Skip to main content

Obama voters not allowed at Arizona gun store

I really had to laugh upon reading an article this morning. Shortly after the election last week, one Cope Reynolds - owner of the gun store Southwest Shooting Authority in Pinetop, Arizona - posted the following message no his site, in a newspaper ad, and on a sign at the front of the store:

"To Whom it May Concern:

I thought you all might be interested in this.

We will try to demonstrate once again that the bottom line for our business is principle, not money.

Yes, it has been damaging at times but our values are intact.

Effective immediately, if you voted for Obama, your money is no good here. You have proven beyond a doubt that you are not responsible enough to own a firearm. We have just put a sign up on the front door to save you the trouble of walking all the way in here...

I took this ad out in our local paper. It will come out in the White Mountain Independent tomorrow, 9 November

Sincerely,
Cope Reynolds"

First off, how in the world is this Cope Reynolds going to know who Obama voters are? Is he just going to make assumptions and due to these assumptions, won't sell firearms to minorities, young people, or women? Will there be some kind of special radar which showcases for whom these people voted?

Secondly, while generally speaking, Democrats tend to favor gun control measures more than Republicans, it's not like all Democrats are anti-gun. There are many Democrats whom own firearms or at least believe in peoples' right to own firearms. So just from a business angle, this is a pretty stupid move by Mr. Reynolds. Last I checked, President Obama had 44% of the vote in Arizona. Reynolds is turning away over 2 in 5 voters. Perhaps he wants his store to go out of business so he can blame the president or something along those lines. I'm just trying to make sense of the situation, but am having extreme difficulty doing so.

Lastly, does this guy see the irony of his actions? He and many other gun-enthusiasts have clamored for four years that President Obama is either going to take away their gun rights or already has. The president, if anything, actually expanded gun rights in his first term. So what does this gun store owner do in response to the president's re-election? Take away people's gun rights. Not even The Onion could come up with a story like this...

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/arizona-gun-store-no-obama-voters-allowed

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...