Here the crux of the entire conversation, the gun-free zone signs don't work. They are not effective in preventing crime and it is not difficult to understand why.
You first have to understand the difference between everyday, run of the mill, concealed carry citizens and criminals.
Statistics show that people who are licensed, concealed carry permit holders have proven themselves to be the most law abiding people in any area. Some studies suggest that these people adhere to the law more strictly than even police officers. Likewise, citizens who practice constitutional carry, where the law permits, are shown to be similar to their permit holding counterparts. On the other hand, criminals who carry concealed do not abide by local, state, and federal laws. They either don't bother to know the law or they blatantly disregard the law. How do we know this? First of all, the very definition of the word criminal is, a person who commits a crime. That really should be self explanatory. Secondly, in case it wasnt, the criminals who shoot people in gunfree zones have no regard for life, let alone laws.
A gun-free zone is a place which has a plastic or painted sign depicting a gun with a line drawn through it. Rarely does this artwork come equipped with bulletproof glass, metal detectors, armed guards, or any other safety measures. Therefore, when a criminal, who has no qualms about breaking the laws which state things such as; a felon cannot legally possess a firearm, stealing a firearm is illegal, trafficking stolen firearms is illegal, discharge of a firearm is illegal within city limits, and most importantly, murder is illegal, it is laughable to think that a plastic sign on a doorway is going to be the one strong suggestion which will gain their attention and magically provides the deterrent to breaking the previously stated laws.
To be blunt, the criminal is already aware that their actions have consequences. How do we make it more illegal to murder someone? What would an effective deterrent to that be? A sign? A sign on a door which has nothing inside to back up the suggestion that the business owner, employees, and patrons refuse to be victims of criminals and their criminal activity? That's all it takes to stop someone from breaking the law?
Of course not. That's ridiculous.
So then, in a gunfree zone, when a criminal decides to break several laws in order to commit a crime, and you are stuck with only the ability to try to hide behind that plastic sign on the door, instead of having the ability to adequately defend yourself, how many bullets will that sign deflect? How much more illegal will your murder be? How much more time will they get added onto their prison sentence simply because they walked past a sign painted or hung on a door? Will that get you home safely to your loved ones? Will that stop the criminal from hurting or killing others? Will it deter the next criminal who is contemplating ignoring a sign?
That, my friends, is why gun-free zone signs don't save lives.
Laws are a form of deterrent based upon consequences. However, if the person is not deterred by the action or consequences of breaking the law, a sign is most certainly not going to stop them. In fact, the only people who notice and abide by these signs are the very people who have proven to be the safest people to be around. But, hey, if you don't want us to come into your place of business we are happy to go make another business safe and profitable while we practice our Second Amendment protected right to defend ourselves and others.
We are law abiding citizens after all and we respect your rights, even when you've shown us that you don't respect ours.
By now I'm sure you've seen the memes going around, propagated by Obama's forlorn and melancholy bootlickers, which tout things such as, "My reaction when Obama's term is over and I realize he never came for my guns."
I feel as though I must address this nonsense which liberal, anti gun, instigators are claiming as validation of their relentless attacks on pro Second Amendment citizens of the United States of America. These progressive fascists are accurate that the former (good riddance) president did not institute martial law and send forces door to door to collect our Second Amendment protected firearms. However, it was not for lack of trying.
For instance, the amount of times he took to the media spotlight to call for action against law abiding citizens, exercising their constitutionally protected right to bear arms in the wake of a criminal, domestic terrorist, attack is in the double digits. Every time a crazed murder made horrific and tragic headlines; such as Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, and the Orlando night club, to name a few, Obama was there, on screen, with his pen and phone vowing to bypass Congress (the elected representatives of the American constituents) in the name of "justice."
Obama did not stop at veiled threats against the law abiding citizens of America who exercise their right to bear arms. He, in fact, did bypass Congress with his pen and phone by issuing numerous executive orders which did nothing to hinder or eradicate criminal activity, but only hindered and impeded on the rights of those who live within our nation's laws.
No, Obama did not "come and take" our guns. For that you can, and should, thank those who stood in the gap for the protection of the constitutional rights of all Americans, gun owners or not. You should thank them for consistently, tirelessly, and relentlessly, keeping Obama in check and exposed as the enemy of our Constitutional Republic that he has repeatedly proven himself to be.
So, to you smug and smarmy progressive parasites, you are welcome. Because of people such as my colleagues, we continue to be a Constitutional Republic. We continue to be able to protect all of the rights you take for granted and try to bend to your agenda everyday. We, as Americans, continue to observe the notion that our lives are worth protecting in the most effective manner, with the most efficient technology, available to us today. We take great pride in the fact that we met the wolf at the door and we did not cower in fear, but we rose in defense of our freedom and in protection of those who could not, and even would not, protect themselves.
Obama, though he tried doggedly, making it his presidential mission and biggest regret, did in impotence try to come for our guns.
He simply did not count on the fact that Americans across the nation would slam the door in his face.
We all know that guy, or gal, who has a problem for every solution. They are the ones who upon reading an uplifting article that someone is finally standing up to an anti gun lobby, and their well compensated elected representatives, comment things such as, "Yeah right, nice try but that'll never happen in New Jersey" or "California is a lost cause, they need to just secede already" or (my personal #1 pet peeve) "Who cares what that anti gun politician (and/or celebrity) says. We can just ignore them. No big deal."
I get it, after years of being lambasted for exercising your inherent rights, browbeaten for standing up for the Second Amendment, and steamrolled by an overreaching government, you are exhausted. So, go do what you've got to do to regroup and recharge. Just be sure that you are not standing in the way of others who are picking up your place in the fight.
Ignoring anti gun legislation and rhetoric is precisely what got us in this pit of government over regulation and infringement which we've been trying to climb out of.
Allowing the voices against our unalienable right to defend ourselves to be the only voices heard by an entire generation, who readily inhale pop culture as if it were oxygen, is not only foolish, it is disastrous. The days of keeping to ourselves and hoping that the antis eventually read the Constitution, wake up, and stop trampling on our rights is long past proven to be ineffective. We must meet them at every turn, counter every blow, and not give up.
Likewise, just because you happen to live in a relatively 2A friendly state, you are still a vital part of this fight. Your fellow Americans who live in California, New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, and other states which are vehemently opposed to gun ownership, are still American citizens. These states, whether they like it or not, are still part of the Untited States of America. As such, they are still governed by the Constitution of the United States of America. When those citizens rights are being infringed all of us who believe in the sanctity of our unalienable rights should take it as a personal affront.
Even if you are not prepared to be among those of us who take it as a personal responsibility to be on the daily frontline of this fight to educate, empower, and restore our rights, do not stand somewhere behind us and shoot us in the back with your tepid, lazy, surrender mentality, and backbiting comments.
As the old saying goes, "People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it."
To those of you who are out there making a difference and being a positive force in the fight for our Second Amendment; posing solutions instead of complaints, educating instead of impeding, and not giving up, you have made all the difference.
Keep up the good fight! We are honored to be at your side.
In fact, we out here in fly-over country are quite capable of living our everyday lives without your opinion ever being heard. We marvel at how utterly condescending you are to think that somehow the words which spill off your lips will feed, clothe, house, and protect us. We’ve been managing our entire lives without your sudden burst of wisdom on how to best live.
No, I don’t want you to stop having an opinion. I just don’t want to hear it.
You see, I have these things called morals. They prohibit me from paying my hard earned money to go see your movies, concerts, and purchasing your branded items in stores and online when you tell me things like how much you donate to, or promote, the restriction of my constitutionally protected rights, such as the Second Amendment. Now, I realize that I am only one person and you don’t give a rodent’s hind-end about my measly little contribution to your net worth. However, there are many more out here in the real world, far from the stage lights, the closed door high roller political donor parties, and world of paid security, who feel the same way.
The next time you feel the need to pontificate your vast wisdom ask yourself who it is that you think really cares about your opinion. You may be surprised to find that it’s not as desired as you’ve been lead to believe.
You’ve been hired to entertain. Do us all a favor and stick to that.
Political correctness, along with the “it takes a village” mantra, has already been hard at work eroding the foundation of imaginary play for many years. For instance, when was the last time you saw a group of children playing an imaginary warfare game in the yard? Everything from Cowboys and Indians, to GI Joe, to capture the flag, has nearly gone extinct.
We have children being suspended from school, or at least threatened with suspension, for acts such as bringing a two inch long Lego toy gun, a Hello Kitty bubble gun, pointing their fingers in an L-shape on the playground, drawing pictures of a firearm on a piece of paper, and chewing their breakfast pastry into a “gun-like shape.”
Now, we as gun owners and Second Amendment advocates are the first ones who will tell you that guns are NOT toys. The responsibility you hold each and every time you handle a firearm is astounding. We constantly stress the four cardinal rules of gun safety; Always treat every gun as if it is loaded, Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy, Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot, Always know your target and what is beyond.
That being said, we also understand that childhood imaginary play is preparation for situations that children might face in adulthood. Many studies (including, but not limited to, the Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development: Young Children's Play Fighting and Use of War Toys) have proven how vital it is for children to interpret and express the information they are obtaining from the world around them in a safe and risk-free environment. Play-fighting is a normal and natural part of childhood development. It is as vital to a child’s development as the imaginary role-play including playing house, playing with dolls, playing in a toy kitchen, or workshop.
How did we, as American parents, go from teaching and reinforcing gun safety through play to teaching intolerance and abhorrence of firearms?
First of all, we allowed the nanny state to begin to override our parental duties. We shifted the responsibility of teaching gun safety off on to groups and organizations which were coming into the classroom to teach it for us. Then, those groups and organizations, very subtly, stopped being asked to return and began to be replaced with the zero tolerance policies we are accustomed to today.
Now, I’m going to ask you a question which I personally spend quite a lot of time pondering.
Why do you believe there has been such a relentless attack on kids playing imaginary games with toy weapons? What was the harm in those old western style showdown reenactments? Why are we expelling kids from their education over wielding a stick which happens to be in the shape of an L? Why is play-fighting now the equivalent to, and completely indistinguishable, from real fighting? What is the end goal?
My friends, I wager to bet that you already know the answer to those questions, don’t you?
Now, what are we doing about it?
Is anyone else out there as sick and tired of hearing these loopy-libs whining about make-believe loopholes as I am? Yeah, I thought so.
As you may have noticed, the loophole argument has made yet another surge to try and match stride with the intensity of this particular election cycle. Just like clockwork, we are hearing the same worn-out old sound bites about gun show loopholes as well as internet gun sale loopholes.
You and I know that this particular progressive talking point is complete and utter hogwash. However, there are still many under-educated people who know nothing about firearm transaction laws and regulations. These individuals insist that anyone can waltz right into any gun show, anywhere in the country, slap some cash on the counter, and no questions asked, walk out with a gun. Granted, there was once a time when that was the case. Back in the days of personal responsibility and free trade, when the government didn’t have it’s hands in every aspect of our lives, people were free to buy and sell their personal property as they deemed fit. However, bureaucratic red tape and infinite regulation have since stepped in. We now have to beg permission, and buy a license, from the government in order to sell firearms to our fellow citizens. When you follow their rules and become a Federal Firearms Licensee (commonly known as an FFL) you are bound by law to either run a background check through the federal NICS database, or establish that the purchaser has already passed aforementioned background check during the application process to be a licensed concealed carry permit holder. This must be done at the time of purchase/transfer. This is true no matter where the transaction takes place; be it at a gun shop, gun show, kitchen table, internet, or parking lot. There is absolutely no exemption to this federal law. In fact, if you purchase a firearm over the internet, the seller must ship the gun to an FFL in the purchaser’s home state. Whereupon, the purchaser must pass this same background check process before the FFL will release the gun to the purchaser, even if the monetary transaction has already been completed.
It is already against federal law to lie to an FFL in order to purchase a firearm. That is what is referred to as a straw purchase. You cannot lie about your ability to legally possess a firearm, and you cannot purchase a firearm in order to transfer it to another person who is not legally able to posses a firearm. Fun fact: if someone makes a straw purchase on your behalf, and you are the actual recipient of the firearm, you have also broken federal law by aiding and abetting the straw purchaser.
Faced with these facts, the left will at this point bemoan private gun sale transactions. (Please, allow me to make myself perfectly clear in this side note: I believe that it is absolutely, positively, no one’s business - not even the government- what you do with your private property. Period. End of story. Now, to get back on topic…) There are currently eighteen states, plus D.C., which implement some form of background check requirement in addition to federal law when it comes to person to person gun sales. The remaining 32 states still fall under the federal law when buying and selling firearms. One of these laws is that it is illegal for the following persons to possess a firearm; felons, fugitives, unlawful users or addicts to a controlled substance, persons who have been adjudicated as mentally “defective” or who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, illegal and non-immigrant aliens, persons dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, persons who have renounced their U.S. citizenship, persons who are the subject of a qualifying domestic protection order, and persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Any and all of these persons are breaking the law if they purchase and/or possess a firearm. If a private seller knowingly, or even unknowingly, sells a firearm to anyone who falls into any category listed above, they are liable to be held as accountable for aiding and abetting a criminal. Therefore, lawful, upstanding gun owners who enjoy their rights more than the few bucks made off of a gun sale will, without a doubt, screen their potential buyers regardless of whether the government is demanding they do so in their state or not. Private sellers who knowingly and willfully sell to the persons listed above are involved in gun trafficking.
That brings me to the part of this discussion that the anti-gun progressives despise. There is in fact a loophole. It is not a loophole in the current gun laws as those against gun ownership would lead you to believe. The loophole is in the prosecution of those who have broken the existing laws. Believe it or not, there is no actual federal law to prohibit what is referred to as gun trafficking (think Operation Fast and Furious); though H.R. 3455 - Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2015 is currently sitting in a House subcommittee. However, even if this bill passes through legislation and becomes law, we face the very real and prevalent loophole which is the selective and/or non enforcement of current gun laws. Our very own Vice President Joe Biden is on record as stating that the Department of Justice “doesn’t have time” to prosecute those who lie on their background check forms and commit straw purchases. Even the former ATF Director, B. Todd Jones, admitted at his confirmation hearing, while being questioned by Sen. Ted Cruz, that out “of 48,321 cases involving straw buyers, the Justice Department prosecuted only 44 of them.” He sited “hard decisions” were made based on “limited resources.”
There is your loophole. It has nothing to do with gun shows or private sales. It has everything to do with a government which passes inhibiting legislation, based on agendas, without the means or desire to enforce the laws which it has created.
Criminals will find ways to illegally obtain and possess firearms. They do so by only two means. One, they have no record of doing anything previous to the background check which would show any seller, FFL or otherwise, that they are legally unable to purchase a firearm, and then they go out and commit a crime. Or two, they break the existing laws, committing a crime, in order to purchase/possess a firearm. In either case, background checks are proven to be noneffective.
If after sharing this with your progressive, anti-gun, friends and neighbors they are still staunch in their resolve to cry out over the injustice of loopholes, I hope that they are now at least aware of the line between myth and reality. The loopholes they claim to despise are not with our local gun sellers. The loophole is actually in the non enforcement of our nation’s current laws which are produced, and overwhelmingly ignored, by our legislators and federal prosecutors. Now, there is something which they can direct their disdain toward.
In response to these incidents, most normal people would want additional means to protect themselves, especially in regards to the mass stabbing incident. Even more so when one considers previous mass casualty incidents like the one perpetrated by Omar Mateen in Tampa and the Tsnarniev brothers bombing and shooting in Boston. I say normal people for a reason, mainly because citizen control advocates (oops sorry- strike that) gun control advocates are most definitely not normal. Why would I say something like that?
As I have said before- I am glad you asked!
This week Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said during a press conference that the Democrat gun control bill would prevent attacks like the ones that happened this past week.
You read that correctly.
Gun control would prevent bombings and stabbings.
Now I do try to be fair minded and give people the benefit of the doubt, so I spent the entire afternoon pondering how a gun control measure would prevent people from making bombs out of pressure cookers and keep people from stabbing one another. I took literally hours of my time to contemplate Sen Reid’s statements and how they would prevent another bombing or stabbing (especially since the good guy with the gun shot the bad guy with the knife). I looked at it from every possible angle, stretching the boundaries of logic and suspending my disbelief and have come to a conclusion.
That conclusion is based on a principle laid out by Franciscan philosopher John Punch: Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate. This translates into “Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” and is commonly referred to as Occam’s Razor. The core of the concept means that the simplest hypothesis is usually the correct one.
My theory is that gun control advocates are bats**t insane and this is how I reached that conclusion:
There is no way curtailing firearms leads to preventing a bombing. There is no way curtailing firearms leads to preventing a bombing. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch. It’s not even an “Apples & Oranges” scenario. It’s an “Apples & Boeing 747” scenario.
Bombs are used in bombings, not guns. Knives are used in stabbings, not guns (unless you count bayonet charges and as far as I know the last bayonetting was during the Viet Nam war).
In spite of this indisputable fact, in spite of common sense, in spite of every single individual with more than a passing knowledge of the English language understanding that bombs are used for bombings and knives are used for stabbing, gun control advocates want you to believe that gun control will stop bombings and stabbings.
To take this a step further the mindless drones of Moms Demand Action, Everytown, and the rest of those who believe whatever Shannon Watts and her ilk are paid to say by Bloomberg, believe this as if it were Holy Writ from the God and/or Goddess of your choice. They think this is truth. They think gun control will stop bombings. They think gun control will stop stabbings. They hold this to be a Truth (capitalized purposely) with the same zealotry as an ISIS fighter believes it is perfectly OK to saw someone’s head off on YouTube with a dull AK bayonet.
Now there is a term in the dictionary that covers this very situation. That term is delude, and its derivative deluded. Delude is defined as taking action to impose a misleading belief upon someone; deceive; fool. The derivative deluded is defined as believing things that are not real or true. Now that is what the dictionary has to say about these people. More accurately, it is what the Oxford English Dictionary has to say about them.
I prefer a more modern, hip, and trendy source.
The Urban Dictionary defines people like Watts, Bloomberg and Ladd Everitt as Bulls**t Artists. A bulls**t artist is someone who lies/boasts incessantly, usually to comedic effect, intentional or accidental. You can’t get any closer to an accurate description of the gun control industry shills and financiers than that.
The Urban Dictionary even goes so far as to define what they say. Their statements are called diarrhetoric, which is sewage, typically disguised as informed discussion that is often used by politicians, lawyers, and big business interests instead of honest dialogue in order to control the weak-minded by convincing them to believe something demonstrably false. (I really REALLY like this term- you’ll see it again for sure).
Now we have definitions for the big whigs of the gun control industry. What about their followers? Well we have all heard the term before as it is used quite frequently. That term is “Sheep” which the Urban Dictionary defines as a group of people who lack the capacity for careful consideration, imagination, or individual thought, who then go with the groupthink and allow god awful trends and events to unfold and make us all miserable. Talk about hitting a nail on the head...
