Made a banner...what do you guys think?

[Greg-Dawg®]

[hbliam]

My opinion. Citing them as one example for the CCW cause is OK. Making banners and the like is bordering on poor taste.

Lastly, it should read 32 dead. I don't count the coward.

[Greg-Dawg®]

Thanks hbliam...just trying to do my part.

[LAH3]

I understand where you are goin with this, but as with any concept to design, it takes many drafts and many tries before you hit the right note.

Keep it up

[ghschirtz]

Wish there was an easy way to say "universal shall issue-no gun-free zones". Definitely only 32 victims, but that has been noted. Maybe several flags, one about gun-free zones, another about shall issue?

"This is a college with a gun-free zone. Don't help murderers again."

"Self defense is an inalenable right and a duty. Don't support the murderer who chooses you."

"Seek justice, resist evil and underperform. Be a lousy victim."

Gun-free zones may be hazardous to your health. Enter at your own risk.

You are entering a gun-free zone. Politicians are not here, it isn't safe. Capische?

Does Mike Bloomberg live or work in a gun-free zone? Why should you?

Rosie O'Donnell has armed bodyguards, but you don't. Who is looking after you right now?

Hillary Clinton has Secret Service bodyguards and but thinks you don't need a gun for self-defense. What's worng with this picture?

Is it safe? Really, now...is it safe? Would a politician tell you the truth?

You never need a handgun for self-defense...until you really need one bad.
Get ahead of the game...

Sometimes the right tool can save a life.

Cars cause accidents, water drowns people. Who did this?

[X-ffdo]

I like the one. " Gun free zones are hazardous to your health......
and "Rosie O'Donnell......
Yeah, it may border on distasteful, but I can see using something like this. Personally, I commend you for your effort, partner!. I like it!.

[ghschirtz]

Glad some was useful.

I have been thinking on the "Mike Bloomberg" theme.

Feinstein, Pelosi, Bloomberg et. all have huge amounts of money to pay for all the security they could want, in addtion to what the taxpayers already give them. Why are gun-free zones good for some when these people refuse to work or live in them? Aren't they our LEADERS? What example are they setting?

VD Hansen put out an essay titled "Arrogance" on realclearpolitics.com. It was mainly about Corzine's gross violation of seatbelt and speed laws in his own state. But I think the shoe fits with regard to gun control.

Bloomberg et. al. will never face the results of their legislation, if they had their way. Someone else will do the bleeding, maybe some more students. Are our lives comparatively so worthless to theirs? I don't think so. But they have to see it that way. Their lives are worth protecting and ours are not.

The Washington DC mayor wants a town that is a gun-free zone. He was "outraged" when the court disagreed, that a citizen's right to self-defense trumped his case. The clear evidence is his police force is manifestly unable to protect citizens, and therefore its insistence on monopolizing the possession of weapons violated the constitutional rights of citizens. When government fails to do what it says, in cases like this, and basic inalienable rights of citizens are taken away, the Constitution and any general sense of morality requires that government cede power back to citizens. The monopoly is unconstitutional and morally bankrupt. And this mayor was "outraged". Maybe he collects a tithe from the criminal community. It is a dead cinch he does not work or live in the gun-free zone he wants to impose on his fellow citizens. Why is that, if it is such a good deal...

I don't know, with all the evidence that has piled up about shall issue, Trolley Square, etc., there is no other intellectually valid conclusion. Or there could be some nature of emotional derangement, as I suspect plagues Carolyn McCarthy of NY. Dennis Kucinich has always struck me as a little off the wall, but I dunno.

Maybe there is a punch line in there. If Bloomberg thinks gun-free zones are so good, then he can give up his security team. The contradiction could not be clearer in my mind.

[swdr]

Looks good, Greg-Dawg.

My recommendations (take with the obligatory grain of salt):

- Adjust sizes so the plea text is a bit more separated from the pennant to make it clearer

- Change the count to "32 murdered" to avoid counting the perp and emphasize the crime

- Make the pennant background red to emphasis the problem

- Have the holes get smaller per perspective to avoid dissonance

- Use sans-serif font for the plea text because it has more contrast

- Use "Concealed Carry" rather than "CCW" because it's more recognizable

- Move the count to the left edge, vertical, before the pennant to better emphasize it

- Leave the pennant tail holeless to emphasize the pennant shape

- Change "Fight for" to "Promote" to encourage non-confrontational moderates to join in

Generally, looks like you can give --> A Human Right a run for their money. Great start!

[More Cowbell]

My personal opinion is that using anything VTech this boldly may be judged harshly. I think it's all right to reference the tragic failure of Gun Free Zones in light of recent events, but this seems a bit too exploitative to me.

[IAmASensFan]

Originally Posted by hbliam

My opinion. Citing them as one example for the CCW cause is OK. Making banners and the like is bordering on poor taste.

Lastly, it should read 32 dead. I don't count the coward.

I agree on both counts...

[rycerz]

Originally Posted by Guns and Sushi

My personal opinion is that using anything VTech this boldly may be judged harshly. I think it's all right to reference the tragic failure of Gun Free Zones in light of recent events, but this seems a bit too exploitative to me.

I agree. We can talk about it and use it as an example but this is too much.