Previous Post
Next Post

Gun Free School Zone sign (courtesy

TTAG reader Mark writes:

An idea dawned on me. How about gun rights advocates promote the idea of schools posting signs announcing that their campus is a “Gun-Free School Zone” (GFSZ)? Here’s the angle . . .

The anti’s believe GFSZs save lives. So let them put their policy where their mouths are. Either they 1) take us up on our recommendation and erect such signage; or 2) prove themselves hypocrites by refusing to inform parents of their school’s GFSZ policy. If a school already has a sign, gun rights advocates should lobby the school board to erect more, bigger and more explicit “No Guns Allowed” signs.

We should argue that these GFSZ signs are necessary to remind parents and other visitors who might have carry permits that carry at that school is (either) illegal or prohibited by policy. We should also argue that parents need to be reminded of the security measures – or lack thereof – prevailing at their children’s schools. In the unlikely event that a crazy or terrorist attacks their community school, they should know that the security policies in place were consciously considered by their school board, administrators and union shop-stewards.

[As for the idea that the prominent GFSZ signs would encourage an attack, I believe the negative effect of prominent GFSZ signs would be minimal/negligible. Anyone who’d attack a GFSZ is nearly certain to be aware – without signs – that the venue is defenseless. So, if and to the, extent that any school is inspired by our recommendation, the probability that that school’s signs would attract an attack at that school are remote.]

I very much doubt that any (or, at most, more than a few) schools will follow through on such a recommendation. Therefore, the actual effect would be to provoke discussion. Proper signage will remind every parent and member of the community that the children in that school are defenseless. For the committed Anti, the signs will simply reinforce their commitment to civilian disarmament. For the open-minded, repeated exposure to such signs will prompt them to re-consider the wisdom of a GFZ policy for their children. 

People who aren’t particularly committed one way or the other are apt to be hooked-into a headline “Pro-gun org promotes gun-free school signage.” They start reading the article with the arguments pro- and con- and find that the con-arguments for GFZs are compelling whereas the pro- arguments are paper-thin.  

My proposal to promote school signs leads logically to similar proposals for parks, malls, etc. Arguably, promoting school signs might encourage city councils to post parks and businesses to post their private premises. They are already aware of the temptation to post their venues; and, they know that they are permitted/constrained according to State law.  The arguments we give for schools will have their obvious analogues for other venues. If the Antis take the bait we should be more than eager to run with it.

I think that Bloomberg might – net – be doing the 2A a favor by keeping the topic of gun rights before the public eye. Unfortunately, we aren’t doing a very good job of engaging the uncommitted public in the discussion. The MSM gives the gun-control slant to whatever Bloomberg does and suppresses our message. We talk to ourselves on the gun blogs but the uncommitted public doesn’t read our blogs. Somehow, we have to rope the MSM into giving us air-time.  

We ought to be thinking about ways to tease the MSM into participating in a proper gun rights debate. We have to stop wasting our efforts preaching to the choir and start investing in getting the public debate into a rolling-boil. Any ideas? 

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. They should put signs up. It’s the same as my stance on businesses that want to ban firearms but don’t want to advertise it. If you don’t want guns on the property or they aren’t allowed by law then post the damned signs!

    It’s not just a PR thing for gun rights. It’s an obligation to give prior notification for those who might not know that they cannot legally be armed there. There are enough laws to memorize already.

    • Failure to properly post the legally required sinage should be an actionable offence where violation of the gun free zone is a civil matter, and a criminal offense with actionable repercussions where violation of the gun free zone is a criminal offense.

      In short, we sue them out of business like they did to so many firearms manufacturers in the 1990s.

      • Some states have no legal requirement for posting signs; you’re told where your permit is worthless when you get the permit, and if you make your way into one of those areas and are found with a gun, well guess what? You’re gonna get arrested. And lose your permit.

        • One might even end up with a felony record making them ineligible to keep and bear arms under the law. I’m not really sure but I don’t think that schools in Ohio are required by law to post but I could be wrong about that. Perhaps this spring I’ll look it up and then pester the local districts to comply with the law.

