Benefits of carrying concealed and having real priorities.

[Nukeranger]

Just a couple of my thoughts since I apparently don't have as much time as others.

Bikenut will only believe what he thinks is written and seems to believe the portion of the Dictionary that he quotes is all that is important to support his thoughts.

I also hope Bikenut isn't a Government worker because that would explain the dysfunction which exists!

 

[Bikenut]

Just a couple of my thoughts since I apparently don't have as much time as others.

Bikenut will only believe what he thinks is written and seems to believe the portion of the Dictionary that he quotes is all that is important to support his thoughts.

I also hope Bikenut isn't a Government worker because that would explain the dysfunction which exists!

Words have meaning and dictionaries exist in order to specify what meanings words have. Also what has been written is there for all to see and to decide for themselves what the meanings are thereof. As I said... I don't have to do or say anything... all I need to do is to let the words that have been written speak for themselves.

But.... if you can't refute my argument concerning private property rights the best you can do is resort to personal insults and ridicule?

Are you aware of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals? Here is just a quick excerpt:

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Rules for Radicals

By Saul Alinsky - 1971

-snip-
7. Tactics
-snip-
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
-snip-

Thing is.... many people understand that resorting to insults and ridicule is the tactic of someone who has nothing better to support their argument.

 

[BC1]

Here is a scenario that is really going to bust your property "rights" bubbles......

Your "property" is in a town and there is a sidewalk out front that follows along the street through your and your neighbors houses/property..... In the majority of the states, I can open carry on the sidewalk in front of your house and you have absolutely nothing to say about it even if your "rules" prohibit it... Your property line is actually out along the MIDDLE of the street yet you cannot claim I am infringing on your rules, much less your "Rights" while I am standing out there.....

Deal with it. While you are doing that, think about how that "public accommodation" thingy some of you claim doesnt exist actually does........

You're referring to a right-of way. It doesn't exist everywhere. My property line is not along the middle of the road. It is 22 feet from the center of the road and is marked with a stake painted orange in three locations across the front. Along the entire 887 feet of road frontage. From the West front stake to the West rear stake is 1,311 feet and on the East 1,476 feet... exactly the measurements on the survey map. Everything is staked with orange survey pins. There is no right-away. The road has been there since revolutionary war times.

 

[Axeanda45]

You're referring to a right-of way. It doesn't exist everywhere. My property line is not along the middle of the road. It is 22 feet from the center of the road and is marked with a stake painted orange in three locations across the front. Along the entire 887 feet of road frontage. From the West front stake to the West rear stake is 1,311 feet and on the East 1,476 feet... exactly the measurements on the survey map. Everything is staked with orange survey pins. There is no right-away. The road has been there since revolutionary war times.

Hmmmm...... I stand corrected as I assumed (and you know what that means) that most every state would be the same as the ones I have lived in (4 of them) where my property line was center of street/road in front of my house.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Just a couple of my thoughts since I apparently don't have as much time as others.

Bikenut will only believe what he thinks is written and seems to believe the portion of the Dictionary that he quotes is all that is important to support his thoughts.

I also hope Bikenut isn't a Government worker because that would explain the dysfunction which exists!

Your thought process is that of the democratic party...redefine words to fit your agenda. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a government worker, you would fit right in.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[BC1]

Hmmmm...... I stand corrected as I assumed (and you know what that means) that most every state would be the same as the ones I have lived in (4 of them) where my property line was center of street/road in front of my house.

Yeah, it's setup that way within a lot of city limits and then they grant a right of way. The city then tasks the homeowner with sidewalk repairs and costs. The snowplow takes-out my mailbox tice per year. While the postal service requires I put it there, its actually on town property so I have no claim for a new box. I use the cheap ones.

 

[Nukeranger]

Words have meaning and dictionaries exist in order to specify what meanings words have. Also what has been written is there for all to see and to decide for themselves what the meanings are thereof. As I said... I don't have to do or say anything... all I need to do is to let the words that have been written speak for themselves.

But.... if you can't refute my argument concerning private property rights the best you can do is resort to personal insults and ridicule?

