Webster does not use WE in a general form. "WE, pronoun --used of a group that includes the speaker or writer".. I made my statement quit clear, I'm not surprised you didn't answer to the specifics. The rights you speak of must also come with respect, or your nothing more than a hypocrite. Further, the manner in which you enforce your rights, is without a doubt, open to question, and has been. boar out.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Sykes off in his own world again...
- Thread starter Grant Guess
- Start date
Webster does not use WE in a general form. "WE, pronoun --used of a group that includes the speaker or writer".. I made my statement quit clear, I'm not surprised you didn't answer to the specifics. The rights you speak of must also come with respect, or your nothing more than a hypocrite. Further, the manner in which you enforce your rights, is without a doubt, open to question, and has been. boar out.
Deadscott
Regular Member
Deadscott said:
Not true, this is the same. You want to use the threat of financial hardship [boycott] to sway a business to support your ideals.
Deadscott said:
The question is not what you would be protecting. The question is what would you be boycotting or protesting?
A property owner exercises his property rights. Some call for a boycott or protests. I'll ask again because when I see one group clamoring for their rights, then boycott another citizen when he exercises his rights I get confused. I'm really trying to wrap my head around this.
I'm not asking to be a pric, I truly want to understand, so the question still stands, Would you be boycotting his private property rights? Or the fact that he is exercising those rights?
Last edited:
Outdoorsman1
Regular Member
Hey Guy's, Can't We All Just Get Along....
Group Hug....
http://i1181.photobucket.com/albums/x429/outdoorsman4/PooGroupHug.jpg
Outdoorsman1
Group Hug....
http://i1181.photobucket.com/albums/x429/outdoorsman4/PooGroupHug.jpg
Outdoorsman1
Last edited:
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
Wild boar,
I'm getting quite sick and tired of reading your circular arguments and watching you snipe at other members while not answering in real debate.
So far you claim:
1. That many here don't respect private property rights.
Cite it if you can but I haven't seen this at all and think it's a load of bull pucky.
2. That it's somehow disrespectful to work to change a business' policy.
Yes, there may be disrespectful ways in which to do it but I so far see no members here being unprofessional about it.
3. That you don't want to be included in any "group" that espouses your perceived gripes.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion but it seems it's formed from nonexistent proof.
If you believe that you should only respect others rights and not bother to exercise your own then this isn't the place for you. Everyone has the right to not shop at a business, let their thoughts be known about said business in public forum and even "black list" or boycott such a business.
If everyone took up your stance then we'd be turning everyones perceived "right" to "not feel uncomfortable" into a legislative reality through complete inaction therefore losing all of these rights that you supposedly feel so strongly about.
Yes, every right we have is extremely important. You've said it; now start ACTING like it.
A business making a policy one way or the other about ANYTHING is going to have to back it up or face market retribution.
I'm getting quite sick and tired of reading your circular arguments and watching you snipe at other members while not answering in real debate.
So far you claim:
1. That many here don't respect private property rights.
Cite it if you can but I haven't seen this at all and think it's a load of bull pucky.
2. That it's somehow disrespectful to work to change a business' policy.
Yes, there may be disrespectful ways in which to do it but I so far see no members here being unprofessional about it.
3. That you don't want to be included in any "group" that espouses your perceived gripes.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion but it seems it's formed from nonexistent proof.
If you believe that you should only respect others rights and not bother to exercise your own then this isn't the place for you. Everyone has the right to not shop at a business, let their thoughts be known about said business in public forum and even "black list" or boycott such a business.
If everyone took up your stance then we'd be turning everyones perceived "right" to "not feel uncomfortable" into a legislative reality through complete inaction therefore losing all of these rights that you supposedly feel so strongly about.
Yes, every right we have is extremely important. You've said it; now start ACTING like it.
A business making a policy one way or the other about ANYTHING is going to have to back it up or face market retribution.
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
Some being the key word here.....call for a boycott or protests because it's their right to do so.
You guys can't have it both ways, flop around like a fish and just que sera, sera. A right unexercised is a right lost. If they have rights, so do the ones calling for boycott.
If a business wants to adopt a policy and stand behind it (their right and choice) they must live with the consequences of that policy. What's so hard to understand?
If I have a business and don't want "Liberals" on the premisis, it's certainly within my rights but I'm sure there would be some blowback from my decision.
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
I think a business exercising their right to post and our right to carry are not two separate issues. They are intertwined. It's a circular discussion.
