Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed

[JALLEN]

No LEOs can work there anymore per department policy. They have been put on the restricted list. The union is working on negotiations with HOBs but it looks like a dead end.

Wow. I never though I would side with a business that prohibits weapons, but the fact that government employees are strong arming them leaves me no choice. This is why people don't trust government officials. A taxpayer funded organization has no place blacklisting a private business for practicing their rights.

So you want to make police work liquor stores and topless bars? I am sure they have a long list of different places they can't work for any number of reasons but to you the refusal to work someplace off duty is strong arming?

Nope. It's strong arming because he claimed the actual police department (you know, a government entity) blacklisted them due the business practicing their rights. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Would you be ok with the police department blacklisting your hypothetical business because you choose to allow firearms? If police acting as private citizens want to boycott then go for it. It's the tax payer funded organization that has no place doing so.

Also, please don't put words in my mouth about my wanting police officers to work at certain locations. That is a pathetic argument.

The Navy puts businesses on the off limits list in San Diego from time to time, and Tijuana was off limits to Navy personnel at various times.

[Goldspurs]

No LEOs can work there anymore per department policy. They have been put on the restricted list. The union is working on negotiations with HOBs but it looks like a dead end.

Wow. I never though I would side with a business that prohibits weapons, but the fact that government employees are strong arming them leaves me no choice. This is why people don't trust government officials. A taxpayer funded organization has no place blacklisting a private business for practicing their rights.

So you want to make police work liquor stores and topless bars? I am sure they have a long list of different places they can't work for any number of reasons but to you the refusal to work someplace off duty is strong arming?

Nope. It's strong arming because he claimed the actual police department (you know, a government entity) blacklisted them due the business practicing their rights. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Would you be ok with the police department blacklisting your hypothetical business because you choose to allow firearms? If police acting as private citizens want to boycott then go for it. It's the tax payer funded organization that has no place doing so.

Also, please don't put words in my mouth about my wanting police officers to work at certain locations. That is a pathetic argument.

They have always done it for any number of reasons. Sure you might not be able to hire cops as security but you are not prevented from hiring security as security. Never struck me as a big deal

Good job totally avoiding the issue of a government agency black balling a private business for legal conduct.

[Goldspurs]

No LEOs can work there anymore per department policy. They have been put on the restricted list. The union is working on negotiations with HOBs but it looks like a dead end.

Wow. I never though I would side with a business that prohibits weapons, but the fact that government employees are strong arming them leaves me no choice. This is why people don't trust government officials. A taxpayer funded organization has no place blacklisting a private business for practicing their rights.

So you want to make police work liquor stores and topless bars? I am sure they have a long list of different places they can't work for any number of reasons but to you the refusal to work someplace off duty is strong arming?

Nope. It's strong arming because he claimed the actual police department (you know, a government entity) blacklisted them due the business practicing their rights. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Would you be ok with the police department blacklisting your hypothetical business because you choose to allow firearms? If police acting as private citizens want to boycott then go for it. It's the tax payer funded organization that has no place doing so.

Also, please don't put words in my mouth about my wanting police officers to work at certain locations. That is a pathetic argument.

The Navy puts businesses on the off limits list in San Diego from time to time, and Tijuana was off limits to Navy personnel at various times.

Let's keep it in perspective. First, I never condoned the military blacklist. Second, that blacklist exist because illegal activities usually take place at the establishments on the list. The Navy isn't trying to force these businesses to allow service members to carry firearms.

[EEllis]

No LEOs can work there anymore per department policy. They have been put on the restricted list. The union is working on negotiations with HOBs but it looks like a dead end.

Wow. I never though I would side with a business that prohibits weapons, but the fact that government employees are strong arming them leaves me no choice. This is why people don't trust government officials. A taxpayer funded organization has no place blacklisting a private business for practicing their rights.

So you want to make police work liquor stores and topless bars? I am sure they have a long list of different places they can't work for any number of reasons but to you the refusal to work someplace off duty is strong arming?

Nope. It's strong arming because he claimed the actual police department (you know, a government entity) blacklisted them due the business practicing their rights. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Would you be ok with the police department blacklisting your hypothetical business because you choose to allow firearms? If police acting as private citizens want to boycott then go for it. It's the tax payer funded organization that has no place doing so.

Also, please don't put words in my mouth about my wanting police officers to work at certain locations. That is a pathetic argument.

They have always done it for any number of reasons. Sure you might not be able to hire cops as security but you are not prevented from hiring security as security. Never struck me as a big deal

Good job totally avoiding the issue of a government agency black balling a private business for legal conduct.

