Terrorists In WI Assault Citizens With Violence And Extortion

What does the one in Charlotte have to do with anything? This was very obviously an illegally carried handgun. There is also no information on whether the parent's legally owned the gun or not. Even if the gun was legally owned, the parent broke the laws about securing their firearm.

This has nothing to do with legally owned firearms being carried by people legally allowed to carry them.

reply to post by Curiousisall


Well the world is full of idiots, I am sure you agree that no one should be allowed to do ANYTHING that is dangerous, like drive, walk, run, etc etc etc.

I see you use any component to push an agenda.

Why is it that you do not want people to have rights?

Do you think everyone is Homer Simpson?

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


In my opinion,he thinks everyone is Barney Fife!

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Curiousisall

 

Well the world is full of idiots, I am sure you agree that no one should be allowed to do ANYTHING that is dangerous, like drive, walk, run, etc etc etc.

This is exactly what I am talking about right here. I am the troll,
Give me a break. When did I ever say what other people should do anywhere but ON MY PROPERTY?
When???????????
You want to drink battery acid and shoot yourself in the face, go for it! I will supply the acid if you like. You just are not doing it on MY PROPERTY. Get it??????????

I see you use any component to push an agenda.

Why is it that you do not want people to have rights?

Do you think everyone is Homer Simpson?

Come on, get real. When the hell did I ever say anything that infringed on ANYONE ELSE'S RIGHTS? When? Because I want to do with my property as I wish, I am doing something wrong to others? Are you even for real? Is this how this entire thread is reading this? Because I made a choice about what kind of environment I want ON MY OWN PROPERTY I am trying to stop other people's rights?

Talk about trolling. I never said anything even remotely close to what you say. Because I know there are idiots so I mitigate the chances those idiots take with MY PROPERTY, I am a tryrant? I suppose by that logic I can come to your home and defacate on your couch? Stopping me from doing so would be tyrannical. It is protected as free speech afterall.

Originally posted by Curiousisall
~snip~

Can you look at this from where I was sitting for a moment?

I'm trying, really I am. But so far, any "meat" to what you've been saying is overwheImed by all the yelling, hand-waving, rolley eyes and laughey faces. I do agree that you have the right to post your restaurant as you see fit, though.

I never said "you were a troll", I said, in very plain english, "there is a very troll-like pattern to your posts, but for the record, I'm not accusing you of being one."

You accuse others of twisting YOUR words, but then do the same thing yourself....thus, "troll-like". Maybe you could look at this from where I'm sitting as well?

Just calling it like I'm hearing it, that's all.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
These incidents are extremely rare, but they do happen. That is why I said virtually zero. It is also why I said I'm not worried about my gun going off.

Virtually 0 is great out in the rest of the world. The chances of me getting killed by a drunk driver are slim but they exist. Guess what the chances of me getting killed by a drunk driver on my property are?

Originally posted by MikeNice81
This has nothing to do with legally owned firearms being carried by people legally allowed to carry them.

It has to do with guns, culture, and lack of responsibility. Even a criminal should be keeping their gun away from their 3rd grader. Gun mishaps happen. I would prefer they not happen on property that I own so I have taken steps to attempt to reduce the chances. So far, no one has been shot on any of the land that I own.

Keep telling me how wrong I am for it though, you know, while agreeing with me it is my right.

Originally posted by tjack
reply to post by Nivcharah

 

The dispatcher actually told her open carry was legal, and then the caller out-right apologized for calling and emphatically stated the men were doing nothing wrong and she didn't want to get them in trouble or waste the cops time.

Now if that's true, the Police have some explaining to do, IMO.

No, they have nothing to explain. A call was placed to 911 and the caller retracted. To be proactive, the police will typically be dispatched anyway to verify. If the caller was forced to retract under duress because she had a gun to her head or a knife at her throat and the police did NOT arrive, then people would be in an uproar because nothing was done and the PD should have magically or psychically known that 'something was wrong just because she called'. It is because in the past this has happened that this is now SOP for police.

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

 

In my opinion,he thinks everyone is Barney Fife!

Again, NOT A HE.

I do not think anyone is Barney Fife. I know for a fact there are Barney Fife's out there. I know Barney Fife's come eat at my restaraunt. Since they do not identify themselves from the Andy Taylors out there, I chose to have certain rules ON MY PROPERTY that I do not care about OUTSIDE OF MY PROPERTY. I do not care what other people do in other places with their guns. Get drunk and shoot each other if you want. I just do not want you doing it on land that I OWN.


Why is this so wrong to you people?

Why do some of you have to try to paint me as denying anyone any rights because of what I do with MY THINGS?????????

reply to post by Nivcharah


That is a good point that I hadn't considered.

reply to post by tjack


Show me whos words I twisted and when so I can make it right. I would hate to think I did that. When I made that call, I showed exactly what twisting I was talking about. I do not see how you are blaming me for all the noise here. I showed you exactly where I started. I pointed out to one person that the article in the OP showed that their claim was not correct. Since then, a group of people that agree I was right, agree I have the right to run my restaraunt the way I wish - ARE ARGUING WITH ME. Over what?

I see me pointing out that, as in the OP article, property rights and the 2nd ammendment have issues with each other. Since then it has been nothing but "You have the right but you are still wrong because you are a tyrant grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr grrr grrrrrr grrrrrr"

I do not understand what all the noise is about. If no one thinks I am wrong or not within my rights, then what the heck is the issue here? I did not bring all this noise. Look at that post telling me I do not want people to have rights.

Do you agree I am trying to stop people from having rights?

reply to post by Curiousisall


I said I think it is wrong to not allow other people to protect their person and their family at yor place of business. I believe by making that restriction you leave them less than optimaly defended between their car and your business. I also said it wasn't the decision I would make.

Talk about twisting words.

Nobody has been shot on any property I own either. Which you probably feel is amazing because I have a sign that reads,

Guns are permitted on premises. We request you keep them holstered untill such time as they are needed. Then judicious marksmanship is appreciated.

reply to post by MikeNice81


How am I forcing people to patronize my establishment? If my policy were such a safety issue, why am I not out of business yet?

I am not sure if any of you know this or not but no one is forced to come.







Yet they do.

Originally posted by Curiousisall
reply to post by tjack

 

Does it give you the right to have an RPG? Does it give you the right to have biological weapons? Does it give you the right to have nuclear arms? Or is it a little vague like I said and that is ALL I SAID?

I guess people only have something to say when it is about how I personally do things with my private property.

Originally posted by Curiousisall
reply to post by tjack

 

Show me whos words I twisted and when so I can make it right. I would hate to think I did that. ~snip~

Seriously? You just crossed over, sorry.

reply to post by MikeNice81


Look at it like this. Some people feel they should have a gun on their hip everywhere they go and they are comfortable in a room full of guns.

Do you believe everyone feels this way? Do you think it is possible there are some people that might prefer a gun free environment? Do you feel that as long as it is legal to provide on, these people should have the option of a gun free meal?

I am genuinely curious how you feel about the people that may not want to eat in a place full of guns.

Do you not believe they exist or should they just have to deal with it?

Originally posted by tjack

Originally posted by Curiousisall
reply to post by tjack

 

Show me whos words I twisted and when so I can make it right. I would hate to think I did that. ~snip~

Seriously? You just crossed over, sorry.

So calling my a tyrant for how I run my own business makes sense to you but when I ask for my mistakes so I can right them, this is what I get? I smell agenda.

I gues I give up. I am a tryrant, demanding other people lose their rights. I am trying to ban guns all over the place, except for mine. That is what I am hearing and you seem to think that is not twisted. I made a sincere request.

Maybe if none of you can show me what I twisted, you should stop saying I am doing it? I would be happy to eat my words, appologize, whatever. I would like someone to explain to me whether or not they agree that I am trying to stop other people from having rights as SHFF said.

reply to post by Curiousisall

Do you feel that as long as it is legal to provide on, these people should have the option of a gun free meal?

They should, you're right. I've just seen so many people use that same logic to slowly erode things that it just bugs me. I was a smoker when the whole "well shouldn't I be able to get a smoke free meal" idea started.

You're right they deserve the right to a gun free meal. I also agree you have the right to make your eatery the place they can go. My problem is that eventually they start saying it is their right to have that meal any where they want. Then things really start to go down hill.

I understand their right. I am just hyper sensitive about my right to carry. The anti-gun crowd fights tooth and nail to strip guns from law abiding citizens.

reply to post by MikeNice81


I have to disagree with you on this one.
Once a business owner has posted on
their property,no guns.You can't legally
carry inside their business.You can go
to jail and lose your conceal carry licence.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by SirTFiedSkeptic
Open carrying IS making a statement, whether it's "I enjoy my freedoms as an American and am capable of protecting myself" or "I'm a badass look at me."

Do you believe wearing shoes is a statement? You could wear boots or sandals - but here you are wearing shoes so what does that say about you (must be making a statement lol).

What about a pocket-protector. I wear those. What statement am I making for carrying that tool?

Surely you are not using such horrible logic in an attempt to rebut? Shoes and pocket-protectors are not regularly used to take lives. A gun is not an ordinary, useful piece of clothing. But yes, I actually do buy clothing that will 'make a statement'- which is why I don't dress like a gangster or a cowboy or a cop or something I'm not. I wear nice clothes that say I care enough about myself and others to attempt to have a pleasant appearance. As for the pocket protector, the statement you are making is that you do not like ink on your clothing. Pretty simple.