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

[Genasi]

And I answered:


Said another way:
Property owner's rights would be infringed.

The world would have yet another right infringed that not only restricts the property owner's rights but also sets the precedent for even more restrictions/infringements in the future to the delight of those who would benefit from that infringement. And the only difference between the gun carriers rejoicing that property owner's rights were being infringed and anti gunners rejoicing when the right to keep and bear arms is infringed is .... who is doing the rejoicing. Yet both share the same idea that it is OK to infringe upon someone else's rights as long as they stand to benefit from doing so.

Your argument is that banning gun free zones will get guns banned?

 

[BluesStringer]

Your argument is that banning gun free zones will get guns banned?

I read his answer(s) differently. I think he's not talking about guns or property rights specifically. I think he's saying that when any right is disrespected without principled challenge by either individuals or the state, all rights have the potential to likewise be disrespected by either individuals or the state, and that the more it happens, the less the chances are that anyone will listen to principled challenge because unprincipled disrespect of others' rights becomes the norm. I also think that Bikenut specifically would still respect the signs even if the force of law was removed from every single one in every single jurisdiction across the country. It's the principle of learning to defend the individual rights of people you hate. If you don't like the word "hate," substitute it with "disagree" or "oppose," whatever. Bikenut has always been consistent that he respects and/or accedes to the rights of those who happen to be exercising their rights in ways he doesn't agree with, and he's been just as consistent in this thread too. It is amazing that people would try to convince him that his principles for life are wrong. Perhaps you could just accept that they're different than yours without attempting to box him into some hypothetical that you perceive he can't wriggle out of? I'll just about guarantee that you will not get him to violate his own principles.

Blues

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
And I answered:

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
And I said that in order to accomplish that laws that infringe upon the property owner's right to deny entry/eject a person would have to be enacted.

Said another way:
Property owner's rights would be infringed.

The world would have yet another right infringed that not only restricts the property owner's rights but also sets the precedent for even more restrictions/infringements in the future to the delight of those who would benefit from that infringement. And the only difference between the gun carriers rejoicing that property owner's rights were being infringed and anti gunners rejoicing when the right to keep and bear arms is infringed is .... who is doing the rejoicing. Yet both share the same idea that it is OK to infringe upon someone else's rights as long as they stand to benefit from doing so.

Your argument is that banning gun free zones will get guns banned?

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion but none the less:

My argument is the only way to negate a property owner's right to deny entry/eject to gun carriers is to have the government enact laws making gun carriers a protected class. And those laws involving protected classes are infringements upon the private property owner's right to grant or deny his permission for individual members of the public to enter his property. Also, once there are laws that infringe upon the property owner's right to grant or deny permission to enter on the books those laws can be used as a basis, and as a precedent, for future laws that infringe upon that right even more.

And I am pointing out the very unpopular truth that gun carriers who disrespect the property owner's right to deny them entry while expecting their right to bear arms be respected are being hypocrites. And I am pointing out the excuse that just because the gun carriers benefit from disrespecting/infringing upon the property owner's rights that benefit does not justify the disrespect and/or infringements.

 

[Genasi]

I read his answer(s) differently. I think he's not talking about guns or property rights specifically. I think he's saying that when any right is disrespected without principled challenge by either individuals or the state, all rights have the potential to likewise be disrespected by either individuals or the state, and that the more it happens, the less the chances are that anyone will listen to principled challenge because unprincipled disrespect of others' rights becomes the norm. I also think that Bikenut specifically would still respect the signs even if the force of law was removed from every single one in every single jurisdiction across the country. It's the principle of learning to defend the individual rights of people you hate. If you don't like the word "hate," substitute it with "disagree" or "oppose," whatever. Bikenut has always been consistent that he respects and/or accedes to the rights of those who happen to be exercising their rights in ways he doesn't agree with, and he's been just as consistent in this thread too. It is amazing that people would try to convince him that his principles for life are wrong. Perhaps you could just accept that they're different than yours without attempting to box him into some hypothetical that you perceive he can't wriggle out of? I'll just about guarantee that you will not get him to violate his own principles.

Blues

What would happen if businesses were not allowed to deny service based on armed status?

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Genasi View Post
Your argument is that banning gun free zones will get guns banned?

I read his answer(s) differently. I think he's not talking about guns or property rights specifically. I think he's saying that when any right is disrespected without principled challenge by either individuals or the state, all rights have the potential to likewise be disrespected by either individuals or the state, and that the more it happens, the less the chances are that anyone will listen to principled challenge because unprincipled disrespect of others' rights becomes the norm. I also think that Bikenut specifically would still respect the signs even if the force of law was removed from every single one in every single jurisdiction across the country. It's the principle of learning to defend the individual rights of people you hate. If you don't like the word "hate," substitute it with "disagree" or "oppose," whatever. Bikenut has always been consistent that he respects and/or accedes to the rights of those who happen to be exercising their rights in ways he doesn't agree with, and he's been just as consistent in this thread too. It is amazing that people would try to convince him that his principles for life are wrong. Perhaps you could just accept that they're different than yours without attempting to box him into some hypothetical that you perceive he can't wriggle out of? I'll just about guarantee that you will not get him to violate his own principles.

Blues

Yep.

While the quote below is often attributed to Voltaire there is some question as to the actual author but I will use it to help illustrate my position:

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

and now I will change that from referring to the right of free speech to private property rights and attribute it to myself:

"I might disagree with you for not allowing those who carry guns onto/into your property but I shall defend your right to do it."

I don't care what the property owner's reasons or reasoning is for not allowing those who carry guns into/into his property and I don't care if his no guns policy/rule causes me inconvenience or causes me extra expense. I do care that he has the right to do it and, even if I have little to no respect for the owner himself, the right itself deserves my respect.

 

[Genasi]

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion....

It was a question, not a conclusion.

Such a limit placed upon the business owner would not be an infringement if it complied with Strict Scrutiny.

Such a limit its not necessarily an infringement, therefore.

We see Slippery-Slope arguments like yours all the time in abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. A total gun ban is not neccecceraly the logical consiquence of removing gun free zones. Your premis is invalid and so all the many hours you've spent on this thread are wasted.

These arguments 'you' pose never amount to much, nothing more than whatever funding a special interest group can milke out of the sheeple, anyway.

I don't know why you support the private prison industry with these victimless crimes, but I don't care, either.

Good evening

 

[Genasi]

"I might disagree with you for not allowing those who carry guns onto/into your property but I shall defend your right to do it."

I won't.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion....

It was a question, not a conclusion.

Such a limit placed upon the business owner would not be an infringement if it complied with Strict Scrutiny.

Such a limit its not necessarily an infringement, therefore.

We see Slippery-Slope arguments like yours all the time in abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. A total gun ban is not neccecceraly the logical consiquence of removing gun free zones. Your premis is invalid and so all the many hours you've spent on this thread are wasted.

These arguments 'you' pose never amount to much, nothing more than whatever funding a special interest group can milke out of the sheeple, anyway.

I don't know why you support the private prison industry with these victimless crimes, but I don't care, either.

Good evening

Strict scrutiny is a standard made up by the very courts who needed something to justify their making infringements upon rights appear valid. Rights are rights regardless of who uses which excuse or standard to justify infringing upon them.

You Sir, may have the opinion that my premise is invalid and that the hours I've spent on this thread are wasted and that is OK since everyone is entitled to their opinions. But your opinion does not mean my premise is not valid and it also does not mean my time has been wasted especially since if my argument has caused some folks to question their previously held opinions about property rights then, at least in my opinion, my time has been well spent. And since it is my time and my opinion of the value of that time that is of importance to me your opinion of how my time is spent, while noted, is not only unimportant to me but is also immaterial to the present discussion of how carrying concealed into businesses with a no guns policy/rule relates to the rights of the property owner.

