White Gun Advocates Ask Blacks “What Would Django Do?” Yes. This is Real.

White Gun Advocates Ask Blacks “What Would Django Do?” Yes. This is Real.

Frankly, I am tired of talking about Quentin Tarantino’s film, Django Unchained. But, here I am, talking about it again. Why you ask? Well, because the brilliant minds behind the events of the January 19th “Gun Appreciation Day” are working on innovative ways to reach out to communities of color. And, Larry Ward, current president of conservative leaning media company Political Media, has been working feverishly to aid this cause. So, what brilliant motto did he come with? “What would Django do?” For the record, yes. This is real.

Author : Jenn M. Jackson

Author's Website | Articles from

Frankly, I am tired of talking about Quentin Tarantino’s film, Django Unchained. But, here I am, talking about it again. Why you ask? Well, because the brilliant minds behind the events of the January 19th “Gun Appreciation Day” are working on innovative ways to reach out to communities of color. And, Larry Ward, current president of conservative leaning media company Political Media, has been working feverishly to aid this cause. So, what brilliant motto did he come with? “What would Django do?” For the record, yes. This is real.

Ward’s inevitable goal is to turn the outreach campaign into a nonprofit organization bearing the same name.

And, recently, in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, Ward explained that he hadn’t yet received the green light from Taratino or The Weinstein Co. to brand his project with their name.

“We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it,” Ward said. “We’ll make sure we aren’t violating copyrights, and if we are, we’ll have to change the name. But Django is perfect for what we’re trying to do, which is to promote gun rights to minorities. We’ll tackle the issue on the Democrats’ own turf.”

Ward got the bright idea from Jonathan David Farley’s article on Absoluterights.com. In the piece, Farley noted several black figures in history whom he credits with supporting gun rights. Prominent black leaders like Ida B. Wells, Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X are all mentioned in his quaint walk down the black gun lover’s memory lane.

“Historically, guns have been the African-American’s greatest friend.  The great Ida B. Wells, who, like me, had to flee Klan supporters in Tennessee after writing a newspaper article, said that “a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home….””

Sadly, Farley fails to mention that both King and Malcolm X were murdered with a weapon which, he claims, they held in such high esteem. To add, he notes that, you know since racism is a thing of the past, black people would do well to remember how important guns are to American culture.

“Racism in America is now gone like an exorcised ghost, but African-Americans would do well to remember our history when it comes to gun control.  Instead of turning schools into zero-tolerance zones for guns, we should let the NRA teach special classes in gun use, sort of like Drivers’ Ed, and there should be ROTC in all schools.”

Yes. Again. This. Is. Real. I laughed at it repeatedly when I first read it. I thought maybe it was one of those reports from The Onion or something. But, much to my chagrin, Ward and Farley are real human beings who truly believe that there are logical ways to gain market share in the black gun-ownership-game. Because, you know, the black community needs more guns. They completely neglect to mention or acknowledge the devastating statistics associated with gun-related murder in the black community. Instead, they rely on black folks’ kinship with beloved characters like Wells, King, and X to help support their efforts toward improving black perception of guns. And, it’s likely supporting their efforts to line their pockets as well.

Ward, at one time, equivocated on the issue of gun ownership in the black community by aligning it with the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Hence his decision to have the celebratory date so close to MLK’s birthday and national holiday.

“I believe ‘Gun Appreciation Day’ honors the legacy of Dr. King…I think Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with me if he were alive today that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country’s founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history.”

So, let me get this straight. Ward believes that the pacifist Dr. King would agree that there would have been no slavery if we simply armed African slaves? Okay. Right. Because they would have simply shot everyone?

Well, there was no US Constitution or Bill of Rights for the first 200 years of this land’s colonization. And, when African slaves were forcibly removed from their home continent, there was no Constitution granting rights to individuals. To add, MLK likely would not have existed at all or have had the same cause had blacks been given rights as human beings equal to their white counterparts prior to the Civil Rights Movement and the formal end of Jim Crow. So, his line of reasoning leads straight toward Delusion Land.

And, the kicker of it all is that they chose to play on the phrase, “What would Jesus do?” A saying worn on many a black woman’s church scarf or young adult ministry t-shirt, the phrase WWJD is synonymous with the black church family. Therefore, this under-handed co-optation of this inherently black heirloom is nothing but despicable and self-serving. This is not to say that other Christian families don’t have rights to the phrase. But, it is to cast light on the fact that Ward and Farley intentionally chose this phrase (eerily inserting Django in the Jesus part – because he was so Christ-like) to pull on the heart strings of black people.

The real question is: will it work? My guess is absolutely no. But, seriously gun peeps. You all really need to do better.

For the sake of conversation though, I will answer your question Mr. Ward and Mr. Farley. What would Django do? I think he would shoot you. And I think we can agree on that.

Be Sociable! Share!
Pinterest


Related Posts


Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Statuesque 1749 pts

On the other hand, though the analogy and slogan are kind of dumb, if they have concluded that a pro-gun/self-defense message will appeal to some Blacks (many more than anyone would suspect, I think), the effort is a step in the right direction.  Rather than conflating Black criminals with illegally obtained weapons with decent, law abiding Black people who are forced to live among predators or who wish to arm themselves against them, the fictional Django character has given them a fresh perspective.  That's a good thing, now let's hope they continue in this thought exercise and further develop their thinking.  Let's hope they want to have an honest dialogue and that this is not an attempt to use a social ill impacting urban Blacks as a marketing gimmick.  Honestly it reminded me of the anti-abortion campaign about killing Black babies.  Appreciate the effort to appeal to a new audience, go back to the drawing board please and find a message that is more appropriate.

 

It wasn't that long ago that the Black Panthers were preaching a similar self-defense argument against state-sponsored terrorism visited on Black communities, or that armed gangs of racists roamed the streets of Black communities with tacit or outright support from "law enforcement."  I appreciate the role that the federal government played in securing certain civil rights for me, but I never forget that any government has the potential to wreak more havoc and violence on peaceful citizens than any two-bit hustler with a .9mm.  I hear what the right and NRA is saying on this, and I do not support gun control legislation that promises me that removing guns from the wrong side of the equation will keep us safer when nothing is being done to get illegal guns off the street, address mental health issues, or to ignore other equally important aspects of security and public safety.  These measures have been proven to be ineffective and short sighted.

 

 

Just Cause martina marty 9 pts

No. 1 its a movie, No. 2 who gives a shit what they think? No. 3 This is just a diversion called "framing"  where the right try to spin an issue on their behalf and waste everyone's time.  As Hillary wanted to say, "who the f&&& cares"  More important things to do right now than discuss "what would Django a fictional character do"  Lets stick with solving the here and now issues (all) and try living in the moment.  I do not have time to think about what something that does not exist would do....that is b.s. and someone just trying to keep me busy...I can keep busy all by myself...no help needed.

Just Cause martina marty 9 pts

oh I meant to say live in the moment, remember the past and stay focused on the prize....

JennMJack 1180 pts

 Just Cause martina marty

 I totally agree that this is political spin. It is asinine and low.

Patricia Kayden 1674 pts

Since Django never existed (although Swirlqueen featured someone who had similar circumstances to him), why do gun advocates believe that the Black community would rally around this campaign?

 

Sounds silly to me, but I don't live in a Black community and have never felt the need to own a gun for any reason.  And I don't see how Blacks living in dangerous communities will benefit from more guns when it is gun violence which is cutting them down. 

JennMJack 1180 pts

 Patricia Kayden

 Right. They are attempting to make Django the black Superman or something. I think it is embarassing.

The_Boss 283 pts

"I think he would shoot you. And I think we can agree on that." LOLOL

JennMJack 1180 pts

 The_Boss

 Glad you liked that one :)

dani-BBW 1787 pts

What an atrocious slogan.

 

When it comes to violence and guns, I don't there's a one size fits all solution, as there isn't one gigantic problem. The problem of deaths from mass public shootings is very different from deaths due to domestic violence which is very different from gang/drug violence vs your run of the mill crime. All require different measured responses to curb the violence and limit deaths in an incident.

