Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
I'm not allowed to say.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Just as I feared. Anyone still doubt that the in-your-face tactics to support open-carry hurt not only open-carry but concealed-carry as well?Russell wrote:As an aside, that article did drive a bit of traffic to my site. It also resulted in an increase in support tickets getting opened by clueless business owners asking for me to send them a 30.06 sign.
Chas.
But I suppose I can simply post 
without getting in trouble again.
03Lightningrocks wrote:I'm not allowed to say.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Just as I feared. Anyone still doubt that the in-your-face tactics to support open-carry hurt not only open-carry but concealed-carry as well?Russell wrote:As an aside, that article did drive a bit of traffic to my site. It also resulted in an increase in support tickets getting opened by clueless business owners asking for me to send them a 30.06 sign.
Chas.
Greybeard wrote:I much prefer the days not all that long ago when "OC" stood for Olesporin Capsicum.
It doesn't help gun rights when Old Cops shoot people for texting in movie theaters.You should send them a copy of the old sign printed on 8 1/2 x 14 paper with a reference to TCP 30.06.Russell wrote:As an aside, that article did drive a bit of traffic to my site. It also resulted in an increase in support tickets getting opened by clueless business owners asking for me to send them a 30.06 sign
I always respond with something along the lines of all they would accomplish by doing that is discriminating against their most law-abiding customers, criminals by their very definition care very little about signs. Unsurprisingly I never get a response back.