Skip to content
  • Nick F.

    Gun Free Zone = Targets That Won’t Shoot Back

    What could possibly go wrong…

  • David Sage

    Obviously you have to enforce that with police or security guards. No rule is worth a damn without some authority behind it. So if the gun free policy is literally just a warning sign then that’s not actually a gun free zone, it’s false advertising.
    It’d be cheaper to just have the teachers packing though…

    • Gatreh

      Would just paint a target on teachers though if a school shooting were to happen.
      They would shoot whoever has a means to defend themselves first.

      • Andrew Meyer

        And if no one in the school had a gun except the shooter, who would be the most physically capable of defending themselves?

      • Ummm thats the point. Do we ACTUALLY give a *&@$ about the kids and want to protect them? Or is the possibility of a teacher being shot in the defense of said kids too terrible of a risk?

        Why do usually logical, rational people turn into complete retards when the concept of gun rights comes up!? It doesn’t get any more reptilian than ‘kill or be killed.’ Don’t overthink it kids!h

  • rdococ

    Lol, as if all lefties were anti-gun. I’m a pro-gun leftie.

  • Chris Redfield
  • Stiffy Weiner

    Phew, I thought it was a CUM free zone.

  • Orange Crush

    Everybody is cool with keeping their money in a bank that has armed guards, but when you talk about having armed guards to protect an elementary school, suddenly everybody loses their shit.

    I guess they love their money more than they love their children.

Primary Sidebar