Do you still conceal carry into posted "No Carry" businesses?

[Firefighterchen]

Sorry, you are wrong, because without that little object they wouldnt be infringing now would they........

Without the object they wouldn't be infringing.

With the object they are infringing.

Arguments over.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[BC1]

Suuuurrrreee you do.... here are your own words....
From post #131 in the discussion "Why carry open in town?" on USACarry at:

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/44034-why-carry-open-town-4.html#post531642

So you consider it to be polite to carry concealed (....sneak.... your gun in without the owner knowing) into property that has a gun rule you consider "idiocy" and YOU think you are the good guy?
:no:

I'm probably guilty of that as well. But I've really never seen a sign at a business. I don't think I would obey the sign. I would just keep it in my pocket and go about my business. If someone asked me to leave I would do so without complaint.

 

[BC1]

My final statement on this is that property owners do enjoy rights granted under the law. The word "rights" exists throughout the law.

 

[farsidefan1]

Concealed is concealed. In Utah, no weight of law. I don't do business with them if I can avoid it but if I have to get something there I carry. ABSOLUTELY without exception. I can think of no more dangerous place in America than the target rich environment provided by a "no guns allowed" sign.

Carry Always Never Tell. Just keep it to yourself.

 

[G26]

I ignore the signs unless it is a government building.

 

[Harry Carry]

You need to know you're only hurting yourself. Business owners who post against guns don't care about losing that money. If you would lose-out on a great deal or pay more for the same item rather than frequent the store so be it. But you're not making any real point to the owner, he doesn't care. You can't expect any business owner to tie his future and success in business to your gun rights.

You're entitled to your opinion and I respect that.

But if there's a "NO GUNS" sign on the door, I'm turning around and going back to my car. I'm NOT going to go back to my car, leave my gun, and then go BACK to tell the proprietor that I am not giving him my business and why I am not. If I feel so inclined, I may send the business an e-mail after I get home. But that's all the effort that I am going to put forth.

It's analogous to my refusal to patronize Starbuck's. I'm one of these people who used to spend $15-$20 a week there. After the CEO announced his support for 0bama in 2012, I decided that Starbuck's wasn't going to get another dime of my money. And they haven't.

 

[Harry Carry]

I think this is getting carried away and should be closed.

I enjoy reading all of the various points-of-view.

If you're no longer interested in the thread, I would suggest that you not click on it.

 

[Axeanda45]

Without the object they wouldn't be infringing.

With the object they are infringing.

Arguments over.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

Since you have no facts or proof to refute my position, all you have left is a gross misrepresentation of what I said in ONE of hundreds of posts on the subject... an unfinished sentence, wow.... you got me.... NOT
Misdirection is a ***** when it is pointed out as what it is... a last ditch effort to win an unwinnable argument (because YOU have failed to prove my points wrong)

 

[Firefighterchen]

Since you have no facts or proof to refute my position, all you have left is a gross misrepresentation of what I said in ONE of hundreds of posts on the subject... an unfinished sentence, wow.... you got me.... NOT
Misdirection is a ***** when it is pointed out as what it is... a last ditch effort to win an unwinnable argument (because YOU have failed to prove my points wrong)

Sorry, you are wrong, because without that little object they wouldnt be infringing now would they........

Without the object they wouldn't be infringing.

With the object they are infringing.

Arguments over.

Nothing is left to be said. The approximate dozen posters can only say the same thing so many times...being rebutted by the same post by you claiming that's not proof to you...well I don't need anymore proof except what comes from the horse's mouth.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Banjarmon]

If the weapon is concealed properly no one will ever know but you!

 

[Rhino]

However, a pregnant woman who believes in the right to life and has no intention of killing her unborn baby is in no way infringing upon the abortion clinic's owner's rights just because she is on their property with her baby that she intends to keep.

I never said she was, nor did I allude so.

 

[Rhino]

Your ENTIRE premise/side/argument is FLAWED on its foundation.... You think that someones rules somehow equal the same thing as his rights... UNTIL you come to grips with reality, you are arguing from a losing position from the start.....

