These "No guns allowed" signs, wouldn't they also apply to law enforcement officers?
They don't say "except for LEO", do they?
I'm not sure where you're going with this....
Care to expound?
These "No guns allowed" signs, wouldn't they also apply to law enforcement officers?
They don't say "except for LEO", do they?
your "right" to make your statement ends where the Rights of others begin.
bglaze, you should take your own advice lest you drive any fence sitters to our side.
I couldn't agree more. But he doesn't have the right to ask me to do ANYTHING he wants while I am on his property. My body is my own. However, he does have the right to ask me to leave. That's where it ends. If he isn't willing to do that, because he wants my money, then that is HIS choice.
People keep saying that the "right" thing to do would be to leave on my own. However, if he isn't willing to ask me to leave then he either A. knows his owners wouldn't agree with his decision, and he might be penalized for ejecting a paying customer. Or B. he wants my business more than he wants me to cover up.
Could you please elaborate?
If a manager of a restaurant came to you and said, "Sir, we have a requirement that all men between ages 35 and 37 place a square piece of duct tape over each of their nipples and sit in their seat backwards while eating at our establishment. If you refuse, I am not going to ask you to leave, but I implore you to comply with my request. It is our policy after all."
If a person is thought to be that unstable then the fork on the table would be just as much of a weapon as a gun, and at that close of range serve just as much purpose if not more than drawing? Maybe its just situational awareness kicking in but honestly if I wanted to go after a person I could find/make/institute a weapon out of just about anything that is just as readily available.or C. He was thinking along the lines of one of my previous posts that he might be dealing with an unstable person because of the persons continuing to "just say no" & threatening "I'm not paying if I leave" in the face of a very reasonable request. Maybe he just decided to take our advice & not continue a confrontation with an obviously armed, potentially unreasonable individual since it looked like he was almost done with his meal anyway.
If the manager would have called the cops I'm sure the posters here who are saying the manager had no right to tell him to cover it up would then be complaing about the MWAG call. I'm a gun-owner, carry & I would have probably called the cops at that point rather than risk continuing to a guy I thought was unreasonable & I knew had a gun.
You chastise us for "riduculous opposition posts" then turn right around & post an even more "ridiculous opposition post" that would likely never even happen.
At least our hypothetical situations are plausible & realistic.
If a person is thought to be that unstable then the fork on the table would be just as much of a weapon as a gun, and at that close of range serve just as much purpose if not more than drawing? Maybe its just situational awareness kicking in but honestly if I wanted to go after a person I could find/make/institute a weapon out of just about anything that is just as readily available.
I had one more thought on the supposed "rights" that people have while in another persons business that I forgot to inlclude before:
Let's just ask Fenway if he thinks that he can't ask someone to stop using foul language or tell us to not post any pornography or stop someone from merely coming here as an anti-gunner to troll & just cause trouble.
Does anybody here think those requests are unreasonable? We DO have 1A rights don't we? How dare Fenway take away our right to free speech. What if I thought that was worth fighting for? Would that make one smidgeon of difference about how you felt about me if I kept rebuffing Fenway's numerous attempts to get me to follow his rules? Nope. You'd still think I was an ass.
It's happened to people. We get warnings. We get infractions. We get . Then if all else fails we get banned. And then everybody cheers when some deserving douche gets a vacation from INGO.
Nobody comes to their defense with "but he was only standing up for what he truly believed in."
Even if Fenway decided to not ban someone after repeated warnings (which is his prerogative as the site owner) nobody complains that "Fenway had no legal right to ask them to stop". If someone had said that (& they have) we would point out to them in no uncertain terms that we are all here at Fenways pleasure & we have no "rights" here (& have).
Just more food for thought.
The owners of these forums can make any rules they want. If someone doesn't obey them, they will probably get banned. To ban is where their authority lies. However, they cannot sue them for using foul language here. They can only use the authority they have and that is to ban them.
The person doing the swearing has to weigh the benefits against the consequences of disobedience to the owners of this forum. If what they are saying is so important to them (morally, ethically, politically, etc...) that they will continue to say it whether or not they get banned, that is their right.
They will get banned, neverthless. There will be mixed opinions amongst those here on the boards as to whether or not that person was an "ass."
I see what you're saying but that IS the way our government works.
It can be no other way & still provide for the best outcome for the largest number of people.
It's balancing the Rights of business owners against the Rights of others.
We have, as a society, decided that providing "rights" to certain minorities that have historically been discriminated against is good for our society (IOW, best for the greatest number of people) while minimizing the impact on the Rights of business owners. At worst the business owner is prevented from openly expressing his bigotry in his business dealings toward those he feels are "undersireable". He can still continue to be as big of a bigot as he wants in his private life (limited in scope & narrowly tailored).
YouTube - ZoNation: Affirmative Action and Socializing the Big ThreeThe next question will surely be "why can't the market decide?"
We tried that.
The "market" is one of THE MOST tyrannical concepts that has ever existed. Left unchecked, it allows the majority to run roughshod COMPLETELY over the Rights of the "undesireable" minority.
Blacks, women & other minorities have been systematically held at a economic disadvantage by the opposing majority's (whites, men, etc) control over the "market".
The civil rights laws didn't start predominantly being passed until the 60's. That means we had almost 100 years for the "market" to correct the injustice. It didn't work.
It's inevitable that sometimes Rights clash. At those times I have no problem deciding how as a society we are going to handle the clash AS LONG AS the impact on the Rights of the "loser" is maintained to the greatest extent possible.
No Right is absolute.
Generally, I think the SCOTUS agrees with me (OK, I agree with them )
On that same line of thinking if we live with honor and respect to others why should the request even have been made in the first place?I was just reading the thread about the lack of looting in Japan, and how their society pulls together to help each other due to their long tradition of honor and concern for each other as a people. Even in the face of widespread disaster, you don't see rudeness or self-serving behavior.
And then I click on this thread, and see the typical selfish behavior of an American who can't be bothered to show some consideration for his fellow citizens by honoring a simple request that doesn't even affect his ability to defend himself. On someone else's property, no less.
I am thankful that I don't have any friends that feel that they need to shove a gun into every social interaction they make during while they are out and about in public. What a treat it must be to have something as simple as a meal turn into a political firestorm and multi-page internet thread. I suppose I live a boring life.
On that same line of thinking if we live with honor and respect to others why should the request even have been made in the first place?
Just because you respect others doesn't mean you have to be a door mat and accept every action they take, especially in your own home.
The respect goes "I'll respect your right to say what takes place in your home & you will respect the same in mine".
The manager wasn't showing direspect for asking politely that the gun be covered. mk2ja showed the manager disrespect by continuing to disregard the managers reasonable request.
Just because you respect others doesn't mean you have to be a door mat and accept every action they take, especially in your own home.
The respect goes "I'll respect your right to say what takes place in your home & you will respect the same in mine".
The manager wasn't showing direspect for asking politely that the gun be covered. mk2ja showed the manager disrespect by continuing to disregard the managers reasonable request.
If there is honor and respect between this two people I see OC as a non issue.
The respect you speak of is earned through knowing someone well enough to know they deserve it.
The respect that I and Hoosier9 are talking about is as I said above that respect that you should show everyone just for them being alive. It is showing respect for the rights & beliefs of others while they show your rights & beliefs the same respect.
They are two different types of respect. The Japanese culture is filled with the second type while we pretty much suck at it.
Just because I respect your rights doesn't mean I have to let you rob me blind or rape my daughter to prove it - or allow you to take actions in my home with which I disagree.
Honor is fulfilling your social obligations without being told you "have to" by anyone else. Obligations such as showing proper respect to others, or being trustworthy in your dealings with others - or not going into someone elses home & acting against their wishes.
Only 146 more posts to go.....have you not beat the dead horse enough?
You open your business to the public, they are allowed to practice their human as well as Constitutional Rights as long as they do not infringe on yours.