No Guns Allowed signs showing up

ixtow · Aug 19, 2009

imported post

me812 wrote:

Those signs don't seem to last very long in Arizona. Basha's used to have them up, but doesn't anymore. I'm guessing a lot of people get riled up and complain. Having a sign like that on an establishment in Arizona is kind of like having a sign up on an establishment in Harlem that says "No Niggers."

Bingo, gun hate is the new racism. And lookie there. Using the same old tricks the Confederate Slave Owners used to promote their agenda. they turned on their own constituency when it became too unpopular to fight with propaganda anymore, and pretended to be advocates of Civil Rights. But all they really did was pick a new group of people to hate and insult.

But more on topic, I love the idea of mailing a photocopy of every good or service you buy from a competitor to the offending businesses with 'nigger hater' signs.

When they add up all the money they're not making, I think they'll notice that baseless lies about 'safety' and just plain ignorant prejudice just isn't a good thing to advertise...

DMGNUT · Aug 19, 2009

imported post

I'm in agreement on the boycott thing, but to be honest, I'm not all that concerned. I carry concealed most everywhere with "wanton abandon". I don't care about their signs. I consider myself somewhat religious, and as I believe that God would have us prepared to defend ourselves. I consider their request for me to disarm in their establishment, to be improper... even immoral. I do not feel obligated to respect such requests. I realize I could just go elsewhere, but if that's where my family wants to eat, then that's where I'll take them. And on a side note, if actually caught (which if carrying concealed properly, is very unlikely), the worst they can do, is ask me to leave. So long as I comply (which I happily would... and never return), then all is good.

Kildars · Aug 19, 2009

imported post

DMGNUT wrote:

I'm in agreement on the boycott thing, but to be honest, I'm not all that concerned. I carry concealed most everywhere with "wanton abandon". I don't care about their signs. I consider myself somewhat religious, and as I believe that God would have us prepared to defend ourselves. I consider their request for me to disarm in their establishment, to be improper... even immoral. I do not feel obligated to respect such requests. I realize I could just go elsewhere, but if that's where my family wants to eat, then that's where I'll take them. And on a side note, if actually caught (which if carrying concealed properly, is very unlikely), the worst they can do, is ask me to leave. So long as I comply (which I happily would... and never return), then all is good.

I'm not sure how you can expect people to respect your 2A right if you do not respect their right to private property.

ixtow · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

Kildars wrote:

DMGNUT wrote:

I'm in agreement on the boycott thing, but to be honest, I'm not all that concerned. I carry concealed most everywhere with "wanton abandon". I don't care about their signs. I consider myself somewhat religious, and as I believe that God would have us prepared to defend ourselves. I consider their request for me to disarm in their establishment, to be improper... even immoral. I do not feel obligated to respect such requests. I realize I could just go elsewhere, but if that's where my family wants to eat, then that's where I'll take them. And on a side note, if actually caught (which if carrying concealed properly, is very unlikely), the worst they can do, is ask me to leave. So long as I comply (which I happily would... and never return), then all is good.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you can expect people to respect your 2A right if you do not respect their right to private property.

I think that is the whole point. They don't respect his 2A, so he doesn't respect them.

I can relate and agree. People who don't think I have no right to live don't get any respect from me either. Anti-carry is just like saying "I hope you die, but be sure to give me your money first."

me812 · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

I'm not sure how you can expect people to respect your 2A right if you do not respect their right to private property.

Most of the places that have these signs up are not even owned by "people," they're owned by corporations. Last time I looked in the Constitution, corporations do not have any rights, despite what the Supreme Court says.

Kildars · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

ixtow wrote:

Kildars wrote:

DMGNUT wrote:

I'm in agreement on the boycott thing, but to be honest, I'm not all that concerned. I carry concealed most everywhere with "wanton abandon". I don't care about their signs. I consider myself somewhat religious, and as I believe that God would have us prepared to defend ourselves. I consider their request for me to disarm in their establishment, to be improper... even immoral. I do not feel obligated to respect such requests. I realize I could just go elsewhere, but if that's where my family wants to eat, then that's where I'll take them. And on a side note, if actually caught (which if carrying concealed properly, is very unlikely), the worst they can do, is ask me to leave. So long as I comply (which I happily would... and never return), then all is good.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you can expect people to respect your 2A right if you do not respect their right to private property.

Click to expand...

I think that is the whole point. They don't respect his 2A, so he doesn't respect them.

I can relate and agree. People who don't think I have no right to live don't get any respect from me either. Anti-carry is just like saying "I hope you die, but be sure to give me your money first."

Except property rights trump your right to the second amendment. The second amendment is a restriction on government, not a restriction on people. It's not saying "I hope you die." You choose to patronize those anti-gun establishment, if you don't like their property rules you shouldn't go there and explain to them why you're not going there.

If you want people to respect your rights, you need to also respect theirs.

Kildars · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

me812 wrote:

I'm not sure how you can expect people to respect your 2A right if you do not respect their right to private property.

Most of the places that have these signs up are not even owned by "people," they're owned by corporations. Last time I looked in the Constitution, corporations do not have any rights, despite what the Supreme Court says.

Corporations own property and with owning property you get the right to control said property.

me812 · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

Corporations own property and with owning property you get the right to control said property.

Where does it say that in the Constitution? Please cite.

Notso · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

If corporations don't own that property, who does?

me812 · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

If corporations don't own that property, who does?

Corporations do own it. But constitutional protections regarding property rights apply to the people (individual citizens) and not corporations.

TOF · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

Corporations happen to be a group of people that have the right to choose what occurs with and on their property just as you do with your property. The people are typicaly called "Stock Holders". If you have any savings other than in your sock or wallet you are probably one of them.

Corporations are not inanimate objects although it is easy to view them that way.

me812 · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

Corporations happen to be a group of people that have the right to choose what occurs with and on their property just as you do with your property.

A corporation is nothing more than a person or group of people who have petitioned the government (ie. We the People) for certain special privileges. If you do that, then you can expect that in return that the government (ie. We the People) will reserve the right to regulate you for the public good. This includes forbidding you from barring the peaceable bearing of arms on your property.

If you don't like these rules, then don't incorporate, and I'll support your right to discriminate against anyone you want for any reason you want. You, as an individual, have the constitutional right of free association to do so. But it's time to excise the bull@#$% about corporations having free association rights, or any other "rights," as they do not.

TOF · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

What specific part of the constitution says Corporations have no rights Mr. Constitutional Scholar.

Are the part of "We The People" that happen to own part or all of a corporation to be deprived of the the rights of "We The People".

We the people have to date not prohibited Corporations from dictating certain activities and limits within their property so you are shooting blanks on that one.

Your wishes are not necessarily fact or reasonable.

None of this is to say that I am against open or concealed carry in most locations.

One location I can think of that I support no guns allowed is in the visiting room of our various prisons. I am quit certain there are one or two more places I would support the rule but leave it to your imagination.

me812 · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

What specific part of the constitution says Corporations have no rights Mr. Constitutional Scholar.

The constitution deals with the rights of the people, not corporations. Do you want me to post the definitions of the words "person" and "corporation" to show you that they are not synonymous?

P.S. take your snide remark about "Mr. Constitutional Scholar" and stuff it, prick.

TOF · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

I see you like to dish things out but are unable to take them very well. Not surprising.

Have a good day.

me812 · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

I see you like to dish things out but are unable to take them very well.

You started it, not I.

Notso · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

Just as a discussion item.... It seems like corporations are people, a small(or large) group of people. It just seems to me that they should be able to collectively decide (within the laws and without descrimination) what takes place on their property, just as if it were a single(non-corporate) person owning that business.

JesseL · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

I would never argue that corporations should have more rights than any of their individual shareholders (who are people with legal rights), but I can't see any reason why shareholders should lose any property rights when their property is tied up in a corporation either.

me812 · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

I would never argue that corporations should have more rights than any of their individual shareholders (who are people with legal rights), but I can't see any reason why shareholders should lose any property rights when their property is tied up in a corporation either.

Ever hear of limited liability? Basically, what people like TOF want is for the government to give them immunity against lawsuits while at the same time keeping all their rights. They want to socialize liability while keeping assets private. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. If you want to maintain your rights, then you can be a big boy and assume all the risks and responsibilities that go along with those rights. This means not incorporating and maintaining sole proprietorship.

JesseL · Aug 20, 2009

imported post

me812 wrote:

I would never argue that corporations should have more rights than any of their individual shareholders (who are people with legal rights), but I can't see any reason why shareholders should lose any property rights when their property is tied up in a corporation either.

Ever hear of limited liability? Basically, what people like TOF want is for the government to give them immunity against lawsuits while at the same time keeping all their rights. They want to socialize liability while keeping assets private. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. If you want to maintain your rights, then you can be a big boy and assume all the risks and responsibilities that go along with those rights.

Did I say anything to imply that I would disagree with you on that?

No Guns Allowed signs showing up

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member