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

[BluesStringer]

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.

"Go elsewhere" is the correct answer to the wholly-imagined dilemma you describe here.

 

[corneileous]

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:



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

Well, whatever you wanna think, Blues. That's your opinion. I've explained many times why I do what I do when it comes to carrying in a "robbers welcome" store. I'm not going to repeat it. You can take it for whatever it's worth or you can just ignore it, I really don't care.

If I get caught, it's my problem, not yours, not Bikenut's, not anybody's...mine.

I don't appreciate the the brat name calling. Just because there's a particular right I don't agree with doesn't make me automatically only respect the rights I agree with and your a fool if you think otherwise.

You don't know what it means to care too much?? Hmm. I guess you can call that whatever you want too but, it just seemed to me that was the case. In my opinion, if being right wasn't so important as you blatantly say it wasn't, he wouldn't have said the same thing over and over. But then again, I don't know and I don't care what his emphasis was. But thanks to your post, I predict he's gonna come back on here and explain it.

But it's funny that you said what you did about being a business owner who wouldn't give two [emoji90]'s about people telling them that they're not going to shop there because of their sign. Just goes to show that you're not inconveniencing then one bit and that you're just wasting your time doing so. I'm not telling people to not inform the owner, I'm just saying it's pointless. Well, to me, it is. If it makes any of y'all all warm and fuzzy inside to tell the owner something he most likely wouldn't care about, by all means, do it. I'm just stating it's not something I would do because I don't feel that will do anything good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

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.

In the first place no one has any right to go into a privately owned store/business. All anyone has is the owner's permission to enter IF the member of the public (you and me) agree to abide by the rules the owner has set as conditions for gaining his permission.

But if you want to go into that store/private property business you have a choice.

1. You can protect yourself and respect the property owner's right to not allow you to enter because you are carrying a gun by not going in and going elsewhere.

2. You can respect the property owner's right to not allow you to enter while carrying a gun and leave your gun outside.

3. You can disrespect the property owner's right to not allow you to enter while carrying a gun and.. sneak ... it in anyway and trespassing by entering without the owner's permission.

 

[Bikenut]

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.

I suspect those who ... sneak...their guns into/onto private property in order to not have to be inconvenienced by respecting the property owner's right to ban people, those individual members of the public, who carry guns are well aware that my explanation(s) of private property rights is correct. The degree of mental masturbatory pseudo logic evidenced by the excuses used to justify... sneaking... the gun in is glaringly obvious. Kinda like that old saying about protesting too much.

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:

Bold added by me for emphasis
Thank you.

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.

Exactly since if we start picking and choosing which rights of others we will ignore and disrespect just because we don't happen to like, or agree with, that particular right then we are no better than the anti gunners who have picked the right to keep and bear arms to disrespect. Either we respect ALL the rights of ALL the people or we are being hypocrites when we expect our favorite right be respected.

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

Personally I abhor gun free zones but unlike some folks who think it is OK to disrespect the rights of others just because they don't like it, consider it foolish, or think their personal convenience is more important, I will respect and defend a property owner's right to make his property a gun free area with the same degree of passion that I have for respecting and defending the right to keep and bear arms. To do anything less is to lower myself to the same level as the anti gunners and I dislike anti gunners intensely.

 

[corneileous]

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

Exactly since if we start picking and choosing which rights of others we will ignore and disrespect just because we don't happen to like, or agree with, that particular right then we are no better than the anti gunners who have picked the right to keep and bear arms to disrespect. Either we respect ALL the rights of ALL the people or we are being hypocrites when we expect our favorite right be respected.

I'm curious...... If they decide to ban gun free zones, cuz let's face it, they're worthless, this will be a property right taken way, that will all the sudden cease to exist, am I correct?

Would you be upset that this right got taken away or would you be cool with it?

To do anything less is to lower myself to the same level as the anti gunners and I dislike anti gunners intensely.

Well, again, that's your opinion. I for one don't see it that way which is probably why I don't have a problem with it. That's why I carry concealed. I do it every day, in and out of all kinds of stores that may or may not have a sign and, you know what? Nobody has even noticed to be mad or to tell me I'm not welcome in their store.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Exactly since if we start picking and choosing which rights of others we will ignore and disrespect just because we don't happen to like, or agree with, that particular right then we are no better than the anti gunners who have picked the right to keep and bear arms to disrespect. Either we respect ALL the rights of ALL the people or we are being hypocrites when we expect our favorite right be respected.

I'm curious...... If they decide to ban gun free zones, cuz let's face it, they're worthless, this will be a property right taken way, that will all the sudden cease to exist, am I correct?

If a law is enacted that punishes a property owner for exercising his right to deny entry to those who carry guns then that law is as much an infringement upon private property rights as are gun control laws infringements upon the right to keep and bear arms.

Would you be upset that this right got taken away or would you be cool with it?

I would be upset that yet another right is being infringed upon. What would upset me most is that those folks who have been disrespecting the property owner's right to deny entry to those who carry guns by.. sneaking... their gun in would be overjoyed that they don't have to worry about being inconvenienced by being thrown out or arrested because of some elses rights.

The real loss would be yet another right is infringed upon with the whole hearted support of those who say they support rights.

Originally posted by Bikenut:
To do anything less is to lower myself to the same level as the anti gunners and I dislike anti gunners intensely.

Well, again, that's your opinion. I for one don't see it that way which is probably why I don't have a problem with it. That's why I carry concealed. I do it every day, in and out of all kinds of stores that may or may not have a sign and, you know what? Nobody has even noticed to be mad or to tell me I'm not welcome in their store.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know you don't see it that way. You have made that abundantly clear however getting away with disrespecting the rights of others doesn't justify the disrespect.

The commonality between those who disrespect the private property owner's rights because they don't agree with that right and the anti gunner who disrespects the right to keep and bear arms because they don't agree with that right is the belief that just because they don't agree with a right then it deserves to be disrespected.

 

[corneileous]

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

If a law is enacted that punishes a property owner for exercising his right to deny entry to those who carry guns then that law is as much an infringement upon private property rights as are gun control laws infringements upon the right to keep and bear arms.

My post that this above quote pertains to really wasn't intended to be individually quoted.

But anyway, I don't see how erasing a right to ban guns in a public place, "privately owned" or not, is hardly the same thing as taking away gun ownership rights.

Yes, I know, you've said it time and time again that it is but, I don't agree.

If they (the store owner) would do more than just relying on a sign, I would agree. But since they don't? Nope. Sorry!

I would be upset that yet another right is being infringed upon. What would upset me most is that those folks who have been disrespecting the property owner's right to deny entry to those who carry guns by.. sneaking... their gun in would be overjoyed that they don't have to worry about being inconvenienced by being thrown out or arrested because of some elses rights.

The real loss would be yet another right is infringed upon with the whole hearted support of those who say they support rights.

Well, I'm sorry but I don't sympathize with you. Of all rights to be whining about if it was taken away, this is hardly the one.

I know you don't see it that way. You have made that abundantly clear however getting away with disrespecting the rights of others doesn't justify the disrespect.

Aaaaand again, I highly and fiercely disagree. And you know why.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
If a law is enacted that punishes a property owner for exercising his right to deny entry to those who carry guns then that law is as much an infringement upon private property rights as are gun control laws infringements upon the right to keep and bear arms.

My post that this above quote pertains to really wasn't intended to be individually quoted.

Really? LOL.

But anyway, I don't see how erasing a right to ban guns in a public place, "privately owned" or not, is hardly the same thing as taking away gun ownership rights.

A right is a right regardless of what subjective opinions folks have of the validity of a right. But then your inability, or refusal, to see how all rights are equally as important is evident from your postings.

