Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: "No Handguns Allowed" A new form of racism?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fort Bragg, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    19

    Post imported post

    I've OC'd in Fayettville NC for over a year now, and from time to time i'll see a "No Hanguns Allowed" posted on a store front. Now i can understand if it was like a Federal or State building, but does Food Lion and such really have to worry about us OCers? Kinda feels like descrimination if you ask me. What are peoples thoughts on the growing number of stores that won't let you carry?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    492

    Post imported post

    I hardly think it's racial discrimination, it's freedom discrimination. Whites get hassled just as much and as often as blacks in this regard. The people putting up those signs are spineless panty-waists who would rather disrespect us (black AND white) than to tell the Brady Bunch and the rosie odonnel types to stick it where the sun don't shine. (That's "doesn't" shine for you English majors out there)

    There's racial discrimination aplenty (from both sides) out there but the anti-self defense zones are hardly a manifestation of it.


  3. #3
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    Talk to the manager why they want a sheep for slaughter zone, if he gives you a bs answer then talk to corp. Many corps have a policy based on state law.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    I think you meant to say the signs are a new form of discrimination; I don't see what OC has to do with race.

    I think the signs are there to make everyone "feel safe". Obviously a criminal is going to see those signs and turn around instead of robbing the Food Lion .

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    779

    Post imported post

    Dom wrote:
    I think you meant to say the signs are a new form of discrimination; I don't see what OC has to do with race.

    I think the signs are there to make everyone "feel safe". Obviously a criminal is going to see those signs and turn around instead of robbing the Food Lion .
    Oh I don't know about that. There is constant trouble between my blued guns and my stainless guns...They bicker back and forth saying that one gets carried more than the other and the like. Just the other night I was awakened by a blued ones calling the stainless guns "chromies". Why can't they all just get along? :P

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    Dom wrote:
    I think you meant to say the signs are a new form of discrimination; I don't see what OC has to do with race.

    I think the signs are there to make everyone "feel safe". Obviously a criminal is going to see those signs and turn around instead of robbing the Food Lion .
    I'll tell you what, I sure as hell don't feel safe when I see one of those signs.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Austin, Texas, USA
    Posts
    161

    Post imported post

    Businesses are all about money, so the signs are nothing more than Political Correctness run amuck. Get a handful of liberal, anti-gun pillow biters complaining to the management and they bend over backwards to appease them, even if it means alienating the pro-gun patrons. Why? Because us pro-gunners aren't nearly as vocalas the anti-gunners. I'm in Texas and can't open carry.....YET! But WHEN I can, I'll make sure any buisness that is anti-gun will not be patronized by me or my friends and family and the CEO will get a letter as to why.

    Glenn

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    Evil Ernie wrote:
    Dom wrote:
    I think you meant to say the signs are a new form of discrimination; I don't see what OC has to do with race.

    I think the signs are there to make everyone "feel safe". Obviously a criminal is going to see those signs and turn around instead of robbing the Food Lion .
    Oh I don't know about that. There is constant trouble between my blued guns and my stainless guns...They bicker back and forth saying that one gets carried more than the other and the like. Just the other night I was awakened by a blued ones calling the stainless guns "chromies". Why can't they all just get along? :P
    See, I have a similar problem, but what I don't get is that my stainless guns call each other "chromie" like it's kool, but if a blued gun calls one of them a "chromie", they throw a fit.

    As far as the original post, I definitely do feel discriminated against when I see signs like that. The problem is, unlike your skin color, carrying is a choice. Granted, religion is a choice as well, anda sign that bannedall Muslims would most certainly cause issues.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    I have no idea how any of you brought race into the discussion. The fact is that isolation of ANY group to be treated specially is Discrimination. In some cases people will be treated better, in others worse, but it is all discrimination. In this case it is wrong and it is dangerous.

    IMHO, if people can sue a firearms manufacturer for damages when someone is shot, then people should be allowed to sue the sponsor of a "Criminal safety zone" if they are victimized in that zone. In my view the sponsor of such a zone assumes the responsibility for the safety of those inside the zone when (s)he creates it.

    Regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    I have no idea how any of you brought race into the discussion.
    Uhh, look at the thread title. :?

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    DreQo wrote:
    Hawkflyer wrote:
    I have no idea how any of you brought race into the discussion.
    Uhh, look at the thread title. :?
    Yup, your right point to you!
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  12. #12
    Gentleman Ranker
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Just a minor point, but "discrimination" as such is perfectly acceptable if there is a rational basis for it. For example, I have very poor eyesight, though it is correctable for nearly all purposes. Still, there is no way I could be a commercial pilot or LEO, regardless of any other qualifications I might have.

    Discrimination? Yes. Unfair? Even I don't think so. I'm simply not qualified to do those things.

    I do not think much of "No Handguns" signs or policies, but they aren't similar to racial discrimination. Firstly, it is nearly impossible to articulate a rational basis for racial discrimination. I believe the "rational basis" for barring handguns to be mistaken, but it can certainly be rationally articulated. Secondly, people can't leave their race at the door, nor otherwise change it. "No handguns" may be very ill-advised, but it's in the same category as "no shirt, no shoes, no service"; you can choose to comply with the conditions or not, depending on what's more important to you. Not so with race.

    IANAL, and a Real Lawyer (tm) is welcome to speak up.

    regards,

    GR

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    914

    Post imported post

    Firearms are not a race.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Hey let's see if we can pass some legislation to keep these businesses from exercising their right to dowhatever they damn well pleasewith their private property so we can exercise our right to carry a .500SW to yoga class. Things would be much more fair and constitutional that way.:quirky
    I didn't see anyone saying anything about passing legislation. I guess you could stretch a couple of comments calling it "discrimination" as a call for legislation, it seems like a pretty far stretch to me, though.

    Businesses are privately owned...well, they were before the bailout, anyway (that might be an interesting topic for discussion...). They are free to set whatever policies they wish, just as I am free to choose not to do business with them.

    As far as carrying to yoga class- if I can't find a yoga class that allows the carry of firearms, I guess I won't be going to yoga class. Simple enough.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Hey let's see if we can pass some legislation to keep these businesses from exercising their right to dowhatever they damn well pleasewith their private property so we can exercise our right to carry a .500SW to yoga class. Things would be much more fair and constitutional that way.:quirky
    do you support businesses banning blacks? mexicans? asians? *****? unwed teenage mothers?

    there are federal laws forcing business open to the public to not discriminate against race/sex/sexual grossness/etc... do you think those laws should be repealed?

    i certainly do as a libertarian.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    Slayer of Paper wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    Hey let's see if we can pass some legislation to keep these businesses from exercising their right to dowhatever they damn well pleasewith their private property so we can exercise our right to carry a .500SW to yoga class. Things would be much more fair and constitutional that way.:quirky
    Businesses are privately owned...well, they were before the bailout, anyway (that might be an interesting topic for discussion...). They are free to set whatever policies they wish, just as I am free to choose not to do business with them.
    thats not true.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    AWDstylez wrote:
    Hey let's see if we can pass some legislation to keep these businesses from exercising their right to dowhatever they damn well pleasewith their private property so we can exercise our right to carry a .500SW to yoga class. Things would be much more fair and constitutional that way.:quirky
    I say let's ban the use of that damned infuriating blue smirky emoticcon and restrict emoticons to what's on the sidebar.




  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    mrbiggles wrote:
    Slayer of Paper wrote:
    AWDstylez wrote:
    Hey let's see if we can pass some legislation to keep these businesses from exercising their right to dowhatever they damn well pleasewith their private property so we can exercise our right to carry a .500SW to yoga class. Things would be much more fair and constitutional that way.:quirky
    Businesses are privately owned...well, they were before the bailout, anyway (that might be an interesting topic for discussion...). They are free to set whatever policies they wish, just as I am free to choose not to do business with them.
    thats not true.
    Yes, It IS true!!

    Because you do not like it or want to believe it does not negate the fact that private businesses may make their own policies that are no in violation or any laws.

    A business it not a racist because they place up a sign that says "No outside food" no more than "No firearms Permitted"

    Discrimination against a person deals with something that the person cannot change. You cannotnot be black or Jewish. The sign is prohibiting something you would do.

    If I ban people from laughing in my store is that also discrimination? I think not! I look rather dumb and the people have the choice to shop someplace else.

  19. #19
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    I guess if no handguns are allowed, they leave you little choice but to carry rifles or shotguns.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran Nelson_Muntz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    Post imported post

    Order in English Only!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    I guess if no handguns are allowed, they leave you little choice but to carry rifles or shotguns.
    Let me know when, I'll video it and we'll put it on Youtube.:celebrate

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    Devils Advocate wrote:
    ...SNIP
    Discrimination against a person deals with something that the person cannot change. You cannotnot be black or Jewish. The sign is prohibiting something you would do.

    SNIP...
    Last time I looked Judaism was a religion not a race, and people change religions like they do cloths. So that is a bad example for use in this discussion.

    I agree with you insofar as the nature of discrimination relating to salient features of an individual is concerned. However even immutability of a characteristic does not guarantee protection from discrimination. Nor does the law allow a business to restrict activities of individuals unfettered by regulation.

