No Guns = No Money

I was in Platte City, Missouri last summer, and I remember laughing when I saw the door to the library.

There was a sign posted saying that guns were not allowed in the library. I was like “What kind of primitive place is this, where they have to tell people not to bring guns into the library??

Don’t I feel silly now.

After the passage of the concealed-carry law and the defeat of the Lincoln ban, Lincoln’s gun-wary have turned to business owners’ rights to prohibit guns.

Of course, this has upset those members of our society who want to interpret the 2nd amendment to mean they have a right to pack heat wherever and whenever they want, and anyone who wants to stop them must be a satanic communist or something.

Case in point – I just read today on the From the Heartland blog about the “No Guns = No Money” campaign.

If your (sic) hurting now from lost revenue due to the smoking ban and any of the other misguided things the Mayor has succeeded in accomplishing the last thing you want to do is piss off this communitties (sic) law abiding firearms owners. We can be a surely (sic) lot when we feel we are being disrespected or marginalized.

Understand that should you post “No Guns signs” (sic) we will respect your private property rights, because we are law abiding citizens. We won’t leave our side arms in the car, we just won’t darken your door or cash register with our hard earned yankee dollars.

Do you understand that; We are making a list and checking it twice to find out if your (sic) naughty or nice. Not only won’t we patronize your place you won’t even get a lump of coal.

Note that link in there. It’s the link to the actual list of businesses (so far these documentors are up to 1) who are going to prohibit firearms from their premises. And here’s the part where the tough talk turns into dollars:

My wife and I eat out regularly and just as an example we generally spend a few hundred bucks a month at a certain eatery. Should that eatery post signs they will be loosing (sic) approximately $2400.00 a year, and that is just from us. Consider that we have friends and family that are are (sic) pro CCW that eat there as well. By posting a “No Gun sign” that business will likely loose (sic) the better part of $10,000.00 a year, and that is just from the people I know.

There you have it – the real motivation behind all of this. If they can’t threaten you with their hidden guns, they want to threaten you with their dollars. Simply put, forget the 2nd amendment — the “law-abiding” gun-toters want their right to threaten people preserved, and they will make sure it’s preserved.

We heard the rhetoric all throughout the debate – the bad guys will think twice before committing their crimes when every citizen might be carrying a weapon. I can only imagine the mindset of the angry concealed-carry advocate, strutting around town packing his heat, knowing everyone should fear him.

Thank god we have these people to protect us from the criminals in society. So who’s going to protect us from these law-abiding gun-lovers? There’s no secret when reading the words of the most outspoken proponents of concealed-carry — there is nothing subtle about the hate and anger that flows into their writing.

I guess the one positive in all of this is that we can be sure the nuttiest of the nutty gun lovers won’t be eating at the places with “No Guns” posted.

10 Responses to “No Guns = No Money”

  1. Anonymous Says:

    guess the one positive in all of this is that we can be sure the nuttiest of the nutty gun lovers won’t be eating at the places with “No Guns” posted.

    But one must wonder, WHO may

  2. Prachar Says:

    “No Guns”. Just another way to tell non-law-abiding individuals “We have disarmed our patrons for your convenience.”

  3. Gunscribe Says:

    There is not threat, no boycott involved here.

    The bottom line is that any business that posts a no gun sign is telling law abiding citizens that have accepted the responsibility for their own safety that they are not welcome.

    As law abiding citizens we respect the property owners Right to make that decision. We are just pointing out the possible economic impact that decision will have on the bottom line.

    There is no boycott, quite the contrary, it is a “sign out” perpetrated by the business owners themselves.

  4. Anonymous Says:

    A “no gun” sign in the window is exactly the message I want to send to the law abiding citizens of Nebraska.

    As if legal CCW is causing problems in other states. Get a clue.

  5. neal Says:

    Back when this legislation was getting pushed, the gun advocates were arguing that armed individuals would not result in shootouts and vigilante justice.

    Yet so much of the defense for CCW rests on assertions like prachar’s “Just another way to tell non-law-abiding individuals ‘We have disarmed our patrons for your convenience.'”

    So which is it, guys? When someone tries to hold up a restaurant, are you going to whip out your gun? Are you willing to shoot? I’m not trying to be flippant, ironic or sarcastic when I ask this – I’m dead serious.

    If you’re a “law-abiding CCW” proponent who intends to utilize his or her new legal rights, what are you doing to do in that situation?

  6. Gunscribe Says:

    It is just not possible to give a simple answer to your question, there are too many variables.

    Just because People that take responsibility for their own safety and security have spare tires, fire extinguishers and first aid kits, it doesn’t mean they are anxious to use them either.

    The question could also be asked;

    One of your children cuts their leg on the playground are you going to whip your first aid kit out and prepare to amputate? How much aid are you prepared to render?


    You see smoke that looks like it is coming from a home a few doors away? Do you immediately call the fire department? Do you whip out your fire extinguisher and go charging down the street?

    I’m not trying to be flippant, ironic or sarcastic either Neal, I am trying to point out that there is not one solution for all situations. One has to be there when it is happening to gauge the type of response required.

    If the “robber” in your example poses no physical threat to anyones safety sometimes the best thing one can do, even if armed is be a good witness. Just because I have a hammer it shouldn’t mean that all problems look like nails.

    In my child with a cut leg example, without being there how do we know if it is just a scratch that only requires a little TLC or someting more servere that requires a trip to the emergency room?

    In the smoke down the street example how do we know it is a real fire or somebody cooking some greasy food on the grill?

    I have always encouraged people that want to be responsible for their own safety avail themselves of all the training they can. Training that is provided by professionals i.e. The Red Cross and Fire Department Seminars.

    Firearms ownership is no different. Anyone that chooses to carry a firearm owes the rest of the public they interact with the duty of being as knowledgable as possible about the subject.

    Truely, my answer to your query is not a “cop out”, it is just the way it is. There are just to many variables in a fluid situation to give a pat answer to any theorectical question.

    I can not truthfully give you an accurate answer unless/until I am in that situation. Something, that I never want to do by the way.

    I have carried a firearm for over 30 years either professionally or as a private citizen. I never want to be placed in a position where I will have to use it. I don’t want to use a first aid kit, fire extinguisher or change a flat tire either.

    I am not so nieve as think I won’t ever be placed in a postion where I have to act in some manner. Whether it is a physical injury, fire, flat tire or self defense I can only hope that all of my previous training and life experiences will guide me in the proper action that needs to be taken.

  7. neal Says:

    Thanks for the comment. I understand you’re not trying to dodge the question.

  8. neal Says:


    I guess what continues to exist as a fundamental obstacle preventing us from seeing eye to eye is that you view using a firearm as being equivalent to using a spare tire or a first aid kit. I do not.

    Those analogies are good, and should I someday view using a firearm against someone as being on the same level as using a fire extinguisher or a spare tire, they would be effective as well.

    But for people who don’t love guns, an item that is designed to launch a projectile at high speeds in order to puncture something else is not on the same level as a fire extinguisher, which is designed to put out fires.

    If you use a fire extinguisher as it was intended to its full extent, it puts out a fire. If you use a gun as it was intended to its full extent, it kills someone.

    Granted, just as you can misuse a gun, you can misuse a fire extinguisher. But CCW proponents don’t want guns so they can put out fires nor do they want concealed guns so they can protect themselves from people misusing fire extinguishers; they want them so they can protect themselves (and/or others) by way of intimidation or physical harm.

    Anonymous up there instructs me to “get a clue,” since CCW permits aren’t causing rampant deaths across the country in the other states where it’s legal. If I’m the one with the problem perceiving reality, where is the rampant crime spree that necessitates packing heat while dining?

    Your average burglary happens when no one is around. Your average thief who robs a place when people are around doesn’t want to use his gun. What’s going to make him use his gun? When someone else pulls a gun on him. When the situation escalates, that’s when it gets dangerous. What we have are a whole bunch of people who want to escalate the situation because they don’t want to be the victim and they do want to be in control.

    If I’m out to dinner, and some moron decides he’s going to rob Brewsky’s while it’s packed with patrons, I would much rather hand over my wallet and let the police take care of the rest than have some vigilante wannabe pull out his perfectly legal weapon and play hero.

    I would much rather be a victim of a mugging than a bullet. The vigilante bravado that comes from the most vocal of CCW proponents has me fearing the bullet of some NRA member living out a hero fantasy much more than I fear getting mugged in my neighborhood, which is near the capitol – a nightmarish hotbed of criminal activity if you ask Jeanne Combs.

    The dismissal of LPD during this period is what frightens me most, because that exposes the vigilante spirit behind so many CCW proponents.

    There is respect for our current system of law enforcement…as long as it fits in with their pre-existing political beliefs, which allow them to play cop with no repercussions. But instead, LPD doesn’t want more guns on the street in the hands of trigger-happy heroes, so LPD must be corrupt, stupid or puppets of Seng’s administration.

    That shows me a distint and direct disregard for our concept of law. That shows me people who think because they took a weekend class on gun safety they understand law and justice better than the folks who have committed their lives to that concept.

  9. Gunscribe Says:


    Sorry it took me so long to get back to your last comment post.

    I responded on my Blog.

  10. Amy Says:

    “Of course, this has upset those members of our society who want to interpret the 2nd amendment to mean they have a right to pack heat wherever and whenever they want.” Well, I am one of those people. If more packed there would be far feweer loonies who would beel free to shoot up others in offices, classrooms, etc. Amy

Leave a Reply