The "No Guns" Insult

[OakRidgeStars]

The "No Guns" Insult

By Jeff Knox

(Manassas, VA, October 29, 2009) How does it make you feel when you start to walk into a business and see a "No Guns" sign prominently posted? Are you angry? Offended? Indifferent? How do you react? Do you just turn around and take your business elsewhere? Complain to the management? Just ignore it and go on with your business? The members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League take "No Guns" signs as personally offensive and they let their offense be known - to the business, to fellow VCDL members, and anyone else who'll listen - or read a web page. VCDL maintains a list of anti-rights Virginia businesses on their web site, http://www.VCDL.org, and encourages gun owners and rights supporters to avoid these businesses except to let them know that their policy is offensive. VCDL has actively pursued this position for several years while they have simultaneously grown to become the most politically active and effective rights organization in the state.

So when the 7th District Republican Committee decided to hold a major fundraising rally in a location which is prominently posted "No Guns," VCDL let the Republicans know they weren't happy. When the Republicans held the annual event in the same anti-rights location every year for the next several years, disregarding VCDL's repeated objections, many at VCDL began taking the Republicans' choice as an insult. When the Republicans refused to change venues - even though VCDL offered to help sponsor the event at a different location - VCDL got mad.

On October 17th about 250 VCDL protesters gathered in a shopping mall near the Innsbrook Pavilion, the private, anti-rights event center where the annual Republican Roundup was being staged. The well organized protest included a moon-bounce and other distractions set up for the kids, an airplane towing a "Guns Save Lives" banner, and even a hot air balloon proclaiming the same message. Local shops, restaurants, and hotels welcomed the protesters - who were mostly openly carrying sidearms - and even offered special discounts. A good and safe time was had by all.

The Chairman of the 7th District Republican Committee has previously told people who complained to him about his choice to use the anti-rights facilities that while he and the Republican Party strongly support the Second Amendment, price and convenience trumps principles. And he's sticking to his No Guns. Even as there were almost as many people outside protesting as there were inside rallying, the chairman announced that the event would again be held in the same location next year. The level of base callousness and simple stupidity is just staggering.

This up-scuttle echoes a larger issue of misunderstanding between the activist, rights community and the general public - sadly often including many gun owners. When a business posts a "No Guns" policy they are making a political statement whether that is their intent or not. They are also denigrating and insulting lawful gun owners - particularly those who choose to carry. A "No Guns" sign serves no useful purpose beyond these insults and political posturing because the only people to whom such signs apply are the most conscientious and responsible gun owners. Criminals and the irresponsible simply ignore the signs and do exactly what they would have done without the signs, except with perhaps a greater sense of security knowing that conscientious, law-abiding gun owners have disarmed or gone somewhere else.

Gun owners and rights supporters who are not angered and offended by these "We Don't Want Your Kind" signs posted on businesses they frequent are being as thoughtless and insensitive as the businesses themselves. These "No Guns" signs should elicit the same reaction from gun owners and our friends that "Whites Only" signs did among blacks and civil rights supporters in the 1960's. They are a personal insult and an assault on our liberty and anyone who can't see that is simply choosing not to. That appears to be the case with the leadership of Virginia's 7th District Republicans. One must wonder whether they would continue using the same facilities if the sign on the door read "No Jews" rather than "No Guns."

Posting a "No Guns" sign is not a business decision about patron safety nor is disarming just a minor inconvenience. Such signs are a political statement and an insult and they should never go unanswered. The Firearms Coalition offers Merchant Education Cards which make it easy to let businesses know why they're losing our business. They are available at http://www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

[GS78]

The "No Guns" Insult

By Jeff Knox

(Manassas, VA, October 29, 2009) How does it make you feel when you start to walk into a business and see a "No Guns" sign prominently posted? Are you angry? Offended? Indifferent? How do you react? Do you just turn around and take your business elsewhere? Complain to the management? Just ignore it and go on with your business? The members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League take "No Guns" signs as personally offensive and they let their offense be known - to the business, to fellow VCDL members, and anyone else who'll listen - or read a web page. VCDL maintains a list of anti-rights Virginia businesses on their web site, http://www.VCDL.org, and encourages gun owners and rights supporters to avoid these businesses except to let them know that their policy is offensive. VCDL has actively pursued this position for several years while they have simultaneously grown to become the most politically active and effective rights organization in the state.

So when the 7th District Republican Committee decided to hold a major fundraising rally in a location which is prominently posted "No Guns," VCDL let the Republicans know they weren't happy. When the Republicans held the annual event in the same anti-rights location every year for the next several years, disregarding VCDL's repeated objections, many at VCDL began taking the Republicans' choice as an insult. When the Republicans refused to change venues - even though VCDL offered to help sponsor the event at a different location - VCDL got mad.

On October 17th about 250 VCDL protesters gathered in a shopping mall near the Innsbrook Pavilion, the private, anti-rights event center where the annual Republican Roundup was being staged. The well organized protest included a moon-bounce and other distractions set up for the kids, an airplane towing a "Guns Save Lives" banner, and even a hot air balloon proclaiming the same message. Local shops, restaurants, and hotels welcomed the protesters - who were mostly openly carrying sidearms - and even offered special discounts. A good and safe time was had by all.

The Chairman of the 7th District Republican Committee has previously told people who complained to him about his choice to use the anti-rights facilities that while he and the Republican Party strongly support the Second Amendment, price and convenience trumps principles. And he's sticking to his No Guns. Even as there were almost as many people outside protesting as there were inside rallying, the chairman announced that the event would again be held in the same location next year. The level of base callousness and simple stupidity is just staggering.

This up-scuttle echoes a larger issue of misunderstanding between the activist, rights community and the general public - sadly often including many gun owners. When a business posts a "No Guns" policy they are making a political statement whether that is their intent or not. They are also denigrating and insulting lawful gun owners - particularly those who choose to carry. A "No Guns" sign serves no useful purpose beyond these insults and political posturing because the only people to whom such signs apply are the most conscientious and responsible gun owners. Criminals and the irresponsible simply ignore the signs and do exactly what they would have done without the signs, except with perhaps a greater sense of security knowing that conscientious, law-abiding gun owners have disarmed or gone somewhere else.

Gun owners and rights supporters who are not angered and offended by these "We Don't Want Your Kind" signs posted on businesses they frequent are being as thoughtless and insensitive as the businesses themselves. These "No Guns" signs should elicit the same reaction from gun owners and our friends that "Whites Only" signs did among blacks and civil rights supporters in the 1960's. They are a personal insult and an assault on our liberty and anyone who can't see that is simply choosing not to. That appears to be the case with the leadership of Virginia's 7th District Republicans. One must wonder whether they would continue using the same facilities if the sign on the door read "No Jews" rather than "No Guns."

Posting a "No Guns" sign is not a business decision about patron safety nor is disarming just a minor inconvenience. Such signs are a political statement and an insult and they should never go unanswered. The Firearms Coalition offers Merchant Education Cards which make it easy to let businesses know why they're losing our business. They are available at http://www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

I had to re-read this twice. The author has the audacity to compare a business decision by a proprietor with the civil rights movement? are you kidding me? so let me get this straight, because I certainly don't want to offend anyone with a SIMPLE TRUTH, This is America. The shop keep has EVERY RIGHT to administer his own rules and regulations in HIS OWN SHOP!!! if you don't like it, leave. SAY YOUR PIECE, and leave. The real problem in this story is the republican "leadership" in the 7th....so how do we change that? all together now..."vote them out" the simple fact that the VCDL continued to try to persuade the REPUBLICAN leaders to do things differently year after year with the same results ?? thats the definition of insane right? do the same thing over and over expecting different results. Perhaps its time the VCDL changed its dance partners. To equate the pain and suffering of people during the civil rights struggles is preposterous! and to equate the sufferings of the JEWS with ANYTHING IN THIS STORY is ignorant. The fact that this guy had his "feelings hurt" when he saw a no gun sign, tells me this guy needs to grow a pair, and man up. crying about his feelings in the same sentence as those who got their heads bashed in , and were hung by the neck on some dark deserted stretch of road in the middle of the night? or were rounded up and GASSED in NAZI concentration camps? THATS STUPID. You talk about someone "googling" this forum? what do you think this would represent?

[allingeneral]

I had to re-read this twice. The author has the audacity to compare a business decision by a proprietor with the civil rights movement? are you kidding me? so let me get this straight, because I certainly don't want to offend anyone with a SIMPLE TRUTH, This is America. The shop keep has EVERY RIGHT to administer his own rules and regulations in HIS OWN SHOP!!! if you don't like it, leave. SAY YOUR PIECE, and leave. The real problem in this story is the republican "leadership" in the 7th....so how do we change that? all together now..."vote them out" the simple fact that the VCDL continued to try to persuade the REPUBLICAN leaders to do things differently year after year with the same results ?? thats the definition of insane right? do the same thing over and over expecting different results. Perhaps its time the VCDL changed its dance partners. To equate the pain and suffering of people during the civil rights struggles is preposterous! and to equate the sufferings of the JEWS with ANYTHING IN THIS STORY is ignorant. The fact that this guy had his "feelings hurt" when he saw a no gun sign, tells me this guy needs to grow a pair, and man up. crying about his feelings in the same sentence as those who got their heads bashed in , and were hung by the neck on some dark deserted stretch of road in the middle of the night? or were rounded up and GASSED in NAZI concentration camps? THATS STUPID. You talk about someone "googling" this forum? what do you think this would represent?

OK, I own a business. Let's just say that I decided to post something on my website that says "I will not sell to Latinos. If the last name used on your order is determined by the management to be of Latino origin, your order will be canceled."

First, it would be a bad business decision. Second, it would be particularly offensive to anyone of Latino descent. Third, I would likely be sued for discrimination!

Yes, it's my business, but do I have to right to single out a specific segment of the population and refuse to serve them? What if the same thing happened in McDonalds or Wal-Mart? The ACLU and other similar organizations would be all over them!

Now, how does this compare to the Civil Rights movement? It is the alienation of a specific group of people based on their beliefs and the way in which they LEGALLY choose to carry out their lives.

Part of the problem with society today, in my humble opinion, is that we, the Conservative base of this country, have remained silent for too long. We have allowed the ACLU and PETA and other liberal propogandist organizations to take over our country. It's time we stand up for our conservative beliefs and tell others what we think; and that's exactly what Mr. Knox has done here.

As for your comment about googling the forum - I thought we agreed to let that one go? I don't think there is anything constructive that can come from pushing the issue.

[GS78]

I had to re-read this twice. The author has the audacity to compare a business decision by a proprietor with the civil rights movement? are you kidding me? so let me get this straight, because I certainly don't want to offend anyone with a SIMPLE TRUTH, This is America. The shop keep has EVERY RIGHT to administer his own rules and regulations in HIS OWN SHOP!!! if you don't like it, leave. SAY YOUR PIECE, and leave. The real problem in this story is the republican "leadership" in the 7th....so how do we change that? all together now..."vote them out" the simple fact that the VCDL continued to try to persuade the REPUBLICAN leaders to do things differently year after year with the same results ?? thats the definition of insane right? do the same thing over and over expecting different results. Perhaps its time the VCDL changed its dance partners. To equate the pain and suffering of people during the civil rights struggles is preposterous! and to equate the sufferings of the JEWS with ANYTHING IN THIS STORY is ignorant. The fact that this guy had his "feelings hurt" when he saw a no gun sign, tells me this guy needs to grow a pair, and man up. crying about his feelings in the same sentence as those who got their heads bashed in , and were hung by the neck on some dark deserted stretch of road in the middle of the night? or were rounded up and GASSED in NAZI concentration camps? THATS STUPID. You talk about someone "googling" this forum? what do you think this would represent?

OK, I own a business. Let's just say that I decided to post something on my website that says "I will not sell to Latinos. If the last name used on your order is determined by the management to be of Latino origin, your order will be canceled."

First, it would be a bad business decision. Second, it would be particularly offensive to anyone of Latino descent. Third, I would likely be sued for discrimination!

Yes, it's my business, but do I have to right to single out a specific segment of the population and refuse to serve them? What if the same thing happened in McDonalds or Wal-Mart? The ACLU and other similar organizations would be all over them!

Now, how does this compare to the Civil Rights movement? It is the alienation of a specific group of people based on their beliefs and the way in which they LEGALLY choose to carry out their lives.

Part of the problem with society today, in my humble opinion, is that we, the Conservative base of this country, have remained silent for too long. We have allowed the ACLU and PETA and other liberal propogandist organizations to take over our country. It's time we stand up for our conservative beliefs and tell others what we think; and that's exactly what Mr. Knox has done here.

As for your comment about googling the forum - I thought we agreed to let that one go? I don't think there is anything constructive that can come from pushing the issue.

The big difference in the scenarios are this; The Jew, The African-American and in your scenario the Latino did not "choose" to become any of those groups, in the same way the gun owner "chooses" to carry or not, and, the gun owner is NOT faced with discrimination based on the shop owners feelings of SUPERIORITY. I'm guessing Mr Knox is too young to remember the civil rights days. I am also guessing Mr Knox only really knows what he was "told" about it. The premise that a gun owner who sees a sign posted that restricts HIS right to carry in a privately owned enterprise has any recourse legally is dumb, UNLESS the enterprise was in some way funded through PUBLIC funds. I am not a big sports follower, tell me, can you carry at FedEX field to watch the Redskins? I know you can't if you choose to go to the Superbowl, and all of the arenas have in some way been funded with tax dollars...

[zephyp]

I'm kind of on the fence with this one. On one hand a business owner has the right to run their own business but on the other hand they have an obligation to follow certain standards. Rick makes a good point about not selling to latinos. If you want to trace this back on the legal side you will find it has roots in our Constitution. Having said that, I offer the following signs that should also be OK for a business owner to put up IF its ok to put up a no guns sign.

NO TALKING
NO PRAYING
NO GATHERING IN GROUPS OF TWO OR MORE
YOU WILL BE FORCED TO INCRIMINATE YOURSELF HERE
YOU WILL BE UNLAWFULLY SEARCHED HERE
YOU WILL ARRESTED FOR NO REASON HERE
NO WHITES
NO BLACKS
NO GUNS
NO WOMEN

you get the point...realizing a business owner can do "whatever they want" where do we draw the line. I submit that if any one of those signs is not legal then none of them are legal.

[jadedone4]

... captialism must exploit something or someone..... if a business does not want my dollars, because I am carrying a firearm, it is MY choice, to either put said firearm away or to find another source for the commerce that I was about to enter into with gun-unfriendly establishment.

It is MHO that this discussion will be circular, turning into finding circles within circles as we move in/out in justifying our points.

It really boils down, on the most basic level, to decisions of choice - which the Consitution protects. During the Nazi era, Civil Rights movement, etc - none of which were a 24hr switch in attitudes/actions; folks of certain groups were marginalized based on ethnicity, gender, skin-color, etc. Right/left, wrong/right, up/down - we all accepted that those actions were not appropriate for a civilized societies to behave. In assuring that their communities were still vibrant - the above-refernced folks found ways to still live, even under those circumstances; not implying/suggesting that "gun-unfriendly" businesses are impacting firearms owner's lives in the same manner - but the end result was an ability to enjoy a set of freedoms that were previously denied (i.e. it will take time/work to get things to where WE may believe that they should be...).

If a business does not allow firearms - its their "house" their rules (I am sure we all have individual friends, co-workers, etc. that we'd NEVER let anywhere NEAR our firearms for safety and other reasons - our choice). If you do not want to support the business by providing your hard-earned cash; speak to the manager, tell em that you are a customer/client and that you are no longer shopping/frequenting that establishment, either convince or not convince the owner that the "no-gun" policy will affect his/her business, move on either way - letting others know that the place is gun-unfriendly, or gun-friendly, so that they can make the individual decisions (as intended by the Constitution) as appropriate.

I think that HeroHog had an encounter that was less than pleasant, but he tried to "convince" the owner of the (my words here, not his) the retardness of the no-gun policy - to no avail. There was also mentioned of a Fuddruckers who (after a robbery) placed a "no-guns" sign up; gun-owner took the time to have an intelligent conversation with the restaurant owner, owner took sign down - gun-owners showed up and had a great time at the establishment, the restaurant owner had a great revenue for that night - and I think he probably felt a lot safer than when the bowling league shows up.

Its about choices... businesses have them to; if we do not like them we don't support - sure there aren't many here making mass donations to the ACLU, Brady Campain (opps meant campaign), etc....

[WRW]

Gun free stores and businesses may be offensive to your sensibilities, but certainly not an insult .

[BluemontGlock]

in this case , for me, from a owner of property, I have to feel that the right of property ownership trumps in this case...and since, on my property, what I say goes, I can only afford the same respect to others, even if it comes at my inconvenience...and then the onus is on me to decide to un-carry, not go there, etc...

And even if we can change laws to our way of thinking, we cannot mandate the change of attitude...that is un-American, in my humble opinion...

As well, we can never understand the depth of experience in an other individual, and to wholly understand why they do not like "x", perhaps they have had a negative experience and now posses palpable fear...just like with or dogs, or anything else that people have "fear" of...

I have some friends that we have an agreement that "I won't hate if you don't carry, and please don't hate me if I do..." as it takes all kinds to keep the big blue marble spinning just right, slightly off kilter, and i appriciate them for their diversity, and i hope they feel the same about me

So as long as I can carry, I do not mind if you do not, and if you do not want my firearm on your property, that is fine, it just requires me to make some choices...much the way, as firearm owners, we make everyday, gauging situations, and acting/responding appropriatly...It is not easy, and is a tremendous responsiblity, as it should be...and the truth of the matter is that some of our fellow firearm owners have not reflected on us favorably, and so it is up to us, to some degree, to police our own, promote solid community relations, highlight the benefits of our participation, show our added value, and ultimately, that we are just fellow Americans, living our dream, too...

As (a) firearm owner(s), the high road can be a tough trek, but I believe it is a prerequisite to achieve my (our?) goals of laws that express the 2A in a fashion that honors the ideals & sprit of the
document.

Just my .02... and welcome commentary

Carry On!

[LFS]

I'm kind of on the fence with this one. On one hand a business owner has the right to run their own business but on the other hand they have an obligation to follow certain standards. Rick makes a good point about not selling to latinos. If you want to trace this back on the legal side you will find it has roots in our Constitution. Having said that, I offer the following signs that should also be OK for a business owner to put up IF its ok to put up a no guns sign.

NO TALKING
NO PRAYING
NO GATHERING IN GROUPS OF TWO OR MORE
YOU WILL BE FORCED TO INCRIMINATE YOURSELF HERE
YOU WILL BE UNLAWFULLY SEARCHED HERE
YOU WILL ARRESTED FOR NO REASON HERE
NO WHITES
NO BLACKS
NO GUNS
NO WOMEN

you get the point...realizing a business owner can do "whatever they want" where do we draw the line. I submit that if any one of those signs is not legal then none of them are legal.

I think this line of thinking will help tease out the issue.

How about?

NO CHRISTIANS

or

NO MUSLIMS

Being Christian or Muslim isn't genetic, and people can decide to be one or the other of their will (in a free society). But posting a sign that excluded one of these groups would be seen as an insult.

Carrying a firearm is a deeply personal decision for many people. So to see a sign that says "I don't care about your deeply personal decision" does seem insulting. The problem for us is that our larger society does not understand this. But I think their reaction would be much change if they were to see a store post a sign that read "NO SELF DEFENSE ALLOWED."

[BluemontGlock]

"Carrying a firearm is a deeply personal decision for many people. So to see a sign that says "I don't care about your deeply personal decision" does seem insulting. - LFS"

Have to say, i did not consider this angle... and it certainly speaks to me...an enlightened take on things...good addition...

It does not change what i stated above, but certainly gives one pause for thought...

[zephyp]

I'm kind of on the fence with this one. On one hand a business owner has the right to run their own business but on the other hand they have an obligation to follow certain standards. Rick makes a good point about not selling to latinos. If you want to trace this back on the legal side you will find it has roots in our Constitution. Having said that, I offer the following signs that should also be OK for a business owner to put up IF its ok to put up a no guns sign.

