lukpac wrote:So, no, the same is not really true.
And business owners who don't want cameras in their establishments aren't being ridiculed about how they're struggling to handle an issue that the government dropped in their lap that will neither increase profits nor decrease expenses. Often, business owners rely on their attorneys for guidance on muddy issues like this one. Well, I challenge you to find a law firm in this city that didn't put up no-guns signs last week, if not earlier. I urge you to check out the ones that work for Republicans first.
As for the bit about disgruntled workers, I'm a whole lot less worried about the guy who leaves to get a gun than the guy wearing one on his belt. Are you kidding me? You'd fare a lot better if you just stuck to the constitutional argument and left the practicalities out of it entirely.
Speaking of practicalities:
I find this to be just one more indication of divisive us vs. them thinking that might win an election, but isn't a positive step for society. Who really thinks it's a good idea to be like the guy living in the house pictured above? What would you really do if the guy across the street did that? Pat him on the back for tellin' it like it is? I guess if you don't want guns around, you're some kinda wuss, deserving of abuse. A victim! What're you gonna do about it?
I wonder how anyone who would take this position will talk about it on Thanksgiving ("Ooof! Gotta loosen up my belt AND my holster!") or, even better, at church. Will they do so in a similar manner? I was glad to see a Lutheran Bishop quoted last week: "We believe that God calls us into a more creative response to the fear in our society than concealing and carrying weapons."
On the topic of money spent, well or otherwise, I see that we continue to get what we pay for as far as Fisticuffs' services are concerned.