What the hell are you talking about? That doesn't make sense the public applies to Goverment owned property people need to stop associating the goverment and the Constitution with private property owners. THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES TO THE GOVERMENT NOT BEING ABLE TO INFRINGE YOUR RIGHTS, NOT THE PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENT.Stop chest beating and just don't give the non RKBA buisness owners your patronage.
Question about "No Guns Allowed"
- Thread starter deadin
- Start date
- Status
Autolycus
Member
Actually they end at the property line. You should not enter the property armed. if the property owner asks you to disarm, via a sign or in person, as it is against their wishes and taking the low road. Just as you cannot freely exercise your religion inside of a public place, so should it be with the 2nd Amendment. Using the logic of some here, I should be able to have a Voodoo ritual in Walmart simply because the First Amendment gives me the right to exerise my religion. Or to start screaming and shouting simply because I have free speech. Right?
By "public use" you mean what exactly? Open to the public is what I am guessing you mean but further explanation maybe required. As I said earlier, you cannot have a protest inside a Walmart store simply because it is open to the public. Just because the law allows you to violate someone elses rights, does not make it right.
Just because the owner invites people onto their property to conduct lawful business does not mean that conditions cannot be set. Can a restaurant ask you to leave because you do not have proper attire? Isn't the right to wear what you will considered freedom of expression (speech if you will) and protected by the first amendment? The owner is setting the conditions that people are allowed and invited onto their property by posting signs. Simply put you are not invited if you are carrying a firearm or weapon.
Your example about requiring sexual favors is not valid. You cannot force people to have sex with you as it is prohibited by law. It is a childish argument to use an example meant to spark emotion, but the simple truth is that the owner cannot force consent to sex as a precondition. Even if they could, would it not be your fault for entering the place as you know the conditions of entry?
So I have to ask if your gun becomes exposed and causes other customers discomfort or to leave, are you going to reimburse the owner for the lost business and the damage to their reputation it may bring if people dislike the idea of other customers carrying guns and refuse to shop there? Should you be responsible for that?
The idea of some mad gunmen shooting up the place is possible, but the owner did take precautions that are considered unreasonable by you i.e. banning of firearms. So how can they be responsible for people shooting up the place? If I get shot in your state on government property, are all the taxpayers responsible for it? If I get shot on your property by some crazy gunman, can I sue you? Do you think I will win that lawsuit? Sorry but you cannot hold others responsible for the actions of another not directly under their control.
If you enter a private property that the owner tells you "no guns", or posts a sign, whether homemade, or bought, you are trespassing. You can be arrested if you enter the property armed and have been informed.
I respect the wishes of any property owner as I am a property owner. If you insist on carrying, go elsewhere to carry if your gun is not wanted there.
I respect the wishes of any property owner as I am a property owner. If you insist on carrying, go elsewhere to carry if your gun is not wanted there.
scoutsabout
Member
Let's see...
By law, I must leave if a property owner asks me to.
Beyond that...
I choose my right to survival over anyone else's attempts to infringe on my right to survival. These "no guns" signs, whether legally enforceable or not, are an attempt to infringe on our basic right to self defense, which is generally uncontested and well beyond the favored tools available to us through the 2nd Amendment.
You can't generally kill someone for trying to steal or damage items of your personal property, so it seems to follow that these things are on a completely different level.
The property rights advocates in this thread seem to be missing an important point about the value of human life (at least in America) being consistantly above all other human values. Murder is an offense of the highest degree. Tresspassing is an offense of the lowest degree. There is a reason for that.
Yes, my physical safety outweighs a property owner's misconceptions about "safe zones." Maybe they'll have to learn the hard way, but I won't... and I won't even so much as inconvenience myself for such a gravely misguided and ignorant individual. No, I won't go shop somewhere else. I will not be told to hoof it on down the road because I'm one of the good guys. I won't be condescended to for loving my family, ensuring their safety, making it home to them in one piece, and endeavoring to do my part for the betterment of humanity. I won't so much as spend an extra $1.13 in gas to drive to the next nearest (place with no sign) and tack on that "good faith" tax day-in and day-out, year after year, for the rest of my life. That I cannot abide.
I will not lay down.
I will not sit.
I will not roll over.
I will not heel.
I will not beg.
I have a god-given right to survival... and I will not beg for it! I'm not going to stop every 50 feet to survey my surroundings and make sure I'm not breaking the "rules" by not breaking the law! I will not take the hit to my lawful and peaceful way of life by respecting the whimsical wishes of "some guy." I've got a family to feed and further service to humanity penciled in. I'm all booked up with more important stuff to do than worry about Joe Noguns and his diminutive view of my life.
What they don't know won't hurt them.
We can argue it all day, and we can take the argument to property owners, but it doesn't change the fact that our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness shall not be infringed. Of these rights, life is obviously paramount, as it is over everything else.
Feel free to make your own choice, but this one seems like no-brainer to me.
By law, I must leave if a property owner asks me to.
Beyond that...
I choose my right to survival over anyone else's attempts to infringe on my right to survival. These "no guns" signs, whether legally enforceable or not, are an attempt to infringe on our basic right to self defense, which is generally uncontested and well beyond the favored tools available to us through the 2nd Amendment.
You can't generally kill someone for trying to steal or damage items of your personal property, so it seems to follow that these things are on a completely different level.
The property rights advocates in this thread seem to be missing an important point about the value of human life (at least in America) being consistantly above all other human values. Murder is an offense of the highest degree. Tresspassing is an offense of the lowest degree. There is a reason for that.
Yes, my physical safety outweighs a property owner's misconceptions about "safe zones." Maybe they'll have to learn the hard way, but I won't... and I won't even so much as inconvenience myself for such a gravely misguided and ignorant individual. No, I won't go shop somewhere else. I will not be told to hoof it on down the road because I'm one of the good guys. I won't be condescended to for loving my family, ensuring their safety, making it home to them in one piece, and endeavoring to do my part for the betterment of humanity. I won't so much as spend an extra $1.13 in gas to drive to the next nearest (place with no sign) and tack on that "good faith" tax day-in and day-out, year after year, for the rest of my life. That I cannot abide.
I will not lay down.
I will not sit.
I will not roll over.
I will not heel.
I will not beg.
I have a god-given right to survival... and I will not beg for it! I'm not going to stop every 50 feet to survey my surroundings and make sure I'm not breaking the "rules" by not breaking the law! I will not take the hit to my lawful and peaceful way of life by respecting the whimsical wishes of "some guy." I've got a family to feed and further service to humanity penciled in. I'm all booked up with more important stuff to do than worry about Joe Noguns and his diminutive view of my life.
What they don't know won't hurt them.
We can argue it all day, and we can take the argument to property owners, but it doesn't change the fact that our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness shall not be infringed. Of these rights, life is obviously paramount, as it is over everything else.
Feel free to make your own choice, but this one seems like no-brainer to me.
Last edited:
Scoutsabout, Instead of making a big deal about it and beating your chest about your right to self defense and your eagerness to brake a "petty" trespassing law, why dont you just not entert premises with such a sign? If your well being is so important why do you insist on "trespassing" in places that the owner prohibits the carrying of a firearm for your protection? Why give that non RKBA property owner your money if you disagree so strongly with these signs and the property owner's wishes? To be honest your eagerness to violate the law and the wishes of the property owner is not very High Road.
oneounceload
member
Excellently stated -= to all who think THEIR rights supersede the rights of others - it is smiple - do not go where you cannot fulfill your fantasy of armed protection. You willingly do not carry into the Post Office, Courthouse school, etc. - all places where mayhem occurs on a regular basis.
Get over it - and take your business to places that support your point of view.
And you, as an astute business owner know this exactly how? Insurances, zoning, any number of reasons might be behind their posting of their wishes for a no-gun zone. If you decide to pull your weapon and styart shooting and hit someone not committing a crime in their store, they get sued.....
divemedic
Member
WRONG.
Sure can, but a sign demanding that I meet a dress code will not get me arrested if I disobey- unless I am asked to leave and refuse to do so. For example, a sign demanding that I wear boxers with little hearts on them does not give the owner of property the right to examine my undergarments, nor will it get me arrested if it turns out that I do not have those underwear on.
Ah, but under your theory, I am not forcing them to have sex, they agreed to it by entering my property. They saw the sign, and by refusing to obey my wishes, they are now trespassing and need to go to jail. Or do the owner's wishes only apply when you are prohibiting guns?
Again, I do not care about what anyone thinks, as long as signs do not carry the force of law, I will continue to carry. Period. Anyone who doesn't like it, so what. Your opinion counts for nada to me when it comes to my personal safety.
A sign saying that you cannot do a, b, or c does not (unless "no guns" signs are specifically authorized under your state law) meet the requirements of trespassing notification. Remember that a store with a sign that is open to the public still wants your business- just without the firearm. Therefore, under the law you are still an invitee. Until there is a law or a court decision to the contrary, there it is.
