What is a Gun Free Zone?

A Gun Free Zone is a bad contract issued between yourself and some other entity in which you agree to forgo any attempt to defend yourself while in the area defined by this “contract” while the other side will not provide you with a decent system to protect you in case of trouble. If you were to have the means to protect yourself while in a Gun Free Zone, you will be prosecuted and probably found guilty of breaching the original agreement. A Gun Free Zone could be a school, a post office, a county, a state or the whole country. It is an ever expanding concept which promises the moon over starry eyes.

Let’s make it simpler: You body has what it is called an immune system. This is an integrated body system of organs, tissues, cells, and cell products such as antibodies that differentiates self from nonself and neutralizes potentially pathogenic organisms or substances. Basically it is an armory dedicated to fight things that might kill you such as bacteria, microbes, virus, parasites, etc. Some people either by sickness (Like AIDS), by treatment (Radiation therapy) or by genetics (Primary immunodeficiencies, think The Boy in the Bubble) lack this defensive system which makes them prone to infections and death. Your body has an array of amazing weapons: White Cells, T-Cells, Lymphocytes, B-Lymphocytes and a whole slew of guns and ammo dedicated  to protect you. Any living organism that wants to hurt you, will face no mercy from these weapons. And of course, we have antibiotics and other medications which we take to help our body combat these invaders. Basically we pull no punches when our body is threatened with sicknesses.

Now, your family doctor or the Secretary of Health and Human Services comes to you and tells you must give up your immune system and that it would make us all safe by doing so. They would promise that the best doctors would be roaming the streets just one phone call away in case you develop an emergency such a a cold or a cut that might need to be treated. Or if you wish, you just could go to a local hospital and file a complain about the infection and wait to be treated for that ferocious tetanus that attacked you and let the wheels of Medical Gov take your case. And by the way, you will have no say on the issue of countering an infection because we will make it against the law for you to have immune system. Possession of White Cells or any other body component aimed to defeat dangerous microorganisms without the proper and state-given authorization will be harshly punished.  Oh! And by the way, I must inform you that the Supreme Court determined that We The Government have No Duty to Treat You so you cannot sue us or penalize us in any way in case of sickness or death.

Sounds absolutely stupid and downright absurd, right? Yet we are asked to give up our guns in order to be “safe” under the care of the Government but without any guarantee of security at all. We are told we must shed our means to fight against a criminal if we are in these areas just because a group of lawmakers decided we are better off following a law that no criminal or deranged individual must follow. And yet many people think this is a good and logical thing!

69 thoughts on “What is a Gun Free Zone?”

      1. Do you have an autonomous gun, which can take action independent of you? Or are you incapable of controlling your own reactions to events you can’t control? If the former, please call the bomb squad, and have them bring an exorcist. If the latter, please call the police and report yourself as a dangerous individual.

        If neither are true (you were being sarcastic), then there is nothing to worry about when your neighbor parks on your lawn. Just inform Bob that he’s not welcome to do so, and if he persists, call the police to deal with a trespassing incident.

      2. I suggest you calm down, you’re giving all gun owners a bad name. You don’t need to kill Bob, certainly not for a parking infraction. I’m sure if you inform him that he has been parking on your lawn and that you don’t want him doing so, he will be more than happy to park elsewhere. If he refuses, there are other courses of legal action that you should take prior to murdering your neighbor.

  1. But… but… you’re missing the whole point! Guns are SCARY. White cells are not scary. And don’t I have a right not to be scared by scary guns? Isn’t that in the Constitution, or something?

    [sarcasm off]

    1. White cells are quite terrifying if you’re a parasite, and we have quite afew of those running around our neighborhoods. What does that tell you about the gun prohibition movement if they fear firearms so?

    2. Scared by scary guns? Come come Daniel, isn’t it time to grow up and be a man? Maybe it is time you switch your sex.

      1. And maybe you (as well as the others above) should read the whole post before responding. Daniel was clearly being sarcastic, and figuring there would be a few too dense to see that, he even added [sarcasm off] after his comment to make it that much more obvious. Apparently he needed a bigger sign…

  2. The only ones in ancient Rome prohibited to have weapons were slaves. That’s the ultimate answer to all ‘gun-free’ questions.

      1. Compared to the societies of the time, it was quite enlightened. Read up on the Classical Era. It was a brutal time to be alive just generally. Republican Rome had a representative form of government, women could own and inherit property, divorce, and citizens had rights which governmental officials had to respect. Those rights were eroded during the Empire, which should serve as a lesson to us.

  3. Gun free zone?
    My gun was not free… as a citizen of these United States (unlike nobama) the Constitution gives me the RIGHT to own one.
    Law abiding citizens have been KILLED in GUN FREE ZONES because they have not been aloud to protect themselves.

    1. Oooo – very close. Just to clarify (and this is a very common misunderstanding), the 2nd Amendment PROTECTS a God-given right. Remember something the gov’t grants is something the gov’t can take away. The Constitution does not give us our right to bear arms, but it does protect that right with which we are born. :)

      1. so your saying that your form of government has the right to take away our right given by god? so, who gave them that right? we did and we can take it away….

      2. The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. The government DOES NOT have the right to take it away.Learn your history. Every government that disarmed their public landed up being a socialistic country with their citizens at the mercy of there government. Just to start your education look what Hitler did to the German people.

      3. ummmmm the government cant take anything away from us because we gave them any power they have. Obama (One Big Ass Mistake America) can try and take my guns away and well see how far that gets him.

    2. Actually, the Constitution *doesn’t* grant you that right. It simply *prohibits* the government from infringing upon your *preexisting* natural right to do so.

    3. You are absolutely correct. But these idiots don’t realize that. A gun free zone is an invitation to the criminals saying, “come on in, there’s no one there to stop you. Please, feel free to rob and shoot up the place. I know it says gun free zone, but that only applies to law abiding citizens”.

  4. I love guns; own guns; and have no problem with other people having/owning/shooting guns. But ya’llhave to agree that there are some people that shouldn’t be allowed to even look at guns.

    1. I am in agreement that violent felons should have their 2A rights restricted & those who have violent mental problems till they are cured. Other than that…..

    2. I can’t disagree in the slightest, but it’s the same with, voting (can’t stop the mentally challenged), car’s (people like my brother just cant drive), ladders (my wife hate’s height’s) the list go’s on and on…… so at what point do we just hold people responsible and stop all the BS.

  5. My guns seem to be defective…they have not jumped up and shot anyone, nor have they committed any crimes. But they have told me that they will fight to the death to protect me. I think that is honorable, much more honorable than someone wanting to take them away from me.

  6. Why is it people (read: Politicians) always blame the tool for what the user does when it’s a gun, but blame the user when it’s a vehicle causing death, disfiguration, disability, pain and suffering, etc.?

    Vehicles kill and maim more people than guns but you never hear calls for tighter “Assault Vehicle” laws, do you?

      1. They transport drugs, take criminals to hideouts, help kidnap kids and take them to secure locations, used in Drive-bys… I can go on and on.
        Hell, if we ban cars imagine all the crime we would curtail.
        Only mode of transportation allowed from now on shall be a horse.

  7. Why don’t you people stop & think before making statements. It’s not the gun people……it’s the person behind the gun. Just as it is the person behind the vehicle, or the knife, etc; things don’t kill…people kill people. I have a compromised immune system…but have never been afraid of that causing my death. Oh….and I own no guns or knives, other than kitchen knives to carve/cook with.

  8. Your President,Senators,Congressmen say that we do not need a gun for protection but OUR PRESIDENT has how many secret service people protecting him with GUNS? Your Senators and Congressmen some having concealed permits still have ARMED security.If we don’t need guns then let them get rid of their security and their guns. Mine are staying with me.

