Ignoring Gun Buster signage.

[Ruger357SP101]

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.

First of all gun owners are hardly a small "minority"....lets stop pretending we're talking about CCWers rights ONLY here.
Law changes can affect ALL gun owners...remember 1994, comrade?

Secondly, EVEN IF we were a minority, does that give YOU the right to trample someone elses rights on their private property?
AS a minority who is fighting for YOUR rights YOU SHOULD be even MORE in tune with NOT doing to someone else what you DONT want done to you!
EVEN IF you disagree!

 

[Ruger357SP101]

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.

I definitely agree.
Law or no law I am not supporting antigunners and gun owners who do...well, I guess that makes them traitors to the cause...doesnt it?

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?

If you cheat on your wife and she never finds out what have you really taken from her?
STD's aside....what really was she robbed of?
Does that make it right?
Whatever happened to good old fashioned integrity ?

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?

Come on now....you CAN go somewhere else.
The business owner is an idiot and inviting a crime for certain, by posting a sign...but you CAN choose to simply not go in...so he hasnt really robbed you of anything.

If a rule is a stupid rule, what does that say about the people who follow it?

So the only qualification of a 'right' is whether we individually consider it 'stupid' or not, right?
I wonder how easily abused that concept is?

We have to recognize peoples RIGHTS....agree with them or not...or we may as well burn the Constitution and call it quits.

 

[NavyLCDR]

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 !

I hate to think what you would have said to Rosa Parks or Susan B. Anthony. They both committed criminal acts. According to your rules, they were enemies of the Constitution too.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/anthony/anthonyaddress.html

[After her arrest on charges of voting illegally in the 1872 federal election, Susan B. Anthony undertook an exhaustive speaking tour of all twenty-nine of the towns and villages of Monroe county, and twenty-one towns Ontario county. The title for her lecture was "Is it a Crime for a Citizen of the United States to Vote?" Her speaking tour was effective enough in winning support for her position that the prosecution sought and obtained an order transferring her trial to the United States Circuit Court at Canandaigua, where it was believed fewer potential jurors would be prejudiced in her favor.]

Link Removed

On this day, Dec. 1, in 1955, Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to give up her bus seat for a white rider in Montgomery, Ala.

Authorities accused and convicted Parks of violating a city ordinance that required black people to ride in the back of the bus. While Parks was sitting in the first row assigned to blacks on the bus, the front of the bus was full and the bus driver ordered her to move farther back so a white woman could sit down. Parks was fined $10 and ordered to pay $4 in court costs.

 

[Axeanda45]

So youre actually stupid enough to think that if the Brady Campaign nuts see this something like this thread here and see that your type doesnt follow the rules and has zero respect for NON gun owners that they arent going to make a selling point of it?
Youre dumber than I thought if thats the case.

Secondly, I dont go to Brady sites..but I do see enough in the news from sites like The Young Turks to know that they ARE watching and they are using every bit of 'bad behavior' on the part of the individual they find to judge the whole.
Hell, the one video on that site had a gang of THUGS in a gunfight being blamed on US because the bartender drew a gun to stop someone in his bar who had pulled a gun !
They twist and pervert every detail they can and you are naive and blind if you dont understand that fact.
Maybe I'll find a few today and post something specific.



Sorry but it IS the same.
MY sister rents a big area at the local mall here. She can prohibit anyone she wants for any reason she wants from entering...sorry about your luck.
Its PRIVATE PROPERTY...ie they can do what they WANT to do as far as rules.

And to prove that fact, the MALL is NO GUNS.
So I asked law enforcement about it and explained that there was an outside entrance into her business that I could walk into instead of coming in the mall entrance.
If I do that and have HER PERMISSION to carry, then the mall has ZERO rights to stop me from carrying because SHE is leasing that area and makes the rules for it.
As long as I do not go into the mall itself, no rules/laws are being broken.

Same with housing here.
The landlord by law cannot keep me from owning guns.
Before I sign the lease he can keep guns out, once I sign it he cant.

And if a private property owner who hasnt leased the property to someone else says NO GUNs, its exactly the same issue.

So, your answer to my pleading to give ACTUAL FACTS is to ignore it and not dispute it with ANY FACTS WHATSOEVER, just more worthless drivel........Typical liberal nonsense and tactics, YOU HAVE PROVEN NOTHING! (well, you did prove your ignorance of what rights actually are).

 

[Ruger357SP101]

I hate to think what you would have said to Rosa Parks or Susan B. Anthony. They both committed criminal acts. According to your rules, they were enemies of the Constitution too.