If a business is 2A friendly then it will be supported by 2A conscience individuals. It will be boycotted by Constitution haters. Like Starbucks.
If a business posts then it will be loved by 2A haters and avoided by those who carry. Like Farm and Fleet.
Discussing which businesses post and which don't is just keeping the community informed.
My hardliner opinion.
Talking heads with radio shows are nothing more than entertainers. That's why they call 'em "radio persona".
Last edited:
We meaning those who choose to not do business with them. I do not know, nor do I speak for anyone specifically, but I do voice my opinion, and many who are too timid to do so, will agree with me.
As far as i'm concerned outdoorsman1...
...this is spirited dialog. I'm doing fine, total absents of malice. I just can not accept the thought process, or their perception of what the Constitution stands for. I Suspended my rights in 1973, and served three years upholding, and defending the Constitution. I know what a fair, and responsible application of rights means and am tired of innuendo to the contrary. Never had, and, won't back down. boar out.
...this is spirited dialog. I'm doing fine, total absents of malice. I just can not accept the thought process, or their perception of what the Constitution stands for. I Suspended my rights in 1973, and served three years upholding, and defending the Constitution. I know what a fair, and responsible application of rights means and am tired of innuendo to the contrary. Never had, and, won't back down. boar out.
Count the members who support this...
...,and compare it to the 25,000 that belong to OCDO. Now you would have me believe a person too timid to speak will go toe to toe armed, OK Buddy
boar out.
...,and compare it to the 25,000 that belong to OCDO. Now you would have me believe a person too timid to speak will go toe to toe armed, OK Buddy
boar out.*takes a deep breathe to calm himself down* What part of "I do not speak for everyone" did you not understand? I've said time and time again, "I do not speak for everyone." Those who want to agree with me, fine, those who disagree, fine, I really don't care....,and compare it to the 25,000 that belong to OCDO. Now you would have me believe a person too timid to speak will go toe to toe armed, OK Buddy
wild boar, I enjoy talking with you, but you are getting on my nerves here.
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
[video=youtube;jzPA-FrVu3I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzPA-FrVu3I[/video]
rcawdor57
Campaign Veteran
How Did This Thread Denegrate Into A "P*SS*NG CONTEST"???
I've read through all the pages and I don't understand WHY we are bickering with each other about "We" and other words.
This thread started out about C. Sykes and now it is personal posts against each other?!?!
Here, let me say this: If a store posts "No Firearms" I won't shop there. I'm sure many of "us" won't either.
I've read through all the pages and I don't understand WHY we are bickering with each other about "We" and other words.
This thread started out about C. Sykes and now it is personal posts against each other?!?!
Here, let me say this: If a store posts "No Firearms" I won't shop there. I'm sure many of "us" won't either.
Outdoorsman1
Regular Member
I very much appreciate your service and sacrafices for our country and constitution. My perception of the conversations in question basically have nothing to do with the conversation itself. I have my convictions, you have yours, and others here have theirs. As long as I am able stand behind my convictions, I have no problem with you or others standing behind their's (even if they different from mine). Nobody is asking you to "back down". I might suggest that you maybe "back off" a little. Your statement above about "total absents of malice." does not ring true with other comments such as...(couple of examples..)...
Or...
I know that thoughts and opinions typed in a forum on a internet website can be taken many different way's (this can also be said of humor). I am not asking anyone to "stand down" on the opinions, I just sometimes wish that on any internet website forum, opinions and fellings could be expressed in a friendlier (sp?) manner...
Outdoorsman1
Side Note... See my post in the Stickied "Lissy's Meet and Greet Thread" (towards the end)... Although it is not my only reason.... I am considering being a no show as I know both "participants" in this debate are regulars there and frankly, I have better things to do than sit and listen to a continuation of what I have read here... At the very least, I would opt to sit at the opposite end of the table to allow myself the pleasure of friendly enjoyable conversation, as to that would be my reason for attending in the first place...
Last edited:
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
Wow!
Anyhow, here's my stand and my thoughts behind it.
If someone posts 'no guns', I won't go in there, there are several reasons:
1. I can't protect myself. I am either carrying for self-defense or for show. If I'm carrying for self-defense, I need to carry everywhere.
2. When cc is legal, I could just hide it and carry anyway. I wouldn't do that because that would be hypocritical.
3. While I support private property rights, I also have the right to spend my money where I want for any reason I want. It can be price, quality, someone I know, ny number of reasons.
Anyhow, here's my stand and my thoughts behind it.
If someone posts 'no guns', I won't go in there, there are several reasons:
1. I can't protect myself. I am either carrying for self-defense or for show. If I'm carrying for self-defense, I need to carry everywhere.
2. When cc is legal, I could just hide it and carry anyway. I wouldn't do that because that would be hypocritical.
3. While I support private property rights, I also have the right to spend my money where I want for any reason I want. It can be price, quality, someone I know, ny number of reasons.
Like( h ) said "this is a circular issue"...
and another said "one day the courts will have to decide". It never has to come to this if common sense were to prevail. This does not have to be a p*****g contest, an issue of verbiage, nor a literal challenge. Why can't it be agreed that, guns allowed, guns not allowed, without the potential loss of revenue being mentioned. This could be an accepted coarse of action. There need not be monetary ramifications injected into a civil issue, ie, property vs carry rights. Let it go. MHO. RESPECT ONE ANOTHER. It was battled for long before it was the Constitution. boar out.
and another said "one day the courts will have to decide". It never has to come to this if common sense were to prevail. This does not have to be a p*****g contest, an issue of verbiage, nor a literal challenge. Why can't it be agreed that, guns allowed, guns not allowed, without the potential loss of revenue being mentioned. This could be an accepted coarse of action. There need not be monetary ramifications injected into a civil issue, ie, property vs carry rights. Let it go. MHO. RESPECT ONE ANOTHER. It was battled for long before it was the Constitution. boar out.
Last edited:
Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
You may include me in the "we" that will never spend a dime in a store that had a "no firearms" sign posted.
I'm glad when shop owners who are anti-gun post their stores. The LAST thing I want to do in this economy is spend my hard earned dollars in a store that is ill-informed with respect to their policies.
For the most part, I have bigger fish to fry than spend my time and energy trying to change the mind a store owner of an individual store when there are hundreds of alternative stores of equal or greater substitute.
Now if a national retailer decided to take up a no-firearms position. That may be worth my time to contact and try to offer an informed opinion to sway their position.
Our country was made great by the free will of people to go about their life in the manner of their choosing so long as they didn't tangibly infringe on the right of others to do the same. That doesn't mean that peer pressure does not exist (directly or indirectly) on every member of society. I often speak of the difference between right and wrong and legal and illegal. I don't want the government legislating ALL right and wrong. I want societal/cultural norms/behaviors to influence that. The government ought stick to its core functions.
I'm glad its legal for a business owner to chose. I'm also of the belief that when you believe that is immoral, you should not embrace immoral behavior. (again, not to say I think all immoral behavior should be illegal)
Do I "respect" the choice of a business owner to ban firearms. No. I lose respect for anyone that makes ill-informed decisions. Will I abide by his choice. Yes. Just because I respect the rights of a private property owner does not mean I respect his decisions. I think its selfish for a store owner to prevent me from carrying. Now if he could convince me of a logical reason why its not selfish of him/her, but in the best interest of others, I would change my mind and respect his decision.
Because I think its selfish for a store owner to ban carry in their store, I hope that societal norms/cultural proclivities would shun that kind of behavior. To embrace it pleasantly and say "oh its his right" and not have ANY consequences of that behavior, to me, is immoral because you are encouraging selfishness. Therefore, I will share my displeasure.
Actions and behaviors should have consequences. Those consequences do not have to be legal consequences, or enforced by government, all the time. In fact, many times they should NOT be enforced by government but that doesn't mean they should be enforced by society through peer pressure. That is how cultures evolve.
As to a "boycott" that's just semantics. If I choose not to shop at Farm and Fleet because they don't allow OC am I boycotting? Or do you have to make a big formal organized effort for it to be a boycott? Or does the label really not matter.
As to Charlie Sykes. He's a talking head on the radio. His opinion is no more or less valid than anyone else's he just had a venue to spread his over a larger audience.
Its VERY clear Charlie Sykes doesn't have a freedom minded common-sense position with regard to many sides of the gun rights/carry debate. His own words have already documented that for us.
His opinion that people shouldn't boycott carries no weight with me. He was WAY off on the right to carry debate, why would he be on-target with regard to stores posting no carry signs and people voicing their objection to it.
It is up to EACH individual to make the decision for themselves to what lengths they will go to encourage behavior that they feel is good and discourage behavior that they feel is bad.
When it comes to business, there are an infinite number of factors that go into the decision of where to shop and who to do business with. The stores position on right to carry is but ONE of those factors.
How important a factor it is to you is up to YOU. Not Charlie Sykes or anyone else.
To some, they may still choose to shop at a store posted "no carry" and do nothing.
Others may still shop there but tell the owner "hey, I don't agree, but you have the best prices, so I'll shop here anyway"
For others, the right to carry is important enough that they'll pay more/drive farther, accept crappier service if need to, just to make the decision that is best for them.
For some, they will stand in front of the store (on the public right of way sidewalk) and picket. Its all about what is important to you personally.
I'm glad when shop owners who are anti-gun post their stores. The LAST thing I want to do in this economy is spend my hard earned dollars in a store that is ill-informed with respect to their policies.
For the most part, I have bigger fish to fry than spend my time and energy trying to change the mind a store owner of an individual store when there are hundreds of alternative stores of equal or greater substitute.
Now if a national retailer decided to take up a no-firearms position. That may be worth my time to contact and try to offer an informed opinion to sway their position.
Our country was made great by the free will of people to go about their life in the manner of their choosing so long as they didn't tangibly infringe on the right of others to do the same. That doesn't mean that peer pressure does not exist (directly or indirectly) on every member of society. I often speak of the difference between right and wrong and legal and illegal. I don't want the government legislating ALL right and wrong. I want societal/cultural norms/behaviors to influence that. The government ought stick to its core functions.
I'm glad its legal for a business owner to chose. I'm also of the belief that when you believe that is immoral, you should not embrace immoral behavior. (again, not to say I think all immoral behavior should be illegal)
Do I "respect" the choice of a business owner to ban firearms. No. I lose respect for anyone that makes ill-informed decisions. Will I abide by his choice. Yes. Just because I respect the rights of a private property owner does not mean I respect his decisions. I think its selfish for a store owner to prevent me from carrying. Now if he could convince me of a logical reason why its not selfish of him/her, but in the best interest of others, I would change my mind and respect his decision.
Because I think its selfish for a store owner to ban carry in their store, I hope that societal norms/cultural proclivities would shun that kind of behavior. To embrace it pleasantly and say "oh its his right" and not have ANY consequences of that behavior, to me, is immoral because you are encouraging selfishness. Therefore, I will share my displeasure.
Actions and behaviors should have consequences. Those consequences do not have to be legal consequences, or enforced by government, all the time. In fact, many times they should NOT be enforced by government but that doesn't mean they should be enforced by society through peer pressure. That is how cultures evolve.
As to a "boycott" that's just semantics. If I choose not to shop at Farm and Fleet because they don't allow OC am I boycotting? Or do you have to make a big formal organized effort for it to be a boycott? Or does the label really not matter.
As to Charlie Sykes. He's a talking head on the radio. His opinion is no more or less valid than anyone else's he just had a venue to spread his over a larger audience.
Its VERY clear Charlie Sykes doesn't have a freedom minded common-sense position with regard to many sides of the gun rights/carry debate. His own words have already documented that for us.
His opinion that people shouldn't boycott carries no weight with me. He was WAY off on the right to carry debate, why would he be on-target with regard to stores posting no carry signs and people voicing their objection to it.
It is up to EACH individual to make the decision for themselves to what lengths they will go to encourage behavior that they feel is good and discourage behavior that they feel is bad.
When it comes to business, there are an infinite number of factors that go into the decision of where to shop and who to do business with. The stores position on right to carry is but ONE of those factors.
How important a factor it is to you is up to YOU. Not Charlie Sykes or anyone else.
To some, they may still choose to shop at a store posted "no carry" and do nothing.
Others may still shop there but tell the owner "hey, I don't agree, but you have the best prices, so I'll shop here anyway"
For others, the right to carry is important enough that they'll pay more/drive farther, accept crappier service if need to, just to make the decision that is best for them.
For some, they will stand in front of the store (on the public right of way sidewalk) and picket. Its all about what is important to you personally.
Last edited:
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
Of course it's a monetary issue. I won't spend my money where I am not welcome. I am not saying they don't have that right and I will respect it completely but not at the expense of my morality.
XD40-OD
Campaign Veteran
I think there needs to be an 'Official ******* Contest' Thread
Mods can then direct members there when they become...swolen
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
What's all this ******* contest B.S.?
There's a discussion going on with someone who can't back up his statements and won't enter in to honest debate with other posters but I don't see a ******* contest anywhere.
There's a discussion going on with someone who can't back up his statements and won't enter in to honest debate with other posters but I don't see a ******* contest anywhere.
HandyHamlet
Regular Member
[video=youtube;jyaLZHiJJnE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyaLZHiJJnE[/video]