MNGunTalk.com

LumberZach wrote:You keep coming back to this training argument, but I do not accept that. The fact is this: it is a public place just like any other. Permit holders are not causing problems in any other public place despite your lack of training argument. Carry should be allowed just like any other public place.

LOL. I'm sorry for your struggles. I'm certain that I can't help you to accept it.

crbutler wrote:
Personally, I thought that the NFL lost all rights to this when they demanded public money for a stadium. Yes, that is not how it is, but it's how it should be.

Excellent point as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmac wrote:

photogpat wrote:

goalie wrote:All animals are equal, some are just more equal than others......

We shouldn't be doing special rules for special people.

You're right. I mean...take Medicine, for example. Anybody ought to be allowed to practice medicine. Training and experience are way overblown.

Wow, really? Is that the same attitude you take at the bed side?

So if I am red cross trained on CPR I should not lend a hand because I do not have your extensive training?

Holland&Holland wrote:

Hmac wrote:

photogpat wrote:We shouldn't be doing special rules for special people.

You're right. I mean...take Medicine, for example. Anybody ought to be allowed to practice medicine. Training and experience are way overblown.

Wow, really? Is that the same attitude you take at the bed side?

So if I am red cross trained on CPR I should not lend a hand because I do not have your extensive training?

If you were to carry gun at an NFL event, you'd do so for the purpose of helping the cops and security enforce the law? THAT'S why you carry a gun? You think that your PTC makes you into a cop? Or maybe a "Cop's Assistant"?

I carry a firearm as a last resort measure to defend myself and my loved ones. Not because I think I'm a cop or anything else.

If you were to carry gun at an NFL event, you'd do so for the purpose of helping the cops and security enforce the law? THAT'S why you carry a gun? You think that your PTC makes you into a cop? Or maybe a "Cop's Assistant"?[/quote]

No never said that.

You tried to make a parallel argument that was frankly not relatable.

The conclusion you just jumped to with no supporting evidence, is I think my point.

Cops have no requirement to get involved, even when on duty.

Holland&Holland wrote:No never said that.

You tried to make a parallel argument that was frankly not relatable.

The conclusion you just jumped to with no supporting evidence, is I think my point.

Then your "point" about lending a hand with CPR was totally irrelevant?

Otoh, there have been instances where civilians have shot people attempting to kill LEOs.

I don't have any issue with police carrying anywhere as part of the job, but the line about how they might have annoyed someone on the job and thus need their weapon off duty sounds suspiciously like the reason ANYONE might want or need to carry.

And while there is some really good training available to cops, frankly, I doubt most of the in house training is of the same caliber, pun intended.

Hmac wrote:

Holland&Holland wrote:No never said that.

You tried to make a parallel argument that was frankly not relatable.

The conclusion you just jumped to with no supporting evidence, is I think my point.

Then your "point" about lending a hand with CPR was totally irrelevant?

Nope, that was made relevant by your assertion. Keep trying

mrp wrote:

ex-LT wrote:Now that we've taken the strawman arguments/hyperbole to the extreme on both sides of the issue, can we resume a reasonable discussion?

'
Sure. Let's see if I can bring back some brotherly love with this:

The article originally said:

>As part of that law, privately-owned establishments were empowered to keep guns out by posting a sign indicating they banned guns on the premises. That includes places like malls, restaurants and sports stadiums.

I wrote the author, pointing him to the statute and the landlord provision and he said he'd fix it. He came up with:

>As part of that law, privately-owned establishments were empowered to keep guns out by posting a sign indicating they banned guns on the premises. That includes places like malls, restaurants and sports stadiums. Technically, malls bind their tenants on the gun issue, but some like the Mall of America tells visitors firearms are banned.
Does anyone know where he's getting the "malls bind their tenants" line from, and what he means by it? I assume it's not as simple as having a "no guns" term in the lease since that would pretty clearly violate the landlord provision:

(e) A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.

I can only assume that the lease that tenants sign contains a clause that binds them to the rules and regulations set out by the mall and usually attached as an exhibit to the lease. Unless the tenants review and negotiate separate language, they are bound to those rules under threat of lease cancellation - usually after some sort of cure period that saves them from a surprise eviction. The cure period makes it difficult for the Tenant to suffer any consequences for visitors to their space - employees are a different story. If an employee were found to be carry permit holder who brought a gun in to work, the tenant was served notice to cease and desist and the tenant did not comply by either disarming or firing the permit holder, they could be evicted.
That's my read.

Hmac wrote:

LumberZach wrote:You keep coming back to this training argument, but I do not accept that. The fact is this: it is a public place just like any other. Permit holders are not causing problems in any other public place despite your lack of training argument. Carry should be allowed just like any other public place.

LOL. I'm sorry for your struggles. I'm certain that I can't help you to accept it.

Your derision in no way invalidates Zach's point. Why do you think that carrying at an event venue should require additional training beyond that required to carry anywhere else in public? Is there something that's fundamentally different about that space in terms of how a person carrying a firearm would have to conduct themselves than, say, a crowded sidewalk? They're both large, potentially chaotic spaces with tons of people and things that don't need/deserve shooting.

Reversing things, why do you think that an off-duty police officer's "superior training" vs the average citizen should grant enhanced privilege at a sporting event? Where's the line of "enough training" to qualify for that privilege, especially given that each LEA has its own unique training and qualifications?

Further, there's training and then there's practice. I feel like it's pretty easy to see that a theoretical USPSA/IDPA competitor who has zero formal training but attends a match every week would get more practice and more draw/present/shoot reps in any given period of time than a theoretical police officer who only does the qualifications required by their department. Both carry permit holders and cops run the gamut in shooting skill from weak/barely adequate to highly skilled. Cops might be more skilled as an average, but the idea you seem to be pushing, that all police officers are at a higher skill level than all permit-holders, is ridiculous.

Beyond that, sure, cops have specific threats in their lives. So do plenty of permit-holders - for many of them, that's why they bothered to get a permit in the first place! If this is purely about a need for self-defense, then the people pushing the idea that off-duty police officers should be allowed to carry basically everywhere should be pushing for both off-duty police officers and permit-holders to be allowed to carry basically everywhere.

Police Officers (and retired Police Officers) are Civilians and should have no more (or less) rights than any other civilian.

If off duty officers (aka civilians) can carry at U.S. Bank stadium, all civilians (who can lawfully carry) should be allowed.

Citiot wrote:Police Officers (and retired Police Officers) are Civilians and should have no more (or less) rights than any other civilian.

If off duty officers (aka civilians) can carry at U.S. Bank stadium, all civilians (who can lawfully carry) should be allowed.

I think that sums it up nicely.

Citiot wrote:Police Officers (and retired Police Officers) are Civilians and should have no more (or less) rights than any other civilian.

If off duty officers (aka civilians) can carry at U.S. Bank stadium, all civilians (who can lawfully carry) should be allowed.

Agreed!

Looks like they got included in the House Omnibus bill....rights for me but not for thee.