And the true slippery slope is thinking that an infringement upon a right is OK as long as it can be justified in some manner making any future infringements also OK as long as it can be made to appear justifiable.

I am not sure what you are trying to say with your comments about:

-snip-
These arguments 'you' pose never amount to much, nothing more than whatever funding a special interest group can milke out of the sheeple, anyway.

I don't know why you support the private prison industry with these victimless crimes, but I don't care, either.

so I'll wait for clarification.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
"I might disagree with you for not allowing those who carry guns onto/into your property but I shall defend your right to do it."

I won't.

Sadly these discussions concerning protecting the rights of others that folks don't like/do not agree with show you are not the only one.

 

[BluesStringer]

It was a question, not a conclusion.

Such a limit placed upon the business owner would not be an infringement if it complied with Strict Scrutiny.

Such a limit its not necessarily an infringement, therefore.

We see Slippery-Slope arguments like yours all the time in abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. A total gun ban is not neccecceraly the logical consiquence of removing gun free zones. Your premis is invalid and so all the many hours you've spent on this thread are wasted.

These arguments 'you' pose never amount to much, nothing more than whatever funding a special interest group can milke out of the sheeple, anyway.

I don't know why you support the private prison industry with these victimless crimes, but I don't care, either.

Good evening

So what is this Blueshell, like the third or fourth new nick since you first got banned?

 

[corneileous]

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

Sadly these discussions concerning protecting the rights of others that folks don't like/do not agree with show you are not the only one.

My God man, why are you making such a big deal about all this??...lol. You've made your point, I don't know how many times in this thread but now it just seems like you're on this personal mission of endurance, hell bent on changing everyone's mind and opinion.......for what? Are you really this bored and without anything better to do than preach about this so much? Just so you know, I'm not retorting, I'm just simply asking out of dire curiosity to why you're dragging this out and spending so much time and energy worrying about other people's opinions and store owners when you should be worrying about YOU.

Just because Rhino made that little post a while back in support for your opinion towards all this doesn't make you all the sudden right about thinking it's ok to jump everybody's case because they don't agree with you on all this.

But just to reiterate for the thread since you've repeated yourself so many times in response to about why we do what we do, I will simply say again that I, particularly, don't carry in these places just to make a political statement or to express my 2nd amendment rights, or, even to just simply say eff-you to the owner and his rights because I think he is an idiot. My thinking his being an idiot has nothing to do with it. Well, I don't mean to contradict myself because in a way, it does have something to do with his idiocy but, for arguments sake in this particular paragraph, no, it doesn't.

I carry past his puny little sign because, irregardless of his stupidity in believing JUST his little sign actually works, he only relies simply on a cheap little sign to keep the real bad people out, the very same reason you and I probably never leave the house unarmed in the first place. If he's really concerned about keeping ALL guns out of his store, there's more effective ways to go about it that work and most importantly, would take away the very reason I would ever feel I would have be armed in there in the first place. Like I said so many times, since his sign does such a great job of attracting would-be and tempting robbers to go in there simply because they know they would have the upper hand and have everybody in there at a disadvantage because law abiding citizens wouldn't be armed in there in the first place, that is EXACTLY the very reason why I would want to ignore the sign and be armed when I went in.

But you don't seem to get that. Or well, maybe you do, you would just rather argue to the end of time with all these people who disagree with you. Well, not so much about you're being right about these boneheaded store owners who thinks their sign works but, more about your logic, than anything. Instead, you would rather criticize people and try to make everyone feel guilty and stupid for stepping on one particular right as a business owner that gets plenty of people killed each year.

Again, store owners rights to ban guns seems to be more important to you than the dozens and dozens of people, even the hair-brained, idiot liberals who believe all this nonsense, who die each year in these monstrosities known as "gun free zones".

In your response towards not patronizing the gun-hating store, that's fine and dandy if you wish to inconvenience yourself and shop elsewhere. I don't have a problem with that. Never have. Never will. As far as I'm concerned for my own self tho, unless my "boycotting" of his store is gonna make him feel bad and put him in a financial bind, what's the use? Why inconvenience myself if he couldn't give a crap less about me boycotting his store. Again, if you're cool with inconveniencing yourself, by all means, have at it. I, on the other hand, choose not to. Again, my avoidance of being inconvenienced is more important to me than his stupidity. Don't like it? Tough crap. It's not up to you to criticize me about it and to tell me not to do it.

But I do find it extremely funny how on one hand you can allow yourself to be such an advocate for store owners rights to ban guns but at the same time, on the other hand, still insist on shopping elsewhere in retaliation. Maybe it's just me but I would think you would be happy and perfectly ok to disarm for his store and give him full financial support for his "rights" rather than shop somewhere else, irregardless on how much of an inconvenience it was for you because of the fact that you respect his right so much to make a piss poorly designed gun free zone.

So what is this Blueshell, like the third or fourth new nick since you first got banned?

I didn't quote this nonsense to respond to it, just to point out the sheer ignorance in it.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Sadly these discussions concerning protecting the rights of others that folks don't like/do not agree with show you are not the only one.

My God man, why are you making such a big deal about all this??...lol. You've made your point, I don't know how many times in this thread but now it just seems like you're on this personal mission of endurance, hell bent on changing everyone's mind and opinion.......for what? Are you really this bored and without anything better to do than preach about this so much? Just so you know, I'm not retorting, I'm just simply asking out of dire curiosity to why you're dragging this out and spending so much time and energy worrying about other people's opinions and store owners when you should be worrying about YOU.

Just because Rhino made that little post a while back in support for your opinion towards all this doesn't make you all the sudden right about thinking it's ok to jump everybody's case because they don't agree with you on all this.

But just to reiterate for the thread since you've repeated yourself so many times in response to about why we do what we do, I will simply say again that I, particularly, don't carry in these places just to make a political statement or to express my 2nd amendment rights, or, even to just simply say eff-you to the owner and his rights because I think he is an idiot. My thinking his being an idiot has nothing to do with it. Well, I don't mean to contradict myself because in a way, it does have something to do with his idiocy but, for arguments sake in this particular paragraph, no, it doesn't.

I carry past his puny little sign because, irregardless of his stupidity in believing JUST his little sign actually works, he only relies simply on a cheap little sign to keep the real bad people out, the very same reason you and I probably never leave the house unarmed in the first place. If he's really concerned about keeping ALL guns out of his store, there's more effective ways to go about it that work and most importantly, would take away the very reason I would ever feel I would have be armed in there in the first place. Like I said so many times, since his sign does such a great job of attracting would-be and tempting robbers to go in there simply because they know they would have the upper hand and have everybody in there at a disadvantage because law abiding citizens wouldn't be armed in there in the first place, that is EXACTLY the very reason why I would want to ignore the sign and be armed when I went in.

But you don't seem to get that. Or well, maybe you do, you would just rather argue to the end of time with all these people who disagree with you. Well, not so much about you're being right about these boneheaded store owners who thinks their sign works but, more about your logic, than anything. Instead, you would rather criticize people and try to make everyone feel guilty and stupid for stepping on one particular right as a business owner that gets plenty of people killed each year.

Again, store owners rights to ban guns seems to be more important to you than the dozens and dozens of people, even the hair-brained, idiot liberals who believe all this nonsense, who die each year in these monstrosities known as "gun free zones".

In your response towards not patronizing the gun-hating store, that's fine and dandy if you wish to inconvenience yourself and shop elsewhere. I don't have a problem with that. Never have. Never will. As far as I'm concerned for my own self tho, unless my "boycotting" of his store is gonna make him feel bad and put him in a financial bind, what's the use? Why inconvenience myself? Again, if you're cool with inconveniencing yourself, by all means, have at it. I, on the other hand, choose not to. Again, my avoidance of being inconvenienced is more important to me than his stupidity. Don't like it? Tough crap. It's not up to you to criticize me about it and to tell me not to do it.

But I do find it extremely funny how on one hand you can allow yourself to be such an advocate for store owners rights to ban guns but at the same time, on the other hand, still insist on shopping elsewhere in retaliation. Maybe it's just me but I would think you would be happy and perfectly ok to disarm for his store and give him full financial support for his "rights" rather than shop somewhere else, irregardless on how much of an inconvenience it was for you because of the fact that you respect his right so much to make a piss poorly designed gun free zone.


-snip-

And like I said:

Originally posted by Bikenut:

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
"I might disagree with you for not allowing those who carry guns onto/into your property but I shall defend your right to do it."

I won't.

Sadly these discussions concerning protecting the rights of others that folks don't like/do not agree with show you are not the only one.

Bold added by me for emphasis...

 

[corneileous]

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

And like I said:

Originally posted by Bikenut: "I might disagree with you for not allowing those who carry guns onto/into your property but I shall defend your right to do it."

Again, duly noted but, why the need to battle it out with everyone who doesn't see this subject from your point of view?

Originally Posted by Bikenut: Sadly these discussions concerning protecting the rights of others that folks don't like/do not agree with show you are not the only one.


Bold added by me for emphasis...

Emphasis on, what? Pointing out what, that Genasi isn't the only one to disagree with you??.....lol. Little self-explanatory, ain't it?

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
And like I said:

Originally posted by Bikenut: "I might disagree with you for not allowing those who carry guns onto/into your property but I shall defend your right to do it."

Again, duly noted but, why the need to battle it out with everyone who doesn't see this subject from your point of view?

Generally defending something, like defending rights including the rights that may not be liked or agreed with, involves being willing to engage in a battle whether it be a physical battle or a battle of words.

But then I find it more than humorous that you would chide me when you seem to have a need to engage in battle with me just because I don't see this subject from your point of view.

Originally Posted by Bikenut: Sadly these discussions concerning protecting the rights of others that folks don't like/do not agree with show you are not the only one.


Bold added by me for emphasis...

Emphasis on, what? Pointing out what, that Genasi isn't the only one to disagree with you??.....lol. Little self-explanatory, ain't it?

Yes it was self explanatory but I suspect you didn't understand the explanation.

 

[HKS]

Maybe a crazy question but I wanted to hear what some of you think and/or do about this. Do any of you still carry into a business that has a "No Handguns" sign posted?

I personally always want to follow the laws. I would never want to jeopardize loosing my permit nor give conceal carry holders a bad name. There are enough people looking for any excise to take our guns away.
However, some business that are posted I just don't agree with like say The Movie Theater. There was a little small no handguns sign that I had to actually look hard for on the side window of the ticket booth. Not on the front window of the booth and not on any of the doors but on the side window right next to the "no cell phone" sign (yea right, no cell phone). I almost missed the stupid no gun sign.

I took my gun back to my truck and went to see the movie anyway. Before I left, I actually talked to the Manager after the movies and brought up the question as to what would happen to someone who brought their CC weapon in even thought it was posted not to. Then come some crazy person, mad at the world with his gun and starts shooting. That make the CC holder have to pull their weapon to protect people and or themselves. The "bad guy" was shot, hurt and/or killed. Would they press charges against the CC holder for bringing their weapon in when they had a no handgun policy or would they overlook the fact the carried CC holder saved lives and or their own life.

The manager said "Good question, I'll have to ask my boss and see what they say." I haven't heard back yet. Go figure, but I'm going to push it and see what kind of answer they come up with.

What do you do? Carry in anyway? Put your weapon back in the car and go in? Just don't do business with them and go somewhere else that allows you to carry?

Have a blessed evening!
HappeScrapn

So this is a really old thread question which is rhetorically phrased to sound like one should not (bring their concealed weapon with them everywhere).

No where does the O/P justify not bringing the gun everywhere.

 

[BluesStringer]

So what is this Blueshell, like the third or fourth new nick since you first got banned?

I didn't quote this nonsense to respond to it, just to point out the sheer ignorance in it.

Then you failed on both counts - you did comment on it and there was no ignorance to point out about it. I am right, sure as shootin', that's Blueshell.

