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

[HKS]

I have been putting a lot of sock puppets onto my ignore list lately.

It must be very easy for them to replicate their accounts on this forum.

But you can still tell who they are based on their B/S.

 

[Bikenut]

I have always known many folks don't want to put up with the inconvenience and some extra expense of not patronizing a business with a no guns rule/policy so they figure that concealed means concealed and what the property owner doesn't know won't hurt him so they carry their gun in anyway. But I also understand that when a person sneaks their gun in they are, by their actions, saying their right to bear arms is more important than the property owner's right to control his own property by denying entry to those who carry guns. And that is the disrespect I often speak of.

I also get that some folks just don't care about the rights of the property owner. But that doesn't mean that I shouldn't care and it doesn't mean that I shouldn't be a voice in support of property rights.

Be all that as it may....

Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
-snip-
You're gonna continue basically arguing the same ole content. Maybe not to me but to someone else new will eventually join the discussion just for you to repeat yourself all over again. Have fun with that.

I will keep repeating myself. It isn't a matter of fun but is a matter of standing up for the rights other folks consider important even if those rights don't immediately benefit me for the simple reason that all rights need defending.

I also understand there are some folks who will use the old Saul Alinsky method of insults and ridicule in order to attack the messenger. But then, I know that when a person attacks the messenger instead of the message it shows the attacker has nothing of value to present to the subject matter.

However, throughout our back and forth it is painfully obvious that you Sir, desperately need to have the last word so, because I no longer consider responding to your posts helpful to defending property rights, you may have it.

 

[corneileous]

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

......so they figure that concealed means concealed and what the property owner doesn't know won't hurt him so they carry their gun in anyway.

Exactly! But why do you say it like it's so bad, tho?

But I also understand that when a person sneaks their gun in they are, by their actions, saying their right to bear arms is more important than the property owner's right to......

I'm not, but even if I or anybody for that matter happened to be, what business is it of yours anyway? Why do you insist on making someone else's business your own??

.....control his own property by denying entry to those who carry guns.

How can you get off on saying nonsense like this? Gun free zones don't work. These people do a piss poor job "denying" guns from being carried in. And no, I'm not just talking about the good guys. People die all the time in these places where the owner has failed miserably at upholding his right to "deny" entry to those who have guns.

When are you gonna learn, you can't expect people to police themselves. Especially the real bad guy. That's up to the business owner. If he ain't gonna make any better effort than that to keep all guns out, then that tells me he really doesn't care near as much as he wants me to believe he does.

And that is the disrespect I often speak of.

So? So far, you're the only one speaking it.

I also get that some folks just don't care about the rights of the property owner.

It's not that I don't care but as I said long time ago, if they would do a better job keeping ALL guns out, I wouldn't have a need to carry in there in the first place. But apparently that was one of the many things I've said that you just flat out ignored and didn't care about.

However, throughout our back and forth it is painfully obvious that you Sir, desperately need to have the last word so because I no longer consider responding to your posts helpful to defending property rights, you may have it.

Lol, wow. Sorry but I figured the last word and hopefully the end of the argument was in my post #1177 but, I guess not. Seems to me you went completely out of your way to make this last post this evening so, as with all the other times before, I think it is YOU who has the extreme desire for this last-word crap. You coulda ended this a long time ago on both counts here but preaching your same ole rhetoric of thinking it's your responsibility and your business to argue someone else's arguement was far more important than leaving this be so don't give me any of this crap accusation of having the last word.

But, I dunno, though. We'll see, I spose. If you're as done with this argument as you claim to be, I trust you'll leave it at that and go about your business.

 

[Rhino]

I used your code. It's the same link. Same page. Same definition.

All I did was clean up the code.

I get it. Like rewriting the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

...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.

Would turn castle doctrine on it's butt too, since castle doctrine is based on the premise of property rights. To remove property rights, which that proposal would effectively do,

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?...

You must be reading a different thread. It's others who are on a mission to change the opinions of Bikenut, or at least find a way to invalid them, at least in their minds anyway.

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

Case in point. Disagreeing with something doesn't make it nonsense. If that were the case we could delete most of the posts you've made here, just because we consider them nonsense. I'm guessing you wouldn't be as supporting of that theory then.

And FYI, you shouldn't be trying to lecture people on ignorance.

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.

