Gun Rights groups going after Gun Free Zones!!!

[bersaguy]

I was wondering how long it would take!!   It's about time!!!................... :up:

 

 

http://www.therighttobear.com/one-groups-has-jaw-dropping-plans-for-gun-free-zones-thatll-enrage-millions/

[DaveTN]

Norton blocked a malicious attack when I clicked on that link.

[Mike.357]

thanks for the heads up Dave,  I'll pass

[bersaguy]

My  AVG didn't signal any problems with it at all and I just clicked on it again and opened it up and it works fine. It even posted my link on Google and opened up TGO link again and it worked.

Edited November 27, 2015 by bersaguy

[Mike.357]

why not give a review of what the story is about? 

 

Nothing personal against you Bersa but i can't stand it when someone just throws up a link

[bersaguy]

Ok Mike, here's a review:

 

One Group Has Jaw-Dropping Plans For “Gun-Free Zones” That will Enrage Millions

30599382_s There’s no doubt about it,  gun free zones do absolutely noting to prevent mass shootings.

Just take a look at a list of all the recent mass shootings the mainstream media has focused on and you’ll see 90%+ took place in a gun free zone. Which is of course why pro-gun groups have another name for the gun free zone…referring to them as target rich environments.

One pro gun group thinks they’re so awful they’d like it so the creators of the gun free zone are actually the one held responsible for deaths that take place inside of these “protected spaces.”

Guns.com writes:

    A gun rights group on Monday called for liability in mass shootings to be shifted to the entity or person who created a gun-free zone on which the incident occurred.

    The Second Amendment Foundation released its report on resolutions adopted at its September policy conference in Phoenix, Arizona, where the gun rights group reaffirmed its belief that that prohibiting guns in specific areas makes them vulnerable to mass shootings.

    The SAF also voted to unify support of urban and rural gun ownership, going as far as to put in writing its undeniable support of a measure in Utah correcting language to the 1934 National Firearms Act and 1968 Gun Control Act defining suitable firearms as those “particularly suitable for sporting purposes,” where self-defense isn’t mentioned.

    The bill, H.R. 2710 – also supported by the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the National Rifle Association – would further protect large caliber rifles and shotguns from the classification of “destructive devices” under the NFA and would prevent the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from from being able to reclassify ammunition to “armor piercing.”

    A recent scare over the potential ban of green tip rounds for all but military and law enforcement use caused panicked purchasing in the civilian community, in turn increasing the ammunition’s value significantly.

    The argument was over whether that type of round, used in AR platform rifles, was suitable for sporting use. ARs have become increasingly popular in hunting.              

    The committee also urged lawmakers to pass legislation protecting businesses and organizations that don’t post signs banning guns and called for gun owners to practice their Second Amendment rights and “joyously act in what an outsider might describe as ‘irrational self-reliance.'”

This is a reasonable action to pursue.

Businesses who look to infringe on a person’s second amendment right to protect themselves ought to be held liable for any injury taking place there.

That’s what the Supreme Court rules on plenty of other acts that are in violation of a person’s constitutional rights, so why not have it be the case here too?

Do you like the idea that it should be the people who prevent others from protecting themselves who should be held responsible for harm done to a person?

Or should the gun manufacturer’s be the ones who have to pony up?

[Mike.357]

thanks Bersa!

 

I find it intolerable that our rights as defined in the BoR  can be restricted on someone's whim and no one is held accountable.

 

Fine, you own property and want no guns there.  That is your right.  But when does your right become more important than my right?

And it makes my head spin when people actually believe that restricting rights makes us safer anywhere.

[Jonnin]

Norton blocked a malicious attack when I clicked on that link.

 

I get a totally blank white page, meaning my AV is also blocking it.   That does not mean its bad -- AV can be extra paranoid and sometimes a buggy script results in legit things being blocked --  but it can't be good either.   Whatever is going on,  I can't see the text without lowering my security, which I won't do.

[DaveTN]

I hate to see property owners and gun owners pitted against each other over rights (gun owners) they do not have.
The state of Tennessee has decided that it is a crime for anyone to carry a gun in public, except those they deem acceptable. The state is the one violating your 2nd amendment right; not the business.

HCP classes in this state are for information and in no way make a person any safer than your average gun owner for carry.

The only way the state is going to tell business owners they can't ban carry is if they exempt those businesses from lawsuits when people get shot. Of course the attorneys don't want to do that.

Years ago I would say it defies common sense that a business that bans the carry of deadly weapons could be sued for something hurt on their property. However in this day and age; who knows.

The only winners here will be the attorneys. City, County, state, and Federal buildings would have to be opened to carry if one of these suits were successful; that won't happen.

What's next? Your employer has to allow you to carry in the workplace? Never happen.

If I were a business owner I would close my business and move out of state before I let a thug state government that outlaws carry (except to those who pay them) tell me I had to allow anyone to carry a gun on my property.

[bersaguy]

I get a totally blank white page, meaning my AV is also blocking it.   That does not mean its bad -- AV can be extra paranoid and sometimes a buggy script results in legit things being blocked --  but it can't be good either.   Whatever is going on,  I can't see the text without lowering my security, which I won't do.

I posted the entire report for folks here to read for those having issues opening it up. See my post to Mike and it is all there.......... :up:

[K191145]

Norton blocked a malicious attack when I clicked on that link.

 

Tin foil hat time. I wouldn't be surprised if some anti's threw a little bug in a site, not saying they did but they would if they could, they have no ethics.