quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

The idea behind the photo is to commit an of delation against one's neighbours by advertising that they're more vulnerable to an armed burglar than you are, to save your own skin, and to fuck them up at the same time. It's cowardly and criminal.

If you don't see how or why that's a revolting idea, there's nothing else to discuss, really.

Thankfully, the picture belongs to the realm of fantasy (I'm hoping).

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

The idea behind the photo is to commit an of delation against one's neighbours by advertising that they're more vulnerable to an armed burglar than you are, to save your own skin, and to fuck them up at the same time. It's cowardly and criminal.

If you don't see how or why that's a revolting idea, there's nothing else to discuss, really.

Thankfully, the picture belongs to the realm of fantasy (I'm hoping).

If I had a neighbor who wanted to ban firearms, I'd make the picture in the realm of reality just for you kittin. It has nothing to do with fucking them up nor with saving your own skin. It has everything to do with pointing out the fact that their desire is to make everyone in the neighborhood as defenseless as they are for some stupid reason.

I don't find it revolting at all. I find it more revolting that said neighbors won't simply mind their own fucking business and stay out of everyone else's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EbonyWood

I think such a sign is the exact opposite of 'minding your own fucking business', isn't it?
 
The sign is photoshopped, propagandistic and would be illegal if real.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: EbonyWood

I think such a sign is the exact opposite of 'minding your own fucking business', isn't it?
 
The sign is photoshopped, propagandistic and would be illegal if real.

On what basis - and, more specifically, what statute - would such a sign be illegal?

Just curious.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: EbonyWood

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: EbonyWood

I think such a sign is the exact opposite of 'minding your own fucking business', isn't it?
 
The sign is photoshopped, propagandistic and would be illegal if real.

On what basis - and, more specifically, what statute - would such a sign be illegal?

Just curious.

Firm

Aiding commission of a crime for one.
 
Imagine someone caught burglarising the house.  In court - "Well, I saw this sign pointing the way, your Honor" Do you think the sign would stay up?
 
But even before that probably something about publishing private assets. The owner could also just buy a gun and then it becomes libellous for publishing an untruth. [:D]
 
I'm hypothesising because the sign is hypothetical. It's morally wrong first, right?.  Can't swing a cat in this country without hitting a lawyer. Let's knock a few issues off before calling them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
The idea behind the photo is to commit an of delation against one's neighbours by advertising that they're more vulnerable to an armed burglar than you are, to save your own skin, and to fuck them up at the same time. It's cowardly and criminal.

Show me how it's criminal. I'll wait.

If the sign were real and factual i.e the unarmed neighbor actually did want to ban all guns and remove the armed naighbor's right to defend his home then I see nothing wrong with the sign. If the unarmed neighbor merely chose to not own firearms and didn't advocate taking away everyone else's right to own fireams then the sign likely would not exist.

The whole 'If you can't see it my way then there's nothing to discuss' logic is juvenile at best and the mark of a skilled debater.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

The State Bureau of Investigation.
 
Honestly... it's right above your head.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
The idea behind the photo is to commit an of delation against one's neighbours by advertising that they're more vulnerable to an armed burglar than you are, to save your own skin, and to fuck them up at the same time. It's cowardly and criminal.

Show me how it's criminal. I'll wait.

If the sign were real and factual i.e the unarmed neighbor actually did want to ban all guns and remove the armed naighbor's right to defend his home then I see nothing wrong with the sign. If the unarmed neighbor merely chose to not own firearms and didn't advocate taking away everyone else's right to own fireams then the sign likely would not exist.

The whole 'If you can't see it my way then there's nothing to discuss' logic is juvenile at best and the mark of a skilled debater.

I find this attitude interesting.

When Ohio passed its law allowing concealed carry in 2004 the Cleveland Plain Dealer and a number of other newspapers around the state published the names of those who obtained permits.

There was a howl of outrage because apparently those having concealed carry permits felt they would be targeted by criminals, which was the exact opposite of the arguments made for passing the law in the first place.

Here an example some of the comments:

A fight over confidentiality of concealed-handgun permits


"The press wants to put a scarlet letter on these people," said Chris W. Cox, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. "This serves no public good. It's potentially dangerous to post these lists." 
 
 
Now based on this sign, you would think that those who want to carry would feel safer with everyone knowing they were, so I never quite understood the outrage over the media publishing their names.