Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
OT
OT
-
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.
Let's push back
- Thread starter old dog
- Start date
thx997303
Regular Member
imported post
longwatch wrote:
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!
longwatch wrote:
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!
longwatch
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
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.
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.
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.
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.
thx997303
Regular Member
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.
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.
R a Z o R
Banned
imported post
The RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMSis a right thatmust not be taken from us .
A public place is a place for the public .
The RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMSis a right thatmust not be taken from us .
A public place is a place for the public .
thx997303
Regular Member
imported post
Dang, I'm beginning to think you are, or work for Mitt Romney.
Dang, I'm beginning to think you are, or work for Mitt Romney.
longwatch
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
thx997303 wrote:
To the OP I think all that needs to be done is for us to go out as normal, if there is a problem we deal with it in a calm civil manner. Might change the property owners mind if done properly, its happened before.
thx997303 wrote:
It is off to a good start but we are closer to the beginning than the end. The answer isn't in the form of a leader or confrontational tactics or propaganda, we just need to open carry. I think it is an infectious habit, people see it, they want to do it. OC sparks and nourishes some peoples desire for freedom.
To the OP I think all that needs to be done is for us to go out as normal, if there is a problem we deal with it in a calm civil manner. Might change the property owners mind if done properly, its happened before.
imported post
longwatch wrote:
After many years.. people stopped packing a heater on a regular basis. In NOVA it is not "common" to see a shotgun in the back window of the pick up like it was a long time ago.
People are not going to understand and accept OC overnight. It is going to take many years for that to happen. Positive encounters and represtation by those that are able to pass the word.
But the notion that business owners that do not like guns or do not want to scare off customers must accept someone armed is... IMO... just dumb.
Some want to take away the rights of a business owner so that they may have their way and do something they want to do. That is no different than the government saying you must submit to them and allow them onto your property when they know you will not like it.
Point being... business owners have every right to ask you to stay out with your gun.
Forcing someone to accept your armed status is counter-productive. :uhoh:
longwatch wrote:
Agreed.
After many years.. people stopped packing a heater on a regular basis. In NOVA it is not "common" to see a shotgun in the back window of the pick up like it was a long time ago.
People are not going to understand and accept OC overnight. It is going to take many years for that to happen. Positive encounters and represtation by those that are able to pass the word.
But the notion that business owners that do not like guns or do not want to scare off customers must accept someone armed is... IMO... just dumb.
Some want to take away the rights of a business owner so that they may have their way and do something they want to do. That is no different than the government saying you must submit to them and allow them onto your property when they know you will not like it.
Point being... business owners have every right to ask you to stay out with your gun.
Forcing someone to accept your armed status is counter-productive. :uhoh:
R a Z o R
Banned
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
Civil rights in a public place are protected by common law .
LEO 229 wrote:
Civil rights in a public place are protected by common law .
Deanimator
Regular Member
imported post
Dom wrote:
Dom wrote:
License bureaus in Ohio are private concerns. I can be a victim or I can have license plates?
Deanimator
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Equating a firearm and an animal which can act unpredictably without human intervention is a sign of mental illness... well, in your case ANOTHER sign.old dog wrote: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. :lol:
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?
RMD
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
I could be off base here but I personally had something more along the lines of something like sexuality or religion come to mind from the OP.
How does it go when someone tells people they can not eat here because we don't serve Muslims because of the other customers being afraid a bomb is about to go off. Or that we can't serve you because you are homosexual and customers don't want their children exposed to that so you will have to leave.
These are choices that people made unlike race or gender. The amount of "equal rights" groups that will immediately take up the fight would be enourmous. OC'rs fortunately, for the most part I will say atleast, respect the fact you ask us to leave and will do so without making a big deal and avoid the trespassing charge.
Personally I prefer the OC where we can and get the public desensitized to OC approach, but i do get where the sentiment came from.
LEO 229 wrote:
I could be off base here but I personally had something more along the lines of something like sexuality or religion come to mind from the OP.
How does it go when someone tells people they can not eat here because we don't serve Muslims because of the other customers being afraid a bomb is about to go off. Or that we can't serve you because you are homosexual and customers don't want their children exposed to that so you will have to leave.
