Fallschirjmäger
Active member
I think what you're missing is that he simply provided a link to something that had nothing at all to do with Utbagpiper's "No Irish", "No Coloreds", or "No Homosexuals" post.
Last edited:
-
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.
-
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.
No guns in KFC
- Thread starter Roger_that
- Start date
gutshot II
Regular Member
OK, I did miss it, and still don't see it, but I knew there had to be an explanation and knew that Grapeshot would not think like that and not post such a thing. Well then, what does "the latter" refer to and why was there a quote to that post at all. Very confusing and I remain so. I always have considered a quoted post to bring clarity and context to a newer post, but in this case I don't see any clarity or context. Moving on.
F350
Regular Member
Also go to my buddy Tim Oliver's site and you can download NO GUMS=NO $$ cards for printing off.
http://www.learntocarry.com/nogunsnomoney/
Last edited:
JoeSparky
Centurion
"GUMS"?
DrMark
Lone Star Veteran
Periodontal disease is a serious matter.
JoeSparky
Centurion
However even with severe periodontal disease one would still have gums, just not many teeth!
Referring you back to the post I quoted!--- we the word "GUMS" is used but no mention of "GUNS"!
OC for ME
Regular Member
Are there any efforts in any state to make discriminating against a citizen who bears a firearm unlawful?
There is no discriminating - privte propery rights still prevail.
utbagpiper
Banned
As discussed in this thread, since May of 2009, Utah enjoys what we call "Parking Lot Preemption" which protects most private sector employers against adverse employment action for keeping a lawfully possessed firearm (or religious material) in their personal vehicle even when parked in the company parking lot. The firearm must be secured in some way (locked doors are sufficient, a locked saddle bag on a motorcycle works) and needs to be out of sight. This law is found at URS 34.45.101-107
Any attempt to enforce a "no guns" policy contrary to the provisions of this law can result in civil penalties enforced by either the Utah Attorney General (in essentially the same manner as he'd enforce laws against any other workplace discrimination) or by private action from the victimized employee.
Public sector employees of Utah and her political subdivisions enjoy even stronger RKBA protections as most of them are protected in their ability to carry a gun in the workplace.
We have not yet gotten anti-discrimination protections for accessing places of public accommodation for persons in lawful possession of a gun. But neither are there any gun-related penalties for ignoring a business' "No Gun" policy.
Charles
Last edited:
utbagpiper
Banned
Are those the same "private property rights" that denied blacks service at the lunch counter or that would refuse to hire or promote a well qualified person because of her gender?
There most certainly is discrimination against lawful gun carriers. That said discrimination is generally lawful, doesn't make it right or any less offensive.
How is refusing service to someone with a holstered gun on his hip any less offensive or discriminatory than refusing service to two men holding hands or otherwise being open about being a romantically involved couple?
In most locations in this nation, both forms of discrimination are legal. Both acts of discrimination are equally offensive to me.
I'd love to hear rationale for any differing views.
Charles
Last edited:
utbagpiper
Banned
True enough, and I think I've made that distinction for any who read with the intent to understand.
Yes I do. And contrary to your assertion, I've been clear in the difference. There is a reason I've been careful to point out that certain discrimination is offensive to me. Clearly, this implies that certain discrimination bothers me not at all. For example, if you have discriminating taste in wine, steak, or cigars, there is nothing offensive to me or any other sensible person.
I've also been very careful to differentiate between legal discrimination and illegal discrimination and to make clear that the legality of the thing is not what I use to determine whether that thing is offensive, neutral, or perhaps even laudable.
Perhaps, rather than dodging the issue with word craft, you'd consent to simply explain your position on why you don't see (legal) discrimination against gun carriers as being equally offensive as (illegal) discrimination against racial minorities or even (legal) discrimination against sexual minorities. I'm fairly certain that you, like I, while obeying the law, do not leave your personal moral judgments to the decisions of legislators or judges.
Charles
Last edited:
wabbit
Regular Member
"Discriminating Among Meanings of discrimination
Discrimination has senses with neutral, positive, and negative connotations. On the one hand, it can refer to "the act (or power) of distinguishing" or to "good taste, refinement." These meanings, sometimes reinforced with modifiers (as in a fine or a nice discrimination), stress an ability to perceive differences as an index of unusual intelligence. On the other hand, when the perception of difference is marked by invidious distinction or hostility, the word (often followed by against) takes on very negative overtones, as in the senses "act of discriminating categorically rather than individually" (discrimination against women, age discrimination) and "a prejudiced outlook or course of action" (racial discrimination). The original, neutral sense of discrimination, "the act of distinguishing," came into English by the early 17th century, followed by the positive one associated with superior discernment in the 18th century. Discrimination in the "prejudice" sense has been in use since the early 19th century, almost 200 years ago."
Charles, to you as you split hairs word-smith this subject from somone who has the act & power to distinguish and perceive differences based on my accomplishmentss as a educated individual with an unusual intelligence.
Discrimination has senses with neutral, positive, and negative connotations. On the one hand, it can refer to "the act (or power) of distinguishing" or to "good taste, refinement." These meanings, sometimes reinforced with modifiers (as in a fine or a nice discrimination), stress an ability to perceive differences as an index of unusual intelligence. On the other hand, when the perception of difference is marked by invidious distinction or hostility, the word (often followed by against) takes on very negative overtones, as in the senses "act of discriminating categorically rather than individually" (discrimination against women, age discrimination) and "a prejudiced outlook or course of action" (racial discrimination). The original, neutral sense of discrimination, "the act of distinguishing," came into English by the early 17th century, followed by the positive one associated with superior discernment in the 18th century. Discrimination in the "prejudice" sense has been in use since the early 19th century, almost 200 years ago."
Charles, to you as you split hairs word-smith this subject from somone who has the act & power to distinguish and perceive differences based on my accomplishmentss as a educated individual with an unusual intelligence.
OC for ME
Regular Member
If the carry of a firearm were a immutable human trait then we would have statutory protections for being denied access to private property open to the public due only to our carry of a firearm. Our RKBA cannot be infringed by government. Giving no firearms signs the weight of law is government infringing upon our RKBA.
KFC is not a vital public service provider. If the KFC in question can be prompted to remove the sign, well done to those who facilitated the removal of the sign. If the sign remains take your business elsewhere.
KFC is not a vital public service provider. If the KFC in question can be prompted to remove the sign, well done to those who facilitated the removal of the sign. If the sign remains take your business elsewhere.
gutshot II
Regular Member
I can remember from my childhood (a long time ago) when there was a cigarette band that advertised that it was for "discriminating people". The word could be used in a negative sense, but at that time, was not the most often used meaning, as has become the case today. Even in that era, discriminating could be used to describe a person that was overly "picky". Today, a large section of our population has no idea that "discrimination" can be a good thing while in fact, they do it every day. They do it when buying groceries that they prefer while leaving the ones they don't like, they do it while selecting TV shows to watch. Any choice involves some amount of "discrimination". All of this is done without much notice, but the average person would be very offended if you accused them of "discrimination". Just a few decades ago it would have been a compliment to indicate that they had a good sense of value and quality.
My friends are all discriminating, but the don't qualify for the federal exemption on that alone.
gutshot II
Regular Member
And here lies the difference that many people fail, or refuse, to see. You and I can leave our firearms in the car or leave them at home. A black person doesn't have that option with his race, his skin is part of his body. Even things that are not physically attached can be part of a person's "being" and impossible to leave behind, like religion, gender or age. These items get special consideration and any attempt to include our gun rights in that group will meet a lot of opposition, even from pro-gun people, because guns simply don't fit the category. I'd like to see an end to, or at least a smaller number of, these signs, but trying to get them include in this group is not going to produce any results any time soon.
There are those who would point out that the results of such persistance might be unwanted attention from a moderator.
We need and have finite defiinitions for good reason.
That cigarette was Herbert Tarrinngton. Think they are still being manufactured by R. J. Reynolds.
