Now, I realize that this is a discussion board and people like tweets more than a discussion AND they don't see these things as being useful for teaching, networking and fighting back at an evil. I'm about to take on all three. A few months ago, I read a story wherein a gay couple sued a baker because the baker would not bake a cake for a gay wedding. The baker even referred the job to a competitor in the neighborhood. Oh discrimination is such a bad thing... Then, today I find a story about a woman in Maine that does not want gun owners in her restaurant: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/09/25/gunban/7PRm635cC51nHareSsLY9O/story.html Whoa. Wait a minute. Do you have a Right to keep and bear Arms? Is the restaurant not a public venue? Don't the gun owners of Maine think it's time for a protest? Furthermore, why must gun owners be locked out? If you are legally carrying your weapon, why should ANY business (that gets permission from YOUR government to operate in the first place) be able to deny you any Right you have in the Bill of Rights? No offense, but gays have the potential to have AIDS and the possibility of infecting you - but, their rights are protected in spite of any risk. So, why do business owners get a free pass and the ability to discriminate against gun owners?
If a business has a "no-firearms" sign or policy---go elsewhere. If you must go into those businesses, then a discrete concealed weapon is really none of their business anyway.
A lot of people would argue the same thing about a gay person expecting a Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding. So, if the gun rights activists took that Maine woman to court, alleging that she was denying them their rights (and citing cases like the one involving the baker) we might get some better rulings relative to the Second Amendment. Finally, you are wrong. If you carry a concealed weapon onto a business that has a sign up to the effect that weapons are prohibited, your concealed weapon permit isn't worth a plug nickel. You may want to expand your education before trying to school me.
What I'm saying is "who would know" if your carry gun is well concealed and no one is the wiser? And lets say there was an active shooter or some other incident while you were inside the business with the gun and you did use it to stop a violent attack. Do you think the business would make a big deal an sue you over it? Probably not. Risk vs reward.
I'm not sure what carrying the gun is for if it is not used when needed. But, back to the original point. The woman in Maine is an opportunity waiting to happen - IF you believe in promoting gun rights.
Are you laughing because you just made the most stupid post of the month? Where did you think I said such an idiotic thing? What seems to be the source of your problems? What I said is what I said. It's no different than the guys like you claiming that people who own firearms are "gun nuts." Before you start trolling, I'd suggest that you learn how to read.
And your point is? You're not going to derail this thread with B.S. Give it up. The only mention of HIV was in the context that gays, who complained about the Rights of the baker, were protected. My point is that gun owners should be equally protected and the left's shallow arguments about gun owners can't withstand the same scrutiny (which is why you're really here.)
"No offense" does not actually negate the offensiveness of the statement that followed it. "the potential to have AIDS" is not caused by having a same-sex orientation. "the potential to have AIDS" comes from engaging in high risk behaviors with an infected person - regardless of their orientation. The majority of people who identify as gay are not infected. Yes, there is a disproportionate rate of infection among men who have sex with men (which isn't just "gays"). That doesn't excuse pretending that all or most "gays" are infected, though. We aren't, and we don't all engage in high risk behaviors. The possibility of a gay person infecting you is absolutely zero if that gay person isn't themselves infected (as stated above, the majority of gay people aren't infected.) You also don't get infected with AIDS. "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome" is something that can arise as a result of infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). But infection does not mean a person will automatically develop AIDS, especially given the treatments available now for managing HIV. The fact that a person is infected also doesn't mean they have the potential to infect you, especially if you aren't engaging in high risk behaviors with that infected person. You don't get AIDS from breathing the same air as a person infected with HIV. That's not how it works. It's actually a really hard virus to catch/spread. If it weren't, we'd have a much bigger problem on our hands. Making a statement like "gays have the potential to have AIDS and the possibility of infecting you" displays considerable ignorance on those topics. And I don't care if that truth offends you.
I'm not offended by people that are too intellectually challenged that they cannot stay on topic and make every thread about them. This thread is not about gays, AIDS, or whether you got your panties in a bunch. This is about gun control. Quite frankly, when stupid people get in the way of intelligent conversations, it only makes the divide between left and right much wider. Anybody with an IQ higher than their shoe size can see that the inference to gays and AIDS is just as ludicrous as the stupidity of the left, trying to tell people they cannot exercise their Second Amendment guarantee in a public venue that operates via the permission of the government (and, by extension, permission from the people since the people constitute the government.) It probably won't do any good to thank you in the future for staying on point. And, where do you see me jumping and trying to derail YOUR threads with silliness that the average fifth grader could understand? One thing is for sure: You are not a very good spokesman for your cause when you don't understand the proper place and time to make your case.
You lead the charge in lies, disinformation, and outright B.S. I said one group had the potential... that's one hell of a stretch from saying that is the "only" way anybody can have AIDS. But, be that as it may, do you have anything else? Do you know what this topic is about? Do you know what forum you're in? Maybe you smoked a little wacky weed on your way in? When have I tried to derail your threads? There is one thing about the mental disease of liberalism: not only does it make people say silly things in the wrong forums, it seems to preclude the possibility that they can be respectful. I was offended by your allegation - so let's now move on.
