It sends a message that it’s not cool to just walk around with a gun all the time because bad things happen.
Kurt Geissel
August 18, 2013
McGinn asking Seattle businesses to go ‘gun-free’
[It “sends a message” alright. But it’s not the messages they think they are sending.
The message they are sending is that they don’t want the business of this nations 80 million gun owners. Would they consider putting up signs saying “No colored people allowed”? There are only about 42 million people that identify as “black” or “African American” in this country. There are approximately twice as many gun owners.
The message they are sending is that the people that visit and work at their business are unarmed potential victims. If a criminal is looking for soft targets then these people are self identifying. They are like a deer with a limp with a pack of wolves looking for dinner.
The message they are sending is they are more interested in sending messages of narrow minded bigotry than in the principles of this country or the state of Washington.
And most importantly the message they are sending is they are the type of people who have crap for brains and that think “sending messages” accomplishes something useful.—Joe]
Why is it any more okay for a store to discriminate against gun owners than it is for another store to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a queer marriage?
In my town of Gresham, OR, there is such a bakery, and the full weight of the state government in being used to bully the shop owners now for their recent refusal, in which they cited religious grounds.
Bearing arms is a protected status, as ordered by SCOTUS. Being queer is a protected status ordered by the Legislature.
Why is the Constitution enforced in the one case and refused in the second? Laws for me but not for thee is called ANARCHY in my book.
Not to nitpick, but “laws for thee but not for me” would be “tyranny”, right? “no laws for anyone” would be anarchy. But, I agree with your statement. The Left never uses logic, facts, or applies their own laws to their own situation. “1st Amendment Rights!!! Unless you disagree with what I’m saying, then RACIST!!!”
Minor Point. After the Firearms Buying Frenzy that has occurred over the past year, I think there are probably a 100 Million Gun Owners now.
Mr. Geissel seems to be confused – isn’t the fact that bad things can happen one of the prime reasons to carry a weapon?
Yeah, that whole “cause because effect” thing the left has going, because, you know, math and history is hard.
We know cause has to come before effect, of course, and that “intended effects are not the same as actual real-world effects,” but many in the “command-and-control=goodness” community are rather vague on these concepts.
Your having a gun is a provocation, don’t you know. The left has a long history of that kind of thinking. The military might of England was “provocative” to the Germans in the 1930s. The military might of the U.S. was “provocative” to the Soviets. So “Peace” as we all know, is the lack of opposition to (and preferably the lack of any ability to oppose, and best of all the lack of any will to oppose) communist or jihadist military aggression and expansion.
Hence, “Peace” occurred in South Vietnam and Cambodia after the U.S. pulled out, and “Peace” is breaking out in the Middle East since the Arab Spring, and therefore John Kerry can take time off and celebrate.
As individuals (sorry; as a group – the left doesn’t recognize individuals except as representatives of groups) American gun owners are to be seen in the same light. If you have weapons and study their use, you are a provocateur and a threat to “Peace”. If things get violent it will of course therefore have been your fault. You bastard.
“If you want peace, prepare for war” has been true all throughout human history.
Nothing that’s happened in the past century has changed that – although the anti-gun folks seem to think it has. But try asking them to identify what’s different now, and all you’ll get is babble or blank stares.