    There most certainly are governmental limitations on what activities a business may prohibit and/or allow on its premises. Your contention to the contrary is absurd. We routinely legislate what may and may not be done by people and business and in particular we legislate what a business may allow even if the owner wants to allow it.

    The most obvious limitation is smoking in restaurants. That activity is outlawed indoors throughout California, and other states even if the owner of the business wants to allow it. In certain bars the GOVERNMENT requiresthe ownerto make a certain percentage of the profits from the sale of food. Clearly the business would prefer that not be the case. The list goes on and on.

    On those grounds imposing some level of consistency in the area of firearms carry would be no different.

    Regards



    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  23. #23
    Gentleman Ranker
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer (22 December 2008 Monday 12:56) says:

    Last time I looked Judaism was a religion not a race, ...
    Not to create too much of a tangent, but there is significant disagreement about this point, among Jews and non-Jews alike. Certain anti-Semites in particular have held that one cannot "convert out" of being Jewish. Certain types of status within Judaism (kohanim and leviim are the two most obvious examples, though there are others) are established by birth, and in traditional Judaism cannot be renounced or acquired thereafter.

    The actual definition of "race" itself can be a bit slippery, but I'm sure you take the point.

    Sorry if that's unnecessarily pedantic. Back to our regularly-scheduled programming.

    regards,

    GR


  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    Devils Advocate wrote:
    ...SNIP
    Discrimination against a person deals with something that the person cannot change. You cannotnot be black or Jewish. The sign is prohibiting something you would do.

    SNIP...
    Last time I looked Judaism was a religion not a race, and people change religions like they do cloths. So that is a bad example for use in this discussion.

    I agree with you insofar as the nature of discrimination relating to salient features of an individual is concerned. However even immutability of a characteristic does not guarantee protection from discrimination. Nor does the law allow a business to restrict activities of individuals unfettered by regulation.

    There most certainly are governmental limitations on what activities a business may prohibit and/or allow on its premises. Your contention to the contrary is absurd. We routinely legislate what may and may not be done by people and business and in particular we legislate what a business may allow even if the owner wants to allow it.

    The most obvious limitation is smoking in restaurants. That activity is outlawed indoors throughout California, and other states even if the owner of the business wants to allow it. In certain bars the GOVERNMENT requiresthe ownerto make a certain percentage of the profits from the sale of food. Clearly the business would prefer that not be the case. The list goes on and on.

    On those grounds imposing some level of consistency in the area of firearms carry would be no different.

    Regards

    Sorry, Hawk..... My example was not properly drafted. I had to run and posted without complete review.

    What I meant was that there is a difference in who you are and what you do.

    You cannot ban people for who they are (sex,race, national origin.. ect, ect, ect..... I guess I crossed over into religion as a side example. Discrimination can carry over to what you believe in and that is wrong too. We are all allowed to choose what welike and it has no impact on you as a business owner.

    But you, as the property owner,can decide on what you will allow people to do on your property.

    Laws are in place to prevent you from using discrimination in your business. This goes for those you hire as well as those you serve. IF you discriminate you can be sued.

    As a business owner I am not going toprohibit pink socks or cut off shorts. This is commonly accepted and is of no threat to anyone exceptthose with fashion sense. But weapons are a different animal.

    Now I do not agree with signs that say "No outside food" and "No firearms allowed" but if I want to visit the establishment I will follow their rules.

    I am not going to go bitch to the owner or manager and threaten to boycott the business if they do not submit to my demand that they change their mind.

    It is my choice to go in and it is their choice to set the rules.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Gentleman Ranker wrote:
    Hawkflyer (22 December 2008 Monday 12:56) says:

    Last time I looked Judaism was a religion not a race, ...
    Not to create too much of a tangent, but there is significant disagreement about this point, among Jews and non-Jews alike. Certain anti-Semites in particular have held that one cannot "convert out" of being Jewish. Certain types of status within Judaism (kohanim and leviim are the two most obvious examples, though there are others) are established by birth, and in traditional Judaism cannot be renounced or acquired thereafter.

    The actual definition of "race" itself can be a bit slippery, but I'm sure you take the point.

    Sorry if that's unnecessarily pedantic. Back to our regularly-scheduled programming.

    regards,

    GR
    Be aware that there exists a web site called www.reinhardheydrich.org If you speak german then you may find many interesting comments about what constitutes racial identity, most of them from the Chief of the Reichsicherheithauptamt his very self.It is pretty appalling, so go look at the site and then let's not talk race on the forum HMMMMM???:X




Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •