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.
anon anon wah wah wah
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.
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.
And BTW, I don't give one damn about what you do or don't have patience for.
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...
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.
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.
why would law enforcement need them if no one else has them?
so your gun laws will not work
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.
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.
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.
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 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!
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.