imyoda
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 6, 2012
- Messages
- 5,731
- Reaction score
- 1,025
- Location
- Sarasota, Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' But Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His Properties, Staff Says - ABC News
Donald Trump Is Against 'Gun-Free Zones' but Guns Aren't Allowed on Many of His Properties, Staff
Donald Trump spoke in favor of gun rights at the National Rifle Association convention today, but security and staff at several of his prized hotels and golf courses told ABC News that guests are not allowed to carry guns there.
The Trump Organization, meanwhile, claims that’s not true.
“We strongly believe in the 2nd Amendment and are against gun free zones. While laws vary substantially from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, we allow security personnel and other licensed individuals the ability to carry a firearm in an effort to protect themselves, our guests, associates and the general public,” a spokesperson told ABC News by email.
There are “no restrictions on licensed individuals carrying in our hotels of golf clubs,” a Trump Organization official told ABC News.
However, staff at several Trump properties contradict the public relations department report…….Given Donald difficulty in being able to identify what the truth is……….
Until then...
I’ll believe the doorman and the Bellboy
Private property ownership rights trump personal rights to bear arms, at least on that property.
If I own a property I can set the rules. You don't have to rent from me, and you have a choice to leave your gun someplace else or don't visit. :shrug:
BTW, this doesn't interfere with the individual right to keep and bear arms. You can simply do it elsewhere other than on my property.
All true, but it's hard to claim that you support the right of self defense when you deny that right on your property
Hardly, since it is MY property and therefore my right to defend it is part and parcel of my right to self-defense.
Your violation of my property rights places you in the wrong, since your rights end where mine begin. Remember you have a choice, accept my rules on my property or simply stay off of it.
When it is your property you make the rules and I can either accept them or stay off your property.
We aren't talking about a single incident, we are talking about the general idea of the right to self defense. Yes you have every right to ban guns on your property however if you choose to do so and then claim you support the right of self defense, I will choose to exercise my 1st amendment rights to call you a lying hypocrite.
you posted the exact same nonsense someplace else so I will respond with what I said there
so I guess you are claiming that us pro second amendment voters should vote for Cankles-the woman whose daughter brags that her mom will replace SCALIA with someone who will OVERTURN Heller
for a harridan who claims that British and Australian Gun confiscation schemes should be applied in the USA
for a woman who thinks gun makers should be subjected to frivolous law suits
Yeah, come to think of it I am going to vote for Trump due to the gun issue
This just in: Single-issue voter endorses a monstrous candidate because the candidate pretends to say what he wants to hear. I think it's a sad state of affairs that for you any critique of Trump automatically becomes a discussion about how bad Hillary is. We know she's bad, that doesn't excuse the horrible **** that comes out of your candidate's mouth.
This just in: Single-issue voter endorses a monstrous candidate because the candidate pretends to say what he wants to hear. I think it's a sad state of affairs that for you any critique of Trump automatically becomes a discussion about how bad Hillary is. We know she's bad, that doesn't excuse the horrible **** that comes out of your candidate's mouth.
You refuse to hear the divisiveness and hypocrisy of Hillary at the same time. I think most of us already know how bad Trump is.
You refuse to hear the divisiveness and hypocrisy of Hillary at the same time. I think most of us already know how bad Trump is.
The bolded part is an unnecessary ad hom of the worst sort.
The underlined part is a false assumption. Pro-2nd Amendment supporters back Trump because the choice is between Hillary who is CLEARLY for gun control, and Trump who may be for gun rights. So better him on this issue than her.
Private property ownership rights trump personal rights to bear arms, at least on that property.
If I own a property I can set the rules. You don't have to rent from me, and you have a choice to leave your gun someplace else or don't visit. :shrug:
BTW, this doesn't interfere with the individual right to keep and bear arms. You can simply do it elsewhere other than on my property.
And if you set rules on your property that are the opposite of the rules you advocate for other pieces of property, in this case public property - you then are the worst sort of hypocrite - as Trump is in this case.
Really? Drawing distinctions between public and private property makes one a hypocrite? :lamo
Anything to **** up a 2nd Amendment thread, eh Haymarket? Tell us more, you who wants to confiscate OUR private property and violate our rights. You're worse than a hypocrite.
This just in: Single-issue voter endorses a monstrous candidate because the candidate pretends to say what he wants to hear. I think it's a sad state of affairs that for you any critique of Trump automatically becomes a discussion about how bad Hillary is. We know she's bad, that doesn't excuse the horrible **** that comes out of your candidate's mouth.
And if you set rules on your property that are the opposite of the rules you advocate for other pieces of property, in this case public property - you then are the worst sort of hypocrite - as Trump is in this case.
Incorrect. Monster is a personal opinionshared by many Americans, and Trump has proven over and over and over again that he makes up things off the cuff and can never actually be pinned down on any given position. He'll make statements then a day later take the complete opposite position. How ****ed up is it to be a single issue voter and vote for someone you don't like but ambiguously supports the one issue you care about?
This is the idiotic binary thinking patterns I'm talking about. I don't like Hillary either. ...How ****ed up is it to be a single issue voter and vote for someone you don't like but ambiguously supports the one issue you care about?
WRONG!
"PUBLIC" property is shared, which means every member of the public has a right to use it.
"PRIVATE" property is personally owned, which means only the owner has a right to use it and all others are granted a privilege to do so by permission of that owner.
A third category is "GOVERNMENT" property. That is property which society has allocated to government for specific uses (prisons, courthouses, agency headquarters, etc.) and public access can be restricted by law to comply with that special usage.
Meanwhile, stop with the ad homs and address arguments or expect to be ignored in the future.
BTW, being ignored does not mean someone has won an argument. It simply means the other party no longer feels it is worth their time or effort to respond.
Nothing that you said there changes the reality that when Trump makes the rules - he decides NO GUNS. But for the country - he will chime in on the more guns the merrier bandwagon to suck up to and curry favor with the gun fanatics of the NRA.
And that is pure hypocrisy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?