• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Don't go here...

Outdoorsman

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
273
Location
Genesee County, Michigan, USA
I went shopping/browsing yesterday for some "adult" fun at Cirilla's of Waterford. As I was walking in I noticed a no weapons sign on the door. (I was not carrying) I went in and browsed for a bit, then decided to go talk to the clerk. I asked her about the sign and she replied, "we just don't want weapons in here". I said, "what about people who carry lawfully or have a cpl"? She said, "it's for everbody, we just don't want weapons in here". I was going to ask her the logic of that thought as to how it would apply to someone coming in to rob the place, but I just smiled and said, "ok". There was no point in discussing it further. She asked if I was looking for something in particular, and I said, "no thanks, have a good day", and turned around and left.

Some people will always be blind to the truth and will run with the flock. I hope that sign works for them.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
I was going to ask her the logic of that thought as to how it would apply to someone coming in to rob the place, but I just smiled and said, "ok". There was no point in discussing it further.

True, it's fruitless to appeal to an anti-gunner's sense of logic, as they congenitally lack it. But another route, with an anti-gun business owner/manager, is appealing to their aversion to potential lawsuits.

Point out that their "no gun" rule has created in your mind an expectation that they will enforce it and you won't be injured by a gun in their shop. If you do get injured or "traumatized" by someone with a gun, they failed in enforcing their "no gun" rule and you will sue them for that failure. Then ask, "That's all that rule will potentially get you, so is that what you want?"
 

Outdoorsman

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
273
Location
Genesee County, Michigan, USA
True, it's fruitless to appeal to an anti-gunner's sense of logic, as they congenitally lack it. But another route, with an anti-gun business owner/manager, is appealing to their aversion to potential lawsuits.

Point out that their "no gun" rule has created in your mind an expectation that they will enforce it and you won't be injured by a gun in their shop. If you do get injured or "traumatized" by someone with a gun, they failed in enforcing their "no gun" rule and you will sue them for that failure. Then ask, "That's all that rule will potentially get you, so is that what you want?"

You could just tell that she felt safer with that sign on the door. :( That it really was going to do some good.
 

JB248

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2012
Messages
32
Location
Metro Detroit
I personally know someone who worked in one of those type of stores in that area with a similar sign. Needless to say her and 2 other employees were robbed at gun point one night right before close....

Man those signs sure do work....
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
Is the irony lost on everyone else but myself that an unarmed man is complaining about a no guns sign?

Perhaps it's not so much the irony is lost as the irony isn't there. A 2A supporter who happens to not be armed at the time should be expected to complain as readily as any other 2A supporter.

Now, a gun-control supporter complaining about a no guns sign . . . that would be irony.

Clear?
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
Well, I'm just wondering, if you didn't feel the NEED to carry a firearm there, then why would you have a problem with management agreeing with you that there was no need for a firearm there?

You are attempting to make incongruent statements appear the same. From your above statement:

The poster said, "*I* didn't feel the need to carry a firearm there." (Emphasized for clarity.)

The management said, "There is no need for a firearm there."

These are not the same statements, therefore management is not "agreeing" with the poster. If management were in agreement with the poster they would say, "*You* don't feel the need to carry a firearm there." (Emphasized for clarity.)

Therefore, your attempt at passing off something the poster said as contradictory fails.

It is quite consistent to say "*I* don't feel the need to carry", yet object to a store's management dictating to everyone "There is no need to carry."

Some people may not feel the personal need to carry at any given time or any given place, yet they don't want that option taken away from others who may feel otherwise.

Get it?
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Oh.... Outdoorsman wants to determine for himself where the "no criminals" zones are instead of someone else telling him where the "no criminals" zones are? I see....

You understand the problem is someone else determining when a fella gets to exercise his rights, rather than himself?

Here's a good article along those lines: http://ericpetersautos.com/2012/04/11/safety-defined-for-you-by-someone-else/

Here's an excerpt:

It takes a stupendous degree of arrogance – arrogance on a Louis XVII scale – to assert that one has any business making such a call on behalf of someone else – who is not also a minor child. Are we not grown adults fully capable of weighing costs vs. benefits, pros vs. cons? What sort of person would interpose himself between another adult and his right as an adult to perform such calculations for himself? I personally prefer not to infantilize my fellow man – just on principle – much less take on the moral responsibility for events that may happen to him as a result of some decision made by me. I’d need years of therapy if, for example, I was the person responsible for imposing the air bag mandate and discovered later on that some nice old lady (several, actually) had been killed by one of the things – or had her retina detached. The fact that the bags “saved” other lives is beside the point. None of these lives are mine to play with. -Eric Peters (bold emphasis add by Citizen)
 
Last edited:

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
Oh.... Outdoorsman wants to determine for himself where the "no criminals" zones are instead of someone else telling him where the "no criminals" zones are? I see....

Well, I'm not sure I've seen him say the reason he was unarmed was because he determined an area to be a "no criminal" zone. But even if that were true:

This is America. People are mostly free to make most determinations for themselves on their own, even if they are completely wrong. But we frown on people making unsolicited and unjustified determinations for other mentally competent adults.

Outdoorsman may be wrong or he may be right, and he may govern himself all he wants to by those determinations or no determinations at all. But he is completely correct, and it is not contradictory, to also say, "My personal determinations are my own, but no one including me should tell others what their determinations should or should not be."

This is America. What country are you posting from?
 
Last edited:

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
How about we put it this way:

Thanks for clarifying what you're saying. My responses to your clarification may be similar or different to my prior responses to the extent your clarification is similar or different to what you said before.

NavyLCDR said:
I express disagreement with outdoorsman's choice to go unarmed because criminals can show up at any place and at any time. I seem to meet resistance, "That's his choice! Leave him alone!"

I agree with you, generally, that it is unwise to go unarmed if one may exercise the choice to be armed. You will get no resistance from me if your point is confined to that.

NavyLCDR said:
Outdoorsman expresses his disagreement with the private property owner's decision to exercise his/her right to limit what will be on his/her private property and he gets support, "Yeah, you tell them! Don't go there!"

I agree with Outdoorsman. I won't patronize a place that exercises it's "right" to take away mine, within the confines of that place.

NavyLCDR said:
The store by posting a no guns sign isn't infringing upon anyone's rights.
It is an infringement, but one that a customer accepts by accepting to do business with the store. An accepted infringement is an infringement nonetheless, thus claiming a "no gun" rule is not an infringement is incorrect. You are correct, in your follow-on statement, that it is one that can be avoided, but what is it that can be avoided? The *infringement* that a "no gun" rule or sign *is*.

NavyLCDR said:
Nobody is forcing anyone to disarm and shop there. Just go somewhere else if you don't like it.
You are correct. Which is Outdoorsman's point: don't go there.
 
Last edited:

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
The OP will just have to buy his adult toys and clothes on the Internet or another shop. I hear the Lions Den in Perry, MI is OC/gun friendly...?
 

Outdoorsman

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
273
Location
Genesee County, Michigan, USA
Here's the situation... I simply did not feel the need to arm myself at that time. If something happened there and I wasn't armed, then those are the consequences I would have had to deal with. As far as the sign in the window, they have every right to put it there. I simply won't go back because I do not support businesses that take away my option of carrying there, open or concealed. The point is, I don't carry everywhere I go. I know crime can happen anywhere, but there are times I simply do not arm myself for one reason or another. That is my own personal choice. But there are times when my gun does not leave my side. Again, my personal choice.

I don't expect everyone to act and feel as I do. We are free men (and women) and have the ability to make up our own minds.

There, now I'm off my soap box!
 
Top