Ever notice how anti-gunners never....

[Rifleman 173]

Have you ever driven by a place that anti-gunners occupy? How come the majority of the anti-gun facilities do NOT have signs PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED that announce to the world, "GUN FREE ZONE?" Don't you think that since they so firmly believe in being anti-gun shouldn't they have LARGE almost HUGE signs displaying their total belief in their cause? I think that we should, as a group, take the time to point out the hypocrisy of these anti-gun nuts in the media. After all, if the anti-gunners don't believe enough in their cause to actually put it into practice, then maybe they should shut up...

 

[The Bushmaster]

Amen...And this coming from Illinois too...

 

[Bubba613]

Um, maybe it's because they don't care. When asked, they are for gun control and safer streets (who isn't?). But in their daily lives they're more concerned about movies or playing bridge or sending their kids to school or playing soccer or whatever else people are into when they aren't into guns.

Really, most people havent given it a lot of thought.

 

[CoRoMo]

...they are for gun control... (who isn't?).

I for one am not, and I never will be.

 

[eventer289]

I for one am not, and I never will be.

I think he is referring to the "safer streets" part.

 

[Pulse]

i recently started offering Anti-Gun people here in switzerland to pay for a 1 by 3 meter Sign illuminated by LEDs.

Translated it reads: "This House does not possess any kind of Firearm or other non-lethal Weapons."

with a Handgun and Pepperspray in a Red crossed Circle.

after all, they are proud to be anti gun, why not announce it to the entire town?

none agreed to let put that sign up in there yard, i would even pay for the energy is uses.

could it be that they are antigun, yet enjoy the protection they have by law-abiding citizens that own guns and are willing to put a world of hurting on a burglers rear end?

noooo, ofcourse not!

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

My employer doesn't allow me to bring zebras into work, but there's no "Zebra Free Zone" sign either.

I know of no grocery store that will let me camp in the produce section, but there's no "No Tents Allowed" signs.

I'm allergic cats and won't allow them in my house, but I haven't put up the "NO CATS IN HERE, WELCOME MICE" sign.

The local churches certainly have firm beliefs against people showing up nude, but they don't have any signs saying, "NO NAKEDNESS!" on the front door.

Most libraries want to keep things quiet and certainly wouldn't want me playing my tuba in there, but I haven't seen any bright red signs reading "NO HORN INSTRUMENTS".

Aside from my idiotic responses to an idiotic thread, Bubba613 nailed it.

 

[TX1911fan]

Jorg, I agree with your context. I think, however, that the difference here is that many anti gunners want to take away the right for any of us to be armed, effectively putting the sign up in each our houses. If they think this world would be safer with no one armed, then they should walk the walk. Because they refuse leads one to believe that they know their premise to be false.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

TX1911fan, I understand where you are coming from. But they are walking the walk simply by not being armed themselves. The other side of the coin is that if gun owners think the world is safer with guns, they should put huge flashing signs advertising they have guns to reduce crime. So, by extension of your comment, since no gun owners have huge signs declaring they are armed and not a victim, that would imply gun owners think their premise is false. The scarlet letter treatment seems to be a bit extreme.

I suppose that when we see signs going up around the country from gun owners announcing they will defend themselves against crime and tyranny, we can revisit this thread.

 

[LightningJoe]

Aside from my idiotic responses to an idiotic thread, Bubba613 nailed it.

I believe the point is that the antis seem to know that being unarmed is a liability and are not inclined to advertise this fact.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

I believe the point is that the antis seem to know that being unarmed is a liability and are not inclined to advertise this fact.

In that case, if gunowners seem to know that being armed is an asset, why aren't we advertising this fact?

 

[Pulse]

In that case, if gunowners seem to know that being armed is an asset, why aren't we advertising this fact?

"we", meaning people that live in a country that allows privat firearm ownership and the use of said firearms to defend one selfs family and property, do that by simply living in that country.
if you actualy own firearms or not does not matter, because a evildoer has to assume that he might face armed resistance.

the Antis are the ones that want to change that, so they should announce it.
after all, they believe that it is the right thing to do.

if you would be living in a country that does not allow private firearm ownership and does not allow the use of deadly force to defend one selfs Family or property, lets say the UK, and it would be legal for you to own firearms and use deadly force in that country, then it would be appropriate to announce it.

for the same effect: because you believe the 'other side' it the saver side.

 

[Vermont]

I believe the point is that the antis seem to know that being unarmed is a liability and are not inclined to advertise this fact.

Why don't people with guns have big signs out front that say "Guns in here"? Are they scared that someone will steal their guns and use them to kill someone because guns in the wrong hands are dangerous? Well maybe, but even if you knew for a fact that no one would steal them, you still would not put a sign in your yard. This discussion is pointless.

How many people do you know with any signs at all in their yards? I don't know any. Maybe a political sign during elections or something about Jesus, but most people aren't in the habit of putting signs in their yards. Why would you think that says something bad about people who are anti-gun?

 

[Just One Shot]

Here's your sign!

 

[jakemccoy]

It's not on their list of top 100,000 things to do. You'd have to communicate the argument to make the idea forefront in their brains.

 

[withdrawn34]

The majority of people don't really give the issue active thought like we do.

For some people, Ashlee Simpson's new baby is the biggest deal ever. For me, I didn't even know until I casually read it elsewhere, and I don't really care.

 

[TX1911fan]

Jorg, there are a couple differences. First, people who believe in the 2A are not trying to take away a right, and hence do not have to justify their position. People attempting to take away the right to keep and bear arms would justify their position by saying that no one needs to be armed, other than police and military, or that we are safer being unarmed. If so, it is not unreasonable to ask them to demonstrate that position by notifying others that they are unarmed.

Second, as someone else also said, advertising that there are guns in a home would leave one open to burglary attempts.

I admit that the premise is a little extreme, but I think it useful as a tool to get anti-gunners to think. Do the REALLY believe we would be safer if there were no guns? If we can get them to think, even by an extreme example, then we have at least accomplished something.

 

[Yoda]

How about...?

Why not make up some of our own signs that we can paste up beside those "No Guns" signs?

What if a "No Suicide Vests" sign one day appeared at the entrance to a mall, right beside the "No Guns" sign? Who could object to that? What about "No car bomb parking between the signs?"

Or, how about "It is forbidden to try to imagine what the scantily-clad young ladies in this mall would look like butt naked."

Just thinking...

- - - Yoda

Light editing for the sake of Art's poor grammaw.

And...for the record...it's not "Butt" naked. It's "Buck Nekkid."



Cheers!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Have you ever driven by a place that anti-gunners occupy? How come the majority of the anti-gun facilities do NOT have signs PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED that announce to the world, "GUN FREE ZONE?" Don't you think that since they so firmly believe in being anti-gun shouldn't they have LARGE almost HUGE signs displaying their total belief in their cause? I think that we should, as a group, take the time to point out the hypocrisy of these anti-gun nuts in the media. After all, if the anti-gunners don't believe enough in their cause to actually put it into practice, then maybe they should shut up...

One of the most worthless arguments is to argue that the opposition isn't fully living up to the standards we perceive they should be upholding if they were to be true to their cause.

But since the stupid demand was made querying why anti-gunners don't put up big, prominent signs displaying their views, then I will ask that the query be made bilaterally.

How come the majority of the pro-gun facilities do NOT have signs PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED that announce to the world, "GUN ZONE?" Don't you think that since they so firmly believe in being pro-gun shouldn't they have LARGE almost HUGE signs displaying their total belief in their cause? I think that we should, as a group, take the time to point out the hypocrisy of these pro-gun nuts in the media. After all, if the pro-gunners don't believe enough in their cause to actually put it into practice, then maybe they should shut up...

I am familiar with quite a few pro-gun businesses that don't have big signs. In fact, I don't know of any that state they are a gun zone with the exception of gun shops/ranges. Gee, that must mean most pro-gun folks are hypocrites, then eh, if the standard is applied equally.

When pro-gun folks don't live up to the standard pro-gun folks think anti-gunners should live up to, then it becomes obvious that the standard is rather pathetic and that the accusation of hypocrisy is reflexive and generally makes the pro-gun folks calling for such nonsense look like they don't even understand what they are demanding.

 

[Cyborg]

Jorg asked:

The other side of the coin is that if gun owners think the world is safer with guns, they should put huge flashing signs advertising they have guns to reduce crime.

I do not have a flashing sign but while many of my neighbors have signs on their houses that say "This house protected by (some security monitoring firm)" I have one (black lettering ona white background) attached to the pillar of my front porch that reads "This house protected by GLOCK" with a silhouette of a glock followed in smaller lettering by "WARNING: Deadly force WILL be employed to protect this property persuant to TPC sections 9.41 & 9.42". I also have signed statements from my adjacent neighbors stating that they have asked me to protect their places per sec. 9.42(2)a.

