Gun Nuts attack singer for no-gun restaurants

your thread title was much more inflammatory and sensationalistic than the so called 'attack'

Nobody is saying Toby Keith doesn't have the right to ban guns in his eatery. Not once.

But that doesn't mean his fans and other citizens of this nation don't also have a right to voice their opinions about it.

Figure it out.

CB328
Am I the only one who thinks that calling someone an America-hater for not wanting weapons of destruction in their business is crazy? Really the obnoxiousness and downright stupidity of gun worshippers has gotten so far out of hand I think it is irreparable. Mad Max here we come:

Toby Keith under fire for no guns policy at his restaurant chain

social.entertainment.msn.com...

A business owner has a right to allow or not allow things on their property. As long as it isn't evil cigarettes anyway

People also have a right to not be happy about it and voice that opinion without some person calling them a gun worshiper.
Many people will not patronize a business with anti gun policies. I guess those are worshipers

Many people will not go to a business or even protest said business because of a pro gun policy. what might you call them?

Wow do gun owners constantly live in fear like this or is it just the ones on ATS?

reply to post by roadgravel


It is a strange exception...

reply to post by Onslaught2996


We live in a state of vigilance, not fear. The people that "don't like" guns are the ones who live in a state of fear, as well as sociopathy.

reply to post by angrysniper


Actually it is a state of fear. You gun owners think there is a bad person around every corner and you must be prepared for them..

I don't want your guns...keep em..never take another man's manhood away I say..

Me I am perfectly safe without one..that would be because I live in the best country in the world, CANADA.

I can walk around perfectly safe without a weapon, we in Canada do not live in constant fear the boogey man is out to get us.

The thing about gun owners though..is they just don't seem to realize their love of guns and going against any sort of reasonable gun laws are the reason criminals own guns.

The more guns put out there, the more access to guns criminals will have...I guess gun owners just aren't bright.

You can blame criminals for not obeying the law all you want..but that also happens here and guess what...not much gun violence here..because guns are not flowing into our streets.

Criminals do not run our country..and don;t say they don;t in yours...because gun owners obviously think they do...why else would they feel the need to be constantly armed?

Onslaught2996
Wow do gun owners constantly live in fear like this or is it just the ones on ATS?

What does one enjoying their rights have to do with fear? Is using free speech just an example of being afraid to shut up?

Look, I do carry a weapon sometimes. Sometimes not. It's all about how I'm feeling that day. I have the right to and sometimes I exercise that right. It has nothing to do with fear. It does have to do with my feeling of personal responsibility. I am responsible for my and my families safety. Now understand I am a middle aged man with a tore up back so I can't just run off even if I wanted to and I'm not going to fare well fighting off some bad person that thinks they have more a right to my stuff then I do. Again I will point out that I do not feel I have to have a weapon to leave my house. But I do see the ability top protect myself as my responsibility. Apparently so does the courts. A weapon is nothing more than a tool to help maintain safety. Much like a fire extinguisher. Also something I do not keep with me or around me all the time. But if I'm in my shop and a fire breaks out and I don't have one in there I can't blame the fire dept for the damage. If I'm on my way back form the Dr and some dope head thinks they need my prescriptions more than me I can't blame police for them bonking me on the head and taking them. Both situations damage and be minimized though with a little careful forethought.

Back to the OPs ting though. It does not bother me at all that they do not want weapons in their business. I think think that's their right. But it's also the right of anyone that chooses to not go there and also a right to say their reasons and opinions why.

Was it extremism when anti-gunners tried to rally against Starbucks because they would not put in a no gun policy?
www.usatoday.com...

I often wonder why it is so many people's opinion that tolerance of ones rights are only applicable when they agree with the right.
intolerance of intolerance is still intolerance...

Onslaught2996
Me I am perfectly safe without one..that would be because I live in the best country in the world, CANADA.

I can walk around perfectly safe without a weapon, we in Canada do not live in constant fear the boogey man is out to get us.

Isn't the "Highway of Tears" in Canada?

Just sayin'.

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

The right to protect HIS life and the lives of his staff how he sees fit
The liberty to choose what happens on HIS premises
The right to be happy HIS premises are a gun free zone

What’s not to understand? is he not exercising HIS rights as an American?

If you are too scared to eat in a restaurant without carrying a firearm then I suggest you hide out at home and order a pizza maybe eat it in the dark with a shotgun on your lap while you peer out through the the curtains looking out for the dreaded home invaders.

I"m not going to join the pro or anti side of the gun debate. Not worth the stress to me at the moment

BUT...

Here's a "fun fact" for all the ignoramus' spewing their "i'm glad he doesn't allow people toting guns to come in and be drinking" crap.

ITS AGAINST THE STATUTES ANYWAY. CCW permit or open carry, doesn't matter, if you're in an establishment that serves alcohol and your drinking and carrying you can be arrested according to statute. If your not drinking then your good to go, unless of course the establishment has a posted prohibition against it. Then they can kick you out and use the police to do it. If there IS NO posted policy and they try to kick you out, in reality they will most likely succeed at kicking you out anyway and will most likely be use the police to do it, but you'd have some standing to legally retaliate if it was really worth it to you. Police are always going to f### with citizens if they can in reality.

Here's a case where the establishment ALLOWED guns and the police STILL tried to step in

www.youtube.com...

As far as the sign on Toby Keith's door, if people are gonna conceal carry no one will know anyway unless by some staggering odds something pops off and a conceal carrier draws and saves the day. in which case they will probably be prosecuted even though they saved lives and the crowd was grateful they were there, as has happened in the past.

But i just wanted to point that out. Generally you can't drink and carry legally anywhere except on your own property.

amazing
His Restaurant, his rules. I don't see the problem. If you don't like it, or if you don't feel safe, then don't go in there. Problem solved.

Funny how that doesn't fly when the rule is no gays, or no blacks, etc. While I think any business owner is nuts to exclude anyone from their business, you have to either allow them to restrict whom they serve or not. I would prefer to allow them to serve whom they wish and deny service to others. I think that with it being their business, they should be able to do that. But I really doubt that those that say "yeah...cool...no guns" would also be the first to say "no way...horrible..no gays".

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

WeAreAWAKE

amazing
His Restaurant, his rules. I don't see the problem. If you don't like it, or if you don't feel safe, then don't go in there. Problem solved.

Funny how that doesn't fly when the rule is no gays, or no blacks, etc. While I think any business owner is nuts to exclude anyone from their business, you have to either allow them to restrict whom they serve or not. I would prefer to allow them to serve whom they wish and deny service to others. I think that with it being their business, they should be able to do that. But I really doubt that those that say "yeah...cool...no guns" would also be the first to say "no way...horrible..no gays".

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

It isn't black or white/all or nothing. Take this as an example: is killing someone always okay or always not okay? It depends, doesn't it? It's considered okay to kill someone in battle during a war. It's okay to kill someone in self-defense. It is not okay to kill someone because they cut you off in traffic. It is not okay to kill someone because they stole your girlfriend. That's why the laws are set up the way they are - sometimes it's okay to kill someone. Sometimes it's not okay.

It's okay to deny service to someone in order to protect your business and/or your customers. It's not okay to deny service to someone simply because of their race/religion/sexual orientation. That's why the laws are set up the way they are.

DrumJunkie

Onslaught2996
Wow do gun owners constantly live in fear like this or is it just the ones on ATS?

What does one enjoying their rights have to do with fear? Is using free speech just an example of being afraid to shut up?

Look, I do carry a weapon sometimes. Sometimes not. It's all about how I'm feeling that day. I have the right to and sometimes I exercise that right. It has nothing to do with fear. It does have to do with my feeling of personal responsibility. I am responsible for my and my families safety. Now understand I am a middle aged man with a tore up back so I can't just run off even if I wanted to and I'm not going to fare well fighting off some bad person that thinks they have more a right to my stuff then I do. Again I will point out that I do not feel I have to have a weapon to leave my house. But I do see the ability top protect myself as my responsibility. Apparently so does the courts. A weapon is nothing more than a tool to help maintain safety. Much like a fire extinguisher. Also something I do not keep with me or around me all the time. But if I'm in my shop and a fire breaks out and I don't have one in there I can't blame the fire dept for the damage. If I'm on my way back form the Dr and some dope head thinks they need my prescriptions more than me I can't blame police for them bonking me on the head and taking them. Both situations damage and be minimized though with a little careful forethought.

Back to the OPs ting though. It does not bother me at all that they do not want weapons in their business. I think think that's their right. But it's also the right of anyone that chooses to not go there and also a right to say their reasons and opinions why.

Was it extremism when anti-gunners tried to rally against Starbucks because they would not put in a no gun policy?
www.usatoday.com...

I often wonder why it is so many people's opinion that tolerance of ones rights are only applicable when they agree with the right.
intolerance of intolerance is still intolerance...

What he demonstrates is psychological projection. He actually lives in a state of fear--fear of inanimate objects and projects those insecurities on other people and cannot comprehend that people would use a gun as a tool and have no fear nor love for them because he, himself, cannot respond to guns in a non-emotional way.

technical difficulties

NavyDoc

crazyewok

NavyDoc



Now, I wonder what the response would be if one changed "gun owners" to "gays" or "African Americans." Would people still say, "his store, his rules?"

You can leave a gun at home if you really want to go. You cant stop being black, a women or gay (though diffrent debate on that one) ect Basicaly huge diffrent between a OBJECT you can leave or a inbuilt human traite you cant change. So unless you were born with a gun for a hand your argument dont hold water.

It holds plenty of water. I both cases the business owners decide to refuse business to different sets of people simply because they do not like them. It is hypocritical to say that one business owner should make that decision for himself but another business owner does not. You are making a decision based on what you like and what you don't feel comfortable with.

I agree that any business should make their own decisions whether I like them or not. If I do not agree with their decision, I will take my business elsewhere. This is freedom.

Actually, it's not the same. As Ewok said, you can leave your guns in the car or at home. The sign says no guns allowed, not no gun owners allowed. There's a huge difference between banning a person and banning a object.

