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

[corneileous]

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

Another thing, how come the only rights in this discussion you care about are the ones of the store owner?

You know, you sure talk a lot of smack about abusing the disgusting, poorly thought out rights for store owners to put up useless gun bans but you don't seem to care about my right to defend myself in there.

Why are you in so much support for gun free stores?

Hopefully as a translation to you, I don't carry in a gun free store to be defiant. I carry in there because for one, gun welcome stores aren't very popular around here. You would think they would be in Oklahoma but they aren't. What I meant by an inconvenience was that I refuse to drive in excess of 40 miles out of my dadgum way to go support a gun welcome store.

I highly doubt this will appease you but at least it was an attempt. Futile at best but whatever...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
I am not the least bit surprised you would consider other people who have rights you don't like as being bozos. The only rights that matter are the one's you like right? Have a nice day.

Wow. Still thinkin' this is a personal matter about what I like versus the world..... Un-freaking-believable.

Yeah, you keep right on with your tunnel vision and only viewing from the perspective about disruption of rights and not the REAL picture about letting business owners have a right that shouldn't even be a RIGHT in the first place!!

I'm going to keep carrying my protection in these stores that invite robberies with their "Violence Welcome" sign. Don't like it? Tough [emoji90]....




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How very interesting. Someone has a right you don't like so you think that shouldn't be a right at all. You do know the anti gunners feel the same way about the right to keep and bear arms?

 

[corneileous]

How very interesting. Someone has a right you don't like so you think that shouldn't be a right at all. You do know the anti gunners feel the same way about the right to keep and bear arms?

Exactly.

But you know what the difference is? The fact that you are fighting me on this. Over.... gun... free... stores....lol.

And no, I don't think it should be a right to ban guns in public stores. To me, that is not the same as these gun grabbing libs who think guns should be outlawed. It's sad that you keep thinking those two things can be compared in the same sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

Oh but wait, it's a RIGHT so, no matter how dumb it REALLY is, it's gotta be ok because someone decided to let that be a right.

But you know what?

Let them have that right. I don't care. I'm still going to peacefully, quietly and discreetly carry my protection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Another thing, how come the only rights in this discussion you care about are the ones of the store owner?

You know, you sure talk a lot of smack about abusing the disgusting, poorly thought out rights for store owners to put up useless gun bans but you don't seem to care about my right to defend myself in there.

Why are you in so much support for gun free stores?

Hopefully as a translation to you, I don't carry in a gun free store to be defiant. I carry in there because for one, gun welcome stores aren't very popular around here. You would think they would be in Oklahoma but they aren't. What I meant by an inconvenience was that I refuse to drive in excess of 40 miles out of my dadgum way to go support a gun welcome store.

I highly doubt this will appease you but at least it was an attempt. Futile at best but whatever...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First of all I support rights. Including the rights of others that I don't like or the rights of others that cause me inconvenience. Secondly neither you nor I have any right to be in/on the private property owned by someone else so if your actual concern were to keep yourself safe you would not go where you likely will have to defend yourself. But I understand, your own convenience is more important than respecting someone else's rights.

As for your belief that the private property right to control who is, and who isn't, allowed to use the owner's property being... and I quote:

the disgusting, poorly thought out rights for store owners to put up useless gun bans -snip-

Please understand that the anti gunners feel the exact same way about the right to keep and bear arms. The commonality between your belief and the anti gunner's belief is that both think the rights of others are not valid or important.

 

[Bikenut]

Oh but wait, it's a RIGHT so, no matter how dumb it REALLY is, it's gotta be ok because someone decided to let that be a right.

But you know what?

Let them have that right. I don't care. I'm still going to peacefully, quietly and discreetly carry my protection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course you, and those who think like you, will.

 

[Bikenut]

Exactly.

But you know what the difference is? The fact that you are fighting me on this. Over.... gun... free... stores....lol.

And no, I don't think it should be a right to ban guns in public stores. To me, that is not the same as these gun grabbing libs who think guns should be outlawed. It's sad that you keep thinking those two things can be compared in the same sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is sad that you cannot see that all rights are equally as important. Once we start down the road of denying and controlling a right we personally don't like then all rights are open to being denied and controlled.

And I'm not fighting you. I am explaining that the property owner's right to ban guns is just as valid as your right to bear arms.

 

[Bikenut]

Oh but wait, it's a RIGHT so, no matter how dumb it REALLY is, it's gotta be ok-snip-

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes it is a right. And your belief that private property rights are dumb is just as dangerous as the anti gunner's belief that the right to keep and bear arms is dumb. Once we start down the road of getting rid of rights because we think they are dumb then all rights are in danger because there is always someone who thinks one of your/our rights is dumb.

 

[BluesStringer]

I have Concealed Carry Permits in four states ....All require that I carry concealed. How is that sneaking?

You have that backwards. The states require that you have a permit to carry concealed, they don't require that you carry concealed by virtue of you having obtained the permit. Your Profile says you're in Oregon, which is a no-permit-required state if you're going to open carry. Your own home-state permit doesn't "require that you carry concealed," it just gives you the legal option to carry concealed. Without knowing which other permits you have I can't say for sure how the laws differ while in those states, but I'd be surprised if the laws in any of them actually require you to carry concealed. Some states' permits are required to open carry or concealed carry, but many states don't require a permit at all to open carry. In any case, it's the permit itself that is required to conceal carry. Nothing requires you to carry at all (unless you're a cop, and even then in most cases, that's a department policy, not a law), so how could a permit require you to carry concealed?

Blues

 

[corneileous]

First of all I support rights. Including the rights of others that I don't like or the rights of others that cause me inconvenience.

Well, good for you for supporting a right whether it makes sense or not.

Secondly neither you nor I have any right to be in/on the private property owned by someone else so if your actual concern were to keep yourself safe you would not go where you likely will have to defend yourself.

You keep referring to private property. I'm not defensive carrying in the guys's house...lol.

Please understand that the anti gunners feel the exact same way about the right to keep and bear arms. The commonality between your belief and the anti gunner's belief is that both think the rights of others are not valid or important.

I can't believe I'm resorting to this but our right to own and bear arms is in our constitution; what ever right Washington dreams up and takes away, isn't. The right to ban defensive carry in a PUBLIC store IS NOT!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

Of course you, and those who think like you, will.

Was there a reason to state the obvious?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

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

It is sad that you cannot see that all rights are equally as important.

No, what's sad is that you think every right that gets dreamed up is valid.

For example; the state of Oklahoma has long denied the right to liquor stores to sell refrigerated, 6-point beer. Is that a valid right? Do you support that right, too? Would you argue selfishly if someone argues the invalidity of it? And not only that, recently the state of Oklahoma decided to GRANT liquor stores the right to finally be able to sell refrigerated high-point beer. Now that that's a right, do you support that right, too?Would you, once again, argue profusely with someone who disagrees by saying liquor stores shouldn't have the right to sell refrigerated, high-point beer?

You see where this is going?

Once we start down the road of denying and controlling a right we personally don't like then all rights are open to being denied and controlled.

Happens all the time. Rights come and go. It's funny how you let that dictate what you are for and what you are against. If some schmo says it's a right, you defend it like it's a God-given right.

And I'm not fighting you. I am explaining that the property owner's right to ban guns is just as valid as your right to bear arms.

Until that "right" hopefully gets taken away, they're not going to take away MY right to defend myself.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

Yes it is a right. And your belief that private property rights are dumb is just as dangerous as the anti gunner's belief that the right to keep and bear arms is dumb. Once we start down the road of getting rid of rights because we think they are dumb then all rights are in danger because there is always someone who thinks one of your/our rights is dumb.

Oh my gosh....lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
First of all I support rights. Including the rights of others that I don't like or the rights of others that cause me inconvenience.

Well, good for you for supporting a right whether it makes sense or not.

The right to keep and bear arms makes no sense to an anti gunner. Does that mean the right to keep and bear arms should be abolished? Or should we decide what rights are not allowed by a public opinion poll of what rights don't "make sense"?

 

[Bikenut]

Originally posted by Bikenut:
Secondly neither you nor I have any right to be in/on the private property owned by someone else so if your actual concern were to keep yourself safe you would not go where you likely will have to defend yourself.

You keep referring to private property. I'm not defensive carrying in the guys's house...lol.

Stores are as much private property as your house. The only difference is the property owner has invited in those members of the public who agree to his terms of use (rules) and bans those who do not agree.

Just because a store is open to the public does not mean it is no longer private property. Again, "open to the public" really means "open to those individual members of the public who agree to abide by the property owner's rules" and the property is closed to those members of the public who do not abide by those rules. It also means if you are caught ... sneaking... a gun into/onto the private property of a store with a no guns rule/policy you will be thrown out and the store is now closed to you while it remains "open to the public".

 

[Bikenut]

Originally posted by Bikenut: Please understand that the anti gunners feel the exact same way about the right to keep and bear arms. The commonality between your belief and the anti gunner's belief is that both think the rights of others are not valid or important.

I can't believe I'm resorting to this but our right to own and bear arms is in our constitution; what ever right Washington dreams up and takes away, isn't. The right to ban defensive carry in a PUBLIC store IS NOT!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Constitution for the United States - We the People

-snip-
Article [IX] (Amendment 9 - Unenumerated Rights)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
-snip-

And the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not things given to us by the government but are rights all people have the instant they are born just because they are human beings. But there are also rights human beings have that are not enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights so are you saying that because property rights aren't specifically spelled out (enumerated) they are not rights? Would you say the same about civil rights?

Property rights: A Glossary of Political Economy Terms - Dr. Paul M. Johnson

Property rights

A property right is the exclusive authority to determine how and by whom a particular resource is used. -snip-

Any and all property is basically a resource that can be used benefit. A house, a car, personal possessions, a store, and all the items on the shelves are resources owned by the property owner. And the owner has the right to determine how and who gets to use his private property. Not only does that include who is allowed to buy those items on the shelf but also who is even allowed to be in the store.

I am still dismayed that some folks would consider the rights of others to be of no concern as they loudly demand their right to bear arms be respected by the very folks who's rights they are disrespecting.

 

[corneileous]

The right to keep and bear arms makes no sense to an anti gunner. Does that mean the right to keep and bear arms should be abolished? Or should we decide what rights are not allowed by a public opinion poll of what rights don't "make sense"?

You sure do refer a lot to the anti-gunner. Interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

Constitution for the United States - We the People

-snip-
Article [IX] (Amendment 9 - Unenumerated Rights)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
-snip-

And the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not things given to us by the government but are rights all people have the instant they are born just because they are human beings. But there are also rights human beings have that are not enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights so are you saying that because property rights aren't specifically spelled out (enumerated) they are not rights? Would you say the same about civil rights?

Property rights: A Glossary of Political Economy Terms - Dr. Paul M. Johnson

Property rights

A property right is the exclusive authority to determine how and by whom a particular resource is used. -snip-

Any and all property is basically a resource that can be used benefit. A house, a car, personal possessions, a store, and all the items on the shelves are resources owned by the property owner. And the owner has the right to determine how and who gets to use his private property. Not only does that include who is allowed to buy those items on the shelf but also who is even allowed to be in the store.

I am still dismayed that some folks would consider the rights of others to be of no concern as they loudly demand their right to bear arms be respected by the very folks who's rights they are disrespecting.

Whatever man, I'll take my chances.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
The right to keep and bear arms makes no sense to an anti gunner. Does that mean the right to keep and bear arms should be abolished? Or should we decide what rights are not allowed by a public opinion poll of what rights don't "make sense"?

You sure do refer a lot to the anti-gunner. Interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes I do refer to the anti gunner simply because the anti gunner has the same attitude towards the right to keep and bear arms as you, and some others, have towards private property rights.

 

[corneileous]

Yes I do refer to the anti gunner simply because the anti gunner has the same attitude towards the right to keep and bear arms as you, and some others, have towards private property rights.

So, this is your answer? Foolishly hoping and assuming that if we respect their gun free zones that they'll lay off the entire anti-gun agenda?...lol. Wow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk