One always has to ruin it for others

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, not in this case. This is no shirt, no shoes, and carrying a weapon, no service. See how that works?

You are the one not respecting his property rights.

you have a constitutional right to carry a firearm, not to walk around barefoot and shirtless.

I'm thinking you may be confused about the first ten constitutional amendments. They are restrictions on government not rights for citizens.

Look up "incorporation" of the Bill of Right and arrive in the 21st century.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I would not eat in a restaurant where people were posessing weapons. I'm all for gun rights but I also respect a business owners decision for HIS/HER business. That includes banning weapons.

 

[koshergrl]

They don't have to serve everybody.

But they don't have the right to search them.

 

[koshergrl]

Or to ask them if they have a concealed weapon.

So where does that put the douchebags?

Targets, who have just estranged about half of the people who might go there.

 

[martybegan]

you have a constitutional right to carry a firearm, not to walk around barefoot and shirtless.

2d Amendment rights are not absolute.

Carrying your semi auto concealed when no one is the wiser doesn't even come close to the whole "not absolute" argument. Nice attempt at changing the topic, but as usual, you fail fakefarkey.

 

[martybegan]

[I guess a "no black people" sign should be allowed as well, right?

You have been rightfully corrected on your silliness before.

Nope, just thinking so doesn't make it true. You people waffle as the wind blows depending on how your "feewings" dictate. Enforce the law if you agree with it, fuck the Constitution when it impedes you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Really, as if you would actually be courteous enough to follow the rules in someone else's house.

I do. But being in someone's house and in a restaurant are two different things.

So, what do I follow, the 2nd Amendment, or a sign? I could walk in with it and go out, nobody would notice it. That right there would demonstrate the inefficacy of gun free zones. As seen with the theater shooting, the Sandy Hook Shooting and the FedEx shooting, gun free zones don't stop some crazed maniac from walking in with a gun and shooting up the place.

You do not have to eat in a restaurant that has this policy.

I shouldn't have to be forced to make another choice because I'm a law abiding gun owner either. I should be able to eat wherever I wish.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I do. But being in someone's house and in a restaurant are two different things.

So, what do I follow, the 2nd Amendment, or a sign? I could walk in with it and go out, nobody would notice it. That right there would demonstrate the inefficacy of gun free zones. As seen with the theater shooting, the Sandy Hook Shooting and the FedEx shooting, gun free zones don't stop some crazed maniac from walking in with a gun and shooting up the place.

You do not have to eat in a restaurant that has this policy.

I shouldn't have to be forced to make another choice because I'm a law abiding gun owner either. I should be able to eat wherever I wish.

Tell that to your next door neighbor when you barge in with your gun demanding food.

 

[martybegan]

You do not have to eat in a restaurant that has this policy.

I shouldn't have to be forced to make another choice because I'm a law abiding gun owner either. I should be able to eat wherever I wish.

Tell that to your next door neighbor when you barge in with your gun demanding food.

Does one have to barge into a Chipotle to demand food? they kind of sell it AND open their doors to the public to accomplish this.

Nice attempt at a comparison, but fail from you, as usual.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I shouldn't have to be forced to make another choice because I'm a law abiding gun owner either. I should be able to eat wherever I wish.

Tell that to your next door neighbor when you barge in with your gun demanding food.

Does one have to barge into a Chipotle to demand food? they kind of sell it AND open their doors to the public to accomplish this.

Nice attempt at a comparison, but fail from you, as usual.

ah ... so you are invoking the public accommodation provisions of the Civil Rights Act.

(Thanks for walking right in)

 

[JakeStarkey]

2d Amendment rights are not absolute.

Carrying your semi auto concealed when no one is the wiser doesn't even come close to the whole "not absolute" argument. .

Your reply makes no sense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, just thinking so doesn't make it true..

Excellent self introspection, fella, but I bet after all you are only projection.

 

[martybegan]

Tell that to your next door neighbor when you barge in with your gun demanding food.

Does one have to barge into a Chipotle to demand food? they kind of sell it AND open their doors to the public to accomplish this.

Nice attempt at a comparison, but fail from you, as usual.

ah ... so you are invoking the public accommodation provisions of the Civil Rights Act.

(Thanks for walking right in)

We've been dancing over the public accommodation issue for 1/2 of this thread, its not a gotcha when you are late to the party and neglect to read the previous posts.

Nope, I'm using the law as your type has established it. I don't think they are necessary but when they are active, you have to play by the rules.

There is another component that is involved in personal protection that is NOT involved in racial discrimination in stores. if you ban a CCW holder from possessing on your property, don't you assume the mantle of protecting them from any harm? Shouldn't you be required to provide protection to them, as you are preventing them from protecting themselves?

Also, shouldn't police officers be required to disarm as well?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Tell that to your next door neighbor when you barge in with your gun demanding food.

Does one have to barge into a Chipotle to demand food? they kind of sell it AND open their doors to the public to accomplish this.

Nice attempt at a comparison, but fail from you, as usual.

ah ... so you are invoking the public accommodation provisions of the Civil Rights Act.

(Thanks for walking right in)

TK can think when he is not propagandizing.

He understands 2d Amendment rights are not absolute.

 

[martybegan]

2d Amendment rights are not absolute.

Carrying your semi auto concealed when no one is the wiser doesn't even come close to the whole "not absolute" argument. .

Your reply makes no sense.

how about you actually quote me correctly, jackwad?

 

[martybegan]

Does one have to barge into a Chipotle to demand food? they kind of sell it AND open their doors to the public to accomplish this.

Nice attempt at a comparison, but fail from you, as usual.

ah ... so you are invoking the public accommodation provisions of the Civil Rights Act.

(Thanks for walking right in)

TK can think when he is not propagandizing.

He understands 2d Amendment rights are not absolute.

again, referencing the wrong person. Do you even read before you post?

 

[nodoginnafight]

yes, I introduced the anti-public accommodation hypocrisy in the first place. I know when it happened.

And I also know when someone walks right into showing their hypocrisy too.

 

[JakeStarkey]

2d Amendment rights are not absolute.

Carrying your semi auto concealed when no one is the wiser doesn't even come close to the whole "not absolute" argument. .

Your reply makes no sense.

how about you actually quote me correctly, jackwad?

Then reply to the remark "2nd Amendment rights are not absolute."

I will hold your noses to the grinder all day, otherwise.

 

[martybegan]

2d Amendment rights are not absolute. Your reply makes no sense.

how about you actually quote me correctly, jackwad?

Then reply to the remark "2nd Amendment rights are not absolute."

I will hold your noses to the grinder all day, otherwise.

I did. the issue isn't that they are not absolute. The issue is that the government has to have an overreaching compelling reason to restrict any right listed via amendment, and the off chance that I "may" one day go insane and shoot at people is nowhere near compelling enough to restrict me from owning a weapon, and from carrying it in public. It also doesn't allow a state to make the process so onerous that while not being a de jure ban, it becomes a de facto one.

No one is harmed by me walking into a chipotle with my concealed arm.

 

[martybegan]

yes, I introduced the anti-public accommodation hypocrisy in the first place. I know when it happened.

And I also know when someone walks right into showing their hypocrisy too.

You also don't get sarcasm either evidently. YOU are the one showing the hypocrisy, by stating public accommodation covers race, but does not cover the right to keep your concealed arm on your person.

Do you enjoy losing in every thread you go up against me?