Gunbuster Signs - Page 4

Gunbuster Signs

This is a discussion on Gunbuster Signs within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Phillep Harding How much support would he have if the sign on the door said "Whites Only"? Good point. The government can ...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 73
Like Tree29Likes

Thread: Gunbuster Signs

  1. #46
    Member Array Roon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillep Harding View Post
    How much support would he have if the sign on the door said "Whites Only"?
    Good point. The government can tell a business who they have to serve......so private property rights are obviously BS.

    "What sign?" and "Concealed means Concealed." will go a long ways.
    noway2 likes this.


  2. #47
    Member Array Roon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad426 View Post
    Apples and propane grills you are comparing there.
    No he isn't. Businesses either have full control over who they serve and thus property rights actually mean something....or they don't. You cannot have your cake and eat it to.
    noway2 likes this.

  3. #48
    VIP Member Array Brad426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    4,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Roon View Post
    No he isn't. Businesses either have full control over who they serve and thus property rights actually mean something....or they don't. You cannot have your cake and eat it to.
    Wrong (says the Civil Rights Act of 1964, anyway), but why would you have cake if you can't eat it? That's such an odd expression.
    I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
    Clint Eastwood

  4. #49
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Pythius View Post
    as a business owner, to establish whatever rules he likes..for his private property.
    As far as I am concerned, once you opened that business to the public, your private property 'rights' got flushed. If you aren't going to respect me, don't expect me to respect you.
    9MMare and lyz_grace like this.

  5. #50
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    4,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Roon View Post
    Good point. The government can tell a business who they have to serve......so private property rights are obviously BS.

    "What sign?" and "Concealed means Concealed." will go a long ways.
    Whoa. Exclusion based on ethnicity/religion etc. is entirely different from exclusion based on not wanting armed patrons on your property. At the very least, the latter is merely the property owner conditioning entry by precluding the exercise of a particular right. Just like a pizza joint can tell people that they can't walk around the restaurant handing out political screeds and engaging other patrons in political issues, even though such acts are protected. Telling people to leave because of their ethnicity is much, much different.

    As for the "What sign" and "concealed means concealed" the OP is respecting the property rights of the pizza joint. Seems like it would defeat the purpose of the OP's objective.

    Trying to wrap the 2A into a "civil rights" parallel only ensures you will lose the argument.
    Brad426 likes this.

  6. #51
    Member Array Roon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad426 View Post
    Wrong (says the Civil Rights Act of 1964, anyway), but why would you have cake if you can't eat it? That's such an odd expression.
    I understand what the civil rights act says. The civil rights act also said that property rights no longer matter. "Please Mr. Government, please allow me to keep control over certain things about my property."

    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    As far as I am concerned, once you opened that business to the public, your private property 'rights' got flushed. If you aren't going to respect me, don't expect me to respect you.
    I don't agree that they get flushed. If that is the case then every private citizen who invites someone onto their property is flushing their property rights away. I think it is a horrible business decision and despise racism...but I think businesses should be free to make that choice if they want.

    Quote Originally Posted by PEF View Post
    Whoa. Exclusion based on ethnicity/religion etc. is entirely different from exclusion based on not wanting armed patrons on your property.
    How so? Both involve the idea that you can do what you want with what you own (property). If the government can tell you that your property rights end when the government wills it....what do property rights really matter? If something can be taken away at the whim of government....does it really matter?

    At the very least, the latter is merely the property owner conditioning entry by precluding the exercise of a particular right. Just like a pizza joint can tell people that they can't walk around the restaurant handing out political screeds and engaging other patrons in political issues, even though such acts are protected. Telling people to leave because of their ethnicity is much, much different.
    How so? Both are just asking someone to leave based upon the owners preference.



    Trying to wrap the 2A into a "civil rights" parallel only ensures you will lose the argument.
    I disagree, I am basing my arguments in logic...not a "feeling" that the two are different.

  7. #52
    Member Array Varmiter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Full Time Rv'er
    Posts
    153
    There is a fair amount of mis-information here.

    AZ postings DO CARRY THE WEIGHT OF LAW.

    ARS 13-1502

    13-1502. Criminal trespass in the third degree; classification

    A. A person commits criminal trespass in the third degree by:

    1. Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on ANY real property after a reasonable request to leave by the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property, or reasonable notice prohibiting entry.

    The ‘on ANY real property’ portion of 13-1502 basically means a sign, of any type, in a front yard or a posted business are the same for the purpose of trespass. This includes but not limited to, shirts, shoes, guns, water bottles, dogs, skate boards, etc.

    Chris

  8. #53
    VIP Member Array Brad426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    4,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Roon View Post
    I understand what the civil rights act says. The civil rights act also said that property rights no longer matter. "Please Mr. Government, please allow me to keep control over certain things about my property."



    I don't agree that they get flushed. If that is the case then every private citizen who invites someone onto their property is flushing their property rights away. I think it is a horrible business decision and despise racism...but I think businesses should be free to make that choice if they want.



    How so? Both involve the idea that you can do what you want with what you own (property). If the government can tell you that your property rights end when the government wills it....what do property rights really matter? If something can be taken away at the whim of government....does it really matter?



    How so? Both are just asking someone to leave based upon the owners preference.





    I disagree, I am basing my arguments in logic...not a "feeling" that the two are different.
    A classic way to passive-aggressively belittle others. If your "logic" doesn't allow you to see the difference between someone's race, religion, national origin or the like and someone who wants to carry a gun then I can't help.
    I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
    Clint Eastwood

  9. #54
    Member Array Roon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad426 View Post
    A classic way to passive-aggressively belittle others. If your "logic" doesn't allow you to see the difference between someone's race, religion, national origin or the like and someone who wants to carry a gun then I can't help.
    I am telling you that the difference doesn't matter. We are not talking about the perceived differences. An apple is different than a Banana...they are both still fruit. I am saying that there is no logical argument for the government to be able to say your property rights don't matter for one instance, but are still fully intact for another. Property rights either exist and cannot be infringed by the government or they don't. I am totally cool with businesses being able to make their own rules when it comes to their property....I am just saying that logically that should be absolute...and if it isn't...then they don't matter.

  10. #55
    Member Array Roon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad426 View Post
    A classic way to passive-aggressively belittle others. If your "logic" doesn't allow you to see the difference between someone's race, religion, national origin or the like and someone who wants to carry a gun then I can't help.
    Also, I wasn't trying to belittle anyone...just pointing out that there doesn't seem to be a logical argument that supports that position...or atleast not one that has been presented. It seems to be an emotional response...or a feeling that you have.

  11. #56
    Senior Member Array Phillep Harding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    821
    In both cases, permission to enter is implied in the acceptance of the verbal contract (the phone call ordering the pizza). The customer does not learn of the conditions under which the business will refuse to meet the contract terms, implied and explicit, until he arrives at the business. If the customer abandoning the contract that the business broke places a hardship on the business, well, tough bananas.

    Whether the permitted (by the business) conditions of entry are legal or moral is a different issue.

  12. #57
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by PEF View Post
    Whoa. Exclusion based on ethnicity/religion etc. is entirely different from exclusion based on not wanting armed patrons on your property.
    Trying to wrap the 2A into a "civil rights" parallel only ensures you will lose the argument.
    How is it different?

    A business owner can say "I dont like black people." "I dont like guns." "I dont like Democrats." "I dont like people who support gay marriage." In all cases, he should have the right to exclude those people/items from his store by your line of thought.

    Except in the case of the black person, all the others things are 'privately held' by the individual. If an individual chooses to divulge those opinions or expose a firearm, and it offends the business owner, the owner is within their rights to ask them to leave and the individual should, IMO.

    Your statement above implies that guns are ok to exclude because they are 'dangerous.' Please, people on this forum supposedly believe that guns are not dangerous...people are. All the other categories I mentioned are 'people.'
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  13. #58
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    4,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Roon View Post
    Also, I wasn't trying to belittle anyone...just pointing out that there doesn't seem to be a logical argument that supports that position...or atleast not one that has been presented. It seems to be an emotional response...or a feeling that you have.
    Civil Rights Act, 13th amendment, commerce clause, bunch of Supreme Court civil rights cases, and a long history of societal damages attached to such type of discrimination. Also, I can keep my mouth closed (first amendment) or keep my gun in the car (second amendment) but I can't change the color of my skin just to go in a grab a pizza.

    One point I want to make - there is a practical reality that people should realize when arguing gun rights - if you ever try to equate the "2A struggle" with that of the civil rights struggle, it's an instant loser, not only because of the legal framework, but because of the emotional and societal damage attached to the latter. We ain't a bunch of Rosa Parks.

    So, back to the point - the best thing to do is just tell the owner your thoughts and not give them any more of your business. How did we get on this tangent anyway?

  14. #59
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    4,041
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    How is it different?

    A business owner can say "I dont like black people." "I dont like guns." "I dont like Democrats." "I dont like people who support gay marriage." In all cases, he should have the right to exclude those people/items from his store by your line of thought.

    Except in the case of the black person, all the others things are 'privately held' by the individual. If an individual chooses to divulge those opinions or expose a firearm, and it offends the business owner, the owner is within their rights to ask them to leave and the individual should, IMO.

    Your statement above implies that guns are ok to exclude because they are 'dangerous.' Please, people on this forum supposedly believe that guns are not dangerous...people are. All the other categories I mentioned are 'people.'
    See above post. Also, no implication guns are dangerous. My only statement is that it is fine for business owners to exclude based on not wanting armed patrons in their place of business. Has nothing to do with being dangerous. Some people may just not like guns. So be it. Just don't give them your business if it bothers you, that's all.

  15. #60
    Member Array Roon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by PEF View Post
    Civil Rights Act, 13th amendment, commerce clause, bunch of Supreme Court civil rights cases, and a long history of societal damages attached to such type of discrimination. Also, I can keep my mouth closed (first amendment) or keep my gun in the car (second amendment) but I can't change the color of my skin just to go in a grab a pizza.
    None of what you said here matters in the slightest to the discussion. You can attempt to justify it any way you like but it wont make one lick of difference when we get right down to the logic of your argument. You think that just because the civil rights act and some supreme court cases say something that makes it morally correct? You are basically saying that property rights/private ownership only matters so long as society doesn't see fit to take them away. No amount of Act's or Supreme court cases is going to make that morally correct.

    One point I want to make - there is a practical reality that people should realize when arguing gun rights - if you ever try to equate the "2A struggle" with that of the civil rights struggle, it's an instant loser, not only because of the legal framework, but because of the emotional and societal damage attached to the latter. We ain't a bunch of Rosa Parks.
    Struggles were different, logical implications are the same.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

are gunbuster signs law in georgia
,
arizona and gun buster signs
,

gun buster sign

,
gun buster sign for arizona
,
gun buster signs in virginia
,

gunbuster sign

,
gunbuster signs
,
gunbuster signs and ammunition
,
gunbuster the end quote
,
missouri gunbuster sign
,
rules on gun buster signs
,
tailgators concealed handgun
Click on a term to search for related topics.