    1. But that would make the scenario *different* from gun ownership. Even the low-ball numbers presented by anti-gun groups show that defensive gun uses outnumber deaths and injuries caused with guns (including suicides) by about 3 to 1. If you restrict yourself to peer reviews studies, where independent researchers have verified the data and methodology, that increases to about 30 to 1.

      Guns save far more lives than they take.

  9. I recently purchased a firearm and obtained a CCW. The primary reason it is “recently” and not “for the past decade” is because many of the most prominent groups that advocate for gun rights also employ childish names like “nobama” and insist beyond all reason and evidence that the President of the United States of America somehow faked his way into citizenship. And for what reason? It makes the community at large look ignorant It took me a while to separate the ideals of conservative groups from the actions and loud commentary of what I sincerely hope constitutes a vocal minority.

    It is my right to keep and bear arms. I believe in the rights of the individual. I believe that the government should not be enforcing it’s own brand of morality on the populace. I want to be part of a community that agrees. But all I see are people trying to limit individual freedoms (banning gay marriage), spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about people who disagree with them, and generally take the most uneducated route possible to megaphoning their beliefs at anybody who sounds a little different than they do.

    I truly believe in individual freedom, and the right to protect it. I truly believe the government, cannot guarantee my safety, nor should they be left responsible for it. You can’t provide effective security for 313.9 million people from one organization. You can’t decide for that many people what is morally correct or acceptable beyond only BASIC law and order (don’t kill, don’t steal, etc).

    But please, if you are going to promote these ideals as American, stand behind them to their logical conclusion. Individual freedom means individuals doing things you don’t like, and you get to do things they don’t like. You both have to suck it up. And PLEASE do not spout ignorance in the name of God and Country. It affects the number of intelligent, right minded citizens who would happily stand beside you to defend our rights, if you just didn’t make it look like they were joining an army of ignorance and bigotry.

  10. And maybe you (as well as the others above) should read the whole post before responding. Daniel was clearly being sarcastic, and figuring there would be a few too dense to see that, he even added [sarcasm off] after his comment to make it that much more obvious. Apparently he needed a bigger sign…

  11. GUN CONTROL IN AMERICA IS ABSURD. Our Country won its Independence with GUNS.

    The Second Ammendment is protected by The Dick Law of 1902 which is IRREFUTIBLE! Which is why Liberals hate it sooo! :P LOVE MAKIN EM CRINGE!

    The Second Ammendment backs the first.

    AS A LAST RESORT ONLY!

    IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISARM AMERICANS WHO HAVE GUNS. WE SHOOT BACK WHEN FACED WITH IMMINENT DEATH. :)

    MY 15 MINUTES OF FAME!

  12. While the “immune system” analogy is confusing, I couldn’t agree with the premise more. One comment I abhore is the following: “Guns were created for one thing…killing.” It’s old, tired and untrue. Here is a list of what I use guns for: Recreation-I shoot trap and sleet, compete in 3 gun tourneys, and long range shooting. Male bonding-I often get together with the pals and shoot stuff-it’s fun. Bonding with my kids-There is something powerful in handing down the safe proper use of guns from father to son/daughter. Celebration-Every year on the fourth a bunch of my friends get together and burn up ammo. one thing my guns have never been used for is killing people. They are a tradition and way of life for people in my culture. I don’t expect you to understand it. He’ll, I don’t understand why lefties always practice “peaceable assembly” during rush hour. But I respect your rights, so please respect mine.

      1. He won’t, and I’m fairly certain he’s misusing the Straw Man fallacy.
        It doesn’t matter whether the accusation is accurate or not, calling the opponent out on a logical fallacy is all that matters. I knew a guy who loved his Slippery Slope fallacy. Any time I tried to use some sort of logical “If A then B” progression, he would shout “THAT’S A SLIPPERY SLOPE!” The last time he did it I actually berated him rather harshly and threatened to get out of the car and walk home.

      2. I feel that the argument missed plenty of key points and tends to draw a clear line on a very grey subject. I feel that the parable/analogy/metaphor used is meant to incite raw emotion rather than logical discourse.

        I’d recommend to anyone that they take the author’s words with a grain of salt, as they seem extremely biased on this topic in particular and any discussion would likely not take multiple perspectives into account.

        If someone is looking for insight and understanding on this popular issue I think that they should look for information and opinions elsewhere.

        If, however, a reader is looking for this type of roiling writing then I guess it serves a purpose, but should not be used to educate or inform discussion without taking in to account other perspectives.

        1. Suggesting someone is biased for advocating a point of view they agree with is asinine. Saying someone should be ignored because their argument is one extreme of a spectrum of arguments is called the golden mean fallacy.

          1. These are just recommendations for people looking for a well-rounded point of view. If you want only one perspective, then this is one perspective. I never argued that the correct answer to the argument was to make a compromise (ie. not the Golden Mean fallacy), simply that this perspective is narrow and clearly ignores some of the grander pieces of the gun rights argument as a whole.

            I honestly don’t understand your what two posts are trying to do. Advocating a point of view is inherently biased – which is fine, we all have them – but I feel that this bias is dangerous (in the sense it omits a lot of useful arguments) and that any reader should understand these aspects of the author’s writing when using this information to, well, inform themselves.

  13. Your main point was that the author advocating his own point of view made him inherently untrustworthy and not worth listening to (poisoning the well, since you recommend not engaging with him in the future on this basis). You *are* using the golden mean fallacy since you are arguing that a “well rounded point of view” would necessarily result in someone occupying a different position than the author (or you are arguing for the sake of arguing).

    You’re now also arguing that people need to be informed that an opinion piece represents someone’s opinion. Most people do not actually require an author to point that out, since it is basic common sense.

  14. Your main point was that the author advocating his own point of view made him inherently untrustworthy and not worth listening to

    – I didn’t say that advocating his point of view made him untrustworthy. I said he ‘missed key points’ and ‘meant to incite raw emotion rather than logical discourse’ by using a very poor analogy. His methods, rather than his point of view are what I was critiquing.

    You *are* using the golden mean fallacy since you are arguing that a “well rounded point of view” would necessarily result in someone occupying a different position than the author

    -If one position is argued to be superior solely because it is in the middle, then this is the Golden Mean Fallacy, aka “Argument to Moderation.” And, no, I do not say that having a well rounded point of view would necessarily lead you to disagree with the author. I believe that was your implication. Someone could have read an article (or many articles) with alternative points of view and still agree with this author.

    You’re now also arguing that people need to be informed that an opinion piece represents someone’s opinion

    -You have me here. It’s obviously an opinion piece, but again I am critiquing his methods, not his opinion. Tactics like the ones uses can be deceptive and I feel that possible deception warrants a warning.

    1. You still argued that one should not trust the author in the future because of some aspect of their conduct in the past. This is beloved of politicians, but is a classic example of poisoning the well.

      The article itself is an example of reductio ad absurdum: demonstrating that an opponent’s logic results in a clearly absurd conclusion if applied elsewhere. So far you have *said* the analogy is flawed, but you have not explained in what way it is flawed or what information you feel it omits. Attacking an opponent’s position without revealing your own is generally referred to as “guerrilla debating,” and is frowned upon because is is generally used by people who know their own position is untenable if revealed.

      To your other points: you have a very dim view of 2A supporters if you think them so entirely stupid that they believe one blog post contains the totality of human opinion on a subject. And if they *do* believe that, they’re hardly going to listen to you saying otherwise.

  15. I believe a better analogy would be if, to combat racism, the newly elected cenobite government required everyone have their skin removed. It doesn’t actually stop people identifying racial traits if they want to (since skin colour is only the most obvious) and removes the body’s best barrier against attack. Not to worry, says President Pinhead, because you can still use your internal immune system before anything gets close to your vital organs, and there will be doctors who will be able to treat any infection in 2-3 weeks, possibly saving at least one of your limbs from gangrene! And it will end racism as long as everyone acts within the spirit of the law for the first time in human history! DO YOU SUPPORT RACISM OR SOMETHING?

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .