To reduce confusion about 'arms' the sign should clearly indicate which arms are prohibited.
The signs could read along the lines of "No GUNS Allowed' and could be posted near the signs which say "No Solicitation Allowed"
----------------
-- Now please, find someone else to bug.
You were the one who volunteered for this in post #137, remember? I was sitting fat, happy and contented until you came along!
Besides, I thought we were having a pleasant give and take, or does the fact that you're getting the short end of this exchange 'bug' you?
"-- signs could read along the lines of "No GUNS Allowed' and could be posted near the signs which say "No Solicitation Allowed"
At post 133 you said:
This isn't about the issue of free speech or even the issue of guns.
My response at #137:
Of course it's about guns, -- 'property rights' are being used as an excuse to infringe upon the concealed carrying of arms.
A response you have been unable to refute.
So please, find someone else to bug.
You were the one who volunteered for this in post #137, remember? I was sitting fat, happy and contented until you came along!
Fine. Feel free to remain fat, happy and contented with your efforts to use 'property rights' as an excuse to infringe upon the concealed carrying of arms.
Besides, I thought we were having a pleasant give and take, or does the fact that you're getting the short end of this exchange 'bug' you?
Like I've said before, you have a tenuous grasp of 'fact', as well of a 'pleasant exchange'.
You seem proud of giving me the 'short end' while you defend gun grabbing. Why is that?