So you break the law and you're proud of it? Unless I'm mistaken, the cinemas are privately owned, and so ignoring those signs isn't your right, you are breaking the law by entering a company's property whilst refusing to abide with their request.
Not quite how that works. A private company can post any sign they want. They could post a 100 point font that says 'no one with tattoos is allowed in' or 'no one wearing clothing made of a blend of two fabrics can enter'. Entering anyway does not mean you are breaking the law. Private organizations do not get to make laws. All they can do is ask you to leave and, if you refuse, then involve the cops and possibly trespass you which then would make it a crime if you came back again.
Long story short, it is my right. It's their right to ask me to leave. Which if they did, I would, and they would lose my business. Considering that I carry concealed, however, it's rather difficult for them to determine that I am carrying a weapon if I'm doing so responsibly.
Even if it was technically against the law? See my signature quote for my opinion on that.
Cars also require registration and mandatory insurance for injury of third party, which some people argue should be extended to guns too.
Cars also aren't a constitutional right, however. Personally I wouldn't have a major issue with making ownership licensed just like my concealed carry permit. This does two things
1) It puts the burden of effort on the individual. Initially getting the permit required a class that took about 4 hours, getting finger printed, and submitting the application with fee.
2) It attaches a monetary cost, upfront cost without immediate payoff. The fee for my application was a little over a hundred bucks, throw in another forty for the class and cost for fingerprinting (Local sheriff's dept charged like 10 bucks) and you've now got a nearly $200 initial investment.
But to play devil's advocate to my own idea what happens when (assuming we implement such a plan) someone comes out and claims that by putting this cost to ownership into place you have effectively disarmed poor people? It's not an invalid argument. Someone working two part time fast food jobs isn't going to be able to shell out 200 bucks for a permit and the cost of the gun most likely.
To answer Mithlomwen's question from earlier:
100% belief that the media, this monster that we have created, is by far the 2nd most damaging thing to this country. It's not drugs, guns, or crime, it's not politicians even. The 1st most damaging thing? The people that live here that have become complacent and lazy to the point they allow this media empire to lead them around by the nose.
Crime as a whole is down, period. We have the numbers to back that up. But crime being down does nothing to feed a 24 hour news industry that generates trillions of dollars annually, that simply by mentioning candidates can validate their attempts to run for office. Perfect example, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. I don't agree with Sanders on alot of things, but as politicians go his ideas make a great deal more sense than most and he has the record to back it up.
But Hillary Clinton (whose campaign has received thousands of dollars from Turner Broadcasting), though, gets vastly more press than Sanders on CNN. How do we see this as anything less than blatant manipulation by the media to anoint favored candidates?