The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Things I find ironic this week:

a) The Fort Worth Gun Show has a "30.06" sign at the entrance, prohibiting concealed carry inside the location. Why do gun nuts hate the second amendment?

b) The range got really full last Monday afternoon when the "Church group" showed up for it's regular shooting session. No... I don't live in Waco.

Regarding the gun show, it's probably to keep people from pulling their loaded CCW to test holsters. Or it's just the venue dictating the rules.

I don't make the connection between exercising one's right to exclude concealed weapons and distain for the second.

I have no distain for the second and I won't permit anyone to carry a concealed weapon in my home or office.

rolandson wrote:I have no distain for the second and I won't permit anyone to carry a concealed weapon in my home or office.

As a serious question, why not?

Why I have no distain for the second or why I won't permit someone to carry in my home or office?

If it's the latter; the only person trusted to be armed in my home or office would be me...period. Never have to worry about negligence or 'accident' that way.

How would you know if someone were carrying concealed in your office or home?

rolandson wrote:Why I have no distain for the second or why I won't permit someone to carry in my home or office?

If it's the latter; the only person trusted to be armed in my home or office would be me...period. Never have to worry about negligence or 'accident' that way.

Sorry, wasn't clear. It was the latter. Which I guess you answered. Interesting that you feel you are the only one in the room qualified to carry a pistol.



(tongue firmly in cheek)

A is most likely the venue's rule.

What's ironic about B?

Ultravox wrote:

rolandson wrote: Interesting that you feel you are the only one in the room qualified to carry a pistol.

correction...the only one in my room...and it just isn't pistols...it's knives too. my house, i make the rules. just easier that way.

that said, by the same token, i wouldn't think about going into someone's home armed....it just seems terribly rude.

rolandson wrote:

Ultravox wrote:

rolandson wrote: Interesting that you feel you are the only one in the room qualified to carry a pistol.

correction...the only one in my room...and it just isn't pistols...it's knives too. my house, i make the rules. just easier that way.

that said, by the same token, i wouldn't think about going into someone's home armed....it just seems terribly rude.

So if I was to visit your house I would need to remove my Swiss Army knife, my Leatherman Supertool and my pocket clip lock blade?

You do know they aren't going to just jump out of my pocket and stab someone, just like my gun (were I to be carrying one) isn't going to jump out of it's holster and shoot someone.

I understand "it's my house, so my rules" and that's fine, but I wonder what past issues you are basing these rules on...

And for going into someone else's house armed, I carry three knives all the time, everywhere. And if I carried a pistol, it would be concealed and you wouldn't even know I had it.

How do you know that people entering your house are NOT armed?

I am not sure I accept that a swiss army knife or a leatherman is actually armed anymore than one bringing a hammer would be considered armed.

I haven't any issues other than the normal precautions that come with having one's life and lives of his family threatened.

Simply put, if I don't know you, you aren't coming into my home...if you know me, then I know that you would respect me such that you would not bring a weapon into my home...or I yours...after all, what need would I have for a weapon in the home of a friend, or they in mine?

rolandson wrote: Simply put, if I don't know you, you aren't coming into my home...if you know me, then I know that you would respect me such that you would not bring a weapon into my home...or I yours...after all, what need would I have for a weapon in the home of a friend, or they in mine?

Did you use a transporter beam or the Floo Network to get there? Very rarely does anyone need a weapon where they're going, but rather the places they transit on the way there.

An aside: I never saw a case of a pistol being taken from a person lawfully carrying it, but I saw plenty of cases of pistols being taken in car prowls. Facilities that make lawful weapon carriers leave guns in parked vehicles make me cringe.

SwampGrouch wrote:

rolandson wrote: Simply put, if I don't know you, you aren't coming into my home...if you know me, then I know that you would respect me such that you would not bring a weapon into my home...or I yours...after all, what need would I have for a weapon in the home of a friend, or they in mine?

Did you use a transporter beam or the Floo Network to get there? Very rarely does anyone need a weapon where they're going, but rather the places they transit on the way there.

An aside: I never saw a case of a pistol being taken from a person lawfully carrying it, but I saw plenty of cases of pistols being taken in car prowls. Facilities that make lawful weapon carriers leave guns in parked vehicles make me cringe.

Yeah, the parking lots of those gun shows that don't allow guns would be GREAT places to break into cars and steal guns!

Let me add one more thing that I find ironic this week.

This whole thread that I started.

oh dude, you wait...it's on you...we'll be screaming at each other in no time!

rolandson wrote:If it's the latter; the only person trusted to be armed in my home or office would be me...period. Never have to worry about negligence or 'accident' that way.

Are both locations really of the same category? I sincerely cannot get over how just about everyone acts as if they are to be treated the same.

I mean, your home, just like the typical home of the typical person across the entire country, of course NOBODY is legally allowed to enter uninvited.

The typical office, on the other hand, usually has some sort of public area where the general public can enter and approach some sort of receptionist or some sort of window where they can sign in as present or somesuch. Your office may well be different, but the typical office is a place of public accommodation, where the general public is to be served without discrimination. If they have to abide by the federal laws requiring wheelchair access and requiring bathroom stalls open to the public with handicapped size capacity, then obviously the owner is being forced to abide by non-discriminatory federal laws, right?

Of course, you don't hang a sign out on your front door that invites the general public to enter, but that is what is done at places of business that serve the general public.

So, why is it that people treat public places as if they were private, when the owner has gone to the effort to give up their ability to pick and choose who comes and goes? Does the owner's choice to open the location to everybody mean nothing?

well if anyone comes into my home armed they better be prepared to remove their weapon from it's holster and,,,,,,,, let me check it out and admire it, ,it's not really a big deal to me unless it's a total stranger then I may be leery of it or at least have my shotty close at hand

JayFromPA wrote: So, why is it that people treat public places as if they were private, when the owner has gone to the effort to give up their ability to pick and choose who comes and goes? Does the owner's choice to open the location to everybody mean nothing?

Owning a place and choosing to have it open to the public is NOT the same as that place being a public place. It is private property. The owner still has the right to choose which people can go in and out of the place. If the owner discriminates against carrying guns in their places, that's OK, because that discrimination IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW. Comparing gun carriers to disabled people is invalid. It is a crime to discriminate against disabled people, people of particular race, religion, sex. Until a law comes up that states the right to carry a gun extends to privately owned places, against the owners' wishes, and supersedes the owners' right to keep guns away from his property, then you just keep the hell out of places where you and your gun are not welcome.

AdAstra wrote:

JayFromPA wrote: So, why is it that people treat public places as if they were private, when the owner has gone to the effort to give up their ability to pick and choose who comes and goes? Does the owner's choice to open the location to everybody mean nothing?

Owning a place and choosing to have it open to the public is NOT the same as that place being a public place. It is private property. The owner still has the right to choose which people can go in and out of the place. If the owner discriminates against carrying guns in their places, that's OK, because that discrimination IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW. Comparing gun carriers to disabled people is invalid. It is a crime to discriminate against disabled people, people of particular race, religion, sex. Until a law comes up that states the right to carry a gun extends to privately owned places, against the owners' wishes, and supersedes the owners' right to keep guns away from his property, then you just keep the hell out of places where you and your gun are not welcome.

I fully understand that you are making your point based on the technical letter of the law. If it isn't specifically spelled out as being an act of discrimination, then it isn't discrimination, seems to be the elemental stance you take.

I ask you to shift away from that stance, because it uses a default of "You will have to make me stop discriminating against X be putting it in the law". That default allows you to make the effort to invite the general public to your ice cream stand and then turn away all women that wear pants. Silly? Yes. Legal? Well, pants aren't protected by the letter of the law so to use the exact same legal mechanism that you use:
Until a law comes up that states the right to wear pants extends to privately owned places, against the owners' wishes, and supersedes the owners' right to keep pants away from his property, then you just keep the hell out of places where you and your pants are not welcome.

This is the world you create when you require the law to prohibit discrimination against every little possible elemental facet of the general public, that same general public that you have specifically invited onto your place of business. Do we really need to have a growing list of protected classes of people? Gender, orientation, race, creed, religion, disability... Where does it end? By your mechanism, it is possible to discriminate against men who wear kilts simply because discrimination against men in skirt-like clothing isn't listed by the law.

I ask you instead, to shift to a default of "No segment of the public may be discriminated against." And then when you are out somewhere wearing your LGC hat you are not to be the target of discrimination because some shop owner has decided to discriminate against liberals - because being liberal is not a protected class of people.

+1,000,000!

JayFromPA wrote:

AdAstra wrote:

JayFromPA wrote: So, why is it that people treat public places as if they were private, when the owner has gone to the effort to give up their ability to pick and choose who comes and goes? Does the owner's choice to open the location to everybody mean nothing?

Owning a place and choosing to have it open to the public is NOT the same as that place being a public place. It is private property. The owner still has the right to choose which people can go in and out of the place. If the owner discriminates against carrying guns in their places, that's OK, because that discrimination IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW. Comparing gun carriers to disabled people is invalid. It is a crime to discriminate against disabled people, people of particular race, religion, sex. Until a law comes up that states the right to carry a gun extends to privately owned places, against the owners' wishes, and supersedes the owners' right to keep guns away from his property, then you just keep the hell out of places where you and your gun are not welcome.

I fully understand that you are making your point based on the technical letter of the law. If it isn't specifically spelled out as being an act of discrimination, then it isn't discrimination, seems to be the elemental stance you take.

I ask you to shift away from that stance, because it uses a default of "You will have to make me stop discriminating against X be putting it in the law". That default allows you to make the effort to invite the general public to your ice cream stand and then turn away all women that wear pants. Silly? Yes. Legal? Well, pants aren't protected by the letter of the law so to use the exact same legal mechanism that you use:
Until a law comes up that states the right to wear pants extends to privately owned places, against the owners' wishes, and supersedes the owners' right to keep pants away from his property, then you just keep the hell out of places where you and your pants are not welcome.

This is the world you create when you require the law to prohibit discrimination against every little possible elemental facet of the general public, that same general public that you have specifically invited onto your place of business. Do we really need to have a growing list of protected classes of people? Gender, orientation, race, creed, religion, disability... Where does it end? By your mechanism, it is possible to discriminate against men who wear kilts simply because discrimination against men in skirt-like clothing isn't listed by the law.

I ask you instead, to shift to a default of "No segment of the public may be discriminated against." And then when you are out somewhere wearing your LGC hat you are not to be the target of discrimination because some shop owner has decided to discriminate against liberals - because being liberal is not a protected class of people.

Until a law comes up that states the right to wear pants extends to privately owned places, against the owners' wishes, and supersedes the owners' right to keep pants away from his property, then you just keep the hell out of places where you and your pants are not welcome.

That's damn right! If I want to have a business that has a certain kind of environment (welcome to my new pants-less hardware store, serving the carpentry needs of my fellow no-pants enthusiasts) I can do that. It is my choice to run my business that way. I can't make it only for white people without pants, but I can refuse to allow pants in my hardware store.

Joking aside, I work with an organization that deals with sexuality. This includes adult sex education workshops that get pretty explicit. We have standards of behavior that are far narrower than simply the restrictions that the law puts on public behavior. We do this to make the place socially functional and to make it feel safe in ways that encourage people to explore things in ways they can't elsewhere. We have a particular intent and we set up rules of behavior to encourage our intent. You can't come in and ogle people in ways that you certainly could on the street. Is anyone here saying that we should have to allow douchebags come in and ogle people unpleasantly? It isn't against the law for them to ogle, but we forbid it anyway and are wholly within our rights to do so.

Stop talking about carrying a gun like it is a historically persecuted minority status. It's bullshit. In particular, when you're carrying, you are not the vulnerable party. Act like a grown up and take responsibility for your actions. If you can't take your gun someplace, don't go. If you would like to take your gun there but are prohibited, perhaps express that to the owner of the establishment and they may see it your way. If you whine that you have rights and should universally be allowed to do what you want on someone else's property, then you're just a brat living in a fantasy land.

JayFromPA wrote:I ask you to shift away from that stance, because it uses a default of "You will have to make me stop discriminating against X be putting it in the law". That default allows you to make the effort to invite the general public to your ice cream stand and then turn away all women that wear pants. Silly? Yes. Legal? Well, pants aren't protected by the letter of the law so to use the exact same legal mechanism that you use:
Until a law comes up that states the right to wear pants extends to privately owned places, against the owners' wishes, and supersedes the owners' right to keep pants away from his property, then you just keep the hell out of places where you and your pants are not welcome.

This is the world you create when you require the law to prohibit discrimination against every little possible elemental facet of the general public, that same general public that you have specifically invited onto your place of business. Do we really need to have a growing list of protected classes of people? Gender, orientation, race, creed, religion, disability... Where does it end? By your mechanism, it is possible to discriminate against men who wear kilts simply because discrimination against men in skirt-like clothing isn't listed by the law.

Again, you are still thinking about it in terms of criminal discrimination. Women with pants is sexual discrimination.

My point is that in fact, there is only a very small set of unlawful discrimination that people don't already practice. Hence these are already acceptable by standard societal norms. Let's think of another example to your ice cream stand analogy, say people who wear hats. Say my ice cream stand refuses to serve people wearing hats. That is perfectly OK, because that same lawful discrimination allows me to refuse service to people who are unbathed and physically filthy with flies buzzing around them; those who are prolific swearers or obnoxious; those whom I have personal grudges against. If you're going to get people to give up the option of such personal, "lawful" discrimination, you're really getting them to give up their personal right of choice on lawful actions. So yes, the law needs to set out in detail what is and isn't appropriate, fair discrimination, to make sure it benefits the right people in the right way. What we call "moral" actions are subject to interpretation - who or what arbitrates on such actions being judged "right"?

JayFromPA wrote: I ask you instead, to shift to a default of "No segment of the public may be discriminated against." And then when you are out somewhere wearing your LGC hat you are not to be the target of discrimination because some shop owner has decided to discriminate against liberals - because being liberal is not a protected class of people.

And so then you get to serve the guy who vandalized your car, or the guy wearing a NAMBLA T-shirt, or the guy who wears a T-shirt with bound and gagged females in submissive positions, and so on. For what?

Fukshot wrote: Stop talking about carrying a gun like it is a historically persecuted minority status. It's bullshit. In particular, when you're carrying, you are not the vulnerable party. Act like a grown up and take responsibility for your actions. If you can't take your gun someplace, don't go. If you would like to take your gun there but are prohibited, perhaps express that to the owner of the establishment and they may see it your way. If you whine that you have rights and should universally be allowed to do what you want on someone else's property, then you're just a brat living in a fantasy land.

Well said.
Me or anybody else have the right to put up a "30.06" sign prohibiting the carrying of guns within my establishment if I feel compelled to do so. I can also deny service to anyone for any reason I damn well feel like it. If I am breaking the law, the subject can sue me, and the courts can go as far as shutting my establishment down and having me pay you restitution if what I am doing is against the law. But it is MY choice as a property or business owner.
Certain churches require that people have their head covered when inside their building. Not doing so is offensive to them and they can ask you to cover your head or leave. Should we impose our right to 'not wear a hat' in the church just because we don't like the way that they think, and whine if they get upset and ask us to leave? After all, there is no law that requires you to wear a hat! Hats make me look ugly, therefore I have the right to go hat-less all the time! Yeah right!

Fukshot wrote:Stop talking about carrying a gun like it is a historically persecuted minority status. It's bullshit. In particular, when you're carrying, you are not the vulnerable party. Act like a grown up and take responsibility for your actions. If you can't take your gun someplace, don't go. If you would like to take your gun there but are prohibited, perhaps express that to the owner of the establishment and they may see it your way. If you whine that you have rights and should universally be allowed to do what you want on someone else's property, then you're just a brat living in a fantasy land.

+ 1

Ok, how about this. Public transportation that runs through some of the most dangerous parts of your city but it's a felony offense for nonLEO or non security folks to carry concealed even if they have a state permit?

That is the current situation here in St Louis. Its worse to be armed on the bus than to try and bring a gun or knife into a federal courtroom.