Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 75

Thread: Let's push back

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    Since stores and businesses, though open to and soliciting the public, are granted broad private-property rights to discriminate against armed citizens (a stance that would not be tolerated against any other group) why shouldn't they be required to provide safe, convenient storage for citizens' guns while on the premises?

    Why should we have to bear the burden of their bias? Let them be the ones inconvenienced. Faced with this, they might adopt a more reasonable position.

    It's good to stir the pot now and then.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    old dog wrote:

    Why should we have to bear the burden of their bias?


    Because it's their property and they can do whatever they damn well please with it.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Why should they be burdened with our biases?

    old dog wrote:
    Why should we have to bear the burden of their bias?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Let's see....

    You are OK with the fact that you can control YOUR property and have the right to prohibit people to be there. But a business should not be afforded those same rights?

    I own a business and you want me to have less rights than you?? That sounds fair!!

    What is the difference between you and me exactly?

    Let's see...

    I put myself out there and took a chance starting my own business.

    I pay more taxes than you and put in all those hours just to provide YOU with the ability to conveniently buy my wares? Without ME... you would not have a place to buy what I offer.

    Well thank you very much!!

    How about we are equal and have the same rights. I can decide to ban you and you can decide to shop some place else.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Let's see....

    You are OK with the fact that you can control YOUR property and have the right to prohibit people to be there. But a business should not be afforded those same rights?

    I own a business and you want me to have less rights than you?? That sounds fair!!

    What is the difference between you and me exactly?

    Let's see...

    I put myself out there and took a chance starting my own business.

    I pay more taxes than you and put in all those hours just to provide YOU with the ability to conveniently buy my wares? Without ME... you would not have a place to buy what I offer.

    Well thank you very much!!

    How about we are equal and have the same rights. I can decide to ban you and you can decide to shop some place else.
    If you deny me the right to defend myself then you assume that responsibility yourself. Sounds fair to me.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Aurora, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    If you deny me the right to defend myself then you assume that responsibility yourself. Sounds fair to me.
    No, the property owner has no responsibility to defend you. You voluntarily surrendered your weapon. If you don't like it, don't step foot on the property...no one is forcing you. Private property owners have rights too.

    I agree with your statement on public property.


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Va, ,
    Posts
    623

    Post imported post

    Deanimator wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    Let's see....

    You are OK with the fact that you can control YOUR property and have the right to prohibit people to be there. But a business should not be afforded those same rights?

    I own a business and you want me to have less rights than you?? That sounds fair!!

    What is the difference between you and me exactly?

    Let's see...

    I put myself out there and took a chance starting my own business.

    I pay more taxes than you and put in all those hours just to provide YOU with the ability to conveniently buy my wares? Without ME... you would not have a place to buy what I offer.

    Well thank you very much!!

    How about we are equal and have the same rights. I can decide to ban you and you can decide to shop some place else.
    If you deny me the right to defend myself then you assume that responsibility yourself. Sounds fair to me.
    When you invite me onto your private property to solicit my business anddeny me the right to defend myself then you assume that responsibility yourself.
    Revelation 1911 - And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Deanimator wrote:
    If you deny me the right to defend myself then you assume that responsibility yourself. Sounds fair to me.
    You are delusional.

    I am not forcing you to come to my store. You come to buy wares of your own free will. You are not forced, compelled, or required to do it.

    If my store is so dangerous that you need to be armed then maybe you need to call in your order and I can have it ready at the curb. I take credit cards.

    Get over the entire argument on how others are somehow responsible for you.

    I really want to know what you wear at the swimming pool. People die at pools you know. I bet you wear those little arm floaty wings. It is a dangerous world out there? Do you put your gun in a plastic bag and OC it at the pool so you can be armed there too? :P


    Factoid:
    In 2004, there were 3,308 unintentional drownings in the United States, an average of nine people per day.(CDC 2006)



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 et al.:

    My home is not open to the public and their attendance is not solicited. I offer no enticement and only invitees are welcome.

    Is it then your position that ethnicity or gender can also be used to bar the public at the businessman's whim?

    Years ago a friend of mine was forced to close our neighborhood bar because his longstanding policy of not allowing women landed him in court. His argument that women in bars inevitably cause trouble was rejected out of hand. So much for his private-property rights.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    mobeewan wrote:
    When you invite me onto your private property to solicit my business anddeny me the right to defend myself then you assume that responsibility yourself.
    Check that third word you used.... "INVITE" as this is the key word.

    Invite[*](v. i.) To give invitation.[*](v. t.) To allure; to draw to; to tempt to come; to induce by pleasure or hope; to attract.[*](v. t.) To ask; to request; to bid; to summon; to ask to do some act, or go to some place; esp., to ask to an entertainment or visit; to request the company of; as, to invite to dinner, or a wedding, or an excursion.[*](v. t.) To give occasion for; as, to invite criticism.
    An invitation can be refused. You are not required to attend. You are not COMPELLED to go.

    Now if you are forced to go and cannot go armed... the other party should afford you some type of protection.

    But we are talking about you voluntarily walking in to buy a pair of arm floats for the pool and a nose plug. Find another store that allows you to carry if you do not the rules.

    For the record.... I allow weapons in my store but I do not sell swim gear.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    old dog wrote:
    LEO 229 et al.:

    My home is not open to the public and their attendance is not solicited. I offer no enticement and only invitees are welcome.

    Is it then your position that ethnicity or gender can also be used to bar the public at the businessman's whim?

    Years ago a friend of mine was forced to close our neighborhood bar because his longstanding policy of not allowing women landed him in court. His argument that women in bars inevitably cause trouble was rejected out of hand. So much for his private-property rights.
    Here we go!!! I knew we would make this jump. It happens almost as fast as bringing up Nazis. A last resort to prove a case.

    Race, ethnicity, and gender are who you are and you CANNOT change that. This should not and simply cannot be held against you. This is wrong.

    Now.... what you decide to DO is another matter.

    How about I bring in my 2 pit bulls into your ice cream shop and while I am there nobody comes in while I eat my fully loaded banana split??

    Should you be allowed to forbid me entry because of that? I use 2 pit bulls for protection because I am a convicted felon and cannot own a gun.

    And your friend was wrong. Just because a woman in a bar might cause a man's hormones to kick in does not make it her fault.

    I am sorry.. what kind of bar was it anyway? The Blue Oyster? :P

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Well so far we just have opinions, good ons but what does the law or case law say? In Virginia, business owners are not liable for the safety of their patrons except in special circumstances. See Taboda v. Daly Seven
    http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinio...p/1051094t.pdf

    Also, there are better ways to deal with businesses that are anti. A good example is here. http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/24662.html
    Simply lets avoid intentional confrontations.


    [flash=425,344]http://www.youtube.com/v/tTJMerul33E&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    It was a bar that offered surcease from the lawnmower and the job jar, a place to drop into on the way to or from the hardware store, the grocery or the gas station; a calm, quiet place to discuss politics or sports -- in short a refuge for adults who could actually read and write English. The cops avoided it like the plague.

    I don't understand the "Blue Oyster" reference but considering the source I suppose it was intended as a clever slur.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    old dog wrote:
    I don't understand the "Blue Oyster" reference but considering the source I suppose it was intended as a clever slur.
    Not even a slur, but all he knows of the keywords.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Academy_(franchise)#Setting

    This after yapping about his "fully loaded banana-split' thinking no one would recognize it as a sly reference to his favorite, a "Montana Banana" featured at Magnolia Thunderpussy's in the Haight.

    My calculus instructor, Lt. Sotzig, USN, rewarded his classes with a trip to Miss Mallon's ice cream parlor.


  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    old dog wrote:
    LEO 229 et al.:

    My home is not open to the public and their attendance is not solicited. I offer no enticement and only invitees are welcome.

    Is it then your position that ethnicity or gender can also be used to bar the public at the businessman's whim?

    Years ago a friend of mine was forced to close our neighborhood bar because his longstanding policy of not allowing women landed him in court. His argument that women in bars inevitably cause trouble was rejected out of hand. So much for his private-property rights.
    Old dog I am with you . At what point must I give up my inalienable rights ? Where does it say that again ? Am I not the welcomed puplic ? Perhaps the attorneys have been brain washed to believe a lie . Will I become an unlawful citizen upon crossing a threshold ?