These are choices that people made unlike race or gender. The amount of "equal rights" groups that will immediately take up the fight would be enourmous. OC'rs fortunately, for the most part I will say atleast, respect the fact you ask us to leave and will do so without making a big deal and avoid the trespassing charge.
Personally I prefer the OC where we can and get the public desensitized to OC approach, but i do get where the sentiment came from.
imported post
R a Z o R wrote:
Once again.... you are addressing something you are and cannot change.... not something you choose to carry.
But feel free to try and sue a business owner for civil rights violations for banning you from being in the store with a gun!! :lol:
R a Z o R wrote:
You are trying to attach the carry of a gun to the civil rights movement??!! :uhoh:
Once again.... you are addressing something you are and cannot change.... not something you choose to carry.
But feel free to try and sue a business owner for civil rights violations for banning you from being in the store with a gun!! :lol:
imported post
Deanimator wrote:
The dogs were an example of an unwelcome item in many some stores. Even if the dog is as friendly as can be.
And a person can be just as unpredictable as any dog.
Deanimator wrote:
As usual.. you have missed the point.
The dogs were an example of an unwelcome item in many some stores. Even if the dog is as friendly as can be.
And a person can be just as unpredictable as any dog.
imported post
RMD wrote:
Some say you are born gay and you have no choice.
In some countries you must be a member of a certain religion. You have no choice.
Nice try but this still has nothing to do with rights given to a specific group of people.
Such as the class="header-topic"Equal Employment Opportunity
You can try to squeeze gun ownership in there but you are already covered by an amendment. You can own that gun all day long as long as you keep on your property or public property when permitted.
Once you enter the private property of another while armed all bets are off. Even if it is a business you fall under their rules.
Carrying a gun has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of discrimination that has
already been addressed by the government.
If you are not being targeted for any of the following... you do not qualify.
RMD wrote:
That is open for debate.
Some say you are born gay and you have no choice.
In some countries you must be a member of a certain religion. You have no choice.
Nice try but this still has nothing to do with rights given to a specific group of people.
Such as the class="header-topic"Equal Employment Opportunity
You can try to squeeze gun ownership in there but you are already covered by an amendment. You can own that gun all day long as long as you keep on your property or public property when permitted.
Once you enter the private property of another while armed all bets are off. Even if it is a business you fall under their rules.
Carrying a gun has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of discrimination that has
already been addressed by the government.
If you are not being targeted for any of the following... you do not qualify.
- Ethnic Origin
- National Origin
- Color
- Race
- Religion
- Sex
RMD
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
I agree the gay thing is open for debate but religion would be another topic. While some countries may require you to be a certain religion we are talking the about the U.S.A. where there is a freedom of religion so yo uare not required to be any of them and it is a choice.
Not trying to bootstrap it to the civil rights movement. Just showing the correlation between the two. A certain group of people (in this case OC'rs) want to be able to be treated fairly as any other citizen (in this country).
You exercise your right to deny service in your business. That is one of the reasons the trespassing laws are there. Carrying a gun is also a right our founding fathers believed in from the beginning (2A doesn't give the right, itimplies the right exists and "shall not be infringed").
Would it be a better comparison to say you wanted to deny service to Obama supporters or Bush supporters (I don't see that one going very far either). It is a right under the First Amendment, but by what you are saying it would not apply? It is discrimination any way you look at it.
LEO 229 wrote:
I agree the gay thing is open for debate but religion would be another topic. While some countries may require you to be a certain religion we are talking the about the U.S.A. where there is a freedom of religion so yo uare not required to be any of them and it is a choice.
Not trying to bootstrap it to the civil rights movement. Just showing the correlation between the two. A certain group of people (in this case OC'rs) want to be able to be treated fairly as any other citizen (in this country).
You exercise your right to deny service in your business. That is one of the reasons the trespassing laws are there. Carrying a gun is also a right our founding fathers believed in from the beginning (2A doesn't give the right, itimplies the right exists and "shall not be infringed").
Would it be a better comparison to say you wanted to deny service to Obama supporters or Bush supporters (I don't see that one going very far either). It is a right under the First Amendment, but by what you are saying it would not apply? It is discrimination any way you look at it.