Moms demand action for gun sense in America.

There IS "gun sense in America"

Unfortunately, there is no rational sense in the anti-gun movement. Blaming guns for violent crime instead of the people who abuse them, is like blaming the auto manufacturers for willful misuse of their products. Arrested for DUI? Sue the dealer who sold you the car, the manufacturing facility, the bars in which you consumed alcohol, and the offending distillery! Arrested for speeding? Same deal - if they had sold you a car that wasn't capable of exceeding the speed limit, you wouldn't have been speeding! It makes as much sense as blaming any inanimate object for humans misusing it. Pax...

Gil223 said:

Unfortunately, there is no rational sense in the anti-gun movement. Blaming guns for violent crime instead of the people who abuse them, is like blaming the auto manufacturers for willful misuse of their products. Arrested for DUI? Sue the dealer who sold you the car, the manufacturing facility, the bars in which you consumed alcohol, and the offending distillery! Arrested for speeding? Same deal - if they had sold you a car that wasn't capable of exceeding the speed limit, you wouldn't have been speeding! It makes as much sense as blaming any inanimate object for humans misusing it. Pax...

Click to expand...

That effort has been attempted against firearms manufacturers.
http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472115103-intro.pdf

Here is a report of a low life attempt by the antis to post No Guns signs themselves on the property of others.
It is titled Strange and deceitful new anti-gun tactic.
http://www.ncgunblog.com/2013/11/28/strange-deceitful-new-anti-gun-tactic/

This is said to be confirmable on Grass Roots North Carolina (www.grnc.org/)‎

There would seem to be no level to which these people will not stoop. We must remain ever vigilant.

It is also a reminder of why we should always ask management about any sign posted to their property. We cannot assume that the business has turned anti.

Grapeshot said:

That effort has been attempted against firearms manufacturers.
http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472115103-intro.pdf

Click to expand...

Good article....although it ends with this:

UPDATE: Given that lots of people are coming in via Instapundit (Thanks for the link, Glenn!) it’s possible that many of you don’t know North Carolina law. In NC, any No Guns sign has the force of law. There is not standard mandated sign, like Texas’s 30.06 sign. Passing a “No Guns” sign while carrying a gun on a CHP is a Class 1 Misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

This is not true per NCGS 14-415.11(c)(8).

On any private premises where notice that carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited by the posting of a conspicuous notice or statement by the person in legal possession or control of the premises.

Click to expand...

My previous post was deleted because it showed the incorrectness of Grape's recommended method of how to address this issue.

The way to address is properly is to make so that businesses cannot violate your 2nd amendment rights and cannot prevent one from carrying.

A company does not like carriers? Simple. The can move, go to just online, go away, go out of business.

carolina guy said:

This is not true per NCGS 14-415.11(c)(8).

Click to expand...

Good catch.

Paul Valone and the group at GRNC are a pretty sharp bunch - would be surprised if that hasn't been straightened out. If not, it would be good if someone registered there can correct that misconception.

Yep. He does take advantage of his position.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

davidmcbeth said:

My previous post was deleted because it showed the incorrectness of Grape's recommended method of how to address this issue.

The way to address is properly is to make so that businesses cannot violate your 2nd amendment rights and cannot prevent one from carrying.

A company does not like carriers? Simple. The can move, go to just online, go away, go out of business.

Click to expand...

David, you really need to quit this type of thing.

1) I did not recommend "whining" and surely not as indicated - I reminded others that following through was a good thing.

2) The post is preserved, automatically.

eye95 said:

Yep. He does take advantage of his position.

Click to expand...

I operate/moderate at the direction and approval of the Administration - not by a vocal minority vote.

To both and any other so inclined - the public agrument regarding moderation stops here. There is a proper procdure to be followed.

davidmcbeth said:

My previous post was deleted because it showed the incorrectness of Grape's recommended method of how to address this issue.

The way to address is properly is to make so that businesses cannot violate your 2nd amendment rights and cannot prevent one from carrying.

A company does not like carriers? Simple. The can move, go to just online, go away, go out of business.

Click to expand...

And once more you demonstrate why we need a facepalm smiley instead of a mere :banghead:

I hereby promise to give you a quazillion bazillion dollars if you can show me just one way in which a private business can infringe your (or anybody else's) Second Amendment rights.

And please note, it's infringe, not "violate" - unless those rights have suddenly obtained corporeal form and been physically assaulted.

Nor can a business prevent one from carrying (be it firearms or shopping bags, or a torch for that girl in the third grade). The best they can do is prohibit you from doing so on their property.

The problem with pretending to be Humpty Dumpty ("Words mean what I want them to mean.") is that after a while people forget that you are pretending. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100917040934AA0VoDu

They make perfect sense if we understand HD to be a figure of irony, a focus for satire on the human tendency to pervert or use language for selfish ends.

Click to expand...

stay safe.

Gil223 said:

Unfortunately, there is no rational sense in the anti-gun movement. Blaming guns for violent crime instead of the people who abuse them, is like blaming the auto manufacturers for willful misuse of their products. Arrested for DUI? Sue the dealer who sold you the car, the manufacturing facility, the bars in which you consumed alcohol, and the offending distillery! Arrested for speeding? Same deal - if they had sold you a car that wasn't capable of exceeding the speed limit, you wouldn't have been speeding! It makes as much sense as blaming any inanimate object for humans misusing it. Pax...

Click to expand...

The difference between auto manufacturers and gun manufacturers is a level of responsibility to their product. The gun industry bends backwards to promote safety and responsibility. The auto industry daily encourages breaking the law with automobiles, and interestingly more people are killed with cars than guns.

I am not suggesting that auto industry should be sued, but antis need to take a deep look at who is dying and how, and who actually promotes it. Then they need to look at themselves and evaluate their reasons for their phobia.

skidmark said:

And once more you demonstrate why we need a facepalm smiley instead of a mere :banghead:

Click to expand...

With my compliments, I offer........

Grapeshot said:

That effort has been attempted against firearms manufacturers.
http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472115103-intro.pdf

Click to expand...

I am aware of the pathetic (and generally unsuccessful) attempts of anti-groups and private individuals, to make the firearms industry responsible for the improper use of their products by persons unknown to that industry. It's typical of America's left, and should not be unexpected in the most litigious society to ever have populated the Earth. What is unexpected is a court system that gives such claimants any standing to bring such suits. Once upon a time, our legal system had the discretion to deem such suits "frivolous", and refuse to hear them. That discretion still exists - but through disuse has arguably been rendered moot.

I also understand that our courts are presided over by lawyers (who have risen above the practice of law) and have since become the interpreters and arbiters of law. IMHO this condition feeds into validating ridiculous suits, so that judges may support those yet practicing the profession (feeding the faithful, so to speak) from which they were spawned. Our laws have become so complex, and so outside the realm of logic, that today one MUST acquire the services of an attorney for almost any legal document or action. We need some Courts of Common Sense in America once again. Just my 2¢ worth. Pax...

skidmark said:

And once more you demonstrate why we need a facepalm smiley instead of a mere :banghead:

I hereby promise to give you a quazillion bazillion dollars if you can show me just one way in which a private business can infringe your (or anybody else's) Second Amendment rights.

And please note, it's infringe, not "violate" - unless those rights have suddenly obtained corporeal form and been physically assaulted.

Nor can a business prevent one from carrying (be it firearms or shopping bags, or a torch for that girl in the third grade). The best they can do is prohibit you from doing so on their property.

The problem with pretending to be Humpty Dumpty ("Words mean what I want them to mean.") is that after a while people forget that you are pretending. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100917040934AA0VoDu




stay safe.

Click to expand...

Pay up sucker ! Thousands of "NO GUN" signs denying you your civil RBKA .... I'll take it in bitcoin please.



(oh, just because a law or court allows it ... does that mean it is not an infringement?)

I hope this is the correct thread for this comment.

I was explaining to my, girlfriend, that I don't knowingly spend money at anti-gun businesses because being anti-gun is really being anti-rights period.
I then then when on to point out that anyone who is against the RTKBA is against the whole constitution, freedom/liberty, and the freedom of speech. I also explained that without arms (guns) that you don't have any rights.

She then asked what rights are.
I told her that rights exist outside the existence of government. That anything that requires the existence of government to have as a right is not a natural right.
She did not understand this. I explained that liberty/freedom is the right/ability to say, "no." Being armed asserts our right to say, "no."
She told me that you don't need to be armed to say, "no."
So I asked how else can you assert your rights?
She didn't know.
I then explained to her that these anti-rights (anti-gun) groups would have women not resist a rape.
She then went into her beliefs about rape.... That sometimes you have to stop resisting or some nonsense like that.
I was trying to explain to her that these anti-rights groups believe that a woman should not resist rape and they frown on any woman who would assert herself against a, would be, rapist.

She then wanted to use emotional arguments to say that guns are bad.....

She then admitted that she is not an anti-gunner but that she didn't like guns. I told her then don't buy one.

I did open carry on our first date so as to not have any surprises later. So, I think that some sense may slowly leak into her.
------


This is the way that they, The Moms Who Demand Unarmed Rape Victims, (Moms demand action for gun sense in America) seem to think.

Keep this in mind if you ever have a public (or any) confrontation (which I am sure they will initiate) with any of them. Logic will not work on them, they will ignore facts, the only thing they seem to care about is creepy touchy feelings.

So, the best way we can counter act some of their work is to tell the truth about the, Moms for Unarmed Victims, stance. Some of these "moms" seem to also be the mothers/friends/family of criminals who have been shot by their, would be, victims.


----


So, feel free to share stories here. https://www.facebook.com/unarmed.victims?ref=hl#

This is satire to make a point.

Majority of Texans oppose gun rights. Riiiiiiiigghht...

stealthyeliminator said:

Majority of Texans oppose gun rights. Riiiiiiiigghht...

Click to expand...

Ha ha ha " a race to extremism"....just as bad as being called "regressive" for not wanting more control by the state.

So, guess what I did at the gun show today? It most definitely did not involve a background check, just cash and handshake

Jordan6679;2010242 [IMG said:

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/12/01/sanu5e9e.jpg[/IMG]

Click to expand...

40% from gun shows is a blatant lie.
http://www.therightsphere.com/2013/01/a-fact-about-gun-sales-that-does-not-hold-up/
&
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/guns-acquired-without-background-checks/

More recently, a Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates convicted of firearm crimes found that 79 percent acquired their firearms from “street/illegal sources” or “friends or family.” This includes theft of firearms, black market purchases of stolen firearms, and straw purchases. The survey also found that 12 percent obtained their firearms from firearm dealers (gun stores, pawn shops), while only 1.7 percent obtained firearms from anyone (dealer or non-dealer) at a gun show or flea market.[SUP]4[/SUP]

In 1991, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms reported that 37% of armed career criminals obtained firearms from street sales, 34% from criminal acts and associates, 8% from relatives, and only 7% from dealers and 6% from flea markets and gun shows.6

Studies, for Congress, the CDC, and the NIJ, of more intrusive gun control restrictions, have found no evidence that any of them reduced crime.[SUP]14[/SUP]
http://www.gunbanfacts.com/universal-background-checks.aspx

This was recently posted by mda, they know nothing.

http://nb.momsdemandaction.org/open_letter_please_prohibit_guns_at_your_stores

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk