I've heard people on all political sides, defending this as "free speech". I have wondered how much it would be defended, if it were a similar billboard with the current president's face on it.
I think the sign is meant to convey that there are crazy leftists coming for your gun rights, not that people should go out and shoot them, but it does walk that line so I can see how it could be seen as inappropriate.
Personally I have never and will never bring politics into my business or my advertising because people have differing opinions and I don't want to alienate customers. But I don't own a gun shop, if I did, I realize that guns are a political issue so I might speak in favor of gun rights, but I'd still avoid saying anything that could be perceived as a threat.
Your comment is logical and carries no overtones of radicalism. This is how we can all get along. Well done.
Yep - time and place for everything, but business is business.
The right has been screaming that the lefties are coming for heir guns for more than eight years and you all still have your precious guns. Time to calm down Chicken Little - the sky is not falling.
I quite agree with you Linn. I find it interesting that there are a whole lot of anonymous comments supporting the right, as if there are so many more people thinking alike.
You will find whole lot of anonymous comments on here as it is permitted by the site.
anon anon wah wah wah
That was a comment, not a complaint. Kiss my ass.
no not even if you wiped it
The Progressive left has been and still is coming for the gun rights in America.
But thus far they have been unsuccessful.
Has nothing to do with chicken little or a falling sky.
No one is taking away your guns. You would think they're trying to cut off your man parts by the amount of hysteria. Now that I think of it, maybe you equate the two.
The Progressive left has been and will continue to push for the elimination of private gun ownership.
But, it thus far has not succeeded.
Doesn't mean it will give up and it won't.
It's not like it's some kind of conspiracy.
THEY'RE TAKING OUR GUNS, THEY'RE TAKING OUR GUNS!!!! They are not trying to control ALL guns and you know it. Clearly, you just want to be a drama queen and I have no patience for that shit.
And BTW, I don't give one damn about what you do or don't have patience for.
Then we're even because I don't give one damn about what you think.
Sure you do, or else you would not have responded in the fashion you did.
But I do agree that you shouldn't give one damn.
Clearly, they are doing it in the same nudgelike fashion they have done with abortion, with illegal immigration, with healthcare for illegal immigrants, with expanding voting rights beyond a citizen-only right
All of these issues are in play to become re-engineered Progressivism style little bits at a time.
No drama here.
Just the way Progressivism works itself into everyone's life
I'm not even I'm any hysteria about any of it.
If there is hysteria, it's you coming apart at the seams because someone commented about it. No big deal. It's the age in which we live.
Yeah, it's not like anyone is trying to infringe on second amendment rights...
You must think I fell off a turnip truck last night. Assault-type weapons are only ONE type of weapon. Funny, though - virtually all of the mass shootings were committed with an assault type weapon . Coincidence?
Well no, those are the most advanced designs, that's why Defense uses them, (albeit with features civilian versions aren't allowed to have) and it's also why they're a popular choice for home defense. And when it comes to home defense, guns like the AR15 are some of the easiest for women to handle effectively.
Murder is already illegal, if it wasn't guns it would be bombs or trucks or poison. If someone is determined to kill a bunch of people, there are many options. But most of those options wouldn't be a practical means of home defense. So you won't stop attacks, you'd just make it harder for people to defend their homes, particularly women.
So, the argument you're going with is that AR-15s should be available so that women, WOMEN, can defend their homes? Do you think we still live in the Wild West? Not one of the mass shooters has been a woman - not one. And if those are the kinds of arguments you're going to put forth, there's nothing further to discuss.
True, none of the mass shooters has been a woman, but women's gun rights will be taken along with men's if defense weapons are banned.
If assault-type weapons with mega bullet cartridges is banned, it should banned for everyone. I don't believe that this type of weapon should be available to anyone other than military and law enforcement . A real hunter doesn't use an AR-15 and there are any number of other weapons that can be used for self-protection whether man or woman.
why would law enforcement need them if no one else has them?
