SAF banning Gun Free Zones

[DB is Here]

Let's get on Offense...I like it.

Read More

 

[titsonritz]

"Your facts/rights stop were my feelings start"

 

[bbbass]

"Your facts/rights stop were my feelings start"

 

[Jonnyuma]

"Your facts/rights stop were my feelings start"

Ever heard an anti say, "Don't I have a right to feel safe?".
The answer always shocks them because in their mind this question is an argument-ender.
The answer, of course, is just, "No".

Nonsense like this and ,"If there were no guns, there'd be no shootings" are the nuclear option to them, simple little gits that they are.

 

[CountryGent]

The "gun free zone" is one of the most stunningly idiotic notions in our society.



(On a personal note, the Mrs was taking a class at Umpqua Community College, to keep her teaching license current, when shooting went down. Thankfully, she wasn't on campus that day. Naturally, the evil SOB ignored the fact it is a "gun free zone" and did his horrible act.

The school's administration's reaction? Doubled-down and kept it a "gun free zone". Because, you know, the first time worked out, right? Unbelievably brainless.)

 

[Caveman Jim]

This is where Pro 2A orgs should have been the last 40-50 years ago and holding strong but alas the Pro 2A politicians cowered to the bully bleeding hearts!!!

 

[Jonnyuma]

GFZs are mostly suggestions in OR since theres no enforcement vehicle. Courthouses, federal buildings, nat'l monuments, and airport boarding areas are the only state/fed recognized GFZs* that carry legal jeopardy due to state preemption (much of that is contingent on the "violator" holding a valid CHL). Schools, hospitals, bars, just about anyone bent in that direction can declare themselves a GFZ but that's a weak and unenforceable civilian from of malum prohibitum... something that's prohibited only because they say it is (aka: victimless crimes)

WA has a push going now to remove state preemption. It's impossible to visualize the legislature of any state voting to approve legislation (or a constitutional amendment) that gives them less power, but that is precisely what Sideshow Bob Ferguson is advocating. It seems that the misguided attempts at civilian disarmament will utilize any avenue, even to the point of self-destruction, to harass taxpaying citizens into relinquishing their arms.

They don't know us very well.


*Don't take that as legal advice. There may be more enforceable GFZs (such as the post office's parking lot) but this stuff is off the toppa my head. Do your research if you have questions about your destination.

 

[titsonritz]

Ever heard an anti say, "Don't I have a right to feel safe?".
The answer always shocks them because in their mind this question is an argument-ender.
The answer, of course, is just, "No".

Nonsense like this and ,"If there were no guns, there'd be no shootings" are the nuclear option to them, simple little gits that they are.
View attachment 600901

To the "it" in the photo...go grab yourself a bag weed, find a medium, have a little seance and ask the hundreds of millions slaughtered by tyrannical anti-gun regimes. Any other stupid question|?

 

[Mikej]

Ever heard an anti say, "Don't I have a right to feel safe?".

You get the look. The look that says "You no longer exist in my world". And they walk away happily oblivious. Oh, that's right. sometimes they say "We're just going to have to agree to disagree". THEN they walk away, yada, yada.

 

[DB is Here]

Ever heard an anti say, "Don't I have a right to feel safe?".

Ever heard a short fat guy wish he was Lebron James?

When does COS play end and reality set in for these fools?

 

[Jonnyuma]

sometimes they say "We're just going to have to agree to disagree"

I've had to do that myself... sort of.

Usually, after attempting to set them straight on everything from the purpose of the Constitution and BOR (they restrict the government's power, period. Not grant goodies to citizens. Not enable THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to Keep and Bear Arms [the Nat'l Guard argument]) to how specifically their "statistics" are massaged to the point of being outright lies and that everything they've been told about guns is pure paranoid fantasy, even I get tired of banging my head against the wall.

As a general rule, if someone's foundational arguments, confidently presented as facts, are propaganda and lies that can easily be debunked, then I know the conversation (and their "cause") is a waste of time and will devolve quickly into name calling and feelings-based nonsense once they run out of talking points.

I'm happy, enthusiastic in fact, to debate. But my tolerance for willful ignorance has an embarrassingly short shelf-life... "We can't talk anymore... you're too narrow-minded" leaves them fuming.

 

[Mikej]

I've had to do that myself... sort of.

Usually, after attempting to set them straight on everything from the purpose of the Constitution and BOR (they restrict the government's power, period. Not grant goodies to citizens. Not enable THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to Keep and Bear Arms [the Nat'l Guard argument]) to how specifically their "statistics" are massaged to the point of being outright lies and that everything they've been told about guns is pure paranoid fantasy, even I get tired of banging my head against the wall.

As a general rule, if someone's foundational arguments, confidently presented as facts, are propaganda and lies that can easily be debunked, then I know the conversation (and their "cause") is a waste of time and will devolve quickly into name calling and feelings-based nonsense once they run out of talking points.

I'm happy, enthusiastic in fact, to debate. But my tolerance for willful ignorance has an embarrassingly short shelf-life... "We can't talk anymore... you're too narrow-minded" leaves them fuming.

Ya' know, as soon as I hear something parroted from the anti 2nd media, or anti 2nd political talk, I give up. I wish I was better at it. Or, that some of these people would actually like to hear another angle to what they've heard on the media. I lost hope, so once I get the mind made up cue, I quit.