Is that putting my money where my mouth is, Jorg? Everyone else, does that qualify as being a sheepdog?

Cyborg
If I can pull the plug on my baby brother and tell my own Mother she is terminal in the same 36 hour period, am I going to have any trouble putting a bullet into someone who threatens me or mine?

 

[TX1911fan]

DNS, as I said before, when you are seeking to restrict or remove a RIGHT that exists constitutionally, then you have to support your position. Someone seeking merely to exercise a Constitutional right does not. For example, if I work for an employer who expects to limit my free speech rights, then that employer will tell me. No employer has to say that they won't limit your free speech rights because that is the norm anyway.

 

[Fisherman_48768]

Herd mentality as a defense

TX1911Fan said "...effectively putting the sign up in each our houses. If they think this world would be safer with no one armed,..."
Thus creating a herd or flock(mentality) defense whereas the predator goes after hopefully someone other than yourself in the confusion.

 

[jaybeedubya]

It's like this, My dearest friend, Rifleman 173, whom I have never met and/or seen due to my forum inactivity! In my oh-so-humble opinion. I'm from Georgia, I support the second Amendment, and on a lighter, far more irrelevant note? I live near cows.

Time to make that last not a weeee bit more relevant!

Do you see a pack of coyotes going for the bull? No, they're not the type to like direct confrontation, they're pack-mentality predators who just don't appreciate their prey fightin' back. Well Golllllll-ly! Does that sound like a criminal to you buddy?

Yes, yes of course it does. Also, I like answering my own questions to be redundant. The point is, nobody unarmed is going to tell a potential predator that they, are infact, unarmed. That's asking for it,

 

[Double Naught Spy]

DNS, as I said before, when you are seeking to restrict or remove a RIGHT that exists constitutionally, then you have to support your position. Someone seeking merely to exercise a Constitutional right does not. For example, if I work for an employer who expects to limit my free speech rights, then that employer will tell me. No employer has to say that they won't limit your free speech rights because that is the norm anyway.

If you are seeking to remove a Constitutional right, then supporting your position is good. That is an action conducted in a court of law, not in Joe's BBQ.

However, you have completely missed the point. This isn't a court matter being argued before SCOTUS or a federal judge. The OP is about whether or not anti-gun businesses are proclaiming their position in a manner the OP deems to be correct, lest we deem them hypocrites (which I am sure will have them quaking in their boots if we call them such a name).

Just because a business or person is anti-gun does not mean that they have to paint great big gianormous signs and mount them in their business to proclaim their views, lest they be called hypocrites anymore than pro-gun people need to do the same to broadcast their support of the 2nd Amendment. It isn't the size or need of the signage that determines hypocrisy. The premise of the OP is stupid. Arguing that the opposition isn't doing a better job to meet our arbitrary standards is stupid.

Be that as it may, it isn't the anti-gun position that is at risk of being lost, is it? So if the court of public opinion is the standard by which we are conducting business as per the OP, the criterion here being the hypocrisy if one does not broadcast one's position loud enough, then pro-gun businesses should be making big signs. However, like I said, the premise of the OP is stupid.

Of course, MANY/MOST businesses that allow concealed carry are not necessarily pro-gun. They are ambivalent.

Do you really think we want all anti-gun businesses to mount a campaign of really promoting the anti-gun agenda in that manner, at the risk of such a publicity campaign actually working to gain strength for the anti-gun position? Or would we rather most just do what they do in a diminutive manner?

 

[JR47]

Actually, the OP was addressing private homes, as well as facilities. Businesses DO advertise when they don't want guns present. Ever see the little "no guns allowed" signs at the entrance to stores and malls?

Why these are supposed to make everyone safer is beyond me. Like most other laws, only the law-abiding will obey them. From their success with these signs in the recent past, one can see why individuals would be wary of posting similar signs.

It's also a personal choice made on the part of individuals as to posting gun signs. Public nakedness is illegal in most states, as are most other examples given. In the case of the library, signs ARE posted about silence in many. Illegal activities aren't usually listed for signage, as this would be an extensive list, and "ignorance is no excuse". Ownership of firearms, on the other hand, is legal, and the business is making a personal choice to limit your right. Before I hear about, "you don't have to go there", the same argument could apply to signs banning women, children, or minorities. However, the same people who would limit your ability to exercise your 2A rights will tell you that such signs are discriminatory, and illegal, and that the owners, even though they have that choice about guns, it doesn't extend to people.

I agree that it's hardly germane to any discussion of the 2A. However, I can see the frustration inherent in this type of activity.