You're right. The OP doesn't say that. The gist of the argument from almost the very beginning has been about the rights of the property owner, and to what extent people feel those rights should be respected. But what's made the argument contentious is that some argue property owners have no such rights, that their desire to carry anywhere nullifies the rights of a property owner, or that their 2nd amendment rights somehow supersede or negate other rights like property rights. Bikenut simply said he respects the rights of property owners and doesn't go to posted premises, but some have been steadfastly been trying to claim that he supports banning gun carry or disrespects 2nd amendment rights as opposed to other rights. That simply isn't the case, but that hasn't stopped people from attacking or ridiculing him based on those false premises.

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.

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.

Seriously? You think the only rights that should be supported are those you have a personal stake in? Lemme guess. You were a Bernie Sanders supporter. The day that such an attitude as that becomes prevalent in this country is the day we seal the coffin on this country. If you don't respect and support all our rights, you respect and support none.

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.

My guess would be it's because he keeps getting attacked. My guess is you also respond when attacked.

Appears to me as I did.

Appearances are wrong in this case, or at least yours are. It was self-explanatory, but you obviously didn't understand it. He didn't say you and Blueshell/Genesi were the only ones to disagree. He said you weren't. Either you can't tell appearance from fact, or you just chose to misinterpret it to allow yourself to ridicule someone for something they never said. I'm betting on the latter since that's a common modus operandi of people who craft attack posts like yours.

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.

No, it's It's like people such as you are just so appalled that so many disagree with you. And you think personal attacks or ridicule constitute actual debate (yes, I know that was somewhat hypocritical). He is responding because people keep attacking. And if you think this is so "moot" or inconsequential, why do you keep coming back here to agitate and criticize? Oh let me guess. You're just doing us all a personal service by telling Bikenut to 'lay off', right? Sorry. Not buying that lame argument. If you think this is so moot or inconsequential your obvious solution would be to leave the thread. I'm guessing you don't do that either.

Whatever you say, man. It's not your fight....

And this isn't yours, as you've already pointed out. Yet you keep coming back with the same lame attacks. The difference is that he has the integrity to stand up for the rights of others, and you don't.

For the rest of you, I'm getting tired of countering the same old worn out, invalid points. There are admittedly more posts after the ones I've responded to here, but I'll have to come back later to catch up. In the meantime, I apologize for not acknowledging any newer post from what I've quoted here that might change what I've said so far. I'm just sick of the crap being presented over and over again. But if you get bored, just count up the number of demonstrative post made by corneileous after he said all this was "moot."

 

[corneileous]

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

You must be reading a different thread. It's others who are on a mission to change the opinions of Bikenut, or at least find a way to invalid them, at least in their minds anyway.

Originally Posted by corneileous: 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?...

First off, what in the Sam hell are you blathering about??

I think it's safe to say everyone else knew what I was saying to Bikenut, except you. Too hardheaded there, Rhino, to get it?....lol. Back before, long time ago, Bikenut proved he was right so many times over. My point was that he kept preaching it, over and over and over like he wasn't getting through to no one. I was saying we get it. Then I said it seemed as though he was on a personal mission to guilt everyone out of who carries past these goofy signs.

But what is your premise for all this diatribe other than to stir the pot even more?? But yes, I know, as I was reminded of several times, this ain't my forum so I don't have the decree to tell anybody not to post but by god I sure can remind folks like you that just because you can post, doesn't always mean you should.

But, you wanna make yourself look like a jerk, be my guest. You're doing great, by the way!!.....[emoji106][emoji106]

Originally Posted by BluesStringer: So what is this Blueshell, like the third or fourth new nick since you first got banned?

Originally posted by corneileous TO BlueStringer but, oh well....: I didn't quote this nonsense to respond to it, just to point out the sheer ignorance in it.

Originally posted by Rhino: Case in point.

Case in point....lol. Whatever man. Certainty don't have any idea why you quoted a conversation between me and someone else.

Disagreeing with something doesn't make it nonsense. If that were the case we could delete most of the posts you've made here, just because we consider them nonsense. I'm guessing you wouldn't be as supporting of that theory then.

Well, as the thread can see, my quote above was to BlueStringer for his assumption and accusations regarding recently banned "Genasi" as being a former member here who was as well banned.

So Rhino, what exactly was your point, bubba? You mad because I wasn't so quick to agree with Blues about Blueshell being reincarnated as Genasi? Or were you talking about something else?? Enlighten us.

Originally posted by Rhino: And FYI, you shouldn't be trying to lecture people on ignorance.

As neither should you, buddy.

I'm still trying to figure out the purpose of your post other than being to just stir up more crap.

