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

[corneileous]

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

Having the last word has nothing to do with it. As I've stated numerous times, I've tried to end this. You just keep rambling on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by corneileous View Post

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".


-snip-

Bold added by me for emphasis..

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post

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?



-snip-


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bold added by me for emphasis..

Talk about twisting things around. Did you miss the word "defending"?

I didn't say you said that rights were "nonsense". The "nonsense" you are referring to is my defense of the property owner's private property rights which is defending the rights of others.

Perhaps there is some difficulty comprehending my posts?

 

[Bikenut]

Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
If what you seek is the last word... then continue with your right to the pursuit of happiness.

Having the last word has nothing to do with it. As I've stated numerous times, I've tried to end this. You just keep rambling on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting that you seem unable to realize all that is necessary to end this conversation with me is to not respond yet you expect me to stop responding. Let me remind you that it is you who posted:

Whatever. This conversation is done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

at 12-13-2016, 11:15 AM and yet you felt it necessary to come back Yesterday at 06:36 PM with post 1025 quoting my post to BluesStringer along with your commentary on what I said to him. I had not said anything to you since you said the conversation was done and my post to BluesStringer wasn't directed to you yet you felt it necessary to restart the conversation you already said was done by commenting to me on what I had said to him. And you accuse me of being the one perpetuating this conversation?

Well I am going to assist you in exercising your right to the pursuit of happiness by continuing to post in response to you or to others please feel free to not converse with me by ignoring my posts that those who expect their right to bear arms be respected while disrespecting the different, yet equally as valid, property owner's private property right to deny entry to those who bear arms by... sneaking... their gun in just because they don't agree with that right are exhibiting the same hypocritical attitude of anti gunners who expect the rights they agree with be respected while they disrespect the right to bear arms because they don't agree with it.

 

[corneileous]

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

Bold added by me for emphasis..
The "nonsense" you are referring to is my defense of the property owner's private property rights.

Screw your weak bold emphasis bs. It doesn't prove a thing. Well, I take that back. It proves your emphasis and interest in being an asshat.

Once again, stop putting words in people's mouths. Saying people's rights were nonsense was not what I said. That was your false assumption the first time.

Oh and, I don't wanna read anymore of this "last word" nonsense from you or see anymore where you try to be a wise guy and try to turn it around on me everytime I try to remind you to let it go.

The nonsensical quoted post above was purely not necessary.

GIVE IT A REST!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

Interesting that you seem unable to realize all that is necessary to end this conversation with me is to not respond yet you expect me to stop responding. Let me remind you that it is you who posted:



at 12-13-2016, 11:15 AM and yet you felt it necessary to come back Yesterday at 06:36 PM with post 1025 quoting my post to BluesStringer along with your commentary on what I said to him. I had not said anything to you since you said the conversation was done and my post to BluesStringer wasn't directed to you yet you felt it necessary to restart the conversation you already said was done by commenting to me on what I had said to him. And you accuse me of being the one perpetuating this conversation?

Well I am going to assist you in exercising your right to the pursuit of happiness by continuing to post in response to you or to others please feel free to not converse with me by ignoring my posts that those who expect their right to bear arms be respected while disrespecting the different, yet equally as valid, property owner's private property right to deny entry to those who bear arms by... sneaking... their gun in just because they don't agree with that right are exhibiting the same hypocritical attitude of anti gunners who expect the rights they agree with be respected while they disrespect the right to bear arms because they don't agree with it.

please, for the love of everything that is holy, stop letting your assumptions rule what you post and change what I say. When I told you I this conversation was done, it was the conversation between YOU and ME. I never said a word about being done with the whole, entire topic.

Again, that was your assumption. Do not blame me for your misunderstanding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Bold added by me for emphasis..
The "nonsense" you are referring to is my defense of the property owner's private property rights.

Screw your weak bold emphasis bs. It doesn't prove a thing. Well, I take that back. It proves your emphasis and interest in being an asshat.

When folks resort to name calling it proves they have nothing of value to support their argument.

Once again, stop putting words in people's mouths. Saying people's rights were nonsense was not what I said. That was your false assumption the first time.

Again, I didn't say you said people's rights were nonsense. Perhaps it would be helpful to reread my post #1082.

Oh and, I don't wanna read anymore of this "last word" nonsense from you or see anymore where you try to be a wise guy and try to turn it around on me everytime I try to remind you to let it go.

The nonsensical quoted post above was purely not necessary.

GIVE IT A REST!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What you don't want to read is of no importance to me or to anyone else. This forum is not your private property where you have the right to make rules.

Also, it is not up to you to decide if my posts are necessary. I decide if my posting something is necessary... not you.

As for your all caps "GIVE IT A REST!!".........

Please do.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Interesting that you seem unable to realize all that is necessary to end this conversation with me is to not respond yet you expect me to stop responding. Let me remind you that it is you who posted:



at 12-13-2016, 11:15 AM and yet you felt it necessary to come back Yesterday at 06:36 PM with post 1025 quoting my post to BluesStringer along with your commentary on what I said to him. I had not said anything to you since you said the conversation was done and my post to BluesStringer wasn't directed to you yet you felt it necessary to restart the conversation you already said was done by commenting to me on what I had said to him. And you accuse me of being the one perpetuating this conversation?

Well I am going to assist you in exercising your right to the pursuit of happiness by continuing to post in response to you or to others please feel free to not converse with me by ignoring my posts that those who expect their right to bear arms be respected while disrespecting the different, yet equally as valid, property owner's private property right to deny entry to those who bear arms by... sneaking... their gun in just because they don't agree with that right are exhibiting the same hypocritical attitude of anti gunners who expect the rights they agree with be respected while they disrespect the right to bear arms because they don't agree with it.

please, for the love of everything that is holy, stop letting your assumptions rule what you post and change what I say. When I told you I this conversation was done, it was the conversation between YOU and ME. I never said a word about being done with the whole, entire topic.

Again, that was your assumption. Do not blame me for your misunderstanding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understood that you said the conversation between you and I was done. I understood that completely and I did not respond to your posts until you responded to one of mine that wasn't even directed at you. I also understood that after your said the conversation was done you restarted that conversation by not only quoting something I said to BluesStringer but also directing your comments about that quote to me.

Do not blame me for your own assumptions and misunderstandings.

I also.. assume... that unless there is some ... misunderstanding...you know that you could end this conversation at any time simply by not responding to my posts.

 

[corneileous]

When folks resort to name calling it proves they have nothing of value to support their argument.

Don't wanna be called a name? Simple. Don't do things that get you called a name. TWO DIFFEREHT TIMES OF MISQUOTING WHAT I SAID IS WHAT GOT YOU CALLED A NAME.

Argue all you want, it changes nothing.

Again, I didn't say you said people's rights were nonsense. Perhaps it would be helpful to reread my post #1082.

Yes you did. Yo did it twice, of fact. But keep arguing and proving your ignorance.

Also, it is not up to you to decide if my posts are necessary. I decide if my posting something is necessary... not you.

Nice job proving your childish behavior.

As for your all caps "GIVE IT A REST!!".........

Please do.

Would love to. Stop quoting my posts. Betcha can't do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
When folks resort to name calling it proves they have nothing of value to support their argument.

Don't wanna be called a name? Simple. Don't do things that get you called a name. TWO DIFFEREHT TIMES OF MISQUOTING WHAT I SAID IS WHAT GOT YOU CALLED A NAME.

Argue all you want, it changes nothing.

I see. It is my fault you called me a name. I suppose it is the property owner's fault you have to ... sneak ... your gun in because he has a no guns rule/policy too.

Originally posted by Bikenut:
Again, I didn't say you said people's rights were nonsense. Perhaps it would be helpful to reread my post #1082.

Yes you did. Yo did it twice, of fact. But keep arguing and proving your ignorance.

Please quote where I said you said people's rights were nonsense.

Originally posted by Bikenut:
Also, it is not up to you to decide if my posts are necessary. I decide if my posting something is necessary... not you.

Nice job proving your childish behavior.

My stating a fact is childish behavior?

Originally posted by Bikenut:
As for your all caps "GIVE IT A REST!!".........

Please do.

Would love to. Stop quoting my posts. Betcha can't do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right back atcha.

 

[BluesStringer]

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.

Absolutely wrong, on two points. When one joins a discussion forum and begins to participate, you are wrong that that participation is tantamount to an intervention.

You are also wrong that nobody asked for my participation. Your posts, my posts, every members' posts are an unequivocal invitation for comment from any other member. That is the very essence of a discussion.

What the above post of yours really says is, "Uh.... I got nothin' of value to add, so I'll just deflect with insult." It's what you've been doing with Bikenut throughout this thread. Actually, now that I look back, you've been doing it with everyone who challenges even the slightest little insignificant thing you say throughout your time here on USA Carry. Grow up.

Blues

 

[corneileous]

I see. It is my fault you called me a name.

Pretty much. If the shoe fits, wear it. You're the one who keeps repeating the same things you've been saying about the business owner's rights, over and over again. Once, twice? Maybe three times I can understand.

Twisting my words around, trying to make it sound as if I'm saying things I am not.

Please quote where I said you said people's rights were nonsense.

Here goes.

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

First time...^^^

The "nonsense" you are referring to is my defense of the property owner's private property rights which is defending the rights of others.

Another time....^^^
Here is where you put words in my mouth foolishly assuming I said rights are nonsense when in FACT I was saying your derailment of the topic to this sub-discussion was nonsense.

And just for fun, down below are your failed rebuttals.

I didnt say you said that rights were "nonsense".

Again, I didn't say you said people's rights were nonsense.

Perhaps it would be helpful to reread my post #1082.

It doesn't matter which post of yours you refer me to. The fact still remains, you ASSUMED I SAID SOMETHING I DID NOT SAY. It's not my fault you keep allowing your ego and your arrogance to make you believe otherwise.

My stating a fact is childish behavior?

Also, it is not up to you to decide if my posts are necessary. I decide if my posting something is necessary... not you.

Your assumption of thinking I was making a direct, authoritative statement telling you not to post what I don't think you should post is what I meant about being childish.

Right back atcha.

Oh and by the way, I think there was like, more than ten minutes gone by between your last post and my last post, post number 1089 I believe. There was plenty of time for you to read it where I said I bet you couldn't refrain from quoting anymore of my posts. Because of this, your validly to say, "Right back atcha " to that request to leave it alone, is null and void.

Besides, you seemed like you were desperately seeking an answer when you asked the question about asking me to physically quote and show you where you stated your assumption about me saying people's rights were nonsense. Well, let me clarify, this right to only rely on a sign to keep bad guys and their guns out is rather ridiculous but that's besides the point, right now. When I said nonsense, that was to you for derailing th topic from which it was about.

So now I say, from THIS post, please refrain from quoting it because I do not care any further about what you have to say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

Absolutely wrong, on two points. When one joins a discussion forum and begins to participate, you are wrong that that participation is tantamount to an intervention.

You are also wrong that nobody asked for my participation. Your posts, my posts, every members' posts are an unequivocal invitation for comment from any other member. That is the very essence of a discussion.

No, you're wrong. When I quoted your post, I was not, REPEAT, was not talking about every other post in this discussion. You quoted a part of my post that was DIRECTED at Bikenut. NOT YOU! It's not my fault you got in a tissy when I told you your reply was not needed or wanted when you took it upon your self to blather about a question that did not pertain to you.

What the above post of yours really says is, "Uh.... I got nothin' of value to add, so I'll just deflect with insult."

Thank you for your useless post.

Its what you've been doing with Bikenut throughout this thread.

Whatever. You're not even worth arguing with.

Actually, now that I look back, you've been doing it with everyone who challenges even the slightest little insignificant thing you say throughout your time here on USA Carry.

Lol. I like how you think you are the judge of that. So I defend a lot of my opinions and beliefs, just like everyone else. Why all the sudden need to come off sounding like the a big shot like you're all that and a sack of peanuts?

Grow up.

Blues

I could so easily say that to you. Gettin' all up in my post like you think your [emoji90]don't stink.

What a tool.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

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

Oh and Blues,

To which insult or insults by me are you referring which incited this??

"Uh.... I got nothin' of value to add, so I'll just deflect with insult."

Oh and please, since you are notorious at it, please refrain from bringing something up from a different thread. My curiosity only stretches to the boundary of THIS thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BluesStringer]

No, you're wrong. When I quoted your post, I was not, REPEAT, was not talking about every other post in this discussion. You quoted a part of my post that was DIRECTED at Bikenut. NOT YOU! It's not my fault you got in a tissy when I told you your reply was not needed or wanted when you took it upon your self to blather about a question that did not pertain to you.

Every post that pertains to an issue about guns and/or carrying guns pertains to every other member on this site. Rights is rights whether evaluating them from a gun carrier's perspective or a property owner's perspective, or, in the case of Bikenut's posts, from both perspectives. I have every right and reason to comment alongside or in opposition to any post made on this forum. I don't have the right to purposely insult or name-call, and neither do you. There are several lessons about participation on an internet discussion forum that you have yet to learn.

Thank you for your useless post.

Translation: "Uh.... I got nothin' of value to add, so I'll just deflect with insult."

Whatever. You're not even worth arguing with.

Translation: "Uh.... I got nothin' of value to add, so I'll just deflect with insult."

What a tool.

Translation: "Uh.... I got nothin' of value to add, so I'll just deflect with insult."

Some actual participation in some aspect of the topic and related issues would be appropriate. Name-calling and insulting ad hominem are against the rules here, which is why, even though sorely tempted on a regular basis, I personally stay away from such behavior, the fact that I'm pretty adept and well-practiced at it notwithstanding. It's called "self-control." Try it sometime.

Blues

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
I see. It is my fault you called me a name.

Pretty much. If the shoe fits, wear it. You're the one who keeps repeating the same things you've been saying about the business owner's rights, over and over again. Once, twice? Maybe three times I can understand.

How interesting that you would lay the responsibility for the things you say on someone else. That is the same old 4 year old whining of "You made me do it!".

This isn't about you being in a position of controlling what I say or how often I say it. I can say what I want as often as I want simply because you are not important enough to stop me.

Twisting my words around, trying to make it sound as if I'm saying things I am not.

Oddly enough I quote what you said before I reply and everyone can see what you said regardless of what you want us to think you said.

 

[BluesStringer]

Oh and Blues,

To which insult or insults by me are you referring which incited this??

"Uh.... I got nothin' of value to add, so I'll just deflect with insult."

With 105 posts by you in this thread alone, there are way too many to count, but just the most recent samplings directed to me personally appear above in my previous post.

Oh and please, since you are notorious at it, please refrain from bringing something up from a different thread. My curiosity only stretches to the boundary of THIS thread.

I'll write to whomever, and about whatever, I deem appropriate to write to or about. Deal with it. Hopefully, deal with it some other way than through childish deflections of ad hominem insult, but unlike you, I can deal with it no matter how you choose to reply. My "dealing with it" may be to totally ignore it, or it may be to respond to it, but one thing you can count on as with Bikenut, my "dealing with it" will never be to allow you to draw me down to your childish insults and ad hominem level.

Blues

 

[Bikenut]

Originally posted by Bikenut:
Please quote where I said you said people's rights were nonsense.

Here goes.

Originally posted by Bikenut: Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
But I find it interesting that you would consider defending the rights of others as "nonsense".

First time...^^^

Originally posted by Bikenut:The "nonsense" you are referring to is my defense of the property owner's private property rights which is defending the rights of others.

Another time....^^^
Here is where you put words in my mouth foolishly assuming I said rights are nonsense when in FACT I was saying your derailment of the topic to this sub-discussion was nonsense.

Are you really unable to comprehend the difference between saying that rights are nonsense and saying DEFENDING rights is nonsense? Especially when you said it yourself? I did not say you said that rights are nonsense. I said that you said that my defending rights was nonsense.

Originally Posted by corneileous View Post

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.

Since my posts have been about defending property rights you said that by defending the property owner's private property rights I turned the discussion into nonsense.

And just for fun, down below are your failed rebuttals.

The stuff you posted about my rebuttals now fall into the realm of ridiculousness since all my rebuttals say the same thing I have said above.

I am defending the property owner's rights and it is you who called my defending those rights "nonsense". And it is you who neglected to understand that the word "defending" is a qualifier to the word "rights". There it is in your own words within the posting that lends context.

Originally posted by Bikenut:
Perhaps it would be helpful to reread my post #1082.

It doesn't matter which post of yours you refer me to. The fact still remains, you ASSUMED I SAID SOMETHING I DID NOT SAY. It's not my fault you keep allowing your ego and your arrogance to make you believe otherwise.

Your own words above tell the tale about what you did say.

It does matter what post I refer you to as reference material. If you would pay attention you would note that I said you were saying that my defending rights was nonsense. I did not say that you said rights were nonsense. Whether you want to accept it or not is on you ... not me.

