One always has to ruin it for others

[kaz]

So let me get caught up on the talking points here

1) Public accommodation provisions of civil rights act = bad
2) Refusing service to gay customers = good
3) Refusing service to gun wielding patrons = bad

Business owners have a tough time knowing who they can and who they cannot refuse service to.

That is the problem some on the right get themselves into. Note it's not everyone on the right though.

 

[kaz]

If you run a public establishment, it's always a good idea to advertise the fact that there's NOT A SINGLE ARMED PERSON on the premises.

You know, like Virginia Tech...and Ft. Hood...and that movie theatre...worked well for those guys.

There were armed people at VT and FH.

Not where the shooter was. What difference does someone being armed on the other side of campus make? Or somewhere else on the base? What is wrong with you, you think this is a lucid argument?

 

[koshergrl]

It's simple, I avoid businesses that have signs that say no firearms, it's called voting with your dollars. If enough people do the same, policies may change. Any yes that strategy can work both ways.

They aren't safe...why would anybody want to hang out with a crowd huddled under a sign that says "We won't defend ourselves but we have money to eat out" in a bad neighborhood?

Not me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Second Amendment applies to the government, not a private entity. You're another "small government" conservative who thinks the Constitution only applies when you agree with it. No different than the so-called liberals.

No, buddy, you are NOT a libertarian.



Which makes you an anarchist, not a libertarian.



You just outed yourself with no help from me.

You're blind.

New York does issue concealed carry permits on a may issue basis, and unless notice is duly posted, I can freely enter and exit the premises with a concealed weapon.

Correct, unless a notice is posted, which you just said in your opening comments you would ignore anyway. That is not libertarianism.

I would still ignore the sign, dude. As Professor points out, the restaurant doesn't really care. There is little the waitstaff can do, and rather than cause a conflict, the gun owner would be allowed to enter, rendering the sign moot anyway. I won't be told what my views are or aren't, OK my friend?

TK, the wait staff's orders are this. (1) if a gun is visible, the customer is asked to leave; (2) if he refuses the police are called; (3) even if there are only loud voices, the customer can be arrested as a threat; and (4) the judge, if state law allows, can revoke the owner's right to bear arms in public.

Stop the testerone and start thinking.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So let me get caught up on the talking points here

1) Public accommodation provisions of civil rights act = bad
2) Refusing service to gay customers = good
3) Refusing service to gun wielding patrons = bad

Business owners have a tough time knowing who they can and who they cannot refuse service to.

That is the problem some on the right get themselves into. Note it's not everyone on the right though.

exceptions noted

 

[JakeStarkey]

So let me get caught up on the talking points here

1) Public accommodation provisions of civil rights act = bad
2) Refusing service to gay customers = good
3) Refusing service to gun wielding patrons = bad

Business owners have a tough time knowing who they can and who they cannot refuse service to.

That is the problem some on the right get themselves into. Note it's not everyone on the right though.

Yes, there are many sensible citizens on the right

 

[hunarcy]

There were armed people at VT and FH.

Oh? Who was armed at Ft. Hood other than the attackers and the police who got there too late?

Who was armed at VT except the shooter and the police who didn't know who he was, so they didn't stop him after his first attack and allowed him to enter Norris Hall and kill more?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If you run a public establishment, it's always a good idea to advertise the fact that there's NOT A SINGLE ARMED PERSON on the premises.

You know, like Virginia Tech...and Ft. Hood...and that movie theatre...worked well for those guys.

There were armed people at VT and FH.

Not where the shooter was. What difference does someone being armed on the other side of campus make? Or somewhere else on the base? What is wrong with you, you think this is a lucid argument?

Actually, I think just the opposite.

We have repeatedly see unarmed civilians disarm shooters.

The problem with the view that says arm teachers or guard is they cannot arrange or guarantee that armed person will be where the shooter is.

And, if its a school, the gun cannot be kept loaded and in an unlocked area. That means the designated armed person would have to tell the shooter to wait while they get their key from one place, ammo from another, loaded the gun and then defended the kids.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I would still ignore the sign, dude. As Professor points out, the restaurant doesn't really care. There is little the waitstaff can do, and rather than cause a conflict, the gun owner would be allowed to enter, rendering the sign moot anyway. I won't be told what my views are or aren't, OK my friend?

Don't go crying when you get arrested

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Which part of the Constitution contains a Right To Safety?

Probably it created an intimidating environment because, being Texas, everyone wanted to handle each otehr's guns and compare notes.

 

[The Rabbi]

I would still ignore the sign, dude. As Professor points out, the restaurant doesn't really care. There is little the waitstaff can do, and rather than cause a conflict, the gun owner would be allowed to enter, rendering the sign moot anyway. I won't be told what my views are or aren't, OK my friend?

Don't go crying when you get arrested

Never seen it happen.
I carry my gun everywhere except where this is a metal detector. It is always concealed. ANd it isn't anyone else's business if I have one on me or not.

 

[kaz]

There were armed people at VT and FH.

Not where the shooter was. What difference does someone being armed on the other side of campus make? Or somewhere else on the base? What is wrong with you, you think this is a lucid argument?

Actually, I think just the opposite.

We have repeatedly see unarmed civilians disarm shooters

Not at VT or FH. Or Sandy Hook or Aurora or Columbine or the Washington Navy Yard or ...

 

[kaz]

The problem with the view that says arm teachers or guard is they cannot arrange or guarantee that armed person will be where the shooter is.

And, if its a school, the gun cannot be kept loaded and in an unlocked area. That means the designated armed person would have to tell the shooter to wait while they get their key from one place, ammo from another, loaded the gun and then defended the kids.

Why are they not carrying the guns exactly?

 

[koshergrl]

There were armed people at VT and FH.

Not where the shooter was. What difference does someone being armed on the other side of campus make? Or somewhere else on the base? What is wrong with you, you think this is a lucid argument?

Actually, I think just the opposite.

We have repeatedly see unarmed civilians disarm shooters.

The problem with the view that says arm teachers or guard is they cannot arrange or guarantee that armed person will be where the shooter is.

And, if its a school, the gun cannot be kept loaded and in an unlocked area. That means the designated armed person would have to tell the shooter to wait while they get their key from one place, ammo from another, loaded the gun and then defended the kids.

You're an idiot.

"

– Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

– Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.)

– Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

– Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisor”; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

– Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

– Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
​

These are just a few examples of mass shootings being prevented. I'm sure there are many more that meet this criteria. But, as you can see, in every incident, the would-be shooters were stopped short of killing four people because an armed civilian—or in some cases, an off duty cop—was present."

Is it True Armed Civilians Have Never Stopped a Mass Shooting? | The Weekly Standard

 

[kaz]

I would still ignore the sign, dude. As Professor points out, the restaurant doesn't really care. There is little the waitstaff can do, and rather than cause a conflict, the gun owner would be allowed to enter, rendering the sign moot anyway. I won't be told what my views are or aren't, OK my friend?

Don't go crying when you get arrested

Never seen it happen.
I carry my gun everywhere except where this is a metal detector. It is always concealed. ANd it isn't anyone else's business if I have one on me or not.

If you are on someone else's property, it's not their business if you have a gun or not? Seriously?

 

[The Rabbi]

Don't go crying when you get arrested

Never seen it happen.
I carry my gun everywhere except where this is a metal detector. It is always concealed. ANd it isn't anyone else's business if I have one on me or not.

If you are on someone else's property, it's not their business if you have a gun or not? Seriously?

Yup. Merely being on someone's property does not entitle them to dictate what I wear.

 

[kaz]

[/INDENT]These are just a few examples of mass shootings being prevented

Luddy doesn't want to prevent the shootings, he wants to blame the Republicans for them

 

[koshergrl]

"Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%)."

Is it True Armed Civilians Have Never Stopped a Mass Shooting? | The Weekly Standard

The cops are more likely to shoot innocent bystanders than I am.

 

[koshergrl]

So how does a restraunt's policy of identifying and disarming all people who enter their establishment work with the right to carry a concealed weapon?

You don't have the right to search people. And people with CC permits aren't obliged to tell you they're packing. That's rather the point of concealed carry.

gads progressives are twits. And they will scream the loudest if someone doesn't die trying to defend their stupid asses when they get in trouble.

 

[kaz]

Never seen it happen.
I carry my gun everywhere except where this is a metal detector. It is always concealed. ANd it isn't anyone else's business if I have one on me or not.

If you are on someone else's property, it's not their business if you have a gun or not? Seriously?

Yup. Merely being on someone's property does not entitle them to dictate what I wear.

Sad that a conservative would say that. If they tell you their rules, you have the right to decline to go on their property. You have no right to usurp their rights to their own property by ignoring them and entering anyway. Liberty starts with the right to life, liberty and property. That means you have the right to YOUR property, not theirs. Some days I don't see how conservatives (some anyway) are any better than liberals. Then again you don't believe we have a right to our bodies either, so what was I expecting?