in the same token, why is ok to have to serve gays, but not ok to allow firearms?
the right to keep and bear does not equal violence.. they are not synonymous...... exercising your 2A rights in no way infringes on a Quakers 1st amendment rights or their objection to violence.What if you're a Quaker and have a religious objection to violence? Why would someone's Second Amendment right overrule your First Amendment right?
You were told Trevon was the agressor. By whom? The man left standing...
Under SYG anyone is allowed to protect himself from a precieved threat. That is the law. If Treavon felt in any moment his life was being threated he had the right to defend himself. He had the right to be agressive in that defense.
Everyone has the right to defend themselves...
Well again and I don't know why people are not seeing this, the 2 amendment doesn't apply here. If I own a business in almost every jurisdiction in the country, and I want to ban guns, I am fully allowed to do it and no one's rights are violated. Linking it to serving gays is not a good analogy. Think of it this way. You are not allowed to preach at Target, give political speeches or yell at people who are buying products that you feel hurt the environment. All of which is protected by the Constitution if you did it on the sidewalk outside of the store (within a certain distance). If you do those things you won't be arrested for them in particular (meaning content) you will be arrested for trespassing and disturbing the peace. Just the same with guns. If Target restricts any form of open carry your right to open carry is not gone, just mitigated by their right not to have you do it in their store. If you do go in and are asked to leave and you don't. Like the preacher, shouter and politician you will be arrested not for having a gun but for trespassing or disturbing the peace. It really is that simple.the right to keep and bear does not equal violence.. they are not synonymous...... exercising your 2A rights in no way infringes on a Quakers 1st amendment rights or their objection to violence.
No I see no reason that a law not be passed that makes open carry ubiquitous in stores and other open public accommodations. I know some businesses that have restricted employees have faced laws that force them to allow carrying on sight, but until then Target is well within both their rights and the law to restrict it.
Now I wonder if a sign went up at Target that said "If you bring a rifle into the store we will assume you are a potential danger and you will be followed by security. If you move your rifle into any kind of position that allows you to fire you will be shot. Have a Nice Day" if that would solve the problem.
i'm curious, why am i not allowed to speak on things i don't know for sure , but it's ok for you?... i'm no an of double standards, so try to stick to a single one.
i'm not gonna rehash the TM case.. it's settled.. it's over.. it's not my problem you can't accept it.
I was trying to pick a religion that might have an objection to firearms. If a business owner has a religious conviction against guns, why would they have to put up with it?the right to keep and bear does not equal violence.. they are not synonymous...... exercising your 2A rights in no way infringes on a Quakers 1st amendment rights or their objection to violence.