Originally Posted by corneileous: 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.

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.

Originally posted by Rhino: Seriously?

Seriously, I do. Well, in reference to what I was talking about, not this crap below you're blathering about.

You think the only rights that should be supported are those you have a personal stake in?

That's not what I said. I was simply saying a non-business owner shouldn't be jumping everybody's case by fighting someone else's battle or arguing someone else's argument.

Again, you have the audacity to tell me I shouldn't preach about ignorance?? Alrighty then.

Lemme guess. You were a Bernie Sanders supporter.

I don't know whether to laugh my can off at this or be very, very angry with you for making such a vile accusation. But no, I was certainly not no damn Bernie supporter. Seriously man? Really?? *SMDH*

The day that such an attitude as that becomes prevalent in this country is the day we seal the coffin on this country. If you don't respect and support all our rights, you respect and support none.

What attitude? Someone sticking their nose where it don't belong?? That the attitude you blather about?

This has nothing to do with the, "You respect me and I'll respect you" crap. As I've said, if the business owner would actually police his business and keep all guns out, I'd have no need to carry in there.

But I like your assumption that just because I don't support gun free zones that now all the sudden, I don't respect or support nothing....lol.

Again, you were saying to me about ignorance? Something along the lines of, I shouldn't preach that? I think this is more than a coupe times now where you've once again proven that you have absolutely no leg to stand on. My guess is that this won't be the last time where you "proven" it again.

My guess would be it's because he keeps getting attacked. My guess is you also respond when attacked.

My guess is that you have completely no idea what you're talking about.

Originally posted by corneileous somewhere, obviously to someone else rather than Rhino: Appears to me as I did.

Originally posted by Rhino: Appearances are wrong in this case, or at least yours are. It was self-explanatory, but you obviously didn't understand it. He didn't say you and Blueshell/Genesi were the only ones to disagree. He said you weren't. Either you can't tell appearance from fact, or you just chose to misinterpret it to allow yourself to ridicule someone for something they never said. I'm betting on the latter since that's a common modus operandi of people who craft attack posts like yours.

I have no idea where I said my above quote and I don't have any idea what you are saying in response to it so please tell me which post number you pulled that from.

Originally posted by Corneileous....somewhere, again, to someone else rather than Rhino:
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.

Originally posted by Rhino: No, it's It's like people such as you are just so appalled that so many disagree with you. And you think personal attacks or ridicule constitute actual debate (yes, I know that was somewhat hypocritical). He is responding because people keep attacking. And if you think this is so "moot" or inconsequential, why do you keep coming back here to agitate and criticize? Oh let me guess. You're just doing us all a personal service by telling Bikenut to 'lay off', right? Sorry. Not buying that lame argument. If you think this is so moot or inconsequential your obvious solution would be to leave the thread. I'm guessing you don't do that either.

Again, I don't know what all I was was saying in that above quote to decipher your reply to it. Please cite the post number you pulled that from if you want a response.

Originally Posted by corneileous to Bikenut: Whatever you say, man. It's not your fight....

Originally posted by Rhino for some reason: And this isn't yours, as you've already pointed out.

Never said it was my fight, bro. Duh.

Yet you keep coming back with the same attacks.

What attacks??

The difference is that he has the integrity to stand up for the rights of others, and you don't.

Ahh, I see, this is all mistaken for battling someone else's fight and arguing someone else's argument, correct?

For the rest of you

For the rest of who, your audience of crickets??

I'm getting tired of countering the same old worn out, invalid points.

Lol, then get outta here with your nonsense. The discussion was pretty much asleep and over with until you decided to come thundering in here and shake it awake.

There are admittedly more posts after the ones I've responded to here, but I'll have to come back later to catch up.

I would say, have fun and hurry back but, please, don't bother. Even Bikenut said he was done arguing. Let it be.

In the meantime, I apologize for not acknowledging any newer post from what I've quoted here that might change what I've said so far.

Lol. I think you're past reasoning for apologies.

I'm just sick of the crap being presented over and over again.

I see what you're doing. Just because it's admirable when someone is standing up for the "robbers welcome" zones, your not sick at all of "all" the regurgitated "crap", just what I've said. Nice.

But if you get bored, just count up the number of demonstrative post made by corneileous.....

Lol. Wow. I think you need a helmet, man.

....after he said all this was "moot."

First off, without going back through the thread, I think I'm just gonna go back as far as when I said it was moot to point out that our military diligently and proudly fights for the rights of business owners to make poorly thought out gun free zones.

But if you wanna try to make what I was callin' moot out to be something else that it ain't, go right ahead.

Pretty much everything you've added today was entirely moot.

 

[maat]

Yes, I conceal carry past posted signs on businesses, but I would never on a personal residence. IMO, the home is sacred, not the business that posts signs with no teeth. I care as much about his sign as he cares to really protect me.

Is this disrespecting his property rights? Yes. Do I care? No. And, in Oklahoma, I'm breaking no law until I refuse to leave when asked, verbally by the owner or his representatives/employees.

Will I confront a killer when my life is not at risk? Yes, if children are at risk, but not adults who had control of their self-protection. Do I ever want to confront a killer or ever pull my gun? Absolutely not.

Will I patronize a business with signs when there are other reasonably available options? No. Will I give up taking my grandchildren to movies when every theater has gun signs? No. Will I stop visiting loved ones in hospitals that are posted? No. Will I stop carrying while buying car tags from posted businesses? No. I switched my bank accounts to Arvest because of their sign- no open carry, witch is reasonable.

 

[Rhino]

First off, what in the Sam hell are you blathering about??

About you blathering and trying to twist the truth. And you aren't very good at it.

 

[Genasi]

I have been putting a lot of sock puppets onto my ignore list lately.

It must be very easy for them to replicate their accounts on this forum.

What if I told you it's so easy that I've been posting from 3 diferent accounts for the last couple of weeks?

What if I also told you that the admin knows and doesn't care, that if you make him ban a sock just so he looks good that he knows when another sock is made and lets it slide so long as you keep clicking on his 'articles' and buying products from us advertisers?

 

[corneileous]

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

About you blathering and trying to twist the truth. And you aren't very good at it.

Again, what are you taking about?? When and where did I twist any of the truth around at that grants me your disapproval of not being good at it that I wasn't even trying to be good at it in the first place???

Are you now just in that much of support mode of feeling like fighting Bikenut's battle and argument all the sudden when it wasn't even his fight in the first place?

Just drop it man. Even he hasn't responded anymore towards it. You really should follow suit and do the same.

 

[corneileous]

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

--snip--

Will I confront a killer when my life is not at risk? Yes, if children are at risk, but not adults who had control of their self-protection. --snip--

That's a hard decision to make considering kids may be involved but, I can't stress it enough that I don't carry and I don't plan to use my gun for everyone else's protection. I'm not a cop, vigilante, or a hero. There's just too much at stake anymore in this "sue-happy" world we live in. I'll risk the whole, " tried by 12 vs. carried out by 6" routine for myself but that's about it.

 

[maat]

That's a hard decision to make considering kids may be involved but, I can't stress it enough that I don't carry and I don't plan to use my gun for everyone else's protection. I'm not a cop, vigilante, or a hero. There's just too much at stake anymore in this "sue-happy" world we live in. I'll risk the whole, " tried by 12 vs. carried out by 6" routine for myself but that's about it.

When a killer is attempting to kill kids, it is everyones(who can) responsibility to step in however necessary. These are decisions that should be ingrained and not questioned when seconds count.

 

[HKS]

When a killer is attempting to kill kids, it is everyones(who can) responsibility to step in however necessary. These are decisions that should be ingrained and not questioned when seconds count.

I agree.

Kids are the most innocent humans on this Earth and they need to be protected not exploited or harmed.

The very best way to intervene is with your own firearm. And you never know when you are going to need it.

Therefore my Rule #1 follows -- always carry your pistol 24/7/365 no matter where you go. And if you cannot then do not go there.

The primary purpose of your pistol and your CFP however is to protect your own life.

Therefore my Rule #2 follows -- don't become Rambo -- protect yourself -- regarding others simply observe and report from a safe distance.

For kids I would make an exception, although the general rule still applies -- you are no good if you are dead -- so don't get yourself killed.

There is a centuries' old Masonic rule for rescuing others. It says -- if the probability of saving another is greater than the probability of getting yourself killed then try to save them. Otherwise do not.

Mathematics and probabilities make our lives very complex at times.

The most obvious point however is that if you are certain to get yourself killed while NOT succeeding in helping anyone else then DONT do it.

 

[HKS]

Yes, I conceal carry past posted signs on businesses, but I would never on a personal residence. IMO, the home is sacred, not the business that posts signs with no teeth. I care as much about his sign as he cares to really protect me.

Is this disrespecting his property rights? Yes. Do I care? No. And, in Oklahoma, I'm breaking no law until I refuse to leave when asked, verbally by the owner or his representatives/employees.

Will I confront a killer when my life is not at risk? Yes, if children are at risk, but not adults who had control of their self-protection. Do I ever want to confront a killer or ever pull my gun? Absolutely not.

Will I patronize a business with signs when there are other reasonably available options? No. Will I give up taking my grandchildren to movies when every theater has gun signs? No. Will I stop visiting loved ones in hospitals that are posted? No. Will I stop carrying while buying car tags from posted businesses? No. I switched my bank accounts to Arvest because of their sign- no open carry, witch is reasonable.

You can get killed in someone else's "sacred home" as easily as anywhere else.

If you are properly concealed they should not be able to tell that you are carrying concealed.

 

[BluesStringer]

What if I told you it's so easy that I've been posting from 3 diferent accounts for the last couple of weeks?

What if I also told you that the admin knows and doesn't care, that if you make him ban a sock just so he looks good that he knows when another sock is made and lets it slide so long as you keep clicking on his 'articles' and buying products from us advertisers?

 

[Eidolon]

What if I also told you that the admin knows and doesn't care, that if you make him ban a sock just so he looks good that he knows when another sock is made and lets it slide so long as you keep clicking on his 'articles' and buying products from us advertisers?

^^^^^^ This^^^^^^^^^^^

You can get as pissed off at Blueshell/Genasi/HKS as you want but this is the truth. The owner of this forum and his benevolent underling (Whom no one has heard from in weeks) do not give a rat's ass about the content of this forum as long as you keep clicking the click bait.

The entire board knows that McKee / Opsec are the same person do you think the owner doesn't ? He. Doesn't. Care as long as it makes him money

 

[HKS]

^^^^^^ This^^^^^^^^^^^

You can get as pissed off at Blueshell/Genasi/HKS as you want but this is the truth. The owner of this forum and his benevolent underling (Whom no one has heard from in weeks) do not give a rat's ass about the content of this forum as long as you keep clicking the click bait.

The entire board knows that McKee / Opsec are the same person do you think the owner doesn't ? He. Doesn't. Care as long as it makes him money

There are actually a bunch of wacko's here who have multiple accounts.

As I find out who they are, I put them all on my ignore list.

Problem solved.

 

[maat]

You can get killed in someone else's "sacred home" as easily as anywhere else.

If you are properly concealed they should not be able to tell that you are carrying concealed.

I've yet to see a sign on a personal residence. As a small business owner, I'm in a lot of homes. I always carry as if my gun is just another tool(concealed). My point is that, I have a completely different view of private property between homes and businesses.

 

[Genasi]

This forum exists for advertising. Advertising fees is based on traffic. Sock accounts add to traffic both by their own activities and by getting you to argue with them, thus increasing revenue.

To protect the business's immage to advertisers, Admin has to be seen discouraging socks, and so he's happy to ban one here and there as-needed. That's good for business.

Like Trump on illegal immigration, he needs the 'illegals' while appearing to be against them because 'illegals' are good for business.

If, as an advertiser, I were to make a sock account here, it would be for stirring up traffic so my adds are more effective. If I had such a sock and it were "banned", I could make another and just stirr up traffic in a different way. As long as my adds are getting clicks, that's all I care about.

 

[Eidolon]

This forum exists for advertising. Advertising fees is based on traffic. Sock accounts add to traffic both by their own activities and by getting you to argue with them, thus increasing revenue.

To protect the business's immage to advertisers, Admin has to be seen discouraging socks, and so he's happy to ban one here and there as-needed. That's good for business.

Like Trump on illegal immigration, he needs the 'illegals' while appearing to be against them because 'illegals' are good for business.

If, as an advertiser, I were to make a sock account here, it would be for stirring up traffic so my adds are more effective. If I had such a sock and it were "banned", I could make another and just stirr up traffic in a different way. As long as my adds are getting clicks, that's all I care about.

Again 100% truth. Genasi is an ******* but he's a smart *******

 

[NavyLCDR]

I do not appreciate anyone else for any reason infringing on my 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights.

You have posted elsewhere that Mas Ayoob states that concealed carry in public is a privilege, not a right and that you agree with that. You have also stated that the Supreme Court states that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies only in one's home. So how can someone else infringe on your 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights outside your home when, according to your own posts elsewhere, you do not believe the right to carry a firearm in public exists?