But it is their mental state which concerns me. We all know the money men, 1% elitists, and their paid mouthpieces don’t believe the diarrhetoric (told you that you’d see it again) they spew. They proclaim good guys with guns don’t stop bad guys with guns, from behind a Spartan phalanx of heavily armed goons. Their hypocrisy is legendary. They have elevated it to an art form which can be admired for its artistry, if not for its message… but I digress.
The Urban Dictionary describes their mental state just as accurately as it describes them, and those who tell them what to think, along with the message that those gun control leaders try to get across. It is a grand, eloquent, and most importantly scientifically accurate definition. That definition is bats**t, which is defined as a level of insanity that the word alone cannot justify (used as a prefix). Hence my theory that these people are bats**t insane.
Now, when one considers my theory that gun control advocates are bats**t insane, that the hypothesis I used to develop my theory confirms to the principle of Occam’s Razor, and that the hypothesis and the theory it was developed from is correct based on the scientific method of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of my hypotheses; one can confidently state that my theory can and will hold up to peer review and outside scrutiny.
- Mr. Decker
As articles, etc popped into my newsfeed this morning, I read a few, and also saw/read some comments on the link. These comments appalled me and got me thinking about something. Why is it when a tragedy occurs, we all automatically jump to a political stance, whether it be firearms, refugees, race, etc?
While I am a staunch supporter of the 2A, I am also a person, a mother, a wife. When did we as a society become so focused on our politics, that in the wake of tragedy we start shouting our beliefs before all details are out or bodies are cold, and families have been notified? Do I feel that gun free zones create victims? Yes. Am I going to start pushing my 2A rights and exclaiming how a gun or a non gun free zone would have prevented this. NO!
This fact, disgusts and appalls me. We can all be advocates for our individual or collective causes, but lets take a moment in the wake of these tragedies and show love, compassion, and solidarity. Bickering, fighting, and pushing our agendas does NOTHING to help the victims and the communities in which these tragedies happen. Start going out to the communities and helping them in whatever way they need. Post support for them, say a prayer, send out good vibes, whatever it is that you believe.
We need to stop the hate and the agenda pushing after any tragedy that occurs. We NEED to remember that there are real people who are affected by them and are in mourning or states of shock and trying to process what happened.
There is a time and a place for pushing our agenda(s). After a tragedy is NOT one of them.
We have detailed numerous instances of the sick and twisted behavior of gun control advocates here. From the Communications Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence stalking and harassing a pre-pubescent girl on Twitter (to the point of demanding alone time with her), to gun control advocate and CGSV fanboi Johnathan Romans telling people to shoot open carriers on sight, to Shannon Watts bemoaning the arrest of a white man who beat a black senior citizen because he didn’t think the black man should be allowed to carry a firearm, the litany of violent wishes and actions from the “peaceful and tolerant” gun control advocates is long and storied.
Nothing beats the latest s**t show to arise from Bloomberg’s pockets: “Betsy Riot”.
What exactly is a Betsy Riot (other than another Bloomberg astroturf “movement)?
It is a group that advocates acts of mass vandalism. Seriously. I’m not kidding. They openly advocate for the destruction of other’s property. These people have taken it upon themselves to break the law… to get the message across that we need more laws. Gun grabber logic at its finest right there.
Some examples have included destroying magazines they don’t like, vandalizing Starbucks restrooms, vandalizing a Field & Stream store, vandalizing merchandise in WalMart, vandalizing and destroying books and magazines they don’t like… they even vandalized a Veteran’s truck. A visit to their Facebook page shows these and hundreds more examples of criminal acts by this group.
Now as far as I know promoting vandalism is against Facebook’s Terms of Service. Here is what Facebook has to say about the topic:
Theft, Vandalism, or Fraud
We are trying to make the world a more open, connected, and ultimately better place. Organizing acts that harm others through theft, vandalism, or fraud is a violation of our terms.
Now what happens when one tries to report Betsy Riot, which not only organizes acts of vandalism but openly encourages this criminal behavior? Want to guess? If you’re reading this then you probably already know the answer.
