6 thoughts on “Which is more effective?

  1. To play the contrarian here. It depends on what your trying to accomplish? As we all know gun-free zones are more like weapons-free zones. Just for communist morons. Which all other communist morons support.
    And after a cursory examination of the mass-shooter class of ’22. I don’t think they can read. And understanding international symbols would be very challenging for them.
    As for being heavily armed. We should put up gun-free zone signs to draw them in. Not advertising their execution.
    Cause the only way this ends is with one of us…..gone.
    But you and the NRA are right. We know which is better at maintaining a polite society.

    • Gun free zones are not gun free, let alone weapons free. What they are is defenseless victim zones. The criminals are, at best, unaffected by such zones, and more often are in fact encouraged by them.
      The Buffalo shooter made this point in his manifesto, and it’s well known by other examples such as the Aurora cinema shooter.

      • Got it. Sorry if I confused. You might look up “weapons free”, in a military context.

  2. Yeah; more effective at what? Is the goal to uphold, restore and maintain individual freedom of conscience, and what we think of as property rights (the Ten Commandments), or to eradicate them?

    Which sign will piss off an authoritarian or criminal the most? That would be the more pertinent question because the authoritarians/criminals are running the world and it is therefore their opinions which matter most (for the time being).

    So, long before you try to decide, or even think of demonstrating, what is “more effective” you must first establish a clear goal, or set of priorities, that other people can understand, agree upon and embrace, and then stick to them. But being characterized by our tolerance and ecumenical nature, being willing to hold fast to nothing but compromise, tolerance and change, we have utterly and completely failed to do any such thing.

    It’s a bit like vigorously trying to build something, enjoining other engineers and construction workers to help us build, but never agreeing on what it is we think we’re building, thus ending up with a crew divided into several factions, each trying to undo everything that the other factions are doing.

    I would say to the authoritarians that if you can’t accept the original founding principles of our nation, as embodied in our founding documents, then you should find the authoritarian paradise of your choice and go there, and leave the hated libertarians alone, and then of course choke on the obvious results. But that will never happen because an authoritarian cannot tolerate the existence of any free society anywhere, ever, and also of course because they will always need someone from whom to steal.

    The best hunting ground for any criminal is a semi-free society. It will be only just free enough to have some wealth to plunder, but ecumenical or “open-minded” enough to allow the criminal such latitude as he can operate in plain view and under government protection. So getting back to your question of the two signs and which is “more effective”; I’d say that both must co-exist, thus maintaining the requisite confusion and frustration. Duh! It’s the Dialectic Method in action. Good Cop/Bad Cop always works, no matter how often it is exposed for what it is.

    • There is a different interpretation of the question.

      The question can be used to distinguish friend from foe.

Comments are closed.