Florida Firm Offers Free AK-47s To New Customers

[Little-Acorn]

Gotta love this.

So many people have been conned into fearing any gun, any where under any circumstances, that a campaign like this is solid intrinsic value beyone the direct benefit to the recipient.

It should do a pretty good job of identifying people who start screaming hysterical things when any mention of people owning guns (especially AK-47s) comes up.

"Those who shock easily, should be shocked regularly and often."

----------------------------------------

http://www.foxbusiness.com/2011/09/16/florida-firm-offers-free-ak-47s-to-new-customers/print

Florida Firm Offers Free AK-47s To New Customers

Published September 16, 2011 | MarketWatch Pulse

CHICAGO -- Retail merchant account provider MerchantService.com will give a voucher good for a free AK-47 assault rifle to new customers, depending on the amount of business they do. The company, which provides credit-card-processing services to businesses, announced the promotion as part of its ""No Merchant Victims" campaign that is designed to "encourage merchants to stand their ground and protect themselves," MerchantService.com said. The voucher, worth up to $750 "can be used at any reputable gun shop where [the user] must go through the proper background checks and waiting period that the law requires," said Gino Kauzlarich, president of Sarasota, Fla.-based MerchantService.com, on the company's website.

 

[Dr.Who]

Since it is legal then they can do whatever they want.

And yes Americans have a constitutional right to own guns for the purpose of protecting themselves from their government so an AK-47 would qualify. In fact it is not ENOUGH firepower for the purpose it is supposed to serve.

Which gets me thinking...the NRA argues that guns should be allowed for all sorts of purposes like hunting and self protection, but I am not aware of them arguing that tanks are needed for protection from the gov.

A lesson to be learned, often from the left, is to ask for way more than one wants so that it sets the bar that much farther down the road. Then when compromise inevitably takes place one does not lose ground.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

do you need a AK for hunting? Nope..not a good gun really for that.
Do you need it to fight the goverment? No crazy man who lives in your moms basement still..the evil goverment is not comeing to get you, so take off you foil hat.
Would a semi auto ak-47 even be useful against the goverment? No your a 300 pound out of shape in a white beater...the well trained army with tons of training far better guns, tanks, f-22's and able to do track you anyplace...will kill you very fast if they want to.
Do you feel more powerful with one, because you lack size in a area of your body you wish you did not...sure.
Are the odds you will ever use it to defend yourself very good? Nope.
Are the odds your accidentally hurt or injure yourself with it good? Better then above odds I would bet.
Who is the most likely person to try to kill you? your spouse or ex or something...
Is that gun going to help you in those cases...5050 they use it on you or you don't even think to have it ready...
Can you legally own it. yes and stop crying that Obama and his secret army are coming to get it from you .

 

[bododie]

True ignorance about guns was never more evident that the drivel in the above post.
Talk about "paranoia". Lol.

 

[Dr.Who]

Do you need it to fight the goverment? No crazy man who lives in your moms basement still..the evil goverment is not comeing to get you, so take off you foil hat.
Would a semi auto ak-47 even be useful against the goverment? No your a 300 pound out of shape in a white beater...the well trained army with tons of training far better guns, tanks, f-22's and able to do track you anyplace...will kill you very fast if they want to.

The effectiveness or lack of the gun in defending oneself against the government is irrelevant since the constitution does not grant the right to bear arms only if they are effective.

But would they be effective? Much of the work of the revolution took place prior to the battles when individual politicians were tarred and feathered and I would say that tar and feathers are clearly less effective than the cannons wielded by the most advanced military on the face of the planet at the time.

Does it matter if those who fear the gov today are crazy? No, because the use of the gun is reserved for the day when it is not crazy and none of us knows when or if that day will come.

But going back to the idea that an AK would not be very effective against the gov's military: Clearly then we need to expand the power of the average citizen. If we do not expand their firepower then we must expand other powers. I suggest a popular vote impeachment process at least for consideration.

 

[GenSeneca]

do you need a AK for hunting? Nope..not a good gun really for that.

Why do you believe the founders and framers created the second amendment? What did they see as the purpose of such a constitutional right?

 

[dogtowner]

JOhn Mohammad and Lee Malvo were relatively successful hunting with their Bushmaster.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I guess all of you missed the part where I said they had a legal right to have one...Even if the reasons for owning a ak-47 semi auto mostly stupid in my view.

As for why its there...simple evryone hunted at the time and there was no military at the time...thus needed guns. Also fully auto machine guns and high powered rifles that could shoot someone a mile away did not exist...so they did not think to future proof the law against what would come later.

 

[Dr.Who]

I guess all of you missed the part where I said they had a legal right to have one...Even if the reasons for owning a ak-47 semi auto mostly stupid in my view.

As for why its there...simple evryone hunted at the time and there was no military at the time...thus needed guns. Also fully auto machine guns and high powered rifles that could shoot someone a mile away did not exist...so they did not think to future proof the law against what would come later.

The purpose of the right to bear arms was not because everyone hunted or because there was no military. No doubt those were factors that allowed the founders to think that the right to bear arms would be effective but it was not the reason they made it. However, despite large numbers of people using guns for hunting, not all hunted and there did exist at the time guns that were not used for hunting. Additionally, while a national military did not exist it was not unheard of as the British had a national military. The state militias of course did exist long before the constitution was drafted and for those who did not own guns (yes some people did not own guns) it was considered a duty to get one - again because there might come a day when the people would need to overthrow a government.

