Missouri Car Dealership Gives Away an AK47 with Each Truck Purchase!

Ronkh said:
I love this guy...... I may even go buy my next car/truck from him.

CNN reporter throws every arguement at him and he puts her in her place.

YouTube - CNN American Morning: Missouri Car Dealership Gives Away an AK47 with Each Truck Purchase!
Click to expand...

:yay :rofl :wow: The boy did hold up OK under the series of liberal questioning. I am sure she is not a card carrying member of the NRA. He would get my vote! :bigups

She should also give the commander and chief a quiz on a fue things also. First question, " why he called a hole police dept STUPID for doing their jobs".:wow::fart:
 
njcarting1 said:
:yay :rofl :wow: The boy did hold up OK under the series of liberal questioning. I am sure she is not a card carrying member of the NRA. He would get my vote! :bigups

She should also give the commander and chief a quiz on a fue things also. First question, " why he called a hole police dept STUPID for doing their jobs".:wow::fart:
Click to expand...


I'd fly to MO and buy a car/truck from the guy.
 
I've got to wonder just how much extra he's marking up the truck so you can get a "free" gun. Just go ahead and give the the best pricing and I'll choose how to spend my savings.

But as you can see from the video on his site, there's always a sucker errr... truck buyer ready to be taken advantage of... errr... take adavantage of a good marketing scheme. :cool:

CNN did the guy a favor even covering the story (and I use that term loosely). Non-event IMO.:rolleyes::blabla:
 
I really doubt that there is a mark-up at all. He may be less willing to negotiate down past a certain point, but I don't think that he marked them up. He mentioned that it only took $450ish to get a good quality(his idea of quality, not mine) rifle. He also said that they strongly suggest going to certain businesses to purchase their AK47's. Do you think that he might have talked to them beforehand about this promotion and a possible deal to get a slight deal on the weapons if x amount are purchased. That way, two businesses are making out.
 
There is nothing free in life. Yeah, I'm guessing if you opted out of the gun there might be $450 worth of "give" in the vehicle pricing (and I wouldn't doubt that there was more than just a $450 buffer). He mentioned having a recommended dealer, but didn't mention you were bound to purchase from any specific dealer, so trying to negotiage pricing based on unkown sales figures would be a bit difficult.

He didn't get those 12,000 acres giving anything away.
 
Wow!

Not sure how I feel about this. Don't get me wrong... I love the guy, believe exactly as he does on the major issues, vote for him as best-debater-I've-seen-on-TV-in-decades.

It's just that, being intimately familiar with the wrong end of an AK47, and owning and carrying guns all my adult life, in my opinion this sends a bad message.

A semi-automatic rifle, with the potential of carrying 30+ rounds, and an effective range of almost 400 yards, is not a good choice for home defense. It's a great weapon, if used for its intended purpose... just too powerful to be cranking off rounds in a house full of kids or a residential neighborhood.

A Kalashnikov (or knock-off) doesn't exactly come with training wheels either. In the right hands, it's very effective. For a new shooter, it can be extremely dangerous.

Regardless of how compelling or cost effective the promotion was, I'd rather see people interested in obtaining a firearm go to a reliable shop or trusted, experienced friend for advice and training, then make an informed decision on buying a gun suited to the shooter and circumstance.
 
I'm a gun guy and all (concealed carry most places), and I'll go ahead and qualify my opinion pointing out I have never really seen any use for the average guy to go out and purchase something like an AK-47.

Most of the folks I know with what would be considered as "assault rifles" are what I would call gun nuts - and I'm considered a gun nut by most. Not really any practical use for me as a person for something like that, so I'd pass. Give me $450 to put towards a new shotgun or hunting rifle any day. I think it's any American's Constitutionally given right to own a gun within reason, however that "within reason" part gets kind of tricky. For me, however, I really don't feel the personal need to own something like an AK-47.
 
John Henry, I didn't even go into the questionable logic from his interview, but the home defense issue is IMO just as you stated. Give me a shotgun any day for a close quarters defense weapon over an AK-47. More effective and as you mention safer for the non-combatants in the home.

JP, were you just a "little" disappointed that the "universal" CCW law failed to go through?

I also prefer shotgunning, pistol shooting, but I know GearHead and (I think) AudiBoy like "paper punching" (GearHead's description) with these guns. I would feel a lot better if it were up to me to approve who could own one of these and who couldn't. :D
 
JaredPointer said:
I think it's any American's Constitutionally given right to own a gun within reason,
Click to expand...

I was going to stay out of this one because I'm sure most everyone (Steve for instance) thinks I'm crazy when it comes to the gun thing anyway. JP I'm on your side with gun ownership but when I see gun owners that are willing to give a little here and give a little there I can see the 2nd Amendment evaporating. Nowhere in our Nation's documents does is say that private citizen can own guns as long as they are within reason. In fact I believe the verbiage is; "...shall not be infringed." Since you posted this I will ask you this; within whose reason?

I collect, build and do a little Smithing on guns. I own several AK's. I can tell you that from a fun gun to shoot standpoint, AK's, AR's and a little Glock Carbine that I own are the funnest things I own to go in to the hills and do a little plinking. I also agree that an AK is not the best home defense weapon. The best home defense weapon would be a pistol, more specifically a pistol such as a Glock or XD with no extra safeties bells or whistles. I also believe that when it comes to strictly home defense, any gun is better than none. ;)
 
While I may not have the collection or the expansive knowledge that GH has when it comes to firearms, we have very similar beliefs.
 
I don't think you're crazy....just different :D

Seriously, I seem to recall that you don't care for hunting (which I do like - though am largely inactive these days), but I also don't recall you bad mouthing hunters. Other than pistol shooting, the only target practice I ever did was going and shooting a little skeet or trap before the season, just to work on mechanics. I know I was in the minority out on the range as most of the other shooters were avid (rabid? :D) Skeet and or trap shooters. It just didn't interest me that much.

I am curious as to your statement that you see the 2nd Ammendment evaporating. You see evidence of this or you think it could happen? It is the 2nd of the 10 Ammendments known as the Bill of Rights. IMO, it will be a pretty tough "right" to remove. Of course, JMO.

Edit to add: I almost forgot, but "within reason" could easily mean that a felon, mental defect, etc. cannot own a gun. That language is included in the application process here in Texas (there may be others, it's been so long now I don't remember). None of that language was included in the original ammendment, but I think we can all agree that is a good thing.
 
Mr. Clean said:
I don't think you're crazy....just different :D

Seriously, I seem to recall that you don't care for hunting (which I do like - though am largely inactive these days), but I also don't recall you bad mouthing hunters. Other than pistol shooting, the only target practice I ever did was going and shooting a little skeet or trap before the season, just to work on mechanics. I know I was in the minority out on the range as most of the other shooters were avid (rabid? :D) Skeet and or trap shooters. It just didn't interest me that much.

I am curious as to your statement that you see the 2nd Ammendment evaporating. You see evidence of this or you think it could happen? It is the 2nd of the 10 Ammendments known as the Bill of Rights. IMO, it will be a pretty tough "right" to remove. Of course, JMO.
Click to expand...

You are correct, I don't hunt but I have no problem with people that do. Fundamentally, I guess my hope is that the game is used for food rather than simply for sport. But I'm not the judge or jury for those that choose simply sport. Perhaps I can clarify what I'm saying with respect to the 2nd Amendment evaporating. It has not, though it has been under many attacks. We have leaders all around us that believe that they know what is better for us than we do. An example of it being under attack, one need look no further than D.C. or Chicago, these cities deny their citizens of the rights others enjoy under the 2nd Amendment.

When good conscientious gun owners are willing to "give a little" for lack of a better phrase, the 2nd Amendment wobbles. If we as gun owners think that it's O.K. for a person or group of persons to tell us what we can own and what we can't own I believe we sell out just the slightest bit and we stand on shaky ground. I don't believe in the term "assault weapon" because no one I know can tell me what that is. One can be assaulted with a BB gun, Paint Ball gun, AK 47 or 12 guage shot gun. If I thought it were O.K. to regulate "assault weapons" at least as I have described them, there would be no guns. I believe that is exactly what the anti-gun crowd tries to do to us.

This same group of people tries to make us believe that no well reasoned person has any use for a particular weapon (remember I'm one of those evil people who owns a .50 caliber BMG), therefore we should outlaw this particular weapon. Well since no one has need of a .50, then it's O.K. for one to reason that no one has need for an AK 47. If you are a legal gun owner and use your firearm responsibly, who am I to tell you which you can own? It's none of my business. This is a slippery slope and once the ground is given up it is almost impossible to recover that's where I see the correlation in the 2nd Amendment evaporating. It is constantly under attack but the people don't tell you that this is what they are doing.

The 2nd Amendment wasn't written so that we can only own sporting rifles in fact that wasn't its intent at all. It was written so that citizens have the ability to protect themselves from individuals or groups of people, even governments. After all it was penned shortly after we as a people had just done so. I didn't take the "within reason" comment to mean people but rather what type of weapon I can own. Certainly I believe that felons, insane, mentally unstable persons should not carry/own weapons. I acknowledge the we don't have well defined rules to determine the status of some of these people. I hope this better explains my mindset.
 
GearHead_1 said:
I was going to stay out of this one because I'm sure most everyone (Steve for instance) thinks I'm crazy when it comes to the gun thing anyway. JP I'm on your side with gun ownership but when I see gun owners that are willing to give a little here and give a little there I can see the 2nd Amendment evaporating. Nowhere in our Nation's documents does is say that private citizen can own guns as long as they are within reason. In fact I believe the verbiage is; "...shall not be infringed." Since you posted this I will ask you this; within whose reason?

I collect, build and do a little Smithing on guns. I own several AK's. I can tell you that from a fun gun to shoot standpoint, AK's, AR's and a little Glock Carbine that I own are the funnest things I own to go in to the hills and do a little plinking. I also agree that an AK is not the best home defense weapon. The best home defense weapon would be a pistol, more specifically a pistol such as a Glock or XD with no extra safeties bells or whistles. I also believe that when it comes to strictly home defense, any gun is better than none. ;)
Click to expand...

Within whose reason - That's what I meant when I stated that's the tricky part. You sort of left that part off.

I'm not the deciding factor, however I don't think it's really essential to the 2A that anyone be allowed to purchase any gun they want. When I hear a fellow gun person start arguing that viewpoint, I sort of cringe. I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to get what you want, but then again I see no practical reason for Joe Sixpack to own an AK-47. That's my opinion, and it really doesn't mean anything. I also don't feel that's giving away part of 2A either. Again, just my opinion.
 
JaredPointer said:
Within whose reason - That's what I meant when I stated that's the tricky part. You sort of left that part off.

I'm not the deciding factor, however I don't think it's really essential to the 2A that anyone be allowed to purchase any gun they want. When I hear a fellow gun person start arguing that viewpoint, I sort of cringe. I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to get what you want, but then again I see no practical reason for Joe Sixpack to own an AK-47. That's my opinion, and it really doesn't mean anything. I also don't feel that's giving away part of 2A either. Again, just my opinion.
Click to expand...

That's where we differ, I do feel like it's taking part of my 2nd Amendment rights. I didn't intentionally leave the highlighted part referenced above off. Because you hadn't said any American within reason (or reasonable American), I thought you were saying anyone could own a gun within reason. Oh wait, that is what you said. :D I mistakenly interpreted it to mean a reasonable type of weapon and I was questioning who would determine what that might be.

I don't mean to make you cringe, I have felt what you describe and understand that mindset, nor am I trying to start an argument. If I were going to do that I would go look for Steve. :D Some of my peers (gun owners) scare me. Anyone visiting a local gun show recently knows what I'm talking about. If you were to meet me I'll bet you would think I'm one of the least radical persons you know. I like many others am also more outspoken behind a keyboard than I am in public. I'm simply saying that if I can't decide what is right for everyone then who should decide what is right for me. I understand people not seeing any purpose for owning a particular weapon. There are some that I may say that about myself (I see no purpose in owning a cheap Saturday Night Special). It's kind of like saying that I don't see any reason for owning a Chevy. There is no accounting for taste and I certainly can't predict all of the reasons a person may want/need a Maxim Machine Gun. After all everyone knows there are better machine guns, get my drift? :D
 
JaredPointer said:
I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to get what you want, but then again I see no practical reason for Joe Sixpack to own an AK-47.
Click to expand...

That can go for anything in life. Why should anyone own a high powered sports car when a compact, fuel efficient vehicle will get you to the same places? Both vehicles and firearms can be very dangerous in the wrong hands. Until the law changes, I have no problem with citizens legally obtaining any firearm they choose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top