“It’s not about the guns; it’s about the people. Moms, kids and stores cannot tell the difference between a good guy and a bad guy.” – Moms Demand Action’s Christy Clark in ‘Moms’ group demands Harris Teeter ban openly carried guns in stores [at charlotteobserver.com]
These harpies never get the message. H-T has already said that they leave these deicsions up to the state legislatures. I wonder if they don’t know that H-T is a division of Kroger [I didn’t] which already told them to pound sand.
Now as to the question of how do you tell a good guy from a bad guy who is open carrying? Well, bad guys don’t usually show up when good guys are around.
Charlotte Observer reader Sean Moyer had an excellent comment:
“I can’t tell the difference between a good mom and an abusive mom. We should take all children away from their moms until they all go through back ground checks and take child raising classes. They also must go through a registration process and pay for an annual child rearing license. If it’s found out after all this that moms still abuse their children, all moms should be banned and have their children taken from them at the day of their childrens birth. It’s all in the name of safety you know.”
Indeed.
More to the point:
.
All persons who have the POTENTIAL of being in possession of a child, and thus a child abuser, should be required to have background check and a license to possess a child in the home.
.
A more intensive background check and mandatory training must be required to carry a child concealed upon the person outside the home.
.
Carrying a child openly in public shall be PROHIBITED!
..
For the Children.
.
Oh. And one little addition:
.
Especially carried or otherwise in-tow IN A SUPERMARKET where other people are shopping for food!
We know better, right. Kids should be removed from their mothers at conception.
Women should have to under go a background check and training BEFORE they conceive..
And have to account for a living child, 5 years later.
.
Well, it seems that that’s the way we’re headed.
+1 for that!
That’s amazing, but it’s too bad that sort of logical thinking and actually making the intelligent connection would be lost on any MDA member.
We have the same problem when we come up against MDA. How do we tell the difference between a sane woman and a nut job??
The nut job is wearing an MDA top. MDA nut jobs can be either/neither sex, BTW.
Is she wearing an MDA t-shirt? That’s a good first check.
If they are a member of MDA they are insane, if they oppose MDA they are sane. See? That is an easy one!
The good guy is the one buying stuff. The bad one is the one robbing and or shooting the place up.
Moms and kids are simply not able to make the kind of critical observations you’re suggesting. Only police and military.
MurrDog-That made me laugh!
*Drops the Mic*
Let’s keep it simpler, since I had no idea how nuanced this idea was.
Guy shooting/stabbing/running over/robbing people: Bad guy.
Guy with holster not doing any of those things: Good guy.
The good guy is the one walking through the store minding his own business.
The bad guy is the one who runs up, tackles him from behind, and takes his gun away.
Demands dammit! I can hear her pounding on something with her little angry fists right now.
It rapidly became clear that her fist wasn’t loud enough so she took off her shoe and pounded the table with it for emphasis, following the example of her hero and tireless worker for world peace and personal freedom Nikita Kruschev.
And there you have it.
This is MDA-Speak for “if you have a gun, you are a bad guy.”
Guilty until proven political correct (which is never).
The idea that there can be some kind of compromise with these people is like compromising with the SS and ONLY having half your family killed… until tomorrow when they come back to “Compromise” for the other half.
JR_in_NC,
It is also MDA speak for, “We must ban carry in public in the hope that it prevents attacks … because it is too late to bring back the dead by the time police arrive.”
In other words MDA is tacitly admitting that the police cannot protect us from a sudden, unexpected attack which, ironically, supports our position that we need to be armed in order to defend ourselves from sudden, unexpected attacks because the police certainly cannot do it!
“We refuse to leave our homes until you end all crime and establish peace on Earth!”
^is what I wish the petition said.
MDA typifies the Greek root of the word “Hysteria.”
Sam Wilson/Falcon: How can I tell the good guys from the bad guys? Captain America/Steve Rogers: If they try to shoot you, they’re bad.
Totally made me smile!
I was thinking along the lines of if you ban guns in public than the bad guys will be the ones with the guns.
