Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Gun Free Zone Liability
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tanis143" data-source="post: 3331716" data-attributes="member: 43724"><p>This is a strawman argument. If they allow firearms then it comes down to ME to protect myself, which is how life really is. When they remove my ability to protect myself then I'm dependent on either the business or local LEO to defend my life. </p><p></p><p> Depends. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If life was that simple this wouldn't be an argument. In big cities where the choices for many businesses are many, its easy to say "Well, they won't get my business". But small towns are a different thing. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No one is talking about eroding rights. Please tell me where in that bill it states businesses can not tell customers to leave their guns in the car? All it does is give customers who are injured due to an altercation in a business that does not allow firearms a pathway for compensation because said business removed their ability to protect themself. And this doesn't have to mean they have to have armed guards. They could carry supplemental insurance, have silent alarm buttons installed for faster police response, or develope other plans to prevent assailants from hurting customers. </p><p></p><p>There has to be a balance between my right to self protection and business owner's rights. To say one trumps the other is asinine. What you are saying is a business owner's right trumps my 2A right and I have no way to be compensated if I'm injured on their property because they took that right away from me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tanis143, post: 3331716, member: 43724"] This is a strawman argument. If they allow firearms then it comes down to ME to protect myself, which is how life really is. When they remove my ability to protect myself then I'm dependent on either the business or local LEO to defend my life. Depends. If life was that simple this wouldn't be an argument. In big cities where the choices for many businesses are many, its easy to say "Well, they won't get my business". But small towns are a different thing. No one is talking about eroding rights. Please tell me where in that bill it states businesses can not tell customers to leave their guns in the car? All it does is give customers who are injured due to an altercation in a business that does not allow firearms a pathway for compensation because said business removed their ability to protect themself. And this doesn't have to mean they have to have armed guards. They could carry supplemental insurance, have silent alarm buttons installed for faster police response, or develope other plans to prevent assailants from hurting customers. There has to be a balance between my right to self protection and business owner's rights. To say one trumps the other is asinine. What you are saying is a business owner's right trumps my 2A right and I have no way to be compensated if I'm injured on their property because they took that right away from me. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Gun Free Zone Liability
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom