My girlfriend doesn't like Hot wings, but I think she really likes their Sweet BBQ.

It really doesn't matter since their wings suck donkeys anyway. For good wings go to Mayslacks.

The Wednesday before Thanksgiving we ended up going to the Savage location for dinner, at the kids insistence. I didn't want to go, but I also didn't want to be the "bad guy", since I made the mistake of asking the kids where they wanted to eat.
I totally forgot to check for the signs.
So I have no idea if the place is posted or not. Nothing jumped out at me, but I wasn't looking either.

I won't be going back, even if they're not posted. I found their food to adequate at best, and the service wasn't all that great. Felt like a fast food joint with table service.

Uh ! So she is saying that you are not "Sweet" and she have to look else where?

If i'm going to Mayslacks, i'm not getting wings. I can't be bothered to divide my attention away from "The Sandwich".

Haven't you learned yet, Mark, that when you're "hot," you don't have to be "sweet?"

Tell that to my X-wife

Mark, I think the point is you have to be at least one of those two things!


Also, I believe in this quote by Red Green:
"If women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy."

:[/quote]Tell that to my X-wife [/quote]

Mark, I think the point is you have to be at least one of those two things!


Also, I believe in this quote by Red Green:
"If women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.

"[/quote]I"M SCREW

I'm not sure there is any sense in "wisening up" a chump. A non-compliant sign is the equivalent of NO sign. Which is what we all want, right?

I've been told by several property managers and/or their attorneys that they have posted deliberately non-compliant signs. Those customers who want a sign are satisfied to see it and so are those who carry (all of whom have training and supposedly know the sign is invalid). Both groups continue to shop at the location and everyone (especially the owner) is happy.

No property owner is going to ADMIT this in reply to a letter pointing out their non-compliance. Nope, they are more likely to say "screw 'em if they can't leave well enough alone" and post a valid sign that complies with the law.

Remember, that's exactly what MOA did. Pro-gun complaints just got the situation made worse.

IMHO, the only people we SHOULD be putting pressure on are those who DO post compliant signs.

That's a reasonable view, although my understanding -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- is that the Mall of America can't post the common areas, but only the areas in which they are their own tenants.

Another view -- and, all in all, my own -- is that the issue of signage is one where the antis set the conditions of contest, with their concession that, to quote them, "no sign is a welcome sign to guns." (Actually, I think it's a welcome sign to permit holders, but...)

By that measurement, with only a tiny percentage of eligible businesses having posted, our site has already won -- and getting rid of further signs, complaint or not, simply increases the margin of victory.

The one place where I'd be cautious about that is the one that you suggest -- where a compliant sign can replace a noncompliant sign. For obvious reasons I'm not going to publish the name of the place, but there is one establishment in the Twin Cities that I know of that has carefully posted noncompliantly, but where the nice person who made that decision might well be fired -- and certainly would be pressured -- if that were generally known.

While a noncompliant sign is better than a compliant sign, my view is that no sign is better than that, and that activism on that issue should be directed toward that goal.

And all that said, when we're talking about such a peripheral matter -- whether a tiny fraction of eligible establishments post, or an even tinierfraction of eligible establishments post -- it's a sign as to how big our win has been.

There are opportunities to have some fun with this -- anybody who sees my own representative, Jean Wagenius, coming out of any non-posted establishment should stop her, and inquire, with exquisite politeness, why she's violating her pledge, made on the floor of the House, not to patronize any establishment that doesn't post. (As a practical matter, of course, Jean can't keep her pledge -- she'd have to mail her teeth in to her dentist, and let's not go into the problems she'd have when making use of the services of a gynecologist...)

Particular attention should also be paid to Wes Skoglund -- "Wes, I'm surprised to see you in a store that hasn't put up those no gun signs..."

I agree with Kimberman on this. I think there is a mix of "feel good" signs (known to be incorrect) as well as serious anti signs (thought to be correct). I hesitate to call attention (other than on the forum) to an incorrect sign because it may just be a "feel good" sign.

Finally got around to poking my nose into the Savage Buffalo Wild Wings shop. It was early in the morning, and they weren't open yet, but I peeked into the entryway, and didn't see any signage concerning carry.
Unless I missed spots they don't appear to be posted. Not legally, anyway.

Buffalo Wild Wings Coon Rapids is not posted and I've never seen it posted. I've carried there several times.

I personally refuse to do business with any company that posts signs legally or not. There are plenty of other companies that don't post them.