Would you support a non-gun related business having a “no LONG GUNS allowed” sign/policy?

[gth813x]

Why not, you can't take em into government buildings and you still pay your taxes?

They put it up to make people feel better, doesn't necessarily mean they're stepping on your rights. That's like saying i won't shop at a place that says no shirt, no shoes, no dice.

Edit:

I feel this directly immaculates open carry people and you all should keep that stuff stowed.

You know who you are.

And on this note, I'm going to go smoke and take a ****. My work here is done.

 

[Bulldawg165]

Who is calling anyone out? Last I checked, I was having a civil discussion with a member on a controversial topic.....Forgive me for sharing my contradicting opinion, my lord. Perhaps I'd be better suited to threaten him with death if he bent a blade on my yard??? Let me get my note-pad out...... Ok, I'm ready for you to school me on Internet decorum

Lol. I was referring to the following post where you said his claims were "unsubstantiated" but failed to provide an example. Judging by your ridiculous response I'll assume I'm right and you can't provide an example, though. Carry on with your "civil discussion"

I think we're getting a little far into unsubstantiated territory with "So far every one that has been forced to take a stance has taken an anti gun stance except Kroger, and their stance is only neutral", no?

Perhaps I may have missed some press releases, and don't get me wrong, I fully understand the direction of your comments, but when I begin reading of absolutes, I inherently assume I'm reading some leftist rhetoric

 

[alnen]

So then you would sacrifice an unknown women or child for yourself?????? Someone that is totally innocent??

You took a page straight out of the liberal handbook on that one. That response doesn't deserve an answer and won't get one from me.

 

[Jeddak]

You took a page straight out of the liberal handbook on that one. That response doesn't deserve an answer and won't get one from me.

If it's truly needed, that would not be my primary concern.

Really, REALLY?
YOU are responsible for every bullet that leaves your gun, whether at the range or in a self-defense shooting.

 

[tv_racin_fan]

Do not exercise your right because you may piss people off and they will try to take it from you. wtf?

Anti gunners are actively trying to take the right to keep and bear away no matter what you do. They have been doing so since the right was affirmed in the second amendment.

 

[tv_racin_fan]

Before calling him out, please name a national non-firearms related brand that has taken a pro-gun stance on the matter. Just one. Thanks.

Starbucks took a neutral postition. They ask that you not come in armed but will not ask you to leave if you do.

 

[Bulldawg165]

Starbucks took a neutral postition. They ask that you not come in armed but will not ask you to leave if you do.

Yes, and Kroger took a neutral position as well, but I asked about a PRO-GUN position, of which no non-gun related national brand has taken in response to someone OC'ing a rifle in their establishment.

 

[Bulldawg165]

Really, REALLY?
YOU are responsible for every bullet that leaves your gun, whether at the range or in a self-defense shooting.

It appears that he said it wasn't his PRIMARY concern. Plus, he was talking about over-penetration, not flat out missing and hitting someone. That's entirely different as you can't even be certain which exact direction a bullet will be traveling once it exits a perpetrator, nor can you be certain how much energy it will have. The odds of a bullet exiting a perpetrator and actually gravely harming an innocent person is astronomically low, hence it shouldn't be a *primary* concern in such a situation.

Regardless, this is about OC'ing rifles, not the merits of a handgun vs rifle in a defensive situation, so

 

[Jeddak]

It appears that he said it wasn't his PRIMARY concern. Plus, he was talking about over-penetration, not flat out missing and hitting someone. That's entirely different as you can't even be certain which exact direction a bullet will be traveling once it exits a perpetrator, nor can you be certain how much energy it will have. The odds of a bullet exiting a perpetrator and actually gravely harming an innocent person is astronomically low, hence it shouldn't be a *primary* concern in such a situation.

Regardless, this is about OC'ing rifles, not the merits of a handgun vs rifle in a defensive situation, so

"Primary" was not in his original post. His post was edited. Original post went along "it will be my least concern" lines
My point was, rifle WILL over-penetrate, so LARPERs OCing rifles have absolutely no reason to do so, other than to make a statement.

 

[alnen]

"Primary" was not in his original post. His post was edited. Original post went along "it will be my least concern" lines
My point was, rifle WILL over-penetrate, so LARPERs OCing rifles have absolutely no reason to do so, other than to make a statement.

You quote me, then you get corrected, then you incorrectly paraphrased what I said originally? If you're going to quote someone, make sure to get it right. More importantly, don't make assumptions.

I'm still not going to respond to the statement about shooting innocent women and children. Bulldawg, thanks for the intelligent back up. Intelligence had become an oddity.