Militia question 1

[shanek]

The Stardust is private property. Arguments about bringing a gun to TAM are pointless. Consider that you are gong to be on somebody else’s property where they do get to set the rules.

And if they do indeed have a policy restricting the carrying of firearms on their own property, I would, of course, respect that.

Do they have such a policy?

 

[Doubt]

And if they do indeed have a policy restricting the carrying of firearms on their own property, I would, of course, respect that.

Do they have such a policy?

I do not know for a fact. But given that they have a casino, and that casinos deal with large somes of money, I can make a pretty good guess.

That guess is that they do have a policy against guns on the property. And even if they don't, I suspect they would boot someone out the door anyway. They don't have to give you a reason on their own ground. (edited to add: Maybe they do. But all they have to do is point out that the person in question is a saftey hazzard.)

I would like to see someone try to walk across the floor of the casino with a visable weapon. We could start a pool on how many steps into the place they get before security stops them.

 

[shanek]

That guess is that they do have a policy against guns on the property. And even if they don't, I suspect they would boot someone out the door anyway. They don't have to give you a reason on their own ground. (edited to add: Maybe they do. But all they have to do is point out that the person in question is a saftey hazzard.)

Well, they're not likely to do that to someone who's a paying customer without first giving them an opportunity to fix whatever they think the problem is.

In any case, if I were to seriously do this, the first thing I would do is call the Stardust and ask them about it.

 

[CFLarsen]

In any case, if I were to seriously do this, the first thing I would do is call the Stardust and ask them about it.

Is this your way of backing down?

Why don't you state, quite clearly, what your intentions are, exactly?

 

[Cynical]

Claus Flodin knows very well that Shanek is all talk, and yet he keeps on bating and bating Shanek. Talk about "Get a Life"!!

If Claus Flodin is so worried about Shanek and his gun, then all Claus Flodin has to do is wear a bullet-proof vest.

Problem solved!

 

[Cynical]

Anyway, Shanek states above: "If I were to seriously do this"....
THAT should be sufficient to shut Claus Larsen's mouth. Shanek has as much as SAID that his claims are a joke. But no! Claus continues to plod on and on. Either Claus Larsen is incredibly dense, or he's the biggest pussy in the world.

Hey, everyone - I've dedicated a thread to Claus Flodin Larsen...it's for your entertainment, and it will be a funny, refreshing change from all the hot air and stuffiness on THIS thread! It's in the Flame War forum....check it out!!

 

[Kodiak]

Is this your way of backing down?

Why don't you state, quite clearly, what your intentions are, exactly?

Give it a rest, Claus. It was obvious to everyone (except you, it seems) that shannie was speaking in hypotheticals...

There's nothing to back down from!

 

[shanek]

Why don't you state, quite clearly, what your intentions are, exactly?

Because, again, it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

It is, however, the Stardust's business, as they are the rightful owners of the property, which is why I would inform them and ask what their policy is. You have no such authority over me.

 

[Patricio Elicer]

Mmmmm....

Patricio, would the mere presence of the gun concern you? Would you feel the same way if someone posted that they were working Law Enforcement nearby, and would be stopping by in uniform, and armed?

What would be the difference then between someone who is legally allowed to carry as part of their job, and someone who is legally allowed to carry as a private ctizen, showing up at TAM?

Because nothing I've seen referred to here has crossed any sort of line into illegality.

Crime, the point isn't whether or not someone at TAM3 is armed with a gun, but rather, that two people here on the forums have been holding a heated debate for some time, and that as a result of the heat one of them said he'd bring a gun to TAM3 to p!ss off the other, whatever he meant by that.

Maybe the cultural differences between countries are responsible for this whole mess. In my country, civilians are prevented by law of carrying guns. Guns in the hands of civilians are heavily associated with crime.

 

[Jocko]

Is this your way of backing down?

Why don't you state, quite clearly, what your intentions are, exactly?

He's been perfectly clear. He intends to exercise his Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, pending the property rights exercised by the Stardust.

Why not clearly state your intentions, Claus?

Here, let me get you started:

"I intend to get Shanek to say something that I can take out of context and gripe to a lawyer about because I'm too pussy to admit when I'm beaten at my own game."

 

[crimresearch]

Crime, the point isn't whether or not someone at TAM3 is armed with a gun, but rather, that two people here on the forums have been holding a heated debate for some time, and that as a result of the heat one of them said he'd bring a gun to TAM3 to p!ss off the other, whatever he meant by that.

Maybe the cultural differences between countries are responsible for this whole mess. In my country, civilians are prevented by law of carrying guns. Guns in the hands of civilians are heavily associated with crime.

Well, having both of them on 'Ignore' for quite a while now, I've only seen the 'debate' through quoted excerpts...but wanting to take a real world action that will cause another poster to become unhappy doesn't rise to the level of a credible threat, gun or no gun.

I imagine that the same irrational reaction would have occured had Shanek promised to show up at TAM and carry around a cream pie just to get to Claus.

 

[CFLarsen]

Crime, the point isn't whether or not someone at TAM3 is armed with a gun, but rather, that two people here on the forums have been holding a heated debate for some time, and that as a result of the heat one of them said he'd bring a gun to TAM3 to p!ss off the other, whatever he meant by that.

Maybe the cultural differences between countries are responsible for this whole mess. In my country, civilians are prevented by law of carrying guns. Guns in the hands of civilians are heavily associated with crime.

There is also the issue of how this will reflect on JREF and skepticism in general.

Are we gathering to discuss skeptical matters in a civilized way, or are we gathering to intimidate each other with guns? Do we settle things by discussing evidence, or by brandishing deadly weapons?

The Amazing Meeting is not about shanek or his right to carry a deadly weapon to intimidate other people. The Amazing Meeting is not about American rights, or the American Constitution, or turning the show into a political platform, or an exhibit for the NRA.

The Amazing Meeting is about skeptics from all over the world, who want to connect with other skeptics, and listen to interesting lectures made by brilliant people. Skeptics, who want to learn about how to counter the many false claims and false beliefs.

Peacefully.

It is not merely my business to know if shanek is going to turn up at TAM with a gun. It is the business of the whole skeptical community.

 

[Jocko]

There is also the issue of how this will reflect on JREF and skepticism in general.

Are we gathering to discuss skeptical matters in a civilized way, or are we gathering to intimidate each other with guns? Do we settle things by discussing evidence, or by brandishing deadly weapons?

The Amazing Meeting is not about shanek or his right to carry a deadly weapon to intimidate other people. The Amazing Meeting is not about American rights, or the American Constitution, or turning the show into a political platform, or an exhibit for the NRA.

The Amazing Meeting is about skeptics from all over the world, who want to connect with other skeptics, and listen to interesting lectures made by brilliant people. Skeptics, who want to learn about how to counter the many false claims and false beliefs.

Peacefully.

It is not merely my business to know if shanek is going to turn up at TAM with a gun. It is the business of the whole skeptical community.

You're a pathetic little crybaby, Claus.

No one threatened you.
A firearm is no more a deterrent to discourse than your steak knife.
And most important of all, this is NOT A PROBLEM FOR ALL SKEPTICS WORLDWIDE, no matter how you try to cast yourself as the martyr for all things civilized.

I think what you bring to TAM3 is more damaging to the skeptical disciplines than any weapon Shane could carry. You bring your lies, deceit, intellectual dishonesty and your hubris.

Those things are what impede rational discourse, you blame-shifting little twat. I gave up on you back around page three and am no longer interested in what you offer, pleasantly or otherwise, so let me repeat:

You are a pussy. A crybaby. A liar. A twat. Your attempts to rally the "right thinking people" show what a pathetic Lenin you make.

 

[c0rbin]

Then, what does it mean, if not God?

It could mean God. It could also be a single term describing the origins of the universe.

Do you think a carborator is cognizent of it "carborating"? Does it have to be in order to be a carborater?

 

[CFLarsen]

It could mean God. It could also be a single term describing the origins of the universe.

Oh, come on! When it was written, people knew hardly anything about the Universe.

People are very busy talking about the context which it was written. So, let's take it from there.

What did "Creator" mean to the Founding Fathers?

 

[Jocko]

Oh, come on! When it was written, people knew hardly anything about the Universe.

People are very busy talking about the context which it was written. So, let's take it from there.

What did "Creator" mean to the Founding Fathers?

Ask one of your woo-woo friends to channel their spirits and ask them yourself. Or perhaps you've already done so; the way you keep pushing this non-question I sense you're not really open to the input of the people who live under those principles every friggin' day. No, you already have the answer, don't you?

Keep moving those goalposts any further, Claus, and you'll be in orbit.

 

[Ed]

There is also the issue of how this will reflect on JREF and skepticism in general.

Are we gathering to discuss skeptical matters in a civilized way, or are we gathering to intimidate each other with guns? Do we settle things by discussing evidence, or by brandishing deadly weapons?

The Amazing Meeting is not about shanek or his right to carry a deadly weapon to intimidate other people. The Amazing Meeting is not about American rights, or the American Constitution, or turning the show into a political platform, or an exhibit for the NRA.

The Amazing Meeting is about skeptics from all over the world, who want to connect with other skeptics, and listen to interesting lectures made by brilliant people. Skeptics, who want to learn about how to counter the many false claims and false beliefs.

Peacefully.

It is not merely my business to know if shanek is going to turn up at TAM with a gun. It is the business of the whole skeptical community.

Brandishing is generally illegal.

 

[Jocko]

It could mean God. It could also be a single term describing the origins of the universe.

Do you think a carborator is cognizent of it "carborating"? Does it have to be in order to be a carborater?

Of course, if they'd exclusively MEANT "God," why didn't they just WRITE "God"? It's not like the term had the stigma it has today, did it?

 

[c0rbin]

Oh, come on! When it was written, people knew hardly anything about the Universe.

The arrogance.

 

[c0rbin]

Of course, if they'd exclusively MEANT "God," why didn't they just WRITE "God"? It's not like the term had the stigma it has today, did it?

I think, in a forward thinking stroke of collaborative genius, they were trying to find a term that could encompace the idea of "natural law" and word it in a way that all citizens and would-be citizens would understand.

It's ironic that now Claus of all people, intolerant of the idea that someone could be spiritual, is prosecuting those very words.

Give us your wretched before giving us your Clauses.