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.

 

Gun Nuts attack singer for no-gun restaurants

page: 12
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   

kaylaluv


Okay, I think it's okay for a business owner to deny service to someone carrying a gun at any time. I think it's NEVER okay to deny service to someone because you don't like their race/religion/sexual orientation. That is also consistent.


Then you are a selective hypocrite.

One is okay, the other isn't.

I guess freedom for some, but not others.




posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I think the problem is that you see a firearm as an instrument of violence.

Those like myself see it as a tool of defense, a protective measure. Similar to a fire extinguisher.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   

kaylaluv

WeAreAWAKE



I think you got that backwards friend. If you ARE allowed to kill, you should be able to kill anyone regardless of race, sexual preference or love of guns. If you own the place and can exclude some people, you should be able to exclude any people for any reason. It is wrong to say excluding gun owners is find...but excluding fat people is wrong.


Should you be allowed to kill someone simply because they are black? or gay? or Jewish?


Should you be forbidden to defend yourself if your assailant is black? or gay? or Jewish?

Does someone have the right to live only if they are black, or gay, or jewish?

Getting the idea that a lot of people think that leftist identity politics and protected classes are messed up?



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   

NavyDoc


People get killed with cars too. Yet, more often people use cars everyday without killing another person. Should cars be banned? The problem is, you cannot separate the inanimate object from the user in this one instance. Seems pretty irrational to me.


Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said all guns should be banned. I would imagine though, that Toby Keith wouldn't allow someone to drive a car into his restaurant - and rightly so, as it might hurt somebody.


No it does not happen. CCW license holders do not pull out their guns and start shooting up the place. You just presented a statement that is completely unfounded, without basis in fact, and demonstrates lack of knowledge and blind prejudice on your part.


People don't ever shoot anyone in and around bars???? I think the stats say differently. Rather than trying to stop everyone to check to see if they have a CCW license, or whether they have any kind of previous police record, wouldn't it be more efficient to just not allow guns at all? If I were a restaurant/bar owner, and my insurance company told me I would have to pay triple cost for premiums to insure against law suits for allowing guns - it would be a no-brainer for me not to allow guns.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   

NavyDoc

kaylaluv

WeAreAWAKE



I think you got that backwards friend. If you ARE allowed to kill, you should be able to kill anyone regardless of race, sexual preference or love of guns. If you own the place and can exclude some people, you should be able to exclude any people for any reason. It is wrong to say excluding gun owners is find...but excluding fat people is wrong.


Should you be allowed to kill someone simply because they are black? or gay? or Jewish?


Should you be forbidden to defend yourself if your assailant is black? or gay? or Jewish?

Does someone have the right to live only if they are black, or gay, or jewish?

Getting the idea that a lot of people think that leftist identity politics and protected classes are messed up?


I'm willing to answer your questions, if you will answer mine.

No, you should not be forbidden to defend yourself if your assailant is black/gay/Jewish? However, you should be able to prove that they were indeed out to kill you.

No, someone does not have the right to live simply because of their color/religion/sexual orientation.

I am getting the idea that gun activists are struggling to fight a sound business decision to not allow guns and liquor to mix in their establishment.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I think the problem is that you see a firearm as an instrument of violence.

Those like myself see it as a tool of defense, a protective measure. Similar to a fire extinguisher.


Again, a firearm is very often used as an instrument of violence. Look at the stats and prove me wrong.

A fire extinguisher is very seldom ever used as an instrument of violence. Look at the stats and prove me wrong.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   

macman

kaylaluv


Okay, I think it's okay for a business owner to deny service to someone carrying a gun at any time. I think it's NEVER okay to deny service to someone because you don't like their race/religion/sexual orientation. That is also consistent.


Then you are a selective hypocrite.

One is okay, the other isn't.

I guess freedom for some, but not others.


Then so are you. You think it's okay to have the freedom to kill in some instances, but not in others.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   

kaylaluv

NavyDoc


People get killed with cars too. Yet, more often people use cars everyday without killing another person. Should cars be banned? The problem is, you cannot separate the inanimate object from the user in this one instance. Seems pretty irrational to me.


Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said all guns should be banned. I would imagine though, that Toby Keith wouldn't allow someone to drive a car into his restaurant - and rightly so, as it might hurt somebody.


No it does not happen. CCW license holders do not pull out their guns and start shooting up the place. You just presented a statement that is completely unfounded, without basis in fact, and demonstrates lack of knowledge and blind prejudice on your part.


