AndeyHall
Active member
Nope, and I hit the "quit sending me notifications for this thread" button AND unsubscribe a and unjust got notified of your reply.
I know some of you are going to bash me
- Thread starter itsb
- Start date
Treo
Bullet Proof
Every time you post in a given thread you subscribe to it again
tricolordad
Banned
You mean when they paraphrase their original post repeatedly?
Treo
Bullet Proof
To parphrase, are you saying that some posters needlessly repeat themselves?
B
Bikenut
Guest
Oh nice attempt to divert the conversation and put the onus on me instead of on your inability to understand how to use your app. But it failed...
I find it amusing that someone who supposedly supports the right to keep and bear arms would call those who discuss that subject "dumbasses" just because he doesn't like the fact that when folks do discuss bearing arms and how the law affects it by making posts he gets notices from his app.... and his real problem is he can't figure out how to use that app to stop the notices.
And when someone comments on the original topic...you know, those "dumbasses" who want to talk about how the law affects the right to bear arms... I'll be more than happy to continue that conversation.
Did your app just give you another "notice"? :smile:
AndeyHall
Active member
You wouldn't happen to be referring to the type of post directly preceding this one would you? I'm starting to get the notion he thinks I don't know how to use my app...
B
Bikenut
Guest
Treo... there are times when it is necessary to counter misinformation with truth even when that means endlessly repeating the same concepts in different ways over and over and over because not everyone follows a thread from the beginning and only pick it up at the end. And if the last post read by an uninformed person is filled with misinformation the reader might come away believing the misinformation instead of being exposed to the truth.
Many of my posts in controversial topics often do contain the same concepts from different perspectives yet I try my utmost to present actual facts that are supported by researchable cites and links instead of just typing something expecting folks to believe it because I said so. And quite often I am the only one in a discussion presenting cites and/or links to actual facts during the discussion yet there are some who vociferously demand they be believed just because they said so (usually followed by a long list of their amazing accomplishments and astounding credentials intended to impress all and sundry with their prowess) and refuse to back up their statements with actual and researchable (proveable!) fact.
Some might think that my endlessly sticking to the central concept means I am only interested in pushing my beliefs yet the only way to counter myths, misinformation, and downright stinking ego driven BS... no matter who is spewing it... is to present facts with cites and/or links to back it up. And it isn't just my personal beliefs if there are actual facts that anyone can research to back up my statements.
Oh... and generally those who don't like that I constantly ask for cites and/or links to prove their statements are fact.... don't have any facts to back up their statements. And THAT is what pisses them off the most because they have no proof to offer that their statements are indeed.. (proveable!) fact.
And.... think about this for a moment...
The media continually uses different narrative from different perspectives every moment of every day to push the same anti gun agenda... yet, despite there being sources of cites and/or links to disprove their sensationalistic perspective... the only thing people are exposed to is...
the media's anti gun agenda constantly presented from different perspectives....
because there isn't any media... or individuals... demanding the media cite and/or link to actual facts that prove their statements are fact.
So I'll ask not only you but everyone in general...
Do you want facts? Or are you willing to just believe what is said because the poster says he used to be a cop... or he has been trained in the most deadly of self defense arts... or he purports to know the law yet won't support that with cite/links to the pertinent laws.
I don't know about anyone else.. I will continue to present facts and cites and/or links to those facts. And I will continue to do so regardless of whether folks like it or not.
The only way I'll ever stop doing so here is if the site owner(s) use their private property rights (which they most certainly do have) to not allow me (note that they have the private property right to "not allow"!!!... me entry to their private property called the USACarry website) where I could exercise my right to free speech.
whodat2710
New member
HAHA! All it takes is someone being bored and looking through old threads. One post brings the $hit floating right back to the top!
Axeanda45
Banned
Alright mr genius... Please quote the LAW or whatever you can come up with that says someones rules are his rights...... A person may make any RULE he wants for his property... If someone breaks one of those RULES, he in no way shape or form INFRINGES on the persons RIGHTS... all the person has done is disobey a RULE....
Let me try this another way...
Why is one thing called by one word which means one thing, and the other by A DIFFERENT word that means something entirely different?????
DO I actually need to get the definitions for you to show you they are NOT THE SAME?????
Get a clue BEFORE you spout off again....
Yet another thing you have 100% wrong... I NEVER SAID HE DIDNT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE RULES...... OR that he couldnt kick you off his property for any reason he wants to, even for no reason at all...
Stop adding your own ignorant bias into what you THINK you have read.... Try to actually read the post you respond to before typing, you will look much less foolish when you do...
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
You might have to reinstall the app?
AndeyHall
Active member
Yeah and I'll learn how to type while I'm at it. Surprised you understood what the hell I was talking about lol
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
I got the gist of it. Good luck getting us outta your phone, that's what it will take cause I won't back down from the likes of someone like pitbull.
gejoslin
Illegitimi non carborundu
I've had strange problems with cell phone apps. Usually uninstall and reinstall can fix them. Sometimes they (apps) just don't work well with some cell phones.
CharlesMorrison
Banned
Andy, on your iPhone, go to settings and look for the Notification tab. Tap it and a list will drop down. Find Tapatlk and go and disable alerts.
Done and done!