Organizing acts of vandalism isn’t a violation of the Terms of Service, despite the Terms of Service saying organizing acts of vandalism is against said Terms of Service.
As you are all aware, Facebook has been killing pro 2A pages right and left. I take that back, they have been killing off kid’s Airsoft pages, Veteran pages… they even killed off a cap gun collector page. None of those pages were doing anything that even remotely violated the Terms of Service. What they did do was rustle the jimmies of people who think that they have the right to decide how you should live your life.
Kids playing with toys? BAN THEM! People who grew up in the 70s who want to discuss 50 year old cap guns? BAN THEM! Combat Veterans who discuss hunting and shooting? BAN THEM! Anything the gun control lobby takes offense to is wiped from the Facebook servers, while groups like Betsy Riot are allowed to continue to promote the destruction of others property with impunity.
Now Facebook is a private business, and is free to remove whatever content they wish. The 1st Amendment doesn’t come into play as it is not a government agency stifling the expression of 2nd Amendment support (or the discussion of 50 year old toys for that matter). I do have one question for Zuckerberg and his radical progressive staff though.
Why even bother taking up server space with a detailed Terms of Service when the TOS means absolutely nothing?
Seriously. I ask the question with zero snark whatsoever.
Why not just come out and write a new TOS that states “Groups who fall in line with our political views can organize and advocate criminal behavior up to and including homicide, while groups who offend our delicate sensibilities will be removed with no explanation given”?
In all honesty it would not only clarify things for Facebook users but be a much more accurate representation of actual Facebook policy rather than be nothing more than meaningless fluff that has absolutely no bearing on whether a post or page will be removed. We know your TOS should be termed BS. You know your TOS should be termed BS. Why not be open and accurate?
In my line of work accuracy counts. Language needs to be very specific and the words used have definitive meaning. If I do not communicate my analysis and thoughts exactly, people’s lives are placed in jeopardy. Now obviously Facebook Terms of Service don’t have that kind of impact, however many people utilize Facebook as a primary means of communication with friends and family. Many people rely on it as a way to expand or maintain their business. In my opinion Facebook should be open and transparent and just let people know that their pages can be removed because someone on Facebook’s staff disagrees with their politics.
Doing so would also save a lot of time. When normal people report things like people advocating things such as vandalism, theft, assault, and homicide, they expect the post to be removed. They then get a response from Facebook that advocating killing people isn’t against the Terms of Service. In the interest of streamlining the Facebook experience, a clarified TOS that omits such advocacy is allowed so long as the actions are being directed against those whose opinions do not follow whatever pablum Salon spewed that week would go a long way to keep people from wasting their time with reporting those kinds of posts.
Heck it would even save ol’ Zuckerberg some money. The staff he has on the payroll whose job it is to review posts that are reported could be cut in half. Write some code so that if a report comes in from someone who has the words “Second Amendment”, “gun”, “Veteran”, “Warfighter”, “Constitution” and other terms which are an anathema to progressives on their page anywhere, it automatically generates a response that no action will be taken. Conversely if a report comes in from someone who has words like “Hillary”, “#gunsense”, “Moms Demand”, "#CocksNotGlocks" or any other progressive causes on their profile, it automatically bans & deletes the person/page reported.
Just trying to help here Zuck…. you should hire me as a cost cutting consultant... this one is free though. Just because I like you.
- Mr. Decker
Hello to all the 1MMAGC supporters out there! I once again apologize for not having written more, but I have been out of the country somewhere and the internet connections we do get are sketchy at best. One of the things I determined to complete when I got back was to get a civilian concealed handgun permit. As a retired law enforcement officer, I can carry nationwide on my badge and ID under the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act (often referred to as HR218), but I wanted a civilian permit as well in the event I was unable to make a yearly qualification stateside. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
My trip back home brought me into Ft. MacDill, so my choice was to get my permit through Florida. In addition to walking off the plane and into the class, Florida has quite a reciprocity list so choosing FL was a total no-brainer. I made arrangements to attend a class taught by an NRA certified instructor at a local gun shop and range.
