imported post
asforme wrote:
Well, lets agree to disagree on the legal standing these signs should have, I don't think our argument will get anywhere as we have fundamentally different philosophies on the nature of rights.
But I will continue to encourage anti businesses to post signs. The only thing worse than an anti-gunner is a cowardly anti-gunner. Anyone who doesn't like guns should be posting signs that say "I don't like guns, no one here is armed. Please don't hurt me." Not only would I not patronize such a business out of principle, I also would avoid patronizing them because they have set up a dangerous environment ripe for crime.
What truly confuses me is your desire to give money to businesses who blatantly don't respect your rights. These businesses have tremendous lobbying power and I believe that you giving money to someone who can turn around and use it to lobby for your rights to be taken away by the GOVERNMENT is much more dangerous than you simply not being able to exercise your rights on someone else's property.
This goes for you too Mr. Anti-OC Marine. Why would you want to hide your gun for the privelage of giving money to someone who wishes you didn't have a gun? It is mind boggeling.
Why do me maintain DNP lists? Because we want to be able to avoid such businesses. These businesses having posted signs makes our job easier.
I can honestly say that since open carrying I have not intentionally patronized any business that I know is anti-gun, and I have not had to make any significant adjustment to my life. If this is impossible for you, I would consider moving.
Interesting set of assumptions.
Seems to me that directly confronting someone doing something you don't like and explaining that his conduct is not welcome requires far more courage than just posting a sign.
Maybe what you meant to say is that you want to see anti-gun businesses targeted by nut jobs. Most of us really don't want to see ANYONE targeted for criminal violence, even if they do disagree with us or attack our rights.
I ask again, are you ok patronizing businesses that infringe their employee's ability to defend themselves, so long as they don't bother YOU?
The purpose of DNP lists is to bring to bear our combined strength. And when was the last time any retail business that had the force of law behind their irrational and discriminatory policy actually changed that policy as a result of gun owners boycotting them? The closest I can come up with is Blockbuster video in Utah and Arizona about 15 years ago and their signs did NOT carry legal weight.
Back to combined strength, why would you want to give money to a business that infringes the rights of employees to defend themselves?
The fact of the matter is, it is nearly impossible to avoid doing business with anti-gun establishments. The only question is how we define that term and were I a betting man I'd bet you have chosen to ignore how employers treat their employees vis-a-vie RKBA.
It is almost as if you want any business who hassles you to also hassle EVERY other gun owner equally. If they don't want YOU to carry, you don't want them to allow ANYONE to carry, even--or is it ESPECIALLY--if that person has a CCW permit and can legally and easily keep his gun out of sight in such locations.
Circumstances are not always equal. You claim to support a business's absolute right to set policy on guns, but then presume that they should have to advertise that policy AND apply it equally to all comers.
Yes, we will have to disagree on the fundamentals of this issue. But I point out that your position is not very self-consistent--in addition to not really being very gun friendly. A store that only allows CC, or casually concealed, or OC on the part of really respectable looking people making large purchases, or only on the part of those who have State issued permits to carry, is better than a store than bans all private carriage of guns. And a store certainly has every right to enforce WHATEVER gun policy they want, right? And to give or not give advance notice as they see fit, right?
So you are not really supporting their rights nearly so much as you are trying to convince them to make an artificially limited choice between allowing everyong to carry exactly as he sees fit or to ban all private guns. There is a LOT of room in between these two positions and I'd rather see stores allowing some, and maybe moving in the right direction over time, than not allowing any at all.
I like the option to OC. But I also like the ability to CC and being able to defend myself in establishments that are hostile to RKBA, simply ill-informed, or just would prefer I not OC is one reason.
And when a business owner/agent tells you that OC is not allowed, do you ask if CC is permitted? I think I would. And if I did not have a permit, I think I would ask if the owner/agent was ok with me CCing. As I read the law, a property owner can allow others to CC on his property even without a permit. So if a shop keeper said no OC, but was willing to let me CC, THAT is a step in the right direction.