Sent from behind enemy lines.
Done and done!
Sent from behind enemy lines.
whodat2710
New member
Quite simply, those rules are to inform you what he believes his rights are. They are not laws. What rights does he have?
If the store owners pursuit of happiness, or what he believes is the preservation of his life and liberty, is to have you remain outside his store while armed, at least he was decent enough to let you know by posting a sign so the cops wouldn't need to get involved. As a store owner (think 7-11), how many times do you think they see the wrong people with guns? How many "caught on tape" videos have you seen on TV where people pull guns on cashiers? If they think keeping guns off of their property (not public property) is in their best interest who are you to argue? If I wanted to make a rule that you must be armed to enter my property that is my RIGHT.
AndeyHall
Active member
Well I actually thought about that earlier today but I want to be notified of some, just not this one
Axeanda45
Banned
So, You have absolutely no evidence to disprove a solitary thing I said, right? All you have is a statement that 1, makes absolutely NO sense at all.. and 2. Proves NOTHING....
In fact with your own words you just proved me correct, lol maybe you should read your own post....... mr "Rulemaker", lmfao
whodat2710
New member
Exactly what is your "point" then. That you have rights, but a store owner doesn't? That you can infringe on someone else's rights as long as they "leave you alone"?
gejoslin
Illegitimi non carborundu
Can A Restaurant Ban Guns? Or any store?
While state laws regarding gun ownership and possession are different, the general rule is that the Second Amendment allows licensed gun owners to carry their weapons in any public place unless a specific ban is in force. The Second Amendment specifically states the individual’s right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed upon by the government.
Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that the Second Amendment applies to individuals who choose to own weapons rather than just military organizations. One of the most high-profile cases confirming that position occurred in 2008 when the Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s restrictive gun laws in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case.
The Second Amendment notwithstanding, the Supreme Court has also consistently maintained the rights of individual property owners to decide for themselves whether or not they will allow guests to carry guns. It is this balance between property and gun rights with which many restaurants are grappling.
~snip~
Do different states treat the guns-in-restaurant issue differently?
One of the main reasons restaurants are grappling with the issue of gun possession is the fact that states deal with the question differently. In some states there are no restrictions on gun owners, as long as restaurants have specifically enacted policies and followed regulations for posting signage. In other states there may be some codified restrictions when it comes to restaurants that serve alcohol.
The Oregon Restaurant & Lodging Association Link Removed a good illustration in their guide to gun ownership and private property. They very explicitly lay out the fact that Oregon law allows restaurant owners to decide for themselves. Yet even those that do allow guns on premises can ban weapon possession among patrons consuming alcohol
~snip~
In simple English, someone who carries a gun into a restaurant in spite of a known ban can be charged with trespass. In most states, trespass laws simply indicate that property owners have the right to distinguish what behaviors will, and will not, be allowed on their property.
If a restaurant owner were to be notified of a patron carrying a gun, that patron could be asked to leave or disarm. If he did not comply, the restaurant owner could call the local police, have the patron arrested, and press trespass charges.
The rights of restaurant owners are limited as well, however. For example, they cannot subject patrons to unlawful searches and seizures. So, while they are allowed to post signs stating gun possession among patrons is not allowed, they cannot force customers to submit to a search prior to entry to their business
~snip~
Whole article is here.
While state laws regarding gun ownership and possession are different, the general rule is that the Second Amendment allows licensed gun owners to carry their weapons in any public place unless a specific ban is in force. The Second Amendment specifically states the individual’s right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed upon by the government.
Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that the Second Amendment applies to individuals who choose to own weapons rather than just military organizations. One of the most high-profile cases confirming that position occurred in 2008 when the Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s restrictive gun laws in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case.
The Second Amendment notwithstanding, the Supreme Court has also consistently maintained the rights of individual property owners to decide for themselves whether or not they will allow guests to carry guns. It is this balance between property and gun rights with which many restaurants are grappling.
~snip~
Do different states treat the guns-in-restaurant issue differently?
One of the main reasons restaurants are grappling with the issue of gun possession is the fact that states deal with the question differently. In some states there are no restrictions on gun owners, as long as restaurants have specifically enacted policies and followed regulations for posting signage. In other states there may be some codified restrictions when it comes to restaurants that serve alcohol.
The Oregon Restaurant & Lodging Association Link Removed a good illustration in their guide to gun ownership and private property. They very explicitly lay out the fact that Oregon law allows restaurant owners to decide for themselves. Yet even those that do allow guns on premises can ban weapon possession among patrons consuming alcohol
~snip~
In simple English, someone who carries a gun into a restaurant in spite of a known ban can be charged with trespass. In most states, trespass laws simply indicate that property owners have the right to distinguish what behaviors will, and will not, be allowed on their property.
If a restaurant owner were to be notified of a patron carrying a gun, that patron could be asked to leave or disarm. If he did not comply, the restaurant owner could call the local police, have the patron arrested, and press trespass charges.
The rights of restaurant owners are limited as well, however. For example, they cannot subject patrons to unlawful searches and seizures. So, while they are allowed to post signs stating gun possession among patrons is not allowed, they cannot force customers to submit to a search prior to entry to their business
~snip~
Whole article is here.
New Threads
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.