        • In most states where no-gun signs carry force of law, signs have to be posted with certain criteria for businesses etc. Otherwise, its moot. As far as the usual “gun-free” zones you are correct.

      • Around here body politic and body corporate, like school districts, play both sides of the fence. They say they are not government entities when it suits them and claim immunity as government entities/public officials other times.They stretch definitions and out right make up things to fit their opinions. In my last go around with the local school district, I made sure that they had ample notification of the law, existing case law, etc in writing before they even could take the criminal and actionable course and before I hired an attorney. (I didn’t have standing because the individual harmed was already an adult. Otherwise, I would’ve handled it personally.) BTW, the school district capitulated because they knew that they would lose badly as usual. 😉

        • When Illinois finally passed our ccw license requirements, the “lawmakers” required the state police to come up with a signage requirement. Buildings and businesses that do not want guns on premises must display the specific approved sign. It must be posted in a prominent location for all to see. If the building or business doesn’t comply then too bad for them. Those places that do put the sign up, if it’s a business, gun owners usually hand out a little card; no gun=no sale. It starts making a difference.

        • State and county buildings have a specific sign or one that is recommended (can’t remember which tonight) but I don’t think that applies directly to schools. For private property it just has to be a vague “conspicuous”. We drop the no guns=no money type cards too.

        • TX used the antis’ tactics for a change, I loved it. The signs have to be a specific size, with each individual letter and image defined to the gnat’s ass, varying colors, and then posted within a specific distance of each entrance, and on and on, making compliance complicated, difficult, and expensive, as they try to do with CC. Then, the only thing you accomplished is that when you discover a person who is carrying, you can order him to leave or face a misdemeanor trespassing charge.

          Unfortunately, that applies to businesses, but not schools.

    • Yeah I tried that with Maverick gas stations… They wouldn’t answer my question about legal permit holding citizens being allowed to carry in their stores. “the no weapons or masks sign is pretty self explanatory” literally what I got. A company or organization that stands for nothing will… You know the rest.

      • In Ohio, some would then open carry until the gas station either posted properly or just had a “no masks” sign. So far the result has been that they usually remove the ambiguous sign and clarify to their employees that they do not ban firearms. We just recently had a similar issue with a local gas station. To the district manager’s credit, they aren’t posted and the employees have been re-trained. 🙂

        A company or organization that stands for nothing will… You know the rest.

        Yeah, I do. When they’re monkeying around with a basic natural right though… they need to not do that.

        • “No masks”? WTF is that about? I mean, if I were running a register and someone approached wearing a mask (Other than the filter type, of course) I would just point a gun at him while I waited on him, what is a sign supposed to be all about?

        • Yeah well… You, me, and probably most on TTAG have common sense. That’s something sorely lacking in our public school indoctrinated nanny state society these days. 😉 It’s now becoming a nation of dipshits, IMHO.

          IIRC, sometime in the ’60s, ’70s, and/or early ’80s the City of Cincinnati had an ordinance that prohibited ski masks. It didn’t work out so well in the wintertime as many of us wore them in the bitter cold. Of course, none my friends were stupid enough to not pull the mask up into a hat to show our face when entering a building and we weren’t even aware of the ordinance at the time. Undoubtedly, if we entered a gas station with our ski masks down, we would’ve expected to find ourselves at gunpoint or per-emptively shot.

          In the past few years a bank in rural Ohio that I transacted business at had an ever growing sign: No sunglasses… No Hats… No Hoods… No backpacks… No Cellphone Use… No Bandannas… and finally, the last item added to the sign before the signs disappeared completely, No Firearms. Every time a branch would get robbed somewhere else, they would add to the list. I think the signs only lasted a month or two once they added the firearm prohibition. Each branch manager I spoke with agreed that the signs were a useless gesture.

