“Loosening firearm restrictions in school zones is realizing a proclaimed NRA dream, eliminating all gun-free zones. Guns in every corner of America helps the NRA’s donating partner (gun industry) get richer, and in schools attempts to recruit the next generation of customers.” – Shirley Clements, Letter to the Editor, fdlreporter.com
That’s exactly right, and its one of the many glories of capitalism and a free society. Gun companies make money, NRA makes money, citizens can buy guns, its a happy world.
Unless you’re a communist with an intent to turn America into a totalitarian, poverty stricken nightmare.
““Loosening firearm restrictions in school zones is realizing a proclaimed NRA dream, eliminating all gun-free zones. Guns in every corner of America helps the NRA’s donating partner (gun industry) get richer, and in schools attempts to recruit the next generation of customers.”
I know right? She says this like it’s a bad thing.
Success is a BAD thing in the eyes of these progressive liberals. Show any signs of success is BAD as well, in their eyes. People who can fend for themselves is a BAD thing too, as it doesn’t make them easily controllable. In their eyes, independence and free thought is also a BAD thing.
They wish us to be fully compliant, dependent, and swear by their oath that “God is dead (if He ever existed at all.)” They want mindless, helpless, nearly hopeless, poor, and most of all, controllable, Sheeple.
where I live, people w permits can carry into schools, churches, polling places, even govt bldgs. no rash of shootings here . . .
Where is this place??
I believe Mr. Diggler lives in Missouri.
If you are looking to relocate, consider Utah: if you have a concealed handgun carry license you can carry everywhere. Utah does not criminalize concealed carry into any location.
Correct Utah has a rather short list of places that are prohibidado.
-The secure area of the airport
-Secured buildings like prisons and mental institutions
-Any building that has government workers like the post office or court buildings
-Elementary/high school carry is only allowed with a CFP
Most everything else is OK. I’m not a lawyer so I might have missed a few so please do not take this as legal advice but you can check the Utah BUC website and they have all of the information available in a PDF that is supposed to given out to students of CFP classes.
Why is it that these knuckle heads don’t or cant realize that a gun free zone is a kill zone………
And where does it come from that it creates the next generation of gun owners??
How do these people honestly in their collective bones believe that a gun free zone can be a good thing anywhere??
They are going after guns like they started going after cigarettes in the late 80’s. Get the children brain washed to think the guns are going to kill them. Granted cigarettes are a deadly carcinogen, but are harmless inanimate objects until used. Same as a gun a harmless inanimate object until used improperly.
I’ve heard that brainwashing kids to stay away from cigs doesn’t work either. Much hand-wringing and angst among the liberal L337.
Your dead on
“What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we’ve changed our attitudes about cigarettes” Quote from Eric Holder, not to mention at some point in the same speech he also used the term brainwash
I think it’s mistaking “shouldn’t be that way” with “can’t be that way.”
Or, if they wish for it hard enough, it’ll be true … and how could the world not be that way? In a way, it seems almost to be a shamanistic religion where mystical signs and nonsensical and arbitrary (to outsiders) rules are used to control the world.
Fortunately the universe doesn’t work that way. (If it did we’d never have survived as a species … but that’s another discussion.)
I live in a neighborhood where people keep to themselves. I’m fairly sure a lot own firearms (we had a notable case where a guy on stealing a jet ski got shot and killed while fleeing that made headlines, our only murder in years). We have what I consider an excellent police force in that they don’t ticket the locals for speeding, patrol regularly, and respond faster than average to your calls, but you still see plenty of NRA stickers so I would wager at least half of the people here own guns.
Danny I think the thief getting killed would be considered homicide not murder. The person protecting property would be justified in some places, but unless my life or life of family was at stake it’s going to be hard to pull the trigger.
Durr.Of course were trying to recruit the next generation of customers.It’s what you antis did in Australia,and the plan worked pretty well no?
But its perfectly find to brainwash children into thinking all guns are something to be outright feared. Bonus ‘for the children’ points when you boot a kid out of school for eating a pop tart shaped like Idaho, or pointing a finger with the thumb extended and saying bang.
SIGH… another liberal anti from WI. I’m ready to start my own secession movement here. Give the libs Madison, Milwaukee and all the entire southern part of the state. Us liberty lovers will take the beautiful north. We’ll call it Free Wisconsin.
Why not just move to U.P. of MI?
I would if we could get it to be a seperate state all together… otherwise I’m just giving my money to the Liberals in the lower half of MI…
I’m with you, fortunately the southern part of the state doesn’t control the rest of the state gun wise
I may be being Captain Obvious here, but it looks like the antis are taking the “Big Tobacco” strategy here. What next? A “Truth” like campaign? Although one could argue we already have one going on, sans branding. It’s just as full of lies, inaccuracies and misleading ‘facts’. My favorite is the one that says tobacco smoke contains urea. We all make urea. Our blood is full of it. We excrete it. So do all living, non-plant things. But since it’s also in tobacco, and kitty pee, it’s icky and we must get rid of smoking.