 

For the first, you cannot allow people legal means to kill 20 people in a couple of minutes. Your run of the mill unstable kid who's off his meds doesn't really have the sophistication to figure out how to buy an AK-47 on the black market from your local Armenian druglords (as compared to just legally going to Walmart), so chances are he will not be successful in illegally buying a weapon. Next, people who have a history of restraining orders, domestic violence issues, etc should not be able to legally obtain a weapon. Again, that forces them into the black market. Whether they have the sophistication or not to illegally get a weapon depends on a multitude of other things, like whether they have ties to criminals. By forcing both groups into the black market, you make them take risks as they desperately try to get a weapon. Such as leading them into chat rooms, doing suspicious google searches, etc that could direct law enforcement to them. Kind of the same as if someone starts making suspicious comments about Islam and bombs in the post 9/11 world.

 

For the last two situations, gun laws do not help because these people are involved in criminal activity and have the means to obtain illegal weapons. That is where your gang units, ATF, law enforcement, etc have to be proactive in enforcing other laws or coming up with other strategies to curb crime. I think the option to arm yourself in at risk communities is one that should be appropriately weighed as criminals are armed.

 

So the solution is not more guns everywhere to solve all violence, nor is it that owning a gun is stupid. It would be great if both sides would quit conflating these particular situations.

JennMJack 1180 pts

 dani-BBW

 I totally agree. This just further distances the conversation on gun policy and safe gun usage from logic and reality. It is a distraction when we should be having concrete dialogue on the problem. Great comments:)

JennMJack 1180 pts

 heyimPearlilikefries

 Hahaha, I still laugh at it everytime it crosses my mind.

thecrazyartist 2255 pts

I agree the Django comment was dumb. 

 

I will admit I am a gun owner and I will be applying for concealed carry soon.  The cities with the strictest gun laws seem to have the most gun violence.  It does not matter what restrictions are placed on them, a criminal will find a way to harm people. 

 

I live in the rural southwest, so I grew up around a pro gun stance.

cocoababe 1580 pts

 thecrazyartist 

"The cities with the strictest gun laws seem to have the most gun violence.  It does not matter what restrictions are placed on them, a criminal will find a way to harm people. "

 

DING DING DING

jakethewrestler 402 pts

THe folks against asualt rifles and other gun controls ... should put together a book of dumb logic and slogans of NRA members to illustrate  why  gun control is needed.   Most people would shiver at the thought of guns in the hands of people this stupid and ignorant.   Where I live just last week a  gun dealer accidently shot his friend (no charges)  at a gun show!!  then some drunk guys were shooting paper cups with ak47s and were hitting houses.  Did they think the buttlets were suppose to stop once they hit their targets????

JennMJack 1180 pts

 jakethewrestler "THe folks against asualt rifles and other gun controls ... should put together a book of dumb logic and slogans of NRA members to illustrate  why  gun control is needed.   Most people would shiver at the thought of guns in the hands of people this stupid and ignorant."

 

Precisely!

 
SirLoinDeBeef 2528 pts

While not armed at present, I am utterly opposed to the current obsession with assult rifles and double-column capacity automatic handguns.

What would Django do?

Well, he was portrayed as in the American Civil War era, and likely to carry a black-powder .44-caliber handgun ... only six shots available ... achingly slow to reload ... requiring the user to cock the weapon for every shot ... and thus to aim each shot ... with deadly accuracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=OSOo-zY0_lc

As opposed to jamming a 30-round magazine in place, racking the slide and blasting out bullets as fast as a finger could pull the trigger.

SirLoinDeBeef 2528 pts

Guns are evil ... utterly evil ... right up to the point where you NEED one.

Of course, by that time, it is far too late .....

Gabrielle 105 pts

*side eye* Ol' Gun Appreciate needs to take several seat on this one.....

JennMJack 1180 pts

  Gabrielle Precisely. They act like they are marketing a new breakfast cereal or something. LMBO. It still makes me laugh when I think of it...

