Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-25-2016, 05:06 PM
 
28,660 posts, read 18,764,698 times
Reputation: 30933

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Mindless, incoherrant drivel. First, few criminals choose busy streets, in broad daylight as the time and place for their criminal activity. And the mere suggestion that openly carrying a firearm would make one a more desirable target for a criminal, compared to an unarmed person is bat crap crazy.

This is why the rational segment of the population needs to get off their collective arses and drown out the noise from the Looney left. We cannot survive this level of stupidity and Orwellian double think for very much longer.
What they most often do is disassemble their intentions until they are close enough to tactically overcome a person with a holstered gun. If they can get within 15 feet of you before announcing hostile intention clearly enough to allow you to legally draw...they'll win, even if you're open carrying.

A major part of effectively using a weapon is situation management. That's more than just "situational awareness." It means always maneuvering so that in any situation you have nullified any opponent's tactical advantage, if not giving yourself the tactical advantage.

In many cases, it means looking at a situation and walking the other way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-25-2016, 05:11 PM
 
28,660 posts, read 18,764,698 times
Reputation: 30933
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Employers Rights
If now sign is posted an employer may ask anyone who is carrying a firearm to leave their premises.
Employer can say No to visitors carrying on their premises. Posted sign required.
Employer can say No to employees carrying on their premises. Company policy may be verbal or written.
Employer can say Yes to employees and NO to visitors. Posted sign required.
Employer can say YES to visitor and employees
Employees Rights To Store Weapon In Vehicle White at Work
Employees have a right to store weapons in their non-company vehicle while at work as long as it is concealed and secured.

Exceptions. Employees may not store in their vehicles at work or carry a handgun on their person at the following locations:

Vehicle owned or leased by a public or private employer (unless employer allows)
Schools (unless school allows)
Private landowners leasing oil, gas, mineral rights (includes land)
Chemical plants, refineries, utility stations (in the secure areas).
Private employers can still restrict employees and non-employees from carrying on their premises.

Provides immunity for employers from civil liability (except gross negligence) Sec. 52.063

30.07 Law | 30.06-30.07 Signs

Don't tell me they forgot to read the 2A again!!! How is this possible?
The 2nd amendment does not apply to persons, only to US governments .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2016, 05:15 PM
 
29,526 posts, read 9,700,562 times
Reputation: 3466
Default Don't tell me, tell the gun enthusiast Tea Party types...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
The 2nd amendment does not apply to persons, only to US governments .
You're "preaching to the choir" my friend..., but shouldn't be long before someone tries to suggest that preventing anyone from walking into a store with a legally registered gun, as allowed by the law of the land, is impinging on my Constitutional right to bear arms.

You watch. 3...., 2...., 1....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2016, 07:43 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,596,242 times
Reputation: 18521
It ain't illegal until you get caught.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2016, 04:03 AM
mm4
 
5,711 posts, read 3,976,240 times
Reputation: 1941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
I saw a lot of those signs in Texas even before the new law,....
Absolutely. What changed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2016, 04:09 AM
mm4
 
5,711 posts, read 3,976,240 times
Reputation: 1941
If commentator LearnMe doesn't believe in private property, LearnMe also will not understand that private property owners can eject people from their property for myriad personal reasons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2016, 05:07 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,081,664 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by biscuitmom View Post
Apparently you didn't see the 2nd link in the OP? It's a list of more than 400 businesses, and many of the listings are large chains (Cinemark, Waffle House, Target, Texas Health Medical Group) that represent hundreds of locations.

So there are literally thousands of businesses, and I know for a fact even that list is incomplete. The hospital I was in this week, that had brand new "no carry" and "no concealed" signs, has 26 locations in the DFW area alone, and it's not even included in that list of 400.

Texan3006 is slacking.
lets dumb this down for the left yet again.

no need for signs because no one can do it

The law says now everyone can do it...

businesses who want to exercise their property rights pu up a sign saying people cant do it..

this means those businesses that DONT put up a sign, you can do it on, which is an INCREASE from the starting point where "no one" can do it..

This is not backfiring...

you guys can NOT do basic elementary math..

Last edited by pghquest; 01-26-2016 at 05:28 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2016, 05:32 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,081,664 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by mm4 View Post
If commentator LearnMe doesn't believe in private property, LearnMe also will not understand that private property owners can eject people from their property for myriad personal reasons.
I agree in property rights, but the debate comes into play

you cant exercise property rights and eject individuals from your property because you simply dont like them.. For example, bakeries cant eject gays, and decide not to build them a cake

But something granted to the people by the Constitution, can all of a sudden be put aside because clearly property rights are more important than guns (which I agree with), but if property rights are first and foremost, then the right not to serve a customer for other reasons, should be respected, even if the mass public disagrees with it and decides to stop being their consumer and thus puts them out of business..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2016, 05:37 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,081,664 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
The 2nd amendment does not apply to persons, only to US governments .
um.. no

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


How does a "militia" keep and maintain arms without those arms being carried by people?

how does the first part of the sentence, limit the second part? it doesnt.. In fact the first part explains why the second part is necessary, and it sure isnt limited to "hunting". as the left likes to proclaim.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2016, 05:40 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,081,664 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
You're "preaching to the choir" my friend..., but shouldn't be long before someone tries to suggest that preventing anyone from walking into a store with a legally registered gun, as allowed by the law of the land, is impinging on my Constitutional right to bear arms.

You watch. 3...., 2...., 1....
Thats only true if you ignore other rights like individual property rights, which would be stupid.

if you admit rights like property rights should be protected, and then argue that gun rights should be limited, than by definition, this would be define as hypocritical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:09 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top