# Didn't you read the sign?!?



## Grenadier (Sep 15, 2008)

It says "no guns" on it!  

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5987

Hmm, I guess criminals still refuse to obey the rules that affect only the law-abiding citizens...


----------



## tshadowchaser (Sep 15, 2008)

since when have criminals read or obeyed laws and rules  if they did they would not be criminals


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Sep 15, 2008)

tshadowchaser said:


> since when have criminals read or obeyed laws and rules  if they did they would not be criminals



No, unfortunately they never abide by the laws.  That is why we as citizen's have to be prepared to defend ourselves because in the end and in the moment it will probably be just you vs. the criminal.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 15, 2008)

And my mother in law wonders why I don't patronize places that have a no gun policy.


----------



## grydth (Sep 15, 2008)

Wonderful theory that the safest thing to do is to "give the criminals what they want"..... except they so often want to torture and molest your child, rape your wife and shoot you repeatedly for the fun of it.  Then what?

I won't go to places that specify "No Guns"..... to me it means "No Customers"


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 15, 2008)

The line that caught my eye in the article was "anti-self-defense crowd". Anti-*self defense*??? Are they kidding? 
THAT'S what gives criminals the wherewithal to do what they do. 
Sheep.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Sep 15, 2008)

You mean the criminal broke the law? Unpossible!

I bet it was the employee's fault! Blame BUSH! Dick Cheney must have put the gun in the criminal's hand!

This just goes to show you 'gun free' zones mearly mean 'victim zones'.

Deaf


----------



## chinto (Sep 17, 2008)

yep.. if criminals fallowed laws they would not be criminals .. would they?!?


----------



## Kreth (Sep 17, 2008)

We obviously need stricter gun laws to prevent future incidents like this...


----------



## Ninjamom (Sep 17, 2008)

... or better signs!


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 17, 2008)

or literate criminals


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Sep 17, 2008)

How about less sheep instead.


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 17, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> or literate criminals


it had a picture too...maybe in addition to being illiterate, they were just dumbasses and couldn't interpret nonverbal imagery


----------



## Deaf Smith (Sep 17, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> How about less sheep instead.


 
Always less sheep. Like has been said, "a pack, and not a herd" is how the good folk ought to act.

Wasn't all that long ago that people didn't even lock their doors.

If more people instead of addicting their safety to the government stood up and accepted responsiblitiy for their and their loved ones defense, an awful lot of this two-bit crime would vanish. Sure there would be a few hard core that don't care, but most would.

Deaf


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 17, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Always less sheep. Like has been said, "a pack, and not a herd" is how the good folk ought to act.
> 
> Wasn't all that long ago that people didn't even lock their doors.
> 
> ...


I like the times back in the mid to late 1800's where folks openly carried and there were no stupid gun laws to say a person cannot have this or that and would not worry about being arrested for shooting someone that broke into their home or was threatening their lives.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 18, 2008)

grydth said:


> Wonderful theory that the safest thing to do is to "give the criminals what they want"..... except they so often want to torture and molest your child, rape your wife and shoot you repeatedly for the fun of it.  Then what?
> 
> I won't go to places that specify "No Guns"..... to me it means "No Customers"


 Hey, but at least you have the smug moral high ground satisfaction of declaring that you didn't resist, and hence, 'didn't contribute to the cycle of violence'!


----------



## Ninjamom (Sep 18, 2008)

I dunno....... aren't 'victims' sort of REQUIRED for the 'cycle of violence' to continue??


----------



## Deaf Smith (Sep 18, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> I like the times back in the mid to late 1800's where folks openly carried and there were no stupid gun laws to say a person cannot have this or that and would not worry about being arrested for shooting someone that broke into their home or was threatening their lives.


 
I'm sorry Caver, but except for on the range, in the 1800s most cities prohibited open carry of firearms. In Texas, were I'm at, the law after the Civil War stated until 1992 that one could only carry if they were 'traveling' or in their house or business. And the 'traveling' was so vauge it pretty much ment at least an overnight stay sevearl counties over. Lots of people got arrested and covicted with that law.

The shows like "Dodge City' are a myth.

Deaf


----------



## KenpoTex (Sep 18, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> In Texas, were I'm at, *the law after the Civil War *stated until 1992 that one could only carry if they were 'traveling' or in their house or business. And the 'traveling' was so vauge it pretty much ment at least an overnight stay sevearl counties over. Lots of people got arrested and covicted with that law.
> 
> The shows like "Dodge City' are a myth.
> 
> Deaf


damn carpetbaggers!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 19, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> I dunno....... aren't 'victims' sort of REQUIRED for the 'cycle of violence' to continue??


 There you go getting all logical and stuff!


----------

