Attn Northern Virginians!

[Briarhop1]

The owner of the Blue Ridge Arsenal in Chantilly, Va. admitted voting for
Obama during a CBS interview. Please share this with anyone you may know
in the NoVa area.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_jAyM2DD-4

[BlueTrain]

The Blue Ridge Arsenal is almost within sight of where I sit now (at least if I turn around), except that it is only a one story building. But I don't remember the last time I was over there.

[Housezealot]

Not all voters are single issue voters.

My best friend (a man I consider to be a brother) Is an avid gun guy and an army ranger and has seen 3 tours and recieved a puple heart and bronze star all in the last six years, mentioned prior to the election that several of his battle buddies did not want to vote for mcain becuse they wanted our guys out of iraq but they could not stomach the idea of voting for obama becuse of his anti gun views. that told me a lot coming from vets.
I am lucky enough to have never faced actual combat. but I have more respect than I can ever put into words for the men (a lot of times not much more than kids) who have put it all on the line for all of us.

[Trooper Tyree]

I really don't like threads like this. It's a blatant attempt to punish a person for exercising their right as a citizen of the United States. Perhaps the owner should consult with comrade Briarhop1 before voting next time to ensure he makes the right choice. :barf:

[vranasaurus]

I really don't like threads like this. It's a blatant attempt to punish a person for exercising their right as a citizen of the United States. Perhaps the owner should consult with comrade Briarhop1 before voting next time to ensure he makes the right choice.

Dosn't the OP have the right to spend his money where he pleases and to encourage others to do so.

It's the right of the owner to vote for whoever he wants but it is also peoples right not to shop there.

That being said this is a completely political post and will probably be locked shortly.

[Mike Irwin]

Of course it's an attempt to punish someone for exercising their rights. There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with that.

The real question is, why should anyone support a gunstore owner who doesn't apparently want to support the rights of his customers OR protect his business?

No, very few people are one-issue voters. But it rings very hypocritical and hollow when someone is more than willing to make money off those who believe in exercising their Second Amendment rights by spending money at his store.

Not the kind of support that I want out of my gun dealer.

Tragically enough, Blue Ridge Arsenal has had string of owners who don't give a damn about the Second Amendment.

The owner when I worked there in the early to mid 1990s?

Believed that "assault rifles" should be outlawed (yet he sold them).

Believed that gun shows should be banned (because they took away from his bottom line).

Believed that MSRP + whatever he could tack on was the selling price (he was a greedy git).

Believed that all interstate sales of firearms other than dealer to dealer should be banned (yet he would do transers, for $100 PLUS 3% of the cost of the gun).

There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with not supporting someone who doesn't support you. In fact, that's the entire basis for politics and political action.

[Trooper Tyree]

The problem arises from postings like this on the internet in that very few to no one other than the original poster knows anything about the incident/shop, yet it is presented to a nation/world-wide group of enthusiasts.

It's one thing to boycott a shop because of their practices/poor customer service/price gouging, etc. You Mike seem to know something about the store, that's great. I don't know them from Adam and neither do most of the other people in the world.

It's another to boycott a shop and post onto an online forum with the intent of causing them as much harm as possible because.....of the way they voted?

That's the problem I have with postings like this. I've seen and probably most of us have seen them take on a life of their own. I've seen pictures posted of the people/their residence, their addresses, their phone numbers, emails, etc, etc. People all over the country get involved in hounding a person they have never met, that they have never been in their store, that will never be in their store.

Perhaps in the future, people who wish to make posts such as this, would like to include an intelligent argument for just exactly why this person/shop should be treated in the manner they propose.

My 2c.

[JuanCarlos]

If you don't want your politics to affect your business, then don't endorse candidates (or donate to campaigns) or tell people who you voted for. Seems pretty simple.

He doesn't say why he voted the way he did (the reporter seems to make some implications) but I could easily understand voting either way. If I lived in the area, I'd not much care. At the same time, I can understand others feeling a bit differently.

You have the right to vote how you want and (for the most part) say what you want, and others have the right to make decisions accordingly. If you don't like it, think twice when somebody sticks a microphone in front of you.

[Mike Irwin]

Tyree,

Simply put, all we really need to know about this is:

Gunshop owner voted for Obama.

We don't need his reasons, his justifications, his rationalizations. Those are secondary to the completed act and how it has the potential to affect law-abiding gunowners.

If he didn't want nationwide attention, then just maybe he should have stayed away from admitting his vote for Obama on a medium that has every potential to go... nationwide?

[vranasaurus]

This reminds me of when the dixie chicks spouted off against President Bush and then complained that it was affecting their bottom line.

No one is required to patronize or support anyone else and you can use whatever reason you want to for doing so. If the OP and others choose not to support this gun store because of the way the owner voted that is their right just as the owner had the right to vote for whoever he wanted.

I would agree that this would be wrong if someone somehow vioalted the sanctity of the secret ballot and outed this guys vote. But he chose to do it himself and he should certainly be prepared for the consequences.

[Mike Irwin]

The Dixie Chicks were crying and whining because there was a huge backlash against them and, as Natalie Maines tearfully wept on national TV, "WHAT ABOUT OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS?"

What about the tens of thousands of people exercising THEIR first amendment rights by telling the radio stations/advertisers "pull the fat cow's music or I vote with my feet?", refusing to purchase their concert tickets, refusing to purchase their music?

That's just so very wrong. Right?

Natalie Maines believed she had the absolute right to do or say anything she wanted (she did) WITHOUT having to suffer any consequences (she didn't).

When she found out that she was going to be held responsible for her actions/utterances, it was somehow patently unfair.

It's pathtetic that anyone actually thinks that way, but more and more in our entitlement society, so many people do. And when they're held accountable, they just don't understand why, and almost always fall back on the same, tired, "what about my rights" defense.

No one is depriving anyone of their rights.

They're just exercising their own set of rights. Just because they may diverge from the first individual's rights doesn't make them wrong.

And in some cases, it makes them a modicum of justice.

[Briarhop1]

First of all, I'm exercising my First Amendment rights in order to try
and preserve my Second Amendment rights. I know there are
quite a few Northern Virginians here and I want them to know where
their hard earned money is going when they patronize establishments
in their own neighborhood. (I live about 5 miles from BRA and have
shopped there several times previously but not anymore) I'm also
going to print this up and post it on the bulletin board at the Izaak
Walton League and also post on most Fairfax message boards as well.
If nothing else, I want Mr. Curtis to realize who butters his bread.

[Mike Irwin]

You're just such an evil, mean, spiteful person, Briarhop.

To think you would actually hold someone accountable for their actions!

The nerve!

[brickeyee]

Well said Mike.

You have the right to say and vote for whomever you want.

Everyone else has the right to refuse to do business with you.

Sometimes actions have consequences.

[Mike Irwin]

"Sometimes actions have consequences."

Yep. And as I said, very sadly anymore that is a concept that is alien to far too many people.

[Trooper Tyree]

I really don't see the correlation between the chicks and this.

The Dixie Chicks expressed opinions and viewpoints that were unfavorable to many of their fans, as a result, they lost many of their fans. Imagine that.

On the other hand the simple act of voting is hardly enough to condemn a man and his business. That's what we see here. The entire post consisted of, OMG, he voted for Obama, we must boycott him!

To be honest this election we had to choose between worse and worser, sadly who was "worser" was a fine line to a lot of people. And for some it was a matter of firsts.

I know many women who voted for Hillery expressly in hopes that she would become the first woman president. They didn't care why, or who, or what her views were, she was a woman and they were woman and danged if they weren't going to vote for her. Likewise I would imagine there were some people of color who voted for Obama for the simply because it would be a first.

The world does not revolve around gun rights for many if not most people. Surprise. There were many other issues at play in this past election, gun rights was only one of them. Just because someone voted for Obama does not necessarily mean they supported his gun views. Our choices were **** poor, but then again you'd have to be crazy to want to step in to presidency at this time.

[Mike Irwin]

Let's see...

One's actions can have consequences.

That doesn't seem to be that difficult a concept to grasp. Everyone here but you so far seems to have gotten it.


"The world does not revolve around gun rights for many if not most people. Surprise."

I don't see where anyone is claiming that.

