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: 14
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   

NavyDoc


And there you go. You go to great length to justify your prejudices. Things you agree with should be protected by law and things you don't agree with should not be protected by law. Instead of simply not going into a restaurant where there is smoking, you justify forcing the owner to have that decision and those of the other patrons made for them by the state. I have the potential to kill you without using an instrument of any sort. Should my hands be cut off? If you restrict people's rights based on what they might do, then you really are no better than any other fascist state.


Well, I didn't say I agree with the state forcing no smoking in a restaurant. I DO agree with allowing a restaurant to ban smoking in their restaurant, for the reasons I listed.

It's really all about the statistics. Drunk people (especially men) can get stupid violent sometimes. Guns are just an easy thing to reach for, and they can easily kill an innocent bystander. Fists are more likely only going to hurt their intended target. And yes, drunk guys who start fist fighting are going to get kicked out immediately - and rightly so. It will be too late to kick someone out once they've pulled their gun and started shooting. Someone has probably already gotten shot at that point.




posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


Guns are no more "weapons of destruction" than a hammer. A hammer is a tool, not you so quit acting like one. Secondly, because some idiot says something stupid on Facebook, that makes him a representative for every gun owner? And that makes gun owners "gun nuts"? I've been unfortunate enough to visit some of the blogs and newspapers people like you tend to visit and I guarantee you that the filth coming out of the mouths of the people commenting makes "gun toting, 'murrica loving conservatives" look like angels.

I love guns, I also love my life and the freedom of individuals to choose to live as they see fit. Which means if he doesn't want firearms on his property, it's his business. It's also our business if we want to give him patronage or not.

I can't believe this thread has been going on for so long with idiocy spouted off from both sides of the fence. (Not surprising seeing the opening post was nothing BUT idiocy...)

Get a grip people. Yes it's annoying that Toby Keith was so pro-gun and then pulls something like this. Deal with it, he's a flake.

That's all I gotta say about the topic and as far as I'm willing to contribute or pay attention to this POS thread.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   

jimmyx
wow...woke up this morning and this thread is still going...the only conclusion I can reach is that the people that want this, will want every citizen in this country, that goes anywhere to carry loaded guns...every single person. since the only society where this has happened that I can recall, is in warlord controlled sections of Somalia.


Or pretty much the entire US until the 1930's or so, or any western country until the early 1900's as well. Believe it or not, there are, were, and will be armed societies that are ordered, civilized, and sane.

Your analogy fails because not everyone in Somalia is armed--just the warlords have monopolies on the use of arms that they very strictly enforce to maintain their power. Somalia is actually a great example of why the common citizen must keep himself from being disarmed by those in power.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   

NavyDoc


What if the bar owner thinks that the racial makeup of his bar does put his customers in his bar in harm's way? The Latin Kings and Crips would not mix very well.

What if someone forbids young African American men with pants around their ankles and other sundry hip hop garb because he thinks that sort of clientele is destructive and dangerous? Is he being discriminatory or is he trying to protect his property and patrons?


It is wrong to tell someone they can't come into your bar simply due to their race. Period. If you want to post a sign saying that underwear must be covered at all times, I'm okay with that, as long as that rule goes for young white men too.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   

kaylaluv

NavyDoc


And there you go. You go to great length to justify your prejudices. Things you agree with should be protected by law and things you don't agree with should not be protected by law. Instead of simply not going into a restaurant where there is smoking, you justify forcing the owner to have that decision and those of the other patrons made for them by the state. I have the potential to kill you without using an instrument of any sort. Should my hands be cut off? If you restrict people's rights based on what they might do, then you really are no better than any other fascist state.


Well, I didn't say I agree with the state forcing no smoking in a restaurant. I DO agree with allowing a restaurant to ban smoking in their restaurant, for the reasons I listed.

It's really all about the statistics. Drunk people (especially men) can get stupid violent sometimes. Guns are just an easy thing to reach for, and they can easily kill an innocent bystander. Fists are more likely only going to hurt their intended target. And yes, drunk guys who start fist fighting are going to get kicked out immediately - and rightly so. It will be too late to kick someone out once they've pulled their gun and started shooting. Someone has probably already gotten shot at that point.


The problem is, you have no problem with the state using its coercive power to prevent a business owner from being discriminatory in one case but then say "his business his rules" when it is a decision you agree with.

I say "his business his rules--even if I don't agree with him."

Therein lies the difference.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   

macman


Why does it matter if he is black?
Why is it that Progressives always use race as an arguing basis?


Oh for Pete's sake, insert religion, gender, or sexual orientation there instead. (where's the "eyeroll" emoticon)




How about this. In a certain town, the crime rates are higher in regards to blacks then whites. Your argument of protection can then be used in stating that since the crime rate is statistically higher for black males, banning them is protecting your customers.

Sounds just as dumb as your statement of banning firearms equals protection.


What are the blacks using in their crimes? Guns? Then don't allow guns in your establishment to lessen the risk. Makes good business sense.


Protecting is subjective and the stats are not in your favor.
Discrimination is very well defined.


Protecting your business from law suits and protecting your customers from getting shot from angry drunks is pretty well defined. Yes, discrimination is very well defined by law.

www.eeoc.gov...


edit on 3-1-2014 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   

kaylaluv


Oh for Pete's sake, insert religion, gender, or sexual orientation there instead. (where's the "eyeroll" emoticon)

I guess if that is what you go with.



kaylaluv

What are the blacks using in their crimes? Guns? Then don't allow guns in your establishment to lessen the risk. Makes good business sense.

I didn't state with guns, I said crime in general.
If you want to keep your customers safe, using your argument, then banning dangerous is banning dangerous.
If it is a danger to allow guns there, then statistically it is a sound argument, using your logic, to ban black males as well.


kaylaluv

Protecting your business from law suits and protecting your customers from getting shot from angry drunks is pretty well defined. Yes, discrimination is very well defined by law.

Oh, so signs stop angry drunks from shooting others.
Well, why not put up a sign that says no hurting others and then the case is solved.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   

NavyDoc

The problem is, you have no problem with the state using its coercive power to prevent a business owner from being discriminatory in one case but then say "his business his rules" when it is a decision you agree with.

I say "his business his rules--even if I don't agree with him."

Therein lies the difference.



I say "It's okay to protect yourself from harm." That goes for killing in self defense, or not allowing guns in your establishment to mitigate law suits.

I also say "It's not okay to act against someone simply because you don't like their race/religion/sexual orientation." That includes killing someone simply because they're black/Muslim/gay, or denying service to someone in your establishment because they're black/Muslim/gay.

I guess that's the difference between you and me. Fortunately, the law's on my side.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by HanzHenry
 


...and what's a "gun nut"?

Please define, for me, what a "gun nut" is.

Quite frankly, I get really, really tired of being stereotyped by certain folks who don't share my views.

One nutter goes off on facebook, which is certainly his right...he's an idiot, but no rule against being an idiot on line.

But to use that as a means to attack those of us who are responsible owners? Really?



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   

kaylaluv

NavyDoc

The problem is, you have no problem with the state using its coercive power to prevent a business owner from being discriminatory in one case but then say "his business his rules" when it is a decision you agree with.

I say "his business his rules--even if I don't agree with him."

Therein lies the difference.



I say "It's okay to protect yourself from harm." That goes for killing in self defense, or not allowing guns in your establishment to mitigate law suits.

I also say "It's not okay to act against someone simply because you don't like their race/religion/sexual orientation." That includes killing someone simply because they're black/Muslim/gay, or denying service to someone in your establishment because they're black/Muslim/gay.

I guess that's the difference between you and me. Fortunately, the law's on my side.


And that' the whole point. You have no problem using the coercive power of the government to force others to do what you think is right but neglect to do so when you disagree with the position. Therin lies both hypocrisy and a fascist mindset.

I don't like a business owner's choices, so I don't give him my business.

You don't like a business owner's choices, so you want to the government to force him to do what you want.


edit on 3-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   

NavyDoc



And that' the whole point. You have no problem using the coercive power of the government to force others to do what you think is right but neglect to do so when you disagree with the position. Therin lies both hypocrisy and a fascist mindset.



I guess your alternative is - no laws for anything, because it's all a matter of what an individual thinks is right or wrong. Some feel it should be okay to kill anyone you feel like killing, so why should we discriminate against them? Some think they should be able to steal from anyone they feel like, so why should we discriminate against them? Let everyone do what everyone wants to do, right? If you don't think it's right to kill, then don't kill. If you do think it's right to kill, then kill away. Geesh, that's some world you want to live in.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   


...have no problem using the coercive power of the government to force others to do what you think is right but neglect to do so when you disagree with the position...


I believe that sums up the position of so many people in the US today and actually for some quite years. It is part of the mess.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


So you move from just shooting people because of their Race to the anarchy tactic.

Man, you are very very predictable.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   

macman
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


So you move from just shooting people because of their Race to the anarchy tactic.

Man, you are very very predictable.


Well, what's right or wrong is just an opinion, according to NavyDoc.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by crazyewok
 

I think you're stretching a bit.

A business owner, based on his religious beliefs, decides not to bake a cake and participate in a gay wedding.

People say that he was wrong. He should not deny service.

Now we have a business owner, based on his personal beliefs, denying access to his restaurant, even though the rights of the patrons are Constitutionally guaranteed, and people are okay with that.

I, personally, side with the business owners. Both of them.

But I see many struggling with the dichotomy of their decisions. There is much qualifying, based on the individual aspect, instead of the business owners decision.



Except for this (bold is my emphasis, above and below)


Keith has responded to the controversy in a post on the restaurant's Facebook.com page, writing, "While we understand and respect every person's right to own and bear arms, we at Toby Keith's I Love This Bar and Grill, with guidance from the State of Virginia and based on insurance regulations, have adopted a no weapons policy. It is our desire to provide a safe, enjoyable and entertaining experience for our patrons and staff."


Which is confirmed by these Virginia State gun regulations,


Consuming an alcoholic beverage in ABC on-premise licensed restaurants and clubs, while carrying a concealed handgun, is prohibited; nor may any person carry a concealed handgun in a public place while under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs. Those laws pertaining to alcohol do not apply to openly carried handguns, however possession of a firearm can compound the penalty for various other offenses, including illegal drug possession.


Source


Prohibited Conduct and Where Unlawful to Carry - Section 18.2-308.012

Any person permitted to carry a concealed handgun who is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs while carrying such handgun in a public place is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Conviction of any of the following offenses shall be prima facie evidence, subject to rebuttal, that the person is "under the influence" for purposes of this section: manslaughter in violation of Section 18.2-36.1, maiming in violation of Section 18.2-51.4, driving while intoxicated in violation of Section 18.2-266, public intoxication in violation of Section 18.2-388, or driving while intoxicated in violation of Section 46.2-341.24.

No person who carries a concealed handgun onto the premises of any restaurant or club as defined in Section 4.1-100 for which a license to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption has been granted by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board under Title 4.1 of the Code of Virginia; may consume an alcoholic beverage while on the premises. A person who carries a concealed handgun onto the premises of such a restaurant or club and consumes alcoholic beverages is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. However, nothing in this subsection shall apply to a federal, state, or local law-enforcement officer.

Section 18.2-308.01: Private property when prohibited by the owner of the property, or where posted as prohibited.

Section18.2-283: To a place of worship while a meeting for religious purposes is being held at such place, without good and sufficient reason.

Section18.2-283.1: Courthouse.

Section18.2-308.1: School property. Exemptions to this statute include a person who has a valid concealed handgun permit and possesses a concealed handgun while in a motor vehicle in a parking lot, traffic circle, or other means of vehicular ingress or egress to the school.

Section18.2-287.01: Carrying weapon in air carrier airport terminal.
Source

So in other words he was following the law NOT personal beliefs. Following the laws of his state does NOT equal refusing service due to prejudice.
This whole discussion is moot since it wasn't his personal act, it was a law abiding business owner following the rules, which the cake store owner did not.

Lil



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

schuyler
So this guy has a sign outside that says "No guns allowed."


His private property, his rules, exercising free speech and considering safety concerns for his customer. Whether you agree or disagree, respect his choice. Don't patronize if this policy doesn't gibe with yours, that's freedom of choice.


schuyler
The guy has his rights. Good for him. My gun is concealed. What's he gonna do? Strip search me?


If it is alright for you to disrespect and ignore the owner's request, why isn't it OK for the government or anyone for that matter, to do the same at your private residence? Wouldn't you like the respect of others to follow your private property rules? I would. If you carry/conceal into his business, you disrespect his choices and the choices of others honoring his business policy and weakening the argument for responsible gun ownership. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I am not going to attack gun rights, but would like to see respect from gun rights advocates when individuals choose to say "not here," the frequent response being that the 2nd half of the 2nd amendment somehow codifies your rights as gun owners above the rights of non-gun advocates.

Own guns, don't own guns; doesn't matter. Respect is what seems to be missing.
edit on 14/1/3 by trumpet because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Lilroanie
 


That only applies if you consume alcohol.

What if you are drinking a lemonade?



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   

kaylaluv

macman
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


So you move from just shooting people because of their Race to the anarchy tactic.

Man, you are very very predictable.


Well, what's right or wrong is just an opinion, according to NavyDoc.


No, I've been pointing out that they are absolutes. You are the one who adjusts your opinion on right and wrong depending on who is involved.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Lilroanie

beezzer
reply to post by crazyewok
 

I think you're stretching a bit.

A business owner, based on his religious beliefs, decides not to bake a cake and participate in a gay wedding.

People say that he was wrong. He should not deny service.

Now we have a business owner, based on his personal beliefs, denying access to his restaurant, even though the rights of the patrons are Constitutionally guaranteed, and people are okay with that.

I, personally, side with the business owners. Both of them.

But I see many struggling with the dichotomy of their decisions. There is much qualifying, based on the individual aspect, instead of the business owners decision.



Except for this (bold is my emphasis, above and below)


Keith has responded to the controversy in a post on the restaurant's Facebook.com page, writing, "While we understand and respect every person's right to own and bear arms, we at Toby Keith's I Love This Bar and Grill, with guidance from the State of Virginia and based on insurance regulations, have adopted a no weapons policy. It is our desire to provide a safe, enjoyable and entertaining experience for our patrons and staff."


Which is confirmed by these Virginia State gun regulations,


Consuming an alcoholic beverage in ABC on-premise licensed restaurants and clubs, while carrying a concealed handgun, is prohibited; nor may any person carry a concealed handgun in a public place while under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs. Those laws pertaining to alcohol do not apply to openly carried handguns, however possession of a firearm can compound the penalty for various other offenses, including illegal drug possession.


Source


Prohibited Conduct and Where Unlawful to Carry - Section 18.2-308.012

Any person permitted to carry a concealed handgun who is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs while carrying such handgun in a public place is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Conviction of any of the following offenses shall be prima facie evidence, subject to rebuttal, that the person is "under the influence" for purposes of this section: manslaughter in violation of Section 18.2-36.1, maiming in violation of Section 18.2-51.4, driving while intoxicated in violation of Section 18.2-266, public intoxication in violation of Section 18.2-388, or driving while intoxicated in violation of Section 46.2-341.24.

No person who carries a concealed handgun onto the premises of any restaurant or club as defined in Section 4.1-100 for which a license to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption has been granted by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board under Title 4.1 of the Code of Virginia; may consume an alcoholic beverage while on the premises. A person who carries a concealed handgun onto the premises of such a restaurant or club and consumes alcoholic beverages is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. However, nothing in this subsection shall apply to a federal, state, or local law-enforcement officer.

Section 18.2-308.01: Private property when prohibited by the owner of the property, or where posted as prohibited.

Section18.2-283: To a place of worship while a meeting for religious purposes is being held at such place, without good and sufficient reason.

Section18.2-283.1: Courthouse.

Section18.2-308.1: School property. Exemptions to this statute include a person who has a valid concealed handgun permit and possesses a concealed handgun while in a motor vehicle in a parking lot, traffic circle, or other means of vehicular ingress or egress to the school.

Section18.2-287.01: Carrying weapon in air carrier airport terminal.
Source

So in other words he was following the law NOT personal beliefs. Following the laws of his state does NOT equal refusing service due to prejudice.
This whole discussion is moot since it wasn't his personal act, it was a law abiding business owner following the rules, which the cake store owner did not.

Lil


That is entirely not true. It is illegal to consume an alcoholic beverage while CCW, not enter a place where people buy alcoholic beverages. You can do into Keith's restaurant, have a coke and a burger, and be perfectly legal. Did you even read the statutes you quoted?



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Ok from what I can find until 2010 Source it was illegal to enter a place that sold alcohol while carrying concealed in Virginia. Open carry is/was fine then and now.

This part of his statement

with guidance from the State of Virginia and based on insurance regulations, have adopted a no weapons policy.


I'm going to go with his insurance company made that part of his policy, sticking to the changed restrictions old rules or he couldn't get insurance to operate. I have no idea where to even begin to look for who his company is or what their rules are but since he added that to his statement it must pertain to his reasoning. Open carry>waitress can see not to serve..... Concealed carry>what if they got served and an accident happened then the restaurant is liable? So ban guns completely to CYA.

VA does allow posting of no guns on private property, I couldn't find if this applied to businesses or not (if it is enforceable) But the insurance angle is the most logical reason a supporter of concealed carry would ban guns in their restaurant to me.

I can see an insurance company stipulating this. Heck I can't even own certain dogs and get insurance on my house, as just one example.

Lil



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join