Ignoring Gun Buster signage. - Page 22
Page 22 of 24 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 233

Thread: Ignoring Gun Buster signage.

  1. #211
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Omaha, Nebraska
    Posts
    211
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruger357SP101 View Post
    Is that a threat, big man?
    Well, I am rather large, but not one that makes threats. The point was that you make a lot of assumptions about people while knowing very little about them. What one posts on an internet forum is not the big picture. If I were to judge you by what you write, I would think that you were a pathetic creature living in your mom's basement with an IQ of less than room temperature. I would guess that your parents were related other than by marriage and that the only way that you could reach climax with a woman is if she says "no daddy, please not that again". However, I do NOT know you other than from your posts, and only on this particular subject at that, so I CANNOT say with any certainty that any of the impressions that I have of you are in any way accurate. Consequently, I would not accuse you of such.

    As to respecting rights, I do not believe in "rights". A person has only the rights that they are prepared to secure by force. This applies to people as well as governments. So, if a property owner is prepared to keep me off his property by force, I pretty much have a choice to make. I will probably follow his wishes unless there is something that I REALLY need to do on his property (seldom the case). However, if his entire effort to disarm me is to post some sign that is not even legally posted under the laws of this state, I feel no compelling need to pay much attention to his wishes. I assume that he wants me to buy something, and that is what I am there to do, not discuss his opinion on gun ownership and concealed carry. I believe that a person only has the "right" to tell me what to do if he has the means to enforce what he is telling me. Otherwise, he can pretty well kiss my hind end. I really do not consider this at all hypocritical since I also do not believe that I have any right to tell anyone else what to do unless I feel strongly enough about it to force him to do it, possibly at my peril.

    Now, my impression of you is that your seemingly small mind is likely to be unable to understand the above concept, and that you would have to have someone tell you what to think about this since it seems that you really like to have people tell you what to do and have all kinds of laws to follow. However, as I said above, I really do not know you at all, and I may be surprised to even receive an intelligent, thoughtful, and coherent response from you. You may even display some higher wisdom (although it seems to be hidden up to this point). In any case, if you do not hear from me in the next few hours, it is not because I have tired from toying with you. It is just that I have laughed so hard that my stomach hurts and I really need to lay down and rest. And besides, I did promise Seeya that I would follow his example and refrain from this activity.

  2.   
  3. #212
    Quote Originally Posted by Punch View Post
    Well, I am rather large, but not one that makes threats. The point was that you make a lot of assumptions about people while knowing very little about them.
    No, youre just assuming things you dont know.
    WELL BEFORE you chimed in here friend, this discussion was going on in a few different threads.
    That you missed it doesnt negate that fact.
    What one posts on an internet forum is not the big picture. If I were to judge you by what you write, I would think that you were a pathetic creature living in your mom's basement with an IQ of less than room temperature. I would guess that your parents were related other than by marriage and that the only way that you could reach climax with a woman is if she says "no daddy, please not that again". However, I do NOT know you other than from your posts, and only on this particular subject at that, so I CANNOT say with any certainty that any of the impressions that I have of you are in any way accurate. Consequently, I would not accuse you of such.
    Thats pretty ironic because with a few of you guys Im picturing overweight, yellow toothed, middle aged, backwoods hicks wanting to shoot up the woods with machine guns because its their 'right' to hunt with a full auto weapon...hyuck
    Close?

  4. #213
    As to respecting rights, I do not believe in "rights".
    A person has only the rights that they are prepared to secure by force.
    Thats pretty good because what youre saying in essence is that you can trample anyone elses rights UNLESS they are willing and able to stop you with force.

    We REALLY need your lunatic fringe sort running this country, for sure..../sarcasm.

  5. #214
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Sioux Falls South Dakota
    Posts
    30
    Ruger357SP101
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by The Realist View Post
    Rugerboy You are ignorant.I stand by this. Ignorant = lacking in knowledge
    uh huh.
    Just slap me awake when youre done defending your abuse of someone elses rights. Try not abusing the rights of the rest of us who choose to defend ourselves.

    Quote:
    Have you even left your little puddle of muck you live in to experience any other part of the world. This is a global forum and you are trying to impose your own little narrow minded view on everyone else.
    Sorry pal, irrelevant. Very relevant your view is not the world view. This is a forum for the exchange of ideas and viewpoints. Yours included. But not everyone has to agree with you or they are automatically wrong.
    The world is the world...it doesnt matter where you trample someone elses rights...its STILL WRONG. Correct it is WRONG to trample on the rights of those who chose to carry for self defense.


    Quote:
    Take a look at California for example where a business may not post a no CCW sign at all. PERIOD.There a business is NOT private property.
    Actually it IS private property because a PRIVATE entity OWNS it. Wrong ! Walmart, Target, Home Depot et al are not privately owned. They are publically traded. Your house is private because only you own it.
    That CA ignores the rights of the individual in the matter doesnt change that fact.
    You know whats funny?
    If CAs law affected YOU adversely youd be having a **** fit over it....just admit it.
    Quote:
    If you are open to the public that means the whole public. You surrendered your private property rights when you accepted a business license Unless you are a private membership business your little rule means nothing.
    Well sorry for your luck but most of the United States of America isnt like Kommifornia. Wrong again. Sorry for you to live in Ohio that allows a business to trample your rights.
    And thank God for that.

  6. #215
    As to respecting rights, I do not believe in "rights".
    A person has only the rights that they are prepared to secure by force.
    This applies to people as well as governments. So, if a property owner is prepared to keep me off his property by force, I pretty much have a choice to make. I will probably follow his wishes unless there is something that I REALLY need to do on his property (seldom the case).
    WOW.
    I guess I pegged you dead on target then.
    Youre basically a closet felon who simply hasnt done the crime yet but clearly has thought about it enough.

    I dont see a man with integrity here.
    I see one who is only controlling himself because the two shotguns I have sitting by the bed and the 357 magnum on my hip might stop his ass dead in his tracks if he 'REALLY has need" of something on my property.

    Frankly your actually scarier, in a demented sort of way, than the other guys here except for the cop killer from the other thread.

    However, if his entire effort to disarm me is to post some sign that is not even legally posted under the laws of this state, I feel no compelling need to pay much attention to his wishes.
    How about moving to Ohio?
    I'll be the guy turning your ass into the authorities ;-)

    I assume that he wants me to buy something, and that is what I am there to do, not discuss his opinion on gun ownership and concealed carry.
    Wrong.
    He posted the sign for a reason. He CLEARLY doesnt want your business if you are carrying a gun...which based on what Im seeing from your posts is something you probably shouldnt lawfully be allowed to do.

    I believe that a person only has the "right" to tell me what to do if he has the means to enforce what he is telling me.
    You sound like an ex convict...or shortly to be an ex con.
    Frankly your type is one reason I carry a gun, based on your own description.

    So theres no such thing as honor and intregrity in your perverse little world...only the threat of lethal force keeps you from taking what another man owns from the sounds of it.

    Otherwise, he can pretty well kiss my hind end. I really do not consider this at all hypocritical since I also do not believe that I have any right to tell anyone else what to do unless I feel strongly enough about it to force him to do it, possibly at my peril.
    Contrary to what you learned in prison, the real world doesnt work like that here in America.

  7. #216
    Now, my impression of you is that your seemingly small mind is likely to be unable to understand the above concept,
    I understand completely.
    You are the sort that makes the rest of us carry guns because your type clearly has no grasp of another mans rights or property. Youve made that VERY clear here.

    and that you would have to have someone tell you what to think about this since it seems that you really like to have people tell you what to do and have all kinds of laws to follow. However, as I said above, I really do not know you at all, and I may be surprised to even receive an intelligent, thoughtful, and coherent response from you.
    Thats pretty funny, you know?
    Having someone who just admitted that he'll take what he wants from anyone he wants to take from unless they forcibly stop him.
    I think you might want to seek professional help and not worry yourself too much about how intelligent you feel my responses are.

    You may even display some higher wisdom (although it seems to be hidden up to this point). In any case, if you do not hear from me in the next few hours, it is not because I have tired from toying with you. It is just that I have laughed so hard that my stomach hurts and I really need to lay down and rest.
    Please...let me know when youre done toying with me, friend.

  8. #217
    Quote Originally Posted by The Realist View Post
    Wrong ! Walmart, Target, Home Depot et al are not privately owned. They are publically traded.
    Then maybe you can explain the tow away signs at our walmarts here that indicate that it IS private property ;)

  9. #218
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    No, YOU are the one that is mistaken here, not me. A BUSINESS may be privately owned, but it is NOT Private property, it is BUSINESS property, hence the name BUSINESS. If it were the same thing as Private property, it would be CALLED PRIVATE, not BUSINESS. What is so hard for those like you to make that VERY SIMPLE distinction?


    Let me give a very simple sample.....
    (not debating zoning laws here, so dont use that as a comeback, this is only an example)

    If I buy or rent/lease/whatever a building downtown in Smithville, USA....and decide to operate a Retail BUSINESS out of that said building.... I would need to follow certain BUSINESS laws would I not? Licensing, permits, occupancy codes, health codes, etc..... RIGHT? As a RETAIL BUSINESS, by virtue of being such, I have INVITED the PUBLIC into it, have I not?

