Gun Nuts attack singer for no-gun restaurants

reply to post by kaylaluv


Okay then. I do love the Progressive extreme method of arguing.

How exactly does killing someone relate to this?

Oh, oh...I know. This is the same style of retort like the firearms rights must equal RPG ownership.

beezzer


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

Your view is very narrow.

When we start seeing lots of instances of drunk people bringing baseball bats, kitchen knives and large rocks into bars and hurting people with them, I'm all for allowing a bar owner to post a sign restricting them.

kaylaluv


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.

Oh, you mean like the Nazis, that removed private firearm ownership, chose who has certain rights over others and pushed for more Govt control.


Great example there.


And not one person here has stated it was okay to kill based on religion, race or anything else like that.

Again, you have posed an extreme in an argument, and pushed it within the "why do you hate kittens" mentality.

reply to post by SlapMonkey


The restricting of firearms is the same as the Health care issue for Progressives.

They want to restrict firearm ownership because small percentage of violent deaths come from firearms. So, they must be controlled and restricted.

A small percentage of people are pushing for health care, so screw everyone.
Same mentality.

reply to post by kaylaluv


So you are for restricting knives, pool cues and bottles. As those are items that are used more frequently during Bar fights, then firearms are used.

macman
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Okay then. I do love the Progressive extreme method of arguing.

How exactly does killing someone relate to this?

Oh, oh...I know. This is the same style of retort like the firearms rights must equal RPG ownership.

It proves the point that there are instances when it's okay to do something (for self protection) and there are other instances when it's not okay to do something (just cuz you feel like it).

The restaurant/bar owner not allowing guns in order to protect his business and/or his customers is okay; the bakery owner refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple just cuz he thinks gays are icky is not okay.

See how it relates now?

macman
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

So you are for restricting knives, pool cues and bottles. As those are items that are used more frequently during Bar fights, then firearms are used.

I am for allowing the bar owner to restrict anything he sees fit in order to protect his business/customers from harm. I am NOT for allowing that same bar owner to restrict a person just because he doesn't like their race/religion/sexual orientation.

kaylaluv

macman
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Okay then. I do love the Progressive extreme method of arguing.

How exactly does killing someone relate to this?

Oh, oh...I know. This is the same style of retort like the firearms rights must equal RPG ownership.

It proves the point that there are instances when it's okay to do something (for self protection) and there are other instances when it's not okay to do something (just cuz you feel like it).

The restaurant/bar owner not allowing guns in order to protect his business and/or his customers is okay; the bakery owner refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple just cuz he thinks gays are icky is not okay.

See how it relates now?

So, you think it is a valid arguing response to equate killing during self defense and just murder with a business not allowing firearms but should allow gays?

Yeah, there is no hope for you.

They are not even remotely in the same field in comparison.
One is self defense. One is murder. Within your example.

Then you have 2 instances where discrimination happens.
One you view as okay, one you view as not.


You are a selective hypocrite.

Freedom for some, but not others.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Again, selective discrimination.

How very high brow of you.

reply to post by macman


To kill a black man who is pointing a loaded gun at you is self-defense. To kill a black man because you don't like the color of his skin is murder.

To tell a black man with a gun that he can't come inside the bar with the gun is protecting your business. To tell a black man he can't come inside the bar because you don't like black people is discrimination.

Discrimination is against the law. Protecting your business/customers is not against the law.

kaylaluv

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

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.

kaylaluv
reply to post by macman

 

To kill a black man who is pointing a loaded gun at you is self-defense. To kill a black man because you don't like the color of his skin is murder.

To tell a black man with a gun that he can't come inside the bar with the gun is protecting your business. To tell a black man he can't come inside the bar because you don't like black people is discrimination.

Discrimination is against the law. Protecting your business/customers is not against the law.

Having a gun holstered on your body endangers no one. Thus, you are not "protecting" anyone except based on irrational fear. It would be like saying you are "protecting" your customers from a black man because he could get violent and start raping white women any moment. Both examples of thinking are just as irrational and based on blind prejudice and lack of understanding.

kaylaluv

macman
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

So you are for restricting knives, pool cues and bottles. As those are items that are used more frequently during Bar fights, then firearms are used.

I am for allowing the bar owner to restrict anything he sees fit in order to protect his business/customers from harm. I am NOT for allowing that same bar owner to restrict a person just because he doesn't like their race/religion/sexual orientation.

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?

kaylaluv

beezzer


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

Your view is very narrow.

When we start seeing lots of instances of drunk people bringing baseball bats, kitchen knives and large rocks into bars and hurting people with them, I'm all for allowing a bar owner to post a sign restricting them.

Probably lust as often or more than firearms. I've treated bar-fight injuries from knives, chains, baseball bats, pool cues, bottles, etc.

Question: do you live in the real world?

kaylaluv

To kill a black man who is pointing a loaded gun at you is self-defense. To kill a black man because you don't like the color of his skin is murder.

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

kaylaluv
To tell a black man with a gun that he can't come inside the bar with the gun is protecting your business. To tell a black man he can't come inside the bar because you don't like black people is discrimination.

Both are discrimination anyway you look at it.

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.

kaylaluv
Discrimination is against the law. Protecting your business/customers is not against the law.

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

Your bias is showing and it is not a good look on you.

macman


[quote[Oh, you mean like the Nazis, that removed private firearm ownership, chose who has certain rights over others and pushed for more Govt control.

What the heck are you talking about now? I didn't say anything about the government removing private firearm ownership. I am talking about a bar/restaurant owner's business decision to not allow guns on the premises where liquor is being served.

And not one person here has stated it was okay to kill based on religion, race or anything else like that.

Good. At least we agree that there are instances when it's okay to do something, and other instances when it's not okay to do something.

kaylaluv

If someone is allowed to smoke next to me in a restaurant, there's no way I can get away from it.

I guess your legs are broken, or the restaurant has chained you to the table?

kaylaluv



What the heck are you talking about now? I didn't say anything about the government removing private firearm ownership. I am talking about a bar/restaurant owner's business decision to not allow guns on the premises where liquor is being served.

Ah....never mind.
I'm not going back over that with you.

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.

About the only positive thing gun nuts could say about the place was that for happy hour, the bar announced they’ll be serving tequila “shooters.”