  2. Don’t forget to have your anti gun neighbors post their homes too while we are at it.
    Let the bad guys know there are no guns at that home.
    Make it easier for the burglars to make an informed decision as to whos house they should try to rob, The house next door with the GFZ sign and maybe they will leave you and your unposted home alone.

  3. Most schools have small signs in various places.

    For a loaded question its not a bad idea but actually passing a law to create larger signs would probably not convince anyone.

    • Thank you – great video, clearly illustrating the hypocrisy of the leftist media pukes. A guy I worked with years ago was also anti-gun, and he too refused to put a “gun free zone” sticker on his front door. They want to enjoy the “herd immunity” of living in an armed society, but they don’t want to get their lily-white hands dirty with the need to defend themselves. They are, however, perfectly happy to pay someone else with a gun to protect them. Cowardly piles of excrement.

  4. Although the author makes reasonable points, I’m going to come down on the other side of the issue. I don’t think this type of sign should be placed regularly in front of the little tykes, who eventually (at least in my area) learn to read. Attaching negative connotations to the ownership, possession and carry of handguns should be left to those who know how to do it best; the anti-gun-rights groups, the mainstream media and open carry advocates.

  5. I have a counter offer which mirrors Jay in Florida’s comment above … insist that all gun grabbers put tasteful signs in a highly visible location of their front yards which designate that their homes have no firearms. When we can drive around a school district and see that at least 20% of homes have their “gun free” sign, then we will personally install “gun free” signs at the schools.

  6. Well since all schools are gun and drug free zones you have already seen the result of gun free school zones here in Ct. . So that point has already been proven by Newtown shootings . I do however like the idea of the anti gun grabbers posting signs in thier yards in 2 foot letters as so they won’t be missed. I bet not one has the guts to do so. They are willing to put all children at risk but not themselves.

  7. I recently replied to a lady’s letter in our local rag. She said that she didn’t think people needed to have a gun. I replied, “why don’t you put up a big sign in your front yard stating that there are no guns or weapons of any kind on the premises!” Then I said, “and if your really feeling brave, you can also say that you never lock any of your doors!”

  8. How about gun rights advocates promote the idea of gun control advocates posting signs announcing that their property is a “Gun-Free Zone”

  9. I dunno. Trickery, sophistry, and hidden agendas seem to be the modus operandi of the left. Why play their games?

    I’d rather say it like it is, ie. that gun free zones are criminal playgrounds and anyone who believes they prevent crime is a retard.


    Cause that’s what’s happening.

  11. Schools should operate like the old west. When you come into town many had you leave your firearm at the Saloon or with Sheriff. In a school, all visitors must check in and check their weapon prior to entering the main part of the school where children are present. I’m a proponent of arming people inside the schools and believe firearms in the hands of lawful people is an asset, seldom if ever a deficit. Do kids want to be protected from crazy people? I bet they’d choose to be kept safe and have defense versus none.

  12. How about posting signs right next to the GFZ signs of locations (malls, schools, theaters, military bases etc.) that were attacked with the death count and police response time.

    Then compare those numbers to areas where there are lots of armed civilians (gun ranges and police stations) that have been attacked with death count and police response time.

  13. Headline should read: A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children at Publick Schools From Being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country

  14. I’d rather have a school free Gun Zone. All the important stuff I’ve learned I’ve learned since school.

  15. Are you in the pay of the signage industry?

    There are already enough signs everywhere, enough for a society of two billion, much less our own. Enough eyesores already.

    As for the specific issue of gun free school zones, this falls under the general premise that gun control laws don’t stop bad guys anyway. Don’t perpetuate it.

  16. My daughter’s school in Virginia has the following dress code:
    The Norfolk Public School dress regulation states that students shall not wear the following items:
    Clothing, pins, jewelry, accessories or other items of adornment conveying messages related to or promoting the
    use of alcohol, drugs, tobacco products, weapons, or messages that promote illegal activities

    Yet, at each entrance is the picture of a gun with the crossed red circle and NO WEAPONS ALLOWED.
    In yet another quirk of irony, the Virginia State flag and great seal contains, wait for it, WEAPONS.

  17. Basically, I like your idea. Wherever there is Federal, State or Local Law mandating Gun Free Zones, there should be prominently displayed Signage. This would be a way to inform the Public where they are most at risk, or their children. Conroy Township, PA, has erected Signage saying “THIS IS NOT A GUN FREE ZONE”

    Maybe that’s a good idea too. If we advocated for both types of signage, then people would know where they are “Safer” according to their views on Guns in Public. Then, when “crazies” murder people in Posted GFZ’s, maybe the dimwits on the Anti-Gun side would begin to get the idea.

    I spent an hour or so trying to figure out what Laws Mandate GFZ’s and other than Public, Private and Parochial Schools covered by Federal Law, it appears other GFZ’s are mandated by Federal Regulations for Courts and Public Places, State and Local Laws, but in many localities it is a matter of choice by the Businesses etc, not a mandate. Pretty confusing, actually. However, if Signage either way was mandated, then the Public could choose their risk level, and so could the “crazies”…sounds like a Win-Win all around.

    Not sure how Conroy Township is handling the School GFZ’s mandated by Federal Law.

    • It’s not perfect, and it has its own brand of stupid, but compared to a lot of places stuff like this makes me love living in South Central Pennsylvania.

      • I stumbled upon the Conroy Township story while trying to figure out what GFZ Laws there were. It may not be perfect, but I LIKED the boldness. My people lived in PA Bedford County at the time of The Revolution. Some day hope to visit there and find my Great Grandparents’ several times removed Graves and take some photos.
        Glad you’re happy in PA. I hear it is beautiful there.

        • Your screen name made me think you were local. Hershey is in Derry Township, Lots of Scotch-Irish history in the area as well as Bedford where your ancestors are from.

  18. “Signs, Signs, Everywhere there’s signs.
    Blocking out the scenery. Breaking my mind.
    Do this! Don’t do that! Can’t you read the signs?”

      • Hate to bust your bubble, folks, but “Signs” was covered by the rock band Tesla in 1990 on a live acoustic album, and (according to Wiki) re-recorded in 2007 in-studio. The 1990 version changed the lyrics slightly (adding some F-bombs), but the 2007 studio version returned to the original lyrics. I’ve heard the more recent one on the radio; it’s decently executed, but I still prefer the original, of course.

        “Signs” is not just for us old/advanced-middle-aged folks any more, sorry.

        • True, but only because they have tons and tons of crappy music to listen to.

          We only had, what, 20-25 singers/ bands? Total? 😉

          I feel sorry for the young pups nowadays; so much dreck to sift through, so little time to enjoy the few decent songs. Unlike our era, when ALL music was good music… 🙂

  19. I like your thinking for a variety of reasons; most of all, provoking civil discussions where the uncommitted, as you state, start to hear both sides of the arguments. Our arguments are profoundly more powerful and based on reality and people who live in a mindset of reality, should be easily persuaded.

    It is interesting how people think. Let’s assume for the moment, that the thinking around Gun-Free Zones is to reduce the risk of a gun accident. Well that doesn’t make much sense. The risk to a child is greater being driven to the school by far (according to my simple math) than a gun accident at the school. Gun accidents are extremely low; 3% of all gun-related deaths which is about 3% of all auto-related deaths (round numbers). So there is no real justification from a “safety” perspective of allowing CCs to be on school grounds or any currently gun-free zone. I suspect that children face greater risks during recess on the playground. But in striving to achieve risk free environments, there is always a trade-off. Don’t drive your child to school – walk if you can or take public transportation. Don’t allow recess on the playground. We make risk management decisions all the time. But what about CCs on school grounds? If a Gun-Free Zone, what is the trade off for reducing the very low risk of a CC gun accident? Well, most Gun-Free Schools Zones resulted from the media coverage of those rare but awful school shootings. I would hope that those suggesting and backing Gun-Free School Zones would concede that criminals and deranged people would be deterred by such signs. They in effect, take out a viable line of defense for all when those rare situations unfold. So where does that leave us?

    One legitimate argument for schools would be that students should not be allowed to carry guns on school property. Think gangs. If might serve as a deterrent; maybe. And I would support that. So posting, “No one under the age of 21, is permitted to carry a gun or concealed weapon on school grounds.” If I were a school board, I would consider making the following exception, “No on under the age of 21 is permitted to carry a gun or concealed weapon on school grounds unless they are 18 and older and explicitly permitted by school authorities.” This approach would also require that all students receive instruction on gun safety and that those permitted, be certified after completing a rigorous course on gun safety, use, tactical shooting, pass a psychological exam and have three letters of recommendations from adults. This training would be equivalent to basic gun training for police. You get the picture.

    I must admit, it is hard to understand how people who propose gun-free zones keep a strait face while saying that posting gun-free zones reduces the risk of gun-related killings (non-accidental). There is simply no data that I am aware of to support that.

    This leaves the argument around Gun-Free Zones as ideological. Sure, it would be nice to live in a utopian state where there were no guns, no crime, no pain, no disease, no tyranny, no mental illness, etc. But that is not reality; not now; never has been and unlikely to happen until ….. well, that’s left to the theologians.

    But the point is, pursuing utopia that disregards reality, is dangerous. History is replete with enormous disasters of human carnage in leaders attempts to achieve such a state. I for one, and the conclusion of some very smart people (our founders), is that peace rests in individual liberty and freedom defended by the individual and not the state. And reality today with well over 100 million guns in circulation, the individual’s only hope of defense against a tyrant, criminal or lunatic is to possess a gun(s) and be trained on defensive shooting. Translated to the Gun-Free Zones, they don’t work and actually create greater risk of death and bodily harm by eliminating the only real defensive weapon that can stop evil in its tracks when it raises its ugly head. So the argument is really practical vs utopian.

    It is also really interesting to note that those pushing a utopian agenda, have themselves, body guards. They are surrounded by guns protecting them while they demand that we give up ours. Although they would never admit, but they are often of the mindset that the ends justify the means. Their utopian end is justified by their means even though there may be and often is, collateral damage (our lives).

    So to un-pack the progressive ideological side of the gun-free zone discussion, creating such zones somehow starts to eliminate guns from our society. They believe that this is good. Its a baby step towards their utopian state. And of course, its for the children. I believe that if you strip away all the rhetoric, it this is the only possible reason.

    We need to challenge this line of thinking in civil discourse. Those who are not progressives and have fallen to their often demagogic articulations, should be open to reasoned civil arguments and we need to convince them that what progressives and gun banners are doing is, in effect, putting our children at risk in their attempts to achieve a utopian dream of a gun free world.

    Gun owners and CCs need to take it up several notches regarding how we conduct ourselves. We must be more vigilant around gun safety. But equally important, we need to demonstrate that we are worthy of the responsibility placed on our shoulders by the 2nd Amendment. We must develop civil discourse defending our right and constantly articulate the benefits to society associated with the gun, gun ownership by civilians and responsible use including CC.

    • we need to demonstrate that we are worthy of the responsibility placed on our shoulders by the 2nd Amendment.

      Uh… No. That’s incorrectly framing the entire basis of the unalienable, individual right to keep and bear arms into a collective, perception based privilege. Additionally, the Second Amendment places absolutely nothing on the shoulders of an individual. It is a restraint upon government. Full stop.

      As for the rest of your last paragraph, those are ideal for whomever wishes to sway public opinion in favor of protecting the right. As long as you leave it as suggestive to those who wish to voluntarily engage in such activity, then fine. However, it should never be something thrust upon those who are not inclined to do so. The reason is that each individual has a natural right, by virtue of existence, to defend themselves and by extension a natural right to keep and bear arms. Also, the Second Amendment protections require nothing of the individual because its design and purpose is to tell government shall not be infringed.

      I noticed that you wrote of “Gun owners and CCs.” Was exclusion of those of us who open carry intentional or subconscious? Does this mean that we open carriers do not have to follow these mandates, that we are not included, or nothing at all? 😉

      • John,

        Much appreciate your response and view. I would like to respond.

        First, what IS our right, I agree 100% otherwise I would not be trying to engage in ways to help PRESERVE our right. It may be God-given and inalienable (not un …. hate how spell check does that some times), but we face “man” who, when led by psychopathic demagogues don’t care much about the inalienable. So short of armed rebellion, we must persuade and not engage in demagoguery ourselves. To persuade, we need to communicate. To effectively communicate, we need to know and understand our audience and understand how they will react to what we say and do.

        So the burden we shoulder as to the 2nd Amendment is to conduct ourselves responsibly and in a manner that instills confidence rather than fear in the public at large. Why? So that public at large does not get behind those who wish to infringe, defang, narrowly define, or just eliminate the 2nd Amendment. That is the burden we shoulder and I would argue that many gun owners and carriers (open and CC) do not realize this important point.

        Under the current administration and with many life-long appointed justices, our Constitution is viewed as malleable. We are a hair’s breath away from the Supreme Court changing in a way that could impose serious limitations on the 2nd Amendment that we do not want. The best way to win this fight, in my opinion, is to solidify public sentiment behind this inalienable right; to remove their fear of guns and gun owners and to educate them that a healthy fear of unchecked tyrants in our government is what the 2nd Amendment is all about. Our founders understood this all too well. Make sense? And I would go further. I think we should go on the offensive but encouraging all citizens to be well armed and trained with weapons equivalent to that which is possessed by the military. No 10 round mag limits here but rather a best practice of having multiple 30 round mags of 308s or .223s locked in a safe and ready to go if and when the call of duty arrises.

        As to open carry, I am glad you raised the point. As much as I understand and support the right, I also understand its impact on how the public views gun ownership. I recognize there are regional cultural views that differ, but given the logic I have tried to articulate, I believe open carry in urban and suburban environments, for the most part, serves as a stick in the eye to many and could actually hurt our cause by providing the demagogues fuel to whip public sentiment to support gun control in general. The unintended consequence is actually fueling the fire to take away our right. Again, we live in a world of humans who do not understand for the most part what freedom and liberty is all about and who are offered up security in exchange sugar coated in ways that make the bitter medicine go down. Once ingested, it is very hard to get it back. We all know that.

        My first supervisor once said to me after I won an argument in a meeting, “You are dead right. Unfortunately, you are dead.” He meant that I won the argument. I made my point but lost getting anything done because I alienated everyone in the room. Food for thought.

        • It may be God-given and inalienable (not un …. hate how spell check does that some times)

          The two are synonymous and interchangeable. I’ve used both over the years. Besides, what does it matter if one is preferred over the other in this discussion other than to act as a distraction?

          English has changed since the founders of the United States used unalienable in the signed final draft of their 1776 Declaration of Independence (some earlier drafts and later copies have inalienable). Inalienable, which means exactly the same thing—both mean incapable of being transferred to another or others—is now the preferred form. Unalienable mainly appears in quotes of or references to the Declaration. Inalienable prevails everywhere else.

          The question is often asked, “Is the word in the Declaration of Independence unalienable or is it inalienable?”

          The final version of the Declaration uses the word “unalienable.” Some earlier drafts used the word “inalienable,” which is the term our modern dictionaries prefer. The two words mean precisely the same thing.

        • John,

          Thank you. I never heard that so I stand corrected. Learn something every day. Much appreciated.

        • So short of armed rebellion, we must persuade and not engage in demagoguery ourselves. To persuade, we need to communicate. To effectively communicate, we need to know and understand our audience and understand how they will react to what we say and do.

          Your argument fails to demonstrate any obligation to be “worthy” of Second Amendment protections. Granted, it is wise to behave in a way that does not encourage further infringement. However, as my initial comment stated, there isn’t an obligation on the individual as you appeared to claim. Persuasion of legislators and the general public is an optional exercise for the individual. Some are simply trying to live their lives as free men and women, which is their right.

          As to open carry, I am glad you raised the point.

          You are making the same argument here and it has an added wrinkle. Where one must have government permission to bear arms concealed, it is the exercise of a privilege and not a right. In those areas, the only way for the individual to legally exercise their actual right to bear arms is through the open carry of firearms. Additionally, We’ve seen more strides with open carry and public perception in Ohio than with concealed carry only. From 2005 onward, we were required to have a license to conceal our firearms. Myself and many I’ve known carried concealed before the licensing law. It was a case of out-of-sight, out-of-mind. The general public didn’t realize how many people were already carrying. By not openly carrying our firearms, we may have contributed in the creation of a privilege infringing upon our right.

          When we carried concealed before licensing law, many apparently assumed we were unarmed. When we concealed after licensing law, some expressed their desire that we be unarmed. When we openly carried after licensing law, some expressed their desire that we carry concealed. When we openly carried rifles, some expressed their desire that we only openly carry handguns. I guess if we start carrying RPGs then some will express their desire that we only openly carry sidearms, long guns, or conceal our firearms Problem solved. 😉

          Many have gone from not having carried a firearm before to joining us in our open carry walks BECAUSE they saw us openly carrying. You can find scores of people here in Ohio who probably never would’ve become as involved, as fast in the Liberty movement if it were not for seeing others carrying openly.

          When we talk in public about the right to bear arms, it doesn’t ring true to those listening if we don’t actually do it. If we conceal in Ohio, we are not exercising our right to bear arms. Open carry has been legal in Ohio since the beginning. When we tell people that and are not openly armed then it detracts from the message that being armed is a right, is legal, and that there is nothing wrong with it.

          Bottom line… Open carry has been good for Ohio. Many people have come to support gun rights because of it. Also, Ohioans can no longer exercise their right to bear arms except by openly carrying. Open carry is part and parcel of the right to bear arms so those who do not support it only partially support the right.

          I don’t disagree with much of what you have stated except, as I initially commented, individuals are not obligated. They are not automatic ambassadors or beholding to any other requirement for the exercise of their right. We just went the long way around for you to state the essentially the same thing and I counter with the same answer. It was a waste of both of our time, IMHO.

          Addendum: Don’t forget about the deterrent value of the Second Amendment. Without the visibility of arms among the People, that value is seriously eroded.

          The unintended consequence is actually fueling the fire to take away our right.

          Since you seem to be concerned about proper terms, how can an inalienable or unalienable right be TAKEN away? Protip: It cannot. 😉

        • Thank you. I never heard that so I stand corrected. Learn something every day. Much appreciated.

          You’re welcome and we’ll both keep fighting the good fight for individual rights. Stay safe and carry on.

  20. Provide a link to share your articles on LinkedIn. I share them on facebook with very little response. Maybe the LinkedIn crowd gets interested and can effect change.

    My second idea is for you to provide a downloadable one page pitch to school administrators that we can print and hand deliver to the schools our (grand)children are in.

    The third idea is for you to prepare a state by state comparison of number of guns owned, number of concealed permit holders, different types of crime, volume of ammo sold, number of shooting ranges per capita, etc. to show how dramatically obvious this all is. You talked about it in your articles on PR, and you talked about it in reference to a map of the US that showed crime concentrated in anti-gun states. We need a chart with these numbers on one page and a graph with the same information in lines that go up (crime) at the top of the graph and lines that go down (gun ownership) at the bottom of the chart, so we can show people that is small gun-free zones are a bad idea (post offices), larger ones are worse (schools), and huge ones (the island of Puerto Rico) are a complete disaster.

  21. i totally agree Robert! i get so tired of all these pro-gun guys literally only preaching to the choir. alot of it is most of them can’t articulate their own arguments, they can only repeat or agree with what has been said. I actively engage in conversation with ANY anti gun person i meet at anytime. no matter where.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here