• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores?[W:37]

Re: Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores?

People have the right to keep and bear arms - that is in the Second Amendment. Now gay sex in the frozen food aisle is NOT a civil liberty (no matter how many progressives would love it to be).

Then what am I going to do with all those popsicles???
 
But why is it OK to not serve gays, but not OK to restrict guns in the store?
I dunno, ask someone who holds that belief.
in the same token, why is ok to have to serve gays, but not ok to allow firearms?

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?

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.
 
The 2nd Amendment doesn't apply here since the government isn't involved.

oh, I think of you thought about it long and hard you would come to the correct conclusion that private parties are not afforded the right or authority to violate civil liberties without fear of legal repercussions.
 
Re: Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores?

in that particular incident, TM initiated aggression... that would not change whether he was armed or not.... he would still being the wrong due to his initiation.

the outcome would be different though.. of that you would be correct...Z would be dead, and TM would be alive... still in the wrong, but alive.

Dont recount what you don't know.

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...
 
I dunno, ask someone who holds that belief.
in the same token, why is ok to have to serve gays, but not ok to allow firearms?

Ther eis a local law that requires public businesses to not discriminate. 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.

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.

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.
 
oh, I think of you thought about it long and hard you would come to the correct conclusion that private parties are not afforded the right or authority to violate civil liberties without fear of legal repercussions.

you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Re: Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores?

Dont recount what you don't know.

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...

you're right, i don't know for certain... but I do have the findings of the jury and the available evidence to guide my opinion... you have, well, nothing.
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 dunno, ask someone who holds that belief.
in the same token, why is ok to have to serve gays, but not ok to allow firearms?

Gays are people, guns are objects. Nobody's saying they should be allowed to not serve gun owners, the objection is to guns in the store. Similarly, you may have to accept gay customers, but you don't have to accept them having gay sex in the store. People vs. objects and actions.

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.

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?
 
no doubt i'm in the minority on this... the majority does tend to **** it's pant in fear when they see a firearm in the open... well, unless it's attached to a government agent , anyways.

No need to pat yourself on the back for being a manly real man who ain't skeered of guns, by gosh. I've described my problem with it above. If you have any comments on that, fine.

Americans, in general, are a scared people... so it's doesn't strike me as odd that many would be scared at the sight of a firearm.
at this point, it's an automatic condition for many.

Well, while we're throwing around personal insults against people we don't know and making sweeping generalizations of strangers, I have another observation - it's the people who feel a need to carry a firearm with them at all time who are the one's "****ing their pants" on a daily basis. The OP's story has a quote from a guy who obviously is a frightened, cowardly, paranoid individual because he claimed he wouldn't take his family into a department store unless he was carrying his blanky, his firearm, because otherwise the experience is too scary, why there might be a criminal in there! In Somalia or many places in Israel, such fear might be justified. In 99.9% of America, it's irrational. I'm 50 and have gone a lifetime without carrying a firearm anywhere except to hunt or to the shooting range. It's never occurred to me to be skeered in a department store while shopping for a shirt and some toiletries.

I wouldn't carry a rifle shopping, because, well, it's too bulky and not very practical.... but every day i walk into a store.. usually Target or HEB.. i'm carrying.

these guys were obviously making a political statement... and it's a legal political statement... and i'm ok with that.

nobody was shot, nobody was killed...the rifles remained slung..nothing bad happened.

Yes, and of course, for the vast majority of those of us who don't carry a firearm daily, nobody was shot, nobody was killed, nothing bad happened, we didn't need a weapon.
 
it's true that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.. absolutely.

then again, i'm not sure we need only to entertain the irrational fears of people to determine what we can or should do.

while i would not carry a rifle as a matter of practicality, we might want to look into whether these fears that folks so ardently express are valid.

now of course we all see the stories of mass killings, etc..but what is never emphasized is that your odds of this happening are extraordinarily rare... yet some believe that every gun they see is one that will shortly be used against them.
but, meh, it's to be expected when you have a decades long active fear campaign working towards that end.

that's not to say that vigilance should be abandoned... one absolutely should be vigilant... I fully expect for people to eyeball me if they find out i'm carrying.. i appreciate their vigilance, in fact.
it's just as irrational to completely ignore these guys as it is to be automatically be fearful of them.

of course, i can say this because i remember a day when these fears were not ever-present... when guns were carried without the masses going absolutely nuts over it.
hell, I can remember as a child of 11 or 12 walking into Mcdonalds with my rifle slung over my shoulder to get an ice cream cone after an afternoon of shooting cans.. and nobody batting an eye... no national media attention... nothin'
seeing a person openly carrying a handgun was fairly common.. it was simply no big deal.


but i do agree that in todays environment, it wasn't the smartest political stunt to pull... as evident by folks losing their everloving minds over this, including people who were not there.

Those fears need to be entertained insofar as those with irrational fears may act on them in ways that make life difficult for us. By voting for local politicians who might try to restrict your rights for example. And those restrictions might not pass constitutional muster but overturning even obviously bad laws takes time and money. Why create a problem where none existed?

Irrational fears should be dealt with by education, not by playing right into those fears.
 
