Previous Post
Next Post

OCT carrier in a Texas Kroger store

For Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, every day is opposite’s day. If you or I were lobbying to Kroger’s supermarket chain to allow legal carry in their stores – which they already do – we’d highlight incidents where Kroger disarmed customers and employees were victims of violent crime. See? we’d say. A no-guns policy leaves innocent Americans relatively defenseless against criminal predation. Over at, Moms jefe Shannon Watts uses these real-world incidents as proof that Kroger shouldn’t allow legal carry in their stores. Huh? you say. Here it is from the horse’s mouth . . .

The moms’ group decided to take action in response to recent demonstrations by open carry activists in Kroger stores in Ohio and Texas, and after conducting research that identified more than a dozen shootings on Kroger property since 2012, said Erika Soto Lamb, a spokeswoman.

“Kroger employees shouldn’t have to determine whether the person holding a gun in the frozen aisle is someone dangerous or someone making a political statement,” Lamb said.

Conflate much? I mean, how many of those shootings were the result of open carry or, for that matter, legal concealed carry? Why none! But I would point out that anyone holding a gun in the frozen aisle should just let it go, let it go, let it go. Holding a gun in a grocery store is an excellent indication that something illegal’s going down.

Or maybe about to go down, and the person holding the gun is attempting to stop it. Which would be a good thing, not a bad thing. Here in the real world. Back in Shannon’s world . . .

In a letter sent to Kroger CEO Michael Ellis last week, Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts said those existing laws aren’t sufficient to keep customers safe.

“In most states, gun laws are exceedingly lax, especially when it comes to the open carry of firearms,” Watts wrote. “In many states, virtually anyone can openly carry a loaded gun without going through any licensing, permitting or training.”

Moms Demand Action has logged a dozen shootings that have taken place inside a Kroger or in the parking lot of one since 2012.

In June 2013, a 2-year-old girl was shot in a Kroger parking lot in Stone Mountain, Georgia, after a customer tried to intervene in an attempted mugging.

In February, in another incident in Georgia, a 42-year-old man shot and wounded two Kroger customers at a store in Lawrenceville, east of Atlanta.

Again, how does this argue against legal carry? And where, HuffPo, are the other ten incidents? Just for fun [/sarc] I Googled “Kroger parking lot rape” and found this story [via]:

Lawyers for a woman kidnapped from a Kroger supermarket parking lot and then raped reached a settlement with the grocery company in a lawsuit the woman filed against Kroger following the attack . . .

The victim, a 23-year-old Athens restaurant manager at the time, was kidnapped at knife-point by three men as she walked to her car in the parking lot of the Kroger store on College Station Road late one July night in 1994 . . .

Six other crimes were committed in that same parking lot between Oct. 17, 1988, when a woman was robbed at knife-point, and July 13, 1994, when the rape victim who sued Kroger was abducted, according to Gilbert Dietch of Atlanta, another of the woman’s lawyers.

Five of those previous parking lot crimes were directed at customers, and a Kroger employee was the victim in another, he said. Several involved violence, including a beating with a billy stick and a threat using a tire iron, he told a Clarke County jury as the trial opened Monday.

But only one of the incidents — the beating — was ever reported to Kroger’s ”risk management” division in Atlanta, according to testimony by a Kroger security expert Monday.

Should have been a defensive gun use? Yes. If you Google “Kroger armed robbery” do you find dozens of examples? You do. Should Kroger force its customers to disarm to shop in its stores? I’d like to see them try.

The basic idea that the Moms are selling – a non-guns policy would make Kroger customers safer – is so ludicrous that even HuffPo writer Ben Hallman felt obliged to end his puff piece with a disclaimer:

It’s impossible to say whether these incidents would have happened if Kroger were to advertise a no-gun policy. Gun advocates are quick to note that criminals are unlikely to abide by polite requests to leave their guns at home.

True dat. And well done Kroger for issuing the following statement:

Contacted on Friday, company spokesman Keith Dailey said the grocery chain had no plans to change existing policy, which is to abide by state and local laws.

“Millions of customers are present in our busy grocery stores every day and we don’t want to put our associates in a position of having to confront a customer who is legally carrying a gun,” Dailey said. “We know that our customers are passionate on both sides of this issue and we trust them to be responsible in our stores.”

As they have been.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Dude – I tried. she won’t return my calls. Maybe it was b/c I wouldn’t agree to that weird thing with the Shetland Pony and Bloomy wearing the diaper. . . . . she is spiteful

    • I think that every morning Erika Soto Lamb looks in the mirror and weeps bitterly at what she will have to do that day.

      • I don’t think so. Probably like Kathleen Sebelius, lying is just what she does, like breathing.

    • MDA is taking the wrong media approach.

      They need to stop wasting their time on one-off campaigns against Target, Chipotle, Kroger, etc.

      They would be FAR more effective taking Bloomberg’s millions to run the following in a nationwide ad campaign.

  1. There was a CCW carrier here in salt lake that stopped a knife attack by drawing down on the crazy bastard and holding until the cops came. He saved at least one immediate life, and a lot of others to be sure. That happened at Smith’s, a Kroger chain. Miss that one, Huffpo?

  2. Hahaha
    Kroger is the parent company of Fred Meyers here.
    They sell guns in the sporting goods aisle.
    Stick that in your pipe Shannon.

    • Tom, sorry to intrude, but where are you located? I work for Kroger here in CO (King Soopers) and have been looking for a job change. Transfer with same pay to sell guns? Sign me up!

    • Paul… Why don’t you just admit to the fact that you are not comfortable with citizens exercising fundamental rights and calm down? He’s got a slung rifle. Where’s the threat?

        • Bill, and JR,
          Yeah, “Near” ready! Take a good look at the photo. I make it a lot less than 2 seconds for him to get his left hand on the forearm, and his trigger finger on the bang stick. It would probably take a couple of seconds for you to react, and clear leather and make the shoot, if you decided that he was a threat, and you wanted to take him out. By that time he would have had two or three rounds out the business end of his AK
          I don’t see any point to carrying a weapon in this position in a super market. How do you suppose a bunch of old bitty’s are going to vote, if they see this every time they go shopping? I’m trying to be open minded on open carry, but this dude doesn’t help.

      • Why not just admit that you lack all common sense and an utter inability to understand sound tactics when it comes to trying to persuade people that the 2nd amendment is a good thing?

        Strolling into a grocery store with your AK47 is something only a totally brain dead idiot would do.

        • +1. The only “victories” MDA and Bloomie have, after being soundly beat down by real people votes, in WI, and CO, most recently, are these manufactured twisted PR pufferies on corporations they’ve bullied into some sort of balanced, and sane reflection on reality.

          And the only way those were even possible were thanks to some OC long carry nitwit, who egotistically believes their youtube moment will matter, to any but the imathre, self absorbed crew on youtube giving them likes.

          The Rev may come across as holier than thou, and I’m the first to tease him, too. But on this issue, tactics vs strategy, he is correct, and I join him, the NRA, Jerry Miculek, and Tyler Kee, for pointing out the obvious.

          You are entitled to you own opinion, but if you disagree with me, fine…take it up with Dean Weingarten at GunWatch, whom I believe enjoys a reputation for best messaging on OC rights principles, and messaging.

          I’m not wasting any more time on trolls, real gunfolk, or plants from MDA or elsewhere, to stir up the circular firing squad. Wont work, we got your number.

        • Open carry a rifle at a grocery store, within your rights but leads to poor optics in the PR war.

          Open carry any weapon when gangbangers are going on a rioting and looting rampage leads to good optics and victory in the PR war.

        • tdiinva,

          I would tend to agree with you. The trouble is that riots only seem to happen every 25 years or so*. That timespan is too infrequent for an effective and lasting public relations splash.

          Further, 25 years is long enough that many people think human nature has somehow changed and no one will ever riot again — nor need long guns.

          * riots where the utility of openly carried long guns is obvious

        • I have a feeling we’re not going to have to wait 25 years for the next riot. We have professional “organizers” at the controls now.

      • Where’s the threat?

        Here’s the threat:

        Note that the same moron continues to feature prominently in Bloomberg’s anti-gun propaganda. His every move is a gift to them, and helps push fence-straddlers over to the “There should be a law!” side. These idiots motivate the other side. THAT is the problem.

        We have a motivation advantage, people get pretty uppity when politicians start talking about taking their guns. But the same doesn’t happen on the other side. People don’t usually make an effort to vote against guns until there’s a school shooting, or unless they keep seeing clowns carrying scary rifles into the supermarket. So yes, that’s the threat. He’s doing the work of our enemies, and fools among us are cheering him on.

