Do you obey

[rbstern]

I agree and think the free market should decide. Having said that.... if I violate your property rights, and you have no idea and literally no harm was done, were your rights actually violated?

If you come to my house and steal something I forgot I had and never would have used again, is it still stealing? Did you have a right to take it?

 

[GeauxLSU]

If you come to my house and steal something I forgot I had and never would have used again, is it still stealing? Did you have a right to take it?

The item is gone and a physical asset has been stolen. It matters not whether you know it or not. It would stand up in court (for example.) Yes your rights have been violated. It's even monetarily quantifiable. I'm sure I've been in an establishment before that had one of those signs that I literally never saw. Can you quantify the harm?
Again, I don't condone it and want people to use the power of the free market to express their opinion. But to equate that with those trying to take away the 2nd seems more than a bit of a stretch to me. One will have an absolute effect. The other is imagined.

 

[Tactical Beaver]

Nope, never....**** their signs......

 

[rbstern]

The item is gone and a physical asset has been stolen. It matters not whether you know it or not. It would stand up in court (for example.) Yes your rights have been violated. It's even monetarily quantifiable. I'm sure I've been in an establishment before that had one of those signs that I literally never saw. Can you quantify the harm?
Again, I don't condone it and want people to use the power of the free market to express their opinion. But to equate that with those trying to take away the 2nd seems more than a bit of a stretch to me. One will have an absolute effect. The other is imagined.

Rights, even if not physically tangible, have value, as does their violation.

The chance of negligence or malfeasance with a firearm, no matter how small, represents tangible risk. And that's the equivalency with the theft: You are stealing the owner's right to remove the (very small) chance of something negative happening with your firearm on his private property.

Again, it may be misguided, but it's still an intrinsic value that you are removing from the property owner, in violation of his right to make that decision.

 

[GeauxLSU]

Rights, even if not physically tangible, have value, as does their violation.

The chance of negligence or malfeasance with a firearm, no matter how small, represents tangible risk. And that's the equivalency with the theft: You are stealing the owner's right to remove the (very small) chance of something negative happening with your firearm on his private property.

Again, it may be misguided, but it's still an intrinsic value that you are removing from the property owner, in violation of his right to make that decision.

Offset by the intrinsic value of the gun owner being able to defend said naive owner from an animal?
There's is NO equivalency with theft. While you may make the case for some unknown yet still present harm, we simply disagree on any actual "harm". It would appear the law (in Georgia) shares my view. What is the penalty for violating those signs?
But again, for the final time, I do not condone supporting anti 2A businesses.

 

[lostchild]

 

[Gunanddoglover]

I avoid no carry businesses if possible.

 

[Hayata]

When they start paying attention to this sign?

I might, might start paying attention to this one:

Nice shorts, dude...



Yeah, if the business owner doesn't care enough to install metal detectors or wands then I'll still visit his establishment and spend my money there.

 

[palmettomoon]

Nice shorts, dude...



Yeah, if the business owner doesn't care enough to install metal detectors or wands then I'll still visit his establishment and spend my money there.

LMAO! That's a pic from the interwebs, LOL! I ain't THAT fat!

 

[rbstern]

Offset by the intrinsic value of the gun owner being able to defend said naive owner from an animal?

But on his own property, it's up to the owner to weigh and balance risks. He hasn't asked you to make that choice for him. In fact, he has specifically notified you that he does not want you to make that choice for him. And on his ground, that's his right.

There's is NO equivalency with theft. While you may make the case for some unknown yet still present harm, we simply disagree on any actual "harm". It would appear the law (in Georgia) shares my view. What is the penalty for violating those signs?

If your basis for determining whether you've violated someone else's property rights is "only if the government says so," then you don't have much of an argument for any natural rights.

Hey, if I stop you from carrying a gun, there is no actual harm. Right? Until you are actually harmed. Just like the property owner.

But again, for the final time, I do not condone supporting anti 2A businesses.

But you do condone ignoring property rights because, in your estimation, in this situation, you don't place any value on the owner's choice, and in fact, place negative value on it.

You don't get to make that determination for the owner about his property. He does.