was in favor of the proposed ban on buying ammo over the net.

I don't think they do much mail order ammo sales; it's mainly a range and store... so, the owner may think that, if passed, the proposed ban may boost their sales of ammo. I think it's the other way around: cheap ammo may boost customers going to the range to shoot.

Given in on this will have disastrous consequences... the libs will see it as a huge victory and continue pushing for more.

[Oldgringo]

I wonder if his position has anything to do with forcing more people to buy ammo from his store? Selling out gun owners for your own profit never works.

Chas.

Exactly what I had in mind too...

What else .

[Oldgringo]

Where are all of these folk who want to send a non-compliance letter to posters of bogus 30.06 signs? Send this guy a letter and say sayonara, adios and auf wiedersehen, etc.

[dukalmighty]

Believe me this thing is blowing up all over the internet,Can you say Chapter 7.Range ammo is high enough and without any competition would become outrageous.I do reload everything I shoot except SD ammo,but I'm sure they would eventually target powder and primers and then I'd be shooting about 5% of what I shoot now.

[SQLGeek]

I see their Facebook has been lit up since I went there last. Hope he gets the message.

[74novaman]

"giving them the ammo ban would shut them up for a while".

Yeah, okay.

Sounds like the guy over at Tactical Firearms needs to read the Cake analogy.

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

LawDog

Source: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010 ... -play.html


I too am DONE with compromise. That sort of thinking got us into the mess we're in now. I want my cake back!

[OldCannon]

Seems strange to me. Most FFLs I know won't say, "I have to create and store MORE paperwork? Sounds awesome to me!"

Cake game indeed. I won't play either, and I'm one of those people that would stand to significantly profit from it. No thanks, I'm not going to sell my soul just so I can fill my bank (besides, I already did that by working for several years at Microsoft )

[APynckel]

He was just on Matt Patrick's show on the 950 re-evaluating his position. He realized it's a "chisel" tactic by the left and changed his view.

[jmra]

Just read his latest FB post.

He admits to being "uneducated in the way laws are passed" and "feels foolish" in his thinking that there could be compromise on the issue.

He still doesn't get it. Just back peddling from the backlash.

[dukalmighty]

I think his problem is like a lot of people that "HUNT"but as far as carrying or having a loaded gun in the house for Self Defense either don't think they need one or somehow think they will have time to get a gun out,find the ammo,load it and then deal with a threat....they might as well call 911 because they may arrive before they get a gun ready.It's the mindset of these people that think nobody needs a gun that holds more than 5-10 rounds of ammo,and nobody needs a gun that has a detachable magazine,and nobody hunts with an AR15 or AK47 which in itself is false.
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting and yet when people in restrictive states get a license to purchase a gun for target practice "They feel Privileged "and are happy to follow all the restrictive bull feces that comes with it.It wasn't too long ago Commiefornia was actually talking about regulating ever gun owner in the state to 100 total rounds of ammo a month no matter how many guns you owned I go thru 20 times that much every month.
We know what lies around the corner if we don't stand united,England and Australia are blatant examples of what happens when you disarm law abiding citizens,they become "Subjects" and become easy prey for criminals

[maverick2076]

^
Except the guy runs a business called "Tactical Firearms" and they sell mostly tactical and defensive type firearms. He is either a complete idiot, or the kind of scumbag who would be completely OK with giving up rights for the rest of us if it improved his bottom line. I'm going to go with #2.

[Hoosier Daddy]

He was just on Matt Patrick's show on the 950 re-evaluating his position. He realized it's a "chisel" tactic by the left and changed his view.

Did he really change his view or is he trying to do economic damage control? I won't be going there either way.

[77346]

Here's a link to the interview: http://www.ktrh.com/player/?mid=22310941" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (audio)

So, since the mail-order outlets were going to go out of business, the ammo manufacturers were going to sell to him at a lower price... and he was going to pass the savings onto his customers. What a nice fella!