Ignoring Gun Buster signage.

[Hammerhead]

So, you feel is that it's OK for YOU to ignore their rights to dictate what is allowable on their property as long as YOU get to exercise your rights.

That's is what you are saying, right?

It's not a right, it's a request. And no, he's saying that if they don't like his possession of a forbidden item, he'll leave when requested. That's the right they have, and he and I have both said we'd follow it.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

I'm not exaggerating.

Yeah..you are.

I'm substituting carrying a banana (ok, taping a banana) to the carry of a gun.

Exactly.
youre using an example that is absurd and WONT happen to one that isnt aburd and DOES happen.

If I did have a sign stating "no entry without..." that would be a trespassing sign. I'm specifically marking that you must have one, or you can't enter. Saying "no bananas allowed" isn't a trespass sign. It's a request to not carry a banana. If I'm on that property, and they find I have a banana, they can ask me to leave. If I don't, I'm trespassing and can be jailed.

Meaning you completely DISREGARDED the right of the property owner to post a sign with rules.
ONLY when the law steps in and threatens you with fines or jail time do you show this rule any respect, which means you ARE a rule breaker who only does what you HAVE to do to keep from going to jail.
In and of yourself you have ZERO respect for the rights of others.
Youve proven that here.

 

[Hammerhead]

Sorry, case law doesn't follow your logic on signs where there's no law backing them. It's not a denial of entry, it's a denial of your property. If the sign were to say "If you carry a gun in here, you're trespassing", then it would be a denial of entry. Saying "no guns allowed" doesn't keep you from entering, it allows them to deny you staying if you do so.

Wording is important, which is why laws have to be worded specifically.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

It's not a right, it's a request.

Youre deranged.
I have the RIGHT on MY damned property to make whatever rule I want to make that isnt unlawful.

A sign isnt a request, Its a RULE of that particular property owner/leaser for that property.
That the law doesnt kick in until later doesnt mean the property owner doesnt have RIGHTS to say what isnt allowed on that property.

 

[Hammerhead]

I said I was a rule breaker. I didn't deny that. I don't follow absurd rules. I don't speak the language stupid signs are written in.

My choice. But keep felling morally superior. I'm sure it makes you all warm and fuzzy.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

Sorry, case law doesn't follow your logic on signs where there's no law backing them.

Actually, pal, here in Ohio they DO carry the weight of the law. Even if scribbled on a sticky note with a crayon.

Secondly, you are proving my case for me.
MY issue is that you DONT have respect for the rights of others UNTIL FORCED by law.
Thank you for proving me right.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

I said I was a rule breaker. I didn't deny that. I don't follow absurd rules. I don't speak the language stupid signs are written in.

For any NON gun owner or Brady types here digging for evidence, this is ONE guy who does NOT represent the whole.
Just like there are rule breakers in every other group and those who dont respect the rights of other persons.

But keep felling morally superior. I'm sure it makes you all warm and fuzzy.

Youre breaking my heart....no really.

 

[Seeya]

Flawed analogy is flawed. Smoking isn't a right.

wrong, you have a right to inflict self damage so long as it does not harm another:
SCOTUS:
Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.
"Our system of government, based upon the individuality and intelligence
of the Citizen, the state does not claim to control him, except as his
conduct to others, leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affects
himself."

 

[jtg452]

Sorry, case law doesn't follow your logic on signs where there's no law backing them. It's not a denial of entry, it's a denial of your property. If the sign were to say "If you carry a gun in here, you're trespassing", then it would be a denial of entry. Saying "no guns allowed" doesn't keep you from entering, it allows them to deny you staying if you do so.

Wording is important, which is why laws have to be worded specifically.

You are confusing law with ethics.

I'm not arguing the legality of ignoring a 'No Guns Allowed' sign. A quick search of the statutes and case law of your state can answer that question for you.

I'm arguing about the ethics of ignoring a 'No Guns Allowed' sign while fiercely defending your own right to legally carry a gun.


Is it legal?

Kinda but not really because by doing so you are opening yourself up to a potential trespassing charge.

Is it ethical?

Nope, not to me it isn't. If you have to limit another person's right to control their property to exercise your right to carry a gun, then I feel you are the one in the wrong.

Just because you legally can do something doesn't mean it is ethical to actually do it.

 

[Hammerhead]

Actually, pal, here in Ohio they DO carry the weight of the law. Even if scribbled on a sticky note with a crayon.

Secondly, you are proving my case for me.
MY issue is that you DONT have respect for the rights of others UNTIL FORCED by law.
Thank you for proving me right.

I'm not concerned with Ohio law, unless I'm in Ohio.

I respect the rights of others. I don't respect stupid rules I don't have a duty to follow. I have that choice. I can choose to not patronize an establishment that posts stupid signs. I have in the past. I can choose to ignore their signs. I have in the past. I have the right to choose.

Your opinion of my choices does nothing to affect me. I may be proving your point, only if I choose to not respect the rights of others. You're trying to lump me into your neat little category when you don't have the whole story. Because I make one choice about one aspect of my life, does not mean I make every choice the same way.

That would truly make me a horrible human being, probably a criminal, and generally an a-hole if I didn't care about anything.

Thanks for pigeonholing me based on inadequate information.

 

[Hammerhead]

You are confusing law with ethics.

I'm not arguing the legality of ignoring a 'No Guns Allowed' sign. A quick search of the statutes and case law of your state can answer that question for you.

I'm arguing about the ethics of ignoring a 'No Guns Allowed' sign while fiercely defending your own right to legally carry a gun.


Is it legal?

Kinda but not really because by doing so you are opening yourself up to a potential trespassing charge.

Is it ethical?

Nope, not to me it isn't. If you have to limit another person's right to control their property to exercise your right to carry a gun, then I feel you are the one in the wrong.

Just because you legally can do something doesn't mean it is ethical to actually do it.

You're right. I am arguing a legal issue. Ethics are subjective. Your moral compass points you one way. Mine may not point in the same direction on every choice, thought, subject or position.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

You are confusing law with ethics.

I'm not arguing the legality of ignoring a 'No Guns Allowed' sign. A quick search of the statutes and case law of your state can answer that question for you.

I'm arguing about the ethics of ignoring a 'No Guns Allowed' sign while fiercely defending your own right to legally carry a gun.


Is it legal?

Kinda but not really because by doing so you are opening yourself up to a potential trespassing charge.

Is it ethical?

Nope, not to me it isn't. If you have to limit another person's right to control their property to exercise your right to carry a gun, then I feel you are the one in the wrong.

Just because you legally can do something doesn't mean it is ethical to actually do it.

exactly!

 

[jtg452]

It's not a right, it's a request. And no, he's saying that if they don't like his possession of a forbidden item, he'll leave when requested.

The problem I have is the fact that you feel that they have to ask you to leave. They have already made their stance on the matter clear but you choose to ignore it. If it is 'forbidden' and you know it, then don't carry it in there to begin with.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

You're right. I am arguing a legal issue. Ethics are subjective. Your moral compass points you one way. Mine may not point in the same direction on every choice, thought, subject or position.

Its pretty bad when a man has to be TOLD to respect the rights of others.

Did you play well with others as a child....or were you one of 'those' kids?

 

[Ruger357SP101]

I respect the rights of others. I don't respect stupid rules I don't have a duty to follow. I have that choice.

So YOU get to define everyones rights here, is that it?
Anything YOU discern as 'stupid rules' doesnt have to be followed?

I can choose to not patronize an establishment that posts stupid signs. I have in the past. I can choose to ignore their signs. I have in the past. I have the right to choose.

And there ya go.
Dont go in if theyre posted or disarm like theyve asked.

Your opinion of my choices does nothing to affect me.

Actually they do.
When that nut in AZ went on that shooting spree every BradyDrone I saw was claiming he was a right wing extremist.
Wasnt true, but had it been, yeah, he affects ME and ALL of us because now that he did that the gun control whackjobs are at it again.
Yeah..it ALL affects me...and US.

I may be proving your point, only if I choose to not respect the rights of others.

If you ignore a sign as you have admitted to already, you have chosen not to respect the rights of others.
Its pitiful that you cant grasp this concept...scary in fact.

 

[Hammerhead]

It must be terrible that someone has a differing opinion and you can't do a thing about it.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

It must be terrible that someone has a differing opinion and you can't do a thing about it.

Actually someone can.
They can vote for representatives who will pass laws so the signs hold the weight of law like they do here in Ohio.
See how that works?

I mean, since little immature children with guns have to be TOLD to respect others..

 

[NavyLCDR]

Actually they do.
When that nut in AZ went on that shooting spree every BradyDrone I saw was claiming he was a right wing extremist.
Wasnt true, but had it been, yeah, he affects ME and ALL of us because now that he did that the gun control whackjobs are at it again.
Yeah..it ALL affects me...and US.

It's funny how my concealed firearm, that nobody knows about but me, is being compared to the Arizona shooter. Sounds like something straight out of the Brady Campaign..... oh, wait.... they don't know about my concealed firearm.... nevermind. Except that I have posted my picture on here, they know I live in Oak Harbor, Washington, and they know I might be carrying past a no firearms sign.... dang it. I'll bet they are staking out businesses in Oak Harbor now with metal detecting wands looking for me. Except I haven't seen a gun buster sign anywhere in Oak Harbor.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

It's funny how my concealed firearm, that nobody knows about but me, is being compared to the Arizona shooter.

Youre a laugh.
No one compared YOU personally to the AZ shooter, nimrod...learn some comprehension skills.

However, when your type doesnt respect the rights of others it DOES reflect on the whole.
Just like racist pukes who blame ALL blacks for the crimes of the few.

Sounds like something straight out of the Brady Campaign..... oh, wait.... they don't know about my concealed firearm.... nevermind.

Sure they do...youve been spouting out for days how you carry anyway.
Certainly you arent naive enough to think the enemy doesnt read here, I hope.

Another reason I started this thread, friend. I know they read on forums like this..and I want them to see with their own eyes that your type is a minority and that we ARE chastising you for infringing on their right to tell us NO GUNS on THEIR PRIVATE property.

 

[NavyLCDR]

So, you feel is that it's OK for YOU to ignore their rights to dictate what is allowable on their property as long as YOU get to exercise your rights.

That's is what you are saying, right?

What I am saying is that my concealed firearm is my business and none of theirs because my concealed firearm has no effect on their business. It takes nothing away from them. It causes them no damage. It affects them ZERO.

It would be like if they posted a sign that said no tattoos allowed on the premises. So, I guess a person with a Mom tatoo on their ankle covered by a sock and a boot should stay out?

What frickin' difference does it make?