PamelaFoster 622 pts

The hypocrisy never ends!! I am not suprised.  If any black person falls for shenanigans of the NRA they are completely brain dead.  I have seen post after ridiculous post declaring slavery would have ended earlier or would not have happened if guns were at their disposable???  Really, first of all why would whites in pre civil war time want to give up their lifestyle of free labor & wombs to be had at will whether above or below the Mason Dixie line.  Slaves were outnumbered  then as African Americans are now.  Even if they stole guns or were authorized they wouldn't stand just by sheer numbers.  The new KKK/NRA is saying they want more blacks to be armed because they feel blacks only kill blacks so no big deal there right!! As soon as people of color turn that gun on them in larger numbers their will be a different tune song!! 

NATruthstudent 1509 pts

 PamelaFoster

 It must be remembered that the NRA was all for gun control when the Black Panthers got guns...

JennMJack 1180 pts

 NATruthstudent  PamelaFoster Deep...

NATruthstudent 1509 pts

 JennMJack  PamelaFoster

 Truth usually is, Jenn.  Except to those who would deny truth, of course.

Brice Cameron 2083 pts

 NATruthstudent  PamelaFoster

 The NRA was actually pro gun control for most of it's history.

 

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/

PamelaFoster 622 pts

 NATruthstudent

 Yes and we know how big of an organization they were :))

Brice Cameron 2083 pts

Malcolm X on Guns:

 

"Last but not least, I must say this concerning the great controversy over rifles and shotguns. The only thing I've ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it's time for Negroes to defend themselves. Article number two of the Constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun. It is constitutionally legal to own a shotgun or a rifle. This doesn't mean you're going to get a rifle and form battalions and go out looking for white folks, although you'd be within your rights - I mean, you'd be justified; but that would be illegal and we don't do anything illegal. If the white man doesn't want the black man buying rifles and shotguns, then let the government do its job. That's all."

 

Malcolm X was very much in favor of blacks arming themselves.  Of course, he was sometimes critical of Martin Luther King's non violent response to racial oppression.  I couldn't find any quotes from MLK concerning gun control.

 

Gun control in this country has often been used to keep guns out of the hands of blacks.  You could openly carry loaded guns in California before the Black Panthers started armed patrols following the police around Oakland and shouting to arrestees what their rights were. 

 

In the South, one of the primary reasons the Ku Klux Klan was founded was to disarm blacks.  After the civil war, many blacks who had fought in the war kept their guns and this threatened whites who wanted to keep them oppressed.

 

 

Brice Cameron 2083 pts

Also, although I don't think either Malcolm X of MLK knew they would be killed by guns.  Malcolm X suspected it, which is why he chose to more heavily arm himself and have that famous picture taken of him holding an assault rifle.

 

Interesting that while MLK was killed by a racist white, Malcolm X was killed by his own people and the people who black people now need the government to protect them from most is other black people.  But once again the government is either unwilling or unable to do so.

 

NATruthstudent 1509 pts

 Brice Cameron

 It has been argued, with at least some credibility, that those who pulled the trigger on Malcolm X were in fact agents of the government.

AminahMatthews 545 pts

 NATruthstudent Yep, I believe it. They weren't alone.  They (the government, police, FBI)  all knew that Malcolm was going to be killed that night.

 
Brice Cameron 2083 pts

 NATruthstudent

 Malcolm X was arming himself because he thought that Elijah Muhammed had ordered his death.  I think it is likely that he was right and the NOI killed him.

Brice Cameron 2083 pts

 NATruthstudent

 Malcolm X learned about a movement, bought into it and became a tireless promoter of that movement.  So much so that outshined the founders of that movement.  The founders of that movement then became jealous and kicked him out.  Reminds me of someone else that we know.

NATruthstudent 1509 pts

 Brice Cameron

 Incorrect, Brice.  Malcolm did, indeed, outshine the founder, singular (Elijah Muhammad), and all the other so-called "ministers" in the NOI.  They never kicked him out, but they did bar him from preaching.  Or try to.

 

I don't recall the exact order of the following, but the events that occurred were:

 

Malcolm went to Mecca, Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam, for the traditional Hajj that every Muslim is requested to do at least once in his life.  While there, he wrote to his wife, "I have broken bread from the same plate and drank from the same cup as brother Moslems who had blond hair, blue eyes and pale skin, and IT DIDN'T MATTER (emphasis mine)."

 

When he returned to North America (through Canada if I recall because U.S. customs said they wouldn't let him in at La Guardia), reporters asked, based on that letter, which had been released at least in part to the public, "What do you now stand for?"

 

He replied, "I am for truth, no matter who speaks it.  I am for justice, no matter who it is for or against.  I am a human being first and foremost, and as such, I am for whatever will benefit humanity as a whole."

 

Malcolm himself broke ties with the NOI.  It may have been a mutual decision, but he took an active role in fulfilling it.  He formed his own mosque in Harlem (probably took over an existing one).  And he was gaining in popularity even more, in spite of NOI trying to shut him down.

 

However, it was the FBI, in a long-standing operation called "COINTELPRO (COunterINTELigencePROgram) had it's hands in that and many other things:

 

"Among the many targets of COINTELPRO, the most serious attention was paid to those movements that most threatened state interests. The most violent repression under COINTELPRO was used against the Black Panthers, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, the American Indian Movement, and the Puerto Rican independence movement. It was fueled by the state's need to preserve the near total political and economic disenfranchisement of people of color in the face of the first serious threats to the racial status quo since post-Civil War Reconstruction. The need of the American empire to keep Puerto Rico in its colonial orbit, while it was losing the war in Southeast Asia, drove the violent repression there and against Puerto Rican immigrants in the United States."

 

http://www.isreview.org/issues/49/cointelpro.shtml

 

This is what ultimately holds the primary responsibility for Malcolm's assassination.  If I recall, the guys that pulled the triggers in th Audubon Ballroom that day were either plants or had been co-opted by the COINTELPRO.  I do recall that the NOI disavowed any association with them, which made them look suspicious. 

 

Current NOI Leader, Louis Farrakhan, did accept some responsibility for Malcolm's death, in a meeting with his widow, Dr. Betty Shabazz, many years later.  But that in no way exonerates our own government of its' responsibility in the matter. 

Brice Cameron 2083 pts

 NATruthstudent 

Of course the NOI would not admit to the murder of Malcolm X.  Malcolm X was also disillusioned with Elijah Muhammed for not living up to his ideals with his many mistresses and illegitimate children.  I am aware of COINTELPRO and am sure that the government was not unhappy with the rift in the NOI, but do you have any proof that the shooters were government agents?  I don't know of any.  I also, don't think the government forced Elijah Muhammed to be so corrupt.

 

Malcom X wasn't the only enemy of Elijah Muhammed to end up dead.  Many of his enemies met untimely deaths.

NATruthstudent 1509 pts

 Brice Cameron

 "Malcolm X was supposedly murdered by former colleagues in the Nation of Islam (NOI) as a result of the faction-fighting which had led to his splitting away from that movement, and their "natural wrath" at his establishment of a separate mosque, the Muslim Mosque, Inc.

 

 "However, the NOl factionalism at issue didn't just happen. It had been developed by deliberate Bureau actions, through infiltration and the "sparking of acrimonious debates within the organization," rumor-mongering, and other tactics designed to foster internal disputes. (11) The Chicago Special Agent in Charge, Marlin Johnson, who also oversaw the assassinations of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, makes it quite obvious that he views the murder of Malcolm X as something of a model for "successful" counterintelligence operations."

 

"Over the years considerable thought has been given, and action taken with Bureau approval, relating to methods through which the NOI could be discredited in the eyes of the general black populace or through which factionalism among the leadership could be created. Serious consideration has also been given towards developing ways and means of changing NOI philosophy to one whereby the members could be developed into useful citizens and the organization developed into one emphasizing religion - the brotherhood of mankind - and self improvement. Factional disputes have been developed - most notable being Malcolm X Little."

 

(11) On the significance of the threat, both actual and potential, as perceived at high levels of policy planning, see Noam Chomsky's review of some of the evidence contained in the "Pentagon Papers" in _For Reasons of State_, chapter 1. For discussion of the impact on the American expeditionary force, see David Cortright, _Soldiers in Revolt_, Doubleday, 1975).

 

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/coinwcar3.htm

 

 

Brice Cameron 2083 pts

 NATruthstudent

The FBI saw these groups as violent and subversive and attempted to discredit them and turn them on one another.  Nowhere do they say that anyone should be assassinated.  If that was one of the methods that the FBI used, then I think evidence would have come out by now.

Blanc2 345 pts

Back in the day I had a GF who grew up in the projects, where her mother still lived.  The mother was a diminutive woman, barely 5' tall.  She got tangled up with an abusive BF, 6' 4", karate expert, who beat her up.  As we all know, there isn't much gusto among the police to protect black women in the projects from abusive black boyfriends.  Basically, zero.  So, she did two things: (a) got a restraining order, and (b) got a gun.  Next time he came around, she stood in her hallway and told him to leave.  In response, he kicked the door in and came after her, whereupon she shot him.  He didn't die.  When the police came (about 1/2 hour later -- the po-po always manage to dawdle when a black woman calls), they saw the door and the restraining order and the bleeding asshole and they cuffed and arrested bleeding asshole.  Without that gun, she would almost certainly be dead right now.

 

The point is that the police in general do not offer protection against bad guys.  This is especially acute in communities of color and/or poor communities.  The police show up after the fact, gather evidence, maybe arrest somebody eventually, but except in rare instances of utter coincidence, the police do not step in harm's way and stop the bad guy because they're not present when the bad guy is attacking.

 

So, potential victims, your choice is to (a) cower in fear, (b) hide/run away, or (c) defend yourself.

 

torgodog 77 pts

 Blanc2

 The weapon she used to defend herself wasn't an automatic assault rifle, was it?  Did she use more than 10 rounds to subdue the abuser?

 

I have heard nothing about taking away people's hand guns.  I have heard about banning automatic assault weapons and limiting a clip to 10 rounds. 

 

I will say the GF was very responsible and was faced with a threatening situation.  Some people aren't.  I'm thinking about the Florida man who shot some black youth at a gas station because they wouldn't turn their car stereo down.

 

So Ward thinks that if slaves had the right to own firearms then there would have been no slavery?  Well if they had been given human rights period then there wouldn't have been slavery.  And maybe if slave owners didn't have guns then that would have also made slavery harder to enforce.  Right, Mr. Ward?

jimske 44 pts

 torgodog  Blanc2

Ï have heard nothing about taking away people's hand guns."

I believe you haven't heard anything but that's not what's happening. From Sen Feinstein's summary of her proposed bill from earlier this week http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary

 

" All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm."

torgodog 77 pts

 jimske  Blanc2

 But not all pistols and handguns would be banned under Feinstein's bill.  Also, it seems all weapons lawfully purchased before the bill is enacted could be kept.  The notion that the government is planning to seize everyone's firearms is ludicrous.  But from a marketing standpoint, it is a clever way to increase gun industry profits.

 

I'm glad Feinstein proposed a bill that has some bite.  Initial proposals should be ambitious.  Hopefully, the final version of the legislation won't be too watered down and the pro-gun rights people will have brought some legitimate suggestions to the table.

 

Oh heck, they'll probably keep shouting about a coming dictatorship and romanticizing the notion of gun battles.

NATruthstudent 1509 pts

 torgodog  jimske  Blanc2

Certainly they could be kept, barring a clear government Constitutional interest in removing them.  The Constitution bars "ex post facto" (after the fact) legislation. 

cocoababe 1580 pts

 Blanc2 I'm glad you brought this up. we heard awhile back that gun ownership went up for bw in this country. I am glad bw who for whatever are still living in blackistan are arming themselves. My dad has even told us that in many cases the cops/medics for reasons beyond me will not get to these neighborhoods as fast as they would say to a more affluent part of town. I'm hearing more about college girls going to these gun classes to learn how to shoot because you get a lot of home invasions near college campuses. This is my "women's right to choose" issue :)  

I'm glad that GF ended up safe and sound. it could have been so much worse.  It's good to hear the stories of when guns in SAVE lives, especially in the case of women.

Elegance 2096 pts

Wow, that's just crazy...I'm speechless. These people are insane. What's the matter with these gun people? I can't even believe that someone would think up those ideas. Their slogan should win a prize for the most idiotic slogan ever uttered.