Monday, February 23, 2015

Terrorists abetted by Mall of America gun policy

“At Mall of America, safety is a top priority,” it advises visitors on a Guests & Security page. “Guns are banned on these premises.”

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

No worry...we know that bad guys will all comply with the "no guns" rule.

Anonymous said...

Whenever I see one of those NO GUNS sign, I get a streak of ILLITERACY where I forget how to read. Works for me and I am still carrying concealed.

Anonymous said...

Which do you fear more....being trespassed and even arrested for daring to exercise your right to carry oooorrrr being beheaded, shot down or even burned alive by islamofreaks on their precious jihad?

I know which risk is due more mitigation.....

Anonymous said...

According to handgunlaw.us signs do not have force of law in MN. Someone from the mall would have to ask you to leave and you would have to refuse before you could be arrested.

Anonymous said...

"Safety is a top priority"
"Guns are banned"

D'OH!! How DO these people function with such conflicts in their "thinking"??

B Woodman
III-PER

Anonymous said...

As the holder of a MN concealed carry permit, I would NEVER upset a business owner who had properly posted a sign prohibiting concealed carry (by letting him know I had ignored it). Just being polite, you know!

The first shooting in the mall happened within months OP the doors opening, long before we got "shall issue" concealed carry in MN. We called "Camp Snoopy" (the amusement park in the mega mall) "Camp shoot me" for years.

The baby gang bangers didn't obey the signs in the past. The Somali jihadi set could give a crap either, and we certainly have had a few of our Somali communities young men get busted when they headed right back to their old home range for a little jihad action.

I try to stay out of the place, and if I must go there, I will prepare for the visit as I feel wise.

Anonymous said...

Oh not to worry, the FBI will be up to the task.

Kenneth Moore said...

Sure, Guns Banned signs will stop them. What idiots there too!!

Anonymous said...

I look at it as a "company suggestion".

PhilaBOR said...

Concealed is concealed and in MN it's trespass, not force of law. On the rare occasions I go to MOA I carry. A full size M&P and a full spare mag.

PO'd American said...

PhilaBOR said...

Concealed is concealed and in MN it's trespass, not force of law. On the rare occasions I go to MOA I carry. A full size M&P and a full spare mag.

February 24, 2015 at 7:29 AM

Same here in Oklahoma....I just ignore the stupid "no weapons" allowed signs. I think of them as a suggestion only.

Anonymous said...

The whole problem is that the media and government have convinced the average American that that little sign protects them.

They don't care if you die as long as they gain more power and control. The instant the public realizes this, their game is over.

But the media will never let that happen.

Paul X said...

Take your business elsewhere, guys. These people may be idiots, but they do understand profit and loss.

Before you go, add your own little hand-made sign below the "no guns" signs: "Criminal-friendly zone".

Anonymous said...

I carry concealed everywhere I know I won't be subjected to either a search or a metal detector. Screw the signs! Sometimes, if there is a sign forbidding guns, I'll comment to the manager how utterly stupid that is and I'll explain that gun-free zones are just killing fields for mass murderers and also that all mass murders in the last 20 years have been committed in gun-free zones. I usually do it so that other customers can hear me, too. Then, if the manager asks if I'm carrying I lie and say "no", knowing they won't search me.

Anonymous said...

According to an ABC news blurb this evening, those signs were disputed and the local gestapo told MoA that it's signs were illegal: all legally armed persons have due and proper access to the "common parts" of the building, regardless what the individual shop owner/managers decide for their own areas.
JSW (MN resident)

Anonymous said...

Those signs don't even meet the statute's legal definition of signage (624.7132).