That’s not necessarily true, there are good people who refuse to follow unjust laws. Doesn’t make them bad people.
If you ban guns only criminals will have guns, that’s as accurate as it can get. Whatever else you don’t do carrying that gun means you are a criminal.
It’s actually pretty easy:
Does the person have their gun holstered or slung? Do for all intents and purposes = Good Guy/Person
Does the person have their gun pointed at others, are they making threats, or actively shooting in a store? =Bad Guy/Person
Nevermind her blatantly sexist use of good/bad “guy” and the fact that she’s wholesale lying that it’s “not about the guns”.
“Nevermind her blatantly sexist use of good/bad “guy” and the fact that she’s wholesale lying that it’s “not about the guns”.”
Actually, I’d say she got that part right. Gun control is not about the gun, it’s about control.
And, in this case, it IS about the people…us. They don’t like us for $HISTRIONIC_EMOTIONAL_REASON. The reason could be because we like guns, or it could be because we don’t bend to their every whim. Or, it could be, as mentioned, just because we are “guys.”
But, the point is, even if they got rid of guns, the statist, authoritarian, elitist control seeking would continue. So, it truly NOT about guns, but is about We the People.
Everyone knows it is about control, which is why it was changed to “gunsense.”
Hey dearie, let me help you figure it out. If the person is pointing the gun at you or someone else, or shooting it at you or someone else without any physical provocation, they’re bad, otherwise they’re good.
Watch Captain America: The Winter Soldier if you need a simpler explanation.
If it’s all about people, then just get your action by banning BGs….
Or pass a law against crime!?
That’s correct, Larry, but we need more laws to create more crime and more criminals.
.
We can accomplish this by crafting laws that make crimes where no crimes formally existed.
.
I suggest that actions that make another person “feel bad” or “feel uncomfortable” be declared crimes.
That has happened in every school district in the country. Johnny and Jeannie cannot ever have hurt feelings being called out for not doing their homework, acting disrespectfully, or anything else.
And when these children grow up, start voting, running for office, and being elected to office?
.
What then, Paul?
.
This is actually pretty good reasoning. She understands that, once a place bans guns, the only people who have guns in there are the bad guys. You’ve made the hard work of identifying them much easier.
At that point, it’s much, much more difficult for the now-disarmed good guys to do anything about those pesky bad ones, but the Moms will cross that bridge when they come to it, I guess.
Indeed. It is also one method of many that is an attempt to demonize gun ownership and carry. It’s a bit more subtle than others, which arguably makes it more effective (if people accept it at face value).
For her to say that she can’t tell the difference between a good guy and bad guy is her insulting her own intelligence and everyone else’s.
If, for example, a man/woman has a holstered gun on hip, gets a grocery cart and starts putting food in it … guess what … they’re probably grocery shopping. It’s reasonably safe to assume it is not a bad guy.
On the other hand, if a man/woman has gun in hand and is pointing it at a cashier … it’s probably safe to assume it is a bad guy.
Observation and thinking are what’s required. To say that it’s impossible to tell is fear-mongering and dishonest.
For her to say that she can’t tell the difference between a good guy and bad guy is her insulting her own intelligence and everyone else’s.
Actually, i think it’s pointing out her complete lack thereof. With lights, arrows, and bullhorns.
But knowing is half the battle!
Someone just told me that the president of FSU is currently arguing against CC on campus with the argument that police won’t know who to shoot if good guys have guns. I guess he means only on campus, since the police in other places don’t seem to have the problem.
Let’s hear it again for the Campus Police everywhere !!!!
.
Especially at FSU and the University of Oregon.
.
if they don’t know who else to shoot, they can always shoot the dog….
And if the past is any indication of the future, they will!
Maybe we could throw canned food at them?
Most bad guys don’t carry their gun openly. Are they going to be able to tell the difference between who is the good guy and the bad guy if they are carrying concealed? And what does being able to tell the difference have to do with anything anyway? This is a talking point pushed down from higher up that these minions repeat with the slightest critical thinking before hand, assuming they are even capable of that.
