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

[GeorgeK]

The signs do not have force of law and do not serve as notification, that is why you must be notified and asked to leave. The signs basically notify the bad guy of the ( supposedly) free fire zone. I seldom see the signs anymore as people realize they have no useful purpose and they are ugly 11 ×17 or 187 sq in.
In my personal opinion an individual should not have to give up any of their rights just because a business wants to impose on them, that should be done by the business as part of their choice to be open to the public.

Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

The signs do not have force of law and do not serve as notification, that is why you must be notified and asked to leave. The signs basically notify the bad guy of the ( supposedly) free fire zone. I seldom see the signs anymore as people realize they have no useful purpose and they are ugly 11 ×17 or 187 sq in.
In my personal opinion an individual should not have to give up any of their rights just because a business wants to impose on them, that should be done by the business as part of their choice to be open to the public.

Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk

+++1.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-

Originally posted by Bikenut:
So you are picking and choosing which rights are important?

I'm not picking anything, I'm just saying it's a right that I don't agree with in a public place, privately owned or not....unless they make sure all guns stay out. Then, just maybe, I wouldn't have to bring mine in there in the first place!! Magine that!

You are choosing (picking) to disrespect someone elses right because you don't agree with it and imposing you own personal opinion of how that right should be exercised. And that is the same attitude that anti gunners use to justify imposing gun control on the right to bear arms. Imagine that.

Originally posted by Bikenut:
Isn't that exactly what the anti gunners do? You know... wanting the rights they think are important be respected while disrespecting the right to keep and bear arms just because they don't think that specific right is important? Seems to me that while the rights involved might be different the attitude is exactly the same.

I don't give a rats ass what the anti-gunners think. You and I both know that their thoughts on why we shouldn't have guns at all make about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. Until they come up with a real solution and a real reason why I should listen to them, maybe I would care about what they think. But I ain't gonna hold my breath.

My point isn't about what the anti gunners think but is how your, and those with the same attitude, thought processes mimic those of the anti gunner when it comes to the rights of others that are thought not to be important.

Originally posted by Bikenut:
And there is an easy way to lower the odds of being killed by staying out of private property that has a no guns rule/sign and shopping elsewhere even if it is inconvenient.

Just that simple, huh??...lol. Wow.....lol.

Maybe in a bigger city where there's more competition to choose from but around here, it ain't that simple.

Hell, since more and more of these places are popping up, it's gonna get to the point where every place you go to will have a "robbers welcome" sign. Then what?

Again you make the argument that your personal convenience justifies disrespecting the rights of others.

Originally posted by Bikenut:
But then you know all that and your argument is nothing more than a defense of your own personal convenience.

I personally don't care if my argument means anything to you or not, bud.
-snip-

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And I don't care if my explanation means anything to you or the others that have the same attitude you espouse. What I care about is presenting the hypocrisy of wanting the right to bear arms be respected while disrespecting someone elses property rights by... sneaking... a gun into/onto private property with a no guns rule/policy to those who may not have thought about it in relation to the rights of others.

I am well aware that those who have the attitude of "Hooray for my right to bear arms and to hell with your private property right to deny me entry because I am bearing arms." are not going to change their minds. All one needs do is to read this discussion to see that.

 

[corneileous]

You are choosing (picking) to disrespect someone elses right because you don't agree with it. And that is the same attitude that anti gunners use to justify imposing gun control on the right to bear arms. 'Magine that.


My point isn't about what the anti gunners think but is how your, and those with the same attitude, thought processes mimic those of the anti gunner when it comes to the rights of others that are thought not to be important.

Again you make the argument that your personal convenience justifies disrespecting the rights of others.

And I don't care if my explanation means anything to you or the others that have the same attitude you espouse. What I care about is presenting the hypocrisy of wanting the right to bear arms be respected while disrespecting someone elses property rights by... sneaking... a gun into/onto private property with a no guns rule/policy to those who may not have thought about it in relation to the rights of others.

I am well aware that those who have the attitude of "Hooray for my right to bear arms and to hell with your private property right to deny me entry because I am bearing arms." are not going to change their minds. All one needs do is to read this discussion to see that.
-snip-

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[/QUOTE]

Boo hoo. How many times are you going to keep repeating yourself?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

It's pretty pathetic someone coming on a pro gun forum defending gun free zones. I think you care way to much about being right rather than supporting what is right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

And another thing.... again.... anti-gun liberals are never.... going to support our rights to bear and carry arms. Why should we support their anti-gun agenda? Why are you so sympathetic towards them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Boo hoo. How many times are you going to keep repeating yourself?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I could ask the same of you.

It's pretty pathetic someone coming on a pro gun forum defending gun free zones. I think you care way to much about being right rather than supporting what is right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am supporting respecting all rights of all people including the rights of others that I don't agree with.

And another thing.... again.... anti-gun liberals are never.... going to support our rights to bear and carry arms. Why should we support their anti-gun agenda? Why are you so sympathetic towards them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It isn't about being sympathetic to those who do not support the right to keep and bear arms but is about having the personal integrity to respect the rights of others even if we don't agree with that particular right. Perhaps it is even more important to respect the rights we don't agree with if we want others to do the same for us.

 

[corneileous]

I could ask the same of you.

I am supporting respecting all rights of all people including the rights of others that I don't agree with.


It isn't about being sympathetic to those who do not support the right to keep and bear arms but is about having the personal integrity to respect the rights of others even if we don't agree with that particular right. Perhaps it is even more important to respect the rights we don't agree with if we want others to do the same for us.

You were saying??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
I could ask the same of you.

I am supporting respecting all rights of all people including the rights of others that I don't agree with.


It isn't about being sympathetic to those who do not support the right to keep and bear arms but is about having the personal integrity to respect the rights of others even if we don't agree with that particular right. Perhaps it is even more important to respect the rights we don't agree with if we want others to do the same for us.

You were saying??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again missed the point.

 

[corneileous]

I am supporting respecting all rights of all people including the rights of others that I don't agree with.

Even the ones that have to do with more gun control? Fascinating.

It isn't about being sympathetic to those who do not support the right to keep and bear arms but is about having the personal integrity to respect the rights of others even if we don't agree with that particular right. Perhaps it is even more important to respect the rights we don't agree with if we want others to do the same for us.

Sure seems to be a hint of sympathy here....



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

Again missed the point.

Um, no I didn't. It's remarkable how many times you've said the basically the same thing... over.... and over... and over....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[corneileous]

It's like your trying to change my opinion for me or something. And yes, maybe for a little while I was somewhat trying to change yours. But that ended a long time ago. You wanna support gun free zones.... err, free fire zones, be my guest. It's a free country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post

I am supporting respecting all rights of all people including the rights of others that I don't agree with.

Even the ones that have to do with more gun control? Fascinating.

Private property rights are not about gun control but are about controlling who has permission to enter. And not allowing folks who carry guns to enter is not gun control just as not allowing folks to give a sermon or a campaign speech in the produce aisle is not free speech control. It is control of who, which person(s), which individual members of the public, have or do not have permission to enter. And private property rights give the property owner the authority to decree who will, and who will not, have his permission to enter.

Originally posted by Bikenut:
It isn't about being sympathetic to those who do not support the right to keep and bear arms but is about having the personal integrity to respect the rights of others even if we don't agree with that particular right. Perhaps it is even more important to respect the rights we don't agree with if we want others to do the same for us.

Sure seems to be a hint of sympathy here....



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not surprised you would think that.

 

[corneileous]

Private property rights are not about gun control but are about controlling who has permission to enter. And not allowing folks who carry guns to enter is not gun control just as not allowing folks to give a sermon or a campaign speech in the produce aisle is not free speech control. It is control of who, which person(s), which individual members of the public, have or do not have permission to enter. And private property rights give the property owner the authority to decree who will, and who will not, have his permission to enter.

Here we go again...

I'm not surprised you would think that.

Since you're too busy worrying about being right with your nose pointed up the air, I'm not at all surprised you don't see the sympathy in your posts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

It's like your trying to change my opinion for me or something. And yes, maybe for a little while I was somewhat trying to change yours. But that ended a long time ago. You wanna support gun free zones.... err, free fire zones, be my guest. It's a free country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not surprised you would think I would have hopes of changing your opinion. All I'm doing is presenting facts often supported with cites and links from reputable sources that do not support your opinion. What you do with those facts are entirely up to you.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Again missed the point.