      • Paul’s just plain right. (in this instance) OC AK’s and AR’s in restaurants and stores isn’t going to do anything except get open carry banned. If its legal, just let it be. Don’t turn it into a political fight that we’ve already won. Open carry is legal almost everywhere and will be soon in Texas, without the help of OCT. When you’re in a Ferguson or Katrina type situation then by all means, open carry an M60 if you want to, but going down to your local Kroger with a rifle slung any way is simply hurting the cause.

    • Who is the moron carrying a rifle in the picture?

      That moron is none other than part-time bartender, part-time janitor, perpetually failed political candidate, and full-time loser Kory Watkins:

      He’s part of Open Carry Tarrant County. When even Open Carry Texas realized they were going too far, Kory Watkins and the other clowns at Open Carry Tarrant Couny figured they’d make up for it by pulling stuff like this. You’ve probably seen a bunch of his work featured by Moms Demand Action lately.

      Here he is helping change Target’s gun policy:

      Here he is helping Moms Demand Action change Staples’ gun policy:

      I can’t be bothered to see if he was also involved in the Chilis, Sonic, and Starbucks debacles, but it’s very likely. Shannon Watts clearly likes his work, which is why this is the 3rd time her groups have chosen him specifically to be the face of gun idiocy. As they say, if the hat fits..

  3. Robert, ya got one part wrong:
    “Here it is from the horse’s mouth . . .”
    Actually came from the other end of the horse!

  4. The Kroger affiliate ’round here is called Dillon’s, and like Matt they are by no means disarmed.

    • In our neck of the woods, it’s King Soopers and City Market, which became part of Kroger when they bought Dillon Stores. I don’t OC, but I do CC every time I’m in there. If they changed, I’d have to go to Walmart for everything.

  5. Damn, sounds like an easy job. Keep writing letters to companies asking them to do something. Every time one kind of complies, declare victory and use it as a basis to ask for more money. Not really doing anything, not really achieving any real results, but the checks keep rolling in.

  6. Still say there are a 1000 better ways to demonstrate and win people over to your side. This turns non-gun owners off in a big way and will backfire in the long run.

    • I challenge your opinion. Please provide evidence.

      And please explain why support on our side is increasing and the gun grabbers continue to accomplish nothing.

      Oh, and please explain why no state has recently outlawed open carry if so many people oppose it.

      Although Hawaii, California, Cook County Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, and Massachusetts may be creating new “limitations” on our rights every day, the rest of the country is removing limitations and gaining momentum. The foaming at the mouth and thrashing from gun grabbers is their last gasp. They are “all in” and know that they have a losing hand … and are hoping to bluff us into compliance. Don’t fall for their bluff.

      • And in Hawaii, California, Cook County Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, DC and Massachusetts they will further restrict us.

        We in the “unfree” states are part of the fight also. And our combined population and preponderance of media (MSM and digital) still can shout louder than the rest of the country.

        Never forget that the Washington Post really is Congress’ local paper.

  7. I shop at Kroger in VA. I’m glad that I will continue to be able to shop there. I don’t OC, but have no issue with others who do – pistol or rifle.

    • Too many crimes happen in Kroger parking lots for that to happen, especially where I used to live. Last thing it wants is to make that worse.

      • the criminals will not obey a sign or any type of notice but law biding people bend over to get something from the bottom shelf and your gun exposed rather you have a threat to deal with or not the fact is joe blow is forced to obey while criminals are not they will walk or drive by do what they want and try to get away the sign does not effect them well it makes it easier for criminals when they know 99 percent of their victims will not be packing gun bans will not make anything any safer nor would any massive gun grab Garrote Wire how to effectively ban that ya lets ban bailing twine and parachute cord and regulate all piano tuners and piano owners they might then be the next big threat

  8. “We know that our customers are passionate on both sides of this issue and we trust them to be responsible in our stores.” — Kroger spokesman Keith Dailey

    Go figure: a company trusts its patrons to be responsible. Looks like I’ll be leaving my current grocery store (with an unpublished/unenforced no firearms policy) to shop at Kroger.

    • They trust their patrons, not their employees. Under current policy, it is a no-go to carry on company property on or OFF the clock, in or OUT of uniform. Terminating offense on the spot.

      • Jon,

        It isn’t a matter that Kroger does not trust their employees: the problem is that Kroger does not value the lives of their employees above profits.

