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 PEF See above post. Also, no implication guns are dangerous. My only statement is that it is fine for business owners to ...

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 73 of 73
Like Tree29Likes

Thread: Gunbuster Signs

  1. #61
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by PEF View Post
    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.
    Cool, then it's no different than them 'not wanting' black people or Democrats or gay marriage supporters or people without shirts.

    Cuz' some people may not like blacks, Democrats, gay supporters, or men's chests. (In particular I like the last one....but unfortunately there are many that should NOT go shirtless.)

    You do seem to be missing my point that if the owner doesnt know about my opinions or guns, there is no harm done. Is there? Or do I need to find out religious and political affiliations (for starters) for every business I patronize?

    (ALtho there are some I do boycott based on those things)
    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)

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    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.
    Suppose a business wanted to restrict entry based upon the type of clothes a person wore, or the number of fingers and toes they had. Number of limbs. Any number of reasons. Who decides what is ok and what is not? You seem to avoid the question of principle, and instead want to discuss the minutia of whether or not the government is using the right criteria on whether or not a person has control over their property.

  4. #63
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,716
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    Cool, then it's no different than them 'not wanting' black people or Democrats or gay marriage supporters or people without shirts.

    Cuz' some people may not like blacks, Democrats, gay supporters, or men's chests. (In particular I like the last one....but unfortunately there are many that should NOT go shirtless.)

    You do seem to be missing my point that if the owner doesnt know about my opinions or guns, there is no harm done. Is there? Or do I need to find out religious and political affiliations (for starters) for every business I patronize?

    (ALtho there are some I do boycott based on those things)

    If I went to a store and I saw a sign : "No Men with Moobs, People with Freckles, or One Percenter's" I wouldn't bother giving them my business, regardless of whether their discriminatory practices fall without or without the current boundaries of the law (no, I don't have moobs).

    Yes, you can ignore a gun buster sign and go in concealed, but that was not the OP's point. The OP's point (OP correct me if I'm wrong) was to let people know about the store's policy and not patronize it. As for me, I would respect the property rights of the owner, and not go in armed, and I would likely find another place to get my pizza (I had a potty contest with the OP about payment, but that's beside the point).

    My only point was as long as the restrictions of the property owner are within the confines of the law, there's not much we can do. You can ignore it, boycott, protest, whatever. Whether you care to inquire beforehand or whether you find out when you arrive, you can only make your decision as to what to do once you find out. I don't think anyone has a duty to find out beforehand though. You just need to make that decision once you become aware of the owner's views.

  5. #64
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Roon View Post
    Suppose a business wanted to restrict entry based upon the type of clothes a person wore, or the number of fingers and toes they had. Number of limbs. Any number of reasons. Who decides what is ok and what is not? You seem to avoid the question of principle, and instead want to discuss the minutia of whether or not the government is using the right criteria on whether or not a person has control over their property.
    I believe they can....it's just not based in the law. Many stores post that they reserve the right to not serve customers, period. If you walk in and have only 9 fingers or a tube top and are asked to leave, in most places it is 'trespassing' if you do not leave when asked.

    There are things, as some have mentioned, where the govt has stepped in to restrict descrimination of certain protected classes. That's different, but that is indeed govt imposition on property rights. I dont disagree with this because I dont believe in discrimination but I recognize it for what it is.
    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)

  6. #65
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by PEF View Post
    If I went to a store and I saw a sign : "No Men with Moobs, People with Freckles, or One Percenter's" I wouldn't bother giving them my business, regardless of whether their discriminatory practices fall without or without the current boundaries of the law (no, I don't have moobs).

    Yes, you can ignore a gun buster sign and go in concealed, but that was not the OP's point. The OP's point (OP correct me if I'm wrong) was to let people know about the store's policy and not patronize it. As for me, I would respect the property rights of the owner, and not go in armed, and I would likely find another place to get my pizza (I had a potty contest with the OP about payment, but that's beside the point).

    My only point was as long as the restrictions of the property owner are within the confines of the law, there's not much we can do. You can ignore it, boycott, protest, whatever. Whether you care to inquire beforehand or whether you find out when you arrive, you can only make your decision as to what to do once you find out. I don't think anyone has a duty to find out beforehand though. You just need to make that decision once you become aware of the owner's views.
    Well then I guess we both made our personal stances clear. I dont necessarily boycot a business because of their opinions (on guns or anything else). I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion. I disagree on lots of issues with people, even friends.
    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)

  7. #66
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Roon View Post
    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.



    Struggles were different, logical implications are the same.
    I never said anything about morality. You asked for a logical explanation, and I gave you one. We are talking about a legal framework that defines the contours of the exclusionary practices of a non-governmental property owner. I'm just providing you with a very general state of the law and why property owners may exercise some exclusionary practices and not others.

  8. #67
    Member Array Roon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by PEF View Post
    I never said anything about morality. You asked for a logical explanation, and I gave you one. We are talking about a legal framework that defines the contours of the exclusionary practices of a non-governmental property owner. I'm just providing you with a very general state of the law and why property owners may exercise some exclusionary practices and not others.
    It really wasn't a logical explanation based in principle. You just mentioned what people had decided in the past and expected that to suffice as a logical and principled explanation. It doesn't.

  9. #68
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Roon View Post
    It really wasn't a logical explanation based in principle. You just mentioned what people had decided in the past and expected that to suffice as a logical and principled explanation. It doesn't.
    Well, one logical explanation would be that the societal damage, on the whole, caused by private racial discrimination is much, much greater than societal damage caused by private firearm restrictions. The former is to the person, the latter is to an act.

  10. #69
    Member Array iguanadon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    384
    You folks sure get riled up about pizza.
    Ksgunner and PEF like this.
    Raleigh... Where Barney comes to Party...

    Glock 27 or M&P Shield for every day carry (LCP for deep conceal when necessary)... Glock 23 for the home.

    Call me Iggy. Only my mother calls me by my full given name.

  11. #70
    Member Array Roon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by PEF View Post
    Well, one logical explanation would be that the societal damage, on the whole, caused by private racial discrimination is much, much greater than societal damage caused by private firearm restrictions. The former is to the person, the latter is to an act.
    Suppose there was no societal damage? What exactly is the threshold for societal damage that determines what people can and cannot do with their private property?

  12. #71
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    10,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Pythius View Post
    but you're electing to not shop at his store, simply because he is choosing to enjoy his private-property rights.

    his insistance on not allowing guns in his store, is not an infringement upon you 2nd Amendment rights, as the 2nd Amendment only involves public property.
    All correct.
    "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."
    Tuco

  13. #72
    Senior Member Array Phillep Harding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by Pythius View Post
    but you're electing to not shop at his store, simply because he is choosing to enjoy his private-property rights.

    his insistance on not allowing guns in his store, is not an infringement upon you 2nd Amendment rights, as the 2nd Amendment only involves public property.
    Don't know if they are still doing it, but for a while certain types of advertisements on the radio included a rapid monologue about restrictions applying. If the business owner wants to prohibit a legal activity at his place of business, well, that's his right. But he cannot expect everyone to know that he is prohibiting a legal activity so if he wants to minimize loss or have a means of collecting in the event of someone not respecting the contract, well, he needs to tell people at the time they make the contract.

    He can think about how he is telling customers and potential bandits that bandits can operate freely and safely in his place of business.

  14. #73
    Ex Member Array Pythius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by iguanadon View Post
    You folks sure get riled up about pizza.
    that's what I'm saying, its just pizza.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

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.