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

[Bikenut]

Why don't you just give it a rest?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Allow me to remind you that I am only one half of this conversation and your question applies to you as well as me.

 

[BluesStringer]

I'm curious...... If they decide to ban gun free zones, cuz let's face it, they're worthless, this will be a property right taken way, that will all the sudden cease to exist, am I correct?

Would you be upset that this right got taken away or would you be cool with it?

Are you really thinking that private property owners who post the rules for access into/onto their property are analogous to government-imposed GFZs? You do realize that you have no right whatsoever to enter anyone's property, right? You do further realize that the federal government is not granted the authority within the Constitution to fiddle around with either gun rights or property rights, right? In our system, to the extent that any government entity has such authorities, it would clearly flow from the state level down to county and municipality levels if the only thing you took into consideration were the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

You should probably rethink the implications of your questions here. If you understand the actual issues at play, you will see that private party property owners are not infringing on anybody's rights by making and enforcing rules about does or doesn't have permission to access their property, while government imposing laws limiting, regulating or restricting The People's God-given rights decidedly does infringe on our rights. And that goes for federal government-imposed GFZs, or federal government-imposed outlawing of property owners' rights to control access to their own property by whatever rules they see fit to impose.

 

[corneileous]

Interesting.

Of course I've offered my "excuses" to justify ...................sneaking................
my gun in. But I am not speaking for everyone. I'm just stating a fact that people get killed in SUPPOSED to be GUN FREE STORES.

Alright, when I said this, I was not speaking about everyone about carrying for defense in the store. I was answering your question about if I was speaking for everyone about MY excuses to carry.

I'm not just talking about me! I'm talking about everybody! Even the anti-gun people who die in these places! Everytime you spout off about the store owners rights to ban guns from his establishment, you are supporting a right that gets people killed!

When I said THIS, it was in response to your foolish remark about once again reminding me to stay out of the store. That's when I said that I wasn't just talking about MY safety.

Make sense now?? Or are you going to continue to twist crap around and think you're being cool in the process??





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Please be specific as to what private property rights you agree with.

Why do you want to know this information so bad?

And again, how much more proof do you need when I say that one specific one is the only one I don't agree with? Do I need to break out the overhead projector and the slide rule to explain it?

I am curious what private property rights you agree with.

 

[corneileous]

No. I am explaining that it is up to the individual to decide if going into a business with a no guns rule/policy is worth the risk of getting killed by a bad guy. And I am pointing out that if the individual's real concern is to protect themselves not going in at all would be the most effective way of protecting themselves.

Yet again, you could care less about the bad guy..lol. Nice.

This discussion is about disrespecting the property owner's private property rights when folks... sneak... their gun into/onto property where there is a no guns rule/policy. This discussion is about property rights. All the talk about people getting killed is an excuse to justify disrespecting the property owner's right to deny entry to those who carry guns by .. sneaking... the gun in anyway.

No, it's about asking whether you carry or not in a gun free business.

Your the one who turned it into this nonsense.

And I am pointing out the commonality of attitude between those who disrespect property rights and those who disrespect the right to keep and bear arms.

Whatever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

Allow me to remind you that I am only one half of this conversation and your question applies to you as well as me.

Yet, here you are. What's your point?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

Are you really thinking that private property owners who post the rules for access into/onto their property are analogous to government-imposed GFZs? You do realize that you have no right whatsoever to enter anyone's property, right? You do further realize that the federal government is not granted the authority within the Constitution to fiddle around with either gun rights or property rights, right? In our system, to the extent that any government entity has such authorities, it would clearly flow from the state level down to county and municipality levels if the only thing you took into consideration were the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

You should probably rethink the implications of your questions here. If you understand the actual issues at play, you will see that private party property owners are not infringing on anybody's rights by making and enforcing rules about does or doesn't have permission to access their property, while government imposing laws limiting, regulating or restricting The People's God-given rights decidedly does infringe on our rights. And that goes for federal government-imposed GFZs, or federal government-imposed outlawing of property owners' rights to control access to their own property by whatever rules they see fit to impose.

