<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Passing the Buck</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/07/17/passing-the-buck-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/07/17/passing-the-buck-2/</link>
	<description>The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State ...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:01:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/07/17/passing-the-buck-2/#comment-46284</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:33:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=11760#comment-46284</guid>
		<description>Or it might imply that the restaurant owner is an anti-gunner, which might affect perception of those that do not carry arms but are sympathetic to those that do and now no longer wish to patronize said establishment.  In the previous state of law, it wasn&#039;t up to the restaurant owner, so even those sympathetic to weapons carriers would not find the restaurant at fault.

I know people who refuse to eat at Taco-Mac here in Georgia for those reasons.  Which is a shame, I love the nachos.

Anyway, if a restaurant owner publishes a No Weapons rule, I&#039;ll respect it.  It&#039;s his property, his rules.  I may also decide to eat elsewhere, but I don&#039;t dispute his right to run his business as he likes.

Funny thing is, in the opt-in method, I would think those that do opt-in would be able to play a serious &quot;Everyone is welcome at JoeBob&#039;s Barbecue and Tax Service!&quot; marketing ploy.

Perception is reality, as the marketing folks say.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Or it might imply that the restaurant owner is an anti-gunner, which might affect perception of those that do not carry arms but are sympathetic to those that do and now no longer wish to patronize said establishment.  In the previous state of law, it wasn&#8217;t up to the restaurant owner, so even those sympathetic to weapons carriers would not find the restaurant at fault.</p>
<p>I know people who refuse to eat at Taco-Mac here in Georgia for those reasons.  Which is a shame, I love the nachos.</p>
<p>Anyway, if a restaurant owner publishes a No Weapons rule, I&#8217;ll respect it.  It&#8217;s his property, his rules.  I may also decide to eat elsewhere, but I don&#8217;t dispute his right to run his business as he likes.</p>
<p>Funny thing is, in the opt-in method, I would think those that do opt-in would be able to play a serious &#8220;Everyone is welcome at JoeBob&#8217;s Barbecue and Tax Service!&#8221; marketing ploy.</p>
<p>Perception is reality, as the marketing folks say.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