    (remember, most manufacturing type businesses do NOT invite the PUBLIC into their property and can deny entrance to anyone they see fit, the same thing goes for PRIVATE CLUBS)

    If, on the other hand, I decide to have my home in this building.... Because I havent NOT INVITED THE PUBLIC into my house/home...... I can deny entry to anyone for whatever reason I want.
    You're very close to being right. But to simplify things even further, look at it this way...There is a property. Either it is owned by the government (fed, state, county, city, etc) in which case it is public property, or it owned by a private entity (i.e. business, co-op, individual, etc) which makes it private property. A business property is still private property. It doesn't matter whether the public is invited or not.

    Also, lets look at that concept, the invitation. If I bought a building on 5th Avenue in NYC (yeah, I;m a billionaire. LOL), that would be private property. I own that building. I have all the rights that any other property owner would have. So then I open my building and make it into a business. I invite the public in. I still have all the same rights as the property owner that I had yesterday before I opened my doors. I can ask them to leave and they have to comply or be charged with trespassing.

    But lets look at the sidewalk outside my business. I don't own that space. That is owned by the City of New York. I can't forbid anyone from doing anything legal there. Someone can march, and carry signs, and stand on a box and extoll the evils of eating broccoli if they want. As long as they don't create a public nuisance, and don't block the entrance to my business, I can't do anything about it. I can ask them to leave and they can laugh in my face.

    Now suppose the planets all aligned and NYC decided to allow the carrying of handguns. I have no say if someone carries on the sidewalk in front of my business. I don't own the sidewalk. But the minute they step foot in my business, I have a say in the matter.

    Its a common misconception that a business is public property. But the reality is that it is still privately owned so it is private property.

    Public property can also be divided up into categories (i.e. parks, public areas, military installations, etc) but in the eyes of the law, it is still public.

    As I stated, I had to become very familiar with these distinctions when I was the Director of Security at that mall.

    On a side note, the mall forbid the carry of weapons on the property. I would not shop there when I wasn't working for just that reason. About 2 years after I left that job and moved away, there was at least 1 shooting in the mall, and I think there may have been others. I don't remember. I have always wondered how the mall owners liked their policy after that.

  10. #219
    Quote Originally Posted by Lakeland Man View Post
    You're very close to being right. But to simplify things even further, look at it this way...There is a property. Either it is owned by the government (fed, state, county, city, etc) in which case it is public property, or it owned by a private entity (i.e. business, co-op, individual, etc) which makes it private property. A business property is still private property. It doesn't matter whether the public is invited or not.

    Also, lets look at that concept, the invitation. If I bought a building on 5th Avenue in NYC (yeah, I;m a billionaire. LOL), that would be private property. I own that building. I have all the rights that any other property owner would have. So then I open my building and make it into a business. I invite the public in. I still have all the same rights as the property owner that I had yesterday before I opened my doors. I can ask them to leave and they have to comply or be charged with trespassing.

    But lets look at the sidewalk outside my business. I don't own that space. That is owned by the City of New York. I can't forbid anyone from doing anything legal there. Someone can march, and carry signs, and stand on a box and extoll the evils of eating broccoli if they want. As long as they don't create a public nuisance, and don't block the entrance to my business, I can't do anything about it. I can ask them to leave and they can laugh in my face.

    Now suppose the planets all aligned and NYC decided to allow the carrying of handguns. I have no say if someone carries on the sidewalk in front of my business. I don't own the sidewalk. But the minute they step foot in my business, I have a say in the matter.

    Its a common misconception that a business is public property. But the reality is that it is still privately owned so it is private property.

    Public property can also be divided up into categories (i.e. parks, public areas, military installations, etc) but in the eyes of the law, it is still public.

    As I stated, I had to become very familiar with these distinctions when I was the Director of Security at that mall.

    On a side note, the mall forbid the carry of weapons on the property. I would not shop there when I wasn't working for just that reason. About 2 years after I left that job and moved away, there was at least 1 shooting in the mall, and I think there may have been others. I don't remember. I have always wondered how the mall owners liked their policy after that.
    Great post.

  11. #220
    Here is the definition of Public Property:

    Public property is property which is owned collectively by the people as a whole. This is in contrast to private property, owned by a individual person or artificial entities that represent the financial interests of persons, such as corporations.[1] State ownership, also called public ownership, government ownership or state property, are property interests that are vested in the state, rather than an individual or communities.[2]

Page 22 of 24 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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