Benefits of carrying concealed and having real priorities.

[Bikenut]

Hunting on someones property without permission is NOTHING like being barred from having the tools to defend yourself... those are not even near the same thing.....

Wanting someone unarmed is the same as telling them they are your slave while on your property... NONE of their rights exist if the right to carry a tool you dont even know is there is forbidden... RESPECT ALWAYS has to be EARNED.... if you have a sign saying no weapons allowed, you have just PROVEN YOU HAVE ZERO RESPECT FOR OTHERS LIVES..... SO, I ignore your request....

Your "private property" ends at the soles of my feet.... what I have in my pocket is NOT ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS OR CONCERN, PERIOD.... It is MY PRIVATE PROPERTY (your private property rights do NOT nullify mine)...... My RIGHTS are intact EVERYWHERE I AM...

Where did the jury come from? how did you get "caught"? I carry to protect myself and my family also, THAT IS WHY I CARRY EVERYWHERE I GO THAT DOESNT HAVE METAL DETECTORS...

It is MY PLACE to do ALL I CAN to have the tools needed WHEREVER I HAPPEN TO BE......

From the part of your post I put in bold it would appear that you carry everywhere you go except where you will get caught sneaking your gun in.

If you truly believe that your right to bear arms trumps the private property owner's right to ban guns why wouldn't you carry into private property where there are metal detectors?

Wait... here is a better question... if you believe your right to bear arms trumps the private property owner's right to ban guns why don't you simply open carry instead of sneaking your gun in concealed?

 

[Axeanda45]

SIGH.....
Again with this idiotic idea that I wouldnt actually be carrying it against the property owners rules CORRECTLY if I wasnt open carrying......


The answer, AGAIN is I wish the owner to be happy in his ignorance.... while I am at least carrying the tool(s) that MAY help protect my life...

Another way to answer (esp about metal detectors) is I am not STUPID....

I am not out to prove (or shove in their face like you think I need to) that they have no right to prohibit me from carrying my own personal property wherever I want, I am out to stay alive as much as possible....

 

[Bikenut]

SIGH.....
Again with this idiotic idea that I wouldnt actually be carrying it against the property owners rules CORRECTLY if I wasnt open carrying......


The answer, AGAIN is I wish the owner to be happy in his ignorance.... while I am at least carrying the tool(s) that MAY help protect my life...

Another way to answer (esp about metal detectors) is I am not STUPID....

I am not out to prove (or shove in their face like you think I need to) that they have no right to prohibit me from carrying my own personal property wherever I want, I am out to stay alive as much as possible....

This isn't about what is the proper way to disregard a businesses gun ban... this is all about the following:

If you truly believed your right to bear arms trumped the property owner's right to ban guns you would not be afraid of getting caught and you would not be intentionally sneaking your gun in... and you wouldn't be avoiding metal detectors that would catch you sneaking your gun in.

Your own posts continue to show that the real truth is.......... you sneak your gun in because you are afraid of being caught.

So this really is about the hypocrisy of saying you stand for rights except when the rights of someone else get in the way of what you want to do.

We all get it....

 

[Axeanda45]

Your opinion is not my motives.... or my reasons... I have said many times why, yet you and your bias wont allow you to see or understand... it is all about what YOU think Rules are vs what they actually are.. You refuse to believe that rules are inferior to what what RIGHTS are... You claim "property rights" and close your mind once you say that and refuse to go fully into the subject.... You hide your head in the sand and say over and over "property rights" and in the same breath want others to believe THEIR property rights dont matter once YOURS come into play....
Yet, you come at me and accuse me of EXACTLY what you are doing...... wow... you just cannot see it no matter how hard I try to show it to you.

IF your property rights are as strong as you claim they are, then MINE (other peoples) rights have to have the same power/standing as yours do or your stance is null...

You accuse me of ignoring others property rights yet you ignore the fact that others have those same rights too.... Do I (or anyone) not have the right to property (or are YOU the only one allowed to have property rights?)? Does something in my pocket belong to me, or does it belong to you? If my property stays in my pocket and you dont know it is there, how has it infringed on your rights in any way shape of form. YOU CANNOT CLAIM YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS AND IN THE SAME BREATH DENY ME MINE...

 

[Axeanda45]

If you truly believed your right to bear arms trumped the property owner's right to ban guns you would not be afraid of getting caught and you would not be intentionally sneaking your gun in... and you wouldn't be avoiding metal detectors that would catch you sneaking your gun in.

If you truly believed your car is capable of doing 90 mph, you would prove it by driving it 90 mph in front of the cops. By not driving it 90 mph in front of cops, you show that you are just sneaking your car past cops so they wont catch you.


See how absolutely stupid YOUR IDEA on how I am somehow NOT BREAKING RULES CORRECTLY is?

 

[Bikenut]

If you truly believed your car is capable of doing 90 mph, you would prove it by driving it 90 mph in front of the cops. By not driving it 90 mph in front of cops, you show that you are just sneaking your car past cops so they wont catch you.


See how absolutely stupid YOUR IDEA on how I am somehow NOT BREAKING RULES CORRECTLY is?

Silly example since we are talking about rights. To make your example pertinent to our discussion about rights I would have to believe I have the right to drive at 90 miles an hour despite the 55mph rule. And if I truly believed I had the right to drive 90mph but only drove 55mph because I was afraid of getting caught then I would be a hypocrite.

By the way.. your personal property (the things in your pocket) have no bearing on the private property right to refuse permission to be on/in land/holdings owned by someone else.

Or do you have cites and/or links to actual factual proof that the personal property in your pockets trump the property owners private property right to refuse permission of access/entry to YOU no matter what you have in your pockets?

The thing is... the property owner isn't refusing entry to the things in your pockets... he is refusing entry to YOU... YOU personally... because of the things in your pockets. And you know he has that power or you wouldn't be sneaking your gun in and avoiding metal detectors so you wouldn't get caught sneaking your gun in.

 

[Axeanda45]

Please show me where I have EVER said I had the right to be on their property without their permission.........

I have very simply (so simple you fail every time to see it) stated that IF I am on their property I have the right to be armed....... Because I have the right to be armed everywhere on this earth..., and so do you....

I have stated many times that they can ask me to leave if I am discovered to be breaking their rules, and I have never even hinted that I would insist on staying...

However.... YOU and a few others keep insisting that the right to property ONLY APPLIES if your name is on the deed....... It simply is not so....

My argument all along has eluded you to the point that it is driving you crazy.....

Here, I will help you one final time..... look at ALL the times I have stated my case... can you see the little 2 letter word I used EVERY TIME??????? here it is, all bold and larged out for you:
IF

Here is my stand one more time... IF I am on someone elses property, I have the RIGHT to be armed.......

That statement does NOT say I have the right to be there like you keep wrongly insisting I am saying.....

We all have RIGHTS that do not EVER go away...... no matter where we are...... It is kinda like the chicken and egg thing.... which came first? Our RIGHTS exist everywhere at all times or they wouldnt be RIGHTS.... they would be maybe's.....

 

[Bikenut]

Your opinion is not my motives.... or my reasons... I have said many times why, yet you and your bias wont allow you to see or understand... it is all about what YOU think Rules are vs what they actually are.. You refuse to believe that rules are inferior to what what RIGHTS are... You claim "property rights" and close your mind once you say that and refuse to go fully into the subject.... You hide your head in the sand and say over and over "property rights" and in the same breath want others to believe THEIR property rights dont matter once YOURS come into play....
Yet, you come at me and accuse me of EXACTLY what you are doing...... wow... you just cannot see it no matter how hard I try to show it to you.

IF your property rights are as strong as you claim they are, then MINE (other peoples) rights have to have the same power/standing as yours do or your stance is null...

You accuse me of ignoring others property rights yet you ignore the fact that others have those same rights too.... Do I (or anyone) not have the right to property (or are YOU the only one allowed to have property rights?)? Does something in my pocket belong to me, or does it belong to you? If my property stays in my pocket and you dont know it is there, how has it infringed on your rights in any way shape of form. YOU CANNOT CLAIM YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS AND IN THE SAME BREATH DENY ME MINE...

Please understand that the private property right is nothing more than the right of the property owner to control his own property. The property owner does that by having control over who ("who" as in individual persons) has/doesn't have his "permission" to enter/be on or in his property.

It isn't about the "property" itself.... it is about having the power (because of the right to control your own property) to allow or not allow people he doesn't want on/in his property.

So it doesn't matter what your rights are.. if the property owner doesn't want to give you (that is YOU personally, YOU as an individual, YOU and everything you own including what is in your pockets and the rights you have) permission to enter/be on or in his property for any reason including because of what you have in your pocket then if you enter anyway you are trespassing. And trespassing is:

Trespass | LII / Legal Information Institute

Trespass

Trespass is defined by the act of knowingly entering another person’s property without permission.
-snip-

And since you continue to show by your own posts that you will only sneak your gun in... even going to the extent of avoiding metal detectors ... your real concern isn't your constantly stated belief that your right to bear arms trumps the property owner's right to ban guns.... but your real concern is your fear of getting caught.

But if you have cites and/or links to actual factual proof about your assertion that the right to bear arms trumps the private property owner's right to deny entry by denying permission and using "rules" as a means of expressing who has, and who does not have, permission to enter...

I'd really like to see that proof.

 

[Bikenut]

Please show me where I have EVER said I had the right to be on their property without their permission.........-snip-

Ask and ye shall receive:

What you continue to fail to comprehend is that I do recognize that a property owner has the right to make rules... and he has the right to deny anyone, including me onto his property... while at the same time I also recognize my own rights, and they (in this matter, the right to carry whatever I want on my person) is a right that is higher and it trumps the property owners rights...
-snip-

Do you deny your own words?

 

[Axeanda45]

Ask and ye shall receive:


Do you deny your own words?

bzzzztttt, wrong again... care to actually read what you quote instead of assuming stuff?

WHERE in that quote do I say I have the the RIGHT to BE on his property, like I asked you to prove?


IF I am somewhere, it doesnt mean I have the right to BE there... yet, I DO have the right to be armed... that RIGHT (to be armed) NEVER EVER goes away.......

 

[kwimby]

... your real concern isn't your constantly stated belief that your right to bear arms trumps the property owner's right to ban guns.... but your real concern is your fear of getting caught.

If your willful ignorance wasn't so entertaining I'd just ignore you. You really are forking dense, you know that? Why do you keep using the terms "trump" and "getting caught?" You should take a debating class or some shyt. Sheeeeesh.

Both people have rights. They are simply mutually exclusive. What part of that doesn't get through your thick skull?

 

[Axeanda45]

And since you continue to show by your own posts that you will only sneak your gun in... even going to the extent of avoiding metal detectors ... your real concern isn't your constantly stated belief that your right to bear arms trumps the property owner's right to ban guns.... but your real concern is your fear of getting caught.

Kwimby pointed this out, and I didnt quite catch it as I read your drivel the first time......

Here is my answer: I do NOT "hide my gun " for "fear" of getting caught, I hide my gun because of a rational decision to always be armed no matter where I am... If that means I need to hide it to accomplish that, I do it.... If there are metal detectors involved, I carry other "undetectable" means to protect myself.... WHICH IS STILL AGAINST THE "RULES".... In fact, IF I WAS AFRAID OF BEING CAUGHT, as you claim, I WOULDNT BREAK THE RULES IN THE FIRST PLACE....

"Rules" and "property rights" be damned if it endangers my life.... WHO THE **** ARE YOU AS A PROPERTY OWNER TO DEMAND MY HELPLESSNESS?????? Right is right even if rules are broken...

 

[Axeanda45]

A little food for thought along the lines of what is being discussed here...


IF I am on someones property while armed against their wishes/rules... WHEN would they be "lawfully" able to shoot me? Would it be "lawful" when they find out there is a firearm in my pocket/under my shirt? Or would it only be "lawful" to shoot at me if I actually removed (or "went for it") and threatened them with it?


If it is "lawful" to shoot me just because I have it, then Bikenuts argument is correct.

If it is only "lawful" to shoot me if I threatened you with my weapon, then my argument is correct....

I believe it is just that simple....

Oh, he will try to confuse the issue with "trespass" and junk like that, but we are NOT discussing trespass, we are discussing the RIGHT to protect ourselves/to be armed....

 

[Bikenut]

bzzzztttt, wrong again... care to actually read what you quote instead of assuming stuff?

WHERE in that quote do I say I have the the RIGHT to BE on his property, like I asked you to prove?


IF I am somewhere, it doesnt mean I have the right to BE there... yet, I DO have the right to be armed... that RIGHT (to be armed) NEVER EVER goes away.......

Allow me to quote you again...

Kwimby pointed this out, and I didnt quite catch it as I read your drivel the first time......

Here is my answer: I do NOT "hide my gun " for "fear" of getting caught, I hide my gun because of a rational decision to always be armed no matter where I am... If that means I need to hide it to accomplish that, I do it.... If there are metal detectors involved, I carry other "undetectable" means to protect myself.... WHICH IS STILL AGAINST THE "RULES".... In fact, IF I WAS AFRAID OF BEING CAUGHT, as you claim, I WOULDNT BREAK THE RULES IN THE FIRST PLACE....

"Rules" and "property rights" be damned if it endangers my life.... WHO THE **** ARE YOU AS A PROPERTY OWNER TO DEMAND MY HELPLESSNESS?????? Right is right even if rules are broken...

Edited to add this quote:

Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
What you continue to fail to comprehend is that I do recognize that a property owner has the right to make rules... and he has the right to deny anyone, including me onto his property... while at the same time I also recognize my own rights, and they (in this matter, the right to carry whatever I want on my person) is a right that is higher and it trumps the property owners rights...
-snip-

bold added by me for emphasis...

 

[Bikenut]

A little food for thought along the lines of what is being discussed here...


IF I am on someones property while armed against their wishes/rules... WHEN would they be "lawfully" able to shoot me? Would it be "lawful" when they find out there is a firearm in my pocket/under my shirt? Or would it only be "lawful" to shoot at me if I actually removed (or "went for it") and threatened them with it?


If it is "lawful" to shoot me just because I have it, then Bikenuts argument is correct.

If it is only "lawful" to shoot me if I threatened you with my weapon, then my argument is correct....

I believe it is just that simple....

Oh, he will try to confuse the issue with "trespass" and junk like that, but we are NOT discussing trespass, we are discussing the RIGHT to protect ourselves/to be armed....

Incorrect... we are discussing the private property owner's right to not allow you... and everything about you including your right to be armed... onto/into his property. It is that "not allow" part that makes all your other arguments moot.

 

[Bikenut]

If your willful ignorance wasn't so entertaining I'd just ignore you. You really are forking dense, you know that? Why do you keep using the terms "trump" and "getting caught?" You should take a debating class or some shyt. Sheeeeesh.

Both people have rights. They are simply mutually exclusive. What part of that doesn't get through your thick skull?

And I keep saying over and over...

Don't like a businesses no guns rule? Shop elsewhere and both you and the property owner keep your rights.

 

[Axeanda45]

And I keep saying over and over...

Don't like a businesses no guns rule? Shop elsewhere and both you and the property owner keep your rights.

Yet you still have no proof whatsoever that the "property owners" RIGHTS have been infringed upon by breaking their RULES.... BUT I have shown you MANY TIMES AND WAYS that the right to be armed is a right that does not go away......

I win, you lose..... go hide in the corner and write more rules for your kingdom...... and I will keep on breaking the ones that get trumped by my right to life and to carry the tools to defend that life....

 

[Warbirds]

Can someone point out what legal document establishes and describes these "property owner rights". I would like to read the one that explains the property owner right to infringe on another person's 2A right.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Yet you still have no proof whatsoever that the "property owners" RIGHTS have been infringed upon by breaking their RULES.... BUT I have shown you MANY TIMES AND WAYS that the right to be armed is a right that does not go away......

I win, you lose..... go hide in the corner and write more rules for your kingdom...... and I will keep on breaking the ones that get trumped by my right to life and to carry the tools to defend that life....

Hmmm... I believe you have given me an insight into why you sneak your gun into places where it is banned....

Oh... about that "infringed" thing:

Link Removed

in·fringe (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v.intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing:

and:

Verb 1. infringe - go against, as of rules and laws; "He ran afoul of the law"; "This behavior conflicts with our rules"
contravene, run afoul, conflict
breach, infract, transgress, violate, go against, offend, break - act in disregard of laws, rules, contracts, or promises; "offend all laws of humanity"; "violate the basic laws or human civilization"; "break a law"; "break a promise"

and then there is this:

Link Removed

trespass (ˈtrɛspəs)
vb (intr)
1. (often foll by: on or upon) to go or intrude (on the property, privacy, or preserves of another) with no right or permission
-snip-

bold and underline added by me for emphasis...

So... by definition... trespassing and/or acting in disregard for rules is............. infringing.

But go ahead... keep on thinking sneaking a gun in where the private property business owner has exercised his right to control who comes into/onto his property by denying permission to those who carry guns is an "I win, you lose." thing.

 

[Rock_Castle]

I am really enjoying this spirited debate. I guess on principle I would refuse to do business with any business that posts a "no guns" sign. That way everyone wins. Fortunately, I have not seen any of them here.