The Official Funny Stuff Thread™
-
The sign's not there to keep people with CWP out.
IRRELEVANT! How can you respond to a post where I say, "it doesn't matter why the sign is there" with "Nuh-uh!!! It does matter if the sign is there because of secret Illuminati conspiracy bankers 50 tons of gold were int he basement of WTC2 and steel doesn't burn in jet fuel!!!"
-
No; the onus here is on the visitor to respect the wishes of the property owner. That's obvious to anybody over the age of 5. I think it's obvious to you, also, you are just pretending it's not so you can justify being a dick.
The onus should be on the property owner to make their wishes known then. If the sign is easy to see, fine, I'm out and I'll take my business elsewhere. But that's not how things work around here. Around here, duct-taping a handwritten note to the back door not used by customers counts. That is being a dick!
-
The onus should be on the property owner to make their wishes known then. If the sign is easy to see, fine, I'm out and I'll take my business elsewhere. But that's not how things work around here. Around here, duct-taping a handwritten note to the back door not used by customers counts. That is being a dick!
I agree entirely, because that's not the fucking thread of conversation I'm in, you're conflating TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THREADS and are putting words into my mouth and are dumb.
-
So basically,
Me: "This is how things work in Nebraska."
@FrostCat: "That wouldn't be allowed in South Carolina."
@Blakeyrat: I"M CONFUSSEDDD!!
-
No. I never EVER EVER ONCE EVER posted in the thread about store owners "hiding" the signs so they could prosecute. Never. You think I did, yes I get that, but that's because you are dumb.
-
Look; I own a property. A house or a store or whatever. I put up a sign that says, "please don't do X while on my property." And you do X. YOU ARE A DICK. That's all I'm saying.
You're right.
I think those who argue property owners with "No Gun" policies are dicks are taking the wrong approach. They aren't dicks, they're just idiots. There is plenty of evidence that gun free settings don't deter shootings, so why disarm the good guys?
As for the story that @mott555 shared, if I were in a situation where I was aware that my wife or I was being stalked I would avoid gun free zones. That just seems like a smart thing to do.
-
No; the onus here is on the visitor to respect the wishes of the property owner. That's obvious to anybody over the age of 5. I think it's obvious to you, also, you are just pretending it's not so you can justify being a dick.
No, I'm not. You're being an asshole again by refusing to admit you understand the actual legal situation. Again, if the banks don't want people in there, they just put up the right sign. It's not as if it's the legal ones are hard to find or cost more or something.
Hey here's an idea: why don't you just leave your gun in your trunk, walk into the bank, and ask the security guard about it. You know, resolve the issue like a civilized human being? By talking it over?
I'm sure it will shock you to know plenty of people don't know the law.
-
I think it's obvious to you, also, you are just pretending it's not so you can justify being a dick.
What if he puts a sign like, "Black people not allowed." Are the black people who come to the store being dicks?
They aren't dicks, they're just idiots.
Stop undersimplifying!
-
-
-
Our problem is we have ONE guy in the unicameral who shuts all that stuff down. The guy is a total clown, he was one of those guys who tried to go to court and sue God for all the bad stuff that's ever happened in the world. Nebraska even passed term limit laws to get the guy kicked out, and he found a loophole and remained in office (the term limits reset if he took a break from office).
As a 'master of legislative process', he's fantastic -- interestingly enough, my understanding of his "lawsuit against God" was that he intended for it to be sent from the docket to the circular file, to make a point about how litigious our society is. As a 'mover and shaker'...well, suffice it to say that I respect the man, but I don't agree with him on several things. I have had the pleasure of meeting him in person (briefly), though, and also went to high school with his nephew.
If you actually don't want someone carrying on your property, put up a legally-binding sign. Is that too hard for you to understand?
Let me make this clear: the banks all know this too! If they actually didn't want people carrying concealed, they would put up a legally-binding sign. Are you telling me you think for a second that the lawyers and execs at Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and so on don't know this?
...you'd think that a company that size would have lawyered up to the point where they could figure such things out, but never doubt megacorps for WTFness.This is one of the funny things about local politics here. Some bank was partly responsible for getting the uniform signage law shut down. They claimed signs were "too expensive". The same bank had just spent some $100,000+ on new security cameras but couldn't afford the $15 to put a new, easily-seen sign at the front door.
The key point here is that the sign should be easily-seen. Those who are intentionally hiding signs in order to trap those who carry are being dicks. They shouldn't be dicks.
Even with labor for installation -- that's still what? $100 a branch? It's a decal on a door, for crying out loud!No; the onus here is on the visitor to respect the wishes of the property owner. That's obvious to anybody over the age of 5. I think it's obvious to you, also, you are just pretending it's not so you can justify being a dick.
You're making just as many assumptions about the wishes of the property owner as @FrostCat is here.Ideally...
Hey here's an idea: why don't you just leave your gun in your trunk, walk into the bank, and ask the security guard about it. You know, resolve the issue like a civilized human being? By talking it over?
would work, but guess what? The security guard's going to either spout baloney, or just stammer at you and go "uh...", or perhaps point at the sign, 99.9% of the time. They may not even know what a CWP is or what it means (shame on them, though!). And whatever policy said megabankcorp might have about CWP holders exercising their 2A rights inside bank branches has likely never been communicated to them.The onus should be on the property owner to make their wishes known then. If the sign is easy to see, fine, I'm out and I'll take my business elsewhere. But that's not how things work around here. Around here, duct-taping a handwritten note to the back door not used by customers counts. That is being a dick!
Besides, they somehow interpret the law as including spaces that are traditionally considered nigh-public (such as municipal parklands). Eh?They aren't dicks, they're just idiots. There is plenty of evidence that gun free settings don't deter shootings, so why disarm the good guys?
As for the story that @mott555 shared, if I were in a situation where I was aware that my wife or I was being stalked I would avoid gun free zones. That just seems like a smart thing to do.
I'd agree with you if the idiots were a small, but vocal, minority -- but where @mott555 is, they're a significant proportion of the populace, including just about all large entities.
-
You think I did
nobody thinks that. We know exactly what's going on: you're pretending to be outraged, or else you're an idiot.
-
No, I'm not. You're being an asshole again by refusing to admit you understand the actual legal situation.
I'm not talking about the legal situation AT ALL. It's legal to be a dick. I'm saying "don't be a dick".
Again, if the banks don't want people in there, they just put up the right sign.
I'll believe that when you interview a bank manager or guard and ask if they put up the incorrect sign on purpose. I'm not going to take it on faith.
I'm sure it will shock you to know plenty of people don't know the law.
That's fine; because most people know not to be a dick.
If people like you learn the intricacies of the law specifically to justify being a dick, I'd much rather be at a party with the guy who doesn't know the law.
would work, but guess what? The security guard's going to either spout baloney, or just stammer at you and go "uh...", or perhaps point at the sign, 99.9% of the time.
Ok; so play it safe and don't bring the gun in. If that really makes you angry, go find another bank to do business with. This isn't hard. This is called "civilization", the entire point of which is resolving disputes without violence.
nobody thinks that. We know exactly what's going on: you're pretending to be outraged, or else you're an idiot.
I'm not pretending to be outraged, I'm asking you to not be a dick.
-
a company that size would have lawyered up to the point where they could figure such
Not just one--all of them! Including the Big (at that time) Four, as well as every other bank in the state.
What Blakeyrat won't admit, of course, is that South Carolina's different from Washington (or Oregon, I forget which state he's in) and the majority of people aren't hoplophobes and don't really mind people with CWP.
-
would work, but guess what? The security guard's going to either spout baloney, or just stammer at you and go "uh...", or perhaps point at the sign, 99.9% of the time. They may not even know what a CWP is or what it means (shame on them, though!). And whatever policy said megabankcorp might have about CWP holders exercising their 2A rights inside bank branches has likely never been communicated to them.
And that's assuming that the guard even works for the megabankcorp. Half the time, the guards are actually contracted from a security agency, which means there's another layer of bureaucracy for information to get stuck in.
I'd agree with you if the idiots were a small, but vocal, minority -- but where @mott555 is, they're a significant proportion of the populace, including just about all large entities.
As far as individuals go, it seems that the idiots are a small, vocal group. Once you mix in the corps, that's where the dicks come in. They somehow think that making their businesses gun free will protect them from liability. I don't really get the logic on that, so I guess that makes them idiotic dicks.
-
What Blakeyrat won't admit, of course, is that South Carolina's different from Washington (or Oregon, I forget which state he's in) and the majority of people aren't hoplophobes and don't really mind people with CWP.
Goddamned. Can you just address my "don't be a dick" assertion without conflating it with a billion other things?!
"don't be a dick" has nothing to do with the specifics of the law.