Youre neither, Im afraid.
Youre just some guy on the web who has no respect for the rights of folks he doesnt agree with.
Youre a guy who has to be TOLD what to do, coerced by law in order to do the right thing.

Youre a very scary person as far as a peaceble, law abiding society is concerned.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

So, your answer to my pleading to give ACTUAL FACTS is to ignore it and not dispute it with ANY FACTS WHATSOEVER, just more worthless drivel........Typical liberal nonsense and tactics, YOU HAVE PROVEN NOTHING! (well, you did prove your ignorance of what rights actually are).

Your perpetual hit and run garbage is more of a distraction than a contribution.
Maybe putting you on ignore till you learn to read, comprehend what you read, and actually make contribution to the discussion is the way to go here.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Youre neither, Im afraid.
Youre just some guy on the web who has no respect for the rights of folks he doesnt agree with.
Youre a guy who has to be TOLD what to do, coerced by law in order to do the right thing.

Youre a very scary person as far as a peaceble, law abiding society is concerned.

Rosa Parks and Susan B. Anthony were two people who were simply exercising their rights that they felt were guaranteed to them by the Constitution, which the government had not yet recognized as them having. Our Second Amendment Rights are in exactly the same situation now, as Rosa Parks right to racial equality, and Susan B. Anthony's right to gender equality. Yet you insist on demonizing those of us who choose to exercise our rights (both 2nd amendment and 4th amendment rights) as some sort of enemy to the Constitution, as lunatics, as dangers to society.

I am sure there were plenty of people in history who said that Rosa Parks and Susan B. Anthony were scary persons as far as a peacable, law abiding society is concerned.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

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?

uh, actually my brain dead friend the distinction would be PUBLIC or STATE property versus PRIVATE property owned by individuals or other entities.
Yes...WAL MARTS store is on WALMARTS PRIVATE property.

Their being open to the public does NOT negate that

As a RETAIL BUSINESS, by virtue of being such, I have INVITED the PUBLIC into it, have I not?

That DOESNT CHANGE the fact that it is NOT PUBLIC or STATE PROPERTY !
The owner of that PRIVATE property has the RIGHT to put rules into place.

ALL private business has the right to serve or not serve any one they feel to.
And they can put any rule in place they want that doesnt go agaisnt the LAW.
If they have a dress code they can toss your ass out over it if you dont comply.
Sorry but you are WRONG...yet again.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

Rosa Parks and Susan B. Anthony were two people who were simply exercising their rights that they felt were guaranteed to them by the Constitution, which the government had not yet recognized as them having. Our Second Amendment Rights are in exactly the same situation now, as Roa Parks right to racial equality, and Susan B. Anthony's right to gender equality. Yet you insist on demonizing those of us who choose to exercise our rights as some sort of enemy to the Constitution, as lunatics, as dangers to society.

I am sure there were plenty of people in history who said that Rosa Parks and Susan B. Anthony were scary persons as far as a peacable, law abiding society is concerned.

Blah blah blah....
WHERE does any of this EXCUSE YOUR DISREGARD of someone elses RIGHTS????

Like I said, you AINT either of those folks.
YOU are the ones TRAMPLING On someone elses RIGHT to post a sign on THEIR private property!
Dont waste your time comparing your dishonorable behavior with anyone who fights FOR individual rights that YOU only recognize if you want to.

 

[mistergus75]

Reading these posts, my thoughts had been running in favor of the business owner. His business, his property...in fact, I had been thinking those who would carry when he didn't want them to were just being smug jerks.

But then I thought of something...

I have no patience for business owners who are supposed to be open to the public allowing smoking to take place in their business (restaurants, especially), making their business effectively off-limits to people like me who suffer from asthma, and cannot handle the smoke.

I don't give a rip that "it's their business, they paid for it, etc.)... Obvious example. I enjoy eating at On The Border. There's only one here in Amarillo, and I don't want to have to give that up so some smoker can sit there and smoke, making it impossible for me to eat there. I want to eat at that restaurant, and I want to be able to breath while doing so. Smokers have no right to take that restaurant away from me. So, I heartily support anti-smoking laws to keep that restaurant open to me, even if the owner of that restaurant doesn't want to do it. And though I love Rush limbaugh, I disagree with him on this one. Smokers can schedule their smoking around eating out, I cannot schedule my breathing in order to accomodate their "right to smoke".

Now a private club...restaurant...different story.

Now...transfer that principle to the carrying-concealed issue. A business owner, even if he's paying for it, has to surrender some of his rights if he wants to accomodate the public. He cannot discriminnate based on race...religion...whatever. His rights reign in his private home, of course, but not his business. If he wants to be open to the public. He must respect the public rights we all have.

Bottom line...I've reversed my thinking on this. A business owner should not be able to deny our Constitutional Rights, even in his business, if he wants to serve the public. And if he can't handle this, he can turn his business into a private club.

mistergus75

 

[Deanimator]

Youre neither, Im afraid.
Youre just some guy on the web who has no respect for the rights of folks he doesnt agree with.
Youre a guy who has to be TOLD what to do, coerced by law in order to do the right thing.

Youre a very scary person as far as a peaceble, law abiding society is concerned.

I have absolutely NO doubt that you support the right of restaurateurs to run Whites only lunch counters.

 

[Ruger357SP101]

heh.
Link Removed

 

[mistergus75]

I have absolutely NO doubt that you support the right of restaurateurs to run Whites only lunch counters.

Touche...

A business owner, running a business for the public, has to surrender some of his rights. He can do all his discriminating at home...

mistergus75

 

[Ruger357SP101]

I have absolutely NO doubt that you support the right of restaurateurs to run Whites only lunch counters.

Which once more just proves that you only have exaggeration and deception to try to make a point and defend your complete disregard for the rights of others.

If either of us has proven he'll trample the rights of anyone he doesnt like or agree with, chump, its you and a couple others here.

 

[NavyLCDR]

He cannot discriminnate based on race...religion...whatever. His rights reign in his private home, of course, but not his business. If he wants to be open to the public. He must respect the public rights we all have.

mistergus75

And, the Second Amendment is right in the middle of those same rights of equality of religion, race and gender. The right to keep and bear arms simply has not been defined by the US Supreme Court as being equal to the rights to racial, gender and religious equality. And if this nation was composed entirely of people like Ruger357SP101, we would not have the Heller decision or the McDonald decision. Likely, if everyone in this nation were in agreement with Ruger357SP101, we probably wouldn't even have the Terry v. Ohio decision.

And heck, we aren't even talking about violating laws or taking anything away from anybody or damaging them in any way. All we are talking about is ignoring a sign in a way that nobody will know we are ignoring in order to provide economic benefit to the business owner and ourselves.

 

[mistergus75]

Which once more just proves that you only have exaggeration and deception to try to make a point and defend your complete disregard for the rights of others.

I don't see any exaggeration and deception. Perhaps you just need to think your positions through a little more.

What about it? Why would it be ok to discriminate against gun owners but not blacks? His business, right? His "private property", right?

mistergus75

 

[Ruger357SP101]

Reading these posts, my thoughts had been running in favor of the business owner. His business, his property...in fact, I had been thinking those who would carry when he didn't want them to were just being smug jerks.

But then I thought of something...

I have no patience for business owners who are supposed to be open to the public allowing smoking to take place in their business (restaurants, especially), making their business effectively off-limits to people like me who suffer from asthma, and cannot handle the smoke.

I don't give a rip that "it's their business, they paid for it, etc.)... Obvious example. I enjoy eating at On The Border. There's only one here in Amarillo, and I don't want to have to give that up so some smoker can sit there and smoke, making it impossible for me to eat there. I want to eat at that restaurant, and I want to be able to breath while doing so. Smokers have no right to take that restaurant away from me. So, I heartily support anti-smoking laws to keep that restaurant open to me, even if the owner of that restaurant doesn't want to do it. And though I love Rush limbaugh, I disagree with him on this one. Smokers can schedule their smoking around eating out, I cannot schedule my breathing in order to accomodate their "right to smoke".

Now a private club...restaurant...different story.

Now...transfer that principle to the carrying-concealed issue. A business owner, even if he's paying for it, has to surrender some of his rights if he wants to accomodate the public. He cannot discriminnate based on race...religion...whatever. His rights reign in his private home, of course, but not his business. If he wants to be open to the public. He must respect the public rights we all have.

Bottom line...I've reversed my thinking on this. A business owner should not be able to deny our Constitutional Rights, even in his business, if he wants to serve the public. And if he can't handle this, he can turn his business into a private club.

mistergus75

Sorry but its STILL his property.
If you dont like the policy, get a lawyer and sue for discrimination or whatever.

Being open to the public simply means that you dont have to have some membership or whatever.
It does NOT mean that the store owner has no rights to refuse service or prohibit whatever he wants to prohibit.
If its discrimination, he can be sued.
If its something like a dress code or "NO GUNS", sorry but you have to deal with that in most cases.

Maybe Ill try wearing my swim trunks at one of those fancy $150 a plate restaurants downtown and see how well that goes.
I mean, as long as Im wearing something they shouldnt be allowed to toss me out if their 'open to the public', right?

 

[AzBanks]

I definitely agree.
Law or no law I am not supporting antigunners and gun owners who do...well, I guess that makes them traitors to the cause...doesnt it?

Gun owners who patronize business that are opposed to our second amendment rights are not doing themselves our the rest of the gun owning population any favors.

If you cheat on your wife and she never finds out what have you really taken from her?
STD's aside....what really was she robbed of?
Does that make it right?
Whatever happened to good old fashioned integrity ?

You have taken emotional intimacy from her. You have created a void between you and her. You have stolen from her and it is an on-going loss for all time. If someone stole some of her jewelery and she did not notice the loss, she still had the loss.

As far as the business, their loss ends the moment you leave their establishment and they keep the gain they received from your business transaction

Come on now....you CAN go somewhere else.
The business owner is an idiot and inviting a crime for certain, by posting a sign...but you CAN choose to simply not go in...so he hasnt really robbed you of anything.

What if you live in a small town and their is no other business that sells what you need in the area. And if you do disarm because of the sign, he has robbed you of your second amendment right.

So the only qualification of a 'right' is whether we individually consider it 'stupid' or not, right?
I wonder how easily abused that concept is?

The only qualification of a "right" in all of human history is what people can enforce through violence. It is sad but it is true. It is nice to say that people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but if the other people in their area do not agree and wish to contest those rights through violence, only the winner gets to decide what rights are in effect. The winners have abused that concept throughout human history.

As we see day in and day out(and the reason this thread even exists), our own government has violated the very rights laid out in the constitution. Our "rights" are abused everyday.

The real question is if we will lay down our rights in the face of rules created by others for the express purpose of stripping our rights from us.

The other question is of priority because our world is not black and white. What has a higher priority, our right to carry the proper tools to defend ourselves or the businesses right to take our second amendment right away for the duration of our stay on his property. Again, I agree that the best course is to avoid those businesses all together but for the extremely rare case where that is not a viable option, I would ignore his posted sign and transact my business as quickly as possible and exit the business.

We have to recognize peoples RIGHTS....agree with them or not...or we may as well burn the Constitution and call it quits.

The federal government has been doing that for years.


One final thing, this thread has gotten really out of control. We are arguing minutia with our brothers. I always hate to see people who are on the same side of the 2nd amendment fence going at it tooth and nail over petty BS that takes away from the real fight. Let's all agree to disagree and part as members of the same team. If you are on a team and your teammate makes a play differently than you would have done it, do you quit the team, do you get in a fight with him in the middle of the field during the game??? No, you move on and do the best you can to carry your place on the team.

 

[mistergus75]

And, the Second Amendment is right in the middle of those same rights of equality of religion, race and gender. The right to keep and bear arms simply has not been defined by the US Supreme Court as being equal to the rights to racial, gender and religious equality.

Ok, so let's think this through...

If racial discrimination is not okay, then you agree that a business owner gives up some rights to operate a business, right? In truth, the fact that "it's his business" doesn't exempt him from multitudes of regulations, codes, laws, etc., right?

Even though "it's his business", he can't do as he pleases at all, can he? Once you acknowledge this (which you must), you've lost the argument.

A business owner doesn't have absolute, total control over his business. He never has. And he never should.

mistergus

 

[Ruger357SP101]

I don't see any exaggeration and deception. Perhaps you just need to think your positions through a little more.

No...perhaps YOU do.
I read your last post and its flawed from the third sentence or so.
Just because YOU changed your mind doesnt make your views reasonable or logic or consistent with the Constitution.

What about it? Why would it be ok to discriminate against gun owners but not blacks? His business, right? His "private property", right?

Absolutely within his 'rights' *IF* he wanted to be sued.

This guy tried something to that effect, though his reasoning wasnt racist in nature;
‘No Speak English, No Service’: Restaurant Owner Removes Controversial Sign After Bombarded With Threats
‘No Speak English, No Service’: Restaurant Owner Removes Controversial Sign After Bombarded With Threats | The Blaze

Did the guy have the RIGHT to put up the sign?
ABSOLUTELY!
Just like racist nutcases have the RIGHT to blow their **** into the air.
Doesnt make it acceptable, but it IS their RIGHT to speak their minds.

But this isnt about blacks or race where a person has NO control over their skin color.
This is about the CHOICE to willingly recognize someones RIGHT to prohibit weapons on thier private property or not.