justin_o_guy2 wrote on 09/05/19 at 16:34:45:


So then, you're cool with the signs and have no beef.

What's your point?

MnSpring wrote on 09/05/19 at 16:58:42:


What does your inane rant have to do with signs?

Nothing.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 09/05/19 at 18:11:04:



Temper, temper jog..... now now, that's enough name calling.  It's guys like you that ruin this forum....

Oh, btw, it's people who want to break the law who disobey signs like speed limits, no trespassing, etc.

Criminals are criminals.  It's not the signs fault.

See how that works?

The whole problem of law enforcement is that Laws must be borne by people who have to abide by it. After all, it makes little sense to make a law that no one likes.

On the other hand, without laws, all civilization would disappear because people are self-centered.
Healthy laws and a healthy enforcement system are absolutely necessary, to ensure that there is a reasonable living environment.

The ego is a survival meganism. Unfortunately everyone has lost himself and has been identified with his thoughts.
So everyone is a walking survival meganism.
I don't think it's smart to allow a survival meganism to run around armed.
Because the only threat is the neighbor survial m.

A sign Can help people to remember to act civilized.

We always think that we are normal, but that is really not the case. The whole of humanity is insane.

It is you and I who pull the trigger, and whoever has the most pain in his system shoots first.



If people have a forehead chakra that turns like a whirlwind, .................

Things can get a bit stormy

Eegore wrote on 09/06/19 at 06:03:36:

 Once people realize the No Gun Zone signs are for legal protection and not firearm/criminal protection ...

So, if someone is driving down the road, has to pee, stops at a gas station,
sees the sign on the door, ’No Guns Here’ - ‘Gun Free Zone’,
they go back to the car, remove their gun, then go back in.

While waiting in line to pay for their coffee/donut.  
Place is robbed at gunpoint, and that person is shot in the leg.

Liability, due diligence, to prevent risks that could cause injury,
slippery ice on a sidewalk,
aggressive dog with a known history of biting,
hole in sidewalk in front of the door,
preventing you from defending yourself.

In fact the ‘sign’ itself, says; ”Come in here, no one can shoot you”
The owner of that private business, has taken the responsibility away from you, and said, they will do it.
That owner, (because they put up the sign) did not protect you from a foreseeable danger.

The same as putting up a sign;
'You will not slip on the Ice'
When their is no ice outside,
then suddenly their is a ice storm.

I do believe the Lawyers will line up around the block for that one !

 Seriously have you ever even been to court?

"preventing you from defending yourself."

 They are not preventing you from defending yourself.  You can defend yourself, you can not use a personal firearm to do it.


"In fact the ‘sign’ itself, says; ”Come in here, no one can shoot you.”

 Incorrect.  The sign says if you choose to enter this property you may not bring a gun. There is no claim of safety, no claim that nobody can shoot you.  Spin much?
 

 The owner of that private business, has taken the responsibility away from you, and said, they will do it.

 Incorrect.  The owner of the property has stated nothing about removing your ability to protect yourself, or has said they will do it themselves.  

 By that logic every owner of every business must train and arm a security detail to protect from every "foreseeable danger" as well as prepare for all known weather conditions, plague, your vehicle breaking down on the property, heart-attacks, etc.  All foreseeable dangers.

 You are referencing Compensation Insurance, a completely different thing.  You are also conveniently mixing criminal and civil case material.


"The same as putting up a sign;
'You will not slip on the Ice'"

 Incorrect.  Those signs would not protect anyone, and also do not exist.  It is legally in most cases considered due diligence to not put down salt-rock or de-icer and instead place of signage that says "Slip Danger when Icy."  That's perfectly legal in many cases.

 Lets just change it to this:

So, if someone is driving down the road, has to pee, stops at a gas station,

 Someone is driving down the road, chooses to use a restroom at a gas station that doesn't allow firearms then chooses to leave their firearm in their vehicle.

 Now its their fault for making such poor choices.

"Seriously have you ever even been to court? ...

"Not in Colorado"

 It shouldn't matter given the arguments you pose in the previous thread.  There is obvious contradictions to civil and criminal case material and Compensatory Insurance vs. Legal Rights.

 I would be surprised if there was any legal precedence nationwide that agreed that posting a "No Gun" sign removed all rights to personal protection.  Also any precedence that any courtroom agreed that a No Gun" sign was proclaiming "has taken the responsibility away from you, and said, they will do it."


"The, 'No guns here', 'Gun Free Zone', signs.
Are their numbers increasing,
or decreasing ?"

 I don't know.  I have no way to access signage post information across the entire state.

 In my area there is no noticeable difference.