Originally Posted by Shorty
Originally Posted by Always an 80
Not the case here or anywhere that I know of. Me respect their rights and they not respect my Second Amendment Right? My rights are Constitutional not "company". If they see you with a firearm the only thing they can do is ask you to do is leave. At which time you can then respect their "policy" and go stick the weapon in your glove box and return to the establishment. IF they call police... still no issue. You have broken no laws.
Personally I do not want to be in a place where there is a sign telling would-be shooters that there is no one inside that is armed!! And you cannot avoid all locations. What if your Mom is in a nursing home with a sign like that? It is not the same as a restaurant that you can simply disagree with and thus avoid out of principle. What if a loved one has to go to the E.R. and you get a cell call? Do you know how many people shoot up E.R.s? You want to be unarmed when an Unlawful thug comes in with a gun? Not me. I have the right Not To Die because of company policy. They never know I have it and cannot do a thing about it. Respect for "company policy"? I do not think so. My respect is for the Constitution. My loyalty is to my family and innocent bystanders in a time of distress. If someone comes into an establishment of any kind wishing to mortally wound myself and those around me, I will let them depart in a body bag regardless of a meaningless, bu#@($it sign at the door.
Lovin' the rhetoric. Just like te guy in the Big Lebowski - insane, but hilarious.
And the usual misunderstanding of the Second Amendment.
But most of all the need to invent some bizarre scenario which justifies your paranoia.
As you would know, most of these are youths shooting each other because they were "disrespected".
You having a gun in a supermarket is not saving lives in actuality or potentially.
Sorry to be OT, but I really find the idea of feeling the need to be armed quite sad in the face of so much evidence to show it is counterproductive and potentially fatal to the wrong people. But the desire to have no guns in their premises is founded on a desire to save life, not infringe on your desire to be a cowboy.
Shorty how about this:
According to the National Firearms Agreement private citizens were forced to turn over the banned weapons in a government buyback system. Beginning on October 1, 1966 through September 30, 1997, the Australian government spent $500 million in purchasing and destroying more than 631,000 banned guns. Howard and other politicians promised the citizens of Australia that they would be safer now that these horrible weapons had been taken off the streets.
However, that was not the case! Since Australia banned semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pump action shotguns the gun crime rates have skyrocketed throughout the country.
Murders committed with guns increased by 19%.
Home invasions increased by 21%.
Assaults committed with guns increased by 28%.
Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%.
Many former gun owners blame the government and their gun control laws for the increases in crimes. They feel helpless in their own homes, unable to protect themselves. In fact, home invasions were so rare prior to the gun ban that the nation did not even have a legal definition for what a home invasion was.
Seeing the direct results of what the ban on guns did in Australia, they are now warning us not to follow in their footsteps.