What you're not seeing, not acknowledging, and apparently not comprehending is that this individual makes his living from the exercise of Second Amendment rights and on the backs of those who do take their gun rights very seriously.

It's pretty evident that you either can't, or don't want to, comprehend that not so subtle nuance.

The fact that you're expounding this a board that has been a strong proponent of Second Amendment rights for over a decade is both ironic and tragic.

[markj]

If we boycot all that voted for Obama, we will find not so many places to spend our money as a lot of folks seem to have voted for him.

Cast your vote in private and dont tell seems to be the way to stay out of trouble. Sad situation that.

I for one doubt Obama will try to enact any form of weapons ban.

[Trooper Tyree]

Let's see...

One's actions can have consequences.

That doesn't seem to be that difficult a concept to grasp. Everyone here but you so far seems to have gotten it.

I've got it and I'm pretty sure I'm made it clear I've got it.

What I don't get is the sweeping blanket approach going on here, you can take these approaches, but they aren't and will never be right.

He voted for Obama, he must be against guns and the second amendment.

He voted for Obama, he must be a democrat.

All democrats are for for gun control, we should boycott them all.

We must destroy everyone who does not have our same viewpoint.

"The world does not revolve around gun rights for many if not most people. Surprise."

I don't see where anyone is claiming that.

Really? Because if it's true, then many people voted for Obama for reasons other than his gun views. If many people voted for reasons other than his gun policies, then why do we give a crap who voted for Obama?

You seem to be insinuating that if X voted for Obama, then X supports Obama's gun control. If that was the case, then X supports every single thing that Obama does, which is preposterous, because nobody supports every single thing that their chosen candidate does.

What you're not seeing, not acknowledging, and apparently not comprehending is that this individual makes his living from the exercise of Second Amendment rights and on the backs of those who do take their gun rights very seriously.

It's pretty evident that you either can't, or don't want to, comprehend that not so subtle nuance.

So he should always vote Republican? You seem to be missing a not so subtle nuance yourself, this individual make his living from the exercise of Second Amendment rights and on the backs of those who do take their gun rights very seriously. So of course, his entire plan behind voting Obama was to instate gun control, do away with the 2nd amendment, and put himself out of business... He must have not thought that one through.

To get down to the bottom line though, saying he voted for Obama thus he is against us, is wrong. It's like saying, all blacks are for blacks, and all whites are for whites, thus all whites must boycott blacks and all blacks must boycott whites. This isn't a black and white world, it's mostly shades of gray. Seeking to cause someone harm simply because of the candidate he choose to vote for is wrong.

[StratoCactus]

I see nothing wrong with customers sending their business elsewhere over this.

What I don't get is the sweeping blanket approach going on here, you can take these approaches, but they aren't and will never be right.

...

We must destroy everyone who does not have our same viewpoint.

The people upset with the shop owner's stated voting decision have a distinct objective: uphold and preserve our RKBA to the fullest extent. And they know from past experience that this is ultimately a difficult objective to achieve.

When you have an objective, pressuring, coercing and punishing those who act against that objective is usually an essential tactic to achieving that objective. Period. It's not friendly, it's not feel-good, it doesn't jive with our post-60s morality of "live and let live." But it is largely how things get done. And it is entirely ethical when done through ethical means. It has a symbolic effect, a deterrent effect, as well as a corrective effect.

Yeah, I really did say pressuring, coercing and punishing. However there is a wide range of severity in how that can be done. Murdering the man in cold blood would obviously be at one extreme of the spectrum. Making harassing phone calls or putting a severed horse head in his bed, for example, would be less extreme, but still obviously over the line. On the other hand, encouraging others to spend their money at another establishment is about as tame, reasonable, civilized and ethical as one can imagine, yet still potentially effective.

Further, the bottom line is that boycotting and promoting boycotts are legal. People are going resort to this tactic when they feel it's effective unless you give them a more tangible disincentive than just saying "gee guys, that's not very cool." If you don't like boycotting, then support candidates who will run on a platform to ban boycotting. However, if you want to achieve this difficult objective, you may have to boycott business owners who don't support those anti-boycott candidates. I'm not trying to be funny here at all. I'm pointing out how the world works.

