A thought.

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote:

They have absolutely NO legal obligation or responsibility to "protect you" while you enter the property.

Click to expand...

Kinda scary, isn't it? The courts have ruled that law enforcement also has no legal obligation to protect anybody as well, the reason being they can not be expected to be everywhere at the same time. Now strip the citizen of his open carry or concealed carry rightsby putting up signs at the entrance of the mall, and a citizen has no way to protect himself or his familyafter a criminal ignores the signage and walks in with a .357 magnum to do people harm. Strange and dangerous world we live in, eh?

Click to expand...

Nobody is strippingus of any "rights" by putting a sign.Our attendance at the mall is voluntary.We have the right to NOT go there, ever!

Big difference in the courts concluding the police have no obligation to protect you is thatthe citizens arepaying taxes that also go towards public service.

There are some people out there that feel the police MUST protect them like personal body guards and we all know that this is not possible. The police do what they can to prevent crime but criminals are going to wait for the police to leave before they strike.

The only way the police could possibly fulfill a duty to protect everyone is to assign a police officer to each person and follow them around. The people simply could not afford that level of protection.

And it is a scary world.

Being armed will not save you from every possible threat that is out there either. You have to do what you can to avoid crime. Having a gun is only one of many ways to do it. Another is to stay home or avoid malls that are known to be crime ridden.

imported post

Devils Advocate wrote:

Sheriff wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote:

They have absolutely NO legal obligation or responsibility to "protect you" while you enter the property.

Click to expand...

Kinda scary, isn't it? The courts have ruled that law enforcement also has no legal obligation to protect anybody as well, the reason being they can not be expected to be everywhere at the same time. Now strip the citizen of his open carry or concealed carry rightsby putting up signs at the entrance of the mall, and a citizen has no way to protect himself or his familyafter a criminal ignores the signage and walks in with a .357 magnum to do people harm. Strange and dangerous world we live in, eh?

Click to expand...

We have the right to NOT go there, ever!

Click to expand...

Amazon

imported post

Devils Advocate wrote:

Nobody is stripping us of any "rights" by putting a sign. Our attendance at the mall is voluntary. We have the right to NOT go there, ever!

Click to expand...

Exactly right.

While I admit to entertaining the idea of establishing a liability for gun-free zones, truthfully the better solution is for people to simply not patronize establishments who would ask their customers to be disarmed. (Why people are so intent to force others to take their hard-earned money is beyond me. I myself am perfectly intent to deprive businesses of my money if they don't want it.)

If this means that most places get safer while "gun free zones" have more and more mass shootings, well then so bet it. It's not a big deal for me since I won't be in those gun free zones.

imported post

I just wish that all the theaters in my area didn't ban firearms (Regal, AMC). I really enjoy watching a good movie with the wife.

You'll take my money, and you'll like it!!!!!!!!!!!!

imported post

diesel556 wrote:

I just wish that all the theaters in my area didn't ban firearms (Regal, AMC).  I really enjoy watching a good movie with the wife.

Click to expand...

I have a solution for this. With a cable model and a couple hundred gigs of disk storage you can be well on your way to watching everything for free in as much quality as you can afford the equipment to reproduce, downloaded from any number of public or (preferably) private video sharing sites.

The one I use is bittorrent-based, totally private, and focuses on the wonderful H.264 codec. There is both SD and HD content (at full resolution of the source but much in smaller file sizes), and a popular film downloads in as little as 20 minutes.

"Intellectual property" can go **** itself -- the whole concept has been proven to be an intellectual fraud by the actions these legalized grifters. If the traditional distribution model wants to compete with this, they'll have to do a lot better than disarming me whilst selling me $5 drinks and hiring no ushers to usher-out the self-important morons who talk on their cell phones during the film.

imported post

marshaul wrote

I have a solution for this. With a cable model and a couple hundred gigs of disk storage you can be well on your way to watching everything

Click to expand...

Funny you should mention that. I actually upgraded my network server a few months ago.

I agree that H.264 is cool stuff, and that DRM is in its own way very very similar to gun control.

I do have a decent setup at home (1080 proj, 8' screen), but my wife and I still really enjoy going to the movies.

Call me crazy.

Sorry for going so far offtopic.

imported post

I really stopped enjoying going to the cinema when I moved to the Bay Area. Something about the wishes-it-was "urban culture" out here, I guess, but every time I see a film there is some asshole talking on his phone in such a way that it's clear that his primary purpose isn't to make conversation but to flex his imaginary muscle by blowing up at whoever has the balls to tell him to STFU and GTFO.

imported post

I know many LEO that are just not "into" firearms and do nothing but only re-qualify (which means this is their only time they ever fire a weapon) annually. LEOs should not be give carte blanche on firearms possession. Many C/Os (to their detriment) don't even possess of buy firearms.

imported post

I know aLE firearms instructor that trains everyone from local cops to prison guards whosays it is horrible just how bad many of his students are with a gun. He will say that more than 1/2 are no better than the average person on the street.

Of course it all comes down to practice. As a rule, a person that fires 200+ round a week will be better than someone who fires 200 rounds a year. The sad part is that many departments allow for more ammo usage than the minimum. They can go practice for free.

Give me free ammo and I'll be there as much as they let me.:celebrate

imported post

Gordie wrote:

Give me free ammo and I'll be there as much as they let me.:celebrate

Click to expand...

lol, right? I don't practice as much as I'd like but it isn't for want of motivation. If someone gave me free ammo I'd be at the range three times a week! :shock:

imported post

marshaul wrote:

I really stopped enjoying going to the cinema when I moved to the Bay Area. Something about the wishes-it-was "urban culture" out here, I guess, but every time I see a film there is some @#$% talking on his phone in such a way that it's clear that his primary purpose isn't to make conversation but to flex his imaginary muscle by blowing up at whoever has the balls to tell him to STFU and GTFO.

Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense. That hasn't been a problem where I live. I don't know how I would handle such a situation.

imported post

its easy just throw popcorn at the guys kids and then shoot him with a .380 in the arm. that should solve it. (totally joking btw... )