Seems to be more circumstantial evidence that the "training" provided in government-mandated concealed carry permission slip classes is hardly adequate to keep gun owners/carriers from shooting themselves in the foot, as it were. And yet, some gun owners/carriers see such classes as providing safety and security for wider society. Cognitive dissonance abounds.
Yeah, but we both know that's nothing new.
Yes they do.
Fact is you can just mail a firearm. No amount of pouting from you is ever going to change that.
Fact is you can just shoot somebody on the street too. Doesn't make it legal. And trying to claim the "mail" means someone other than the US Postal Service is a pretty lame dodge. You've contributed quite nicely at times in the past, but now you're just yanking people's chains. I for one would like to see some of that constructive participation again. You're quite effective when you make the effort, but you don't seem to want to go to that effort much anymore.
First rule to winning a gun fight is to not be there when the gun fight starts so why would anyone intentionally go where they are most likely to need their gun? Are you required by law to go there or do you disrespect private property rights of other folks because going somewhere else is just inconvenient for you?
There are unfortunately times when the anti-gun establishments are the only ones available for a particular product or service. But other than that, yeah, take your business elsewhere.
An opinion not directed at any specific individual(s)......
I tend to believe some folks who sanctimoniously brag about disrespecting private property rights by... sneaking.... their guns into private property businesses with no guns rules secretly hope to have the opportunity to heroically whip out their super secret Ninja element of surprise and save the day from an active shooter to the applause and accolades of those now grateful poor unfortunates the dastardly business owner demanded be unarmed.
Oh yeah!!! Book and movie deals. Gorgeous babes gathering at your feet to bask in your stardom. Getting a chance to be one of Taylor Swift's ex-boyfriends. Hanging with the Kardashians. Starting your own clothing and cosmetics lines. Yeah, I think all that was in chapter 3 of my Glock owners manual.
That's a silly "rule". Like saying you win the Superbowl every year because you are not in the NFL and don't play football at all....
False analogy. In one instance you win by scoring points, and in the other you win by avoiding getting shot. One rewards participation and the other rewards avoidance. The only thing silly is that you tried to compare them as if it were 'apples to apples' when they're nothing of the sort.
...Doesn't matter how you want to spin it or what excuses you want to use ... sneaking... your gun in where the property owner says guns are not allowed is still disrespecting the owner's property right to control who has, and who doesn't have, his permission to enter. And if you enter without his permission you are trespassing....
I'm not really sure that anybody's trying to argue that point specifically. I think the main idea is at what point people think their need for self-preservation may overpower their desire to respect the property rights of an anti-gun establishment. Granted, you're right that there are some people that simply don't care. And there are still others who speak that way simply because they're tired of the hassle. But the author of the OP made it pretty clear the question wasn't intended as a matter of totally disrespecting the rights of property owners, but rather as to where people might draw that line and what tips the scales when trying to balance one concern against the other.
Whether the story is truth or fiction it expresses the notion that a concealed carrier who ... sneaks... their gun into private property that denies entry to those who carry guns can whip out their super secret Ninja element of surprise and be the widely acclaimed and famous hero who saves everyone from the bad guy shooter.
Actually not really, because the woman in the story didn't consider herself a hero and wasn't seeking the limelight. But considering that it's fiction it doesn't matter much either way.
You're starting to sound a bit like you think you're the only responsible concealed carrier in America, and everyone else is just an idiot, Rambo wanna-be. I know that's not your intention, and I know it's mostly borne out of frustration with Blueshell, but it could be interpreted that way, especially if it's someone new that doesn't know you that well. Just sayin'.
That she was trespassing is irrelevant. Your property "rights" don't mean a damn thing to me....
I'm curious what moral high ground you think you can take when anti-gunners argue that your "rights" don't mean a damn thing to them either. And don't try to pretend you don't care or it makes no difference to you, because those selfsame people push and pass legislation based on the premise that your "rights" don't mean a damn thing. And those laws do affect you whether you want to admit it or not.
It isn't so much about the penalty of being asked to leave or even being arrested/convicted of trespass as it is the personal lack of integrity and hypocrisy of demanding the right to bear arms be respected while disrespecting the property owner's property right to deny permission to enter for those who bear arms .
THAT'S what I was looking for! Thank you sir!
My life is worth more than my ego. You go ahead and 'man up', and I'll remain armed. No problem.
I hate to say it but I'm in agreement with this statement..
As a generalization maybe, but saying my life is more important than my ego doesn't automatically translate to ignoring the rights of others. I always respect the property rights of others, and I wouldn't consider violating them unless there was no other avenue available to me. I personally would modify that statement to, 'When I'm faced with nowhere else I can go, my life is worth more than my ego.' If I were to treat the rights of others with a casual or dismissive attitude, then I'd have no right to complain when others try to limit or violate my rights. That's the point Bikenut is trying to get across. And I don't really think Blueshell feels that way about rights either. He just likes yanking Bikenut's chain.
The person demanding their rights be respected while disrespecting the rights of others. The property owner; Demanding others respect their property rights while they disrespect other's right to carry in public. That's hypocricy.
Private property isn't public, so they aren't disrespecting your right to carry in public. If private property were public we could all come over to your house and have Stella shouting contests any time of the day or night. But our right to yell loudly in public doesn't trump your private property rights, just as your right to carry publicly doesn't trump the rights of other property owners. That's patently obvious too, which is why I think you're just doing this to irritate Bikenut.
...I'd rather be a hypocrite than dead.
Another reason why I know you're just having fun. If you were really that worried about your safety, you wouldn't be going to places you yourself have already said are more dangerous than others.
Oh, and admitting you're a hypocrite means you know you're violating their rights. That means you know your argument that their rights are invalid, is invalid in itself.
Just as gun control laws are infringements upon the right to bear arms so are laws that require property owners to let in people he doesn't want, regardless of what the reason may be, are infringements upon the private property right to control who is, and who isn't, allowed on/in the property.
That issue isn't about property rights, and certainly not simply about who gets in or not. It's about forcing people to violate their religious beliefs. 1st amendment.
By the way, even that CCW permit is an infringement upon the right to bear arms and .. discriminates.. against those who do not have enough money to pay for the fees and costs involved in getting a permit.
So people have a right to what they can't afford? You might want to phrase that a little differently.
No one cares, not even the owner. These signs are posted for the sake of liability, nothing more. All they mean is that if something happens involving that item then it's on you, not the owner.
He wasn't talking about your policies at work. He was proving wrong your statement that sexual orientation isn't a protected class, which you apparently just decided to sidestep and ignore. And by the way, the Civil Rights Act said nothing about sexual orientation.
This has been fun. I wonder what dead horses we'll have to beat when I come back in another few weeks.