The next day I show up bright and early, I’m the first person there, and get ushered in the back and take my seat. This is where the surprise comes in.
As additional students come in over the course of the next half hour, I come to realize I am in the minority as a middle aged white guy. The anti-gunners and citizen control crowd all like to paint gun owners as… well… me. Middle aged white guys. That stereotype may have been true 20 years ago, but now the demographics are shifting.
We had 32 people in the class. Seven were white guys and of those seven, only 3 were middle aged. Less than 10% of the class was comprised of what the gun grabbers say are typical gun owners. The rest were made up of young people, senior citizens, minorities and women. There was a young black husband and wife getting their carry permit together. There was an old blue haired grandma. There were people from every possible walk of life sitting in that classroom. Every demographic was present from college kids to senior citizens with about half the class being women.
After the day’s class was over, I approached the instructor and asked him if this was the typical demographic makeup of classes he had been teaching. This led into some rather serious discussion on minority and female empowerment, self reliance and a rejection of the notion that the most basic right we possess, the right to defend ourselves against aggression, should be reserved for those who are rich, powerful or famous. What I would love for everyone to know is that those views were being expressed by demographic groups typically not associated with firearm ownership and carriage.
What he had observed over the past few years was a shift of class participation from white males to minorities and females. Many of these people were first time gun owners (such as the blue haired grandma and her new-to-her Ruger SP-101 in .32 H&R Mag). His general view was that minorities and females are realizing that the gun control apparatus has been lying to them, and that the responsibility for their life, and the lives of their loved ones, rests in their own hands. Having made several new acquaintances during the class, and having exchanged the requisite business cards, and being a quasi-journalist, I decided to do some impromptu interviewing after supper.
As I reached out to classmates and asked them why they decided to take the class and to carry a firearm on a regular basis, the view of the instructor was verified. Almost to a person they hit on the same points that I have made as a 2A advocate. Their answers are familiar to anyone involved in the shooting sports:
It takes the police forever to show up.
The police don’t respond to my neighborhood because it is poor.
I live in a minority community and the police get there when they feel like it.
I don’t want to wait for someone to come help me- I can help myself.
I am a woman living alone- I am a target for an attacker.
I work late nights and walk home in the dark.
I was a victim once and will never allow it to happen again.
All of these are perfectly valid reasons to empower yourself. What I take heart from is that those giving those answers are a demographic the gun control industry has typically thought of as “theirs”. They have sought to ensure vulnerable populations remain defenseless, thereby ensuring new victims to point to in order to advance their elitist agenda. Their desires cannot be accomplished with an empowered population refusing to lay down and become victims. Their answer to aggression and violence is for people to pee on themselves, to hope that their attacker doesn’t kill them in the (average) 11 minutes it takes police to respond, to end the attack by asking their assailant to pet little fluffy bunnies or some other inane concept.
They need fresh bodies… plain and simple… and the people in my class, just like the thousands upon thousands in every CCW/CCH class across the country are telling the gun control industry that the body they need to advance their agenda won’t be theirs.
Seeing people step up and say “It won’t be me” is the beginning of the end for the gun control industry’s message. These are people sick and tired of being told “Good guys with guns don’t stop bad guys with guns” by a multi-millionaire that lives in a gated community speaking from behind a phalanx of heavily armed security. They are tired of “Gun Free Zones” that turn into killing fields because some ivory tower NY billionaire insists a sign on a wall will stop a madman bent on committing the ultimate crime against another human being. They are tired of hearing that an inanimate hunk of metal is to blame for the evil that lies within the hearts of some. More and more people nationwide are seeing, with crystal clarity, that the gun control industry is built on the equivalent of unicorns frolicking on rainbows, that their entire premise is pure 100% USDA Prime bovine scatological products.
I for one am glad.
- Mr. Decker
Blog posts are original content written by 1MMAGC moms and dads.