"don't be a dick" has nothing to do with the number of hoplophobes in the general population.
"don't be a dick" simply means: don't be a dick.
Is it fucking literally impossible for you to take an extremely simple idea without making it more pointlessly complex?
Goddamned, I literally cannot conceive of how your brain works. I can't even imagine how "great" the software you build must be, since you have to over-complicate the fuck out of everything.
-
They're not going to not know they're putting up signs that aren't legally enforceable.
Too many negatives. I had to read that 3 times before it made sense, because I kept missing a "not".
-
I have an estranged and psychologically-unstable father with a violent criminal record. So, for the record, I and those around me are safer if I'm carrying. Disarming me is being a dick, because it's saying my life doesn't matter. And I can guarantee no-carry signs wouldn't stop him from illegally carrying a weapon.
(Also for the record, I don't believe he knows my current location...but it's still a risk.)
-
-
You're making just as many assumptions about the wishes of the property owner as @FrostCat is here.
I'm not making any assumptions about the property owner. You can comply with the law and put up a legally binding sign, or not.
I guess in blakeyrat's world, I could just go up and make a speed limit sign in crayon and put it on the road and then rail against the bastards who ignore my intent just because I didn't put up a legal sign.
-
I'm not talking about the legal situation AT ALL. It's legal to be a dick. I'm saying "don't be a dick".
Yes, you should take your own advice and stop arguing with me about this because you're wrong.
-
-
If that really makes you angry, go find another bank to do business with.
They all have the signs. None of the signs are the sign prescribed by law. I'm pretending to be amazed that you think every single bank out there is ignorant of the law to the extent that they put the wrong sign on every branch, just like you're pretending the issue is something other than it is because you like to argue.
-
if there's a gold fringe on the flag in the courthouse, it means US Law doesn't apply. WELL KNOWN FACT!!!
I like to keep my hat on and not stand when I see the American flag. Anybody gets on my case about it, I just point out that it's not the flag of the country I was born in because that one only had 49 stars, not fifty.
-
I'm not pretending to be outraged, I'm asking you to not be a dick.
No, you're lying.
You're also wrong because I don't even have a CWP so I don't carry concealed.
-
And that's assuming that the guard even works for the megabankcorp. Half the time, the guards are actually contracted from a security agency, which means there's another layer of bureaucracy for information to get stuck in.
If you guys don't think armed security guards don't have to go through the same training, I'm a bit worried. Hint: I have a cousin who was armed security. Guess what? He took the concealed carry course too, so he knows what the law actually is, not what a bunch of hoplophobes are pulling out of their shoulder aliens' asses.
-
Can you just address my "don't be a dick" assertion without conflating it with a billion other things?!
If you'd stop acting like blakeyrat, you'd have already read what I wrote many posts ago, where I did.
-
If you guys don't think armed security guards don't have to go through the same training, I'm a bit worried. Hint: I have a cousin who was armed security. Guess what? He took the concealed carry course too, so he knows what the law actually is, not what a bunch of hoplophobes are pulling out of their shoulder aliens' asses.
Not uniformly -- in an ideal world, they certainly would, and the people who are Doing It Right insist upon it I bet, but BargainBasementSecurityInc might...you know, cut a few corners in order to be the lowest bidder on some contract somewhere?
-
If you guys don't think armed security guards don't have to go through the same training, I'm a bit worried. Hint: I have a cousin who was armed security. Guess what? He took the concealed carry course too, so he knows what the law actually is, not what a bunch of hoplophobes are pulling out of their shoulder aliens' asses.
I was primarily referring to information on the bank's policy. Guess I could've been more clear on that ...
-
BargainBasementSecurityInc
Yeah, I know.
I don't know what they are, but there's limitations and requirements for armed security, though, and you have to be state licensed, so probably there aren't many in that situation.
-
I was primarily referring to information on the bank's policy.
Oh, yeah. Well, if the policy is "we don't want people with guns in here" then the easiest way to enforce that is to just put up the right sign.
If you don't want to freak people out, but you don't want to offend what is among the most law-abiding groups of the citizenry, you can put up a sign that doesn't meet the requirements and simply not say a word. Anyone who's taken the course knows the sign's meaningless, and everyone else feels safe.
Most people who carry concealed with permit are only to happy to not patronize an establishment that doesn't want their business, not the least reason for which is that they don't want to lose their right to even own a gun by breaking that law.
Because I know blakey won't go back and re-read what I wrote even though I've taunted him about it several times, I wouldn't go in his house armed if he had a sign. Since his house isn't in South Carolina, the concept of "does the sign meet the law's requirements" is irrelevant.
-
I guess in blakeyrat's world, I could just go up and make a speed limit sign in crayon and put it on the road and then rail against the bastards who ignore my intent just because I didn't put up a legal sign.
You could, but it would be rather silly, and that's not what Blakey's saying.
You have no right (other than petitioning the appropriate agency) to set a speed limit on a public road. You do have a right to specify what you will allow on your own private property, and Blakey is suggesting (in his inimitable style of courtesy) that others respect your wishes with respect to your own property, whether or not they are legally obligated to do so.
The question arises, though, what does the property owner really want when they put up a sign that they reasonably must know isn't binding, and know that the people affected by it must also know isn't binding? Blakey is saying following the sign anyway. However, that they are just pretending to not want the behavior they are pretending to prohibit is certainly a reasonable inference. In that case, not complying with the pretended prohibition is complying with their (inferred) true intent.
-
Wow you're a spammy bitch, ain'tcha?
because you're wrong.
It's not even an issue of you being right or wrong. You're arguing against assertions I'm not even making. Like I said, I don't even know how to communicate with your brain. I've put the words here on the screen, but obviously that ain't doing the job. What you're reading has about zero relevance to what I'm typing.
-
However, that they are just pretending to not want the behavior they are pretending to prohibit is certainly a reasonable inference.
If a guy who has to have his speech approved by the law tells you "no bank puts up a legally binding sign" you may safely assume no bank officially wants you not to carry your legally-approved concealed weapon.
-
-
You're arguing against assertions I'm not even making
Maybe if you stopped frothing at the mouth it would be easier to keep up with whatever your shoulder aliens are talking about.
-
You have no right (other than petitioning the appropriate agency) to set a speed limit on a public road. You do have a right to specify what you will allow on your own private property, and Blakey is suggesting (in his inimitable style of courtesy) that others respect your wishes respect to your own property, whether or not they are legally obligated to do so.
Even though he could put said crayon-and-construction-paper speed limit sign on a private road on his property, if that road is open to public access:
Private Road Open to Public Travel—private toll roads and roads (including any adjacent sidewalks that generally run parallel to the road) within shopping centers, airports, sports arenas, and other similar business and/or recreation facilities that are privately owned, but where the public is allowed to travel without access restrictions. Roads within private gated properties (except for gated toll roads) where access is restricted at all times, parking areas, driving aisles within parking areas, and private grade crossings shall not be included in this definition.
, then the MUTCD or state equivalent still applies:
23 CFR 655.603 also states that traffic control devices on all streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel in each State shall be in substantial conformance with standards issued or endorsed by the Federal Highway Administrator.
so, by that (and the CFR itself), his speed limit "sign" is null and void.
-
Maybe if you stopped frothing at the mouth it would be easier to keep up with whatever your shoulder aliens are talking about.
I'm not sure what shoulder aliens you think he's listening to, but I think everything he's written here can be summed up as "respect the property owner's wishes, even if the law doesn't require you to." You may disagree with that, but I haven't seen him arguing anything other than that point here.
-
I'm not sure what shoulder aliens you think he's listening to, but I think everything he's written here can be summed up as "respect the property owner's wishes, even if the law doesn't require you to." You may disagree with that, but I haven't seen him arguing anything other than that point here.
What FrostCat's saying is that "the property owners are well within their means to make the wishes Blakey assumes they have legally enforceable, so if they aren't doing so, there's a definite reason for that."
-
It would be easier to keep up if he wouldn't break into a bulging-vein apoplectic rage any time anyone says something he doesn't agree with, and also doesn't start tangents that way, either.
Let me lay something out, since I didn't make it clear earlier.
As I said, a CWP course (actually IIRC it's CHP in SC, every state uses a different name) has to be state-approved. The instructor can't say anything that wasn't approved. This means he has to be careful and infer some things. You can't say "ignore the signs on banks". You can stress that the signs must, by law, follow a format, and that signs that don't follow the format don't count, and then that a certain class of business doesn't use legally-binding signs. At that point you have to use inference to realize what that means.
This is irrelevant to Blakey's spastic rant about being a dick. CWP carriers don't go into places with signs banning CWP. In states like SC, you can modify the sign to "legal signs". CWP carriers are among the most law-abiding people out there, if for no other reason than self-interest. A CWP carrier would look at the prominently-displayed sign and estimate whether or not it is legal, and if it is, he won't go in, obviously.
At someone's, I would personally use a different rule, and not ignore a non-binding sign. Even if I did, though, blakey could still ask me to leave his private property for any reason, as can the bank, and I have to go or risk arrest for trespassing. Outside of a bank I would probably not go into a building with a sign, regardless of legality. If I were feeling like a dick I might go in sans gun and let them know they won't get my business because of their attitude--this actually happens quite a bit.
FWIW, outside malls and banks and other places that are already prohibited like courthouses, you don't actually see many of these signs anyway. Sane business like CWP holders because rarely they do actually stop violent crimes.
-
What FrostCat's saying is that "the property owners are well within their means to make the wishes Blakey assumes they have legally enforceable, so if they aren't doing so, there's a definite reason for that."
I know he's saying that, because he's not responding to the assertion I'm making. He's seems utterly incapable of responding only to my assertion without introducing other factors-- pedantic details of the law in one case, the number of hoplophobes in the general population in another.
He's also introducing a conspiracy theory at the same time, but I consider that kind of secondary to the whole affair.
-
If I were feeling like a dick I might go in sans gun and let them know they won't get my business because of their attitude--this actually happens quite a bit.
Hey! How about... not being a dick?
-
What FrostCat's saying
Yes, I think I understand what both sides are saying. What I don't understand is why @FrostCat complains of not understanding what @blakeyrat is saying, when it seems pretty clear to me. You disagree with each other; that's obvious, but your positions seem clear to me. OTOH, I actually read what both sides are saying, which is clearly not the norm for TDWTF arguments.
-
Expecting disagreeing parties to read each other's posts? Clearly @HardwareGeek is Doing It Wrong™.
-
@CodingHorrorBot agrees.
-
@HardwareGeek Is Doing It Wrong™
-
What FrostCat's saying is that "the property owners are well within their means to make the wishes Blakey assumes they have legally enforceable, so if they aren't doing so, there's a definite reason for that."
Right, and also that the guy telling you this can't actually use those words, heh.
BTW you can't rely on the cops to know the law. SC law, for example, has nuances like "if a cop asks you for identification you must show him your CC permit if you are carrying." Some cops forget about the italicized part--the instructor said that happened to him, and he got on a cop's bad side once. He had to tell the cop "I'm not going to resist you, but you had better call your captain before you put handcuffs on me or you'll be losing a lawsuit." (and again, remember that telling us that has to be approved by the police).
Remember, laws vary by state and usually fit in with the state's culture. I'm sure SC's signage law wouldn't appeal to the liberals in Washington, so they probably are much looser in what signage is allowed.
-
Hey! How about... not being a dick?
You're assuming that someone exercising their pocketbook rights is automatically being a dick -- bad idea.
"I'm sorry, but your policies on <insert topic here> prevent me from conducting further business with you." Is there anything inherently rude about that statement?
I know he's saying that, because he's not responding to the assertion I'm making. He's seems utterly incapable of responding only to my assertion without introducing other factors-- pedantic details of the law in one case, the number of hoplophobes in the general population in another.
That's because it's impossible to respond to your assertion without placing it in a societal context. I can imagine a society where someone who put up an unenforceable "no weapons allowed" sign on their establishment would get looked at like a freak. I can also imagine a society where a civilian carrying a weapon would get looked at like a freak. Societal norms aren't universal -- have your shoulder aliens lost track of that factoid? Mine sure sometimes do...BTW you can't rely on the cops to know the law.
QFT, because no amount of Likes is enough. I, personally, know more about certain areas of law than practically any cop I will ever meet, and that's speaking as a well-informed layperson who has considered going to law school.Some cops forget about the italicized part--the instructor said that happened to him, and he got on a cop's bad side once. He had to tell the cop "I'm not going to resist you, but you had better call your captain before you put handcuffs on me or you'll be losing a lawsuit."
Good line, btw -- puts the onus on the cop to step back, slow down, and get some help because they got in over their head, without sounding ornery or uppity.
-
I know he's saying that, because he's not responding to the assertion I'm making.
If I went to your house and you had a sign, as I said repeatedly, I wouldn't take a gun in. What more do you want? Spell it out again.
-
Hey! How about... not being a dick?
To you? You first, since you started it.
To the business owner? I wouldn't do that, but some people do.