People don't ever shoot anyone in and around bars???? I think the stats say differently. Rather than trying to stop everyone to check to see if they have a CCW license, or whether they have any kind of previous police record, wouldn't it be more efficient to just not allow guns at all? If I were a restaurant/bar owner, and my insurance company told me I would have to pay triple cost for premiums to insure against law suits for allowing guns - it would be a no-brainer for me not to allow guns.


Considering that it is already illegal to carry a gun ANYWHERE without a CCW license, this rule and statement is only directed at those who have a CCW licenses and only those type of people are the type of people who would obey a "no guns sign" either. You honestly think a criminal type who is going to shoot up his restaurant with an illegally carried gun is going to stop at the door and go "nope, can't go in there 'cause I see a sign." Really? Liberals are pretty damned naïve if that is the case. No, this whole debate is about and centered around legal CCW carriers.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   

kaylaluv

What is much more likely to happen is, a person who gets shot in a bar that allows guns will sue the owner for allowing guns. I'm sure the insurance company who advised Keith has all the stats on that.


See, the problem here is that a CCDW permit holder (and active weapon carrier) is not worried about what is most likely to happen--we have our weapons for that 1-in-a-million chance that we find ourselves or someone else in a life-threatening situation and our only out is to draw and use that weapon for protection.

In all honesty, what is most likely to happen in both scenarios is that no weapon is ever drawn or fired, and everyone enjoying their drinks or meals will not even know that a CCDW permit holder has a firearm on them.

THAT is the reality of things, not this red-herring garbage of a fantasy world where CCDW permit holders draw their weapons at the slightest instance of being annoyed at something.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   

kaylaluv

macman

kaylaluv


Okay, I think it's okay for a business owner to deny service to someone carrying a gun at any time. I think it's NEVER okay to deny service to someone because you don't like their race/religion/sexual orientation. That is also consistent.


Then you are a selective hypocrite.

One is okay, the other isn't.

I guess freedom for some, but not others.


Then so are you. You think it's okay to have the freedom to kill in some instances, but not in others.


But not the same instances...and that is where you miss the mark. He is saying that justifiable self defense killing is justifiable regardless the class of people what you are saying is, en essence, that justifiable self defense killing is justifiable only if it is not done to select protected classes--in that case it isn't. Hence the hypocrisy.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   

NavyDoc

kaylaluv

macman

kaylaluv


Okay, I think it's okay for a business owner to deny service to someone carrying a gun at any time. I think it's NEVER okay to deny service to someone because you don't like their race/religion/sexual orientation. That is also consistent.


Then you are a selective hypocrite.

One is okay, the other isn't.

I guess freedom for some, but not others.


Then so are you. You think it's okay to have the freedom to kill in some instances, but not in others.


But not the same instances...and that is where you miss the mark. He is saying that justifiable self defense killing is justifiable regardless the class of people what you are saying is, en essence, that justifiable self defense killing is justifiable only if it is not done to select protected classes--in that case it isn't. Hence the hypocrisy.


That's not what I said at all. Matter of fact, I said just the opposite. Justifiable self-defense killing is justifiable regardless of the race/religion/sexual orientation. Killing someone STRICTLY because of their race/religion/sexual orientation is not justifiable.

Denying anyone (regardless of their race/religion/sexual orientation) service because they have a gun is justifiable. Denying someone service STRICTLY because of their race/religion/sexual orientation is not justifiable. I don't know how you can get more consistent than that.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by SlapMonkey
 


www.vpc.org...

Sometimes, CCW holders are not very nice people. They are not all guardian angels.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   

kaylaluv

Again, a firearm is very often used as an instrument of violence. Look at the stats and prove me wrong.


Guns in the United States

Look at the stats and you won't say that nonsense. See, with the 101.05 guns per 100 people in the Unites States, if we take your comment at face value, America would have probably half the population it does now because, you know, these firearms are "very often used as an instrumetn of violence."

Such nonsense...but I guess with a non-specific value of "very often," I can't prove your opinion wrong because I don't know your definition of "very often."

The big problem is that, from what I can find--well, can't find--there is no data for accidental shootings committed by CCDW permit holders, which means neither of us can speak with any authority on your assumptions concerning accidental shootings in a restaurant by CCDW permit holders.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   

kaylaluv

beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I think the problem is that you see a firearm as an instrument of violence.

Those like myself see it as a tool of defense, a protective measure. Similar to a fire extinguisher.


Again, a firearm is very often used as an instrument of violence. Look at the stats and prove me wrong.

A fire extinguisher is very seldom ever used as an instrument of violence. Look at the stats and prove me wrong.


So are baseball bats, kitchen knives, and large rocks.

Your view is very narrow.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 





Considering that it is already illegal to carry a gun ANYWHERE without a CCW license


Are you referring to a particular state. TK has/is building a restaurant in Houston,TX. That certainly isn't the rule in that state. A non CHL holder can carry a handgun in his car or business. If you mean in a hand gun in a public place, that's true. Long guns are a whole different story.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   

kaylaluv

NavyDoc

kaylaluv

macman

kaylaluv


Okay, I think it's okay for a business owner to deny service to someone carrying a gun at any time. I think it's NEVER okay to deny service to someone because you don't like their race/religion/sexual orientation. That is also consistent.


Then you are a selective hypocrite.

One is okay, the other isn't.

I guess freedom for some, but not others.


Then so are you. You think it's okay to have the freedom to kill in some instances, but not in others.


But not the same instances...and that is where you miss the mark. He is saying that justifiable self defense killing is justifiable regardless the class of people what you are saying is, en essence, that justifiable self defense killing is justifiable only if it is not done to select protected classes--in that case it isn't. Hence the hypocrisy.


That's not what I said at all. Matter of fact, I said just the opposite. Justifiable self-defense killing is justifiable regardless of the race/religion/sexual orientation. Killing someone STRICTLY because of their race/religion/sexual orientation is not justifiable.

Denying anyone (regardless of their race/religion/sexual orientation) service because they have a gun is justifiable. Denying someone service STRICTLY because of their race/religion/sexual orientation is not justifiable. I don't know how you can get more consistent than that.


The inconsistency is where you find discrimination of something, simply because you don't like it but have the other opinion for other discrimination. Gun owners are not a protected class to you--ostensibly because you don't like them--but many others--the typical leftist protected classes-- are. You pick and choose what one person is allow to discriminate with. That is a hypocritical stance. A person should be able to ban smoking in his restaurant or he should be able to have smoking in his restaurant because it is his restaurant--that is a consistent stance. Smoking should be banned in a restaurant because I don't like smoking but gay pride tee shirts should be protected because I'm so enlightened. That is an inconsistent response.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   

roadgravel
reply to post by NavyDoc
 





Considering that it is already illegal to carry a gun ANYWHERE without a CCW license


Are you referring to a particular state. TK has/is building a restaurant in Houston,TX. That certainly isn't the rule in that state. A non CHL holder can carry a handgun in his car or business. If you mean in a hand gun in a public place, that's true. Long guns are a whole different story.


For the sake of discussion, in public places/businesses.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I've already seen that bit of propaganda, but at least that site has the integrity to admit that those stats are just pulled from news reports that can be found because there are no scientific, official stats concerning that data. Also, keep in mind that most of those numbers are criminal activity, not accidental shootings, so again, I fail to see a good, logical point that you're trying to make.

So, yes, sometimes CCDW folks are not angels, but I'll tell you this much, those numbers that you're showing are cumulative from 2007, so like I said, considering the estimated 300,000,000 guns in this country, I'll take that statistical chance that CCDW holders are much more responsible with their weapons than criminals are. Hell, I know for a statistical fact that there were more deaths from human body parts (hands, feet, etc.) in 2011 than were in total from that link you posted from 2007 on.

Keep proving your logic incorrect, please.
edit on 3-1-2014 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   

NavyDoc


The inconsistency is where you find discrimination of something, simply because you don't like it but have the other opinion for other discrimination. Gun owners are not a protected class to you--ostensibly because you don't like them--but many others--the typical leftist protected classes-- are. You pick and choose what one person is allow to discriminate with. That is a hypocritical stance. A person should be able to ban smoking in his restaurant or he should be able to have smoking in his restaurant because it is his restaurant--that is a consistent stance. Smoking should be banned in a restaurant because I don't like smoking but gay pride tee shirts should be protected because I'm so enlightened. That is an inconsistent response.


There's one big difference between smoking and a gay pride t-shirt. Second hand cigarette smoke can physically harm someone. I know I get horrible headaches around cigarette smoke. My mother is asthmatic and she gets an attack around cigarette smoke. If someone is allowed to smoke next to me in a restaurant, there's no way I can get away from it. Looking the other way doesn't help. I'm fine with telling a gay person they can't smoke in a restaurant. That IS consistent.

A gay pride t-shirt doesn't cause physical harm. You can always look away if it bothers you psychologically. That's what I do when I see someone wearing a shirt that glorifies guns. That IS consistent.

People with guns have the potential to cause physical harm



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Arizona might be a exception. But they do allow for an owner for exclude.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join