You know, you could have saved your self a whole bunch of typing. I was just simply asking Bikenut a question.

No body asked for your intervention.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

I'm not just talking about me! I'm talking about everybody! Even the anti-gun people who die in these places! Everytime you spout off about the store owners rights to ban guns from his establishment, you are supporting a right that gets people killed!

When I said THIS, it was in response to your foolish remark about once again reminding me to stay out of the store. That's when I said that I wasn't just talking about MY safety.

Make sense now?? Or are you going to continue to twist crap around and think you're being cool in the process??





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for the clarification. Although the there was no need for the snarkyness. Apparently I've hit a nerve reminding you that those who are truly and honestly interested in protecting themselves do not go into dangerous businesses whether they carry a gun or not.

 

[corneileous]

I am curious what private property rights you agree with.

WHY???????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
Why don't you just give it a rest?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Allow me to remind you that I am only one half of this conversation and your question applies to you as well as me.

Yet, here you are. What's your point?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
I am curious what private property rights you agree with.

WHY???????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Simple curiosity. You can choose to answer or not.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
No. I am explaining that it is up to the individual to decide if going into a business with a no guns rule/policy is worth the risk of getting killed by a bad guy. And I am pointing out that if the individual's real concern is to protect themselves not going in at all would be the most effective way of protecting themselves.

Yet again, you could care less about the bad guy..lol. Nice.

Yet again you ignore the simple logic that the bad guy in the business is no threat to you if you stay out of the business.

 

[corneileous]

Thank you for the clarification. Although the there was no need for the snarkyness.

There wasn't?? You know darn well what I meant. Even if you didn't for some strange reason, you could've went back and reread what I said instead of posting a sarcastic, "Interesting.", like you were trying to imply I was saying one thing and then all the sudden saying something completely the opposite.

Apparently I've hit a nerve reminding you that those who are truly and honestly interested in protecting themselves do not go into dangerous businesses whether they carry a gun or not.

No, your relentlessness of carrying this discussion is what's starting to get irritating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

Interesting.

Yes, it is. You keep reminding me of it but you continue it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Originally posted by Bikenut:
This discussion is about disrespecting the property owner's private property rights when folks... sneak... their gun into/onto property where there is a no guns rule/policy. This discussion is about property rights. All the talk about people getting killed is an excuse to justify disrespecting the property owner's right to deny entry to those who carry guns by .. sneaking... the gun in anyway.

No, it's about asking whether you carry or not in a gun free business.

Your the one who turned it into this nonsense.

The topic of this thread is whether folks conceal carry in business with no guns signs. The discussion between you and I is an offshoot concerning the rights involved in carrying concealed in a business with no guns signs. An offshoot that is really a tangent to the original topic.

But I find it interesting that you would consider defending the rights of others as "nonsense".

Originally posted by Bikenut:
And I am pointing out the commonality of attitude between those who disrespect property rights and those who disrespect the right to keep and bear arms.

Whatever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The commonality is still there.

 

[corneileous]

Simple curiosity. You can choose to answer or not.

Funny thing is, I already have. Why do insist on me spelling out each and every right a store owner has that I could care less about?

How about not continuing to drift away from the topic?

The other rights they have that don't bother me is irrelevant. If you're so concerned about it, go post a new topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Interesting.

Yes, it is. You keep reminding me of it but you continue it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If what you seek is the last word... then continue with your right to the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Simple curiosity. You can choose to answer or not.

Funny thing is, I already have. Why do insist on me spelling out each and every right a store owner has that I could care less about?

How about not continuing to drift away from the topic?

The other rights they have that don't bother me is irrelevant. If you're so concerned about it, go post a new topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok.. a refusal to answer is an answer.

 

[corneileous]

But I find it interesting that you would consider defending the rights of others as "nonsense".

See, there you go again. I did not say that rights were nonsense.

I said this off topic discussion that you started is nonsense.

Are you really enjoying twisting things around?

The commonality is still there.

Whatever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

Ok.. a refusal to answer is an answer.

No it's not, this is you being a smartass.

I'm not going to go into great detail answering your irrelevant question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk