How Irresponsible Is This Law?

[hadit]

Yes....we do...it is called the 2nd Amendment...and if a made up marriage law can be used to sue bakers....then the direct violation of the well defined black letter law of the 2nd Amendment has to be obeyed as well....

Show me where the 2nd says you have the right to bring a gun onto my private property

Sorry, your store is not your private property. If it were, you would be free to keep anyone out of it you wanted to, by skin color or what they wear.

Dont be sorry that you dont know what you are talking about. if you close your store you can keep out anyone you want. Public accommodation laws dont mention weapons.

We aren't talking weapons moron...we are talking the Right.....yes, the RIght....to bear arms.....as codified in the Bill of Rights........the ones actually written down so people like you could see them......obviously it isn't enough, but they are actually written down.......

Once you twits allowed bakers to be sued over gay marriage, you now have to allow people to exercise their Right to bear arms....or get sued....

Public accommodation laws dont mention guns which are weapons. The 2nd doesnt say you get to carry those arms on someones private property. Stop stalling and show me if it does.

Your store is not your private property.

 

[Asclepias]

Show me where the 2nd says you have the right to bring a gun onto my private property

Sorry, your store is not your private property. If it were, you would be free to keep anyone out of it you wanted to, by skin color or what they wear.

Dont be sorry that you dont know what you are talking about. if you close your store you can keep out anyone you want. Public accommodation laws dont mention weapons.

We aren't talking weapons moron...we are talking the Right.....yes, the RIght....to bear arms.....as codified in the Bill of Rights........the ones actually written down so people like you could see them......obviously it isn't enough, but they are actually written down.......

Once you twits allowed bakers to be sued over gay marriage, you now have to allow people to exercise their Right to bear arms....or get sued....

Public accommodation laws dont mention guns which are weapons. The 2nd doesnt say you get to carry those arms on someones private property. Stop stalling and show me if it does.

Your store is not your private property.

You already tried this gambit before. i shot it down in a hail of facts.

 

[NoNukes]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

It is a crazy country.

 

[HenryBHough]

Meh.

It's taking your life into your own hands to even enter a "gun free" one.

If you're gonna do that you really should pin a red and white target over your heart to lessen the pain when you get yours.

 

[2aguy]

If you can sue a baker for not baking a cake for a gay marriage...then if they deny you your 2nd Amendment Right, to carry a gun, they should just be sued for that.....just like the baker....a Right is a Right....and if you are injured on their property because they denied you your Right....that should be added on to everything else.....

No dummy. It doesnt say you can sue them for not allowing you to carry a gun. It says you can sue them if you get injured while they have a sign that says no guns allowed. Something that is already law.

I am saying you should be able to sue for both.....they are violating your civil right in both cases.....sue them for both twit.....

Dont care what youre saying.

You dont have a right to carry a potentially dangerous weapon on someone elses property.

Yes....we do...it is called the 2nd Amendment...and if a made up marriage law can be used to sue bakers....then the direct violation of the well defined black letter law of the 2nd Amendment has to be obeyed as well....

The second amendment meant state militia, we all know it. Today we have the NG.

And you would be completely wrong.......the 2nd Amendment is clear, it defines the individual Right......you guys can lie about this all you want, but it doesn't change the truth, the facts or the reality.

 

[Asclepias]

Meh.

It's taking your life into your own hands to even enter a "gun free" one.

If you're gonna do that you really should pin a red and white target over your heart to lessen the pain when you get yours.

We get it. You are afraid of your own shadow. Stay in your bunker where its safe.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No it's not the fact is that if a person is carrying concealed you and the person who took out his crayons to make if gun free zone sign would never know so there would be nothing you can do about it

it was a pointless comment because most intelligent people already know this. You should focus better.

then why are you whining about gun free zone bullshit?

Who told you I was whining about anything? I just told you know one cares if they dont have xray eyes and can spot your gun. The point is that you were told you were not to have it on property. This law is pointless as anyone on the property is already covered by existing law.

you said the law was irresponsible not pointless

I said it doesn't matter what the ******* law is

It is irresponsible and pointless. There is already a law that covers you when injured on anyones property.

There is no law that allows you to sue if a criminal hurts you while robbing a store. At least not the store.

 

[Asclepias]

it was a pointless comment because most intelligent people already know this. You should focus better.

then why are you whining about gun free zone bullshit?

Who told you I was whining about anything? I just told you know one cares if they dont have xray eyes and can spot your gun. The point is that you were told you were not to have it on property. This law is pointless as anyone on the property is already covered by existing law.

you said the law was irresponsible not pointless

I said it doesn't matter what the ******* law is

It is irresponsible and pointless. There is already a law that covers you when injured on anyones property.

There is no law that allows you to sue if a criminal hurts you while robbing a store. At least not the store.

Tough shit. Dont go to the store then. Now back to the OP.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

I think every leftard should put a sign in front of their home proclaiming their home is gun free.

Makes my burglary job easier.

 

[Asclepias]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

I think every leftard should put a sign in front of their home proclaiming their home is gun free.

Makes my burglary job easier.

Thats actually an amazingly good idea. i think i will put up such a sign and have target practice when a criminal like you thinks that means I dont have guns.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

I think every leftard should put a sign in front of their home proclaiming their home is gun free.

Makes my burglary job easier.

Thats actually an amazingly good idea. i think i will put up such a sign and have target practice when a criminal like you thinks that means I dont have guns.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

I think every leftard should put a sign in front of their home proclaiming their home is gun free.

Makes my burglary job easier.

Thats actually an amazingly good idea. i think i will put up such a sign and have target practice when a criminal like you thinks that means I dont have guns.

 

[Asclepias]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

I think every leftard should put a sign in front of their home proclaiming their home is gun free.

Makes my burglary job easier.

Thats actually an amazingly good idea. i think i will put up such a sign and have target practice when a criminal like you thinks that means I dont have guns.

Sorry but I dont look at clips featuring white trash.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

I think every leftard should put a sign in front of their home proclaiming their home is gun free.

Makes my burglary job easier.

Thats actually an amazingly good idea. i think i will put up such a sign and have target practice when a criminal like you thinks that means I dont have guns.

Sorry but I dont look at clips featuring white trash.

Who said the left were racist bigots?

 

[Asclepias]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

I think every leftard should put a sign in front of their home proclaiming their home is gun free.

Makes my burglary job easier.

Thats actually an amazingly good idea. i think i will put up such a sign and have target practice when a criminal like you thinks that means I dont have guns.

Sorry but I dont look at clips featuring white trash.

Who said the left were racist bigots?

I dont know. Why do you ask?

 

[rahtruelies]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

The Law is fine given current conditions. It would not be necessary if there were 90% fewer of your dangerous/useless kind often needing immediate public putdown to protect decent people.

 

[Asclepias]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

The Law is fine given current conditions. It would not be necessary if there were 90% fewer of your dangerous/useless kind often needing immediate public putdown to protect decent people.

The law is retarded and redundant. If you read the thread you will find that you are also retarded and redundant.

 

[Spare_change]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

Actually, the law makes perfect sense.

If you are going to assume responsibility for my safety, by denying me the right to protect myself, then you should be liable for my safety - and when you fail, I will sue your ass into oblivion.

The law is about the store being liable if I'm injured while they denied me the gun.

 

[Asclepias]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

Actually, the law makes perfect sense.

If you are going to assume responsibility for my safety, by denying me the right to protect myself, then you should be liable for my safety - and when you fail, I will sue your ass into oblivion.

Not unless you can show that I didnt take reasonable measures to ensure your safety. You dont have enough money to sue me personally. However, you wouldnt know that since you dont know jack shit about the law.

 

[Spare_change]

I keep asking myself am i missing something? There is a law being considered to hold businesses responsible for injury if someone is harmed while in their store/business and that business doesnt allow guns to be carried. You can probably guess these are conservatives. My thought is that this law is redundant and potentially legally dangerous as businesses are already liable for injury that occurs within its realm of responsibility. This seems more like a "sending a message law" instead of one that is actually doing something positive.

Missouri Bill Seeks to Hold Gun Free Owners Liable for Damages

Actually, the law makes perfect sense.

If you are going to assume responsibility for my safety, by denying me the right to protect myself, then you should be liable for my safety - and when you fail, I will sue your ass into oblivion.

Not unless you can show that I didnt take reasonable measures to ensure your safety. You dont have enough money to sue me personally. However, you wouldnt know that since you dont know jack shit about the law.

You're right --- I don't know jack shit about the law ... but I did walk down the hall and ask the 14 attorneys that work for me. They all agree you would be liable if I were injured or killed. Ask the owner of the Aurora theater - he was sued into bankruptcy. Ask the Columbine school district --- millions of dollars.

As for not having enough money to sue you ---- I think I could scrape up a nickel or two to get it done.

For what it's worth, The vote was 11-3 that the law is valid and wouldn't be overturned.