One always has to ruin it for others

[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.

So you're saying gun owners are all violent potential murderers?

Also good to know.

I'll be referring a few posters your way so you can make that case. And thanks in advance.

 

[DriftingSand]

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.

That's faulty reasoning. If a shooter comes onto a campus and there's no armed guard in the immediate area then the shooter is going to start shooting regardless. But if that armed guard is present then the shooter will likely be hindered from shooting folks or at least shooting as many as he would have. So, having armed personnel on campus will increase the odds that a shooter won't kill as many as he otherwise would. Moral of the story? It's better to have armed personnel on campus than to have a completely vulnerable, unarmed group of sitting ducks.

 

[kaz]

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.

Concealed carry is a right limiting GOVERNMENT, it is not a right to infringe on other people's property rights. If someone is violating your right by bringing a gun onto YOUR property, you have the right to call the police. A carry permit does not permit you to infringe on other people's rights to their own property.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Yawn. The narco-libtard claptrap kicks in early.
Hint: There's no right to property in the Constitution. Nor are there are absolute rights.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Concealed carry is a right limiting GOVERNMENT, it is not a right to infringe on other people's property rights. If someone is violating your right by bringing a gun onto YOUR property, you have the right to call the police. A carry permit does not permit you to infringe on other people's rights to their own property.

Self defense is a human right.

 

[kaz]

Yawn. The narco-libtard claptrap kicks in early.
Hint: There's no right to property in the Constitution. Nor are there are absolute rights.

You're the one declaring an absolute right as you're saying your rights supersede someone else's right to their own property. As for your bogus claim that the right to property is not in the Constitution, here's the proof you are wrong.

The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution. "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

So are you going to be big enough to admit you are wrong on that one?

 

[The Rabbi]

Yawn. The narco-libtard claptrap kicks in early.
Hint: There's no right to property in the Constitution. Nor are there are absolute rights.

You're the one declaring an absolute right as you're saying your rights supersede someone else's right to their own property. As for your bogus claim that the right to property is not in the Constitution, here's the proof you are wrong.

The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution. "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

So are you going to be big enough to admit you are wrong on that one?

No. That right is a government limitation on action, not a free pass for property owners.

I am empowered to protect myself. If no one else knows I am carry then it is none of their business.

 

[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.

Concealed carry is a right limiting GOVERNMENT, it is not a right to infringe on other people's property rights. If someone is violating your right by bringing a gun onto YOUR property, you have the right to call the police. A carry permit does not permit you to infringe on other people's rights to their own property.

Carrying a properly licensed and permitted weapon onto somebody's property that is open to the public doesn't infringe upon anybody's rights. If they don't want all the public, they should serve none of the public.

Concealed carry = concealed. They aren't obliged to disarm on command just because they wandered into restaurant with cowardly waiters.

 

[kaz]

Yawn. The narco-libtard claptrap kicks in early.
Hint: There's no right to property in the Constitution. Nor are there are absolute rights.

You're the one declaring an absolute right as you're saying your rights supersede someone else's right to their own property. As for your bogus claim that the right to property is not in the Constitution, here's the proof you are wrong.

The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution. "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

So are you going to be big enough to admit you are wrong on that one?

No. That right is a government limitation on action, not a free pass for property owners.

I am empowered to protect myself. If no one else knows I am carry then it is none of their business.

If no one knows, how is that different than no one knowing you broke any other law? Obviously if no one knows, nothing will happen to you.

So you have the right to other people's property, not them. And government has the right to your body, not you. You're not much of an advocate for personal rights.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"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.

Post proof that cops shoot more innocent bystanders than armed citizens.

 

[kaz]

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.

Concealed carry is a right limiting GOVERNMENT, it is not a right to infringe on other people's property rights. If someone is violating your right by bringing a gun onto YOUR property, you have the right to call the police. A carry permit does not permit you to infringe on other people's rights to their own property.

Carrying a properly licensed and permitted weapon onto somebody's property that is open to the public doesn't infringe upon anybody's rights. If they don't want all the public, they should serve none of the public.

Businesses are not open to "the public," they are open to customers. So seriously, I pay for my lobby in my business where my customers come. You're telling me I don't have the right to say who can come in or under what terms, you seriously believe that?

Concealed carry = concealed. They aren't obliged to disarm on command just because they wandered into restaurant with cowardly waiters.

Concealed carry is a public permit, it is not a permit to infringe on the rights of other citizens. Why would you even want to live in a country which doesn't recognize property rights? You seriously think that's freedom?

And BTW, the law doesn't agree with you, concealed permits are not permits to carry against an owner's permission on their property.

 

[RKMBrown]

So they waffled to a asshole activist gun grabber group. Who is surprised.

When they enforce it against police officers, then i would comply. Until then fuck them.

I don't typically see police officers walking into Chipotle with AR-15s slung over their shoulders.

Chipolte is saying "all guns" not just AR-15's.

and evidently you dont hang out in Penn station, the cops there walk around with MP-5's.

Meh... they are not saying guns are banned they are just saying they are not welcome. IOW they are not prohibiting guns. You can still bring your guns and they will still welcome you and serve you they just won't let out a loud cheer for your guns.

 

[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.

So you're saying gun owners are all violent potential murderers?

Also good to know.

I'll be referring a few posters your way so you can make that case. And thanks in advance.

@Pogo

An intentional mischaracterization of my post. That's playing dirty.

I am referring to forcing a gun owner to submit strip searches, forcing them to bear their weapon without just cause. The operative word is "force." You can't force anyone to do anything without just cause. Please, keep your horses in the stable, Pogo.

Luddly thinks he's some sort of vigilante. I'd love to see him take his Batman routine and try that on a law abiding gun owner.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

That's faulty reasoning. If a shooter comes onto a campus and there's no armed guard in the immediate area then the shooter is going to start shooting regardless. But if that armed guard is present then the shooter will likely be hindered from shooting folks or at least shooting as many as he would have. So, having armed personnel on campus will increase the odds that a shooter won't kill as many as he otherwise would. Moral of the story? It's better to have armed personnel on campus than to have a completely vulnerable, unarmed group of sitting ducks.

And post them every 20 feet or so.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Concealed carry is a right limiting GOVERNMENT, it is not a right to infringe on other people's property rights. If someone is violating your right by bringing a gun onto YOUR property, you have the right to call the police. A carry permit does not permit you to infringe on other people's rights to their own property.

And is my person my property?

Again - I have the right to own guns. I should also have the right not to be next to someone with a gun.

If you're going to again accuse me of wanting to blame RWs - fuck off.

If you want to have an adult conversation, I'm willing to read.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Concealed carry is a right limiting GOVERNMENT, it is not a right to infringe on other people's property rights. If someone is violating your right by bringing a gun onto YOUR property, you have the right to call the police. A carry permit does not permit you to infringe on other people's rights to their own property.

Self defense is a human right.

I agree.

I have the right to not have to defend myself against the idiot whose gun went off in the Chipotle when it fell out of his pocket.

 

[koshergrl]

You're the one declaring an absolute right as you're saying your rights supersede someone else's right to their own property. As for your bogus claim that the right to property is not in the Constitution, here's the proof you are wrong.

The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution. "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

So are you going to be big enough to admit you are wrong on that one?

No. That right is a government limitation on action, not a free pass for property owners.

I am empowered to protect myself. If no one else knows I am carry then it is none of their business.

If no one knows, how is that different than no one knowing you broke any other law? Obviously if no one knows, nothing will happen to you.

So you have the right to other people's property, not them. And government has the right to your body, not you. You're not much of an advocate for personal rights.

You are, per usual, ass backwards.

First of all you aren't taking somebody else's property if you use their proferred services (and pay for them). That isn't *taking* or exerting a *right* over. And wtf about "your body"??? What do you even mean?

 

[The Rabbi]

You're the one declaring an absolute right as you're saying your rights supersede someone else's right to their own property. As for your bogus claim that the right to property is not in the Constitution, here's the proof you are wrong.

The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution. "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

So are you going to be big enough to admit you are wrong on that one?

No. That right is a government limitation on action, not a free pass for property owners.

I am empowered to protect myself. If no one else knows I am carry then it is none of their business.

If no one knows, how is that different than no one knowing you broke any other law? Obviously if no one knows, nothing will happen to you.

So you have the right to other people's property, not them. And government has the right to your body, not you. You're not much of an advocate for personal rights.

Argumentum ad absurdum fallacy
Rabbi Rules!

 

[The Rabbi]

Concealed carry is a right limiting GOVERNMENT, it is not a right to infringe on other people's property rights. If someone is violating your right by bringing a gun onto YOUR property, you have the right to call the police. A carry permit does not permit you to infringe on other people's rights to their own property.

Self defense is a human right.

I agree.

I have the right to not have to defend myself against the idiot whose gun went off in the Chipotle when it fell out of his pocket.

Guns dont go off because they fall out of a pocket.
/dunce

 

[RKMBrown]

Self defense is a human right.

I agree.

I have the right to not have to defend myself against the idiot whose gun went off in the Chipotle when it fell out of his pocket.

Guns dont go off because they fall out of a pocket.
/dunce

Buy they do in the movies...