Invalid 30.06 Discussion

[alvins]

personally i dont care about all these gun signs. if they want me out i will be happy to not buy anything from them.and i wont make a big deal about it either; their is always someone who sells it cheaper and wants my business.if they havent learned people can buy almost anything online cheaper then they dont know what this thing called the internet is.

[C-dub]

First of all, to repeat my earlier point, I never used the word "confrontation" (except to say that I didn't use it ;), and I don't equate "educate" with "escalate". Thanks for the input RPB, but I'm not sure who your 'visitor' was. In the discussion so far, I specifically said to speak with the business owner/operator. Regardless, my apologies to all if my analogies weren't clear enough. In as plain English as I can... As I said, I'm trying to follow a consistent application of logic. We all know that at times the 'legal' thing and the 'right' thing are not always the same thing. Tho not legally obligated, we let the aforementioned 'reckless' driver go in front of us to be 'right'. So to be consistent... If after scrutinizing a 30.06 sign down to the font size, why would a CHLer risk causing a scene (escalating) on the premises?? I'm looking at this as the difference between the 'legal' thing and the 'right' thing, just like with the reckless driver. With or without a trial, this incident would surely be in the media, and generate a 'Joe Horn' scenario. What effect would that media attention have?? Couldn't we, as ambassadors, speak with the business owners/operators, and let them know that we will follow the law (and legal postings), AND vote with our $$$ by shopping, dining, etc. elsewhere?? As I said before, I too will not 'give an inch', and I believe 'legal means legal' for signs, just like 'concealed means concealed' for us, but how else can we educate and move forward??

I let the reckless driver go ahead not to be right, but to be safe.

You're right. You didn't use the words "confront" or "confrontation", but you did write this ...

If you don't go straight to the business owner/operator and educate them about the sign, aren't you 'escalating'??

This is the sentence I don't understand. Going to the owner/operator to discuss anything about any sign is escalating. And as I said before, the escalation may be minimal and not rise to the level of violence, but it is higher than if you had just gone about your business and not said anything to an owner/operator about any sign. You may not equate "educate" with "escalate", but RPB has given us an excellent example of how a seemingly innocent encounter does equate the attempt to educate someone to escalating. By your logic, if RPB had not attempted to educate the gentleman he would have been escalating something. I also know of many people that do not equate citizens' being able to possess guns with lower crime rates. They are either unable or unwilling to accept the relationship.