Last edited:
oneounceload
member
That arrogant attitude might get you shot or killed one day by a nervous store-owner who thinks you might be about to rob him.
Your attitude would NOT be welcome in my store.
Perhaps you should take your fight to the government - after all, "going postal" didn't happen in a retail store, airports and airplanes are full of armed terrorists, and courthouses are full of very dangerous criminals - all places where you should be allowed to carry.
If you can't respect the rights of others to do as they see fit for their business on their property, then do everyone a favor and don't go there - your attitude is definitely not very "High Road"
deadin
Member
Well. I see that we have drifted off topic again. We did manage to get a couple of answers before wandering off again.
You know, those of you that advocate ignoring the wishes of the business owner are just adding to the customer count. How about we give the signs the force of law? Would that keep you out of a business that doesn't want guns?
Then, maybe, their customer count would drop enough to make them take down the signs. Then again, maybe not.
And don't argue that the 2nd would prohibit this. Just check Post Offices, government buildings (Federal,State and local), schools, etc.
You know, those of you that advocate ignoring the wishes of the business owner are just adding to the customer count. How about we give the signs the force of law? Would that keep you out of a business that doesn't want guns?
Then, maybe, their customer count would drop enough to make them take down the signs. Then again, maybe not.
And don't argue that the 2nd would prohibit this. Just check Post Offices, government buildings (Federal,State and local), schools, etc.
If you see sign on a buisness prohibiting firearms you have 3 options. PERIOD
1. Disarm and risk your well being.
2. Take your buisness elsewhere.
3. Disobey their request and continue onto the premises.
Option 2 is your best bet since their is no risk of an attack on yourself in a gun free zone and option 3 is morally wrong if not illegal in some jurisdictions.
I thought this was "The High Road" not the "I don't care I do what I want" Low very Low Road.
Gun owners with the do what I want attitude do nothing but harm eveyone's right to keep and bear arms and makes all responsible gun owners appear as law breaking trespassing thugs. iIf we disobey the signs that makes one thing we have in common with that gun toting robber he doesn't care about gun free zones either.
1. Disarm and risk your well being.
2. Take your buisness elsewhere.
3. Disobey their request and continue onto the premises.
Option 2 is your best bet since their is no risk of an attack on yourself in a gun free zone and option 3 is morally wrong if not illegal in some jurisdictions.
I thought this was "The High Road" not the "I don't care I do what I want" Low very Low Road.
Gun owners with the do what I want attitude do nothing but harm eveyone's right to keep and bear arms and makes all responsible gun owners appear as law breaking trespassing thugs. iIf we disobey the signs that makes one thing we have in common with that gun toting robber he doesn't care about gun free zones either.
Last edited:
divemedic
Member
By YOUR morals, not mine. Maybe illegal in YOUR state, not mine.
You can think what I do is low road all you want.
Concealed means concealed. How do you know that someone isn't in your store with a weapon right now? Oooh- you better start frisking your customers now. Anyone who refuses should be shot.
1 no one will know I carry unless I am being attacked, and then it won't matter.
2 Disobeying a sign is NOT trespassing, no matter what you want to believe.
3 I am not breaking the law.
Wow, three inaccuracies in one sentence. Keep it up, and you will get a job offer from the Brady Campaign
Hyperbole. Equating me with a robber because I say that your sign does not have the force of law, and so i LEGALLY ignore it is pretty low road in my opinion. I comply with the LAW, not some sign put up by some dictatorial corporation.
oneounceload
member
Your attitude towards disrespecting the rights of others makes you no better than those whom you seek to protect yourself from. How truly sad, you sound very negative and paranoid about the world around you........
Does your employer prohibit guns in the workplace? If they do, do you still violate their policy anyway because "concealed means concealed" and it's none of their business?
Are the businesses you enter and violate their policy so important to you that you can't go to a competitor that shares your view?
Why aren't you protesting the fact that you CAN'T carry in PUBLIC buildings that YOUR tax dollars paid for and support?
Does your employer prohibit guns in the workplace? If they do, do you still violate their policy anyway because "concealed means concealed" and it's none of their business?
Are the businesses you enter and violate their policy so important to you that you can't go to a competitor that shares your view?
Why aren't you protesting the fact that you CAN'T carry in PUBLIC buildings that YOUR tax dollars paid for and support?
divemedic
Member
I gave up on that a long time ago. My local gun store is posted "No guns allowed in store." The local hospitals are ALL posted "No weapons allowed." Every theme park in central Florida has a "no weapons" policy. Other businesses as well.
With the theme parks being anti-RKBA, refusing to patronize any company that is anti-RKBA precludes the Disney complex, Sea World, Bush Gardens, Universal Studios, and virtually all of their amenities, including the bars, clubs, resorts, concerts in their venues, sporting events, and most of everything else that goes in in central Florida. It also means that I can't watch most television, movies, listen to the radio (most media companies are anti) Since my local cable company is Time Warner, that means no cable, no internet, and .... here is the list. How many of these guys do you do business with on a daily basis?
See?
Instead of living my life being worried about who is anti-RKBA, I just don't worry about it. If was worried about it, I would never go anywhere. Sitting in my house stroking a gun in the dark is now how I want to live my life. Instead, I protect myself and my family as best I can, and go out and enjoy the day.
What is negative and paranoid about going about my business without worrying about what someone else is hiding in his pants?
My employer is the government. I do not carry at work because my work takes me to places where carry is illegal. I do not break the law. However, my gun is left in the employee parking lot locked in my vehicle. This is a direct violation of my employer's rules concerning weapons on property. I have told them I do so, and my boss is aware of it. However, I have also informed them that their policy is in violation of State law, which says I can have a weapon secured in my vehicle, regardless of policies to the contrary.
Read my comments above.
Who says I don't? I give money and support to groups that are fighting to change that. I think the courts are the best place to do that, since 70 years of lobbying hasn't done so.
With the theme parks being anti-RKBA, refusing to patronize any company that is anti-RKBA precludes the Disney complex, Sea World, Bush Gardens, Universal Studios, and virtually all of their amenities, including the bars, clubs, resorts, concerts in their venues, sporting events, and most of everything else that goes in in central Florida. It also means that I can't watch most television, movies, listen to the radio (most media companies are anti) Since my local cable company is Time Warner, that means no cable, no internet, and .... here is the list. How many of these guys do you do business with on a daily basis?
See?
Instead of living my life being worried about who is anti-RKBA, I just don't worry about it. If was worried about it, I would never go anywhere. Sitting in my house stroking a gun in the dark is now how I want to live my life. Instead, I protect myself and my family as best I can, and go out and enjoy the day.
Why? What rights have I hurt? What damage have I done to a single business owner? Do you go to the manager of every business you enter, tell him you have a weapon, and ask him if he is OK with that? Or are you hiding it as well? Do you assume if there is no sign, that he is OK with your carrying a weapon? Furthermore, corporations cannot be endowed by their creator with human rights anymore than I can endow my car with rights.
What is negative and paranoid about going about my business without worrying about what someone else is hiding in his pants?
My employer is the government. I do not carry at work because my work takes me to places where carry is illegal. I do not break the law. However, my gun is left in the employee parking lot locked in my vehicle. This is a direct violation of my employer's rules concerning weapons on property. I have told them I do so, and my boss is aware of it. However, I have also informed them that their policy is in violation of State law, which says I can have a weapon secured in my vehicle, regardless of policies to the contrary.
Read my comments above.
Who says I don't? I give money and support to groups that are fighting to change that. I think the courts are the best place to do that, since 70 years of lobbying hasn't done so.
Last edited:
oneounceload
member
I also live in Central Fl and I have NO desire to EVER go to anything connected with Disney. And bars? Well, if that's your thing, then that would be one lof the FIRST places you might need one, especially on a Friday or Saturday night - but then, not allowed.
There ARE businesses you can easily support - mostly small mom and pop stores. You can also mind their request by leaving the gun in the car.
YOUR choice, but I will take the side of the property owner every time. No different if you posted a "No Solicitations" sign at your house and someone came to your door anyway - YOU, as a homeowner, would be ticked off - no different than the business owner
There ARE businesses you can easily support - mostly small mom and pop stores. You can also mind their request by leaving the gun in the car.
YOUR choice, but I will take the side of the property owner every time. No different if you posted a "No Solicitations" sign at your house and someone came to your door anyway - YOU, as a homeowner, would be ticked off - no different than the business owner
divemedic
Member
Ah, but I cannot have the solicitor arrested for it, now can I? Does this mean that the solicitor is no better than a rapist or robber, as was suggested by previous posters?
A home is different than a business. No one forced you to open a business. Once you open your doors to the public, then you cede certain rights. Other good examples of this are:
Labor Laws
Fire codes
Handicapped access
the fact that you cannot refuse service to a racial/ethnic group
and many others. The two are not the same.
I do not lose my rights simply because I am standing on your property. If you can tell me how my carrying a weapon past a sign injures you more than removing your ability to boss others around, then by all means, lets hear it. A gun that you cannot see and is never used doesn't infringe on a property owner's rights one bit.
So you have never gone to Publix, Winn Dixie, the ESPN club, watched ABC, played golf on Disney property? If so, you are dealing with an antiRKBA company, and if not, you are missing out on so much of what Central Florida has to offer. In fact, I will bet that on a normal day, the majority of us so business with an anti-RKBA entity at least once.
Wouldn't a "no guns" sign mean that they want no guns on their property, and wouldn't you have to leave the gun at home, or park a few blocks away, off their property? Or do you do what I do and ignore their wishes?
oneounceload
member
If your land is posted, yes you can
Publix, in my area is not posted - no problem.. Winn Dixie the same. Doing business with them is one thing - IF they object to you carrying a loaded weapon on their property then you need to go elsewhere
And no one is forcing you to go to those locations
You want it all to go your way without any consideration for other folks who may not share your view on their property.
Sorry, life isn't fair and you're not God - it's really simple - don't go to a place posted with your weapon
Yep - that's what it means - you have the choice to park where you want and to go to stores that think like you do - and to NOT go to those you disagree with
I suspect that many business owners in my area silently welcome CCers, but those that have signage use it to satisfy their conservative lawyers (to presumably limit liability), as well as to assure those customers concerned about guns, that none are about. Given that, I see no problem with carrying in such establishments until I'm personally asked not to. If I refuse to leave when asked, then I'm trespassing according to Georgia law. Very few businesses here post "no guns" signs.
divemedic
Member
This is where we disagree, and it is obvious we will not bend- if it is legal to do so, I will continue to do so. Period. You obviously will not. Fair enough.
See, we are not so different- refusing to obey the owner's wishes is the same. In my case, I refuse to obey as long as it is legal, and you just play like you don't know the owner's wishes.
and just so you know- as an employee (and when the wording of the statute is fixed, as a customer) in Florida, it is illegal to prohibit a CCW holder from having a weapon in his car.
scoutsabout
Member
This is a very drawn-out discussion, for being so polar. You'd think we'd have resolved it by now.
You go your way, I'll go mine. Neither of us are breaking any laws, so there is no substantiable argument. Comparing us die-hard sheepdogs to criminals is totally ludicrous. We are not breaking any laws. Furthermore, we are the guardian angels of our families and, occasionally, innocent members of the public at large. Vigilance in the protection of ourselves and our families does not make us "vigilanties," either. How dare you compare our non-tresspassing, non-threatening, innocuous, lawful, responsible behavior with the behaviors or motivations of criminality, blatant disregard, snobbery or foolishness. HOW DARE YOU!!!
Philosophically speaking:
You "property rights" guys can go right ahead and put those socialist values above the safety of yourselves and your families. Do it, see if I care.
I will continue to go about my perfectly lawful business, continuing to be one of the good guys, protecting myself and my family, because I believe that there is no higher law than that. There is no higher right.
We all agree that it would be nice to mutually respect each other's rights on all levels, all the time, without sacrifice... but that is not possible in this case. I cannot possibly rationalize the effort and expense I would have to sacrifice to the "property rights gods" in order to keep property owners happy. Besides, the owners will never know the difference. They won't know that I carry, and what they don't know won't hurt them. In fact, what they don't know may inadvertantly save them from the guns they ACTUALLY don't want in there.
Pointed question: if I am to obey "no guns" signs, why are the cops still invited??
Answer: property owners who post "no guns" signage simply have unrealistic expectations.
Asking us to leave our guns behind when we are not bound by law, or trying to convince us that this makes sense, are equally unrealistic expectations.
Some of us are true patriots. We prioritize our families and liberties above all else. That is the spirit of America. There was a time when only property owners had any rights. Well, we have since freed ourselves from English aristocracy and subjugation. This is a land where we have rights, no matter where we are.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are god-given, individually, in that order, without regard to who's property you happen to be standing on. Those "no guns" signs are a "pursuit of happiness" by property owners that is blatently and drastically out-weighed by rights of life and liberty.
Finally, "Property rights" is a legal term. If the sign doesn't carry the weight of law, it is not a property right. It's a wish. The "property rights" logic we've seen here would seem to suggest that, in the end, we should respect the desire of anyone, at any time, anywhere, who wishes that we wouldn't carry a gun around them. I prefer an America where we can lawfully defend ourselves outside of our own bedroom, thank you very much.
Simple gun logic: if criminals have the ability to carry any weapon, or even themselves, into a place... then so should we be able to carry our own defensive weapons.
Go ahead and lay down for the criminals, see if I care. You can rest assured, if you've been murderously accosted by a deranged criminal that, in your fleeting moments of life, you've respected the pointless wishes of some property owner that doesn't respect you and never knew whether you had a gun or not.
I wish criminals wouldn't carry guns, but I don't expect them not to just because I wish it. I don't expect them to heed the wishes, signs, laws, or opinions of anyone else, either. That would be an unrealistic expectation.
Basically, the "property rights" guys in this thread appear to have more respect for criminality than lawful, responsible, sheepdog behavior.
I think we should go ahead and lock this thread, and those of you who don't respect a sheepdog can try not to let it bite you on the way out.
You go your way, I'll go mine. Neither of us are breaking any laws, so there is no substantiable argument. Comparing us die-hard sheepdogs to criminals is totally ludicrous. We are not breaking any laws. Furthermore, we are the guardian angels of our families and, occasionally, innocent members of the public at large. Vigilance in the protection of ourselves and our families does not make us "vigilanties," either. How dare you compare our non-tresspassing, non-threatening, innocuous, lawful, responsible behavior with the behaviors or motivations of criminality, blatant disregard, snobbery or foolishness. HOW DARE YOU!!!
Philosophically speaking:
You "property rights" guys can go right ahead and put those socialist values above the safety of yourselves and your families. Do it, see if I care.
I will continue to go about my perfectly lawful business, continuing to be one of the good guys, protecting myself and my family, because I believe that there is no higher law than that. There is no higher right.
We all agree that it would be nice to mutually respect each other's rights on all levels, all the time, without sacrifice... but that is not possible in this case. I cannot possibly rationalize the effort and expense I would have to sacrifice to the "property rights gods" in order to keep property owners happy. Besides, the owners will never know the difference. They won't know that I carry, and what they don't know won't hurt them. In fact, what they don't know may inadvertantly save them from the guns they ACTUALLY don't want in there.
Pointed question: if I am to obey "no guns" signs, why are the cops still invited??
Answer: property owners who post "no guns" signage simply have unrealistic expectations.
Asking us to leave our guns behind when we are not bound by law, or trying to convince us that this makes sense, are equally unrealistic expectations.
Some of us are true patriots. We prioritize our families and liberties above all else. That is the spirit of America. There was a time when only property owners had any rights. Well, we have since freed ourselves from English aristocracy and subjugation. This is a land where we have rights, no matter where we are.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are god-given, individually, in that order, without regard to who's property you happen to be standing on. Those "no guns" signs are a "pursuit of happiness" by property owners that is blatently and drastically out-weighed by rights of life and liberty.
Finally, "Property rights" is a legal term. If the sign doesn't carry the weight of law, it is not a property right. It's a wish. The "property rights" logic we've seen here would seem to suggest that, in the end, we should respect the desire of anyone, at any time, anywhere, who wishes that we wouldn't carry a gun around them. I prefer an America where we can lawfully defend ourselves outside of our own bedroom, thank you very much.
Simple gun logic: if criminals have the ability to carry any weapon, or even themselves, into a place... then so should we be able to carry our own defensive weapons.
Go ahead and lay down for the criminals, see if I care. You can rest assured, if you've been murderously accosted by a deranged criminal that, in your fleeting moments of life, you've respected the pointless wishes of some property owner that doesn't respect you and never knew whether you had a gun or not.
I wish criminals wouldn't carry guns, but I don't expect them not to just because I wish it. I don't expect them to heed the wishes, signs, laws, or opinions of anyone else, either. That would be an unrealistic expectation.
Basically, the "property rights" guys in this thread appear to have more respect for criminality than lawful, responsible, sheepdog behavior.
I think we should go ahead and lock this thread, and those of you who don't respect a sheepdog can try not to let it bite you on the way out.
Last edited:
deadin
Member
Lock the thread?? Isn't that a usual defense from someone that feels they are losing an argument? (The same effect can be achieved by putting fingers in ears and going "nya nya nya nya"
)Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
deadin, I lock threads most of the time for their having wandered way away from the opening post's question.
Like folks in this thread have done.
Like folks in this thread have done.
- Status