It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Restaurant with 'No Weapons, No Concealed Firearms' Sign Robbed at Gunpoint

page: 13
54
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

So because of that sign the restaurant was robbed? That's like an establishment that has a sign requiring clothing being attacked by crazy nudists. Either the robbing has entirely random or some a-hole NRA member wanted to make a political point. But if it was just your run of the mill robber, than I'm pretty sure the sign had nothing to do with it.


So, all NRA members are a-holes?





posted on May, 24 2014 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

So because of that sign the restaurant was robbed? That's like an establishment that has a sign requiring clothing being attacked by crazy nudists. Either the robbing has entirely random or some a-hole NRA member wanted to make a political point. But if it was just your run of the mill robber, than I'm pretty sure the sign had nothing to do with it.


Your analogy doesn't make any sense much less hit the point. And, you can really believe that an armed robber will walk past an easy target [NO GUNS ALLOWED] to find one that is an unknown? Really? I am voting for taking the easy pickings.

What have you got against the NRA? Is it the 1st or the 2nd amendment that you object to or perhaps both of them?
edit on 24-5-2014 by whywhynot because: sp



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot

Restaurant has sign that says no gun, guy breaks rule by entering with gun. Estblishement requires clothings, person breaks rule by entering nude. Analogy works lol.
The NRA is a non-profit organization that has seriously deviated from it's orginal message of gun safety to a massively biased political organization that spouts non-sense. Wayne LaPierre blatently and abrsudrly lying is what i have against them. I love the 1st ammendment, allows me to write this BS. As for the 2nd ammendment I'm all for gun ownership of whatever and however many guns people want to buy. But let's not pretend that carrying a firearm in public has no other use than to shoot someone.

But if I were to get all technical on the 2nd ammendment. The right to arm yourself with guns is conditional on the maintenance of a "Well Regulated Militia". I doubt every gun owner in America is willing to join a well regulated militia lol.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0




You dont like guns thats fine dont own one. But dont try and take away the rights of law abiding citizens just so you can have a false sense of security.


The sign saying "No Guns" draws criminals to the establishment thereby placing patrons at risk. The sign requiring clothes draws nudists? Really? The nudists are endangering the patrons how? I really am LOL.




I love the 1st ammendment, allows me to write this BS.


At least you admit it is BS, that makes you honest.




posted on May, 24 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0
No, you don't understand english properly. A well regulated militia is stated as one of the reasons personal arms is a guaranteed right. By that reasoning if I could afford a cannon, I could have one. If I could afford a tank, I could have one. The regulation of "arms" has been usurped by the tyrants, and made unavailable through many avenues. Price is one, and false laws is another. Arms is not only offense, but also defense. Civilians are denied most defense through false laws. Good luck as a civilian to make an auto like the one obama gets to ride in. Good luck getting a bullet proof vest as a civilian. It has been pushed back to the middle ages again, where only nobility can afford proper armor and weapons according to the times.

Legality of things makes things only available to the nobles. I have converted my tank of a suburban to literally a tank to the best of my financial abilities at least. It is probably not legal, but screw the tyrant's laws. Adding more metal to my doors, bulletproof glass where applicable may not be legal, but the laws are not lawful. It's not only the rich who are supposed to be permitted to be safe. My home, forget about it. I pity the moron that tries to breach my property. They are in for some nasty surprises.

edit on Sat, 24 May 2014 20:49:50 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Ismail

You are entitled to your opinion. The statistics support the fact that we are safer in the midst of an armed population.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: elephantstone
Is your society so screwed up that you have to carry lethal weapons just to go work?


I know... several Public Policy Enforcers... ?
The sign got unintended results for the owners,
because the owners actually believed the criminals
would read the sign and disarm before entering to
do the caper. "I've got a loaded tamale here, this is
a stickup - on the floor NOW!" ROFL

"You got a FOID wrapper for that tamale, kid?"

All unsavory individuals intent on robbing anyone
in this establishment may encounter unexpectedly
hypersensitive personalities and lethal flatulence. OMG
Only in America. I need a chipotle beef and refried
chalupa.. maybe a tray. A new definition of Loaded for Bear...

EDIT:: Are those pickled eggs at the bar? Come at me cousin..

I can't help it, but my faith in my neighbors' good judgment of
human nature is most challenged with Gun Free Zone signs
above all. When you stake your life on an obvious contradiction
of terms in the anthropological mix, Darwin always eventually wins.
I might look and sound like my reasoning volume takes up all the
space of the meat between your pinky bone and nail, but
I'll go peck around outside while you hang it out in there.
edit on 24-5-2014 by derfreebie because: Faith - based suicide... a brand new kinda stupid

edit on 24-5-2014 by derfreebie because: Like the Fifth Step-- editing is cheating



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Okay. So none of this seems to make any sense to me. A restaurant puts up a sign designating it a gun free zone. A couple of people come in, rob the place, and assault the workers at this establishment............
This is typical criminal behavior, and its not changing anytime soon. Putting up a sign makes no difference. The real issue here is the disconnect between the restaurant owners and their employees. Working in the service industry is difficult enough. Add on top the fact that these servers/waiters/bartenders etc literally walk around with the restaurants profits in their pockets for hours on end during their shifts. Were talking hundreds to thousands of dollars. At any moment ANYBODY can walk into ANY restaurant. If the intention is taking money, unfortunately the servers are easy targets. I hate saying this, but the potential for easy robberies at any restaurant is very high and easily profitable. The restaurant owners should have silent alarms/automatic security systems/security guards/some type of PLAN to PROTECT THEIR WORKERS. Instead of putting up signs declaring a gun free zone , put up some security systems for these hard working people. PRIORITIZE!!!! -kngfc



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 04:28 AM
link   
lol. Would have seen this coming a mile away.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   
so what?
mediamatters.org...
edit on 25-5-2014 by MeteoraXV because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   
This thread makes very little sense - unless, of course, this gun free restaurant is the only place to have been subject of an armed robbery in Durham, NC

Edit:

There was an armed robbery in Durham, NC yesterday.

www.wral.com...

I assume the Soletez Boutique was a gun free zone too?

edit on 25-5-2014 by KingIcarus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: jhn7537

It's a logical assumption that the sign decreed the robbery safe.

If you know the patrons and workers aren't going to have guns, then bringing a gun puts you at severe advantage. If I was a criminal serial robber, I'd be robbing exclusively places that are "gun free" zones, because there would statistically be less chance of it going sour and me getting myself shot.

So strategically, yes -- it makes you a bigger target.

This isn't to say that people won't rob non-gunfree zones -- it just means it's safer to rob gun free zones, so ipsofacto, gun free zones become the more logical targets.



originally posted by: KingIcarus
This thread makes very little sense - unless, of course, this gun free restaurant is the only place to have been subject of an armed robbery in Durham, NC

Edit:

There was an armed robbery in Durham, NC yesterday.

www.wral.com...

I assume the Soletez Boutique was a gun free zone too?


This is flawed logic. To make the leap from gun free zones being safer to rob -- to non-gun free zones never getting robbed is a fallacy of high magnitude.

Let me ask you a question -- say you were forced to rob a venue, now you had 3 choices, a biker bar, a fast food restaurant, a high class high dollar restaurant with a gun free zone policy, which would you pick?


Because I'd pick the gun free zone every time. This doesn't mean people WILL NOT rob places that aren't gun free, gun free zones are still rare too, if every place was a gun free zone, the robbers with guns would have better probabilities of success at a much lesser risk of death or mortal injury.

Do you see how your logic was flawed yet?
edit on 25-5-2014 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Thieves take $70k in guns during robbery at gun store


Not too mention all the robberies of banks with armed guards. So tell us again..how guns stop anything..




You just won't hear about it on MSM. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

-SAP-



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ismail
a reply to: skunkape23

If what happened in that video actually happened in real life, you'd have a frikkin' bloodbath on your hands.

People who need to walk around with a gun on them at all times as a prerequisite for interaction with other human beings are very frightened people.
I'd pick a calm criminal over a frightened crowd of armed wannabe vigilantes any day of the week. In one case I get robbed. Second case, I probably get shot in the face by some nervous dude who thought I was the criminal. And then he would probably get shot by someone else. Ect...


What?

You do realize that the greater population of the planet lives in places where people are strapped with Assault Rifles on their person right?

That we only have this luxury of NOT walking around with fire arms in 1st world countries... right?