Originally posted by Bikenut:
I would be upset that yet another right is being infringed upon. What would upset me most is that those folks who have been disrespecting the property owner's right to deny entry to those who carry guns by.. sneaking... their gun in would be overjoyed that they don't have to worry about being inconvenienced by being thrown out or arrested because of some elses rights.

The real loss would be yet another right is infringed upon with the whole hearted support of those who say they support rights.

Yes, I know, you've said it time and time again that it is but, I don't agree

If they (the store owner) would do more than just relying on a sign, I would agree. But since they don't? Nope. Sorry!

Again, just like anti gunners want to decide how it is acceptable to exercise the right to keep and bear arms you want to decide how it is acceptable for the property owner to exercise his private property rights. And you say you cannot see the commonality?

Well, I'm sorry but I don't sympathize with you. Of all rights to be whining about if it was taken away, this is hardly the one.

Again you think it is OK to pick and choose which rights of others are valid based on your personal opinion of the worth of that right. But then the anti gunners do exactly the same thing except it is the right to keep and bear arms they think isn't valid based on their personal opinion of the worth of that right.

See the commonality?

Originally posted by Bikenut:
I know you don't see it that way. You have made that abundantly clear however getting away with disrespecting the rights of others doesn't justify the disrespect.

Aaaaand again, I highly and fiercely disagree. And you know why.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes I know why. You think any right you don't agree with deserves to be disrespected. You have made that quite clear.. over and over and over.

 

[corneileous]

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

Really? LOL.

Seriously. I didn't say what I said in hopes that you would specifically quote just that part. I wasn't interested in reading your thoughts on it. That was just a mere, statement pointing out that it would cease to exist.

A right is a right regardless of what subjective opinions folks have of the validity of a right.

But then your inability, or refusal, to see how all rights are equally as important is evident from your postings.

If you say so.

Again, just like anti gunners want to decide how it is acceptable to exercise the right to keep and bear arms you want to decide how it is acceptable for the property owner to exercise his private property rights. And you say you cannot see the commonality?

Again you think it is OK to pick and choose which rights of others are valid based on your personal opinion of the worth of that right. But then the anti gunners do exactly the same thing except it is the right to keep and bear arms they think isn't valid based on their personal opinion of the worth of that right.

See the commonality?

Not gonna go there again.

Yes I know why.

Um, apparently not.

You said getting away with defensive carrying doesn't justify the disrespect of the sign. I say it does because like I've said time and time again, simply relying on a sign to keep the bad guy's gun out doesn't work. Do we rely on just speed limit signs to make sure people don't speed? No. Do we rely on just stop signs to make sure people stop at the intersection? No. Yield signs? No.

Your problem is that you keep putting the defensive carrier in the same classification as the bad guy. The bad guy carries in there past the sign to do bad things. I carry in there because the bad guy does. If the store owner made absolutely positively sure that the BAD guy stayed out, I would have no reason whatsoever to carry in his store. But you can't seem to wrap your mind around that. The only thing you keep focusing on and see wrong is the person like me carrying. It's like you could care less about the real problem, the bad guy.

To me that sounds like the anti-gun crowd. They're more worried about us carrying in there for protection rather that the guy that's gonna stick a gun on their face and rob them of their money or possibly even their life.

But again, you don't see it that way. The only thing you see, "why do you keep disrespecting that poor guys rights to ban guns from his store??"

You think any right you don't agree with deserves to be disrespected. You have made that quite clear.. over and over and over.

And, what other rights have I said I don't agree with? That I've made quite clear? Over? And over? And over??

The only "right" I don't agree with is the one where they say a defensive, concealed carrier can not carry in their store because they do NOTHING to to keep the OTHER concealed carrier out!!...lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Really? LOL.

Seriously. I didn't say what I said in hopes that you would specifically quote just that part. I wasn't interested in reading your thoughts on it. That was just a mere, statement pointing out that it would cease to exist.

Doesn't matter what you hoped. I responded to a portion of your post in a manner I considered appropriate within the parameters of the conditions set forth in order to have the permission to post by the website's private property owner.

 

[corneileous]

You might wanna recheck that last post of mine. I updated it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Originally posted by Bikenut:
A right is a right regardless of what subjective opinions folks have of the validity of a right.

But then your inability, or refusal, to see how all rights are equally as important is evident from your postings.

If you say so.

It isn't me who says so... it is your own postings that say you consider private property rights so unimportant they deserve to be disrespected.

 

[corneileous]

Doesn't matter what you hoped. I responded to a portion of your post in a manner I considered appropriate within the parameters of the conditions set forth in order to have the permission to post by the website's private property owner.

You don't have to be a smartarse about it. It's not like you committed a mortal sin or anything by quoting a portion of my post that really wasn't meant to be quoted by itself.

I simply said, that, and you replied in a sarcastic way asking really. So then I explained. But you're right, it doesn't matter!!...lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Originally posted by Bikenut:
Again, just like anti gunners want to decide how it is acceptable to exercise the right to keep and bear arms you want to decide how it is acceptable for the property owner to exercise his private property rights. And you say you cannot see the commonality?

Again you think it is OK to pick and choose which rights of others are valid based on your personal opinion of the worth of that right. But then the anti gunners do exactly the same thing except it is the right to keep and bear arms they think isn't valid based on their personal opinion of the worth of that right.

See the commonality?

Not gonna go there again.

Of course you won't go there again.

 

[corneileous]

It isn't me who says so... it is your own postings that say you consider private property rights so unimportant they deserve to be disrespected.

No, it's ONE. Specific. Right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rhino]

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...
.
...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.

Link Removed
.
Excellent post, Blues, as usual.
.
To label something as pathetic because it points out that the facts don't agree with your opinion is.......well.....pathetic. There are actually good points made in both sides of this argument, but the 'noise' of petty attacks tends to drown out the relevant content.

 

[corneileous]

Of course you won't go there again.

I bet you're great at parties, aren't ya..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Originally posted by Bikenut:
Yes I know why.

Um, apparently not.

You said getting away with defensive carrying doesn't justify the disrespect of the sign. I say it does because like I've said time and time again, simply relying on a sign to keep the bad guy's gun out doesn't work. Do we rely on just speed limit signs to make sure people don't speed? No. Do we rely on just stop signs to make sure people stop at the intersection? No. Yield signs? No.

Your problem is that you keep putting the defensive carrier in the same classification as the bad guy. The bad guy carries in there past the sign to do bad things. I carry in there because the bad guy does. If the store owner made absolutely positively sure that the BAD guy stayed out, I would have no reason whatsoever to carry in his store. But you can't seem to wrap your mind around that. The only thing you keep focusing on and see wrong is the person like me carrying. It's like you could care less about the real problem, the bad guy.

To me that sounds like the anti-gun crowd. They're more worried about us carrying in there for protection rather that the guy that's gonna stick a gun on their face and rob them of their money or possibly even their life.

But again, you don't see it that way. The only thing you see, "why do you keep disrespecting that poor guys rights to ban guns from his store??"

Incorrect. That is what you see. I am talking about the property owner's right to deny entry to those who carry guns. You are talking about excuses to justify disrespecting the property owner's right to deny entry to those who carry guns.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally posted by Bikenut: You think any right you don't agree with deserves to be disrespected. You have made that quite clear.. over and over and over.

And, what other rights have I said I don't agree with? That I've made quite clear? Over? And over? And over??

The only "right" I don't agree with is the one where they say a defensive, concealed carrier can not carry in their store because they do NOTHING to to keep the OTHER concealed carrier out!!...lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I stand corrected. You only don't agree with the property owner's private property right to deny entry to those who carry guns. Oh wait. You have made that quite clear over and over and over ... and are still doing so.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Of course you won't go there again.

I bet you're great at parties, aren't ya..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Running out of cogent arguments?