Because we both know that there will always be a criminal element that will obtain them on the black market and because if a bunch of bank robbers, let's say, even armed only with regular rifles, they would want to be able to contain the threat as quickly as possible and that would require superior weapons force.
so your gun laws will not work
Please try not to be dense. The harder it is for anyone to get an assault weapon, the less likely they will kill large numbers of people in a short period of time. The loopholes for sales by mail or at gun shows will be largely eliminated. Why do I feel as though I'm talking to a ten-year old. The shooter in Dayton got of 41 rounds in 30 seconds. NO CIVILIAN NEEDS THAT KIND OF FIREPOWER - NO ONE.
I didn't post that comment (must have multiple anon participants), but the term "assault weapons" does NOT have to be permanently applied to a firearm that will kill large numbers of people in a short period of time, especially in the eyes and minds of people with governmental power to allow it to be what they deem necessary to be relative to their ideological agenda for the masses.
Please try not to be dense.
EVERY gun is an assault weapon. The difference is that a pistol cannot fire hundreds of rounds per minute. I guess I must be dense because I have no idea what the rest of your screed means.
Ok.. you're dense.
A ban on one kind of an assault weapon today, can gradually become a ban on another kind of assault weapon in the future as a powerful government wants to have it interpreted as such within far reaching gun restriction laws as they find Progressive rationale to deem it necessary. Slippery-sloped ideas are very characteristic of Progressivism.
Bullshit and now that we're back to square one of my argument that no one is trying to take away your guns, I'm done.
Of course they are.
They just have not succeeded yet.
And won't for a good while because they must do it in increments, never give up trying, and never allow a good crisis or tragedy go to waste.
I agree you're done.
A Nazi? Are you fucking serious?
Also the term "assault weapon" can be slippery-sloped just like most other Progressive issues to become whatever it needs to mean for the advance of the ideology in the future.
Progressives in power and those most actively wanting that power know this.
The question was, whether or not it is acceptable to YOU. There may well be dozens of billboards with the current president's face on them, and I've seen a couple of them reported. None of them of them were advertisements for a gun store, though. I do know, that there are liberal-leaning gun shop owners around, and if any them had a similar billboard, sold targets of, or had similar signs demeaning any politician...I know that I would not find it amusing..or acceptable.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, concerning the "deplorables" (noun). I do know know, however, how I felt about it when I first heard Hillary Clinton say it.
It tells me that the hatred for many on the left, including the four new congresswomen, is seething strong enough to increase business for a gun shop owner. Just like gun sales soared before and after the former president was elected.
I remember just who first used that term, as I clearly stated. I also said I know I how I felt about it when I heard her say it. There is nothing about this post, about any sort of blame for the current administration.
Since I do not think that about those who simply disagree with me on many political issues, please do save that save that crap for someone who does.
You finally said in your second reply, that you would not put up such a sign if it were your business. Neither would I, but you did not say whether or not you find the billboard acceptable. Seems like a simple question, really.
Asking a simple question, does not even remotely equate to anything about it ruining anyone's day.
I did notice that you that you "loved" my post...thank you, thank you very much!
Like Maze, I never interjected politics into my business. The gun shop owner is free to do so, though. And yes, that is free speech. I do not view that billboard any differently than I would if it were posted by the owner of any other business...nothing about it calls for or implies violence.
Okay, so it's "free speech". Personally though, I do think a gun seller targeting certain people negatively in a billboard could both imply and incite violence.
Interesting that you immediately perceive it as violent. All I see is an insult.
I'm sure you are aware, of what The Four Horsemen Cometh is a reference to. I did not say that I immediately perceived it as violent, however. I did immediately make that connection though, and think that the billboard falls under the "don't do something just because you can" category.
In this current heightened environment of Us vs. Them and gun violence...I don't see how someone could not see that the billboard would be associated with possibly inciting violence.
It's hyperbole. Just like AOC's GND. The bottom line, though, is that a great many of the left's current talking points are literal...and a great many on the right see such as virtually apocalyptic for our nation. And rightfully so.
There is nothing about that billboard that calls for violence. People who see it as a call for violence would see someone looking at them askance or simply disagreeing with them as a "call for violence"...i.e. such people don't require a call...they'll find/invent an excuse.
Sorry, and I mean that. That was an impulsive reaction, something that I've often been chided for not doing here...being "spontaneous" enough.
It was the rightfully so about what a great many on the right see as "apocalyptic" for our nation, that spurred that. We agree that the Green New Deal is not a very realistic proposal at all, and it won't be happening. Since I do think we should be working towards many of those goals proposed in it anyway, and the current administration is simply chipping away at many of even the most reasonable ones that have already been passed.. I do personally welcome most any proposals towards acting more aggressively against further destruction of our natural environment.
We disagree about that last part, too. Not because there are not some people who are actually like that, but because that just isn't why many people see the billboard as something that could incite someone to violence.
Yes, let's just retrofit every single building in the country to be "environmentally friendly"...have you any idea how up front environmentally unfriendly that would be? I do. I've worked in both the construction and disposal industries. Anyone with a modicum of common sense would realize that there is nothing "green" about the GND.
Yes, apocalyptic. Every single candidate at one debate raised their hand to show their health care plan would cover illegals. They have all already made clear that anyone has the right to enter the country illegally. Now that effectively means that American taxpayers must provide for anyone who decides to take advantage of them, without restriction. That is indeed apocalyptic, both to our economy and our society. And that's merely the tip of the iceberg.
It is interesting to me that it is the very people who claim to be non-violent who see the billboard as incitement.
In the wake of the latest "mass shootings", it isn't very amusing to me.
I believe that he has attracted a great deal of business recently, due to the billboard.
Right. Hateful rhetoric found on signs, billboards, on the internet or anywhere have nothing to do with people snapping and killing other people with guns..is that what you're saying?
That does not seem to be the case, really.
No, I don't think I should have put something about mass shootings in my question. You stated that you find the billboard kind of funny, and I said why I do not. That is the whole reason, why many people do not find billboards like that amusing...especially one advertising a gun shop.
I have no idea what you're talking about, in the last two sentences. I know of no one who perceives you that way..at all.
It says a whole lot more about the store owners than it says about the politicians.
Agree with Dandy Don.
I agree with the other poster here that said the sign says more about those that have that sign up than the people depicted in it.
I agree with that also, no matter who might have been targeted on the billboard.
Seems someone is busily down voting those who's views they disagree with, once again. I do realize that is a featured option, but it sure is damn petty, over this particular disagreement.
I know it. No doubt someone gets off on such a petty thing. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
There has to be multiple users of the anon feature (some, I'm have no doubt have an account as well, and post anon at their discretion, which is a-ok...their choice).
What I like about the anon feature is that I cannot upvote, nor downvote anything.
I do not have an account at all.
I can only comment.
I care not who likes it, nor dislikes it.
Still, it is noticeable that more anon posts and votes get downvotes more frequently.
oh well, that's what the thumbs down is there for, to use it I suppose.
I don't particularly care one way or another but I do think it is hypocritical to denounce the billboard for it' free speech rights. There was no outcry when Sarah Palin was hung in effigy so why should you be so offended now?
The billboard did accomplish it's goal (I was going to say aim but thought that might be offensive to the left). It is generating plenty of attention and probably some business since it's been put up.
If you are referring the effigy of Sarah Palin being hung on private property as part of a Halloween display, there was actually plenty of denouncing of it..by people on all sides of the political spectrum. It is a bit different though, than a big billboard on a busy public road. I'm thinking the congresswomen whose faces were on it, were probably "offended" by it.
Yes, the billboard seems to have accomplished it's goal.