Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
And I went out of my way to see what he had to say, too.
-
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.
Had to kick out a damn OCer today
- Thread starter TylerEMT
- Start date
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
1st Amendment?
He may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I have to agree with another poster... I couldn't accept a job where my employer disrespected it's customers' rights after inviting them onto the property to take their money...
I'd tell you to go back to whatever Communist $hithole you came from and F yourself in the A, too. If it were my job requirement to do that, I'd find another job. "It's not you, it's the uniform."
I'm curious... Why can't the 'associates' who told you "OMG he has a gun, I'm wetting my panties!" inform him of this policy themselves? 3 calls? waited 10 minutes? If they're calling you, they must know... Why are you the one that has to be the bad guy? There was no theft, so it's not LP's business, right?
1st Amendment?
He may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I have to agree with another poster... I couldn't accept a job where my employer disrespected it's customers' rights after inviting them onto the property to take their money...
I'd tell you to go back to whatever Communist $hithole you came from and F yourself in the A, too. If it were my job requirement to do that, I'd find another job. "It's not you, it's the uniform."
I'm curious... Why can't the 'associates' who told you "OMG he has a gun, I'm wetting my panties!" inform him of this policy themselves? 3 calls? waited 10 minutes? If they're calling you, they must know... Why are you the one that has to be the bad guy? There was no theft, so it's not LP's business, right?
imported post
American Rattlesnake wrote:
Some people like to complain!
A few years ago I was riding the Harley on Oracle around McGee on a HOT afternoon - 105 degrees. Traffic was crawling, except for the right lane, which I moved into and cranked it up a bit. I was passing everyone, including the Tucson Police car which immediately pulled behind me and turned on his lights.
I stopped, got off the bike and started fishing for my license, registration and insurance card. Cop told me never mind -- he was going home. We chatted for several minutes.
He said if he didn't pull me over, someone would copy the cruiser number and report him for allowing a biker to exceed the speed limit.
American Rattlesnake wrote:
TylerEMT probably was uncomfortable in approaching the guy with the gun, but he had no choice. I'm sure the parties who complained about the MWAG were watching from a distance, ready to pounce on TylerEMT's boss for not following up on the call.
Some people like to complain!
A few years ago I was riding the Harley on Oracle around McGee on a HOT afternoon - 105 degrees. Traffic was crawling, except for the right lane, which I moved into and cranked it up a bit. I was passing everyone, including the Tucson Police car which immediately pulled behind me and turned on his lights.
I stopped, got off the bike and started fishing for my license, registration and insurance card. Cop told me never mind -- he was going home. We chatted for several minutes.
He said if he didn't pull me over, someone would copy the cruiser number and report him for allowing a biker to exceed the speed limit.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
TylerEMT wrote:
Thanks for trying, and here's to hoping that the next encounter is more pleasant.
The local Sears has no posts against concealed carry, so I'm intrigued about what your understanding is of Sear's corporate policy regarding firearms?
TylerEMT wrote:
Yep, it's a damn shame.
Thanks for trying, and here's to hoping that the next encounter is more pleasant.
The local Sears has no posts against concealed carry, so I'm intrigued about what your understanding is of Sear's corporate policy regarding firearms?
no carry permit ?
Regular Member
imported post
ixtow wrote:
Get a clue pal, Loss prevention is a fancy title for security. By calling thesefolks loss prevention you don't have to have them in uniform, as required by law in most States. Regardless loss preventionservesunder the authority of management. This fellow was doing his job politely, and the responsewas unacceptable. Unfortunately many thugs, bully types open carry to prove what "big men" they are, not for legitimate reasons like personal protection. When confronted by store personnel (something they live for) they conduct themselves poorly and hurtthe cause.
We must remember that the Right to Keep & Bare Arms is not a right to violate private property rights, and yes Corporations have private property rights. Regardless of what a few criminals calling themselves "free men" have to say aboutit, private property rights are just as valid as the2ND amendment.
It always amazes me to hear "free men" types yap about their rights, yet violateothersrights without a thought. The more I read threads like this the more I understand why businesses post. Rumor has it the Walmart is going to be posting all their stores because of the continuing problems. When we get rude with store owners & managers, that will bethe result. People will think these guys are nuts, we can't have them carrying guns in here.The Walmart were Ibuy most ofmy practice ammo has a really decent guy running thegun counter. He told me that Walmarts throughout the country will soon be posted because of the problem children. One idiot came in and got into a screaming match with a customer service representative over a return/ refund issue. When a manager was called to approve the return she found a very angry man with a gun on his hip. This issue went straight to corporate. We will surfer agreat lossif Walmart posts their stores: No firearms may be carried with or without a permit unless by law enforcement. Many retailing groups follow Walmart, this could really be the start of a horrible trend.
Who will we have to thank for this ? Theguys that think their right to carry supercedes private property rights.Dropping the F bomb on store personnel is just plan ignorant and counter productive. Some of you "free men" idiots are your own worst enemy. You spend your time worrying about black helicopters while the man in the mirror is the real threat to your freedom.
ixtow wrote:
Get a clue pal, Loss prevention is a fancy title for security. By calling thesefolks loss prevention you don't have to have them in uniform, as required by law in most States. Regardless loss preventionservesunder the authority of management. This fellow was doing his job politely, and the responsewas unacceptable. Unfortunately many thugs, bully types open carry to prove what "big men" they are, not for legitimate reasons like personal protection. When confronted by store personnel (something they live for) they conduct themselves poorly and hurtthe cause.
We must remember that the Right to Keep & Bare Arms is not a right to violate private property rights, and yes Corporations have private property rights. Regardless of what a few criminals calling themselves "free men" have to say aboutit, private property rights are just as valid as the2ND amendment.
It always amazes me to hear "free men" types yap about their rights, yet violateothersrights without a thought. The more I read threads like this the more I understand why businesses post. Rumor has it the Walmart is going to be posting all their stores because of the continuing problems. When we get rude with store owners & managers, that will bethe result. People will think these guys are nuts, we can't have them carrying guns in here.The Walmart were Ibuy most ofmy practice ammo has a really decent guy running thegun counter. He told me that Walmarts throughout the country will soon be posted because of the problem children. One idiot came in and got into a screaming match with a customer service representative over a return/ refund issue. When a manager was called to approve the return she found a very angry man with a gun on his hip. This issue went straight to corporate. We will surfer agreat lossif Walmart posts their stores: No firearms may be carried with or without a permit unless by law enforcement. Many retailing groups follow Walmart, this could really be the start of a horrible trend.
Who will we have to thank for this ? Theguys that think their right to carry supercedes private property rights.Dropping the F bomb on store personnel is just plan ignorant and counter productive. Some of you "free men" idiots are your own worst enemy. You spend your time worrying about black helicopters while the man in the mirror is the real threat to your freedom.
no carry permit ?
Regular Member
imported post
Sorry double post.
Sorry double post.
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
American Rattlesnake wrote:
It is the corporation who owns the property--not the owners of the corporation.
More specifically, the corporation is a legal person. It can do lots of stuff. And it does indeed have rights.
American Rattlesnake wrote:
It is the corporation who owns the property--not the owners of the corporation.
More specifically, the corporation is a legal person. It can do lots of stuff. And it does indeed have rights.
sv_libertarian
State Researcher
imported post
smoking357 wrote:
When you are in my home, you play by my rules.
smoking357 wrote:
Private property. Your rights are what the property owner say they are.
When you are in my home, you play by my rules.
American Rattlesnake
Regular Member
imported post
sv_libertarian wrote:
me812 wrote:
sv_libertarian wrote:
That's the way I always looked at it. Others are explaining the corporation in a different light, however:
me812 wrote:
Can anyone provide citations specifically regarding the legal rights of corporations?
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
no carry permit ? wrote:
Stick it, 'pal.'
I don't think it supersedes. It disrespects and insults. You're putting words in my mouth and erecting a straw man to argue with. As such, you discredit yourself and prove your position to be nothing more than that of a Captain Ahab looking for someone's ass to kick.
The man who knows what he is doing is dirty, yet does it anyway for a dollar, is the real threat to... "Just Following Orders"
Blah blah blah, why am I even talking to you? F yourself in the A.
no carry permit ? wrote:
Asking me to do without my firearm is an insult far beyond any 'bad words' I might conjure.
Stick it, 'pal.'
I don't think it supersedes. It disrespects and insults. You're putting words in my mouth and erecting a straw man to argue with. As such, you discredit yourself and prove your position to be nothing more than that of a Captain Ahab looking for someone's ass to kick.
The man who knows what he is doing is dirty, yet does it anyway for a dollar, is the real threat to... "Just Following Orders"
Blah blah blah, why am I even talking to you? F yourself in the A.
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
sv_libertarian wrote:
Exactly.
That means that if you are a foul-mouthed moron who tells people to "F in the A", you can show yourself to the door.
And take your gun with you.
sv_libertarian wrote:
Exactly.
That means that if you are a foul-mouthed moron who tells people to "F in the A", you can show yourself to the door.
And take your gun with you.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
ixtow, there is no right (Constitutional or otherwise) to bear arms onto private property. Period. End of discussion.
ixtow, there is no right (Constitutional or otherwise) to bear arms onto private property. Period. End of discussion.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
Not to contradict the honorable member from California; but here is something to toss into the mix for consideration:
"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."
--- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851).
Bottom of the page: http://www.guncite.com/onething.html
marshaul wrote:
(cough, cough)
Not to contradict the honorable member from California; but here is something to toss into the mix for consideration:
"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."
--- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851).
Bottom of the page: http://www.guncite.com/onething.html
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
It just dawned on me.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Property rights are agreements created by men wherein we recognize one another's interests in control of property to ensure crooks can't take what they have not earned, and so that good guys can prosper and benefit from controlling their property. In that no man created the planet, nor any section of it (real estate), this right is a little bit man-made.
Whereas the right to self-defense is a natural right. No? Unalienable, no?
Would this not put the right to self-defense, and thus arms, above property rights?
Come on, you philosophical types. Help me out, here.
It just dawned on me.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Property rights are agreements created by men wherein we recognize one another's interests in control of property to ensure crooks can't take what they have not earned, and so that good guys can prosper and benefit from controlling their property. In that no man created the planet, nor any section of it (real estate), this right is a little bit man-made.
Whereas the right to self-defense is a natural right. No? Unalienable, no?
Would this not put the right to self-defense, and thus arms, above property rights?
Come on, you philosophical types. Help me out, here.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
marshaul wrote:
I never said there was. I see you want to put words in my mouth too?
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Tomahawk wrote:
Be as condescending and arrogant as you like, guys. You're already invalidated yourselves by lying about my statements.
I stand by my position, even if you are deluded as to what that is.
Tomahawk wrote:
Or, more accurately, when someone tells yo to F yourself in the A with good manners, you may (and should) tell them to do the same in a less polite and more direct fashion.
Be as condescending and arrogant as you like, guys. You're already invalidated yourselves by lying about my statements.
I stand by my position, even if you are deluded as to what that is.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
ixtow wrote:
Oh, oh! (Citizen ducks)
Ixtow, some of your positions cheer my soul and bring a contented sigh.
But, I can just tell you, mixing it up with those two is liable to bea bruising proposition.
Even I am not dumb enough to tangle with Tomahawk or SV. Separately, much less together.
Have you ever seen Tomahawk's personal library? The man is practically a walking encyclopedia of philosophic history. When I differ with him, the first thing I suspect is that I have something sideways.
Besides, he has a wicked way with jpegs.
ixtow wrote:
Oh, oh! (Citizen ducks)
Ixtow, some of your positions cheer my soul and bring a contented sigh.
But, I can just tell you, mixing it up with those two is liable to bea bruising proposition.
Even I am not dumb enough to tangle with Tomahawk or SV. Separately, much less together.
Have you ever seen Tomahawk's personal library? The man is practically a walking encyclopedia of philosophic history. When I differ with him, the first thing I suspect is that I have something sideways.
Besides, he has a wicked way with jpegs.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
If either of them were such mental heavyweights, they would not have tried to play such a simple game.
Hate is a powerful thing. Even those who know better succumb to it if it's loaded just so... (no pun intended)
Citizen wrote:
A man who puts words in my mouth and then tries to attack me for what he just did, is not a person I have any intellectual fear of. In fact, I find those last 3 words to be oxymoronic.ixtow wrote:
Oh, oh! (Citizen ducks)
Ixtow, some of your positions cheer my soul and bring a contented sigh.
But, I can just tell you, mixing it up with those two is liable to bea bruising proposition.
Even I am not dumb enough to tangle with Tomahawk or SV. Separately, much less together.
Have you ever seen Tomahawk's personal library? The man is practically a walking encyclopedia of philosophic history. When I differ with him, the first thing I suspect is that I have something sideways.
Besides, he has a wicked way with jpegs.
If either of them were such mental heavyweights, they would not have tried to play such a simple game.
Hate is a powerful thing. Even those who know better succumb to it if it's loaded just so... (no pun intended)
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
A loose interpretaion of the Bible could easily mean that property rights are God Given. Self-Defense is a defensive action from an agressor. If you have property rights given by God then someone trying toinfringe on your property rights are therefore and agressor and you are defending yourself. In this case property rights equal self-defense.
Is that philosophical enough?
Citizen wrote:
A loose interpretaion of the Bible could easily mean that property rights are God Given. Self-Defense is a defensive action from an agressor. If you have property rights given by God then someone trying toinfringe on your property rights are therefore and agressor and you are defending yourself. In this case property rights equal self-defense.
Is that philosophical enough?
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
I consider 'property rights' and 'the right to defense' to be equal. While many interpret property right to trump it.
One who abuses this impropriety just because they can, is someone with no respect for others (and people like that may F themselves in the A, and I will promptly inform them of such upon identification).
If you own property, and open the door and invite the public in.... Disrespecting them when they arrive is a double-whammy.
I consider 'property rights' and 'the right to defense' to be equal. While many interpret property right to trump it.
One who abuses this impropriety just because they can, is someone with no respect for others (and people like that may F themselves in the A, and I will promptly inform them of such upon identification).
If you own property, and open the door and invite the public in.... Disrespecting them when they arrive is a double-whammy.