If was without a doubt that they thought it was the right of the people to alter or abolish their government.

btw, recenly the supreme court ruled on the right to bear arms. It did not say it was so people could hunt. It reaffirmed that it is an individual right and even mentioned self-defense. And of course the reading of the constitution is quite clear; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

Additionally, lets note that the const. does not say "guns". It says "arms" which would include things like cannons.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The purpose of the right to bear arms was not because everyone hunted or because there was no military. No doubt those were factors that allowed the founders to think that the right to bear arms would be effective but it was not the reason they made it. However, despite large numbers of people using guns for hunting, not all hunted and there did exist at the time guns that were not used for hunting. Additionally, while a national military did not exist it was not unheard of as the British had a national military. The state militias of course did exist long before the constitution was drafted and for those who did not own guns (yes some people did not own guns) it was considered a duty to get one - again because there might come a day when the people would need to overthrow a government.

If was without a doubt that they thought it was the right of the people to alter or abolish their government.

btw, recenly the supreme court ruled on the right to bear arms. It did not say it was so people could hunt. It reaffirmed that it is an individual right and even mentioned self-defense. And of course the reading of the constitution is quite clear; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

Additionally, lets note that the const. does not say "guns". It says "arms" which would include things like cannons.

Arms also means your physical arms...want to play literal, it does not say guns or weapons...So you have the right to flex....

And just keep with that, we need to be able to overthrow the goverment...its shows you have no clue at all how powerful our armed services are...or that you think the Public should have its own tanks, F22's and maybe a Carrier Fleet? I want to own my own Nuke to, cuz you know I need to defend against our goverment.

Again I never said someone does not have the right to a semi auto gun...I just think most people who think they need one "for protection" are insane or sad as they live there life in such fear.

 

[GenSeneca]

...or that you think the Public should have its own tanks, F22's and maybe a Carrier Fleet?

Yes.

I want to own my own Nuke to, cuz you know I need to defend against our goverment.

You always run to this extreme... people shouldn't have nukes, therefore the only weapons people should be allowed to own are semi auto pistols and rifles with a magazine capacity of less than 30 rounds. Such is your logic.

 

[bododie]

You always run to this extreme

It's called "debating" in libland. You ask about an apple, and they tell you all about the orange that squirted them or someone they know in the eye.

 

[Dr.Who]

Arms also means your physical arms...want to play literal, it does not say guns or weapons...So you have the right to flex....

And just keep with that, we need to be able to overthrow the goverment...its shows you have no clue at all how powerful our armed services are...or that you think the Public should have its own tanks, F22's and maybe a Carrier Fleet? I want to own my own Nuke to, cuz you know I need to defend against our goverment.

Again I never said someone does not have the right to a semi auto gun...I just think most people who think they need one "for protection" are insane or sad as they live there life in such fear.

This is one of those times when both of us are saying things that are a lot more nuanced than usual.

I have no delusion that a populace armed with ak-47's could overthrow the military. Of course a lot of coups in the world involved the military on the side of those overthrowing the gov.

I still think that a lot of people with pitchforks could still effect enough change to "alter" our government.

I have not said it in this thread but I do think that regular people can't jsut drive around in loaded tanks. We need a new check to replace this one that is not as effective as it once was.

 

[Gipper]

This is one of those times when both of us are saying things that are a lot more nuanced than usual.

I have no delusion that a populace armed with ak-47's could overthrow the military. Of course a lot of coups in the world involved the military on the side of those overthrowing the gov.

I still think that a lot of people with pitchforks could still effect enough change to "alter" our government.

I have not said it in this thread but I do think that regular people can't jsut drive around in loaded tanks. We need a new check to replace this one that is not as effective as it once was.

Pockets has used that same line of argument numerous times on this forum. And, each time his argument is completely destroyed, but he fails to learn.

This at its essence, is a failure to learn from history. Even if he learned anything from the American Revolution, he would know his argument is fallacious. I believe someone great once said it takes but 10% of the populace of a nation to overthrow their government.

In his mind, he really thinks the American military would massacre the American people should they revolt.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

This is one of those times when both of us are saying things that are a lot more nuanced than usual.

I have no delusion that a populace armed with ak-47's could overthrow the military. Of course a lot of coups in the world involved the military on the side of those overthrowing the gov.

I still think that a lot of people with pitchforks could still effect enough change to "alter" our government.

I have not said it in this thread but I do think that regular people can't jsut drive around in loaded tanks. We need a new check to replace this one that is not as effective as it once was.

Gen seem to think that we should be able to...you know what ever arms you can get, you have a right to.

My point is the same..if you say we have the right to arms, but then you place a limit..then you agree that there is a logical limit..and thus the only issue is where is it...Gen does not agree with a logical limit.

If there was a coup, and the Citizens had to fight back...the only way its not a slaughter is if half the army sides with the people...and then all the shotguns you want are still not make a spit ball of a difference.

the only check you have against a military as big as ours...is Cut off there checks and reduce them to a size the people can control...of course then they can't do anything else.