No whats funny is I have to explain the obvious to you. Others get it I know for a fact.
What we need to do is throw all our many fears upon the great scales of reason. Our fears of shopkeepers and spouses and cops and robbers....just throw them all on there do what we have to do and worry less about it.
But, you do your own research on that, pal. It ain’t up to me to figure stuff out for you and even if I did, you would probably argue with it anyway so what difference does it make?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Welp, so sorry I can’t read your mind and they supposedly can.
But are you sure you know all that for a fact??
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why would someone think that a private business has any responsibility for your safety even if they do have a "No Guns" sign? I do not approve of Government at any level forcing a private business owner to be responsible for your safety, even if they post a sign or have a policy of not allowing firearms in their private place of business.
The Government itself doesn't provide for your safety in prohibited places like the Post office, a Federal Building, a courtroom, etc. where you are prohibited from carrying a weapon by law. So if the .gov isn't going to guarantee your protection in places they control, how can they even begin to think they can force a private owner to do so?
What's next? Making people who do not want guns in their house responsible for your safety in their home? Are you forced to enter it?
You DO NOT have to go into that private business if you don't want to.
You make the choice to enter even if you're not allowed to carry.
Nobody is twisting your arm.
Make the choice, but for damn sure, let's not ask the Government to force private business owners to do something they don't and won't do.
* And stop with the insults and thinly veiled comments. It's getting out of hand and it needs to stop.
The Government itself doesn't provide for your safety in prohibited places like the Post office, a Federal Building, a courtroom, etc. where you are prohibited from carrying a weapon by law. So if the .gov isn't going to guarantee your protection in places they control, how can they even begin to think they can force a private owner to do so?
What's next? Making people who do not want guns in their house responsible for your safety in their home? Are you forced to enter it?
You DO NOT have to go into that private business if you don't want to.
You make the choice to enter even if you're not allowed to carry.
Nobody is twisting your arm.
Make the choice, but for damn sure, let's not ask the Government to force private business owners to do something they don't and won't do.
* And stop with the insults and thinly veiled comments. It's getting out of hand and it needs to stop.
your fear of your wife and inability to tell her no is your issue. They are not removing your right. if you choose to enter unarmed it's on you. full stop. Nothing they did disarms you, only your actions.
And i haven't failed to do any such thing. As i said, just because it's hard on you does not change things for the business in question. Open up a competing store if it worries you so much. But the lack of competition in a small town is not the fault of the business you are trying to bully into removing a sign. Sorry, again, the ease with which you shop shouldn't be used to erode the rights of a business.
One of his issues lol
I get that you are arguing that a bad guy would see a gun buster sign and maybe feel 'safer' attacking there. But frankly, that still isn't something we should try to regulate through threat to a business.
As you've stated, bad guys will be bad guys. And the business, like the ones that allow carry, do not have to do anything to keep people from taking advantage beyond the steps that any other business would have to take. People entering those places assume risk in doing so. And, if there is an increased risk in entering because of a posted sign, then they assume an increased risk.
A bad guy can enter a place with no signs and encounter no resistance just as they could enter a place with signs up and be met with force. It's entirely a matter of chance (or perhaps fate) as to who is in a place. Nothing in these laws would change that.
why? a store that allows guns could be equally vulnerable if no one inside is carrying at the moment. Yet we are quick to say that the store has no responsibility since that always falls strictly to the individual.
Well then quit patronizing these signs. No, I’m not saying to stop patronizing the stores, I’m saying to ignore the sign. Be glad that Oklahoma does not give these places weight of the law.
I dunno, maybe it makes some business owners change their way of thinking but there’s also those that don’t care if they lose a “gun nut” as a customer. If they did, they wouldn’t hang those signs.
As far as those corporate stores who make the rules- ignore those too. Y’all do realize that it primarily takes acts of violence through mass shootings that mostly promote the switch to these signs. Maybe if enough good guys start taking out threats when this stuff happens in these “gun free” zones, that they’ll hopefully understand that taking the sheepdogs out of the flocks of sheep is a bad idea.
Nobody commented on it the first time I said it but make it to where a successful act of heroism in a “gun free” zone can’t be criminalized or sued. The only way I feel to prove that these “gun free” zones are nothing but slaughter zones is to prove that by being able to take out a threat when a bad guy ignores the sign.
Let these people hang their silly sign all they want. If more good guys carried in these places, the bad guy might rethink carrying in there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Similar threads