Um, no I didn't. It's remarkable how many times you've said the basically the same thing... over.... and over... and over....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I could say the same about you and some others in this discussion.

 

[corneileous]

Whatever. This conversation is done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Irishguy824]

Once again, I am going to ask this question:

A business that is open to the public (convienence store, restaurant, grocery store, etc.) doesn't want you to bring your lawfully owned firearm owned by someone with a valid CCW permit into their business - so who's job is it to protect you when you walk into their establishments? Is it on the 16 year old stocking the shelves? How about that 19 year old ringing people up? How about the manager sitting on their ass in their office? Is it the 18 year old waitress? The 21 year old bartender?

Or is it still on you to protect yourself if SHTF?

Because like I said before, if you leave your gun in the car because the place doesn't want you to have it, and then get hurt if something happens in their establishment, when you sue them the argument from them will be that none of them are qualified to protect you from a bad guy. They're going to say that's not in any of their employees job descriptions, and in that argument they would be correct.

 

[corneileous]

Once again, I am going to ask this question:

A business that is open to the public (convienence store, restaurant, grocery store, etc.) doesn't want you to bring your lawfully owned firearm owned by someone with a valid CCW permit into their business - so who's job is it to protect you when you walk into their establishments? Is it on the 16 year old stocking the shelves? How about that 19 year old ringing people up? How about the manager sitting on their ass in their office? Is it the 18 year old waitress? The 21 year old bartender?

Or is it still on you to protect yourself if SHTF?

Because like I said before, if you leave your gun in the car because the place doesn't want you to have it, and then get hurt if something happens in their establishment, when you sue them the argument from them will be that none of them are qualified to protect you from a bad guy. They're going to say that's not in any of their employees job descriptions, and in that argument they would be correct.

Guess I don't see exactly what your getting at unless just stating the obvious but, that's why I carry regardless. Unless they post a guard or have a metal detector, I don't expect them to protect me and ensure my safety.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BluesStringer]

It's pretty pathetic someone coming on a pro gun forum defending gun free zones. I think you care way to much about being right rather than supporting what is right.

I have no idea what it means to "care too much" about something you care about in the first place, but Bikenut's level of caring is irrelevant to him being right. Whether he cares "too much" or not at all doesn't matter, he's still right.

A couple of years ago another member here posted a link that included a list of things/people that the author struggled with being polite and well-mannered towards when discussing them. I can't post the actual name of the piece because it has a banned word in the title, which also caused a problem with posting a link because that banned word was included in it. It sounds a lot like the non-word, "azzholes," as-in, "When Azzholes Collide." The author was writing in first-person, basically acknowledging that he saw himself as one side of such an azzhole collision. The blog is closed now so I can't direct you to the whole piece, but one thing the author said in it I did quote when I responded to its posting, and I think it fits quite well with what Bikenut is trying to say, though I don't think Bikenut is an azzhole, nor do I think he presents his arguments like an azzhole would. He presents them as someone who is committed to his position on sound, rights-supporting principle, and that's the subject of the one part of the list I quoted in the post I'm talking about:

Learn to defend the individual rights of people you hate. Paradoxical, no? This my friends, is the crux of freedom. I’ll be honest. In my head I’ve choked out 40% of my fellow Americans because I think they are vapid, brain-dead, collectivist tools that have squandered their freedom for the illusion of security by centralized government. From reading the media they put out, they’ve already got me lined up for a bullet in the back of the head NKVD-style because I love my freedom, guns, and whiskey, and find illegitimate any vote to strip me of any of those or related things, no matter how “democratic” the process was.

It is false witness for anyone to suggest that Bikenut is an advocate for gun free zones. His solution to businesses that make themselves gun free is to not patronize their business. That is how everyone's rights are respected and upheld. Sneaking a gun past the unknowing owner/manager of a business who has stated their rules forbidding it is the height of disrespect for their rights. You don't have to like them, you just have to be willing to defend the individual rights of people you hate by either disarming before you go in, or go somewhere else. You have no rightful expectation of a business owner to be more considerate of your convenience than they are of their own property rights. I've been a business owner before, and I'd gladly lose a customer's patronage while defending my own rights rather than keep them at the expense of my rights. If you can't accept this argument on that basis, then you're not interested in anybody else's rights but your own, which makes you a selfish brat, not a considerate and rights-supporting adult.

Blues