One always has to ruin it for others

[Jarlaxle]

A sign doesn't trump my 2nd Amendment rights. And as we all know, gun free zones don't really stop gun violence. So yes, I would defy that sign. Unless it's posted I won't comply. I will keep my weapon concealed regardless of what Chipotle, or Luddly Neddite says.

And to answer your question? I don't own a firearm, but my father does. And we both agree that a "no guns allowed" sign doesn't trump his concealed carry permit. And it would be interesting to see you force any gun owner to do anything, without them putting a bullet in your head.

In some states, defying that sign is cause for instant revocation of a CC permit. In some states, it is a felony! (In every state, refusing to leave when told to is trespassing.)

 

[Jarlaxle]

So, what exactly are you going to do if a business doesn't want to allow you in because you're carrying a gun? Stage a protest? "Stand your ground"? Get into a gun battle with law enforcement? What does "fuck them" mean?

No, keep my concealed weapon concealed. End of problem.

What rankles me is how they knuckled under to the gun grabber group, and of course they cannot guarantee someone will come in there with a firearm and cause harm. So basically they just disarm the good people, and the "bad" people can ignore the request.

Exactly.

Criminals are sneaky. They're not gonna wear their gun wear law abiding citizens can see them. They'll sneak them past 'not allowed' signs and then laugh about it.

Only crooks would sneak a gun in.

If you're not a criminal, you'll have the balls to carry in the open.

Are you playing stupid, boy, or are you ACTUALLY stupid?

 

[RKMBrown]

I refuse to believe that ANYONE on here would be comfortable taking their children to a restaurant like Chipotle if there were RANDOM STRANGERS in the establishment with long guns hanging off their shoulders. To do so would defy the natural desire to protect your children. Long guns belong 8n a restaurant as much as they did in the movie theater in Colorado. There is literally NO PURPOSE or reason to take a weapon like that into a fast food restaurant. It's not like this is a normally visited establishment that farmers, hunters or men from the gun range freaquent.

Also if we as conservatives are going to defend the right of the BUSINESS owner to set his own rules for conducting his business as he sees fit then this is no different.

Do you run every time you see a rifle? ROFL

 

[Pogo]

Recently posters have said they would not leave a restaurant if an armed person walked in.

We all have the right to be safe and keep our kids safe. Force these cowards to wear their guns where we can see them.

Why would I leave? Unlike you, I am NOT terrified of an inanimate object.

I don't think inanimate objects are anybody's concern. It's the animate object carrying it that raises hairs on the back of the neck.

To paraphrase many a politician, 'I don't question his firearm; I question his judgment'.

 

[Pogo]

A sign doesn't trump my 2nd Amendment rights. And as we all know, gun free zones don't really stop gun violence. So yes, I would defy that sign. Unless it's posted I won't comply. I will keep my weapon concealed regardless of what Chipotle, or Luddly Neddite says.

And to answer your question? I don't own a firearm, but my father does. And we both agree that a "no guns allowed" sign doesn't trump his concealed carry permit. And it would be interesting to see you force any gun owner to do anything, without them putting a bullet in your head.

In some states, defying that sign is cause for instant revocation of a CC permit. In some states, it is a felony! (In every state, refusing to leave when told to is trespassing.)

And I'm pretty sure that putting a bullet in somebody's head is illegal in at least 54 of the 57 states.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A sign doesn't trump my 2nd Amendment rights. And as we all know, gun free zones don't really stop gun violence. So yes, I would defy that sign. Unless it's posted I won't comply. I will keep my weapon concealed regardless of what Chipotle, or Luddly Neddite says.

And to answer your question? I don't own a firearm, but my father does. And we both agree that a "no guns allowed" sign doesn't trump his concealed carry permit. And it would be interesting to see you force any gun owner to do anything, without them putting a bullet in your head.

In some states, defying that sign is cause for instant revocation of a CC permit. In some states, it is a felony! (In every state, refusing to leave when told to is trespassing.)

I know, just call me quirky. I will invoke mea culpa on that one and move on.

 

[Jarlaxle]

One in the chamber, cocked, no safety, and/or loose in the bag with some way to pull the trigger? WTF? What did he do tie a string to the trigger to hold the gun down in his bag?

Well yeah I suppose one can be stupid enough to accidentally fire a weapon.

Uh, how many "accidental" gun deaths every day?

I call bullshit on it.
I have sold guns for 10 years. With very few exceptions they do not go off if dropped. Maybe he was carrying an antique design or a really cheap gun. But the source of the story as a sneering anti gun blog tells me it's probably bullcrap.
There are no accidental gun deaths. There are negligent gun deaths.

Weren't there some cheap 9mm pistols (bad Beretta 92 knockoffs, IIRC) maybe 15-20 years ago that tended to go off if dropped on the muzzle?

 

[Jarlaxle]

No idea. You wanna play Russian Roulette?

How many times have you needed your spare tire out of all the times you've driven? Do you not carry one in the car?

That one again? The odds of getting a flat are much higher than the odds of meeting up with an armed threat. Everyone here has had a flat tire.

You suck at this. At least think of a new dopey analogy.

Besides which --- when's the last time anyone was flattened in a hail of spare tires?

Dude I work with was damn near killed by one last year.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

You could sit next to my wife in a restaurant & never know she is armed!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Sure, as if I would let a restaurant tell me where I can take my firearm.

So you would defy a sign saying "no firearms allowed".

Good to know but it doesn't make me safe from idiots like you.

(Who buys your guns and ammo for you?)

=====

Recently posters have said they would not leave a restaurant if an armed person walked in.

We all have the right to be safe and keep our kids safe. Force these cowards to wear their guns where we can see them.

go to the Hickory Ridge Mall in Memphis, TN........don't take a firearm, let me know how safe you feel with all of your fellow democrats there

Never been there...but if it's anything like the neighborhood around LP Field...yeah, I'll pass!

 

[Noomi]

Sure, as if I would let a restaurant tell me where I can take my firearm.

If they tell you to leave your gun at home, you leave it at home, or eat somewhere else.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I refuse to believe that ANYONE on here would be comfortable taking their children to a restaurant like Chipotle if there were RANDOM STRANGERS in the establishment with long guns hanging off their shoulders. To do so would defy the natural desire to protect your children. Long guns belong 8n a restaurant as much as they did in the movie theater in Colorado. There is literally NO PURPOSE or reason to take a weapon like that into a fast food restaurant. It's not like this is a normally visited establishment that farmers, hunters or men from the gun range freaquent.

Also if we as conservatives are going to defend the right of the BUSINESS owner to set his own rules for conducting his business as he sees fit then this is no different.

Do you run every time you see a rifle? ROFL

What kind of stupid fucking back neck woods question is that? I live in the city and we don't have guns carried in family restaurants. If I saw one like those in your picture on the back of someone in a restaurant I walked into your god damn right I would have enough common fucking sense to turn the fuck around.

I'm all for gun rights but im not fucking STUPID. You're right, it's an inanimate object but the COMPLETE STRANGER carrying it ISNT.

 

[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.

You could sit next to my wife in a restaurant & never know she is armed!

And obviously that wouldn't bother me. But she isn't hiding a fucking ar15 in an ankle holster. You may trust strangers but I dont

 

[HenryBHough]

And obviously that wouldn't bother me. But she isn't hiding a fucking ar15 in an ankle holster. You may trust strangers but I dont

Consider that if it were Hillary sitting next to you she might well be concealing an AR15 in her ankle holster. So, if you find yourself in that situation you might want to grope her ankle to satisfy yourself it's OK to sit down.

 

[idb]

These sorts of conversations are really confusing.
On one hand, apparently only 0.00013% of guns shoot people - in fact they're safer than loaves of bread, but it's important to be armed to protect yourself against that miniscule number of dangerous guns while remaining completely vulnerable to death by baked goods.

Wouldn't it be wiser to leave the gun at home and carry a toaster in your ankle holster?

(Note: the statistics in this post are not researched - the yeastie example could just as easily been a swimming pool or a ladder).

 

[rdean]

Ever notice how right wingers are OUTRAGED when told to leave their guns outside, and then are equally OUTRAGED when they have to serve gays and blacks at their establishments?

They want everything their way. Talk about "selfish".

It just occurred to me. Do USMB Republicans even know the first "right to keep a loaded gun at home" law wasn't passed until 2008?

Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday embraced the long-disputed view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun for personal use, ruling 5 to 4 that there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.

The landmark ruling overturned the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, the strictest gun-control law in the country, and appeared certain to usher in a fresh round of litigation over gun rights throughout the country. The court rejected the view that the Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms” applied to gun ownership only in connection with service in the “well regulated militia” to which the amendment refers.

---------------------------------------------

Dodge City in 1878, in the so called Wild West. They were smarter then, obviously.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ever notice how right wingers are OUTRAGED when told to leave their guns outside, and then are equally OUTRAGED when they have to serve gays and blacks at their establishments?

They want everything their way. Talk about "selfish".

It just occurred to me. Do USMB Republicans even know the first "right to keep a loaded gun at home" law wasn't passed until 2008?

Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday embraced the long-disputed view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun for personal use, ruling 5 to 4 that there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.

The landmark ruling overturned the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, the strictest gun-control law in the country, and appeared certain to usher in a fresh round of litigation over gun rights throughout the country. The court rejected the view that the Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms” applied to gun ownership only in connection with service in the “well regulated militia” to which the amendment refers.

---------------------------------------------

Dodge City in 1878, in the so called Wild West. They were smarter then, obviously.

[ame=http://youtu.be/jkm1i2o6Ri8]I'm your Huckleberry - YouTube[/ame]

You play the part of Johnny Ringo dontca ya coward

 

[AntiParty]

These sorts of conversations are really confusing.
On one hand, apparently only 0.00013% of guns shoot people - in fact they're safer than loaves of bread, but it's important to be armed to protect yourself against that miniscule number of dangerous guns while remaining completely vulnerable to death by baked goods.

Wouldn't it be wiser to leave the gun at home and carry a toaster in your ankle holster?

(Note: the statistics in this post are not researched - the yeastie example could just as easily been a swimming pool or a ladder).

Nothing confusing here. Stating they are safer than "loaves of bread" is a good sign that you shouldn't own a firearm because your awareness of their danger is clearly wrong. Swimming pools and/or ladders are also bad examples because they don't directly cause death.... Guns are made to kill. If you can't comprehend that, again, you probably shouldn't own a gun in my opinion. Ladders, toasters, bread, bats, lighters etc etc are not designed specifically to kill and serve a primary purpose that is not killing.........

I am a gun owner but I'm sick of people trying to paint them as "less deadly than bread". It's complete ignorance of gun ownership and only makes others believe that not everyone should have one.

Man up, understand it's dangers and stop repeating everything you read...You make gun owners look bad.

 

[AntiParty]

Ever notice how right wingers are OUTRAGED when told to leave their guns outside, and then are equally OUTRAGED when they have to serve gays and blacks at their establishments?

They want everything their way. Talk about "selfish".

It just occurred to me. Do USMB Republicans even know the first "right to keep a loaded gun at home" law wasn't passed until 2008?

Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday embraced the long-disputed view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun for personal use, ruling 5 to 4 that there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.

The landmark ruling overturned the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, the strictest gun-control law in the country, and appeared certain to usher in a fresh round of litigation over gun rights throughout the country. The court rejected the view that the Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms” applied to gun ownership only in connection with service in the “well regulated militia” to which the amendment refers.

---------------------------------------------

Dodge City in 1878, in the so called Wild West. They were smarter then, obviously.

[ame=http://youtu.be/jkm1i2o6Ri8]I'm your Huckleberry - YouTube[/ame]

You play the part of Johnny Ringo dontca ya coward

Actually, the exact opposite LOL.... You don't know history or movies :/

 

[Pogo]

These sorts of conversations are really confusing.
On one hand, apparently only 0.00013% of guns shoot people - in fact they're safer than loaves of bread, but it's important to be armed to protect yourself against that miniscule number of dangerous guns while remaining completely vulnerable to death by baked goods.

Wouldn't it be wiser to leave the gun at home and carry a toaster in your ankle holster?

(Note: the statistics in this post are not researched - the yeastie example could just as easily been a swimming pool or a ladder).

Nothing confusing here. Stating they are safer than "loaves of bread" is a good sign that you shouldn't own a firearm because your awareness of their danger is clearly wrong. Swimming pools and/or ladders are also bad examples because they don't directly cause death.... Guns are made to kill. If you can't comprehend that, again, you probably shouldn't own a gun in my opinion. Ladders, toasters, bread, bats, lighters etc etc are not designed specifically to kill and serve a primary purpose that is not killing.........

I am a gun owner but I'm sick of people trying to paint them as "less deadly than bread". It's complete ignorance of gun ownership and only makes others believe that not everyone should have one.

Man up, understand it's dangers and stop repeating everything you read...You make gun owners look bad.

I believe his post is satire.