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: 15
14
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Yes I did read it, but in my defense I have 2 new puppies that have been keeping me up and missed part of it
I covered my mistake sufficiently in my reply to Beezer I think.

Lil




posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   

NavyDoc

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.


These are absolutes:

It is always wrong to kill someone.

It is never wrong to kill someone.

Which one of those absolutes do you agree with?



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
We can play this game as well.



kaylaluv

These are absolutes:

It is always wrong to discriminate against anyone.

It is never wrong to discriminate against anyone.

Which one of those absolutes do you agree with?



What say you?



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


I asked the question first, so you answer mine, then I will answer yours.



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   

NavyDoc

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.
They're not comparable because ones an inanimate object and the other is a human characteristic. Objects can be left at home or some other place; human characteristics not so much. Gun owners can still get served if they don't bring their guns with them into the establishment; the other guys, not so much.

I will gladly post pictures of humans and guns if you still have trouble understanding the difference between the two.

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



posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Um, no. You asked NavyDoc, not me.

So.....question still stands. Or are you going to resort to the " show me yours first" routine?



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


Sometimes I feel like I live in a vastly different place than the rest of America because of arguments like this. This is why: When me and my family and anyone else that I've ever dined out with during my entire life go to nice restaurants the last thing we think about is binging guns. I'm from a small town in the Appalachian Mountains (a place where you'd think this type of thing would be an issue), but the majority of us don't do this. Most of us leave our weapons at home unless we are hunting or target shooting. It is hard for me to imagine a place where people bring guns everywhere. To me that is scary because whether or not you are a good person, to me you are just a stranger with a gun. It is just surreal to think that people actually do this. To each their own I guess, but I agree with the majority here "His place, his rules."



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   
i doubt his place or places is/are a dive bar.

advertising it's a gun free zone is stupid, imo.

haven't we learned enough lessons?



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


Well considering his restaurants are more bar than restaurant, Id say nearly all of them reach the 51% rule, and cant have a gun in them anyways.
edit on 4-1-2014 by jssaylor2007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Sovaka
This is no different to when a cafe banned mothers from openly breast feeding in their establishments.

Only in this case, it is guns.

Guns at the moment, are a hot political topic.
Expect it to be sensationalized.


I am on your side with this but seriously...your argument is lacking. I've never heard of a breast accidentally going off in a drunk persons hand or seeing a breast blow someones head off because of a bar fight.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by fenson76
 


Again... It has nothing to do about how deadly the weapon is.

Despite popular belief... Firearms do NOT fire themselves.

My argument is about the fact the owner of a private establishment has the right to refuse service to anyone they wish.
They are also allowed to add stipulations to entry or exiting.
For example, the owner is allowed to post a 'You agree to having your bags checked on exiting if you enter this store'.

It is up to the patrons whether or not they wish to enter the business and accepting the posted stipulations.

.: ETA :.
It would be like someone who couldn't swim, jumping into a pool, nearly drowning and then complaining the owner didn't make the pool safe enough for those that couldn't swim.
If you can't swim... Keep your arse out of the pool.

Hence, don't like not carrying into a restaurant... Go to one of the several hundred others.
edit on 4/1/2014 by Sovaka because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   

TDawgRex
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 


I would not be committing a felony whatsoever. At the most, I would be committing a misdemeanor. And again, I I am carrying concealed, they would have no idea that I am armed.


To be very clear, in Texas, if you enter a bar or restaurant where 51% of all sales is alcohol, CCL licensed or not, you are committing a felony. You can be arrested, you can serve up to 10 years in prison, and you can be fined up to ten thousand dollars. It's fact. So your rebuttal was pointless and ignorant of the law in Texas.

It isn't a judgement on your choice to carry. I could not care less about that. Just clarifying the true legal implications when 51% of all sales are alcohol.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   

fenson76

Sovaka
This is no different to when a cafe banned mothers from openly breast feeding in their establishments.

Only in this case, it is guns.

Guns at the moment, are a hot political topic.
Expect it to be sensationalized.


I am on your side with this but seriously...your argument is lacking. I've never heard of a breast accidentally going off in a drunk persons hand or seeing a breast blow someones head off because of a bar fight.


I've never heard of a gun going off on it's own either.



Registered CCW holders do not get into such fracases. The irresponsible and criminal carry regardless the law and the signs by the door.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 


So...if I am carrying, yet not drinking alcohol I can still be arrested? Hmmm…Texas just went down a notch in my book.

BTW, weapons and intoxication on anything is always a no-no in my book.

I rarely frequent a place where the "No Guns allowed" sign is posted.

I can shop all day long on-line surrounded by guns and empty beer cans. (Well the guns are empty too...LOL) And I save a ton of money cooking myself rather than going to some restaurant.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 12:42 PM
link   

technical difficulties

NavyDoc

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.
They're not comparable because ones an inanimate object and the other is a human characteristic. Objects can be left at home or some other place; human characteristics not so much. Gun owners can still get served if they don't bring their guns with them into the establishment; the other guys, not so much.

I will gladly post pictures of humans and guns if you still have trouble understanding the difference between the two.

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


Shrug. Again, you discriminate on things you don't like. Your snarky attitude and lack of courtesy aside, you accept discrimination as long as you agree with the discrimination and can justify it in your own mind.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   

kaylaluv

NavyDoc

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.


These are absolutes:

It is always wrong to kill someone.

It is never wrong to kill someone.

Which one of those absolutes do you agree with?


It's always wrong to kill someone. Sometimes bad people leave you no choice however.


Now, tell us how much you love discrimination.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   

NavyDoc

technical difficulties

NavyDoc

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.
They're not comparable because ones an inanimate object and the other is a human characteristic. Objects can be left at home or some other place; human characteristics not so much. Gun owners can still get served if they don't bring their guns with them into the establishment; the other guys, not so much.

I will gladly post pictures of humans and guns if you still have trouble understanding the difference between the two.

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


Shrug. Again, you discriminate on things you don't like. Your snarky attitude and lack of courtesy aside, you accept discrimination as long as you agree with the discrimination and can justify it in your own mind.

And you still don't get it. Alright, I'm going to take a different approach on this.

You probably own a gun right?

If so, are you currently holding/carrying that gun?

If not, then keep not doing that and go to an anti-gun establishment.

See, Blacks, Women, Gays (well, maybe), and other minority groups don't really have that privilege because they're being discriminated on a physical characteristic. I really can't dumb this down any further for you.

Is it wrong to ban guns because of the actions of a few? Yes. Now is it the same as what blacks, women, and gays are going through? Not really.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   

NavyDoc



It's always wrong to kill someone. Sometimes bad people leave you no choice however.




Well that's an absolute with a qualifier if I ever saw one.




edit on 7-1-2014 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


You know, it's an odd thing but we were told for years that Missouri would go back to the days of Jessie James and the outlaw gangs if we legalized concealed carry by normal citizens. As it happened, the woman who watched members of her family coldly and methodically executed at a Texas restaurant in Killeen Texas was instrumental with testimony for getting Missouri CCW law established. Finally. Over the top of Kansas City and St Louis both...which is no small feat in this state.

Alas, I am usually carrying a firearm when I'm not attending my school that day. The last time I checked, the permits in this area numbered in the thousands. When you think about it for an area with a small population, that means a given number are almost certainly carrying a gun in any public place with a large and diverse crowd. We haven't become Somalia. Blood doesn't run down our streets and we've had a couple morons get stupid ..but no one was killed in the incidents I'm aware of, while the book was thrown at the offending dipsticks. (One chased a purse snatcher across a shopping mall parking lot, shooting as he ran ...and is probably STILL sitting in a cell, a couple years later for that stunt)

It's clear some people don't like guns, and that's fine. However, by the grace of our Constitution, NO ONE has a right to tell me I cannot own AND carry my weapon if I so choose to and meet those minimal requirements society at large has agreed to set.

It actually does work very well in many places around the nation. No major issues.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 07:13 AM
link   

kaylaluv

NavyDoc



It's always wrong to kill someone. Sometimes bad people leave you no choice however.




Well that's an absolute with a qualifier if I ever saw one.




edit on 7-1-2014 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)


LOL. Please tell me how he acts of another that force one into a defensive act is a qualifier. Also please show me where a business owner's decision, re who he wants to do business with, leaves someone without a choice. You can always do business elsewhere. As usual for the left, your moral guidepost shifts depending on the identity of the people involved.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join