Gun Free Signs: Homes

[TacticalEvilDan]

actually nothing would teach them better than being victimized by violent criminals.

Oh, I agree, nothing would put self-defense into perspective quite the same way as the need and inability to defend themselves. I've often had similar thoughts on the subject of overcriminalization -- those whose lives have never been touched even peripherally by bureaucratic ambition simply have no concept of what it's like, and no audience is as receptive to the subject as those who have seen or felt it in action.

At the same time, neither one represents a fate I'd wish upon my worst political adversary.

That is what they wish to impose on others-so its time for some payback. many of the anti gun scum are wealthy elitists who have private security or in the case of assholes like Feinstein and Bloomberg-publicly financed armed guards

I want people like bloomberg to live like the poor in Chicago when it comes to worrying about armed gangbangers and home invading robbers.

and if a few of those anti gun scumbags end up being raped or brutalized-well its no different than what their laws have imposed on far more innocent people

You and I have been on this merry-go-round before, and my position on gun control advocates hasn't changed -- while there are some people who profit politically or economically or both in the effort to forcibly subtract from the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of others, that's not the angle of most gun control advocates. Whereas you see a gun in your hand as the solution, they see guns in the hands of criminals as the problem. You look at more law-abiding citizens getting and carrying guns as an improvement, they see any measure which gets guns out of the hands of criminals (or allows fewer of them into criminal hands) as an improvement.

Both sides ultimately have the same goal, but one looks at government as an obstacle while the other looks at government as the solution.

 

[TurtleDude]

Oh, I agree, nothing would put self-defense into perspective quite the same way as the need and inability to defend themselves. I've often had similar thoughts on the subject of overcriminalization -- those whose lives have never been touched even peripherally by bureaucratic ambition simply have no concept of what it's like, and no audience is as receptive to the subject as those who have seen or felt it in action.

At the same time, neither one represents a fate I'd wish upon my worst political adversary.



You and I have been on this merry-go-round before, and my position on gun control advocates hasn't changed -- while there are some people who profit politically or economically or both in the effort to forcibly subtract from the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of others, that's not the angle of most gun control advocates. Whereas you see a gun in your hand as the solution, they see guns in the hands of criminals as the problem. You look at more law-abiding citizens getting and carrying guns as an improvement, they see any measure which gets guns out of the hands of criminals (or allows fewer of them into criminal hands) as an improvement.

Both sides ultimately have the same goal, but one looks at government as an obstacle while the other looks at government as the solution.

a well reasoned post but I reject one thing

while many of the sheep and minions of the gun control movement may want the same thing with the average pro rights voter, the leaders of the gun control movement want to disarm honest people for at least two reasons-to punish them for their politics

and (the original reason why the Dems adopted Gun Control as a strategy) to pretend they are doing something about crime without actually hurting one of their main constituencies --criminals and those who advocate on behalf of criminals

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

a well reasoned post but I reject one thing

while many of the sheep and minions of the gun control movement may want the same thing with the average pro rights voter, the leaders of the gun control movement want to disarm honest people for at least two reasons-to punish them for their politics

and (the original reason why the Dems adopted Gun Control as a strategy) to pretend they are doing something about crime without actually hurting one of their main constituencies --criminals and those who advocate on behalf of criminals

Unless I'm mistaken, that sounds like the people I described as those "who profit politically or economically," yes? I absolutely agree that there are some evil SOBs who put their personal agendas ahead of public safety and who wish to use power to punish rather than to serve the public.

 

[Perotista]

Should homes that are gun free...have to post a sign?

LOL, now that is a good one. Personally, I think owning a gun is up to the individual. Not anyone else or even the government. Now I can understand limiting the sales of tanks and howitzers, B-52's and the like, but let the individual decide, sign or no sign.

 

[BretJ]

LOL! For starters, how could possibly be forced to advertise a lack of an item? What's next Beware, no Dog here signs? Secondly, as someone who trembles in anger at the mere thought of a comprehensive database of gun owners, you might wanna think twice before forcing everyone who doesn't own a firearm from publicly advertising so. Good Thinkin'!

Don't care them knowing that I have firearms. I just do not believe they need to know what and how many. "Sir, we are here to confiscate AR15s you may have in your possession. Do you have any? No sir. All I have is a double barreled shotgun as recommended by our VP."

You keep missing what kind of information registries we are concerned about. Is that unintentional or is it willfull ignorance?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

a well reasoned post but I reject one thing

while many of the sheep and minions of the gun control movement may want the same thing with the average pro rights voter, the leaders of the gun control movement want to disarm honest people for at least two reasons-to punish them for their politics

and (the original reason why the Dems adopted Gun Control as a strategy) to pretend they are doing something about crime without actually hurting one of their main constituencies --criminals and those who advocate on behalf of criminals

By the way, I just had a thought.

If I was one of those ****ers, and I was somehow compelled to post such a sign in my yard, the very second I was the victim of a crime I'd blame it on the NRA. I'd say that they used their money and influence to plant that sign in my yard, and then their antics drew the attention of some gun rights fanatic who use my home as a political stage -- after all, I live in a quiet neighborhood and I never had any hassle until this sign was there, so this is no coincidence.

Consequently, if I wasn't assaulted fast enough, I'd hire someone to do it for that very reason.

 

[CRUE CAB]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...BxSBJ_0bVqcKa74Qrdd-pkQ&bvm=bv.52434380,d.eWU
Perfect.

 

[TurtleDude]

By the way, I just had a thought.

If I was one of those ****ers, and I was somehow compelled to post such a sign in my yard, the very second I was the victim of a crime I'd blame it on the NRA. I'd say that they used their money and influence to plant that sign in my yard, and then their antics drew the attention of some gun rights fanatic who use my home as a political stage -- after all, I live in a quiet neighborhood and I never had any hassle until this sign was there, so this is no coincidence.

Consequently, if I wasn't assaulted fast enough, I'd hire someone to do it for that very reason.

sort of like this guy? (warning, some serious butt kicking)

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Because every household who doesn't own a firearm wants others to be defenseless. Again, some real top shelf reasoning there.

Not only would defining and quantifying these "banners" be impossible, your apparent desire to see a specific portion of the populace subjected to harm and violence is rather disturbing.

Perhaps a better solution would be to invite those who believe that private citizens should not be allowed to carry concealed firearms to post such a sign, and then point out the hypocrisy when they refuse. The goal should be to get people to think about their position, not to make them the target of violent crime.

Those who advocate gun control, in so doing, advocate leaving honest law-abiding citizens defenseless, and making them targets for crime and violence. I see nothing wrong with doing to them what they seek to do to us. It seems perfectly fair to me.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Those who advocate gun control, in so doing, advocate leaving honest law-abiding citizens defenseless, and making them targets for crime and violence. I see nothing wrong with doing to them what they seek to do to us. It seems perfectly fair to me.

This is the last thing I have to say to you in this thread:

while there are some people who profit politically or economically or both in the effort to forcibly subtract from the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of others, that's not the angle of most gun control advocates. Whereas you see a gun in your hand as the solution, they see guns in the hands of criminals as the problem. You look at more law-abiding citizens getting and carrying guns as an improvement, they see any measure which gets guns out of the hands of criminals (or allows fewer of them into criminal hands) as an improvement.

Both sides ultimately have the same goal, but one looks at government as an obstacle while the other looks at government as the solution.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You and I have been on this merry-go-round before, and my position on gun control advocates hasn't changed -- while there are some people who profit politically or economically or both in the effort to forcibly subtract from the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of others, that's not the angle of most gun control advocates.

That is exactly the motive of those who have any idea what they are doing—to seek power and wealth for themselves and their allies, at the expense of the very people that they are supposed to be serving and representing. Those who are not operating from this set of motives ar emerely ignorant and gullible, and are led by the lies told by the former group.

Those who claim that they support gun control for the sake of fighting crime and promoting public safety are merely liars; nothing better. And those who believe them are gullible, ignorant fools; may Mister T have compassion toward them.

Both sides ultimately have the same goal, but one looks at government as an obstacle while the other looks at government as the solution.

No.

One side wants the law-abiding public to be unarmed and defenseless to make them easier prey for criminals and tyrants.

The other side wants the public to be able to be armed, so that they can defend themselves against criminals and tyrants.

These are not the same goal. These are opposite and conflicting goals.

