Friday, July 07, 2017

Banning guns isn't "safe"

Recently some anti-liberty bigots at a government recreation facility refused to abolish their anti-gun policy because they claimed that the "safety" and "image" of their facility would be compromised if visitors were permitted to carry firearms (or other weapons) on the property, and this would drive away customers.


Safety is compromised when visitors are NOT permitted to carry firearms or other weapons. Always. Weapon prohibitions are anti-safety.

Besides, their "ban" is meaningless since everyone intent on harm will ignore it, anyway.

And, they are worried about their "image"? Their anti-liberty bigotry harms their image in my eyes. Allowing people to keep their rights inviolate while in your presence isn't an image killer; it shows you to be adult and reasonable-- nothing could be better for your image.

As for patronage, do you really want to attract people who want everyone around them to be helpless? What sort of people might want that? Murderers, rapists, muggers, kidnappers, cops, cowards, and other scumwads, that's who.

I'm much more likely to go somewhere that doesn't ban weapons than I am to go places that do. I weigh the decision carefully when I go to a slaughter zone which bans weapons; trying to decide if the risk is worth it. Usually I decide it isn't.

If you ban guns, using "safety" as your justification, you are a liar and I won't trust you in other areas, either.

Thank you for helping support


  1. They can bake my gun shaped cake, as my open carry family hangs out in the business. Or i own it.

    That's what Supreme ruled ?!

    in no way "moral"...
    but "it's the law now".

  2. that ruling asserts that gov't owns budinesses, prior owners are slaves to govt, required to bake cake per their slave massah, and as dictated by random customer feelings and bitchyness.

  3. to the bullies go the spoils

    (in that world)