NO TALKING
NO PRAYING
NO GATHERING IN GROUPS OF TWO OR MORE
YOU WILL BE FORCED TO INCRIMINATE YOURSELF HERE
YOU WILL BE UNLAWFULLY SEARCHED HERE
YOU WILL ARRESTED FOR NO REASON HERE
NO WHITES
NO BLACKS
NO GUNS
NO WOMEN

you get the point...realizing a business owner can do "whatever they want" where do we draw the line. I submit that if any one of those signs is not legal then none of them are legal.

I think this line of thinking will help tease out the issue.

How about?

NO CHRISTIANS

or

NO MUSLIMS

Being Christian or Muslim isn't genetic, and people can decide to be one or the other of their will (in a free society). But posting a sign that excluded one of these groups would be seen as an insult.

Carrying a firearm is a deeply personal decision for many people. So to see a sign that says "I don't care about your deeply personal decision" does seem insulting. The problem for us is that our larger society does not understand this. But I think their reaction would be much change if they were to see a store post a sign that read "NO SELF DEFENSE ALLOWED."

Well said... If only others saw it the same as us. I think the MSM would make a NO MUSLIMS sign to be downright illegal. Along your line of thought, which I agree with, then the same argument could be made for a "NO GUNS" sign - since both involve a deeply personal decision and exercising a right and/or freedom.

[GS78]

I have not mentioned the "M" word..... .. All I will add is that is wasn't all that long ago that there was a discussion here on some topic, I don't recall the topic, I do however recall someone saying something to this effect " It does not matter, this is Rick's forum and he makes the rules, there is no first ammendment here, he has put too much effort into making this forum, and thats just the way it is".. (emphasis mine) and although I admit I am paraphrasing, I am confident many of you will recall the thread. My point is that as the shop keep has the RIGHT to determine the rules, so does Rick, here. Thats all I have to say about that.

[LFS]

I have not mentioned the "M" word..... .. All I will add is that is wasn't all that long ago that there was a discussion here on some topic, I don't recall the topic, I do however recall someone saying something to this effect " It does not matter, this is Rick's forum and he makes the rules, there is no first ammendment here, he has put too much effort into making this forum, and thats just the way it is".. (emphasis mine) and although I admit I am paraphrasing, I am confident many of you will recall the thread. My point is that as the shop keep has the RIGHT to determine the rules, so does Rick, here. Thats all I have to say about that.

You are right, a shop keeper has the right to be offensive. And Rick has the right to set the rules of his forum to exclude threads he finds offensive.

[gfost1]

Howdy, Y'all,

After reading some of the more "spirited" posts in this thread, I began to wonder what I had missed and read the OP again. I honestly don't understand the fuss.

I think Mr. Knox was right on in his evaluation of the situation. Before you pull out the flame-throwers, just hear me out:

First, I will not argue a shopkeeps rights. That was not the subject of the OP, nor was the VCDL nor The Civil Rights Movement, nor the Holocaust.

Mr. Knox simply asks us to consider our reaction when faced with the "No Guns" sign, and makes an excellent case suggesting that if we do not feel insulted, we should. Furthermore, as gun owners we bear a responsibility respond to such insults, in a civil manner to be sure, but respond we must. Some suggest that we shouldn't judge those who don't want guns on their property because we can't know what set of life experiences led them to make such a decision. Perhaps that is so, but is that reason enough that we should not engage these decision makers to represent our point of view?

Certainly no one here would disagree that we, as gun owners, have seen a steady erosion of our RTKBA. Sure, we get a little back now and then, for a while, but we have been losing this battle since the day the Constitution was adopted. We are and have been beset by elements who do not celebrate diversity when it comes to those who disagree with them, and gun owners are the embodiment of their worst nightmares. They fear us (and what we represent), they work to marginalize us, and despite recent evidence to the contrary, those who oppose us have the upper hand.

If it does not represent outright hostility, the "No Guns" sign represents, at the very least, capitulation to the anti-gun mindset that has come to permeate so-called civil discourse. Who is going to stand up for us if we are unwilling to stand up for ourselves?

Regards,

George

[WRW]

in this case , for me, from a owner of property, I have to feel that the right of property ownership trumps in this case...

Yes! Now why would one follow suit with an ace when the pile has already been trumped.

