Pro-Gun Children's Book Explodes In Popularity After Media Ridicule

We don't explain seat belts to our children , we just put them on them. Why would you want them to know at such an early age?

Mommy, why seat belts?

Oh, honey thats so your brains don't splatter the windshield.

The media wants to usual spin the horror of guns to our kids and ban information like whats presented in the book.

Mommy, why are you packing heat?

For your protection.

It's like a Sarah Palin stocking stuffer.

originally posted by: rupertg
It's like a Sarah Palin stocking stuffer.

Okay, that made me cough up a cup of tea all over my computer.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Each to their own and all that, but the issue i have with such "opinion/lifestyle explanation" books, is that if you cant sufficiently explain it to your kids, then you probably shouldn't have kids, or that barely formed opinion/lifestyle in the first place.

And why think through and form your own opinions when an easy read book can do it for you.

But then i'm just an opinionated bum-hat, but i'm cool with it and don't feel the need to justify it to my kid.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Hey.. I was being serious, kinda.

Seeeeee...

What if both parents had police officer outfits on? That would probably make the book sell less because everyone accepts that, but the truth is, a calm, partnered pair of parents who are logical and upfront and careful are probably a lot less likely to have 'problems' that LEOs have (alcoholism, cheating, battering), yet we accept the costumed parents because we've been conditioned that way.

Everyone should be able to protect and defend their families, and when both partners do it and educate their children it's all good.

Mommy and daddy are terrified of their own shadows little one, that's why we have to be armed to the teeth at all times everywhere. Someone may look at us wrong, or be different than us god forbid.



And that's why honey, its important for your parents to be more armed than a SWAT team when we go to church, or check the mail, or go grocery shopping, cause you'll never know if some dangerous person with a different amount of melinin in their skin will assault you by existing.

Yes honey there are monsters under your bed, that's why its important to sleep with a gun under your pillow like daddy does.

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

For full disclosure i am not from the US and I am very anti gun, or at least anti hand gun.

That said if you are going to have guns around then it is surely best that kids are informed as possible about them.

I can respect that and appreciate your opinion.

Though to clarify, the OP was not about whether to teach your children gun safety. I expressed my views on that several times already. The question was... Can the opposing side use this and claim that gun owners are indoctrinating their children thereby causing more people to view all gun owners as psychotic nut cases??

I see this being used to further the anti gun agenda because now we are targeting children.

I hope that makes sense. It's late here and I feel like cats are sleeping in my eyeballs lol.

The anti-gun side will always be anti-gun and will always try to twist anything and everything to make pro-gun rights people look bad, so I'd not worry about them and this book.

a reply to: HauntWok

All the irrational leftist talking points: gun owners are dangerous, insane, and untrustworthy, and paranoid. You even slipped in the race card as well.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Not necessarily insane, untrustworthy or paranoid. However all gun owners are dangerous as having a gun is an inherently dangerous thing. Gun ownership shouldn't just began individual decision as it has implications for others.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Yeah, he's a very paranoid fella. Petrified of guns. Kinda shocked he threw in the race card though.

I understand his bed wetting fear of firearms, what I don't understand is why he doesn't want children informed on them?

IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Gun ownership shouldn't just began individual decision as it has implications for others.

Yah, I mean.........we should remove just SOME rights from people we don't agree with...

Can't have people deemed as wrong or "gun nuttz" exercising freedoms.


And I see HauntWork has moved on from one Anti-2nd thread to this one.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Ohh the irony it in all.

Progressive "People as a whole want guns banned or restricted"

American Public sees book and basically says over this and anything gun related

a reply to: macman

I think he got tired of getting owned by us "forum gang" members.

As for the book, I think I'll pick one up so when friends stop by with little ones, they can have some reading material.

a reply to: HauntWok

WOW...I can see that you have moved away from all logical thinking and are now working on your dramatic and creative stylings.

And not only dramatic and creative, but based off of hyper-emotional thinking grounded in lies and hyperbole.
Good for you.

a reply to: macman

Rights all exist within the framework if society. You can freedom of religion but if your religion calls for human sacrifice it might be a bit of a no no. You have the right to free speech but not to commit libel. Do you not think the is case fot restricting the right to own deadly weapons?

a reply to: ScepticScot
Human sacrifice there is a victim. Libel there is a victim. Me owning an arsenal, no victim, unless someone is stupid enough to break into my house or something. Then they would be a victim of their own stupidity, not my victim

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Do you not think the is case fot restricting the right to own deadly weapons?

Please, review the 2nd Amendment.

a reply to: KawRider9

Ya sorry bout the race card, kinda a low blow, I forgot, can't point out the obvious.

I've never had the need outside of camping out in the Colorado mountains to have a firearm on my hip.

Yes you heard that right, I've owned a few guns in my life, fired many.

Against people? Really? Its just not that scary in civilization. And I've lived in Detroit for four years.

Not getting mugged? Not hard, telling a mountain lion to back up, a little more difficult.

Still, if one wants to teach their children about guns, maybe some personal one on one time with the parents showing children actual firearms let them hold them, not glorifying them, knowing what they are, what they can do, and safety safety safety all the way.

The book is bad, and should feel bad.

And, why do I have to clarify this all the time, I'm not against guns, I'm against morons and the mentally ill from having guns.

originally posted by: HauntWok

I've never had the need outside of camping out in the Colorado mountains to have a firearm on my hip.

Good for you.
Since when do you get to decide what it requires others to be safe?

originally posted by: HauntWok
Yes you heard that right, I've owned a few guns in my life, fired many.

Don't believe it.

originally posted by: HauntWok

Still, if one wants to teach their children about guns, maybe some personal one on one time with the parents showing children actual firearms let them hold them, not glorifying them, knowing what they are, what they can do, and safety safety safety all the way.

And again, there you go. Same Progressive BS of you getting to tell others how life is and how they are to go about doing something.

You truly exhibit every characteristic of a Controlling Narcissist.

originally posted by: HauntWok
The book is bad, and should feel bad.

Books don't have feelings.
And books can't be bad.

originally posted by: HauntWok
And, why do I have to clarify this all the time, I'm not against guns, I'm against morons and the mentally ill from having guns.

That statement alone is the biggest telltale sign.
So, people you have deemed as "morons" are not allowed to exercise a right.

And your hyperbole based "mentally ill" comes back into play. The same that you can't define. The same that you think should be left up to a Govt official to decide what grounds it is based on.

The same Govt you speak of from one side of your mouth, stating they are dully elected and then go on from your other side about them being paid for by a lobby.