Are they going to be able to tell the difference between who is the good guy and the bad guy if they are carrying concealed?
^ This
Can ‘MOM’s’ tell where they get their support dollars?
Did even a penny of it come from overseas?
Well, since Bloomberg Media is a world-wide company, and Little Hitler owns it, and therefore derives his income from it…
It’s not about the guns, it’s about the people. Okay.
So they can’t tell a licensed CC holder from a criminal, so the guy obeying the law should not be able to carry. This makes it easier to distinguish the bad guy because he is illegally carrying, as there is no legal carry. Now it can only be that anyone that carries a gun is a criminal.
Glad we cleaned up that confusion!
When I see a Mom, I don’t know if she’s a good mom or a bad one. She maybe abusing her children (there is a higher percentage of abusive moms than guys with guns being bad). Moms need to be banned, especially from children, at least until they can prove that they are good moms. It’s for the children.
Perfect!
Show me in the constitution where taking children away from abusive moms is unconstitutional. Since we don’t know who the abusive ones are just by looking at them, we have to take them all away.
Seems like common sense, to me! And they don’t need children in order to hunt, anyway!
Excellent point. No business enterprise would ever condone child abuse and would never want the public to associate their business with condoning child abuse. Therefore businesses should ban mothers because you never know if a mother abuses her child and businesses should never enable child abuse.
Note: a business that allows mothers enables child abuse because they (a) implicitly endorse abusive mothers by the fact that they fail to ban them and (b) provide products and services that help mothers to be strong and abusive.
Just as all theaters should ban people with mouths because they have the potential of yelling “FIRE, FIRE” once the theater is filled.
.
How do you tell a “FIRE” yeller from a non-“FIRE” yeller? How would you know?
.
At least make all persons with mouths cover them or get a background check and a permit!
.
For the children!
.
And every man could be a rapist! We must ban men from businesses because no business should ever endorse rape!
We should ALL support such common sense laws.
.
For the children.
.
Three whole ‘Moms’ in the photo op, huh? Good turn-out.
Maybe that’s an honest observation… If it’s a good turn out, for them, then it’s a good turn out.
My sheep (the wooly/hairy variety) exhibit a higher level of discernment. That mom being quoted is a cull. Bless her heart.
Please refer to subject #1 as the “bad guy”. Now I would like you to observe how he is pointing the gun angrily in multiple directions, also note his choice of a one handed sideways grip instead of the traditional two handed vertical grip.
Now please refer to subject #2 as the “good guy”. Please observe that he is holding a shopping cart in his hands, and his firearm is safely tucked away in his holster.
If in fact you encounter subject #1, you will wish subject #2 is in the building. Thank you that will be all for today class. Remember your homework for tonight will be studying for your common sense exam that everyone seems to have failed last time.
SO, she supports criminals and hates free citizens who exercise their God given and Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Got it.
“Moms, kids and stores cannot tell the difference between a good guy and a bad guy.” – Moms Demand Action’s Christy Clark [requesting that stores ban patrons from carrying openly carried/visible firearms]
Let us look at the facts. Every single patron in a store could immediately use the following to viciously attack and kill an innocent victim:
(1) their fists or feet
(2) almost any object in a store as a bludgeon
(3) knives and axes in stores that sell them
(4) a concealed firearm
Truth: every single patron in the store has the capacity to immediately and viciously attack and kill an innocent victim … and we have no idea which patrons are “good guys” or “bad guys”.
Banning open carry isn’t going to change the above truth. Any effort to do so is a total waste of time, energy, and resources.
Going into a hardware store with all those dangerous weapons must really get their knickers in a twist…
So, as I understand it:
.
The easy, common sense solution to this problem is to keep the doors locked and ban all customers.
.
This will also save the store a lot of money, as they will not have to re-stock the shelves every night due to those pesky patrons’ purchases.
.
@ uncommon sense: This ^^ a dozen times over. Everyone you see is a potential “bad guy”. By outward observation alone, no one can tell whether anyone is a “bad guy” until they start doing something bad. If Christy would carry her “thinking” just one step further, she would realize that the best course for her is to lock herself in her house and have her necessaries left on the porch, where she can drag them in thru the pet door with a gaff hook.
^ Maybe someday we will be so lucky
Their logic is retarded. I’d love to confront them in person. “OK, so if it’s about those people you want to protect, what would you do? Call 911? And who would respond? A policeman WITH A GUN.”
A gun is only a tool, like a spoon or a kitchen knife. What you do with it determines if it is good or evil, not the instrument itself.
My wife carrying a gun she never ends up needing is good because it served its purpose: self-defense.
Until its safe?
Is it safe?
When will safe be normal?
How safe can a mother be?
Normal…has to endure a world where perception is just cause.
It’s simple, really: If you’re seeing the grips of the gun sticking out of a holster, then it’s a good guy. If you see the muzzle of the gun being pointed at someone, then it’s a bad guy.
I might also mention that the chosen attire of the person holding the gun could give you some clue, but I wouldn’t want to give Natalie Jackson the vapors.
You’re assuming that twits like her know the gun butt from the muzzle. That may not be the case.
You mean, like, if the gun is in a holster on his belt, at the level of his waist, that’s a good guy, if it’s at the level of his knees, RUN!
Freudian slip? how many times have people here and in similar venues noted that “gun control is people control”? That statement needs to be hung around MDA’s neck like an albatross.
I’d like to know why I was blocked from posting comments on your facebook page. I’ve never once commented anything offensive.
The good guys are the ones not shooting you.
The pathetic thing is that she’s so shallow she cannot see the failure of her “logic” and the people who agree with her are just as stupid, if not more so for not thinking it through and seeing how wrong she is. Paranoid projection is indicative of Schizophrenia, Therefore, we could conclude she is likely a danger to her children and unfit to be a Mother. Fortunately, we can conclude she is just stupid because we actually THINK about what she said and spot the logical fallacy instead of employing the same logical fallacy, which would force us to conclude she IS a Paranoid Schizophrenic. See what happens when you apply your own “logic: to you, Ms. Clark?
She, and others of her ilk, use perfectly good logic.
.
“Liber-Logic”, logic system used by the species “Liberal-us Progress-EVIL-us”. It works for them!
Agreed! “It works for them!” You just made me so GLAD it doesn’t work for me! Thanks!
If you are a member of the species “Liberal-us Progress-EVIL-us” you would be proud that Liber-Logic works for you.
.
It would be to what you are genetically pre-disposed.
.’
Those followers of Human logic, that system developed over millions of years of evolution (or if you prefer, 6,000+ of the existence of the Universe), Homo Sapiens, do find it difficult, if not impossible, to fathom.
.
The only natural cure, not always effective, is a righteous street mugging or an early-morning multiple person home invasion in which a friend or relative is raped, badly beaten, or killed). This often will re-start the intellectual and emotional development process in Liberal-us Progress-EVIL-us allowing them to achieve levels beyond the early- to mid-adolescent human development stage in which they are stuck.
.
It’s tough medicine, but I’m afraid it’s the only known way, and unfortunately it its not always successful.
.
DickG, You have merged humor and sarcasm with an underpinning of truth. Thanks for taking the time to write this. It made me laugh while nodding my head in agreement. Brilliant! Simply Brilliant! *Doffs Hat and Bows in Respect*
It’s the way my mind works sometimes.
It usually gets me in a lot of trouble.
.
It did get me out of a big traffic ticket years ago. The cop couldn’t stop laughing.
.
LOL! You’re fortunate!
“…Moms, kids and stores cannot tell the difference between a good guy and a bad guy”
Wait, what?
Because *they* can’t tell the difference between good and bad *we*have to disarm and allow ourselves to be potential victims?
We don’t know who’s good or who’s bad, so let’s punish everybody, yaaaaay!!! To stupid Moms who should be demanding brain cells: you probably won’t have much time to tell who the bad guy is, because he won’t be browsing the isles with his shopping cart half full and a pistol safely in his holster. He’ll do a hit and run, he’ll spend as little time at the scene as necessary and flee. If you’re unarmed and unaware of your surroundings, you won’t have time to react. And guess who just became your BFF? That good guy with a gun who you despise so much and who you claim scares you and your poor little children.
How do you define “bad guy”? I define it as “a person committing bad acts”. That’s how the LAW defines them. You know a person’s lawfulness by their ACTIONS.
I don’t care if someone hates me. Let them. I have no right to tell them how to think or feel. That’s THEIRS, inextricably, and I have no authority over what they think or feel. But if they take a bad action towards me because of their feelings, then they have stepped over the line and become a BAD GUY. I have the authority and the right to stop that person from finishing their bad action upon my person, my property, my loved ones, an innocent in my sight. I have the authority to STOP BAD ACTS. Why?
Because bad acts can be seen and identified. Because bad acts are demonstrably wrong. Because everyone has the right to their own life, therefore the authority to PROTECT that life.
It isn’t about the guns. It isn’t about the PEOPLE. It’s about ACTS. A person with a gun who performs good acts is a good guy. A person with a gun who performs bad acts is a bad guy. IT’S THAT SIMPLE.
So don’t watch people. Don’t watch guns. Watch what people DO. That’s situational awareness. That’s being observant and responsible. That’s what you chose to undertake when you chose to carry a deadly weapon, whether you realize it or not — the responsibility and the authority to interdict bad acts directed at you or those around you.
Looks like one mom wore her lucky blazer today.
Not intending to hijack this thread, but whenever I see the duplicitous public safety and to make our kids safer argument that is used by the pharmaceutical companies with vaccines and our own government enacting police state structure post 9/11, it reminds me that is the method the anti 2A structure is using, and based on how well it worked with vaccines and the police state, medium to long term prognosis for the 2A looks poor.
Sorry but I gotta come at this one again…. this kinda stupid just really gets under my skin…..
“Moms, kids and stores cannot tell the difference between a good guy and a bad guy.”
Why do you feel YOU have to be able to tell the difference between the good guys and bad guys? Isn’t that what you want the Police to do? Aren’t the Police supposed to be highly trained individuals capable of making those split-second life-or-death decisions about which are the good and bad guys?
Tell us, Dear Mom… where is the seat of your arrogance in thinking that -your- ability to tell good from bad is the standard by which the rest of us should abide?
“. . . .where is the seat of your arrogance in thinking that -your- ability to tell good from bad is the standard by which the rest of us should abide?”
.
The seat of her arrogance in thinking rests, in well, her “seat”, which, in conjunction with her use of “Liber-Logic” allows her the arrogance to spew such bile
.
Right. Even if she detects a bad guy, WTF does she think she’s going to do about it?
Why she will pee on them, of course.
Very effective as I was officially informed by the Colorado legislature.
.
What would you suggest?
.
Throw a Durian at them?
Yeesh really? Can’t tell the difference?
Good guys draw money from the ATM with a holstered gun.
Bad guys draw money from the cashier with a brandished gun.
Can we say “shyte for brains”?
Ray from DeBARFia
So in short you must have your rights curtailed because some theoretical person might be scared.
Lady that’s not the way this nation works.
What’s the deal with moms who think they can tell other people what to do or demand that people’s rights be limited or taken away simply because they gave birth? Everybody should bow to their demands, change how the go about their day and make sure not to invade her little bubble when she’s got Timmy in tow. Why does everything and everywhere have to be kid-proof? Why do I and millions of others have to adjust, without question, just because there’s a kid around? And I can’t stand women who use the kid as an excuse for this sort of behavior, because they feel it gives them a certain power over others. I’m all for raising kids in a safe and loving environment, but this is ridiculous. No law abiding citizens are shooting up Target or Kroger or whatever. As I’ve said before, if the Moms really cared about making an unsafe environment safer, they’d come to Newark or Camden, NJ, or any such place, and spread their message there among the gang bangers. Otherwise, they’re just being tyrannical.
Hey, remember the “Baby on Board” sign craze? The one that allowed the bearer to be among the worst, most dangerous drivers in this or any other universe? I think even the Roswell flying saucer had one.