[zephyp]

Certainly no one here would disagree that we, as gun owners, have seen a steady erosion of our RTKBA. Sure, we get a little back now and then, for a while, but we have been losing this battle since the day the Constitution was adopted. We are and have been beset by elements who do not celebrate diversity when it comes to those who disagree with them, and gun owners are the embodiment of their worst nightmares. They fear us (and what we represent), they work to marginalize us, and despite recent evidence to the contrary, those who oppose us have the upper hand.

George,

You hit upon the very essence of the anti's mindset - fear. I'll take it another step and wonder what motivates this fear. My thoughts are:

1 - Politicians obviously fear us for they know and understand the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment and why our Founders had the foresight to establish it as a Constitutional right.
2 - Hard line antis fear us for they too know and understand the true meaning and fear the loss of "status quo" if history repeated itself as a result of tyranny on our soil.
3 - The MSM media fears us for they too know and understand the true meaning and fear losing a story that can be forever milked from time to time and sweeten their offerings.
4 - The general public fears us simply because they are driven by the "fear" of others who make up stories that cover the truth and the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

We also fear ourselves. How many of us tactfully avoid discussing aloud the true meaning behind the 2nd Amendment? Think about it. We only discuss guns with respect to self defense, hunting, or target shooting.

Every time someone stands up and mentions anything remotely related to the true meaning of our 2nd Amendment - everybody - including us - runs for cover.

Fellow citizens and gun owners, please remember on this hallowed day - Veterans Day - why we have our precious 2nd Amendment and the cost of preserving it so far. Please do not let the service and often ultimate sacrifice of the men and women who have served this great nation be in vain.

Remember that the 2nd Amendment was granted by our Founders so we could protect ourselves from a tyrannous government and always have the opportunity to forever remain free. Let us not be ashamed or afraid to stand up and proudly proclaim this fact.

[BluemontGlock]

Dk-
A moving statement... (TEN-shut!!)

I am standing on my desk at attention!

and a Proud Veterans day to all!~

[greener]

If I had heard about the 10/17 rally earlier, I'd have been with VCDL rallying because I find the Repub's support of the second amendment but no guns policy silly. Sounds like we ought to work to get the 7th District leadership changed or the minds of the 7th district leadership changed.

I don't know that I have a constitutional right to not be insulted. I usually consider the source. Given the number of folks who sue and make a big public fuss over some perceived slight, I may be missing the professional side of have a perceived grievance. I am not insulted if someone bars firearms at his private property. I really don't want the government dictating that sort of thing, nor do I want the government protecting me from that sort of thing. If I don't like the sign, I can choose to either disarm to go into that store or not to support that business owner. I'm for all the freedom I can get.

[zephyp]

If I had heard about the 10/17 rally earlier, I'd have been with VCDL rallying because I find the Repub's support of the second amendment but no guns policy silly. Sounds like we ought to work to get the 7th District leadership changed or the minds of the 7th district leadership changed.

I don't know that I have a constitutional right to not be insulted. I usually consider the source. Given the number of folks who sue and make a big public fuss over some perceived slight, I may be missing the professional side of have a perceived grievance. I am not insulted if someone bars firearms at his private property. I really don't want the government dictating that sort of thing, nor do I want the government protecting me from that sort of thing. If I don't like the sign, I can choose to either disarm to go into that store or not to support that business owner. I'm for all the freedom I can get.

I agree but the notion of "no guns" signs all over the place polarizes the issue in the minds of the public which is where the battle is won. The more of those things we can get to come down the better. And not just so we can carry wherever we want. Lets not forget that we are not the only ones to see those signs. Every time a regular citizen sees one they probably link it to a tragic shooting which seems to be plastered all over the news almost every day. Making that association firmly plants the idea in their mind that guns are bad.

[Jericho01]

"The shop keep has EVERY RIGHT to administer his own rules and regulations in HIS OWN SHOP!!! if you don't like it, leave. SAY YOUR PIECE, and leave. The real problem in this story is the republican "leadership" in the 7th....so how do we change that? all together now..."vote them out" the simple fact that the VCDL continued to try to persuade the REPUBLICAN leaders to do things differently year after year with the same results ?? thats the definition of insane right? do the same thing over and over expecting different results. Perhaps its time the VCDL changed its dance partners."

In the next election, THROW THE BUMS OUT!!! We've been giving them our support and getting insults in return.