Also, in places like Texas, where everyone has a firearm, it's not because they are "nervous or scared" it's quite the opposite. It's because it's customary, cultural, and ensures confidence. What it does, is -- put fear into the would be out of liners.

So, if you walk into a venue, and there are 35 people, and 20 of those people are open carrying... are you going to attempt to rob that place?

Honest question?

Your honest answer would be "Hell no" and that's why those people are NOT nervous. If someone did try to rob them, it would not end up in a vigilante blood bath, it would end up with that person being subdued or shot, the police being called, and everyone giving statements while surveillance camera feeds were reviewed.

It's YOU who is scared and nervous -- so scared of being "accidentally shot" by "would be vigilantes" who "need to carry" because they are "scared" that you'd actually rather get robbed than be in a secure environment.

Doesn't this prove that you're in fact the one scared?

The reality is, in those places, guns are about as common as Drivers Licenses, and as a result, people don't really pay any mind to them outside of knowing they are equipped with a tool to handle/prevent certain situations. It's not like these people are walking around skittish, scared -- questioning the behavior of the people around them just looking for a reason to squeeze off a couple rounds... To them, their gun is about as relevant as their Driver's License...

It's something they always carry that they virtually don't ever use. The only times you need an ID are when you get pulled over, or if you're buying alcohol/porn/tobacco products and look like you might be underage. So the average person over 30, uses their drivers license virtually never, but we all carry one.


edit on 25-5-2014 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Should we ban cats because they have claws? Should we exterminate bees because they have stingers? I could go on and on with further examples. Guns are a product of the human intellect. They are effective for defense and part of the natural order. Oh, yeah...you can also use them to gather food. I have filled hungry bellies more than once with a gun.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

Give me a break!

About ten years ago, a restaurant that I often patronized, (that did NOT have a "No Guns" sign posted) was also robbed at gunpoint. The difference is, not only did the robbers take all their money, they also shot and killed one of the two brothers who owned the establishment.

Should I conclude that robberies are more lethal at establishments who choose not to display a "No Guns" sign?

IMO, your hypothesis that the establishment in question was robbed at gunpoint specifically because of the fact that they chose to display the sign has more holes in it than a good wheel of Swiss cheese.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

Give me a break!

About ten years ago, a restaurant that I often patronized, (that did NOT have a "No Guns" sign posted) was also robbed at gunpoint. The difference is, not only did the robbers take all their money, they also shot and killed one of the two brothers who owned the establishment.

Should I conclude that robberies are more lethal at establishments who choose not to display a "No Guns" sign?

IMO, your hypothesis that the establishment in question was robbed at gunpoint specifically because of the fact that they chose to display the sign has more holes in it than a good wheel of Swiss cheese.



Once again, and as stated many times in this thread, NOT having a "No Guns Allowed" sign is no insurance against crime HOWEVER having a "No Guns Allowed" sign will draw criminal opportunists more so than not. It is really that simple.



posted on May, 25 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: GokuVsSuperman0


But if I were to get all technical on the 2nd ammendment. The right to arm yourself with guns is conditional on the maintenance of a "Well Regulated Militia". I doubt every gun owner in America is willing to join a well regulated militia lol.


Umm.. No. It most certainly and absolutely is NOT connected to being a member of ANYTHING other than the citizenship of this nation. So said the Supreme Court in DC Vs. Heller and so made that the absolute law of our land.

A well regulated militia was found to be formed by the very population itself. We are, at heart, a Militia and we're damn sure regulated heavily enough.

Prior to 2009? That whole "well regulated Militia" thing WAS a debatable point and debate it brought. Truckloads of it. No more tho...and I'm sure that burned some anti-gun people so badly they STILL feel the sting. JUST as they had the most Anti-Gun Administration in living memory come to power? The Super Court made the most meaningful decision FOR the rights of gun owners in our nation's history.

I still laugh a bit over the timing.. It rocked their little world before they even got started with the agenda.


DC Vs. Heller Summaries and Case References
edit on 5/25/2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

lol, its the same justices that think corporations are people and money is speech, but whatever..


and the right wing complains about "librul activist judges" ha ha ha



posted on May, 26 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: NonsensicalUserName
What is this dumbass trend lately of putting quotations marks around misspelled words to try and make others look stupid?

edit on Mon, 26 May 2014 13:49:02 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join