  16. #16
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    How about, we remove legal force from the signs prohibiting firearms, while allowing the property/business owner to remove people from their store because they violate it. Then if they dont comply, stick a trespassing charge on the individual.

    Then, lets desensitize the public to carry of a defensive weapon, getting rid of the fear that is supposedly out there, so that businesses dont have a reason to ban firearms.

    Sounds like everybody wins.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    old dog wrote:
    It was a bar that offered surcease from the lawnmower and the job jar, a place to drop into on the way to or from the hardware store, the grocery or the gas station; a calm, quiet place to discuss politics or sports -- in short a refuge for adults who could actually read and write English. The cops avoided it like the plague.

    I don't understand the "Blue Oyster" reference but considering the source I suppose it was intended as a clever slur.
    OK, I am going to guess you have NEVER watched the movie Police Academy....

    My, how we rush to judgment and paint people as using slurs.

    It is apparent that Longwatch picked up on it and I am so happy he posted the video. I love that scene... Hilarious prank they played on those two.

    The reference is easily attached in-so-far as his bar did not allow women. Therefore... I immediately started thinking of another famous bar I knew of bet have never frequented. THE BLUE OYSTER!! :P

    So, considering the source.. you should have assumed it was meant to be funny!! It was.. and still is.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    thx997303 wrote:
    How about, we remove legal force from the signs prohibiting firearms, while allowing the property/business owner to remove people from their store because they violate it. Then if they dont comply, stick a trespassing charge on the individual.

    Then, lets desensitize the public to carry of a defensive weapon, getting rid of the fear that is supposedly out there, so that businesses dont have a reason to ban firearms.

    Sounds like everybody wins.
    There are some places where that is pretty close to what is in effect, Virginia almost fits that bill.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    old dog wrote:
    I don't understand the "Blue Oyster" reference but considering the source I suppose it was intended as a clever slur.
    Not even a slur, but all he knows of the keywords.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Academy_(franchise)#Setting

    This after yapping about his "fully loaded banana-split' thinking no one would recognize it as a sly reference to his favorite, a "Montana Banana" featured at Magnolia Thunderpussy's in the Haight.

    My calculus instructor, Lt. Sotzig, USN, rewarded his classes with a trip to Miss Mallon's ice cream parlor.
    OMG!!

    Actually.. I was NOT talking about anything but a banana split.

    Doug... you are the one making the connection to my unit.. not me!! You are one sick puppy.

    When I say "Unit.." I am not being clever. I do not care to use a more obvious term to identify my male reproductive organ as the may be children visiting us. In fact.. Of this I am sure.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    If we as American gun owners allow the sheeple to lead us instead of a true leader we are going to lose .

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    OT

  22. #22
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    longwatch wrote:
    thx997303 wrote:
    How about, we remove legal force from the signs prohibiting firearms, while allowing the property/business owner to remove people from their store because they violate it. Then if they dont comply, stick a trespassing charge on the individual.

    Then, lets desensitize the public to carry of a defensive weapon, getting rid of the fear that is supposedly out there, so that businesses dont have a reason to ban firearms.

    Sounds like everybody wins.
    There are some places where that is pretty close to what is in effect, Virginia almost fits that bill.
    That's how it is in Utah, and I feel like it is a proper compromise.

    I would also think that a business should put in lockers for use by the customers who are carrying into a posted prohibited business. I of course dont think this should be required by law, but I believe that it would be a convenience and a gesture of good will to armed citizens.

    A business could also gain a little revenue if they wanted by making the lockers coin operated.

    And dangit Razor, stop trying to force Mitt Romney down our throats!

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    I like to hope that given enough time and acceptance of OC such measures won't be necessary because businesses wouldn't feel the need to inconvenience their customers by disarming them.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    396

    Post imported post

    No, I've never seen "Police Academy". I inferred, apparently in error, that Blue Oyster referred to the type of lounge that opened near my wife's law office in the '70s. The local gendarmerie did a great deal of serving and protecting there, no doubt fearful someone would take advantage of the construction workers that flocked to it.

  25. #25
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    Well, I guess that is the ultimate goal of this movement.

    Off to a good start I'd say.

    ETA: This post was in response to Longwatch.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •