Sorry, you are wrong, because without that little object they wouldnt be infringing now would they........
I'm probably guilty of that as well. But I've really never seen a sign at a business. I don't think I would obey the sign. I would just keep it in my pocket and go about my business. If someone asked me to leave I would do so without complaint.Suuuurrrreee you do.... here are your own words....
From post #131 in the discussion "Why carry open in town?" on USACarry at:
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/44034-why-carry-open-town-4.html#post531642
So you consider it to be polite to carry concealed (....sneak.... your gun in without the owner knowing) into property that has a gun rule you consider "idiocy" and YOU think you are the good guy?
:no:
You need to know you're only hurting yourself. Business owners who post against guns don't care about losing that money. If you would lose-out on a great deal or pay more for the same item rather than frequent the store so be it. But you're not making any real point to the owner, he doesn't care. You can't expect any business owner to tie his future and success in business to your gun rights.
I think this is getting carried away and should be closed.
Since you have no facts or proof to refute my position, all you have left is a gross misrepresentation of what I said in ONE of hundreds of posts on the subject... an unfinished sentence, wow.... you got me.... NOTWithout the object they wouldn't be infringing.
With the object they are infringing.
Arguments over.
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
Since you have no facts or proof to refute my position, all you have left is a gross misrepresentation of what I said in ONE of hundreds of posts on the subject... an unfinished sentence, wow.... you got me.... NOT
Misdirection is a ***** when it is pointed out as what it is... a last ditch effort to win an unwinnable argument (because YOU have failed to prove my points wrong)
Sorry, you are wrong, because without that little object they wouldnt be infringing now would they........
I never said she was, nor did I allude so.However, a pregnant woman who believes in the right to life and has no intention of killing her unborn baby is in no way infringing upon the abortion clinic's owner's rights just because she is on their property with her baby that she intends to keep.
No, you're missing reality entirely by assuming rights can't exist with rules attached. You're making the mistake of believing property rights are not rights at all because someone establishes rules that others have to abide by in order to participate in activities or to be in places that he is allowing under his RIGHTS as a property owner. He isn't denying your right to carry a gun. He's just exercising his property rights when he says he doesn't want you carrying it on his property. Nobody denies your right to have sex, but they'd surely have something to say if you did it with their wife. And no, I'm not comparing gun rights with adultery. I'm demonstrating that rights do indeed have limits, and property owners most definitely have the right to set rules for people who come onto their property. Those who don't wish to follow those rules simply don't go there. I mean, just think about it for a minute, even using the Bill of Rights.Your ENTIRE premise/side/argument is FLAWED on its foundation.... You think that someones rules somehow equal the same thing as his rights... UNTIL you come to grips with reality, you are arguing from a losing position from the start.....
No, you're missing reality entirely by assuming rights can't exist with rules attached. .
You do not have an argument..... So you only misquote me.... EVERYONE ELSE knows (and I finished the sentence a few posts later in the thread you are quoting what I meant to say) and yet you are here and in multiple posts other places LYING about it by KNOWINGLY continuing to misquote me..... Are we to believe ANYTHING you say now, now that you have proven yourself to be a liar?Without the object they wouldn't be infringing.
With the object they are infringing.
Arguments over.
Nothing is left to be said. The approximate dozen posters can only say the same thing so many times...being rebutted by the same post by you claiming that's not proof to you...well I don't need anymore proof except what comes from the horse's mouth.
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
You do not have an argument..... So you only misquote me.... EVERYONE ELSE knows (and I finished the sentence a few posts later in the thread you are quoting what I meant to say) and yet you are here and in multiple posts other places LYING about it by KNOWINGLY continuing to misquote me..... Are we to believe ANYTHING you say now, now that you have proven yourself to be a liar?
If the misquoted post you keep repeating was such a gross oversight on my part that I was back-peddling every chance I got to "fix" the problem it caused, dont you think I would have edited it the very first chance it was pointed out to me??????? I have NOT edited it because anyone with half a brain COULD READ MY OTHER POSTS AND DETERMINE FOR THEMSELVES that I surely forgot to put ONE word in there, and THEY know (because they have at least half a brain) that the missing word is "rules" and most definitely not "RIGHTS"
Do yourself (and your reputation) a favor and stop repeating lies, it only proves you have nothing else to refute my argument with.
Sorry, you are wrong, because without that little object they wouldnt be infringing now would they........
And that's where you lose touch with reality. He controls his property rights. Therefore he controls the conditions upon which others can access it. If that condition prevents you from exercising any of your rights, you simply don't go there, so you still have full control over your rights. Your delusion that you have the right to carry your gun anywhere you want, and everyone else be damned, is where everything leaves reality here. It's ridiculous. You don't now have the ability to exercise any right you want in every location, and in any way you want, and you've never had that ability. Your insistence here that you do just makes you sound even more ridiculous.Right there is where you stopped being in reality......
YOU have a FALSE idea of what those "RULES" about rights are comprised of....... and it completely muddles your argument, it permeates it completely.....
YOU think that a property owner can make a rule that now has more force than other peoples RIGHTS... and it just isnt so, no matter how hard you argue the point it just isnt correct....
So we can take your gun away, and as long as nobody attacks you in the future where you could have used it to defend yourself, then we haven't infringed on your rights. Makes perfect sense. I'll park my car in your front yard, and as long as it doesn't cause damage, you won't have a right to complain. Like I said, you've gone beyond ridiculous.THE ONLY VALID WAY I COULD INFRINGE ON ONE OF YOUR RIGHTS AS A PROPERTY OWNER IS FOR ME TO CAUSE YOU HARM BY MY ACTIONS.....
*sigh* absolutely NOTHING you have written has disproven anything I have... however, you have greatly gone beyond (because you refuse to actually read what I write or comprehend it) because you KEEP ACCUSING ME of things I have never said (by giving completely irrelevant examples that my argument has absolutely NOTHING to do with)And that's where you lose touch with reality. He controls his property rights. Therefore he controls the conditions upon which others can access it. If that condition prevents you from exercising any of your rights, you simply don't go there, so you still have full control over your rights. Your delusion that you have the right to carry your gun anywhere you want, and everyone else be damned, is where everything leaves reality here. It's ridiculous. You don't now have the ability to exercise any right you want in every location, and in any way you want, and you've never had that ability. Your insistence here that you do just makes you sound even more ridiculous.
.
So we can take your gun away, and as long as nobody attacks you in the future where you could have used it to defend yourself, then we haven't infringed on your rights. Makes perfect sense. I'll park my car in your front yard, and as long as it doesn't cause damage, you won't have a right to complain. Like I said, you've gone beyond ridiculous.
One thing is glaringly apparent Axe... the lack of cites and/or links to facts that prove your argument.*sigh* absolutely NOTHING you have written has disproven anything I have... however, you have greatly gone beyond (because you refuse to actually read what I write or comprehend it) because you KEEP ACCUSING ME of things I have never said (by giving completely irrelevant examples that my argument has absolutely NOTHING to do with)
However, a pregnant woman who believes in the right to life and has no intention of killing her unborn baby is in no way infringing upon the abortion clinic's owner's rights just because she is on their property with her baby that she intends to keep.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?