        Here is the simple explanation. Kroger believes that their liability is greater if they graciously “allow” employees to be armed. The fact that their policy will cost employees their lives doesn’t matter because that doesn’t cost Kroger money. Get it now?

    • Huh? I shop at a Kroger here in the DFW area. Nothing like that here. They have the Texas Alcohol and Beverage Commission signs up since they sell adult beverages, but the signs don’t ban licensed carry.

      • The way it was explained to me was that no one is allowed to carry in or out of the store, im not too sure if the customers at our store can. I still have a rifle in my cars trunk, as its the best my 18yo self can do for now

  9. At one point, IIRC, Kroger was a corporate sponsor of Doesn’t look like they are anymore.

  10. I am trying to go along with open carry, as it is our fundamental right. However this dude with his AK at the near ready position would put me at a heightened readiness state. If his only intention is to exercise his 2A rights, why does he not carry the weapon on his back.

    • Gunr,

      Every single person in a store who is wearing a jacket could have their hand on a handgun (including their finger on the trigger) in their jacket pocket ready to shoot someone right through the jacket. Similarly, every woman in a store who has a purse could have their hand on a handgun (including their finger on the trigger) in their purse ready to shoot someone right through the purse. Of course every person wearing a dress coat in a store could have a long gun in hand under their coat ready to shoot almost immediately. Are you leery of everyone who wears a jacket, every woman who has a purse, and everyone who wears a dress coat when you are in a store or business?

      We have to get past the notion that, in a business, “unusual” behavior + firearm == potential violent criminal. In reality EVERYONE in a business is a potential violent criminal because everyone could have a concealed firearm, knife, sword, club, hammer, garrote wire, etc. or be ready to immediately employ any object within that business as a deadly weapon.

      The fact that you can see a firearm in someone’s possession quite literally means absolutely nothing in terms of their potential to be a violent armed criminal. Decide if someone is a potential violent criminal based your assessment of the person’s demeanor and actions, not on the visibility of a firearm.

      • “The fact that you can see a firearm in someone’s possession quite literally means absolutely nothing in terms of their potential to be a violent armed criminal. Decide if someone is a potential violent criminal based your assessment of the person’s demeanor and actions, not on the visibility of a firearm.”

        He IS complaining about a person’s *actions*. The man is handling his gun in spite of there not being a threat. That means a rational actor must consider the possibility that the man is himself a threat.

        Wanna carry a rifle? No problem. Want to diddle with it? Now it’s entirely rational to become concerned, depending on what it is you’re doing. Maybe you are just resettling it because the sling is getting annoying. Maybe you are actually handling the gun preparatory to opening up. Generally, it’s a good idea to BEHAVE in a manner that doesn’t involve handling the gun or having it at near ready. That’s Gunr’s true complaint here, yet you stomp him for allegedly criticizing the mere act of carrying. No, it’s his specific *action* of carrying in near ready that is gunr’s issue.

        • SteveInCo,

          Gunr claimed that the open carrier’s firearm was “near ready” and could start shooting in less than two seconds. (He clarified that in another comment above.) That is not an “action” or demeanor which indicates a violent attack is imminent or even probable, period. The only thing it indicates is that the person could begin shooting in less than two seconds, whether offensively or defensively.

          And you failed to address the fact that every person wearing a jacket and every woman who has a purse could be ready to shoot immediately. Do we curtail people’s right to put their hands in their jacket pockets and women’s rights to put their hands in their purses because it could be an “action” to start an attack in less than two seconds?

          The only time we legitimately curtail people’s rights is when they have first acted to deprive us of our right to life, liberty, and property. A person who holds a long gun in “near ready” position has not assaulted us nor deprived us of our rights. Therefore we have no legitimate reason to deprive them of their rights.

          Your argument is based on capacity to offensively deprive victims of their rights. Using that argument someone could claim that we must not be armed in public either. Oh, wait … that is exactly what gun grabbers argue.

        • U-S,
          You know, there are several ways of looking at this. I do not see it as a threat, I see it as “probable” threat. Carrying a weapon like this at the “near ready” may be just fine for the outdoors and hunting. But I fail to see why he does not carry the weapon on his back, if for some reason he just HAS to walk down the isles of a grocery store with it. Please don’t tell me he just wants to exercise his 2A rights, there are better ways to do that with out scaring old ladies.
          As far as the other weapons that other shoppers MAY have. I don’t see them at the ready position, so I am not concerned about them. I AM concerned about THIS guy.
          And don’t forget “the bitty” vote

        • Gunr,

          “But I fail to see why he does not carry the weapon on his back, if for some reason he just HAS to walk down the isles of a grocery store with it. Please don’t tell me he just wants to exercise his 2A rights, there are better ways to do that with out scaring old ladies.”

          There it is. You want to deprive the man of his right to be armed because you don’t understand or approve of the way or where the man exercises his right. The fact of the matter is the man never pointed his rifle at anyone while it was in his hands … nor did the man verbally threaten anyone. That is the standard to arrest and try someone. Unless the man acted to deprive someone of their life, liberty, and property, society has no business depriving that man of his right to life, liberty, and property.

          “As far as the other weapons that other shoppers MAY have. I don’t see them at the ready position, so I am not concerned about them. I AM concerned about THIS guy.”

          And this illustrates that you are not consistent with yourself. You justify depriving a man of his rights because he MAY (could) harm people. And yet you would leave alone all other shoppers who MAY (could) harm people with firearms in the ready position in their jacket pockets or purses. Everyone has the capacity to harm others. Your judgments of how much capacity they have or how quickly they can bring that capacity to bear is irrelevant. A person is not an aggressor until they actually threaten, attempt to harm, or harm another person. Then and only then can we deprive them of their right to life, liberty, and/or property.

          Having the capacity to harm people IS NOT “threatening” or “dangerous”. Pointing a firearm at someone and demanding something IS threatening and dangerous. And that is why we have laws against pointing a firearm at someone and demanding something … which this open carrier never did.

        • U-S
          “You want to deprive the man of his right to be armed” No!, I never said that! I said, If he felt he needed to be armed in a grocery store, why doesn’t he carry the AK on his back!
          Then you go and say I am not consistent because I think he could harm someone, but I don’t car about the other shoppers who have cc weapons.
          That’s the point! The other cc weapons are not displayed in a manner to make someone fearful. Their not displayed at all! This dude IS carrying his weapon in a manner that some may construe as objectionable. How far do you think he would get if he walked into the Los Angeles Police Dept. carrying his weapon in that position?
          It is one thing to carry a long gun on your back. This shows people that you do not have immediate use planned for it, and they are more likely to feel at ease. Carry it in front, at the “near” ready position, and some folks will feel threatened, even though this dude may have the best intentions. Is that so hard for you to understand?
          What does this guy think he has to gain by carrying his AK as shown?

        • Gunr,

          “This dude IS carrying his weapon in a manner that some may construe as objectionable.

          “It is one thing to carry a long gun on your back. This shows people that you do not have immediate use planned for it, and they are more likely to feel at ease. Carry it in front, at the “near” ready position, and some folks will feel threatened …”

          I completely understand and agree. And that does NOT, I repeat does NOT require or compel the man with the rifle to do anything. No matter how intense another person feels about how that man exercises his rights, they have no business demanding that he change how he exercises his rights as long as he has not deprived them of their right to life, liberty, or property.

          More importantly, gun grabbers use the very same argument to curtail open carry of long guns in a scabbard on someone’s back, open carry of handguns in a holster, and concealed carry of handguns. In other words gun grabbers use that argument to forbid being armed in any manner … because they have intense feelings of fear, vulnerability, and mistrust of the armed person. Either we have rights or we do not.

        • Gunr,

          Suppose many people in our nation believe that anyone who wears a red shirt vigorously practices an “offensive” religion … and the mere sight of a person wearing a red shirt invokes intense, all-consuming feelings of fear, anxiety, anger, and repulsion about the “offensive” religion and all that it entails.

          Does that mean we should forbid anyone from wearing red shirts in public? If so, do we only ban long sleeve red shirts? What about short sleeve red shirts? What about shirts with red stripes … do we allow those because the person wearing the shirt is signaling that they are not completely invested in the “offensive” religion?

          Hopefully, you answered “no” to banning any manner of red shirt. And if you answered “no” to banning red shirts because people have intense, all-consuming feelings of fear, anxiety, anger, mistrust, and repulsion about wearing red shirts, then you must also reject bans on any form of open carry even if some/many people experience intense, all-consuming feelings of fear, anxiety, anger, mistrust, and repulsion at the sight of a person possessing a rifle.

        • Gunr,

          “Red shirts don’t fire bullets!”

          Okay, replace the red shirt and “offensive” religion notion with large body builders who can quite literally smash your face and kill you — easily — with one punch. Do we thus ban large body builders from businesses because many people feel intense and debilitating fear, anxiety, mistrust, and repulsion about them? Do we require them to conceal their bodies in large, baggy clothing that makes them look morbidly obese, rather than muscular “killing machines”, to assuage the intense feelings of others?

        • This is getting interesting, body builder, hmmmmmmmm.
          OK, this would be my reaction to seeing a large body builder in a super market isle.
          If he’s just walking down the isle, I would pay him no mind.
          If he had a sour and hardened look on his face, like he’s looking for somebody to stomp, then I would keep away from him, maybe turn around and go to another isle till he left. He might be real pissed off at his ol lady, and I wouldn’t want to give him any reason to take it out on me.
          Now, if he had his shirt off and maybe flexing his muscles, still with the sour look, and all the while, pounding his left open hand with his right fist, I would definitely feel threatened, as he looks like he is really looking for somebody to pound on. I would leave the immediate area in short order. If the isle was blocked, and I couldn’t get around him, I would make myself as small as I could, and grab the grip of my weapon, keeping it out of sight.
          I would say the difference between the body builder and the dude with the AK, is that the body builder actions are plain to see, and he shows his feelings as his anger grows in intensity.
          On the other hand, we have no clue as what the AK guy is up to, if anything. His expressions do not give away any feelings. However!, he has already initiated the first step, in a possible massacre. Remember, I said POSSIBLE, unlikely, but still possible. Had he carried his weapon on his back, the 1st step would have not entered the equation. Just in case you are unsure of what I consider his 1st step. His 1st step is that his weapon is at a near ready position. Of course he may not realize that this may intimidate some folks, especially old bitty’s.
          What if you saw a guy walking down the isle with a hand grenade, holding it up with one hand so everyone could see it. Would that frighten you? How about if he pulled the pin? Are you peeing in you breeches yet?
          Maybe it was just a dummy, like I have on my desk. Point is: If the grenade was a dummy and he hadn’t yelled any threats, he probably was not doing anything illegal. But still he was scarring folks! Just because it’s not against the law, doesn’t mean we should be doing it!

  11. “we trust them to be responsible in our stores.”

    That’s the most American thing I’ve read in a long time.

  12. When I worked for a Krogers store in Ohio a few years back, it was written into the employment contract that being in posession of a weapon on store property (and the parking lot was store property) was grounds for immediate termination. Gun in your trunk? FIRED. I don’t care if there was no ammo, FIRED.

    Did this policy somehow change?

    • The sense I get from reading the other comments is that CUSTOMERS are welcome to carry, but the employees aren’t.

    • About one or two years ago, a Kroger store manager shot some punk in Indy. The manager was later fired. I had heard the store manager was appealing, but no word on the results. I know some woman about got raped down in Lawrenceburg IN. Kroger might be a good place to have a gun.

  13. Doesn’t MDA understand “concealed is concealed”?

    Unless Target, Kroger, Chipotle, IKEA, and so forth start having pat-downs and metal-detecting arches at the doors of their businesses, there’s not much the corporations or the Moms can do about it.

  14. And then there is this.

    Jeez, we are so awesome and free in Indiana it hurts.

    Then this happened.

    So Kroger offered to let Elliot keep his job. Good on them even if he left.

    Then this happened. Some people and their greed. Night manager at Kroger must not pay enough for the woman the guy was holding hostage.

    This was after the mom of the angel who likely planned to execute two human beings sued Kroger for not preventing the employee from carrying. She claimed if Kroger would have effectively done its job of making sure every employee was unarmed for the criminals convenience her son would still be alive.

    Some peoples kids.

  15. This guy is a walking perpetual disaster for gun rights. While he’s legally entitled to do so under both the 1st and 2nd amendment, he’s actively undermining the 2nd through the use of the 1st.

    Public opinion is changed at the grass roots level, and has to be carefully nurtured through individual dialog and meticulous planning that is done largely under the radar.

    This guy is like a fucking prop plane of Agent Orange spraying over our grassroots campaign for ensuring the continuation of the 2nd Amendment. Every on the fence voter who sees this is going to be rightfully appalled by the crass absurdity of these actions.

Comments are closed.