- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If you're afraid for your life at a restaurant, do you stop to pay the tab?
Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:53 am to Salmon
Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:53 am to Salmon
Fear is no longer a justification to skip out on your bill if you knowingly and willingly walk into a restaurant where the likelihood of such an occurrence is substantial.
Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:53 am to Salmon
quote:do they not?
other private establishments should have the right to deny them service if the restaurant chooses.
Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:55 am to Rex
quote:
Fear is no longer a justification to skip out on your bill if you knowingly and willingly walk into a restaurant where the likelihood of such an occurrence is substantial.
so if you knowingly walk into a restaurant that does not prohibit open carry then you no longer have the justification to skip out on your bill?
cool
Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:55 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Darth_Vader
quote:Instead of your light saber???
I open carried my pistol in my belt holster.
Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:That never bothers Rex.
doesn't seem too moral
Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:57 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
but repugnant behavior is illegal and repugnant behavior in response?
The response is not repugnant if you have a legitimate concern for your safety, just as in the fire example.
Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:58 am to Rex
quote:
if you have a legitimate concern for your safety
who gets to decide what is a legitimate fear and what isn't?
Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:58 am to logjamming
quote:
This whole argument overlooks the fact that private businesses can prohibit the carrying--open or otherwise--of weapons on their property.
no it doesn't
he's trying to have private businesses enforce a "no gun" policy
Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:58 am to Rex
quote:
where the likelihood of such an occurrence is substantial.
this doesn't exist, so...
Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:59 am to Salmon
quote:
who gets to decide what is a legitimate fear and what isn't?
Whomever is paying the bill obviously...
Posted on 1/5/16 at 9:59 am to poe tay toes
quote:
you can't slip out the door without paying just because you spot someone with a cigarette lighter or become aware that the kitchen has sources of high heat.
This is why gun control advocates frequently can't respect opposing argument... in your case, it's a ridiculously false equivalency.
Posted on 1/5/16 at 10:00 am to Rex
quote:
in your case, it's a ridiculously false equivalency.
Posted on 1/5/16 at 10:01 am to Rex
quote:
His point is that it's not stealing if you're genuinely concerned about your safety. I agree with him.
But the law doesn't, so he's still a thief.
A couple of well placed cameras and the professors "idea" blows up in his face.
Posted on 1/5/16 at 10:01 am to Rex
quote:
The response is not repugnant if you have a legitimate concern for your safety, just as in the fire example.
If the simple sight of a gun forces you to have so much fear that you must run from that place to find safety, it says everything about you and why you can't be taken seriously on this topic.
That's simply irrational. And,to be honest, pathetic.
But, a lot of people are prisoners to irrational fear. I'd look into getting some professional help if I were you.
Posted on 1/5/16 at 10:02 am to Rex
Are you more likely to become a victim of bully Bob open carrying a 1911 with his family at dinner. Or ladarius with his sagging pants and gold teef?
Posted on 1/5/16 at 10:02 am to Rex
you're the one who made the equivalency to begin with. all i did was expand on it.
Posted on 1/5/16 at 10:03 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
he's trying to have private businesses enforce a "no gun" policy
Correct. The author, and Rex, see this as a social justice way of forcing private business to adopt their preferred policy under the pretense that they are truly deathly afraid.
It's the epitome of a dishonest argument.
Posted on 1/5/16 at 10:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
this doesn't exist, so...
Of course it does. A loaded gun is a danger to anybody within range particularly because fellow customers have no idea of the mindset of the carrier. Although it doesn't cover every possible circumstance, the author's summation pretty much nails it:
quote:
it could be one of two things: either he’s a crazy person intent on killing someone or he’s a crazy person intent on showing his gun off in public and daring someone to ask him to leave it at home.
Posted on 1/5/16 at 10:04 am to Rex
quote:
The NRA* and other pro-gun groups have demonstrated again and again, they are willing to bring down a world of pain on any business that they perceive as going soft on supporting people’s God-given right to carry machine guns wherever they go.
quote:
machine gun - a fully automatic mounted or portable firearm
Yea... when you jump on a political high horse and neglect the fact that FOPA disallowed this nearly 3 decades ago I immediately lose respect for what is about to spew out of your mouth.
Rex this entire article is meant as a political grandstand, there is no fear it is meant to protest establishments for allowing people with differing views to practice their beliefs. It is functionally no different than me running out if someone comes in to a place of business wearing a jihab or a turbin. I question if you even read the article, the UND professor admits that has nothing to do with fear but pushing ones objective.
Posted on 1/5/16 at 10:06 am to Salmon
quote:
who gets to decide what is a legitimate fear and what isn't?
A jury of your peers?
Popular
Back to top


3








