2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,952
- 52,208
- 2,290
Yes...anti gun extremists have put out the word...if you see a normal person carrying a gun for self defense....call the cops and hope the cops shoot them or they shoot the cops...just like their freinds in blackliveskillcops....these nuts have lost in court, and so now want people killed.
Calling Police on Gun Carriers -- Coalition to Stop Gun Violence's Dangerous Tactic | National Review Online
Having failed for decades to achieve any of its broader aims, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) has decided to experiment with a new tactic: annoying peaceful gun owners into submission. “If you see someone carrying a firearm in public — openly or concealed — and have ANY doubts about their intent,” a recent missive from the group proposed, “call 911 immediately and ask police to come to the scene.”
Thus did one of the nation’s leading “anti-violence” outfits casually mark 12 million people as targets.
Ladd Everitt, the director of communications for CSGV, sees no problem with this approach at all. “In an era in which individuals are being allowed to carry loaded guns on our streets with no permit, background check or required training,” he told Fox News, “it is common sense for concerned citizens to call 911 when they see an armed individual whose intentions are unclear.”
Leaving aside for the moment that this proposal is extremely dangerous, Everitt’s logic leaves a lot to be desired. He presumes that citizens should be especially worried because in some areas individuals are “allowed to carry loaded guns on our streets with no permit, background check or required training.” But why? Suppose for the sake of argument that we lived in an era in which all carriers were supposed to obtain a “permit,” “background check,” and “required training.” What would that tell us exactly? Is Everitt suggesting that if the law-abiding were obliged to undergo a more strenuous licensing process, criminals would decline to carry guns? Does he conceive that mass shooters might refrain from causing carnage and terror if their state of residence insisted upon more stringent background checks? What, other than demonstrating the enduring power of the non sequitur, is he trying to achieve here?
Calling Police on Gun Carriers -- Coalition to Stop Gun Violence's Dangerous Tactic | National Review Online
Having failed for decades to achieve any of its broader aims, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) has decided to experiment with a new tactic: annoying peaceful gun owners into submission. “If you see someone carrying a firearm in public — openly or concealed — and have ANY doubts about their intent,” a recent missive from the group proposed, “call 911 immediately and ask police to come to the scene.”
Thus did one of the nation’s leading “anti-violence” outfits casually mark 12 million people as targets.
Ladd Everitt, the director of communications for CSGV, sees no problem with this approach at all. “In an era in which individuals are being allowed to carry loaded guns on our streets with no permit, background check or required training,” he told Fox News, “it is common sense for concerned citizens to call 911 when they see an armed individual whose intentions are unclear.”
Leaving aside for the moment that this proposal is extremely dangerous, Everitt’s logic leaves a lot to be desired. He presumes that citizens should be especially worried because in some areas individuals are “allowed to carry loaded guns on our streets with no permit, background check or required training.” But why? Suppose for the sake of argument that we lived in an era in which all carriers were supposed to obtain a “permit,” “background check,” and “required training.” What would that tell us exactly? Is Everitt suggesting that if the law-abiding were obliged to undergo a more strenuous licensing process, criminals would decline to carry guns? Does he conceive that mass shooters might refrain from causing carnage and terror if their state of residence insisted upon more stringent background checks? What, other than demonstrating the enduring power of the non sequitur, is he trying to achieve here?