Really? Because if it's true, then many people voted for Obama for reasons other than his gun views. If many people voted for reasons other than his gun policies, then why do we give a crap who voted for Obama?

You seem to be insinuating that if X voted for Obama, then X supports Obama's gun control. If that was the case, then X supports every single thing that Obama does, which is preposterous, because nobody supports every single thing that their chosen candidate does.

I would do more than insinuate that. An Obama voter may not feel in his heart that he supports gun control. He may not find gun control desirable. I certainly understand that position, given the range of important issues at stake in the election.

And yet, the act of voting for, or otherwise supporting a candidate with a clear anti-gun record IS an act of support for gun control. Period. I'm unwilling to budge on that point. It matters not what is in a person's heart! If you have an objective, all that matters are actions! If I voted for McCain, that was clearly an act of support for a longer occupation of Iraq, for example, irrespective of the fact that in my heart I might be opposed to a longer occupation. That act, not my feelings, not my beliefs, had the potential to literally determine how long Iraq would be occupied.

Now, for a voter who supported Obama in spite of the gun rights issue, that's all well and good. I am voicing no objection to that whatsoever. However, it does mean that, for this voter, the issues that attracted him to Obama were placed in a higher priority than the gun rights issue. The net attraction outweighed the net repulsion. Again, I'm not condemning the choice, but merely pointing out that this is in fact the case.

Those who object to the support for Obama are, in effect, saying the gun rights issue is placed in higher priority, in their view, than the other issues in the election. And that is really the essence of the battle here: the relative importance of various goals and objectives. As you point out, candidates' positions are unlikely to align perfectly with every one of a voter's goals, so these questions of priority arise. But, returning to the original theme, influencing the issue-priority of other voters is a useful and indeed ethical path to success.

Lastly, I support the right to ballot confidentiality. But as others pointed out, the owner chose to forfeit that confidentiality. When you do that, you open the door to anything that other citizens might legally choose to do in response, regardless of whether it fits your idea or my idea of "nice."

[StratoCactus]

If we boycot all that voted for Obama, we will find not so many places to spend our money as a lot of folks seem to have voted for him.

On the contrary, it's possible you'd have trouble finding many businesses to boycott. Look up the campaign donations of the owners/executives of all the establishments you patronize. The views of business leaders are likely not representative of those of the general population.

Cast your vote in private and dont tell seems to be the way to stay out of trouble. Sad situation that.

Exposing your vote is a two-edged sword. Maybe the revenue he'll gain from, say, ardent healthcare reform voters will outweigh the revenue he loses from ardent gun rights voters. Maybe not. It's up to you. If you think the situation is sad, do more than talk about it. Express solidarity by making a purchase at this guy's shop.

[blume357]

do business with them.. like bad service or poor quality workmanship.

On top of that, If I remember correctly, putting aside the NRA's glowing endorsement, McCain was very anti gun, seems most of you folks were voting for the lesser of two 'evils'.

[StratoCactus]

On top of that, If I remember correctly, putting aside the NRA's glowing endorsement, McCain was very anti gun, seems most of you folks were voting for the lesser of two 'evils'.

I fail to grasp why so much of America views voting as some kind of moral symbol rather than a strategic action. Maybe this view arises because one vote isn't much out of 100 million.

Imagine the only two candidates are Lothar and Wolfgang. Lothar promises to execute one child in every household. Wolfgang promises to execute two children in every household. One of them is certain to win. The polls show the vote will be close. Imagine that you have two children of your own.

Do you abstain from voting on the moral grounds that voting for a baby killer would be "wrong?" Do you vote for Wolfgang because, hey, it's gonna turn out bad either way? Or do you vote, donate and put signs in your yard for Lothar in the hopes of saving one of your children.

This is an outlandish example, but the answer is clear. If you have a high priority objective, strategy demands supporting the lesser of two evils. In fact, if one were really serious about boycotting over any particular issue, also boycotting those who "conscientiously abstained" from the vote would be legitimate. Harsh but true.

[ZeSpectre]

Didn't need this additional reason to avoid doing business with BRA.
Still it just tells me I made the right decision in the past.

[BlueTrain]

This sort of says a lot about why there is a secret ballot.