Are you aware of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals? Here is just a quick excerpt:

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

Rules for Radicals

By Saul Alinsky - 1971

-snip-
7. Tactics
-snip-
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
-snip-

Thing is.... many people understand that resorting to insults and ridicule is the tactic of someone who has nothing better to support their argument.

I see.......and I apologize.

 

[kelcarry]

So WHY did you post at all if the same thing can happen????? (Exactly like I said it would) Do you have any point at all here? I point out the stupidity of a post and you come back with the same thing I said?


Here is a little hint: The post implied that if the person (in the scenario) was in a place where guns ARE allowed that the consequences would be different... I simply pointed out that they would be the same... (ok, with the extremely MINOR addition of a trespassing charge, oh my, might as well lay down and die as to get one of those....)

Loosen your underwear.

 

[Axeanda45]

Loosen your underwear.

Get a brain b4 posting next time and I wont have to.....

 

[Nukeranger]

If words have meaning and the dictionaries specify what meanings words have, then why do we need Laws? Please don't answer this because I am not sure I can endure the explanation. If you have to answer, I'll read the first few sentences. Why can't we just focus on what this thread was asking "Benefits of carrying concealed and having real priorities". If we could just stick with the question vice going all over the place!

 

[Bikenut]

If words have meaning and the dictionaries specify what meanings words have, then why do we need Laws? Please don't answer this because I am not sure I can endure the explanation. If you have to answer, I'll read the first few sentences. Why can't we just focus on what this thread was asking "Benefits of carrying concealed and having real priorities". If we could just stick with the question vice going all over the place!

Laws are merely rules that the government has the power to enforce the punishments that are attached to them onto those who disobey those laws (rules).

We need laws to protect the rights of others by punishing those who would disregard the rights of others... you know... like the trespass laws protect the private property right to ban guns by punishing those who disregard the private property owner's right to ban guns by sneaking a gun in anyway.

As for the original topic of this thread.... it is based upon the notion that a "real priority" is the disregard for the private property rights of others by having the "benefit of carrying concealed" that allows sneaking a gun in where the property owner has banned guns as if sneaking a gun in is justified by the "real priority" of a desire to shop where it is convenient ... which makes the discussion concerning private property rights quite appropriate since the property owner has the right to ban guns but the concealed carrier does NOT have any right to be on/in the property owned by someone else.

Now here is a thought... if folks really believe that their right to bear arms while shopping trumps the private property store owner's right to ban guns.... why is it necessary to sneak the gun in concealed? In States where open carry is legal why not man up to your beliefs and just wear the gun in plain sight?

Like it or not... the mere fact that a person recognizes the need to sneak the gun in concealed points to an understanding that the property owner has the right to not allow guns AND that the law has punishments that can be applied to those who do sneak their guns in.

 

[Axeanda45]

Now here is a thought... if folks really believe that their right to bear arms while shopping trumps the private property store owner's right to ban guns.... why is it necessary to sneak the gun in concealed? In States where open carry is legal why not man up to your beliefs and just wear the gun in plain sight?

You actually have to ask this question? Many of us have tried to explain it to you many times yet all you see is PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS, EVER in your mind....

Let me try one more time to get it through your head......

MY LIFE (and the protection of it) is 100% more important (trumps) than any "rule" or whatever you want to call it that ATTEMPTS TO DENY me my RIGHT to carry (and by doing such actually endangers my life) any of the PROPERTY of MINE I deem necessary to defend my life....


So, to actually answer your little question you think is clever.....We do it to keep the peace, you know, dont ruffle any feathers... let them imagine that their little utopia still exists.... Dont try to push reality onto their "safety" fantasy........... SHOVING something in someones face on their own property isnt good manners.... Ignoring their stupid little rules without letting them know about it (just like you let a little kid imagine he knows something, or just figured something out, you dont want to "bust his bubble" ) IS GOOD MANNERS, and acting like an adult in the situation.... You seem to think that in order to defy someones rules, that we must act like idiots....(your words were "man up") Are you really that dense?

 

[Bikenut]

You actually have to ask this question? Many of us have tried to explain it to you many times yet all you see is PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS, EVER in your mind....

Let me try one more time to get it through your head......

MY LIFE (and the protection of it) is 100% more important (trumps) than any "rule" or whatever you want to call it that ATTEMPTS TO DENY me my RIGHT to carry (and by doing such actually endangers my life) any of the PROPERTY of MINE I deem necessary to defend my life....


So, to actually answer your little question you think is clever.....We do it to keep the peace, you know, dont ruffle any feathers... let them imagine that their little utopia still exists.... Dont try to push reality onto their "safety" fantasy........... SHOVING something in someones face on their own property isnt good manners.... Ignoring their stupid little rules without letting them know about it (just like you let a little kid imagine he knows something, or just figured something out, you dont want to "bust his bubble" ) IS GOOD MANNERS, and acting like an adult in the situation.... You seem to think that in order to defy someones rules, that we must act like idiots....(your words were "man up") Are you really that dense?

MY LIFE (and the protection of it) is 100% more important (trumps) than any "rule" or whatever you want to call it that ATTEMPTS TO DENY me my RIGHT to carry (and by doing such actually endangers my life) any of the PROPERTY of MINE I deem necessary to defend my life....

Perhaps it is you that doesn't understand that because you have absolutely NO RIGHT WHAT SO EVER to be on/in my property your excuse that you have the right to defend yourself falls flat since you can keep your right to defend yourself... AND ALL OF YOUR PROPERTY that you would use to defend yourself with.... simply by staying out of/off of my property. Perhaps you do not understand that I have the right to deny you, and any property you might have with you, access to my property.

And thank you for posting even more words that have meaning so folks can decide for themselves about that "hypocrisy" question. I mean... how is it you can complain about private property rights of a property owner yet claim some kind of right to carry your own property?

Want your right to bear arms? Stay off of/out of private property where the right to bear arms is not allowed. Because if you don't the police will explain to you why your freedom is being temporarily denied to you as you are being arrested for..... trespassing. And a judge will explain what your punishment will be for not obeying the property owner's no guns rule. Simple really.

Do you really not realize that everything I am quoting below are nothing more than excuses used to delude yourself that your rights trump the rights of others?....

-snip-
So, to actually answer your little question you think is clever.....We do it to keep the peace, you know, dont ruffle any feathers... let them imagine that their little utopia still exists.... Dont try to push reality onto their "safety" fantasy........... SHOVING something in someones face on their own property isnt good manners.... Ignoring their stupid little rules without letting them know about it (just like you let a little kid imagine he knows something, or just figured something out, you dont want to "bust his bubble" ) IS GOOD MANNERS, and acting like an adult in the situation.... You seem to think that in order to defy someones rules, that we must act like idiots....(your words were "man up") Are you really that dense?

And are you seriously thinking that "good manners" is why you don't man up to your belief that your right to bear arms trumps private property rights and open carry instead of sneaking your gun in where you know the property owner has banned guns? Now, to be honest, that is the weakest excuse I've ever heard!

Oh wait... is it "good manners" or is it that you sneak your gun in because you are afraid to get caught since you already know that if you do get caught the property owner's property rights trump your right to bear arms?

 

[Axeanda45]

Perhaps you do not understand that I have the right to deny you, and any property you might have with you, access to my property. Have you EVER actually read anything I have written? I agree 100% with this statement you wrote and have said it many times yet you claim I believe the very opposite?

And are you seriously thinking that "good manners" is why you don't man up to your belief that your right to bear arms trumps private property rights and open carry instead of sneaking your gun in where you know the property owner has banned guns? Now, to be honest, that is the weakest excuse I've ever heard!

Oh wait... is it "good manners" or is it that you sneak your gun in because you are afraid to get caught since you already know that if you do get caught the property owner's property rights trump your right to bear arms? So, you still have no clue... and I still held out hope for you, guess it was in vain...