Again I don't think most people have an issue with a police Dept setting limits where off duty officers can work. I'm not avoiding it I just don't view it as an issue here. It seems reasonable to me as long as they attend to their police jobs I am not getting worked up about them refusing to work as security off duty.

[Goldspurs]

No LEOs can work there anymore per department policy. They have been put on the restricted list. The union is working on negotiations with HOBs but it looks like a dead end.

Wow. I never though I would side with a business that prohibits weapons, but the fact that government employees are strong arming them leaves me no choice. This is why people don't trust government officials. A taxpayer funded organization has no place blacklisting a private business for practicing their rights.

So you want to make police work liquor stores and topless bars? I am sure they have a long list of different places they can't work for any number of reasons but to you the refusal to work someplace off duty is strong arming?

Nope. It's strong arming because he claimed the actual police department (you know, a government entity) blacklisted them due the business practicing their rights. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Would you be ok with the police department blacklisting your hypothetical business because you choose to allow firearms? If police acting as private citizens want to boycott then go for it. It's the tax payer funded organization that has no place doing so.

Also, please don't put words in my mouth about my wanting police officers to work at certain locations. That is a pathetic argument.

They have always done it for any number of reasons. Sure you might not be able to hire cops as security but you are not prevented from hiring security as security. Never struck me as a big deal

Good job totally avoiding the issue of a government agency black balling a private business for legal conduct.

Again I don't think most people have an issue with a police Dept setting limits where off duty officers can work. I'm not avoiding it I just don't view it as an issue here. It seems reasonable to me as long as they attend to their police jobs I am not getting worked up about them refusing to work as security off duty.

That's mighty presumptuous. I'm a government employee and I DO have a problem with it for my stated reasons. You can make it sound innocent all you want. Fact remains it is a government employee, in an official capacity, setting restrictions on a private entity for the sole purpose of making said business cease LAWFUL activity. You cannot refute this, so you just shrug it off as not a big deal because you THINK most people support this.

[Texsquatch]

So the LEO is always on duty... Should be allowed and/or may be required to carry 24/7. Does that mean he never has a alcoholic beverage? Never gets rowdy at the club? He just stands guard, ever vigilant while the rest of his party enjoys the House of Blues?

Of course not. Is this a honest question or a rhetorical one? They should respond when able. Part of that would include being armed. If they are not able then they shouldn't respond.

I guess what I'm saying is its such a subjective issue. So let's say he was going to drink, so he leaves the guns at home. This is fine and responsible in my opinion and no one would ever complain about him or the house of blues. But that would throw the argument that he was disarmed while he was bound by his profession to be armed out the window and the world was less safe that night because of the house of blues.

Maybe the guy was not a drinker, or maybe he is OK to have a couple beers, or maybe he was the DD that night. But again, if you live by absolutes and say he should have been allowed to carry because of his job, then he either should have went home, or as I said he'd have to be real careful what he does and consumes that night and every other time he goes out regardless of the venue.

[EEllis]

So the LEO is always on duty... Should be allowed and/or may be required to carry 24/7. Does that mean he never has a alcoholic beverage? Never gets rowdy at the club? He just stands guard, ever vigilant while the rest of his party enjoys the House of Blues?

Of course not. Is this a honest question or a rhetorical one? They should respond when able. Part of that would include being armed. If they are not able then they shouldn't respond.

I guess what I'm saying is its such a subjective issue. So let's say he was going to drink, so he leaves the guns at home. This is fine and responsible in my opinion and no one would ever complain about him or the house of blues. But that would throw the argument that he was disarmed while he was bound by his profession to be armed out the window and the world was less safe that night because of the house of blues.

Maybe the guy was not a drinker, or maybe he is OK to have a couple beers, or maybe he was the DD that night. But again, if you live by absolutes and say he should have been allowed to carry because of his job, then he either should have went home, or as I said he'd have to be real careful what he does and consumes that night and every other time he goes out regardless of the venue.

I don't say he should be allowed anything. I support a private business doing what they want. I think the fact that he is law enforcement should be part of that decision not that it should be the only factor. Honestly I only posted because I felt the conversation was more "anti" than anything else with a little "if I can't than no one should" mixed in. Look at my earlier posts I wasn't really saying that I cared just that I disagreed with people insulting this cop because he said he was unhappy with the decision that HOB made and dared to say something. He shouldn't be derided for that.

[Goldspurs]

So the LEO is always on duty... Should be allowed and/or may be required to carry 24/7. Does that mean he never has a alcoholic beverage? Never gets rowdy at the club? He just stands guard, ever vigilant while the rest of his party enjoys the House of Blues?

Of course not. Is this a honest question or a rhetorical one? They should respond when able. Part of that would include being armed. If they are not able then they shouldn't respond.

I guess what I'm saying is its such a subjective issue. So let's say he was going to drink, so he leaves the guns at home. This is fine and responsible in my opinion and no one would ever complain about him or the house of blues. But that would throw the argument that he was disarmed while he was bound by his profession to be armed out the window and the world was less safe that night because of the house of blues.

Maybe the guy was not a drinker, or maybe he is OK to have a couple beers, or maybe he was the DD that night. But again, if you live by absolutes and say he should have been allowed to carry because of his job, then he either should have went home, or as I said he'd have to be real careful what he does and consumes that night and every other time he goes out regardless of the venue.

I don't say he should be allowed anything. I support a private business doing what they want. I think the fact that he is law enforcement should be part of that decision not that it should be the only factor. Honestly I only posted because I felt the conversation was more "anti" than anything else with a little "if I can't than no one should" mixed in. Look at my earlier posts I wasn't really saying that I cared just that I disagreed with people insulting this cop because he said he was unhappy with the decision that HOB made and dared to say something. He shouldn't be derided for that.

Umm...did not realize disagreement was the same as insulting. Just to clarify It isn't about "if I can't then nobody can", at least for me. It's about creating special classes based off government employment, or any other reason. You have already accused me of wanting the officer to work at a strip club or liquor store, when I said nothing of the sort. Is this your way of beefing up your argument when you can't address mine?

[Javier730]

[Taypo]

So the LEO is always on duty... Should be allowed and/or may be required to carry 24/7. Does that mean he never has a alcoholic beverage? Never gets rowdy at the club? He just stands guard, ever vigilant while the rest of his party enjoys the House of Blues?

Of course not. Is this a honest question or a rhetorical one? They should respond when able. Part of that would include being armed. If they are not able then they shouldn't respond.

I guess what I'm saying is its such a subjective issue. So let's say he was going to drink, so he leaves the guns at home. This is fine and responsible in my opinion and no one would ever complain about him or the house of blues. But that would throw the argument that he was disarmed while he was bound by his profession to be armed out the window and the world was less safe that night because of the house of blues.

Maybe the guy was not a drinker, or maybe he is OK to have a couple beers, or maybe he was the DD that night. But again, if you live by absolutes and say he should have been allowed to carry because of his job, then he either should have went home, or as I said he'd have to be real careful what he does and consumes that night and every other time he goes out regardless of the venue.

I don't say he should be allowed anything. I support a private business doing what they want. I think the fact that he is law enforcement should be part of that decision not that it should be the only factor. Honestly I only posted because I felt the conversation was more "anti" than anything else with a little "if I can't than no one should" mixed in. Look at my earlier posts I wasn't really saying that I cared just that I disagreed with people insulting this cop because he said he was unhappy with the decision that HOB made and dared to say something. He shouldn't be derided for that.

Umm...did not realize disagreement was the same as insulting. Just to clarify It isn't about "if I can't then nobody can", at least for me. It's about creating special classes based off government employment, or any other reason. You have already accused me of wanting the officer to work at a strip club or liquor store, when I said nothing of the sort. Is this your way of beefing up your argument when you can't address mine?

I see what you're trying to do and the points you're making but if you're expecting a reasonable debate with certain folks, you're gonna be here a while.

[Goldspurs]

So the LEO is always on duty... Should be allowed and/or may be required to carry 24/7. Does that mean he never has a alcoholic beverage? Never gets rowdy at the club? He just stands guard, ever vigilant while the rest of his party enjoys the House of Blues?

Of course not. Is this a honest question or a rhetorical one? They should respond when able. Part of that would include being armed. If they are not able then they shouldn't respond.

I guess what I'm saying is its such a subjective issue. So let's say he was going to drink, so he leaves the guns at home. This is fine and responsible in my opinion and no one would ever complain about him or the house of blues. But that would throw the argument that he was disarmed while he was bound by his profession to be armed out the window and the world was less safe that night because of the house of blues.

Maybe the guy was not a drinker, or maybe he is OK to have a couple beers, or maybe he was the DD that night. But again, if you live by absolutes and say he should have been allowed to carry because of his job, then he either should have went home, or as I said he'd have to be real careful what he does and consumes that night and every other time he goes out regardless of the venue.

I don't say he should be allowed anything. I support a private business doing what they want. I think the fact that he is law enforcement should be part of that decision not that it should be the only factor. Honestly I only posted because I felt the conversation was more "anti" than anything else with a little "if I can't than no one should" mixed in. Look at my earlier posts I wasn't really saying that I cared just that I disagreed with people insulting this cop because he said he was unhappy with the decision that HOB made and dared to say something. He shouldn't be derided for that.

Umm...did not realize disagreement was the same as insulting. Just to clarify It isn't about "if I can't then nobody can", at least for me. It's about creating special classes based off government employment, or any other reason. You have already accused me of wanting the officer to work at a strip club or liquor store, when I said nothing of the sort. Is this your way of beefing up your argument when you can't address mine?

I see what you're trying to do and the points you're making but if you're expecting a reasonable debate with certain folks, you're gonna be here a while.

Got nothing but time this week. Sitting in a hospital on emergency leave until Saturday.

[EEllis]

Umm...did not realize disagreement was the same as insulting. Just to clarify It isn't about "if I can't then nobody can", at least for me. It's about creating special classes based off government employment, or any other reason. You have already accused me of wanting the officer to work at a strip club or liquor store, when I said nothing of the sort. Is this your way of beefing up your argument when you can't address mine?

Dude it isn't always about you! It was about answering a question someone else posed to me and trying to convey my thoughts to him. You were nowhere in those thoughts. I have addressed your statements I just don't agree with you. And no I didn't accuse you. I asked a question trying to make a point then you went into the "I said no such thing!" mode. But if you want to repeat your claim after every post I make go ahead. Just excuse me if I don't bother to reply.

[Taypo]

So the LEO is always on duty... Should be allowed and/or may be required to carry 24/7. Does that mean he never has a alcoholic beverage? Never gets rowdy at the club? He just stands guard, ever vigilant while the rest of his party enjoys the House of Blues?

Of course not. Is this a honest question or a rhetorical one? They should respond when able. Part of that would include being armed. If they are not able then they shouldn't respond.

I guess what I'm saying is its such a subjective issue. So let's say he was going to drink, so he leaves the guns at home. This is fine and responsible in my opinion and no one would ever complain about him or the house of blues. But that would throw the argument that he was disarmed while he was bound by his profession to be armed out the window and the world was less safe that night because of the house of blues.

Maybe the guy was not a drinker, or maybe he is OK to have a couple beers, or maybe he was the DD that night. But again, if you live by absolutes and say he should have been allowed to carry because of his job, then he either should have went home, or as I said he'd have to be real careful what he does and consumes that night and every other time he goes out regardless of the venue.

I don't say he should be allowed anything. I support a private business doing what they want. I think the fact that he is law enforcement should be part of that decision not that it should be the only factor. Honestly I only posted because I felt the conversation was more "anti" than anything else with a little "if I can't than no one should" mixed in. Look at my earlier posts I wasn't really saying that I cared just that I disagreed with people insulting this cop because he said he was unhappy with the decision that HOB made and dared to say something. He shouldn't be derided for that.

Umm...did not realize disagreement was the same as insulting. Just to clarify It isn't about "if I can't then nobody can", at least for me. It's about creating special classes based off government employment, or any other reason. You have already accused me of wanting the officer to work at a strip club or liquor store, when I said nothing of the sort. Is this your way of beefing up your argument when you can't address mine?

I see what you're trying to do and the points you're making but if you're expecting a reasonable debate with certain folks, you're gonna be here a while.

Got nothing but time this week. Sitting in a hospital on emergency leave until Saturday.

Ouch. Hope it all works out OK, brother.

[Goldspurs]

Umm...did not realize disagreement was the same as insulting. Just to clarify It isn't about "if I can't then nobody can", at least for me. It's about creating special classes based off government employment, or any other reason. You have already accused me of wanting the officer to work at a strip club or liquor store, when I said nothing of the sort. Is this your way of beefing up your argument when you can't address mine?

Dude it isn't always about you! It was about answering a question someone else posed to me and trying to convey my thoughts to him. You were nowhere in those thoughts. I have addressed your statements I just don't agree with you. And no I didn't accuse you. I asked a question trying to make a point then you went into the "I said no such thing!" mode. But if you want to repeat your claim after every post I make go ahead. Just excuse me if I don't bother to reply.

Lol. Whatever you say BRO. Continue to backpedal all you want. It is up there for everyone to read. Also, I have learned my lesson on arguing with someone as wily a debater as you. Next time someone asks something about a strip club I shall admit defeat immediately.

[Goldspurs]

Got nothing but time this week. Sitting in a hospital on emergency leave until Saturday.

Ouch. Hope it all works out OK, brother.

Twin boys were born a month early, but they are good! Got me a couple of weeks out of the 'stan. Just sucks they are in the NICU because they were early so I can't hold them as much as I want to.