No, you're missing reality entirely by assuming rights can't exist with rules attached. You're making the mistake of believing property rights are not rights at all because someone establishes rules that others have to abide by in order to participate in activities or to be in places that he is allowing under his RIGHTS as a property owner. He isn't denying your right to carry a gun. He's just exercising his property rights when he says he doesn't want you carrying it on his property. Nobody denies your right to have sex, but they'd surely have something to say if you did it with their wife. And no, I'm not comparing gun rights with adultery. I'm demonstrating that rights do indeed have limits, and property owners most definitely have the right to set rules for people who come onto their property. Those who don't wish to follow those rules simply don't go there. I mean, just think about it for a minute, even using the Bill of Rights.
.
Amendment 1 - You've got freedom of speech, but can you stand up in a church on Sunday and start reciting George Carlin's monologue about the seven dirty words without there being a negative consequence? Don't you think they'd make you leave?
.
Amendment 2 - We all know this one. We've got the right to bear arms. But what would happen if you showed up at the front door of the gold repository at Fort Knox with your trusty sidearm? Or maybe even your favorite rifle? Do you think your rights would b e trampled if they had a problem with you being there? After all, they're just rules, right? And we know how rules are meaningless when it comes to your rights.
.
Still think that rights can't exist if rules are attached? I could go on and on, but you've had us doing more than enough of that already. Business owners have property rights, and establishing rules associated with those rights does not in any way abrogate or diminish them, unless they deliberately and expressly do so in those rules. Your rights do not nullify the rights of others, and their rights do not disappear just because they don't see you violating them.
.
I agree with you that a concealed firearm most likely isn't going to hurt him. I'll even agree that is has an astronomically better chance of saving his life than it ever would of causing him harm. But none of that nullifies or strips him of his rights. He may be a complete and total idiot for banning firearms, but that doesn't nullify his rights. If our rights were so easily nullified the anti-gunners would have taken away our gun rights a long time ago. Rules and rights do coexist. Having rules does not in any way mean that rights don't exist or that a right has been nullified. We've all heard the old saying about yelling fire in a crowded theater, but it's an old story for a very good reason. It demonstrates that rights are not necessarily unlimited, that they can be constrained by rules and that the expression or exercise of one right cannot be used in such a fashion that it tramples the rights of others. And in this case, just because you don't like those others doesn't make any difference. The moron who bans guns still has the same rights that other people have, and that includes setting the conditions for access to his property. Those rights are the foundation of this argument all along, and the reality is that property owners still have those rights whether you agree with them or not, and our 2nd amendment rights don't just suddenly make his property rights disappear, whether he knows the gun is there or not. And all of that just takes us back to the original question of the thread, whether you still carry into such places or not. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you do. I hope you never get caught and end up going to court over it. But if you do, please dear God don't take the stand in your own defense!
.
You know, if you want to keep going down this illusory path you've chosen, you can be my guest. But you might want to quit making statements about arguments with flawed foundations and getting a grip on reality, because frankly my friend, it isn't making you look good.

 

[Axeanda45]

No, you're missing reality entirely by assuming rights can't exist with rules attached. .

Right there is where you stopped being in reality......

YOU have a FALSE idea of what those "RULES" about rights are comprised of....... and it completely muddles your argument, it permeates it completely.....

YOU think that a property owner can make a rule that now has more force than other peoples RIGHTS... and it just isnt so, no matter how hard you argue the point it just isnt correct....



THE ONLY VALID WAY I COULD INFRINGE ON ONE OF YOUR RIGHTS AS A PROPERTY OWNER IS FOR ME TO CAUSE YOU HARM BY MY ACTIONS..... An inanimate object that you do NOT KNOW is there does ZERO HARM TO YOU......

Oh, about the TIRED AND FALSE (falsely believed/misunderstood) thing about yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater? (and all of your other examples in your post hinges on this WRONG thought line) You most certainly CAN (because you DO have freedom of speech) yell fire when there isnt one, you just cannot use that (1st amendment) as a defense in your trial because YOU USED YOUR RIGHT IN A WAY THAT HARMED (infringed on THEIR rights) OTHERS.......

 

[Axeanda45]

Without the object they wouldn't be infringing.

With the object they are infringing.

Arguments over.

Nothing is left to be said. The approximate dozen posters can only say the same thing so many times...being rebutted by the same post by you claiming that's not proof to you...well I don't need anymore proof except what comes from the horse's mouth.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

You do not have an argument..... So you only misquote me.... EVERYONE ELSE knows (and I finished the sentence a few posts later in the thread you are quoting what I meant to say) and yet you are here and in multiple posts other places LYING about it by KNOWINGLY continuing to misquote me..... Are we to believe ANYTHING you say now, now that you have proven yourself to be a liar?


If the misquoted post you keep repeating was such a gross oversight on my part that I was back-peddling every chance I got to "fix" the problem it caused, dont you think I would have edited it the very first chance it was pointed out to me??????? I have NOT edited it because anyone with half a brain COULD READ MY OTHER POSTS AND DETERMINE FOR THEMSELVES that I surely forgot to put ONE word in there, and THEY know (because they have at least half a brain) that the missing word is "rules" and most definitely not "RIGHTS"

Do yourself (and your reputation) a favor and stop repeating lies, it only proves you have nothing else to refute my argument with.

 

[Firefighterchen]

You do not have an argument..... So you only misquote me.... EVERYONE ELSE knows (and I finished the sentence a few posts later in the thread you are quoting what I meant to say) and yet you are here and in multiple posts other places LYING about it by KNOWINGLY continuing to misquote me..... Are we to believe ANYTHING you say now, now that you have proven yourself to be a liar?


If the misquoted post you keep repeating was such a gross oversight on my part that I was back-peddling every chance I got to "fix" the problem it caused, dont you think I would have edited it the very first chance it was pointed out to me??????? I have NOT edited it because anyone with half a brain COULD READ MY OTHER POSTS AND DETERMINE FOR THEMSELVES that I surely forgot to put ONE word in there, and THEY know (because they have at least half a brain) that the missing word is "rules" and most definitely not "RIGHTS"

Do yourself (and your reputation) a favor and stop repeating lies, it only proves you have nothing else to refute my argument with.

Hahaha now you speak for EVERYONE? Nothing is left to be said, let others make up their minds on the information that has been posted by our side of the argument, against your opinions which have never been backed up with any information.

Sorry, you are wrong, because without that little object they wouldnt be infringing now would they........

Without the object they wouldn't be infringing.

With the object they are infringing.

Arguments over.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Firefighterchen]

Duplicate.

 

[Rhino]

Right there is where you stopped being in reality......

YOU have a FALSE idea of what those "RULES" about rights are comprised of....... and it completely muddles your argument, it permeates it completely.....

YOU think that a property owner can make a rule that now has more force than other peoples RIGHTS... and it just isnt so, no matter how hard you argue the point it just isnt correct....

And that's where you lose touch with reality. He controls his property rights. Therefore he controls the conditions upon which others can access it. If that condition prevents you from exercising any of your rights, you simply don't go there, so you still have full control over your rights. Your delusion that you have the right to carry your gun anywhere you want, and everyone else be damned, is where everything leaves reality here. It's ridiculous. You don't now have the ability to exercise any right you want in every location, and in any way you want, and you've never had that ability. Your insistence here that you do just makes you sound even more ridiculous.
.

THE ONLY VALID WAY I COULD INFRINGE ON ONE OF YOUR RIGHTS AS A PROPERTY OWNER IS FOR ME TO CAUSE YOU HARM BY MY ACTIONS.....

So we can take your gun away, and as long as nobody attacks you in the future where you could have used it to defend yourself, then we haven't infringed on your rights. Makes perfect sense. I'll park my car in your front yard, and as long as it doesn't cause damage, you won't have a right to complain. Like I said, you've gone beyond ridiculous.

 

[Axeanda45]

And that's where you lose touch with reality. He controls his property rights. Therefore he controls the conditions upon which others can access it. If that condition prevents you from exercising any of your rights, you simply don't go there, so you still have full control over your rights. Your delusion that you have the right to carry your gun anywhere you want, and everyone else be damned, is where everything leaves reality here. It's ridiculous. You don't now have the ability to exercise any right you want in every location, and in any way you want, and you've never had that ability. Your insistence here that you do just makes you sound even more ridiculous.
.
So we can take your gun away, and as long as nobody attacks you in the future where you could have used it to defend yourself, then we haven't infringed on your rights. Makes perfect sense. I'll park my car in your front yard, and as long as it doesn't cause damage, you won't have a right to complain. Like I said, you've gone beyond ridiculous.

*sigh* absolutely NOTHING you have written has disproven anything I have... however, you have greatly gone beyond (because you refuse to actually read what I write or comprehend it) because you KEEP ACCUSING ME of things I have never said (by giving completely irrelevant examples that my argument has absolutely NOTHING to do with)

 

[Bikenut]

*sigh* absolutely NOTHING you have written has disproven anything I have... however, you have greatly gone beyond (because you refuse to actually read what I write or comprehend it) because you KEEP ACCUSING ME of things I have never said (by giving completely irrelevant examples that my argument has absolutely NOTHING to do with)

One thing is glaringly apparent Axe... the lack of cites and/or links to facts that prove your argument.

Got cites and/or links to proof that exercising the right to bear arms by... sneaking... in a gun doesn't infringe upon the property owner's right to control his property when a property owner uses a no guns rule as a way of exercising that right?

Got cites? Got links?

Edited to add:
Here is a link and a cite:

Infringe | Define Infringe at Dictionary.com


in·fringe
[in-frinj] Show IPA
verb (used with object), in·fringed, in·fring·ing.
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
verb (used without object), in·fringed, in·fring·ing.
2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.

And this also:

World English Dictionary
infringe (ɪnˈfrɪndʒ)

— vb
1. ( tr ) to violate or break (a law, an agreement, etc)
2. ( intr; foll by on or upon ) to encroach or trespass

Underline added by me...

You are aware that when you enter private property you have agreed, tacitly with the act of entering but you still agreed, to the terms and conditions the owner put upon gaining his permission to enter. Doesn't matter if the owner knows you have broken the agreement or never agreed to it in the first place because you were.... sneaking... your gun in.

 

[whodat2710]

However, a pregnant woman who believes in the right to life and has no intention of killing her unborn baby is in no way infringing upon the abortion clinic's owner's rights just because she is on their property with her baby that she intends to keep.

Wow Navy, I'm surprised at the straw man argument coming from your corner. I am guessing the the abortion clinic in question doesn't have any signs that say "no concealed babies allowed"?