You are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo stuck on these so-called property rights (that you have yet to show any actual evidence of btw...) and just bury your head in the sand when common courtesy ( which 100% includes NOT putting anothers life in danger just so you can push your weight and rules down their throat) when it comes to these "rules" you just wont let go of.. YOU are the one that keeps claiming that on any property YOU own, human rights mean absolutely nothing and that you can rape, murder, enslave, etc... with absolute impunity because YOU are the property owner, and that settles it.....

Now, I know, you didnt actually say that in your words/writing, but the ONLY logical conclusion someone looking at your side of the argument could come to is that you ARE IN FACT CLAIMING THAT MUCH POWER OVER ANYONE WHO HAPPENS TO BE ON YOUR PROPERTY.....



In order to have an actual say over what inanimate object a person can or cannot carry on his person, you have to prove that what they have in their pocket can do you any harm (infringe on your enjoyment of your RIGHTS (not rules, deal with the difference) just by being there....


My rights as a property owner (and I am one) end at the soles of your feet...... and yours end at mine.....

I am no less a free man on your property as i am on mine.....

Good manners dictate that we do not put others lives in danger just because we dont like an inanimate object.

If I came up on your property line and saw a sign that said no weapons allowed, I would simply smile inside and put you in a little box there as someone who has absolutely no idea how dangerous this world is and what a little feeble minded idiot you are and carry anyway... WHILE I am carrying there, I would NOT want to show everyone else what an idiot you are and so I would keep my gun hidden from view out of embarrassment for YOU....

I simply think those like you who insist I am unarmed on your property are infants in their thoughts on "RIGHTS" and such and allow you to keep your warm fuzzy feeling and try not to burst your bubble while I continue to carry what I deem I need to protect my LIFE which you insist is worth less than you "rules"..


Which of us, you or me, am more concerned about the other?

You, who insist that I allow my life to be put in danger?

Or me, who allow you your safety fantasy while I carry something that neither hurts you and you dont even know is there?

Which is higher on the "Moral" scale (if there is such a thing)?

 

[Axeanda45]

Another thought on this bikenut.... What about states that have laws that preclude you from having this so-called magic talisman of "property rights" as a business owner to deny entrance to someone who is armed?

DO these "rights" you keep claiming exist still apply where there are laws against such "rights"?

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Perhaps you do not understand that I have the right to deny you, and any property you might have with you, access to my property. Have you EVER actually read anything I have written? I agree 100% with this statement you wrote and have said it many times yet you claim I believe the very opposite?

And are you seriously thinking that "good manners" is why you don't man up to your belief that your right to bear arms trumps private property rights and open carry instead of sneaking your gun in where you know the property owner has banned guns? Now, to be honest, that is the weakest excuse I've ever heard!

Oh wait... is it "good manners" or is it that you sneak your gun in because you are afraid to get caught since you already know that if you do get caught the property owner's property rights trump your right to bear arms? So, you still have no clue... and I still held out hope for you, guess it was in vain...

You are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo stuck on these so-called property rights (that you have yet to show any actual evidence of btw...) and just bury your head in the sand when common courtesy ( which 100% includes NOT putting anothers life in danger just so you can push your weight and rules down their throat) when it comes to these "rules" you just wont let go of.. YOU are the one that keeps claiming that on any property YOU own, human rights mean absolutely nothing and that you can rape, murder, enslave, etc... with absolute impunity because YOU are the property owner, and that settles it.....

Now, I know, you didnt actually say that in your words/writing, but the ONLY logical conclusion someone looking at your side of the argument could come to is that you ARE IN FACT CLAIMING THAT MUCH POWER OVER ANYONE WHO HAPPENS TO BE ON YOUR PROPERTY.....



In order to have an actual say over what inanimate object a person can or cannot carry on his person, you have to prove that what they have in their pocket can do you any harm (infringe on your enjoyment of your RIGHTS (not rules, deal with the difference) just by being there....


My rights as a property owner (and I am one) end at the soles of your feet...... and yours end at mine.....

I am no less a free man on your property as i am on mine.....

Good manners dictate that we do not put others lives in danger just because we dont like an inanimate object.

Didn't you just say the following?

Originally Posted by Bikenut Perhaps you do not understand that I have the right to deny you, and any property you might have with you, access to my property. Have you EVER actually read anything I have written? I agree 100% with this statement you wrote and have said it many times yet you claim I believe the very opposite?

Yet you then go on to say in the part of your post that I have put in bold for emphasis below that you will still sneak your gun in anyway?

If I came up on your property line and saw a sign that said no weapons allowed, I would simply smile inside and put you in a little box there as someone who has absolutely no idea how dangerous this world is and what a little feeble minded idiot you are and carry anyway... WHILE I am carrying there, I would NOT want to show everyone else what an idiot you are and so I would keep my gun hidden from view out of embarrassment for YOU....


And you ask if I have read what you have written? Again... please do keep on posting so folks can decide for themselves concerning that hypocrisy thing.

I simply think those like you who insist I am unarmed on your property are infants in their thoughts on "RIGHTS" and such and allow you to keep your warm fuzzy feeling and try not to burst your bubble while I continue to carry what I deem I need to protect my LIFE which you insist is worth less than you "rules"..

What part of ... you have absolutely no right to be on/in my property in the first place which means neither you nor what you carry has any right to be on/in my property... is so difficult to understand? As far as protecting your life while trespassing on my property? I will post the flip side of that in a future post that cites and links to Texas law that considers it legal to use deadly force to deny a person the right to life itself in order to protect private property after dark.

Which of us, you or me, am more concerned about the other?

You, who insist that I allow my life to be put in danger?

Or me, who allow you your safety fantasy while I carry something that neither hurts you and you dont even know is there?

Which is higher on the "Moral" scale (if there is such a thing)?

Part of my response is contained in the above quote written in red.

And once again you resort to insults and ridicule but now are claiming a higher "morality" for sneaking a gun into/onto private property where the owner has banned guns? Unreal!!! Once again... if you actually believe that your right to bear arms trumps the private property right to ban guns why wouldn't you man up and open carry instead of playing a mental masturbatory game of using very weak excuses in an attempt to convince me (or anyone else) that you are being morally superior WHILE SNEAKING A GUN IN?

 

[Bikenut]

How powerful are private property rights? Apparently Texas law supports the private property owner's right to protect his property by denying folks their right to life itself:

Link Removed

Texas Penal Code - Section 9.42. Deadly Force To Protect Property

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
bold added by me for emphasis...
And "criminal mischief" is defined in Texas law as:

Link Removed

Texas Penal Code - Section 28.03. Criminal Mischief

§ 28.03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEF. (a) A person commits an
offense if, without the effective consent of the owner:
(1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys
the tangible property of the owner;
(2) he intentionally or knowingly tampers with the
tangible property of the owner and causes pecuniary loss or
substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person; or
(3) he intentionally or knowingly makes markings,
including inscriptions, slogans, drawings, or paintings, on the
tangible property of the owner.
-snip-

 

[CharlesMorrison]

I am, without a doubt, stunned and amazed at the lunacy proclaimed by Alex here.

I can't even fathom how I should proceed with an appropriate response...

Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

 

[Bikenut]

Another thought on this bikenut.... What about states that have laws that preclude you from having this so-called magic talisman of "property rights" as a business owner to deny entrance to someone who is armed?

DO these "rights" you keep claiming exist still apply where there are laws against such "rights"?

Any State that has such a law is infringing upon the property owner's right to control his own property. And a property owner who violated that law would face legal consequences... much the same as those who sneak their guns into/onto property where it is legal for the owner to ban them would face legal consequences.

But the property owner would still have the right to make such a rule even if it is illegal while the concealed carrier still HAS NO RIGHT WHAT SO EVER to even be on/in private property in the first place much less have some kind of right to sneak a gun onto/into private property where the property owner has banned guns.

 

[Axeanda45]

I see... in your world, it is not only ok to insist on endangering someone elses life just because you want to, it is also the one with superior morals who does it...

OK, I will just stay out of your fantasy world while I live in the real one...

you know, the one where we all have the same rights.....