Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,129
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 4, 2014 18:49:24 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 4, 2014 19:09:02 GMT -5
It's a bit of this and a bit of that. Mr. Cox' name isn't attached to the article, suggesting it is in fact an institutional position. But the article is also part of a dense corpus that's updated several times a month. Mr. Cox is probably one of numerous staff writers. It's not unimaginable that he went out on a limb and published something he shouldn't have.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,107
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 4, 2014 20:57:23 GMT -5
Seriously, Virgil? Methinks you've been hanging around the far right-wing too long. Your reasoning ability seems a bit off. With regard to guns, the customers themselves are welcome. It is the guns that are not. It is more analogous to, "No shirt, no shoes? No service." The customer, ANY customer, is welcome as long as they are wearing a shirt and shoes. In the same way, the customer (ANY customer) is welcome as long as they are not carrying a gun. In your example, it is the customer himself that is NOT welcome. Do you really not see a difference?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 5, 2014 1:30:33 GMT -5
Seriously, Virgil? Methinks you've been hanging around the far right-wing too long. Your reasoning ability seems a bit off. With regard to guns, the customers themselves are welcome. It is the guns that are not. It is more analogous to, "No shirt, no shoes? No service." The customer, ANY customer, is welcome as long as they are wearing a shirt and shoes. In the same way, the customer (ANY customer) is welcome as long as they are not carrying a gun. In your example, it is the customer himself that is NOT welcome. Do you really not see a difference? No singleness, no spouse of the opposite sex? No service. Seems pretty straightforward to me. And you're missing my point that a business should be able to refuse service to anyone for any conceivable reason. If the Queen of England steps into my store, I should be able to say "Sorry, Your Majesty, but we have a no-monarchs policy here."
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,107
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 5, 2014 3:00:17 GMT -5
I'm not missing your point. I merely disagree with it. But then, we've had this discussion before. A PRIVATE business may serve whoever they wish, in whatever manner they wish. They may take a PR hit, and an economic hit, but not a legal one. A PUBLIC business is subject to those pesky non-discrimination laws.
At any rate, I mourn the death of objectivity and logic. Argument is so much more interesting, not to mention productive, when those two are not constrained by belief or bias.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,129
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 5, 2014 7:40:54 GMT -5
Virgil Showlion said: "No singleness, no spouse of the opposite sex? No service." You want public businesses (and probably employers and housing too) to be able to refuse service or employment to people for any reason, including (but not limited to) their race, religion, color, gender, national origin, ethnicity, age, disability, and sexual orientation. Most of us in the U.S. do not. I do not claim to know the pulse of the Canadian people, but I would imagine the majority in Canada have a 'live and let live' attitude like us too. Getting back to the subject of this thread, the restaurant owners under discussion have zero problem with animate objects (an individual's "singleness", or an individual's "no spouse of the opposite sex" with them) dining in their establishments. What the restaurants do not want are customers bringing in their inanimate objects such as guns, rifled, steam rollers, their own foid to dine on, etc. as a form of protest and ultimately the intimidation of the diners and restaurant staff. If you must, feel free to wear a button on your shirt which reads 'I Support The Open Carry Of Handguns In Texas Restaurants' into the restaurant. You will more than likely be served your meal if that is the only different behavior you exhibit while in the owner's restaurant.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 5, 2014 8:41:12 GMT -5
It's exactly the opposite of a live and let live attitude. A transaction between a business and a customer is a type of contract. You are divesting the business owner of the power to choose which contracts (s)he enters into. You haven't influenced her opinion or society's opinion one whit. If their refusal to serve specific groups is bigotry, all you've accomplished is to drive it underground. If their refusal to serve is based on principle, all you've accomplished is to persecute them for their beliefs.
A live and let live society is one where people speak their minds openly, know what their neighbours think, conduct business transactions with the full consent and willingness of both parties, and influence social policy by their spoken beliefs and consumption habits rather than by state fiat. Where you get your fanatical belief that anti-discrimination laws are somehow a cause rather than an effect of changing social attitudes is beyond me. Laws are and have always been a lagging (to the extreme) indicator of social change.
I realize you make a distinction between guns and spouses in this case, deeming the former to be more or less elective and the latter fixed and unchangeable. And notwithstanding my opinion on homosexual "marriage", I can certainly agree that leaving one's guns at home is elective and giving up a spouse is not. But you've hit the nail on the head that business should "be able to refuse service or employment to people for any reason, including (but not limited to) their race, religion, color, gender, national origin, ethnicity, age, disability, and sexual orientation". No, most Canadians don't agree with me on this issue, but if "what most Canadians think" somehow defines what's sensible then you automatically lose the death penalty debate since a definite majority of Canadians support that.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,129
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 5, 2014 8:44:09 GMT -5
It's exactly the opposite of a live and let live attitude. A transaction between a business and a customer is a type of contract. You are divesting the business owner of the power to choose which contracts (s)he enters into. You haven't influenced her opinion or society's opinion one whit. If their refusal to serve specific groups is bigotry, all you've accomplished is to drive it underground. If their refusal to serve is based on principle, all you've accomplished is to persecute them for their beliefs. A live and let live society is one where people speak their minds openly, know what their neighbours think, conduct business transactions with the full consent and willingness of both parties, and influence social policy by their spoken beliefs and consumption habits rather than by state fiat. Where you get your fanatical belief that anti-discrimination laws are somehow a cause rather than an effect of changing social attitudes is beyond me. Laws are and have always been a lagging (to the extreme) indicator of social change. I realize you make a distinction between guns and spouses in this case, deeming the former to be more or less elective and the latter fixed and unchangeable. And notwithstanding my opinion on homosexual "marriage", I can certainly agree that leaving one's guns at home is elective and giving up a spouse is not. But you've hit the nail on the head that business should "be able to refuse service or employment to people for any reason, including (but not limited to) their race, religion, color, gender, national origin, ethnicity, age, disability, and sexual orientation". No, most Canadians don't agree with me on this issue, but if "what most Canadians think" somehow defines what's sensible then you automatically lose the death penalty debate since a definite majority of Canadians support that. I reluctantly support the death penalty.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,129
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 5, 2014 8:47:54 GMT -5
"Laws are and have always been a lagging (to the extreme) indicator of social change."
Hence the changing attitudes toward and the abolishment of laws banning same-sex marriage.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 5, 2014 8:51:58 GMT -5
Oh. Then substitute in an issue where your views divulge. For what it's worth, we agree on the specific issue here: Starbucks et al. should be able to tell these gun-toters (who are causing no harm and who are perfectly within their rights) to conceal or get out. They make people nervous and the businesses simply don't want them there. It isn't even a principled stand. The businesses' only objection is that they're quite literally creeped out by them. And that's sufficient.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 5, 2014 8:53:51 GMT -5
"Laws are and have always been a lagging (to the extreme) indicator of social change." Hence the changing attitudes toward and the abolishment of laws banning same-sex marriage. And if society's attitudes shift towards wanting a gun on every hip in America at all times, enjoy the fruits of your labour.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,129
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 5, 2014 9:01:22 GMT -5
"Laws are and have always been a lagging (to the extreme) indicator of social change." Hence the changing attitudes toward and the abolishment of laws banning same-sex marriage. And if society's attitudes shift towards wanting a gun on every hip in America at all times, enjoy the fruits of your labour. It appears that has already arrived. That is until a few more mass killings of children and adults. Only then will Americans say enough is enough.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,107
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 5, 2014 9:32:52 GMT -5
Simple solution. Anyone openly carrying a gun into a store or restaurant should be presumed to be robbing the place and shot on sight. That work for you guys?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,129
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 5, 2014 9:54:05 GMT -5
Simple solution. Anyone openly carrying a gun into a store or restaurant should be presumed to be robbing the place and shot on sight. That work for you guys? Stand Your Ground, right?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 5, 2014 12:52:42 GMT -5
Simple solution. Anyone openly carrying a gun into a store or restaurant should be presumed to be robbing the place and shot on sight. That work for you guys? Sounds like a great idea. Try standing your ground on that basis and let us know how it turns out.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 5, 2014 14:39:28 GMT -5
Simple solution. Anyone openly carrying a gun into a store or restaurant should be presumed to be robbing the place and shot on sight. That work for you guys? Sounds like a great idea. Try standing your ground on that basis and let us know how it turns out. "He pointed his gun at me officer so I drew my concealed weapon and defended myself"
Should work just fine.
Or better- "He looked at me in a threatening manner and was reaching towards a weapon and I was in fear for my life"
That would work as well. Especially in Florida.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 4:10:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 17:52:40 GMT -5
Unless someone is ACTIVELY making trouble (harassing clients, pushing over displays, being argumentative with staff, et cetera) businesses should NOT be allowed to discriminate against them.
It's a simple concept: If you want to open a business you will be serving the public. SOME of them will have views that differ from yours. If you don't want to serve them... don't open the business.
Being in a free society doesn't mean you get to treat people you disagree with as second class citizens, unworthy of the services provided by a public business.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,129
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 5, 2014 18:00:34 GMT -5
Unless someone is ACTIVELY making trouble (harassing clients, pushing over displays, being argumentative with staff, et cetera) businesses should NOT be allowed to discriminate against them. It's a simple concept: If you want to open a business you will be serving the public. SOME of them will have views that differ from yours. If you don't want to serve them... don't open the business. Being in a free society doesn't mean you get to treat people you disagree with as second class citizens, unworthy of the services provided by a public business. Should a business be allowed to post a sign outside their doors which reads 'No Weapons Allowed Inside'?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 5, 2014 19:38:56 GMT -5
Unless someone is ACTIVELY making trouble (harassing clients, pushing over displays, being argumentative with staff, et cetera) businesses should NOT be allowed to discriminate against them. It's a simple concept: If you want to open a business you will be serving the public. SOME of them will have views that differ from yours. If you don't want to serve them... don't open the business. Being in a free society doesn't mean you get to treat people you disagree with as second class citizens, unworthy of the services provided by a public business. Why not? Gun owners are not a protected class- yet. I can open a business and put a no conservatives welcome banner in front if it if I wanted to. Or a no hippies sign. No yellow shirts. Whatever. I can kick out someone that smells like weed or alcohol, someone that just stinks and is not wearing shoes, or some dumbass scaring my customers.
BTW isn't treating people you disagree with as second class citizens a plank of the Republican party? Are they going have a fit over not allowing open carry while attempting to allow keeping out the gays?
But really the point is not about having guns, it is about being a freaking idiot and walking into these places with rifles.
Don't know about you but I am not patronizing anyplace (other than a gun range or gun store) that allows people to walk around like that. No guns is a much different policy than no open carry. I see someone walk in with a rifle and I am concerned right away- and if I have my gun on me it will be ready and I would be watching that person as I leave.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 4:10:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 20:31:12 GMT -5
Unless someone is ACTIVELY making trouble (harassing clients, pushing over displays, being argumentative with staff, et cetera) businesses should NOT be allowed to discriminate against them. It's a simple concept: If you want to open a business you will be serving the public. SOME of them will have views that differ from yours. If you don't want to serve them... don't open the business. Being in a free society doesn't mean you get to treat people you disagree with as second class citizens, unworthy of the services provided by a public business. Should a business be allowed to post a sign outside their doors which reads 'No Weapons Allowed Inside'? Should they be allowed to post the sign? Certainly. There's no law or rule against being ignorant. In some places it's even a legal right that they can do so. Should they be allowed to operate by what the sign says? No. People in general, unless being disruptive, deserve the courtesy that anyone else would also expect. Not to mention, the Second Amendment uses the phrase "shall not be infringed". It doesn't even limit that rule to JUST the Federal Congress... It's just simply "shall not be infringed". Being told you cannot take your legally owned and legally carried firearm somewhere is most definitely an "infringement". As I said... if you are going to open a business that serves the public... you should have to serve the public. And sometimes that "public" will include people that have views or attributes that you don't like or agree with... that doesn't mean that don't deserve the same treatment as any other patron. If you don't want to serve people... don't open a business that serves people.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 4:10:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 20:33:06 GMT -5
Unless someone is ACTIVELY making trouble (harassing clients, pushing over displays, being argumentative with staff, et cetera) businesses should NOT be allowed to discriminate against them. It's a simple concept: If you want to open a business you will be serving the public. SOME of them will have views that differ from yours. If you don't want to serve them... don't open the business. Being in a free society doesn't mean you get to treat people you disagree with as second class citizens, unworthy of the services provided by a public business. Why not? Gun owners are not a protected class- yet. I can open a business and put a no conservatives welcome banner in front if it if I wanted to. Or a no hippies sign. No yellow shirts. Whatever. I can kick out someone that smells like weed or alcohol, someone that just stinks and is not wearing shoes, or some dumbass scaring my customers.
BTW isn't treating people you disagree with as second class citizens a plank of the Republican party? Are they going have a fit over not allowing open carry while attempting to allow keeping out the gays?
But really the point is not about having guns, it is about being a freaking idiot and walking into these places with rifles.
Don't know about you but I am not patronizing anyplace (other than a gun range or gun store) that allows people to walk around like that. No guns is a much different policy than no open carry. I see someone walk in with a rifle and I am concerned right away- and if I have my gun on me it will be ready and I would be watching that person as I leave.
Actually, courtesy of the Second Amendment... gun owners ARE a "protected class". They are the first "protected class" this country ever had.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,129
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 5, 2014 20:39:40 GMT -5
Should a business be allowed to post a sign outside their doors which reads 'No Weapons Allowed Inside'? Should they be allowed to post the sign? Certainly. There's no law or rule against being ignorant. In some places it's even a legal right that they can do so. Should they be allowed to operate by what the sign says? No. People in general, unless being disruptive, deserve the courtesy that anyone else would also expect. Not to mention, the Second Amendment uses the phrase "shall not be infringed". It doesn't even limit that rule to JUST the Federal Congress... It's just simply "shall not be infringed". Being told you cannot take your legally owned and legally carried firearm somewhere is most definitely an "infringement". As I said... if you are going to open a business that serves the public... you should have to serve the public. And sometimes that "public" will include people that have views or attributes that you don't like or agree with... that doesn't mean that don't deserve the same treatment as any other patron. If you don't want to serve people... don't open a business that serves people. Is a loaded rifle a view or attribute in an enclosed eatery? I am horrified just at the thought of an openly carried firearm in an enclosed building.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 4:10:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 21:02:43 GMT -5
Should they be allowed to post the sign? Certainly. There's no law or rule against being ignorant. In some places it's even a legal right that they can do so. Should they be allowed to operate by what the sign says? No. People in general, unless being disruptive, deserve the courtesy that anyone else would also expect. Not to mention, the Second Amendment uses the phrase "shall not be infringed". It doesn't even limit that rule to JUST the Federal Congress... It's just simply "shall not be infringed". Being told you cannot take your legally owned and legally carried firearm somewhere is most definitely an "infringement". As I said... if you are going to open a business that serves the public... you should have to serve the public. And sometimes that "public" will include people that have views or attributes that you don't like or agree with... that doesn't mean that don't deserve the same treatment as any other patron. If you don't want to serve people... don't open a business that serves people. Is a loaded rifle a view or attribute in an enclosed eatery? I am horrified just at the thought of an openly carried firearm in an enclosed building. A rifle (loaded or unloaded) is neither. It's an object. Carrying said rifle could be either a view or an attribute though... neither of which should cause denial of service.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,129
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 5, 2014 21:26:24 GMT -5
Is a loaded rifle a view or attribute in an enclosed eatery? I am horrified just at the thought of an openly carried firearm in an enclosed building. A rifle (loaded or unloaded) is neither. It's an object. Carrying said rifle could be either a view or an attribute though... neither of which should cause denial of service. Well the good thing ìs restaurants are denying service to people who are carrying dangerous "objects". The person carrying the "object" is not dangerous if the "object" is not in the restaurant.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 5, 2014 21:47:46 GMT -5
Ok so if we are going down the 'shall not be infringed' road- can my employer prohibit me from being armed or open carrying on the job?
Either it is a limited right or it isn't. I think Scotus has settled that issue. I can kick you out of my store if you are displaying a weapon. However, if you are carrying concealed then the issue just goes away doesn't it- unless I put up a metal detector.
You think it is OK to ban weapons from concerts, football games, etc? Is that reasonable or an infringement? Or does buying a ticket change things? In that case carrying an assault rifle in a mall is perfectly OK until you get to the movie theater, right?
I see someone carrying a rifle into a restaurant I am calling the cops. Rifles have a place- and if you have one and you are not in that place I am calling the cops. If I am armed and see someone walk in with such a weapon- they so much as handle it or raise it I am dumping the magazine on them then calling the cops. If they walk in with it in their hands I am dumping the magazine on them. Probably won't happen since most gun owners are not douchebags, and I usually do not carry in those places anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 4:10:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 21:59:58 GMT -5
A rifle (loaded or unloaded) is neither. It's an object. Carrying said rifle could be either a view or an attribute though... neither of which should cause denial of service. Well the good thing ìs restaurants are denying service to people who are carrying dangerous "objects". The person carrying the "object" is not dangerous if the "object" is not in the restaurant. That's not actually a "good thing"... but you and I apparently disagree about that. And, just for reference, the person could be just as dangerous without a gun... just with a different object... maybe even a steak knife provided by the restaurant if he/she wanted to be. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Guns don't kill people... people kill people.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 4:10:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 22:04:19 GMT -5
Ok so if we are going down the 'shall not be infringed' road- can my employer prohibit me from being armed or open carrying on the job? Can he? Yes. Should he be able to? No.
Either it is a limited right or it isn't. I think Scotus has settled that issue. I can kick you out of my store if you are displaying a weapon. However, if you are carrying concealed then the issue just goes away doesn't it- unless I put up a metal detector. LOL... SCOTUS (all caps, by the way) may have "ruled" on the issue... but they have been known to rule incorrectly (according to the Constitution), remember Obamacare? They sure flubbed that one.
You think it is OK to ban weapons from concerts, football games, etc? Is that reasonable or an infringement? Or does buying a ticket change things? In that case carrying an assault rifle in a mall is perfectly OK until you get to the movie theater, right? No. I don't think that's o.k.
I see someone carrying a rifle into a restaurant I am calling the cops. Rifles have a place- and if you have one and you are not in that place I am calling the cops. If I am armed and see someone walk in with such a weapon- they so much as handle it or raise it I am dumping the magazine on them then calling the cops. If they walk in with it in their hands I am dumping the magazine on them. Probably won't happen since most gun owners are not douchebags, and I usually do not carry in those places anyway. So, you want to overreact... and it's someone else's fault? Nice deflection of blame there. All my comments are in bold italics inside the quote...
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,129
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 5, 2014 22:10:18 GMT -5
Well the good thing ìs restaurants are denying service to people who are carrying dangerous "objects". The person carrying the "object" is not dangerous if the "object" is not in the restaurant. That's not actually a "good thing"... but you and I apparently disagree about that. And, just for reference, the person could be just as dangerous without a gun... just with a different object... maybe even a steak knife provided by the restaurant if he/she wanted to be. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Guns don't kill people... people kill people. But the chances of customers and restaurant staff subduing a person with a knife are far greater than a person with a semi-automatic rifle randomly shooting up a dining room.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 5, 2014 22:27:44 GMT -5
Ok so if we are going down the 'shall not be infringed' road- can my employer prohibit me from being armed or open carrying on the job? Can he? Yes. Should he be able to? No.
Either it is a limited right or it isn't. I think Scotus has settled that issue. I can kick you out of my store if you are displaying a weapon. However, if you are carrying concealed then the issue just goes away doesn't it- unless I put up a metal detector. LOL... SCOTUS (all caps, by the way) may have "ruled" on the issue... but they have been known to rule incorrectly (according to the Constitution), remember Obamacare? They sure flubbed that one.
You think it is OK to ban weapons from concerts, football games, etc? Is that reasonable or an infringement? Or does buying a ticket change things? In that case carrying an assault rifle in a mall is perfectly OK until you get to the movie theater, right? No. I don't think that's o.k.
I see someone carrying a rifle into a restaurant I am calling the cops. Rifles have a place- and if you have one and you are not in that place I am calling the cops. If I am armed and see someone walk in with such a weapon- they so much as handle it or raise it I am dumping the magazine on them then calling the cops. If they walk in with it in their hands I am dumping the magazine on them. Probably won't happen since most gun owners are not douchebags, and I usually do not carry in those places anyway. So, you want to overreact... and it's someone else's fault? Nice deflection of blame there. All my comments are in bold italics inside the quote... Your bold italics describe an insane world. (One with a lot of shootings) Can I carry while drinking? And if not why not?
Sometimes I write Milf too- you going to ding me on that? BTW I did quite well in legal writing- and that term never came up
What I do want to see is armed football players, fans, refs, and coaches at the next SUPERBOWL (I get that right?)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 4:10:56 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 22:31:29 GMT -5
That's not actually a "good thing"... but you and I apparently disagree about that. And, just for reference, the person could be just as dangerous without a gun... just with a different object... maybe even a steak knife provided by the restaurant if he/she wanted to be. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Guns don't kill people... people kill people. But the chances of customers and restaurant staff subduing a person with a knife are far greater than a person with a semi-automatic rifle randomly shooting up a dining room. That depends on the customers and staff... and how many of them are armed... oh... wait. If the "anti-gun" people have their way, none of them would be. Question: On 9-11... how many of the hijackers had guns?
|
|