Oh so that’s how it works! The more you know.
I have meet a few Gun Grabbers who believe that those signs actually make a place safer.
You need to get some of those signs for them, and ask them if they are willing to post them on their front door, mailbox, or on a post in front of their house. See if they are willing to declare themselves defenseless.
Sad to see that there people actually that dumb thinking a sign will save them.
I think it would be funny to see one of those signs with bullet holes in it.
What? I don’t get it. /sarcasm
That was a quality 2 min! Too bad the satire of it is probably lost on the anit gunners.
Speaking for myself, I get the satire all right. What you don’t get, or pretend not to, is we’re not worried about the criminals, we’re worried about you lawful gun owners. Most of the mass shootings have been done by guys just like you, people who owned their guns legally and had never been convicted of a felony. Add to that the domestic abuse and suicides and basically everything that’s not gang and drug related, and you can see the problem – too many guns in the hands of unfit gun owners.
Unless we raise the bar on who can qualify for gun ownership, it’ll just keep getting worse. The more guns there are the more trouble we have.
So you believe a sign will protect from these people you are afraid of? How’s that been working out for you?
“Speaking for myself. . .we’re. . . .”
Ah, that explains a lot right there, Mikey. How many selves do you have? Might want to get that checked.
And you (all) are also apparently afraid of the suicidal. That’s weird, too.
Oh, and speaking for myself, I am afraid of you, however many selves that may be.
Not worried about criminals? The rest of us are…
Joe, the point is that gun control folks don’t think criminals are going to obey the laws or adhere to the gun-free zone signs. You guys know we don’t think that and for you to keep saying it is really silly.
What those laws and signs do accomplish though is to affect the law abiding, who are often the authors of gun misuse.
Good catch. I was typing too fast and not checking it for minor discrepancies before posting.
Typical of you, instead of addressing my points, you picked on the little mistakes.
We know gun laws and signs don’t prevent criminals and maniacs from doing their thing. But they do prevent you law abiding guys from doing yours, and since you guys are often the authors of gun violence, a great good is accomplished.
Isn’t it that the ones who “poke fun at coherence” instead of addressing the substance are the ones who don’t “respond to thoughtful counter-arguement.”
Shall not be infringed is the bar set by the constitution, mikeyb.
“Shall not be infringed” is already a joke. It’s only a question of how much infringement should be allowed.
Did Justice Scalia allow for reasonable restrictions, or did he not?
Are they not infringements?
So, what are you blabbing about?
we’re worried about you lawful gun owners.
Law abiding gun owners are trustworthy, and if there is a threat nearby they can defend themselfs and others aswell.
Most of the mass shootings have been done by guys just like you, people who owned their guns legally and had never been convicted of a felony.
The ones who do this are just a tiny fraction, it does not mean that the rest cant be trusted, even though this did not happen in America but other parts of the world, I know of two mass shooting that were not done by private gun owners but were in fact done by police officers, so flipping out and going on a murderous rampage can happen to police to, not just private gun owners.
Add to that the domestic abuse
If a violent husband or wife had murder in mind, and the victimised partner had not moved out away from the abusive one, Do you honestly think that the abusive one needs a firearm to commit murder? I tell you what. A couple of years ago, around about the sametime, I came across two news stories, one from the US, and one from the UK. The story from the US tell about a woman who was at home one night and her violent ex comes along and is trying to break into the house. I cant remember if she actually had the time to get in touch with the police, but the ex manage to force his way in and she defended herself using a shotgun. The story from the UK starts the same but has a different outcome, the violent ex trys to break in, she calls the police, and while they are on the way, the ex forces his way in and stabs her to death. Guns can help people to protect themselfs from all sorts of violence. Take them away, and violent criminals wont even need guns to kill people because you made them defenseless.
Look pal, banning guns is not going to prevent suicides.
and basically everything that’s not gang and drug related,
Crimes that are not gang and drug related are related to all the other criminals out there, not law abiding gun owners.
, and you can see the problem – too many guns in the hands of unfit gun owners.
And what is an unfit gun owner? Is it all gun owners because of what a tiny minority do? No. The problem here is people like you hindering other peoples abillity to defend themselfs. Doing things like creating gun free zones where most of these mass shooting happen, passing laws in certain citys so people cant carry handguns on the street. Making it illegal in some places to even defend yourself with your firearm in your own home, and there are people out there who have paid a terrible price for that.
Unless we raise the bar on who can qualify for gun ownership, it’ll just keep getting worse.
This won’t help, here in Britain, we have done this years ago, and yet not only did the wrong sort of man get the license, the cheif of police allowed him to keep that license knowing that he was not fit, and when this unfit person went on to carry out the Dunblane shooting, the cheif of police just resigned.
The more guns there are the more trouble we have.
No. The more restrictions you have the more problems you will have.
Yeah, the bradys are probably disgusted at all the violence in the vid. You can ask cockroaches to leave or you can step on them, Randy
As much as I love that clip, after the response I got forwarding the White House gun-free post I think I’ll not be forwarding this.
Gungrabbers do not appreciate anything that pokes truth fun at their little beliefs.
I’m right there with you… It can be very frustrating when facts and empirical evidence are met with delusion and emotion.
If I may, I’d like to bring your attention to a quote that is very close to my hart these days…. “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Edmund Burke
Carry on John…
Just keep making fun of them.
Use their own tactics: Alinsky Rule #4a.
We need a few gun free zones so the bad guys know where to find helpless victims and they won’t have to worry about being killed.
How about the Brady campaign offices and the offices of DiFi and anti 2a politicians be the last remaining bastions of gun free zones. Including all security and police
Gun free zones should be in newspaper offices and the senate and congressional buildings in DC. All the security in these places should be armed with pepper spray only. Take about a week and there’d be no more gun free zones.
I kinda want to put gun free zones signs up outside the local gun range to see what would happen
love to see a spree killer at the House of Flying Lead
This skit makes it painfully clear how worthless a gun free zone sign is in someone’s home or business. So why does anyone think it will be any good in a much larger setting such as a college campus, state, or even the entire U.S. ?????????
What we need are “CRIMINAL FREE ZONES”
Those “gun free zone” signs lack enforcement and are completely ineffective at stopping either criminals or concealed guns. (Think Nick Meli at last month’s Clackamas mall shooting) Sure, remove the signs, but I doubt it will have much effect on crime.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.