Ignoring Gun Buster signage.
- Thread starter Ruger357SP101
- Start date
- Status
Deanimator
New member
NOTHING you have EVER said here has risen above the "intellectual" level of the above quoted puerile banality.
But then AHSA types have never been the sharpest blintzes in the drawer.
Ruger357SP101
Banned
your accusations are just distraction from the fact that youve BS lie was exposed, pal.
Deanimator
New member
I already have.
Show everyone where in the Ohio Revised Code it defines armed robbery as a PROPERTY crime.
Deanimator
New member
Speaking of "BS lies", tell everyone again how armed robbery is a PROPERTY crime in Ohio.
There it is! The exact argument that ALL anti-gun people use! Guns are different becaus they have the capability to kill.
Seriously, just come clean.... we know you support the Brady Campaign, or the Violence Policy Center, maybe even the Children's Defense Fund. Any minute now, I am sure you are going to say something about "but what about the children."
Oh, wait, you already did. Somewhere back there in your drivel you posted that we were bad examples for our children.
Seriously.... you are acting like someone who is looking for any excuse to make gun owners and those that care about their rights and freedoms as raving lunatics out to shoot anything that moves or, at the minimum, cop killers.
Give it up and take your nonsense to the Brady Campaign or VPC. They have exactly the same goal as you do - grab at whatever straw they can find and blow it up to try to attempt to make anybody who values self protection and the right to self protection as a raving lunatic who is a danger to society.
Hammerhead
Outta my mind, back soon.
So, wait, my state makes it easier to carry a gun without being worried about committing a felony (as the carry without a LTCH even to a gun range and leaving my sidearm in the car at a school are), and the antis are going to have a hard time? Doing what?
I have my LTCH which allows me to carry everywhere legally allowed (I follow the law). I don't worry about carrying to a range, but there are those who only have firearms for self defense at home that will currently commit a felony if they do not have a LTCH if they do carry to a range. The new legislation would squash that. Good, I say. One step closer to the 2A.
The current Indiana code also says carry on school property unless I'm driving the vehicle and dropping off someone is a felony, even with a LTCH. They're making it so I'm not becoming a felon by taking one step outside the driver's door of my vehicle with any firearm in my vehicle. That makes things so much easier should I need to step into a school, I can leave my firearm behind and not be breaking a law.
How does this mean I'll be "pushing the envelope" so the antis have more, what, fuel? Should those bills become law, I'll be following them just as I follow them as written right now. That won't suddenly mean I'll be ignoring the law and carrying my sidearm into the school. And I can't be charged with a felony for carrying to a range, as I'm licensed.
The antis can bluster and blow smoke and complain that the laws are too lax. Big deal.
You still seem to be attempting to push some moral issue when I'm speaking about the legal issue. You don't get it, do you? I follow the law. I carry where and when I'm legally allowed. If I go to a school, I don't carry period, unless I'm driving and dropping someone off, never leaving my car, per the law.
The law being changed so that my fellow Indiana citizens are less restricted in their carry is a good thing, no matter what the antis say.
Do you think they're antis because they're intimidated by someone with a sidearm? Do you think they're antis because they fear our weapons? Possibly. By carrying and being a upstanding, honest, positive influence, I prove them wrong that every gun carrier is a whackjob. They see that I carry and go about my normal day without being that monster they think of, and hopefully, a little of that fear or hate dies inside of them.
I still don't care what they think. I'll continue to tell them that gun laws don't restrict criminals. They only restrict honest law abiding citizens.
I have my LTCH which allows me to carry everywhere legally allowed (I follow the law). I don't worry about carrying to a range, but there are those who only have firearms for self defense at home that will currently commit a felony if they do not have a LTCH if they do carry to a range. The new legislation would squash that. Good, I say. One step closer to the 2A.
The current Indiana code also says carry on school property unless I'm driving the vehicle and dropping off someone is a felony, even with a LTCH. They're making it so I'm not becoming a felon by taking one step outside the driver's door of my vehicle with any firearm in my vehicle. That makes things so much easier should I need to step into a school, I can leave my firearm behind and not be breaking a law.
How does this mean I'll be "pushing the envelope" so the antis have more, what, fuel? Should those bills become law, I'll be following them just as I follow them as written right now. That won't suddenly mean I'll be ignoring the law and carrying my sidearm into the school. And I can't be charged with a felony for carrying to a range, as I'm licensed.
The antis can bluster and blow smoke and complain that the laws are too lax. Big deal.
You still seem to be attempting to push some moral issue when I'm speaking about the legal issue. You don't get it, do you? I follow the law. I carry where and when I'm legally allowed. If I go to a school, I don't carry period, unless I'm driving and dropping someone off, never leaving my car, per the law.
The law being changed so that my fellow Indiana citizens are less restricted in their carry is a good thing, no matter what the antis say.
Do you think they're antis because they're intimidated by someone with a sidearm? Do you think they're antis because they fear our weapons? Possibly. By carrying and being a upstanding, honest, positive influence, I prove them wrong that every gun carrier is a whackjob. They see that I carry and go about my normal day without being that monster they think of, and hopefully, a little of that fear or hate dies inside of them.
I still don't care what they think. I'll continue to tell them that gun laws don't restrict criminals. They only restrict honest law abiding citizens.
Treo
Bullet Proof
Ultimately it's an ethics issue and carrying past a gunbuster sign doesn't even register on my scale. My ethics are just fine w/ carrying a gun in a store where the owner prefers I don't.
Ultimately, I can't justify that to someone who's ethics say that isn't ok so I'm not going to try.
I carried a gun illegally ( Not against the rules but in violation of state law) for years.
My life philosophy is different than most of the posters here I am not a sheep dog I am a reformed (barely) criminal. I carry a gun because I know there’s a world full of people just like me out there. They will take what they want and they don’t fight fair. They also give lass than a damn about your gunbuster sign.
Every thing (and I mean every thing) they do has an angle. Every thing they offer you has a hook in it and if they think for a second you’re weaker than they are they will take you for everything they can.
When I’m out and about I don’t interact w/ people I don’t know unless I am forced to do so. I don’t trust you, I don’t like you. I really don’t want anything to do w/ you and, you sure as Hell are not welcome in my personal space. I avoid 90% of the predators out there just from having that attitude. They pass me right by looking for an easy mark.
Comparetively speaking this is Machs Nix
Ultimately, I can't justify that to someone who's ethics say that isn't ok so I'm not going to try.
I carried a gun illegally ( Not against the rules but in violation of state law) for years.
My life philosophy is different than most of the posters here I am not a sheep dog I am a reformed (barely) criminal. I carry a gun because I know there’s a world full of people just like me out there. They will take what they want and they don’t fight fair. They also give lass than a damn about your gunbuster sign.
Every thing (and I mean every thing) they do has an angle. Every thing they offer you has a hook in it and if they think for a second you’re weaker than they are they will take you for everything they can.
When I’m out and about I don’t interact w/ people I don’t know unless I am forced to do so. I don’t trust you, I don’t like you. I really don’t want anything to do w/ you and, you sure as Hell are not welcome in my personal space. I avoid 90% of the predators out there just from having that attitude. They pass me right by looking for an easy mark.
Comparetively speaking this is Machs Nix
Ruger357SP101
Banned
Youre hilarious.
You lied about my representation of Ohio law.
Now youre lying by making claims Im somehow affiliated with this AHSA whatever.
Its not too hard to figure out that a man with ZERO respect for the rights of others isnt going to have much morality about lying either.
Jim_Macklin
New member
Civil rights
We, all the licensed CCW/CCH licensed citizens, chose to get training, submit to a background check, pay for a license. What if the sign was like those that were all over the South prior to 1965? What if the signs said, "NO BLACKS ALLOWED" instead of GUNS? Personally I feel insulted and discriminated against for no valid reason. We all know that criminals prefer unarmed victims. Places with gunbuster signs will attract criminals just as dead fish attract catfish, turtles and disease. Since the HELLER and McDonald cases have established the individual right to own firearms for self-defense, and since no postal employee went "postal" before about 1964 when postal workers/mail carriers were disarmed and also airline pilots who previously were required to have a gun to protect the mail. One big problem with the legal system, courts assume that any law is "probably" constitutional until it is proven to be unconstitutional AND only a person who has been tried and punished for violation has standing to sue. There is absolutely no justification for bans on guns on Corps of Engineers property, lakes and rivers, public areas of Post Offices, police station lobbies where a person may need to go to report a crime or accident. Military bases are unarmed 99.6% which explains how one terrorist was able to kill so many. I hope that some people do violate some of these prohibitions just so they can go eventually to the SCOUS. The person should be licensed or in a State that has Constitutional Carry and have a spotless record. A lawyer, school teacher, pastor and veteran with a Congressional Medal of Honor and a big bankroll.
