Shoe on the other foot

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 9003
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Shoe on the other foot

#1

Post by mojo84 » Wed May 04, 2016 2:11 pm

I love it when we can turn the progressive liberal anti-gunners rhetoric around on them.
ChoyeSPUoAAq7xi.jpg

He wants to know what Target is going to do to protect ladies and girls from the transvestites in the ladies' rooms. Well played General Paxton.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.

User avatar

AndyC
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 10667
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 12:34 pm
Location: Garland, TX

Re: Shoe on the other foot

#2

Post by AndyC » Sun May 08, 2016 11:04 am

:mrgreen: I use that same point against anti-gunners; it makes them froth
Remember Kitty Genovese

Image

Amateurs skip safety-checks - pros don't.
Preferred Travel Agent - 72 Virgins Dating Club, Iraq
There's nothing quite like the offer of 230 grains to a man's chest to remind him of his manners


Scott Farkus
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Austin

Re: Shoe on the other foot

#3

Post by Scott Farkus » Mon May 09, 2016 7:15 am

I get his point, and I think what Target is doing is stupid and wrong, but under what authority is Paxton requesting this information?

If we're going to go down this road, I'd much rather he ask to see the safety policies of every business that posts a 30.06 sign. How do they plan to protect the customers they've disarmed from a potential illegally armed assailant?

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 9003
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Shoe on the other foot

#4

Post by mojo84 » Mon May 09, 2016 8:00 am

Cannot please everyone. Nothing he does is going to be enough for some.

This discussion is about men in women's restrooms with our wifes, daughters and sisters. There are already numerous threads debating private property rights and posting 30.06 signs.

By the way, he is asking under the same authority you and I could make the request.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.


Scott Farkus
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Austin

Re: Shoe on the other foot

#5

Post by Scott Farkus » Mon May 09, 2016 8:36 am

I'm not trying to start another private property/30.06 discussion. I just don't understand what Paxton intends to gain from this.

So if he's not asking under any specific consumer safety or code enforcement regulation or something, then Target can basically tell him to go pound sand? Because I assume that's what they'd tell me, in much softer words of course, if I asked about it. But I'm not the Attorney General of Texas, and can't really do anything to make their life miserable other than not shop there.

What is he going to do with the information if he gets it? Post it on-line for the world to see? Opine and/or critique it as to whether he believes it's sufficient or not? He can't really give it his "blessing", I wouldn't think, because then if something does happen in one of the restrooms, they'll just hold up his letter and say "well, the Texas AG said our policies were good", not to mention I'm sure they'd use that in court if they were subsequently sued by the victim.

I mean, I could see if this was, for example, the Railroad Commission, or OSHA or somebody like that, demanding to review the safety policies of an oil drilling company. I assume (but don't know for sure) that they would have that authority. And maybe some other agency does have such authority over retail stores. But I don't see how the Attorney General would, and as I mentioned, if we go down this path, where does it end? My agenda would be 30.06 signs. Some liberal's agenda might be climate change - in fact they are already attacking Exxon about that. Or genetically modified foods. Or any number of things.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what this is supposed to accomplish.


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 3902
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Shoe on the other foot

#6

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Mon May 09, 2016 9:33 am

In another thread, we are rehashing the endless debate over whether a "no weapons" sign should lead to a trespassing charge against someone who walks past it carrying a weapon. By that same logic, a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" sign could lead to a trespassing charge against a barefooted customer.

If this is true, then why would a man not be guilty of trespassing when he walks through a doorway that is clearly marked "women"?
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 9003
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Shoe on the other foot

#7

Post by mojo84 » Mon May 09, 2016 9:50 am

Scott, it could simply be he was making a point.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.


Scott Farkus
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Austin

Re: Shoe on the other foot

#8

Post by Scott Farkus » Mon May 09, 2016 9:58 am

mojo84 wrote:Scott, it could simply be he was making a point.
Fair enough. I'll leave it at that.


Scott Farkus
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Austin

Re: Shoe on the other foot

#9

Post by Scott Farkus » Mon May 09, 2016 10:04 am

Soccerdad1995 wrote:In another thread, we are rehashing the endless debate over whether a "no weapons" sign should lead to a trespassing charge against someone who walks past it carrying a weapon. By that same logic, a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" sign could lead to a trespassing charge against a barefooted customer.

If this is true, then why would a man not be guilty of trespassing when he walks through a doorway that is clearly marked "women"?
Good point, except that in this case the property owner - Target - has made it known that they don't expect their customers to acknowedge that sign, so I don't see how that could be considered trespassing at a Target store. Plus, for all I know, Target might have taken down the "Men" and "Women" signs altogether.


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 3902
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Shoe on the other foot

#10

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Mon May 09, 2016 10:31 am

Scott Farkus wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:In another thread, we are rehashing the endless debate over whether a "no weapons" sign should lead to a trespassing charge against someone who walks past it carrying a weapon. By that same logic, a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" sign could lead to a trespassing charge against a barefooted customer.

If this is true, then why would a man not be guilty of trespassing when he walks through a doorway that is clearly marked "women"?
Good point, except that in this case the property owner - Target - has made it known that they don't expect their customers to acknowedge that sign, so I don't see how that could be considered trespassing at a Target store. Plus, for all I know, Target might have taken down the "Men" and "Women" signs altogether.
Playing devil's advocate here, and assuming signs are still up on the restrooms and fitting rooms.

Since Target has publicly stated that they don't intend to enforce restrictions that could be inferred from these signs, would it be reasonable to assume that every sign there is similarly not really "serious"? Should I smoke in their posted "no smoking" areas? Have they basically given effective notice that overrides any 30.07 signage? It really is pretty darn confusing.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 4683
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Shoe on the other foot

#11

Post by ScottDLS » Mon May 09, 2016 10:35 am

Soccerdad1995 wrote:In another thread, we are rehashing the endless debate over whether a "no weapons" sign should lead to a trespassing charge against someone who walks past it carrying a weapon. By that same logic, a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" sign could lead to a trespassing charge against a barefooted customer.

If this is true, then why would a man not be guilty of trespassing when he walks through a doorway that is clearly marked "women"?
I don't think he would, because regulating public behavior via signs is not the purpose of PC 30.05, but the man would be guilty if someone from Target came and told him to get the heck out. Now Target is telling us they won't do that.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

User avatar

puma guy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 6259
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:23 pm
Location: Near San Jacinto

Re: Shoe on the other foot

#12

Post by puma guy » Mon May 09, 2016 10:52 am

AndyC wrote::mrgreen: I use that same point against anti-gunners; it makes them froth
+1 :thumbs2:
KAHR PM40/Hoffner IWB and S&W Mod 60/ Galco IWB
NRA Endowment Member, TSRA Life Member,100 Club Life Member,TFC Member
My Faith, My Gun and My Constitution: I cling to all three!

User avatar

LosAlce
Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 9:17 pm
Location: Southwest Texas

Re: Shoe on the other foot

#13

Post by LosAlce » Mon May 09, 2016 12:59 pm

As a woman (and I really hate that I have to preface that but my guess is the overwhelming majority of the members on the forum are men), nothing makes me stop listening faster than "we have to protect our daughters and wives!"

If you want to protect them, teach them to protect themselves. Pepper spray, taser, something, just PLEASE stop using us as an excuse. It really does just drive me bonkers. No one is in no more danger than they were before. PLUS, what about your sons? I seem to remember that much more inappropriate activities go on in there.

I refuse to be used as plot point, just like I refuse to be a victim (hence why I carry).

And for those who have proclaimed that they will stand guard by women's restrooms, that is incredibly problematic. How am I to know you are a "good guy" if you are hanging out in a place normal people don't hang out around. It's super creepy and may actually cause MORE problems.

The irony of these issues is just so thick and almost overwhelming.

Part of my rant can be blamed on painkillers from my recent back injury. I've already warned my husband that if I see a man "standing guard" by the restroom I intend to use, it is not going to be pretty. If you insist on doing it, please do it from a reasonable distance.
LTC since: 4/26/2016
Carrying: Sig P938 :rock"

User avatar

txglock21
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 766
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:39 am
Location: Garland, TX.

Re: Shoe on the other foot

#14

Post by txglock21 » Mon May 09, 2016 1:13 pm

LosAlce wrote:As a woman (and I really hate that I have to preface that but my guess is the overwhelming majority of the members on the forum are men), nothing makes me stop listening faster than "we have to protect our daughters and wives!"

If you want to protect them, teach them to protect themselves. Pepper spray, taser, something, just PLEASE stop using us as an excuse. It really does just drive me bonkers. No one is in no more danger than they were before. PLUS, what about your sons? I seem to remember that much more inappropriate activities go on in there.

I refuse to be used as plot point, just like I refuse to be a victim (hence why I carry).

And for those who have proclaimed that they will stand guard by women's restrooms, that is incredibly problematic. How am I to know you are a "good guy" if you are hanging out in a place normal people don't hang out around. It's super creepy and may actually cause MORE problems.

The irony of these issues is just so thick and almost overwhelming.

Part of my rant can be blamed on painkillers from my recent back injury. I've already warned my husband that if I see a man "standing guard" by the restroom I intend to use, it is not going to be pretty. If you insist on doing it, please do it from a reasonable distance.
I'm not dismissing what you are saying, but as a single father of a 12 year daughter, I'm not going to be comfortable with her going to the restroom with these whatever they are creatures in the same restroom. I WILL stand outside the door until she is safely outside. I don't shop at Target anyway because IMO they are overpriced and anything I want that they sell I can get at Academy, plus a whole lot more. :fire :mrgreen:
"Laugh about everything or cry about nothing."
NRA Life Member & TSRA Member/ Former USAF

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 9003
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Shoe on the other foot

#15

Post by mojo84 » Mon May 09, 2016 1:15 pm

LosAlce wrote:As a woman (and I really hate that I have to preface that but my guess is the overwhelming majority of the members on the forum are men), nothing makes me stop listening faster than "we have to protect our daughters and wives!"

If you want to protect them, teach them to protect themselves. Pepper spray, taser, something, just PLEASE stop using us as an excuse. It really does just drive me bonkers. No one is in no more danger than they were before. PLUS, what about your sons? I seem to remember that much more inappropriate activities go on in there.

I refuse to be used as plot point, just like I refuse to be a victim (hence why I carry).

And for those who have proclaimed that they will stand guard by women's restrooms, that is incredibly problematic. How am I to know you are a "good guy" if you are hanging out in a place normal people don't hang out around. It's super creepy and may actually cause MORE problems.

The irony of these issues is just so thick and almost overwhelming.

Part of my rant can be blamed on painkillers from my recent back injury. I've already warned my husband that if I see a man "standing guard" by the restroom I intend to use, it is not going to be pretty. If you insist on doing it, please do it from a reasonable distance.

You are way overreacting here. It's great you are so well equipped to repel whatever challenge a man may present. I can assure you not all women or little girls are up to the challenge.

Whether you like it or not, it is part of a man's responsibility to look out for the welfare and safety of their family members, including their wives, daughters and sons. Another fact I'm sure you can't stand is that men and women aren't created equally when it comes to strength and physical abilities. There are exceptions to everything but on the whole, that is just the way we are created in general.

You and your hubby deal with things the way you see best and the rest of us will do the same.
Last edited by mojo84 on Mon May 09, 2016 1:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.

Post Reply

Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”