I was posting same above same time…
That’s exactly what they’re doing. It’s a strategy that works. Get the kids thinking “GUNS ARE BAD” at an early age and they’ll grow up to vote in politicians that say “GUNS ARE BAD” and then we get the death of the 2A.
Until those rebellious teenage years roll around. Then it’s off to the range…
C’mon, people. We’re trying to maintain a monopoly on violence here. Stop being a part of the problem, and start being part of the final solution.
(Did I say that out loud?)
Apparently, Ms. Shirley Clements believes that eliminating “gun-free zones” will lead to more people purchasing more firearms — which she also thinks (apparently) is the only reason that people want to eliminate “gun-free zones”.
I disagree. I don’t know anyone who will be running out to purchase a new firearm if “gun-free zones” disappeared today. We want to eliminate “gun-free zones” because we don’t want to be defenseless of a violent criminal attacks, nothing more and nothing less.
They don’t want to get rid of gun free zones because they are hoping for more mass shootings to grab the headlines.
I am serious. And don’t call me Shirley.
(somebody had to do it)
Because increasing business is bad for the economy?
Although if they believe that, then the antis should shut up and quit trying to pass more laws. No one has sold more guns than they have. Every time they propose another incremental ban, sales go through the roof.
The Liberal motto: We want to save the children, by making it easier to kill them.
Seriously their usual no gun zones make you safer argument makes about as much sense as saying eating more potato chips will help you lose weight.
Oh wait they fight that too… but instead of blaming the parents who don’t care that their kids have to roll downstairs, they blame a potato chip.
Because blaming themselves instead of the chips/soda/candy would mean assuming personal responsibility, which we all know to be the holy water to the progressives’ vampirism.
I keep hearing about the big bad gun companies funding the big bad NRA gun lobby. The NRA has been ranked as the top lobbyist in DC by Forbes in the past, do you think that because of deep pockets?
Do anyone honestly think gun companies can hold a candle to the money that the oil lobby, pharm lobby, or healthcare lobby can throw down, I doubt it.
Forbes ranked the NRA as the top lobbyist because they have 5 million voting member backing them.
They aren’t a lobbying powerhouse because of the money from manufactures, it’s because of they have the weight of a several million members to throw down.
One more lobbyist: unions.
What I want to know is why these people think the gun manufacturers are supporting the NRA, or that the NRA is a mouthpiece of the industry–a meme constantly repeated. They completely ignore the actual manufacturers’ mouthpiece, the NSSF, and assume that the member fees from 5 million NRA members are somehow insufficient to support the %million dollar annual federal lobbying budget. Where do they get these ideas–and why do people believe them?
Unicorns whisper the ideas into their ears on Xmas Eve while they’re tucked warm and cozy in their widdle beds.
Excuse me – I have to throw up now.
Actually you should blame it on our anti-gun press. If they’re not saying it themselves, they allow some propagandist from the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex to say it without any questioning of its veracity.
Then the low information voters believe it, because the people they trust tell them it is true.
I think this might be like the ‘disposable, single-use magazine’ debacle. Perhaps this anti thinks that we’d all need a new, different gun for the previously GFZ. Such as my current pistols would just never do for carry in a school. . . I’d surely need something different, perhaps in pink and with a Hello Kitty theme. . .
It’s impossible to sort out what anti’s at the lower level (like the one above) think because their thinking is simultaneously irrational AND not connected to facts. That is, they create their own ‘facts’ out of subconsciously deliberate misunderstandings then propagate them amongst others of their ilk. It’s cognitive bias run wild. Meanwhile, they surrender even the appearance of rational thinking, even regarding their own ‘facts’.
This is usually only possible when one surrounds oneself exclusively with like minded people who won’t shatter the illusion come delusion, for these people are almost clinically delusional, believing in paradoxes without question, accepting rather obvious falsehoods readily, and formulating ideas that even they seem to know would be shredded if ever proffered outside the closed group of those who accept their beliefs as such and without question. Their bias allows them to simultaneously ignore contradictory information while enthusiastically assimilating the most dubious information without filter or concern.
This type of thinking can most readily be seen in the more obscure and radical sorts of religion; A fertile ability to believe the most absurd assertions (such as all the species on earth being collected aboard a boat by a single man and then redistributed to their appropriate locations globally), immediate offense when their assumptions are challenged, and a belief that anyone who doesn’t believe as they do is possessed by or occupied with evil and deserves to be punished.
I submit that the same psychological machinations that are present in religious extremists are at work in the rank and file civilian disarmament proponents and that it is for this reason that rational argument with them is almost completely useless. Rather than a willingness to address the issue and debate it they reflexively assign evil intentions to anyone who disagrees with them even over subtle points of understanding within their delusional framework and have a near hysterical reaction to anyone asserting that their belief system is false at its root.
It is this last that makes the best case for such thinking, whether anti gun or zealotry religious, being clinically delusional. All the hallmarks are present; Disbelief in facts that oppose the delusionary framework, ready acceptance of dubious evidence supporting the delusion, surrender of the use or reason in addressing the delusion or its premises, and emotional or even violent reaction to anyone who challenges the delusion, and an insistence that only their way of thinking has any morality or righteousness.
You cannot argue the precepts of another’s delusion successfully. The clinical model calls for stabilizing their moods via medication and then therapy to determine what it is about reality that terrifies them so badly that they retreated into delusion in the first place. Success is measured by the degree to which they begin to recognize and elucidate on their own that their thinking was irrational and their beliefs impossible. Recovery is the ability to rationally challenge new information for veracity or at least likelihood before assigning it emotional value.
Of course the vast majority of people can’t be clinically delusional, but the line can be very thin. One test to determine what is belief and what is delusion is the degree to which the aberrant thoughts trouble the person who has them and/or others. I’ll leave that up to the AI to decide individually about each anti encountered, but I’d ask that you look at them with the preceding in mind. You might be surprised how many actually are very nearly clinically delusional.
Good points, all. Very nice post.
In your experience, what percentage of delusional people have been or might actually be cured of their delusion(s)?
As an example, I refer to the issue of “hoarders” as seen on TV, most obviously delusional, and the almost complete failure of the psychologists involved to effect a lasting change in behavior.
If the antis are in fact delusional, what hope have we of changing their beliefs?
The whole point of “loosening” gun restrictions in schools to increase the chances of a good guy being around when the next mass shooter rolls around, instead of waiting 10-20 minutes for the police to arrive (who also carry guns… go figure).
The anti-gunner’s logic is self-defeating. If all guns are bad, why are they content calling the cops, who also have guns? Why do they believe having a military is good? War is all about killing other people with guns, tanks, nukes, etc.
It’s very simple to call anti-gunners out on their BS “logic”. First off, we have to demystify the fact that police and military training isn’t magical and somehow qualifies only the police and military as “good guys” for life. They screw up all the time, it’s called being human and being fallible.
That said, millions of legal gun owners deter crime all the time. Legal gun ownership and lawful use is a proven crime deterrent. Period. This is proven all the time — it’s just not in the news because the news is subject to political and government controls and agendas. Shame on them.
The only real point the anti-gunners could possible bring up is this:
Guns do make it easier for people to commit certain crimes, like mass shootings because of the effectiveness of the tool used.
That’s all they can bring to the table. But we can easily counter with, well one of the reasons it’s so “easy” for criminals and murderers to commit said crimes is the gun free zone. If you ensure a criminal’s victims are helpless, untrained, and disarmed, they are easier to dispatch. Obviously.
How about… not having untrained victims and killing grounds to begin with? No more gun free zones allows adults and parents to be armed and protect their loved ones in the event evil strikes. That makes sense to me, and historically, that’s how things are done. If there is suspicion of a potential threat, you react and tool up to defend yourself if the need arises.
We already know movie theaters, malls, and schools are targets. Any public place without security is up for grabs as a mass shooting site. So… tool up and be vigilant. It’s called being a responsible adult.
Only an idiot would refuse to equip themselves to counter a potential threat and rely on a “feel-good” sign for protection. I believe that’s called Darwinism.
Car dealers in a small town Central Texas where I grew up would provide newest model of cars for us kids to festoon with school colors and drive up and down main street for Annual Football Homing Coming Parade.. No doubt about it, “attempts to recruit the next generation of customers”
What the is wrong with raising the generations to follow about safe driving & safe fire arms handling?
Each can get to you or someone seriously hurt or killed, if you don’t have training or pay attention.
No one is forcing anyone to drive or shoot, but being skilled in both can provide years of enjoyment and in emergencies can save your life.
Wait, what? Firearms manufacturers are making money? Oh, the horrow!
Don’t worry about it, Shirley. A few more years of Obamanomics and the firearms industry will be in the same crapper as every other business.
The more things loosen, the more accepted it will become, which will help things loosen up. What a great thing.
Barring no stoopid people doing stoopid things events.
/sarc/ Well if they’re going to insist on schools being Gun Free Zones, then they better start paying top dollar to get the Harry Potter and Hermione Granger caliber wizards from Hogwarts because whatever drop out they got to cast the magical spell that evaporates all guns when you cross the magical perimeter at Sandy Hook, did an absolutely horrible job. /sarc/
As ridiculous as the above is meant to sound, it’s not far off in that some are engaging in fantasy, wishfully thinking that if there is a gun ban, no one with have a gun. Works real well in Mexico and Russia.
You have to understand that Ms.Clements is not just some random “ordinary” citizen. Her letter to the editor is an example of a technique developed by the Communist Party in the 1930s with their so-called “popular front” strategy. Ms. Clements is undoubtedly an activist who was assigned to write the letter. The totalitarian gun control lobby wants to give the impression to low information voters that a majority of “ordinary” people want gun confiscation. Whenever you see a letter to the editor that uses the buzz words of the anti-Second Amendment lobby you immediately should know that the “citizen” (or perhaps I should say comrade) is on assignment.
IF the NRA’S partner is the gun industry then the anti -gunners partner are gangs and criminals,
Wow! That is some convoluted logic, lady. And it is all based on incorrect premises.
Good try, but no, I’m not buying it.
Win win.
Comments are closed.