Rural King is looking for trouble

[HoughMade]

I can make an argument that having an I.D. rather than a driver's license made you 4 times more likely to have arrived at the Rural King on a scooter.

 

[ATM]

So if someone from Il or wherever can get an IN state id and use it to buy guns then go up to Chicago and pass them out to gang bangers you would be fine with that as the gun store shouldn't require an IN state driver license to make it harder for riff raff to buy from their store and possibly harming their name? Thus trying to keep murderous people from killing or supplying the tools to kill more as well as keeping the state out of the 2nd amendment regulation business even further. Seems like a win win to me still.

I'd be fine with the store, not as fine with passing out guns to murderous gang bangers, not as fine with considering people who can't or don't get a drivers license to be "riff raff", not as fine with the notion that the state is allowed or authorized to be in the business of regulating a constitutional amendment which actually prohibits it from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

My wins rarely require that others lose.

 

[ATM]

I can make an argument that having an I.D. rather than a driver's license made you 4 times more likely to have arrived at the Rural King on a scooter.

Or as a passenger in some other vehicle requiring a license to drive on public roadways, etc. It's not an unreasonable argument.

 

[Knuckleduster]

I agree with the whole "their house - their rules" idea. If anyone here gets a bad vibe when selling anything they can say ...Sorry but Im gonna keep it. I feel that RK is doing the same.

 

[Hop]

Last I checked, getting an IN ID was just about as difficult as getting a DL. The ID will void an out of state DL from what I heard. Anyone know if that's true?

 

[eldirector]

Last I checked, getting an IN ID was just about as difficult as getting a DL. The ID will void an out of state DL from what I heard. Anyone know if that's true?

Identification cards may be issued to an Indiana resident of any age who does not have a driver’s license. You cannot hold both an identification card and a driver’s license at the same time, even if one of the credentials was issued by another state.

: Identification Cards

 

[AmmoManAaron]

You're one who tried to make this about the guns, I simply pointed it out.

If presenting valid ID rather than a drivers license to make a purchase gives you a reasonable argument to suspect murderous intent, make it. I'll tear that nonsense down.

No argument needed. See below. It seems you missed a key part of the OP.

Seems the ATF is coming down on Rural King because too many guns from the Lafayette store are ending up on the streets in Chiraq.
My buddy called Rural King corporate, who put him in touch with their ATF compliance officer.
This lady told him that too many people were obtaining an Indiana state I.D. just to purchase firearms, then run the to Chicago to sell on the streets.

Facts trump hypothetical arguments. Rural King instituted the policy at this one particular store for a reason.

 

[WebSnyper]

You're one who tried to make this about the guns, I simply pointed it out.

If presenting valid ID rather than a drivers license to make a purchase gives you a reasonable argument to suspect murderous intent, make it. I'll tear that nonsense down.

I'd be fine with the store, not as fine with passing out guns to murderous gang bangers, not as fine with considering people who can't or don't get a drivers license to be "riff raff", not as fine with the notion that the state is allowed or authorized to be in the business of regulating a constitutional amendment which actually prohibits it from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

My wins rarely require that others lose.

So do you disagree with RK's right to institute their own policies? Or is it just the other posters' arguments that you are countering?

I agree with the whole "their house - their rules" idea. If anyone here gets a bad vibe when selling anything they can say ...Sorry but Im gonna keep it. I feel that RK is doing the same.

Agreed, pretty much up to the retailer to determine who they do business with and who they don't. I'm not a fan of govt compelling private business which other private parties they do or don't do business with.

 

[ATM]

No argument needed. See below. It seems you missed a key part of the OP.

Facts trump hypothetical arguments. Rural King instituted the policy at this one particular store for a reason.

You may abandon your argument whenever you feel you can no longer sustain the attempt. See below. It seems you missed a key part of my first response in this thread:

They may adopt any policy they wish, but to assume any responsibility for the actions of a purchaser after they leave the store with their purchase is just not sound reasoning.

My position remains clear that RK may do as they wish, yet I am still free to refute any flawed reasoning I find in the conversations which have ensued.

Good day, sir.

 

[ATM]

So do you disagree with RK's right to institute their own policies? Or is it just the other posters' arguments that you are countering?

In light of my actual responses, I would conclude that I support RK's right to institute RK policies while other arguments remain fair game.

 

[WebSnyper]

In light of my actual responses, I would conclude that I support RK's right to institute RK policies while other arguments remain fair game.

Ok, missed that. Just wanted to see what you were countering. It would not have seemed congruent with what I've seen you post in the past to disagree with their right to institute such a policy.

Once I get to that point in the discussion, nothing else much matters as everyone else is pretty much speculating on reasoning, motive, etc. RK can do what they want in this area... what the rest of us think, believe on the subject of their policy doesn't really matter beyond if someone doesn't like it, don't buy there. If RK then determines it to be an issue financially they may or may not change the policy.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

They may adopt any policy they wish, but to assume any responsibility for the actions of a purchaser after they leave the store with their purchase is just not sound reasoning.

Yeah, OK, then YOU tell that to the United States Attorney, those people are nothing but receptive to inane tautological arguments.

I don't blame RK for wanting to keep their license and prevent their corporate officers and employees out of the BoP.

 

[ATM]

Yeah, OK, then YOU tell that to the United States Attorney, those people are nothing but receptive to inane tautological arguments.

I don't blame RK for wanting to keep their license and prevent their corporate officers and employees out of the BoP.

You know me, I'll tell anyone anything I choose and own the consequences of doing so.

I haven't blamed RK for any policy or choice. Choices may have any combination of positive/negative consequences.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You know me, I'll tell anyone anything I choose and own the consequences of doing so.

I haven't blamed RK for any policy or choice. Choices may have any combination of positive/negative consequences.

Sure, sure, but be advised that RK has a business to run and wants to stay out of the BoP. I have no qualms about their decision.

 

[ATM]

Sure, sure, but be advised that RK has a business to run and wants to stay out of the BoP. I have no qualms about their decision.

Neither do I, obviously, but, as I stated, I wouldn't agree with RK assuming any responsibility for the actions of a purchaser after they leave the store with their purchase. I would ridicule such a notion.

 

[HoughMade]

Sure, sure, but be advised that RK has a business to run and wants to stay out of the BoP. I have no qualms about their decision.

Yeah, well, they're going to miss out on all that sweet cash from people without driver's licenses. Don't know how they'll make it.

 

[ATM]

Yeah, well, they're going to miss out on all that sweet cash from people without driver's licenses. Don't know how they'll make it.

I'm more worried that even gun owners will attempt to twist their policy choice into somehow "taking care of the problem", as if guns have ever been the problem.

 

[LP1]

How about we all voluntarily take personal responsibility for our actions and NOT sell to murderous people when we have reason to believe they are murderous...geez what a radical concept

This isn't about guns, it's about refusing to aid and abet murderous people! It wouldn't matter what they needed - a gun, face mask, a car ride to or from the crime scene, etc. - I'm NOT going to help and no responsible citizen should either.

How do we spot these murderous people? Skin color? Manner of dress? Language? Twitchy eyes? Unruly nose hair? Ask them if they are murderous?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yeah, well, they're going to miss out on all that sweet cash from people without driver's licenses. Don't know how they'll make it.

Stop mocking Tippecanoe County!

 

[HoughMade]

Stop mocking Tippecanoe County!

If I stop, there are infinitely more who will take my place.