Gun Nuts attack singer for no-gun restaurants

beezzer
An analogy.

A gun owner is like a person who has fire extinguishers at home. A fire starts, he/she puts it out.

The anti-gun crowd? They would prefer not to have a fire extinguisher and simply rely on 911 and the fire department to take care of the fire.

I'd like to see the stats on how many times one person killed another person with a fire extinguisher, compared to the stats on how many times one person killed another person with a gun...

NavyDoc

kaylaluv

NavyDoc



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.

Then to be consistent, you MUST either think it's always okay to kill someone no matter what, or you MUST think it's never okay to kill someone, no matter what. Which is it for you? Always okay or never okay?

That makes no sense. Talking about odd examples. Okay. In order to be consistent, I think it is okay to kill someone in self defense at any time.

Okay, I think it's okay for a business owner to deny service to someone carrying a gun at any time. I think it's NEVER okay to deny service to someone because you don't like their race/religion/sexual orientation. That is also consistent.

kaylaluv

beezzer
An analogy.

A gun owner is like a person who has fire extinguishers at home. A fire starts, he/she puts it out.

The anti-gun crowd? They would prefer not to have a fire extinguisher and simply rely on 911 and the fire department to take care of the fire.

I'd like to see the stats on how many times one person killed another person with a fire extinguisher, compared to the stats on how many times one person killed another person with a gun...

You're being literal.

I'm being analogous.

If you can't see that, then I'm sorry.

beezzer

kaylaluv

beezzer
An analogy.

A gun owner is like a person who has fire extinguishers at home. A fire starts, he/she puts it out.

The anti-gun crowd? They would prefer not to have a fire extinguisher and simply rely on 911 and the fire department to take care of the fire.

I'd like to see the stats on how many times one person killed another person with a fire extinguisher, compared to the stats on how many times one person killed another person with a gun...

You're being literal.

I'm being analogous.

If you can't see that, then I'm sorry.

I'm just pointing out that it's a dumb analogy.

kaylaluv

beezzer

kaylaluv

beezzer
An analogy.

A gun owner is like a person who has fire extinguishers at home. A fire starts, he/she puts it out.

The anti-gun crowd? They would prefer not to have a fire extinguisher and simply rely on 911 and the fire department to take care of the fire.

I'd like to see the stats on how many times one person killed another person with a fire extinguisher, compared to the stats on how many times one person killed another person with a gun...

You're being literal.

I'm being analogous.

If you can't see that, then I'm sorry.

I'm just pointing out that it's a dumb analogy.

Only if you take it literally.

kaylaluv

NavyDoc

kaylaluv

NavyDoc



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.

Then to be consistent, you MUST either think it's always okay to kill someone no matter what, or you MUST think it's never okay to kill someone, no matter what. Which is it for you? Always okay or never okay?

That makes no sense. Talking about odd examples. Okay. In order to be consistent, I think it is okay to kill someone in self defense at any time.

Okay, I think it's okay for a business owner to deny service to someone carrying a gun at any time. I think it's NEVER okay to deny service to someone because you don't like their race/religion/sexual orientation. That is also consistent.

No it isn't You pick and choose which classes of people are protected or not. Either the business owner can discriminate, in which case he should be able to discriminate against anyone or he cannot discrimate, in which case he can discriminate against no- anyone.

kaylaluv

NavyDoc

kaylaluv

NavyDoc



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.

Then to be consistent, you MUST either think it's always okay to kill someone no matter what, or you MUST think it's never okay to kill someone, no matter what. Which is it for you? Always okay or never okay?

That makes no sense. Talking about odd examples. Okay. In order to be consistent, I think it is okay to kill someone in self defense at any time.

Okay, I think it's okay for a business owner to deny service to someone carrying a gun at any time. I think it's NEVER okay to deny service to someone because you don't like their race/religion/sexual orientation. That is also consistent.

What you are saying is not what you used an example above but more like: it is not okay to kill someone if I agree with or am sympathetic to the social or economic or philosophical group he belongs to and it is okay to kill them if I don't agree with their politics or what they carry or what they believe. Killing them should have nothing to do with their position in a PC protected class or not but their behavior. Are they a threat or are they not? If they are it is justified be they rich or poor, black or white, left or right. If they are not, then nothing justifies it.

You just want to pick and choose based on identity politics. It is okay to kill in self defense as long as it is a neo-Nazi but not if it is a black youth in a hoody. That is the type of position you are taking.

NavyDoc

kaylaluv

NavyDoc

kaylaluv

NavyDoc



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.

Then to be consistent, you MUST either think it's always okay to kill someone no matter what, or you MUST think it's never okay to kill someone, no matter what. Which is it for you? Always okay or never okay?

That makes no sense. Talking about odd examples. Okay. In order to be consistent, I think it is okay to kill someone in self defense at any time.

Okay, I think it's okay for a business owner to deny service to someone carrying a gun at any time. I think it's NEVER okay to deny service to someone because you don't like their race/religion/sexual orientation. That is also consistent.

What you are saying is not what you used an example above but more like: it is not okay to kill someone if I agree with or am sympathetic to the social or economic or philosophical group he belongs to and it is okay to kill them if I don't agree with their politics or what they carry or what they believe. Killing them should have nothing to do with their position in a PC protected class or not but their behavior. Are they a threat or are they not? If they are it is justified be they rich or poor, black or white, left or right. If they are not, then nothing justifies it.

You just want to pick and choose based on identity politics. It is okay to kill in self defense as long as it is a neo-Nazi but not if it is a black youth in a hoody. That is the type of position you are taking.

How wrong you are. I think if someone is coming at you with a gun pointed at you, it's okay to kill them in self defense - no matter what color they are, or what religion they are, or what their political affiliation is. To assume that someone has a gun just because of their race, or the hoodie they are wearing - is wrong.

kaylaluv

beezzer

kaylaluv

beezzer
An analogy.

A gun owner is like a person who has fire extinguishers at home. A fire starts, he/she puts it out.

The anti-gun crowd? They would prefer not to have a fire extinguisher and simply rely on 911 and the fire department to take care of the fire.

I'd like to see the stats on how many times one person killed another person with a fire extinguisher, compared to the stats on how many times one person killed another person with a gun...

You're being literal.

I'm being analogous.

If you can't see that, then I'm sorry.

I'm just pointing out that it's a dumb analogy.

Actually, I'd say that it is a very good analogy because it points out and highlights the concept that gun owners often see a firearm as a tool that they may need and keep for an exigent circumstance, like a fire extinguisher.

Considering that thousands of people get bludgeoned to death a year and I don't see his retort that logical. I'd challenge kayla to show us how many firearms kill people every year. I've never seen one pull its own trigger, not once. I'm amazed the near mythical properties people give inanimate objects they don't understand.

kaylaluv

NavyDoc

kaylaluv

NavyDoc

kaylaluv

NavyDoc



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.

Then to be consistent, you MUST either think it's always okay to kill someone no matter what, or you MUST think it's never okay to kill someone, no matter what. Which is it for you? Always okay or never okay?

That makes no sense. Talking about odd examples. Okay. In order to be consistent, I think it is okay to kill someone in self defense at any time.

Okay, I think it's okay for a business owner to deny service to someone carrying a gun at any time. I think it's NEVER okay to deny service to someone because you don't like their race/religion/sexual orientation. That is also consistent.

What you are saying is not what you used an example above but more like: it is not okay to kill someone if I agree with or am sympathetic to the social or economic or philosophical group he belongs to and it is okay to kill them if I don't agree with their politics or what they carry or what they believe. Killing them should have nothing to do with their position in a PC protected class or not but their behavior. Are they a threat or are they not? If they are it is justified be they rich or poor, black or white, left or right. If they are not, then nothing justifies it.

You just want to pick and choose based on identity politics. It is okay to kill in self defense as long as it is a neo-Nazi but not if it is a black youth in a hoody. That is the type of position you are taking.

How wrong you are. I think if someone is coming at you with a gun pointed at you, it's okay to kill them in self defense - no matter what color they are, or what religion they are, or what their political affiliation is. To assume that someone has a gun just because of their race, or the hoodie they are wearing - is wrong.

Analogy fail. You made the analogy of sometimes it was okay to kill and sometimes it was not okay to kill and compared that to it being sometimes okay to discriminate and sometimes not okay to discriminate.

What I pointed out was the failure in your killing analogy is that it really did not match what was going on, RE discrimination in a business, and adjusted it to fit the scenario.

You don't want it to be illegal to deny service to anyone--just those you either agree with or have sympathy with. This is analogous to you saying you don't killing someone is self defense to be illegal unless it is someone you agree with or have sympathy with.

kaylaluv


It's all I need. Protecting your business and customers from harm is one thing

What harm???? Oh, I get it. You ignorantly equate someone carrying a firearm to a violent person in waiting.
Ever stop to wonder exactly how many people around you in any given hour of the day that are carrying a firearm?
The thought might make you stay home. And yet those people don't commit crimes.
You and your ideals are based around TV and what the Progressive leaders have spoon fed you.

kaylaluv
- discriminating against a group because you don't like them is entirely another.

It is still discrimination. One just happens to be the flavor/topic of the month (Gays) and the other is a Constitutional protected right.
You and Progressive have a very disgusting sense of selective outrage. And when called out on it, delfect and attack over it, because you know it to be wrong.

kaylaluv
If you can't really see the difference between the two, I can't help you.

I never asked for your help. It is not needed.

NavyDoc

kaylaluv

beezzer

kaylaluv

beezzer
An analogy.

A gun owner is like a person who has fire extinguishers at home. A fire starts, he/she puts it out.

The anti-gun crowd? They would prefer not to have a fire extinguisher and simply rely on 911 and the fire department to take care of the fire.

I'd like to see the stats on how many times one person killed another person with a fire extinguisher, compared to the stats on how many times one person killed another person with a gun...

You're being literal.

I'm being analogous.

If you can't see that, then I'm sorry.

I'm just pointing out that it's a dumb analogy.

Actually, I'd say that it is a very good analogy because it points out and highlights the concept that gun owners often see a firearm as a took that they may need and keep for an exigent circumstance, like a fire extinguisher.

Considering that thousands of people get bludgeoned to death a year and I don't see his retort that logical. I'd challenge kayla to show us how many firearms kill people every year. I've never seen one pull its own trigger, not once. I'm amazed the near mythical properties people give inanimate objects they don't understand.

It is not a good analogy because it leaves out the concept that people very often use guns to kill other people - whereas they very seldom ever use fire extinguishers to kill other people.

I realize that people pull the trigger. That's why Toby Keith won't serve people with guns in his bar/restaurant - because those people might get drunk and start pulling out their guns. It happens.

jimmyx


nope that's about it....you believe you can carry your gun anywhere in America regardless of where it is, or who is there, on private, public, or governmental property...I don't...

Except on private property, the law states that I have that right.
But, again, the private property thing only works for your mindset if it is inline with your views.
Guns+people=bad, so ban them from open to the public businesses.
Gays+Force=good, so force a business to provide them service.

Your selective outrage and the cherry picking of rights for some and not others is very much inline with your ideals.

jimmyx
no frustration on my part, you're the one that is frustrated on being told you can't carry it into a restaurant

I can. VA law states in this instance it isn't enforceable.
And if it is concealed, others don't know.

kaylaluv

WeAreAWAKE

amazing
His Restaurant, his rules. I don't see the problem. If you don't like it, or if you don't feel safe, then don't go in there. Problem solved.

Funny how that doesn't fly when the rule is no gays, or no blacks, etc. While I think any business owner is nuts to exclude anyone from their business, you have to either allow them to restrict whom they serve or not. I would prefer to allow them to serve whom they wish and deny service to others. I think that with it being their business, they should be able to do that. But I really doubt that those that say "yeah...cool...no guns" would also be the first to say "no way...horrible..no gays".

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

It isn't black or white/all or nothing. Take this as an example: is killing someone always okay or always not okay? It depends, doesn't it? It's considered okay to kill someone in battle during a war. It's okay to kill someone in self-defense. It is not okay to kill someone because they cut you off in traffic. It is not okay to kill someone because they stole your girlfriend. That's why the laws are set up the way they are - sometimes it's okay to kill someone. Sometimes it's not okay.

It's okay to deny service to someone in order to protect your business and/or your customers. It's not okay to deny service to someone simply because of their race/religion/sexual orientation. That's why the laws are set up the way they are.

I think you got that backwards friend. If you ARE allowed to kill, you should be able to kill anyone regardless of race, sexual preference or love of guns. If you own the place and can exclude some people, you should be able to exclude any people for any reason. It is wrong to say excluding gun owners is find...but excluding fat people is wrong.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Wrong again, Doc. If a gay person tries to go into Toby Keith's restaurant with a gun, I think it's perfectly okay for him to be denied service, due to the sign saying "no guns allowed". See what I did there?

kaylaluv

NavyDoc

kaylaluv

beezzer

kaylaluv

beezzer
An analogy.

A gun owner is like a person who has fire extinguishers at home. A fire starts, he/she puts it out.

The anti-gun crowd? They would prefer not to have a fire extinguisher and simply rely on 911 and the fire department to take care of the fire.

I'd like to see the stats on how many times one person killed another person with a fire extinguisher, compared to the stats on how many times one person killed another person with a gun...

You're being literal.

I'm being analogous.

If you can't see that, then I'm sorry.

I'm just pointing out that it's a dumb analogy.

Actually, I'd say that it is a very good analogy because it points out and highlights the concept that gun owners often see a firearm as a took that they may need and keep for an exigent circumstance, like a fire extinguisher.

Considering that thousands of people get bludgeoned to death a year and I don't see his retort that logical. I'd challenge kayla to show us how many firearms kill people every year. I've never seen one pull its own trigger, not once. I'm amazed the near mythical properties people give inanimate objects they don't understand.

It is not a good analogy because it leaves out the concept that people very often use guns to kill other people - whereas they very seldom ever use fire extinguishers to kill other people.

I realize that people pull the trigger. That's why Toby Keith won't serve people with guns in his bar/restaurant - because those people might get drunk and start pulling out their guns. It happens.

People get killed with cars too. Yet, more often people use cars everyday without killing another person. Should cars be banned? The problem is, you cannot separate the inanimate object from the user in this one instance. Seems pretty irrational to me.

No it does not happen. CCW license holders do not pull out their guns and start shooting up the place. You just presented a statement that is completely unfounded, without basis in fact, and demonstrates lack of knowledge and blind prejudice on your part.

reply to post by jimmyx


Okay, now to blow apart the ignorant argument of muskets.

You do realize that there were more advanced firearms during the time of the document creation?
Not just muskets.
Maybe do some research, before tasting your foot again.

kaylaluv
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Wrong again, Doc. If a gay person tries to go into Toby Keith's restaurant with a gun, I think it's perfectly okay for him to be denied service, due to the sign saying "no guns allowed". See what I did there?

You attempt to backpedal from and justify your hypocrisy is laughable. You have things and people you have sympathy for so you want a law that protects them. You have things you dislike so you want the law not to protect them. This is a hypocritical stance, no matter how much you try to squirm and justify it.

Mr. Keith has a right to keep anyone out of his restaurant he wants. You just want to pick and choose what he can or cannot do with his own establishment.

kaylaluv

Then to be consistent, you MUST either think it's always okay to kill someone no matter what, or you MUST think it's never okay to kill someone, no matter what. Which is it for you? Always okay or never okay?

Very easy. If someone wants to harm myself or my family, it is always okay to stop them. If that means by killing, I have no problem with it.

If someone breaks into my home, it is always okay to stop them.

If someone seeks to rob me, it is always okay to stop them.

WeAreAWAKE



I think you got that backwards friend. If you ARE allowed to kill, you should be able to kill anyone regardless of race, sexual preference or love of guns. If you own the place and can exclude some people, you should be able to exclude any people for any reason. It is wrong to say excluding gun owners is find...but excluding fat people is wrong.

Should you be allowed to kill someone simply because they are black? or gay? or Jewish?