Oh and by the way, I think there was like, more than ten minutes gone by between your last post and my last post, post number 1089 I believe. There was plenty of time for you to read it where I said I bet you couldn't refrain from quoting anymore of my posts. Because of this, your validly to say, "Right back atcha " to that request to leave it alone, is null and void.

You really believe all that mental masturbation?

Besides, you seemed like you were desperately seeking an answer when you asked the question about asking me to physically quote and show you where you stated your assumption about me saying people's rights were nonsense. Well, let me clarify, this right to only rely on a sign to keep bad guys and their guns out is rather ridiculous but that's besides the point, right now. When I said nonsense, that was to you for derailing th topic from which it was about.

The entire point of my posts on the issue of ... sneaking ... a gun in is that the property owner has the right to deny entry to those who carry guns with a no guns rule/policy and use a sign to notify folks of that rule/policy and those who... sneak...their gun in anyway are disrespecting the property owner's private property rights. Not to mention they are also breaking the law by trespassing.

So now I say, from THIS post, please refrain from quoting it because I do not care any further about what you have to say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You do not have the authority to tell me, or anyone, what they should refrain from quoting. If you don't care any further about what I have to say do not respond to my posts where I quoted your posts.

 

[corneileous]

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

No, you're wrong. When I quoted your post, I was not, REPEAT, was not talking about every other post in this discussion. You quoted a part of my post that was DIRECTED at Bikenut. NOT YOU! It's not my fault you got in a tissy when I told you your reply was not needed or wanted when you took it upon your self to blather about a question that did not pertain to you.

Every post that pertains to an issue about guns and/or carrying guns pertains to every other member on this site. Rights is rights whether evaluating them from a gun carrier's perspective or a property owner's perspective, or, in the case of Bikenut's posts, from both perspectives. I have every right and reason to comment alongside or in opposition to any post made on this forum. I don't have the right to purposely insult or name-call, and neither do you. There are several lessons about participation on an internet discussion forum that you have yet to learn.

Just because this whole, entire thread is a group discussion, if I address a question to a specific person, I do not give two [emoji90]'s about what you or anybody else has to say at that particular moment, no matter how much your thickheaded-ness feels otherwise.

Thank you for your useless post.

Translation: "Uh.... I got nothin' of value to add, so I'll just deflect with insult."

Typical....

Whatever. You're not even worth arguing with.

Translation: "Uh.... I got nothin' of value to add, so I'll just deflect with insult."

What, don't like the truth??...lol. Just because there are certain things you say that I don't even want to waste time on, you reply with the same exact reply you used above....lol. Classic, indeed.

What a tool.

Translation: "Uh.... I got nothin' of value to add, so I'll just deflect with insult."

Don't wanna be called a tool?? Then don't act like one. Pretty much every one of your posts to me with the exception of the one where you jumped in an highjacked a question of mine that was not directed at you earns the tool award.

Some actual participation in some aspect of the topic and related issues would be appropriate.

I have been participating. I believe this tangent derailment is in you...lol.

Name-calling and insulting ad hominem are against the rules here, which is why, even though sorely tempted on a regular basis, I personally stay away from such behavior, the fact that I'm pretty adept and well-practiced at it notwithstanding.

Just because it's protected under the rules, one should not hide behind that and incite any reason for it. But that's not how it works in the dandy land of blues stringer, right?

It's called "self-control." Try it sometime.

Blues

Yes, you should.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

With 105 posts by you in this thread alone, there are way too many to count, but just the most recent samplings directed to me personally appear above in my previous post.

You have your opinions and I have mine.

I'll write to whomever, and about whatever, I deem appropriate to write to or about. Deal with it. Hopefully, deal with it some other way than through childish deflections of ad hominem insult, but unlike you, I can deal with it no matter how you choose to reply. My "dealing with it" may be to totally ignore it, or it may be to respond to it, but one thing you can count on as with Bikenut, my "dealing with it" will never be to allow you to draw me down to your childish insults and ad hominem level.

Blues

Lol.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JBrown]

To the two of you; can we just stop with the back and forth on this "rights " subject. This stupid discussion has been going on for way too long.It's obvious your not going to agree so move on. Just a friendly advice. Have a nice Christmas.