Unfortunately mocking my reading skills does not make you a half decent person, nor does it make your posts any more acceptable.
I only carry a gun most of the time when I go into more unknown and dangerous areas usually when traveling. I point of having a gun on you is to have it when you might need it. Like taking insurance. As for me, I support all of the gun control laws the Founders had back in 1789.
Taking a giant dump on my thread; calling me names; making assumptions about me does not make you a freaking saint either. But I digress. The left is attempting to take over this thread simply because I responded to their silliness with an equally silly analogy. When the left calls gun owners names, society has been acceptable of it. When the gun owners have their Rights jeopardized, the left will do all they can to dance around it and create a diversion - just as what you see happening on this thread. Your Rights are not safe because you don't stand up for them. I told the posters that came here this would be a learning opportunity. What you saw is one troll starts PMing every lefty on the board and, before they even read the thread - and God forbid ask a couple of questions to establish the facts, they are busy accusing me of the very behavior they engage in on a daily basis. But, they get away with it because they are organized. They have good communications. They aren't going to allow us to talk about gun control and the actions of a person discriminating against gun owners. But herein is the bottom line: If those criticizing me would not stand up for our Right to keep and bear Arms, they are wrong to presume that I would care about their Rights under the same circumstances. So that they cannot put themselves up on a pedestal too high, let me remind them: I've stood for the Liberties and Freedoms of people that hate my guts. I've fought for them at a great expense to myself. Look up the posts I've made about immigrants - perhaps the only effective voice they have here and I'm not even on their side!!! I fight for Freedom and Liberty. My critics, who did not like what I wrote, misrepresented me, judged me without asking a single question, condemned me without the benefit of a fair hearing and would kill me without a trial for having the audacity to say something even slightly negative about them. You talk about bigotry; you talk about prejudice; you talk about hatred - the critics I have on this thread are foaming at the mouth and if you could see their faces, you'd see the hate and intolerance they accuse others of. Those people would not stand up for the Rights of those they disagree with. They would deny to them every Right the gun owner has or ever will have. They cannot even afford to allow us the opportunity to have a conversation that is sincere, respectful, and worthy of the word toleration. Above all they don't want me to use this opportunity to tell you how to run an effective counter campaign to tyranny and oppression. So watch them as they derail this discussion with their false allegations and their hate filled attacks. Watch how they conduct themselves and learn. If that is the way the game is played, you might be wasting your time to be the man I've been up until today.
It's one of the biggest risk factor along with being black and IV drug users. It's NOT being a choir member of the First Baptist Church.
Another persons hate filled attacks doesn't make your hate filled attacks right or justified. Also, I personally, think the world is a whole lot more complicated then the wicked right and the wicked left and in my opinion when you (and others) start turning your rhetoric behind those generalizations it diminishes from what point you are actually trying to make. As for derailing this thread to discuss gays etc, you were the one that went there, you opened that discussion point up. If you did not want to talk about gays / aids etc then perhaps you should not have talked about that?
No reasonable or honest person could have read into my threads what you claimed. Look at the support you have for that position. You have a the most hate filled person on this board, an individual that specializes in censoring anything that isn't left wing propaganda on your side. Then your first sentence testifies against yourself, not me. So one person's attack (if you could believe that abject lie you used as a pretext for coming here) did not justify attacking me. That's your own words. What you're doing is not right. The best thing you could do is shut up or post something relative to the topic. Back to the subject at hand: The Maine restaurateur offended gun owners as bad as you pretend to be offended, but she didn't use the gun owners as examples, she deliberately discriminated against them. Of course, putting a sign in your business telling people if you have a gun don't come around here may make you feel good, but to a criminal it's a freaking joke. To the individual that fills out forms, gets a permit, and jeopardizes their Rights by asking permission to exercise an unalienable Right, it's a slap in the face when someone tells you you're not welcome to enter their place of business. You can't make the left understand that without examples to demonstrate the point.
It's because we have allowed them to build a super sized government wherein they think that all power resides within their bass ackwards decrees. "... all power is inherent in the people..." Thomas Jefferson
"Intellectually challenged" - says the guy who used gay people as a prop to discuss something wholly unrelated, and made statements about them that portray ignorance and bigotry. And then complains when we don't like it and feel it shouldn't be given a free pass. If you don't want your threads "derailed", then maybe don't try to use a group of people as a prop. Expecting us to ignore it and make no response is what I would call "stupidity". As for being "a spokesman for my cause", I'm not here to be patted on the head. If you talk crap about gay people, then fair warning - gay people are probably not going to respond positively to that, and we sure aren't going to sit quietly in the corner and let the crap go unchallenged - regardless of whether or not it's your main topic. You opened the door by using us, and you got a response. Gee, what a shocker. I'm not here to win over people who think it's a good idea to use us as a prop this way.