Your position on gun control is directly tied to whose side you are on—that of law-abiding citizens, or that of criminals and tyrants. It really is that simple.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Unless I'm mistaken, that sounds like the people I described as those "who profit politically or economically," yes? I absolutely agree that there are some evil SOBs who put their personal agendas ahead of public safety and who wish to use power to punish rather than to serve the public.

That describes the vast majority of gun control advocates. The only others are those who are ignorant, and believe the lies of the first group.

 

[Surtr]

Should homes that are gun free...have to post a sign?

No, nor should I have to post a sign at my house stating that I possess firearms.

 

[blackjack50]

I didn't take the OP's suggestion literally.... rather that he was trying to prove a point, that those who don't believe in private gun ownership would probably not be too keen on putting such a sign up in their front yard, knowing that it might attract criminals.

Lol we have a winner

 

[blackjack50]

You're both correct. My mistake. The idea that we could effectively determine what each individuals true intentions are when it comes to these issues is still quite naive, unless you'd just rely on the honor system.

Isn't that pretty much how gun control works now?

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

That's okay. I'll post one for them on my property with an arrow.

Like this?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Like this?

I would've responded with one of my own:

My home is equipped with a high-tech alarm system, whereas my idiot neighbor relies on his personal arsenal!

Breaking into my home will get you arrested 24/7.

Breaking into that idiot's home while he's on vacation will be MUCH safer.

 

[CRUE CAB]

I would've responded with one of my own:

My home is equipped with a high-tech alarm system, whereas my idiot neighbor relies on his personal arsenal!

Breaking into my home will get you arrested 24/7.

Breaking into that idiot's home while he's on vacation will be MUCH safer.

One snip or by pass of a wire and your alarm is useless. You would be better off with a big dog.
Hopefully your neighbor is the kind of guy that knows you think of him as an idiot and will wait an hour to call the police after your wifes jewerly is already headed to the pawn shop.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

One snip or by pass of a wire and your alarm is useless. You would be better off with a big dog.

Or a big dog, or car batteries hooked to the doorknobs. Whatever. The point is to make the asshole who advertised to the world that I don't have any guns can't shoot you when he isn't home to protect his stuff.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Or a big dog, or car batteries hooked to the doorknobs. Whatever. The point is to make the asshole who advertised to the world that I don't have any guns can't shoot you when he isn't home to protect his stuff.

How do you know, have you seen his safe? You know where it is? You KNOW he dont have an alarm? Or is it really he is an idiot to you for owning guns.
Oh, and when I travel. I have people in and out taking care of my pets, as well as my neighbors all the way around me are retired and have nothing better to do all day than watch the neighborhood.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

How do you know, have you seen his safe? You know where it is? You KNOW he dont have an alarm? Or is it really he is an idiot to you for owning guns.
Oh, and when I travel. I have people in and out taking care of my pets, as well as my neighbors all the way around me are retired and have nothing better to do all day than watch the neighborhood.

I figure if the asshole in question doesn't have any qualms about advertising my home as a prime target for thieves, I don't have to fact-check when I return the favor.

 

[blackjack50]

People don't typically break into homes out where I am at. Too big of a chance of getting shot. And a vehicles is always in the yard.

 

[blackjack50]

I figure if the asshole in question doesn't have any qualms about advertising my home as a prime target for thieves, I don't have to fact-check when I return the favor.

I think you are tied to literally into this topic. The point is that if it isn't alright to advertise that about your house, why is it ok for people to advertise about my guns?

 

[BretJ]

One snip or by pass of a wire and your alarm is useless. You would be better off with a big dog.
Hopefully your neighbor is the kind of guy that knows you think of him as an idiot and will wait an hour to call the police after your wifes jewerly is already headed to the pawn shop.

Simple cell phone jammer kills outgoing cellphone calls as well. Pair of wire cutters and a jammer and you are pretty much on your own if all you are relying upon is an alarm system. I have seen a pellet gun make a Belgian Shepard cower in a corner. Fact is, until/if law enforcement get there. You are on your own. All you have to do is survive long enough to be a good witness.....

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I think you are tied to literally into this topic. The point is that if it isn't alright to advertise that about your house, why is it ok for people to advertise about my guns?

I was responding to a picture someone else posted. It's one of those things that is funny only if you don't stop to think about it.

Also, you never really clarified what "the point" was until now.