Gays are people, guns are objects. Nobody's saying they should be allowed to not serve gun owners, the objection is to guns in the store. Similarly, you may have to accept gay customers, but you don't have to accept them having gay sex in the store. People vs. objects and actions.
gun are objects.. sure... they also happen to be one of the very few objects that we are afforded a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear... that makes them a lil different from most other objects.

I still think you comparing gay sex in the aisles to carrying a firearm is utterly ridiculous.



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?
there are plenty of religions that object to violence... but ,again, firearms =/= violence..I'm unaware of any religion that has an express objection to a firearm in and of itself.
hell, i'm opposed to violence, well at least the initiation of violence ( i'm a big big fan of justifiable violence).. but i have no objections to firearms.

the actions of the person who has the firearm is what is important.... using your comparison... gays are fine, but gay sex in the aisle is not fine. ( the action is paramount)
but somehow, a gun is not fine.. regardless of action ( action is now of no importance whatsoever)
 
I dunno, ask someone who holds that belief.
in the same token, why is ok to have to serve gays, but not ok to allow firearms?

Because one is a person and the other is an object. Not serving a gay person affects the person not being able to purchase an item. Not allowing a gun in the store does not restrict the person from purchasing an item.
 
Re: Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores?

How do you know they are unnecessary? Do you know if you'll be in a car accident before it happens? And if loaded guns are strapped to their hips or slung over shoulders, it seems they are properly secured....like you described. So what's your problem again?

True, there is a trivial chance of a mad gunman going off inside a department store, so you should prepare. And you should be always prepared a fire (a bottle of oxygen to survive the smoke would be helpful), and maybe wear a helmet in case a tile falls from above, and perhaps a first aid kit with one of the new heart deals that will restart yours should you have a heart attack. I'm sure you're wearing bullet proof vest, to survive the shootout or an attack by knife, etc. Can't be too prepared!

And I explained my core problem - I do not know who these people are, so why would I trust them? I recognize two things - the gun toter doesn't make the shopping experience more than trivially safer or more dangerous. But he or she introduces a problem I have to deal with. I can't know if the person is sane, has been trained, follows the training, and will handle the weapon safely, so I'll feel a need to keep an eye on him or her. Not obsessively, but if there are 100 people in the target I'll be watching the rifle a bit more than the woman with a kid getting milk. It's something I don't want or need while shopping. I won't leave the store or promise never to come back till they ban weapons, but it's just added stress, however small, I prefer to avoid. And there is no reason for it. No one needs a firearm to shop safely.
 
Those fears need to be entertained insofar as those with irrational fears may act on them in ways that make life difficult for us. By voting for local politicians who might try to restrict your rights for example. And those restrictions might not pass constitutional muster but overturning even obviously bad laws takes time and money. Why create a problem where none existed?

Irrational fears should be dealt with by education, not by playing right into those fears.

I don't disagree....but i think we might disagree on how to educate.

as with most things, familiarity has the habit of assuaging fears.


not a direct comparison or anything, but i kinda see it similar to early civil rights battles... segregation didn't work to alleviate any fears or misconceptions of blacks or whites... tossing them all together , while a bit painful at first, has been a net benefit in terms of education and such.
when my school was desegregated, i had a leg up.. a lived in a predominately black neighborhood... I was familiar with them, and them with I.. me.. whatever.
many had irrational fears .. fears that subsided over time...well, for most of my peers anyways, there were still some around that were scared that dem darkies was coming to take da white wimminz or some such nonsense.
anyways, that was just a quick observation on the issue of education and how i see it... familiarity must be a part of the equation or it will be doomed to failure.
 
oh, I think of you thought about it long and hard you would come to the correct conclusion that private parties are not afforded the right or authority to violate civil liberties without fear of legal repercussions.

So, I can use my First Amendment rights to hold a church service on your private property?
Or, do I need to have your permission to do so?
 
So, I can use my First Amendment rights to hold a church service on your private property?
Or, do I need to have your permission to do so?

that depends on the nature of my property... i'm within my rights to exclude anyone from my home, however, commercial property wi5th public access is considered a bit different from my home.

if I have property that is commercially available for use as a gathering hall, a church could probably file suit against me if i refuse them public access on a religious basis.
much in the same way a certain bakery can't discriminate against gays based on a sexual orientation basis.;)
 
Re: Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores?

He fears guns in the hands of others.

I don't mind the insults - I 'fear' guns in the hands of others - but what's mystifying is I explained my position several times. Wouldn't it be easier to respond to those reasons instead of making up stuff?
 
Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores? | Today's Question | Minnesota Public Radio News

So there's pressure on Target to restrict gun carrying. Now my own opinion is that open carry like this is more harmful to gun rights. If guns are OK, what else should openly allowed? Should we openly allow gay sex in the frozen foods aisle? You have that right too, right? It's my right to go barefoot, but they won't let me do that.

The first though I had when I saw this thread was why in the hell is this in the Breaking News MSM forum? It's not even really "news", it certainly isn't "breaking news", and Minnesota Public Radio isn't exactly MSM. It's a subject for the Gun Forum.

The second thought I have is... Duh! Target has the right to allow or not allow guns in their store as they see fit. This isn't a gun control issue at all.

The third thought is... why did I even waste my time reading through this? It's an artificial "news" story designed to get people all riled up about nothing. Based on many of the responses in this thread, it worked.
 
Back
Top Bottom