Giving birth does NOT, repeat NOT, give you the ability to tell anyone but the sperm donor and the spawn thereof what to do.
Moms don’t really give a shit, it’s a sales gimmick. “For the children” has been rammed down our throats with such success that the people that want to disarm America are simply using it. It will eventually work because Americans no longer critically think, they react to emotion with emotion.
Wait one!
.
Noishkel, you living under a rock? Americans rights have massively been curtailed for far less reasons than other people being allegedly scared.
Then you Moms and Kids must be blind. Bad guys brandish their gun and threaten people, shoot people and commit crimes. Good guys just mosey along with their gun holstered.
“The group has been lobbying Cincinnati-based Kroger, which bought Harris Teeter last year, to ban openly carried guns in stores even in states such as North Carolina where “open carry” is legal.”
Every time I see these ‘moms’ I’m reminded of the pigs of George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”.
Kroger (Teeter) should tell them they are not changing their policy to follow state law, and as a service to the ‘mom’s’, they’d be happy to call ahead to the nearest 7-Eleven to let them know the ‘mom’s’ will be coming by to make their food purchases in a “safe”, no guns allowed, environment.
Inconvenience the “bad guys”, make a law mandating they wear a bright covered shirt indicating they are such.
All those people wandering around with firearms are not the ones to be concerned with. Using “Mom” is reprehensible when in fact a true Mom would be interested in protecting her child from crimnals, not decreasing self-defense mechanisms. I truly hate the anti-gun idiots.
How about we file legal action against anti-firearm groups as they endanger to our Nation by stepping outside the intended Rights of the 1A.
Pro Tip: If they start shooting people, it’s a bad guy. If not, not.
It’s actually really easy.
Are they shooting at you? Did you do something to deserve it, like, say, try to shoot them first or demand the cash from the register?
If Yes to the former and No to the latter, they’re a bad guy.
Edit: I would like to ask, though, for those of you from Open Carry states and do so – how do you carry and go about your daily business such that, when you reach into your pocket for your wallet or phone or whatever, people don’t think you’re going for your gun?
+1000000 on the Captain America reference! Easily the best film of 2014…and should have gotten an Oscar nod.
If any of these women who show up to these modern klan rallies AREN’T being paid by Bloomberg and his foundations, I have serious concerns for their mental acuity and intelligence.
Moms are usually pretty good at picking out bad guys. “Mother’s intuition” and all that.
Kids, usually not so much. Before a certain age, anyway.
These “moms” just don’t want to have to admit that they think literally everyone everywhere who merely possess a gun is a bad guy by default. No, not a “potential” bad guy but a bonafide psychotic murderer. Even a cursory search of their Facebook page and Twitter feed will surely confirm this.
These “moms” also don’t want to admit that not only is this about guns, but guns are only the first step towards the ultimate goal: control. See, what these “moms” won’t tell you is that they are actually very pro-gun. They just don’t want you to have one because, you see, you’re not one of the mythical “Only Ones”. These “Only Ones” will need guns to come and take your guns, which is ultimately what they want to see happen. In their minds, once this is accomplished, the world will finally be at peace.
In fact, not only do they want your guns, they want your fucking life. And your family’s lives. And your children’s lives. After they blame you for crimes you never committed.
[ P.S.: I have added a good deal of material to to my post quoted by Mr. Zimmerman, if you’d like me to share. Be forewarned, and thus forearmed, it’s quite a doosey! 😀 ]
P.P.S.: I included a bunch of links that didn’t come out in my comment. How does one even parse links in the text like you guys do?
I tried to add the following comment there but I don’t have facebook:
If it’s about the people and not the guns, how about the stores just put up a sign that says “No Bad Guys”. That way the bad guys stay out and anyone inside with a gun is obviously a good guy.
Oh wait. Because it is about the gun and they don’t support the right to bear arms like they claim. Putting up a “No Guns” sign will be just as effective at keeping bad guys with guns out. That is to say, not at all.
Comments are closed.