I agree that business owners have the right to discriminate, but comparing those two situations is a pretty simple minded thing to do.

I disagree. You think they are not comparable because you don't want to face the fact of the hypocrisy in the leftist stance: take away choice you don't like but support choice you do.

I've been consistent: the business owner should be the one who decides who or what he wants to do business with. You guys have been picking and choosing which groups get protected status and which groups do not.

An analogy.

A gun owner is like a person who has fire extinguishers at home. A fire starts, he/she puts it out.

The anti-gun crowd? They would prefer not to have a fire extinguisher and simply rely on 911 and the fire department to take care of the fire.

HanzHenry

kaylaluv

macman
reply to post by jimmyx

 

So refusing service based upon your own viewpoints and/or beliefs is okay.

This particular thread doesn't have anything to do with personal viewpoints and/or beliefs. It has to do with a business decision to protect customers and to protect the business from getting sued if someone gets shot on the premises.

25 years ago we wouldn't be having this conversation. Someone with a gun in a restaurant would be told to leave, and EVERYONE would applaud the decision.

Even Military, sans combat zone, don't take their weapons into the chow hall. They stack them neatly outside, or turn it into the armory.

A person should be able protect their own, but having inadequately trained yukety yuks walk around like Rambo is stupid.

escalating a bad situation is easy when more guns get involved.

Years in both OIF and OEF everybody took their weapons into the chow hall with them. You don't let your weapon leave your immediate control when in country.

beezzer
An analogy.

A gun owner is like a person who has fire extinguishers at home. A fire starts, he/she puts it out.

The anti-gun crowd? They would prefer not to have a fire extinguisher and simply rely on 911 and the fire department to take care of the fire.

Because they are afraid of the fire extinguisher and they don't want anyone else to have a fire extinguisher either.

NavyDoc



I disagree. You think they are not comparable because you don't want to face the fact of the hypocrisy in the leftist stance: take away choice you don't like but support choice you do.

I've been consistent: the business owner should be the one who decides who or what he wants to do business with. You guys have been picking and choosing which groups get protected status and which groups do not.

Then to be consistent, you MUST either think it's always okay to kill someone no matter what, or you MUST think it's never okay to kill someone, no matter what. Which is it for you? Always okay or never okay?

FlyersFan
COMMON SENSE .... if a restaurant is so dangerous or questionable that you feel you need a gun for self protection to go eat there .... then I'd think you'd not want to eat there anyways.

COMMON SENSE ... if alcohol is flowing freely at a restaurant then people should leave their guns home. Accidents happen.

BUT ... the 2nd amendment says that people are allowed to carry. So is it breaking the law to post a common sense sign of 'no guns' at a restaurant that serves alcohol?? That's my question.

Schools are 'no gun zones'. But that's by additional laws.
Can restaurants self proclaim themselves to be gun free zones and still be following the law.

I have no idea. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer.
So I'm asking the question.

I disagree with your common sense points above. #1 more so than #2. Susanna Gratia Hupp didn't feel that Luby's Cafeteria was a dangerous place either and left her handgun in her car and then helplessly watched 23 people, including her parents die at the hands of a nutjob in s perfectly safe place. Common sense suggests that one pre prepared for contingencies at all times, not just when you are worried, because bad events have a way of happening when you least expect them. I agree that alcohol and guns don't mix which it is why it is illegal to drink while carrying in all states that permit CCW licenses. The CCW licensee is not the one to worry about--if they were irresponsible they wouldn't have sought not qualified for the license.

As for the Constitutionality of banning CCW in your own business. The Constitution constrains the lawmakers, not a fellow citizen. It is perfectly constitutional to dictate what people can do or even say inside you business. Although I may disagree with the business owner's decision, I respect his right to make his own call in his own business. Unlike the hypocritical left, I respect his right to do something with his own property, even if I disagree with it.

kaylaluv

NavyDoc



I disagree. You think they are not comparable because you don't want to face the fact of the hypocrisy in the leftist stance: take away choice you don't like but support choice you do.

I've been consistent: the business owner should be the one who decides who or what he wants to do business with. You guys have been picking and choosing which groups get protected status and which groups do not.

Then to be consistent, you MUST either think it's always okay to kill someone no matter what, or you MUST think it's never okay to kill someone, no matter what. Which is it for you? Always okay or never okay?

That makes no sense. Talking about odd examples. Okay. In order to be consistent, I think it is okay to kill someone in self defense at any time.

What you are saying is not what you used an example above but more like: it is not okay to kill someone if I agree with or am sympathetic to the social or economic or philosophical group he belongs to and it is okay to kill them if I don't agree with their politics or what they carry or what they believe. Killing them should have nothing to do with their position in a PC protected class or not but their behavior. Are they a threat or are they not? If they are it is justified be they rich or poor, black or white, left or right. If they are not, then nothing justifies it.

You just want to pick and choose based on identity politics. It is okay to kill in self defense as long as it is a neo-Nazi but not if it is a black youth in a hoody. That is the type of position you are taking.