[Dilly]

The signs that businesses post banning guns are no more moral than those signs banning blacks 40 years ago.

You have to be kidding. People don't choose the color of their skin, but they choose whether or not to carry a gun. To equate hundreds of years of persecution of black people with not being able to carry your gun into the Dairy Queen is terrible.

Or perhaps you're, in a kind of backward way, setting up an argument in favor of gay rights. If, in your view, it's immoral to discriminate people who choose to carry guns, then perhaps it's also immoral to discriminate against people who choose to engage in homosexual activity. I'm sure the HRC would love to hear from you.

[Mulder]

People don't choose the color of their skin, but they choose whether or not to carry a gun.

You can change the color of your skin either permanently or temporarily.

To equate hundreds of years of persecution of black people with not being able to carry your gun into the Dairy Queen is terrible.

Some folks here would say it wasn't "persecution", but merely property owners exercising their rights.

If, in your view, it's immoral to discriminate people who choose to carry guns, then perhaps it's also immoral to discriminate against people who choose to engage in homosexual activity.

I believe that people have the Right to associate or do business with whomever they please. If someone doesn't want gun owners or gays or whomever in their store, they can verbally ask them to leave.

What I oppose is making it illegal for someone to go into a public business just because someone posts a sign saying "no (fill-in-the-blank)". There are enough laws on the books as it is.

[teeman8r]

i believe the sign should read, "the owner of this establishment takes full responsibility for your safety and the well-being of your family should any harm come to you while patronizing this establishment..."

then i would say they have a right to prohibit the right to carry...

jmt, teeman8r