 

[corneileous]

Generally defending something, like defending rights including the rights that may not be liked or agreed with, involves being willing to engage in a battle whether it be a physical battle or a battle of words.

I get that but why the need to fight someone else's battle? Why the need to spend so much time arguing someone else's argument? Is being right, really all that important to you?..lol.

What kind of business do you own?

I do not own nor do I work for any business of any kind.

So you have no skin in the game.

Seems to me that was what Genasi was saying. You're not a business owner having his poor little "gun free zone" rights trampled on but by-golly you sure are gonna act like you are and play the part.

But then I find it more than humorous that you would chide me when you seem to have a need to engage in battle with me just because I don't see this subject from your point of view.

Maybe once perhaps, long time ago but now, no. As I said I'm just curious. I really couldn't care less why you're putting so much into this discussion.

Originally Posted by corneileous:
Emphasis on, what? Pointing out what, that Genasi isn't the only one to disagree with you??.....lol. Little self-explanatory, ain't it?

Originally Posted by Bikenut: Yes it was self explanatory but I suspect you didn't understand the explanation.

Appears to me as I did. I was just asking for verification on such a moot point that seems very important to you for some reason. It's like you're just so appalled that so many disagree with you.

 

[corneileous]

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

Originally Posted by corneileous:
I didn't quote this nonsense to respond to it, just to point out the sheer ignorance in it.

Originally Posted by BluesStringer: Then you failed on both counts - you did comment on it and there was no ignorance to point out about it. I am right, sure as shootin', that's Blueshell.

What exactly did I fail on, bubba? Of course I commented. I did exactly that. I said I wasn't going to respond to it. Responding to something and commenting on something are two different things.

But anyways, I might as well respond now, bein' how you assumed I did so, how are you so sure? Did you check his IP or somethin? It's funny how you sound completely convinced. Lol. But whatever, if it is, it is, if it ain't, it ain't, who really cares??

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Generally defending something, like defending rights including the rights that may not be liked or agreed with, involves being willing to engage in a battle whether it be a physical battle or a battle of words.

I get that but why the need to fight someone else's battle? Why the need to spend so much time arguing someone else's argument? Is being right, really all that important to you?..lol.

Fighting for a right that appears I have no stake in, such as a private property business, is necessary since everyone loses when someone loses the ability to exercise a right. And if one right can be legislated to the point where it is impossible to exercise it then all rights can go the same way. Especially when there are those who will not fight for the rights of others simply because it is convenient for them to have the rights of others be infringed.

The rest of your post is nothing more that a blatant attempt to start yet another argument that has everything to do with your ego and nothing to do with the topic at hand and I am done indulging your ego.

However, I am quite willing to continue to politely discuss how sneaking a concealed gun into private property impacts the rights of the property owner.

 

[corneileous]

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

Fighting for a right that appears I have no stake in, such as a private property business, is necessary since everyone loses when someone loses the ability to exercise a right. And if one right can be legislated to the point where it is impossible to exercise it then all rights can go the same way. Especially when there are those who will not fight for the rights of others simply because it is convenient for them to have the rights of others be infringed.

Whatever you say, man. It's not your fight. You need to mind your own business. Fight your own battles. Argue your own arguments. Until you become one of these business owners who is tired of people sneaking....... their gun past your door, you really don't have a leg to stand on.

The rest of your post is nothing more that a blatant attempt to start yet another argument that has everything to do with your ego and nothing to do with the topic at hand and I am done indulging your ego.

No, it's not. That is once again your assumption. I don't wish to start another one of these arguments with you, yet again, I was just curious about a few things. I have my answer so, we're good.

It's plain to see you can't keep your nose out of where it don't belong and anybody who would continue to argue with you over private property, business owner rights, which you clearly are NOT, is wasting their time.

However, I am quite willing to continue to politely discuss how sneaking a concealed gun into private property impacts the rights of the property owner.

Go right ahead. It's actually quite interesting while observing.