Still can't let it go, can you. And you say I'm immature. Good one. At least I'm not the one getting their jollies off arguing the crap out of this subject.In my estimation your position of "Hooray for my right to bear arms and to hell with the private property rights of others because it is inconvenient for me to shop elsewhere." is a bit immature.
And the fact that all you have to offer throughout your postings in this matter being ridicule and outrage is a glaring indication that your argument has no value.
Have a nice day.
Going nowhere so thanks. Appreciate the dialogue nut.
The Place To Be
Piss off. How 'bout that?
Has this become a pissing contest?
Link Removed
Your own words offering juvenile insults and ridicule support my estimation of your being immature.Still can't let it go, can you. And you say I'm immature. Good one. At least I'm not the one getting their jollies off arguing the crap out of this subject.Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
In my estimation your position of "Hooray for my right to bear arms and to hell with the private property rights of others because it is inconvenient for me to shop elsewhere." is a bit immature.
Awful full of yourself though, aren't you? Not only were you being self-righteous but now you can add arrogance, holier than thou, high-handedness, haughtiness and so many others to the list.
My argument has plenty of value. So does Niceshootin's. You're just too high and mighty and too smug with your nose up in the air to realize it.And the fact that all you have to offer throughout your postings in this matter being ridicule and outrage is a glaring indication that your argument has no value.
Have a nice day.
Piss off. How 'bout that?
Good call on asking about XD's own contest.I guess I could ask the same thing about the ongoing pissing contest between you, Ringo, SR9, Old Grunt and few others but at least I'm trying to disengage from this one that I really didn't intend to get sucked into in the first place.Has this become a pissing contest?
Link Removed
Your own words offering juvenile insults and ridicule support my estimation of your being immature.
Good call on asking about XD's own contest.
You do realize that if you wish to disengage from a discussion with me all that is necessary is to stop responding.
I will leave it up to those reading this exchange to decide who's postings are immature.Once again, quoting and repostingOriginally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Your own words offering juvenile insults and ridicule support my estimation of your being immature.
things I say like what you quoted above to further this "so-called" agenda of yours of trying to place the immaturity on someone else isn't proving anything or helping your case. All it's doing is showing who the real immature party is and your ongoing need to be right, just can't never be wrong, and over-argumentative attitude with nothing better to do than make an ass out of yourself.
You mentioned my ridicule towards you... you've more than earned it.
As far as I know I am not related to XD in any way. Nor do I "relate" to his postings either.XD's just being a smartass because he thinks it's funny. Are you trying to relate to him?Good call on asking about XD's own contest.
At this point the real discussion concerning how important rights are has been replaced by your immature need to insult and ridicule me. But that is Ok since just watching you melt down in this discussion just like you did in the other discussions is very entertaining.So in other words you're admitting to me and the forum that all this is to you is a juvenile and immature pissing match. Nice, thanks for engraving that in stone.You do realize that if you wish to disengage from a discussion with me all that is necessary is to stop responding.
And now, not only that but you're stopping to getting completely off topic with this back and forth banter that you are so good at because you can't stand to not have the last word.
All I'm doing is just answering back at this point.
I don't think you're going to like the answer. But it's funny how that's a favorite line of yours like you feel so confident that you're being backed.I will leave it up to those reading this exchange to decide who's postings are immature.
As far as I know I am not related to XD in any way. Nor do I "relate" to his postings either.
At this point the real discussion concerning how important rights are has been replaced by your immature need to insult and ridicule me. But that is Ok since just watching you melt down in this discussion just like you did in the other discussions is very entertaining.
Sure seems like it.But as for having the last word?
Is that what this is about?
Like I told you earlier, I'm only just responding because you keep answering my posts. But please, continue to carry on this charade of making it look like it's me who has this extreme perverted infatuation of having the last word. I like watching you continue to dig that hole deeper and deeper....[emoji106][emoji106]Is that why you continue to respond just like in the other discussions that degenerated into exactly this "last word" obsession of yours?
Well if that is so important to you I will allow you to have that oh so important last word. Go ahead. Make it really good.
Have a nice day.
I guess I could ask you the same thing about the ongoing pissing contest between you, Ringo, SR9, Old Grunt and a few others but at least I'm trying to disengage from this one that I really didn't intend to get sucked into in the first place.
Aside from the social justice warrior baloney that prefaces the statement, the bolded part is the best nod to the actual realities of the law and good business sense. Why alienate even 5-10% of their customers for the sake of a "national debate".The important part about Panera Bread's firearms policy is in bold for emphasis in the cite below. For the full article please follow the link provided.
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/09/08/panera-bread-asks-customers-to-not-bring-guns-to-its-restaurants.html
Panera Bread asks customers not to bring guns to its restaurants
Katie Little| @KatieLittle
Monday, 8 Sep 2014 | 11:11 AM ETCNBC.com
-snip-
Panera Bread is asking customers not to bring guns into its restaurants. The request places it on a growing list of companies asking guests to refrain from toting firearms into their locations amid an ongoing nationwide debate about gun policy.
"The request is simply we recognize everyone's rights," said Panera CEO Ron Shaich during a phone interview Monday. "But we also recognize that we are building communities in our cafes and are where people come to catch a breath."
-snip-
"We're simply respectfully requesting that people leave their guns at home," he added. "It's that simple."
The move nods to why people choose to dine at Panera—essentially to catch a breath and mellow out, Shaich said. To date, the chain hasn't had any material issues with firearms at its stores, he added.
While the request is new, Panera plans to continue to follow state and local laws regarding firearm policy. The chain also won't ask employees to enforce the new request or place signs about it in its restaurants.
-snip-
Bold added by me for emphasis....
Aside from the social justice warrior baloney that prefaces the statement, the bolded part is the best nod to the actual realities of the law and good business sense. Why alienate even 5-10% of their customers for the sake of a "national debate".
If the national debate they're referring to is "common sense gun control" then we already know what false narrative they're espousing. They make it sound like legal gun owners are going to turn Panera into shootout at the OK corral because they're legally carrying concealed. Or "sneaking", depending on your point of view[emoji57].
As soon as we start completely hammering criminals and gangs from possessing, trafficking in, or using illegal firearms to commit crimes, they'll have the whole "national debate" all squared away. Until Judges stop being complicit, you have what you have.
The Place To Be
Our declaration of independence acknowledged our unalienable rights as humans. Our Constitution expounded on that and granted us rights which we are supposed to have as citizens of THIS country.
Sure.You really should take Bikenut's advice and read that Link Removed link. He's absolutely, unquestionably right in everything he has said here about rights, and you're absolutely, unquestionably wrong about the Constitution being intended by its author(s) and/or signers to grant us any of them. The Tenth Amendment Center is but only one among hundreds of scholarly-based sites that could be cited to drive that truth home, but it is a good place to start.
This particular argument has been going on for a decade on this very forum, long before you or corny ever got here. Bikenut has never deviated from his highly-principled position that I've ever seen, and while I generally share his views on property rights vs. 2A rights, I have deviated from those principles from time to time. Of course, I conceal-carried for 30 or more years before I started taking into consideration the advantages of open carry, and Bikenut and NavyLCDR and Mainsail helped me along to shed the ridiculous notion that I needed permission from government to carry any way I damn well please if I truly believed in the natural, fundamental and God-given rights I claimed, which I do. There are also tactical advantages, but that's obviously not the point of this particular argument. But anyway, I don't conceal carry in my own state anymore at all, so that necessarily means I can't fudge on my principles anymore either. Even when I could only CC before 2013 in this state, I don't think I ever argued with Bikenut (or anyone else) about the issue he continues to argue with others about, because I recognize it as a highly-principled argument even if I did infrequently fall short of living up to those principles. I consider myself a principled man. Couldn't believe that of myself if I deviate from what I believe is a principled position, and then argued making excuses for my, albeit infrequent, unprincipled actions. Some people here obviously can so argue. They shouldn't be proud of being in that group though.
Blues
You really should take Bikenut's advice and read that Link Removed link. He's absolutely, unquestionably right in everything he has said here about rights, and you're absolutely, unquestionably wrong about the Constitution being intended by its author(s) and/or signers to grant us any of them. The Tenth Amendment Center is but only one among hundreds of scholarly-based sites that could be cited to drive that truth home, but it is a good place to start.
Hmm... lol. Typing "e-i-l-e-o-u-s" after "corn" too much for ya?This particular argument has been going on for a decade on this very forum, long before you or corny ever got here.
Some people here obviously can so argue. They shouldn't be proud of being in that group though.
Blues
Thank you Blues. I appreciate knowing someone understands the bigger picture when it comes to respecting rights. Respecting ALL rights, and perhaps most importantly, especially respecting those rights that a person disagrees with because those rights cause them personal inconvenience and sometimes time and money. Personally I form my opinions of a person's integrity by whether or not they are willing to endure some financial cost(s) and/or inconvenience in order to respect the rights of others. Of course I understand no one is perfect 100% of the time and exceptional situations do occur but that is a far cry from just having the attitude of "Hooray for my rights and screw your rights because I'm so special your rights don't count." evidenced by some every time the topic of property rights comes up.You really should take Bikenut's advice and read that Link Removed link. He's absolutely, unquestionably right in everything he has said here about rights, and you're absolutely, unquestionably wrong about the Constitution being intended by its author(s) and/or signers to grant us any of them. The Tenth Amendment Center is but only one among hundreds of scholarly-based sites that could be cited to drive that truth home, but it is a good place to start.
This particular argument has been going on for a decade on this very forum, long before you or corny ever got here. Bikenut has never deviated from his highly-principled position that I've ever seen, and while I generally share his views on property rights vs. 2A rights, I have deviated from those principles from time to time. Of course, I conceal-carried for 30 or more years before I started taking into consideration the advantages of open carry, and Bikenut and NavyLCDR and Mainsail helped me along to shed the ridiculous notion that I needed permission from government to carry any way I damn well please if I truly believed in the natural, fundamental and God-given rights I claimed, which I do. There are also tactical advantages, but that's obviously not the point of this particular argument. But anyway, I don't conceal carry in my own state anymore at all, so that necessarily means I can't fudge on my principles anymore either. Even when I could only CC before 2013 in this state, I don't think I ever argued with Bikenut (or anyone else) about the issue he continues to argue with others about, because I recognize it as a highly-principled argument even if I did infrequently fall short of living up to those principles. I consider myself a principled man. Couldn't believe that of myself if I deviate from what I believe is a principled position, and then argued making excuses for my, albeit infrequent, unprincipled actions. Some people here obviously can so argue. They shouldn't be proud of being in that group though.
Blues
Hmm. Kinda sounds to me like since the government doesn't necessarily "grant" anybody any rights, nobody's "rights" stand taller than anybody else's... hmm.
But you know what? What difference does it make... To this discussion? I like how so many people have turned this into an, "all, every single right out there lumped together in one big-ass pile" debate when it's just the redundant right to allow poorly thought out gun free zones to be protected is what this is about.
Hmm... lol. Typing "e-i-l-e-o-u-s" after "corn" too much for ya?
*SMDH*....
Well, you do what you feel is right and so will we. I've already explained why I do what I do and it's nothing personal and that it's not necessarily out of lack of respect.
I mean come on though, it sure is hard to respect these people when 9 times out of 10 their sign is based off ignorance anyways just because they hate guns and because they hate people like you, me and probably everyone else who owns guns and carries them for protection.
But hey, if you wanna show them respect for the lack of respect back towards you, that's your business. Just because you do it, don't expect everybody else to follow suit.
Hypothetical then on your above point. If you are a business owner and feel that a GFZ is appropriate for your business then to your point on the qur'an. If you are a secular business and decided that neither the Bible not the qur'an were welcome in your store, then how many more days do you think you'd be in business before a lawsuit or court decision shut you down?In public, it kinda sounds like you'd be right. Your rights stop at my property line, however. Ain't no democracy on my property. I am a benevolent dictator, not subservient to the public rights of those who cross that line. I respect that every other property owner and/or lessee or renter always carries the same authority over me if/when I cross their property line, and I don't pretend that my rights are equal to theirs on their own or legally-possessed property. I don't pretend it legally, ethically or morally.
Hmm indeed.
GFZs as "law" are illegitimate and should be resisted as such by anyone and everyone. A property owner's/possessor's GFZ is no more a legal question though than someone being a dog-person and not allowing cats on their property because of it. Or being an animal rights person and not allowing leather or fur on their property. Whatever personal property a visitor might be restricted from bringing onto private property, the property owner/possessor is within their rights to restrict. I'm a Christian. I have no need or desire to even see a qur'an, so this is a qur'an-free zone. Muslims have the right to be muslim and everybody has the right to own or welcome qur'ans into their homes, but I exercise my right to ban 'em from mine. It's no different at all from banning guns, which I don't personally do, but which I absolutely have the right to do if I chose to exercise it, and which I absolutely had the right to do as a business owner when I was one.
Yes, corny, it is.
Why you "shaking your dumb head" for?
It totally lacks respect for others' rights. There is no way to escape that fact. All that is left for you to say is that you don't care about others' rights enough to respect them, but no one with a shred of common sense believes that you do respect them, even if they're like me who has disrespected others' rights and carried past a sign too before.
Sorry corny, but truth doesn't change just because you believe the lie that your "feelings" trump others' rights.
There are millions of people whose exercise of their rights I have no respect for at all, but I do respect their rights enough to let 'em do it without interference from me. I think BLM and Antifa and the like have the right to protest, scream and yell and make known their objection(s) to any private or public person or institution, but I respect very little, if any, of the positions they espouse. I'm not respecting the people who are too ignorant to see things my way, I'm respecting their right to not see things my way. No idea why that's such a hard concept for you to grasp.
I expect nothing at all from you except for what you show us here on this board is reasonable to expect, and much of what I've come to expect from your own example is that you're disrespectful of others' rights. You can rant all you want about me deigning to say that, and your example here suggests that that too should be expected, but it won't change a thing for me. You admit with each successive post that you are all about disrespect. Another post admitting it again will only solidify that fact for "your" readers.
Blues
In public, it kinda sounds like you'd be right. Your rights stop at my property line, however. Ain't no democracy on my property. I am a benevolent dictator, not subservient to the public rights of those who cross that line. I respect that every other property owner and/or lessee or renter always carries the same authority over me if/when I cross their property line, and I don't pretend that my rights are equal to theirs on their own or legally-possessed property. I don't pretend it legally, ethically or morally.
Hmm indeed.
Yeah well, that's not always possible, now is it? Nor is it always feasible. But hey, of open carrying is a must then yeah, avoidance at all cost is kinda mandatory, wouldn't you think?GFZs as "law" are illegitimate and should be resisted as such by anyone and everyone.
In the home yes, but in your business if you had one? Hmm. Thought there was laws against that...A property owner's/possessor's GFZ is no more a legal question though than someone being a dog-person and not allowing cats on their property because of it. Or being an animal rights person and not allowing leather or fur on their property. Whatever personal property a visitor might be restricted from bringing onto private property, the property owner/possessor is within their rights to restrict. I'm a Christian. I have no need or desire to even see a qur'an, so this is a qur'an-free zone. Muslims have the right to be muslim and everybody has the right to own or welcome qur'ans into their homes, but I exercise my right to ban 'em from mine. It's no different at all from banning guns, which I don't personally do, but which I absolutely have the right to do if I chose to exercise it, and which I absolutely had the right to do as a business owner when I was one.
It was a rhetorical question, Bubba.Yes, corny, it is.
Why you "shaking your dumb head" for?
Just as it's a total lack of respect for people's lives who go in these places. Hmm. And what's really sad is the gun haters fall victim to this silly GFZ as well.It totally lacks respect for others' rights. There is no way to escape that fact. All that is left for you to say is that you don't care about others' rights enough to respect them, but no one with a shred of common sense believes that you do respect them, even if they're like me who has disrespected others' rights and carried past a sign too before.
It's cor-neil-e-ous...Sorry corny, but truth doesn't change just because you believe the lie that your "feelings" trump others' rights.
No idea why you keep blathering on and on about off topic drivel. We're not taking about the right to protest.There are millions of people whose exercise of their rights I have no respect for at all, but I do respect their rights enough to let 'em do it without interference from me. I think BLM and Antifa and the like have the right to protest, scream and yell and make known their objection(s) to any private or public person or institution, but I respect very little, if any, of the positions they espouse. I'm not respecting the people who are too ignorant to see things my way, I'm respecting their right to not see things my way. No idea why that's such a hard concept for you to grasp.
I expect nothing at all from you except for what you show us here on this board is reasonable to expect, and much of what I've come to expect from your own example is that you're disrespectful of others' rights.
You can rant all you want about me deigning to say that, and your example here suggests that that too should be expected, but it won't change a thing for me. You admit with each successive post that you are all about disrespect. Another post admitting it again will only solidify that fact for "your" readers.
Blues
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?