Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

The Woman and I have been looking for baubles. No, not those types, just something purdy. Against my better nature, we have been in three malls... SIMON malls to be exact.

Remember how they said "WE DO NOT WANT GUN OWNERS ON OUR PREMISE!" Well most of the gunowners took heed, and haven't shopped in a mall in awhile in my world.

Then they said "WE DO NOT WANT TEENS IN OUR MALL WITHOUT CONSTANT SUPERVISION!" Well, most parents haven't got the inclination to follow the kids in the mall, most just "Split, and we'll meet in the food court." NOPE! Can't do that any more.

Today in two malls after 18:00....dead.

There are what I call "Flip businesses" in where REAL retailers use to lease.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer buncha a-hulls.

You chased off gun owners, you chased off families, now you have BLM members walking around holding their pants up, buying...

...Nothing.

Well done! (slow clap started).

Funny... my woman likes baubles, too.

I get dragged out to malls, on occasion. I tend to find myself surrounded by people that I would normally steer clear of, looking at stores that have nothing I want.

At least I could kill a little time in a Radio Shack, but then they all closed.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

If you have seen a male BLM'er with his pants up, I need photo proof. Not saying the good Reverend is fallible. My brain just can't comprehend that it actually happened.

I think what Rev meant was that the male BLMers hold their pants up at knee level, to keep them from dropping to ankle level. That's what I normally see, anyway.

I am thoroughly amazed that that stupid trend saw the end of the 90's. I can't believe that it's probably going to usher in the 3rd decade of this millennium. I'd gladly welcome back another decade of polyester leisure suits, massive collars, and ties wide enough to land jumbo jets on, if it meant that no one was walking around with an exposed ass anymore.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

"I think what Rev meant was that the male BLMers hold their pants up at knee level, to keep them from dropping to ankle level. That's what I normally see, anyway. "


INDEED!

It was about mid thigh level because the mall cops (who by the way are on Segways ) told them to pull them up.

I wonder why the Simon Mall Cops never bother me when I'm carrying in one of their fine shopping establishments? It might have something to do with that concealed thing.

OakRidgeStars wrote:I wonder why the Simon Mall Cops never bother me when I'm carrying in one of their fine shopping establishments? It might have something to do with that concealed thing.

Yup. Same here. I will not go to the the Simon mall near me (potomac mills) unless I am CCing. Just have to be more cautious about printing.......

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I also CC... but...

Principles are beyond that for me. "You don't want me carrying a weapon? Fine. Won't shop there."

Why frequent a place that hates you? I won't eat/shop/buy from companies that restrict me. If I HAVE to do so (There have been occasions), then I make donations to VCDL, GOA, and NRA to off set it.

Don't go to malls, haven't in many a year. Wife doesn't ask me to go shopping either. Not unless it's something big that she needs input on, and then its not usually at a mall. If I can't get it online, or in one of the fine establishments around Front (almost heaven, West Virginia) Royal, then I guess I don't need it.

Malls still exist? I maximize my policy of either online or locally-owned. Haven't been in a mall in nearly 20 years.

That was always an interesting part of Minnesota law. It actually got written in that a lessor could not restrict the lessee, and that included malls. The individual stores could post but the mall could not.

The Mall of America posted (in violation of the law) and activists tried to get themselves busted, so they could try to bring it to court and force the signage to be removed. The Mall wouldn't have them arrested on carry/posting violations, and would have them removed under threat of invoking trespass charges instead. The Mall had lawyers too, and wanted the signs up, but didn't want the issue to be forced to be examined in a court of law.

Didn't a court recently completely strip personal property rights?

I remember a BLM faction wanted to protest at a mall, but the mall owner said... "No, this is my private property. You are not welcome to protest here. If you do, we will have you arrested for trespassing." The BLM faction filed in the courts for the "Right" to protest on someone else' private property and won, with the judge saying that he didn't care that it was private property because the "Mall" is the new town square; which of course its not.

The town square is around the Mayor's office or the capital building. It was just the BLM racist bastards using the court to run roughshod over personal property rights to promote their agenda of racism. More punishing the majority for the sake of being PC for the minority abusing the system.

Anyway, I ask because if private property owners have no rights to prevent protesting on their property because of the First Amendment and have to suffer millions in losses due to lost business and damage to the property by the protestors, why can't we just ignore the signs and carry anyway under the Second Amendment? At least we are not trashing the place. We just want to be left alone and have a big stick in the event that someone won't leave us alone. The protestors where protested under the First Amendment for no other reason than the mall was the place they chose to protest. Can't we be protected by the Second Amendment because I simply chose to go to the mall? If the mall is the "new town square", doesn't crime also exist everywhere?

Don't get me wrong... I hate what's happening, but if we are losing the personal property Rights, lets ply by their rules and use it against them.