We, all the licensed CCW/CCH licensed citizens, chose to get training, submit to a background check, pay for a license. What if the sign was like those that were all over the South prior to 1965? What if the signs said, "NO BLACKS ALLOWED" instead of GUNS? Personally I feel insulted and discriminated against for no valid reason. We all know that criminals prefer unarmed victims. Places with gunbuster signs will attract criminals just as dead fish attract catfish, turtles and disease. Since the HELLER and McDonald cases have established the individual right to own firearms for self-defense, and since no postal employee went "postal" before about 1964 when postal workers/mail carriers were disarmed and also airline pilots who previously were required to have a gun to protect the mail. One big problem with the legal system, courts assume that any law is "probably" constitutional until it is proven to be unconstitutional AND only a person who has been tried and punished for violation has standing to sue. There is absolutely no justification for bans on guns on Corps of Engineers property, lakes and rivers, public areas of Post Offices, police station lobbies where a person may need to go to report a crime or accident. Military bases are unarmed 99.6% which explains how one terrorist was able to kill so many. I hope that some people do violate some of these prohibitions just so they can go eventually to the SCOUS. The person should be licensed or in a State that has Constitutional Carry and have a spotless record. A lawyer, school teacher, pastor and veteran with a Congressional Medal of Honor and a big bankroll.
Ruger357SP101
Banned
No, ya havent.
how about YOU do it since its YOUR claim.
THEN show us how it makes ME a liar.
moron.
Ruger357SP101
Banned
Again, dolt, YOU show where it says as much THEN show us where *I* lied about any such thing.
Nightmare45
NRA LIFE MEMBER
in Texas the signs are very specific, I do try and honor any sign and I notify the store I will no longer be shopping with them. No guns period would seem to also exclude LEO'S.
Ruger357SP101
Banned
Actually, nimrod, had you NOT taken my words out of the context they were presented in I was simply showing the EXTREME ignorance of the comparison.
THEN I SAID that yes, the RULES STILL APPLY....DIDNT I?
And we all know that without BS slander/libel and dishonesty your type wouldnt have any argument in a debate at all.
Frankly you are since you teach them to NOT respect the RIGHTs of others even if they dont agree with them, and only under COMPULSION do they have to recognize someone elses rights.
YOUR type is the single most dangerous threat to our Constitution anywhere.
Reason being is that this CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC PROTECTS the RIGHTS of the minority, which is WHY we have a constitution and rights recognized therein...but YOUR type just makes up any damned rules you want to and ignores the rights of OTHERS based on YOUR whims.
YOU and YOUR ilk will be the downfall of this Republic if it fails !
Ruger357SP101
Banned
Youve already proven yourself as untrustworthy where the rights of OTHERS is concerned.
ONLY if you are COMPELLED by LAW do you clearly accept someone elses rights AS rights.
That is VERY frightening.
NOt just because you carry a gun, but because you clearly have NO respect for private citizens RIGHTS on their property and only if FORCED to you do what is right to do.
That isnt a law abiding citizen.
That a child who only obeys when threats of punishment are made.
See the bolded text above.
Wow, 13 pages of this drivel.:hang3:
If a business has a sign, I take my business elsewhere. if they don't want to support the Constitution, I don't want to support them.
Ruger, If someone takes a gun into a business that has a sign, what right has the gun carrier taken from the business owner and how has the business owner been harmed? On the flip side, what right has the business owner taken from his customers by posting the sign(assuming it is legally enforceable) and what harm has the business owner done to the gun owner?
In other words, what is the potential downside to the business owner if the gun owner carries into his business(and does nothing else related to having the gun). OTOH, what is the potential downside to the gun owner who is forced to disarm?
IMHO, all rules should be examined and followed based on their purpose. A lot of rules and laws are created to control the lowest common denominators in our population. A lot of others are created to enrich the financial status of our government entities or business interests that are owned by politicians or their friends and families.
Following the rules just to tell yourself that you are morally superior to other who don't follow the rules is to me, the mark of a sheeple. Would you have followed the rules in Nazi Germany? Would participating in the mass murder of several million people just for their ethnicity or religious views made you a moral superman? The founders of our country broke a lot of rules. They committed treason against their country of citizenship. Were they morally reprehensible?
There is a group of rule makers in history that were called "whitewashed tombs" and "a nest of vipers". Were they morally correct or was the person who called them these things correct?
If a rule is a stupid rule, what does that say about the people who follow it?
If a business has a sign, I take my business elsewhere. if they don't want to support the Constitution, I don't want to support them.
Ruger, If someone takes a gun into a business that has a sign, what right has the gun carrier taken from the business owner and how has the business owner been harmed? On the flip side, what right has the business owner taken from his customers by posting the sign(assuming it is legally enforceable) and what harm has the business owner done to the gun owner?
In other words, what is the potential downside to the business owner if the gun owner carries into his business(and does nothing else related to having the gun). OTOH, what is the potential downside to the gun owner who is forced to disarm?
IMHO, all rules should be examined and followed based on their purpose. A lot of rules and laws are created to control the lowest common denominators in our population. A lot of others are created to enrich the financial status of our government entities or business interests that are owned by politicians or their friends and families.
Following the rules just to tell yourself that you are morally superior to other who don't follow the rules is to me, the mark of a sheeple. Would you have followed the rules in Nazi Germany? Would participating in the mass murder of several million people just for their ethnicity or religious views made you a moral superman? The founders of our country broke a lot of rules. They committed treason against their country of citizenship. Were they morally reprehensible?
There is a group of rule makers in history that were called "whitewashed tombs" and "a nest of vipers". Were they morally correct or was the person who called them these things correct?
If a rule is a stupid rule, what does that say about the people who follow it?
Seems to me that people who carry guns in their daily lives for self protection ARE the MINORITY at this point in time in our nation.
It is best to be thought of as a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
Ruger357SP101
Banned
Then what I said to Navy applies to you as well.
"YOUR type is the single most dangerous threat to our Constitution anywhere.
Reason being is that this CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC PROTECTS the RIGHTS of the minority, which is WHY we have a constitution and rights recognized therein...but YOUR type just makes up any damned rules you want to and ignores the rights of OTHERS based on YOUR whims.
YOU and YOUR ilk will be the downfall of this Republic if it fails !"
yeah. This is precisely what the antis need to know.
Gun owners are law breakers.
Instead of getting laws changed, we just ignore the law entirely where we see fit.
The problem now, however, is that if you are a licensed CCWer in your state then you no longer have to be a lawbreaker or trample someone elses rights to carry a gun for self defense.
AT this point if you do its just you being a stubborn child who needs to grow up so youre not giving our enemies more ammunition against our cause.
Axeanda45
Banned
No, YOU are the one that is mistaken here, not me. A BUSINESS may be privately owned, but it is NOT Private property, it is BUSINESS property, hence the name BUSINESS. If it were the same thing as Private property, it would be CALLED PRIVATE, not BUSINESS. What is so hard for those like you to make that VERY SIMPLE distinction?
Let me give a very simple sample.....
(not debating zoning laws here, so dont use that as a comeback, this is only an example)
If I buy or rent/lease/whatever a building downtown in Smithville, USA....and decide to operate a Retail BUSINESS out of that said building.... I would need to follow certain BUSINESS laws would I not? Licensing, permits, occupancy codes, health codes, etc..... RIGHT? As a RETAIL BUSINESS, by virtue of being such, I have INVITED the PUBLIC into it, have I not?
(remember, most manufacturing type businesses do NOT invite the PUBLIC into their property and can deny entrance to anyone they see fit, the same thing goes for PRIVATE CLUBS)
If, on the other hand, I decide to have my home in this building.... Because I havent NOT INVITED THE PUBLIC into my house/home...... I can deny entry to anyone for whatever reason I want.
- Status
