• 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]

Refusing to back a cake for homosexuals violates ZERO civil liberties.

Yes it does. If you are in a business of baking cakes for humans, then you have to be willing to bake cakes for all humans if they choose to buy one from you, unless they violate the rules set by the business for shopping in your store, of which the rules may not violate civil rights.
 
Re: Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores?

No it isn't. It's a constitutional right. If a private sector business wants to ban guns from their properties, that's their prerogative. It's no different than a store with a 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' rule.

You can call it a constitutional right or a civil right - it doesn't matter considering BOTH are the same.

BTW it is a CIVIL RIGHT considering it is the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights - hence a CIVIL RIGHT/LIBERTY.

If you want to get into specifics constitutional rights are different than Civil liberties. But I'm in no mood to be giving civics/ US history lectures - especially on ideas that are generally thought of as common knowledge.

This may help you a bit, but I highly doubt it will change your mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_drafting_and_ratification_of_the_United_States_Constitution
 
Last edited:
Re: Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores?

And the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a civil right.

Meanwhile we have poor bakeries that refuse to bake a cake for homosexuals and they're massively under fire - and making someone bake a cake is NOT a civil liberty. If anything it's a basic lack of tolerance for those with religious views that prevent them from partaking in such a "wedding" or ceremony.

Carrying a gun is a civil liberty.

Refusing to back a cake for homosexuals violates ZERO civil liberties.


And we're back to "No gays = OK," "No guns = not OK." Both private businesses, but you are picking and choosing what you like and what you don't.

It's a logical nonsequitur.
 
You can call it a constitutional right or a civil right - it doesn't matter considering BOTH are the same.

BTW it is a CIVIL RIGHT considering it is the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights - hence a CIVIL RIGHT/LIBERTY.

If you want to get into specifics constitutional rights are different than Civil liberties. But I'm in no mood to be giving civics/ US history lectures - especially on ideas that are generally thought of as common knowledge.

Constitutional rights and civil rights are not one and the same. You know that. I know you're smarter than that. Civil rights cannot be taken away, constitutional rights can.
 
Re: Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores?

And we're back to "No gays = OK," "No guns = not OK." Both private businesses, but you are picking and choosing what you like and what you don't.

It's a logical nonsequitur.

It doesn't matter - forcing Christians to back a cake (which violates their First Amendment religious rights) is the fundamental problem with that issue.

You may as well claim you have the RIGHT to force Muslims to serve you pork...
 
Re: Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores?

It doesn't matter - forcing Christians to back a cake (which violates their First Amendment religious rights) is the fundamental problem with that issue.

You may as well claim you have the RIGHT to force Muslims to serve you pork...

I agree that constitutional rights should not be violated, but I don't think you know when and where the constitution is in effect. Target, or any business, making a rule that says you can't open carry inside of their stores violates no constitutional rights. Target can also kick you out of their store for cursing too loudly and it would not be a violation of your constitutional rights.
 
Constitutional rights and civil rights are not one and the same. You know that. I know you're smarter than that. Civil rights cannot be taken away, constitutional rights can.

Well the Bill of Rights is certainly part of the constitution, yet its a completely separate document.... Constitutional rights CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY. The Constitution is what founded our society. Perhaps under law the constitution could be amended - I have never seen anyone even attempt it, and I'm not sure the process it would take to amend the actual Constitution or even why...

The Bill of Rights on the other hand is a completely different story - there is no way in hell the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution will ever be changed - despite the progressive effort.
 
Well the Bill of Rights is certainly part of the constitution, yet its a completely separate document.... Constitutional rights CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY. The Constitution is what founded our society. Perhaps under law the constitution could be amended - I have never seen anyone even attempt it, and I'm not sure the process it would take to amend the actual Constitution or even why...

The Bill of Rights on the other hand is a completely different story - there is no way in hell the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution will ever be changed - despite the progressive effort.

Yes, Constitutional rights can be taken away. Convicted felons lose their right to vote and own guns, do they not? Why yes they do.

And the Bill of Rights is NOT a separate document from the Constitution. They are amendments to the constitution. Amendments are part of the Constitution, and there's a lot of them, not just the first 10 that make up the 'bill of rights'.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores?

I agree that constitutional rights should not be violated, but I don't think you know when and where the constitution is in effect. Target, or any business, making a rule that says you can't open carry inside of their stores violates no constitutional rights. Target can also kick you out of their store for cursing too loudly and it would not be a violation of your constitutional rights.

The idea violates the Second Amendment - it's that simple.

When you walk into a store do you see a sign that says "all civil liberties are left at the door?" Do you have any idea how many businesses are sued for violating individuals civil rights? -- so yes Civil Rights still apply in a business.
 
Re: Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores?

The idea violates the Second Amendment - it's that simple.

When you walk into a store do you see a sign that says "all civil liberties are left at the door?" Do you have any idea how many businesses are sued for violating individuals civil rights? -- so yes Civil Rights still apply in a business.

No it does not violate the second amendment. The second amendment is not a civil liberty, it is a constitutional right. The constitution does not come into play at all if Target decides to ban open carry from their stores. It is akin to a person not allowing open carry in their own home.
 
Yes, Constitutional rights can be taken away. Convicted felons lose their right to vote and own guns, do they not? Why yes they do.

And the Bill of Rights is NOT a separate document from the Constitution. They are amendments to the constitution. Amendments are part of the Constitution.

No they don't - not for life, just as long as they're on parole hence considered still property of the state.

Once an individual with a "felony" finishes his or her parole they can buy guns and vote because they served their time - they're free citizens.
 
No they don't - not for life, just as long as they're on parole hence considered still property of the state.

Once an individual with a "felony" finishes his or her parole they can buy guns and vote because they served their time - they're free citizens.

You are ignorant on this. No a convicted felon cannot (legally) own guns or vote, even after serving their sentence and being totally free and clear.
 
Re: Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores?

No it does not violate the second amendment. The second amendment is not a civil liberty, it is a constitutional right. The constitution does not come into play at all if Target decides to ban open carry from their stores. It is akin to a person not allowing open carry in their own home.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Corporations don't control civil liberties..... Now, if a business doesn't want someone open/carrying a gun in their store they have every right to deny them entry - that is their right, but they can't discriminate without a policy.
 
You are ignorant on this. No a convicted felon cannot (legally) own guns or vote, even after serving their sentence and being totally free and clear.

I was convicted of a class 4 felony when I was 18-years-old and I can vote and buy guns...

Once you're out of the system you can vote and buy guns.... Sure it takes 7 years for that felony to go away but you can still vote if you're off parole - it just takes 7 years to clear your name to buy a gun.

I've bought a few.
 
But still, I consider open carry to be idiotic:
1. If you open carry, you are the first target for a mass shooter. Especially when everyone else who has seen you open carrying look to you to "Do Something!"
2. If the police come looking for a man with a gun, its best to not be one.
I wasn't aware that anyone was talking about OC vs CC at all. I was talking about CC past a sign. Private businesses have every right to require a dress code and no visible arms as part of that dress code, but total disarmament is uncalled for.

If you would like to talk about OC vs CC, however, you can begin be providing a working link the comparative crime statistics or other credible source which lead you to your conclusions. For example, in any of the recent mass shootings, how many of the victims were OC'ing? The faculty at Sandy Hook? Any of the patrons in Aurora? Anyone OC'ing at that mall in Oregon? The only one I can think of was a guard at Fort Hood, but he was targeted because he was a guard much like police are targeted simply because they're police, not for their OC'd gun.

I look forward to reading your links.
 
Re: Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores?

You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Corporations don't control civil liberties..... Now, if a business doesn't want someone open/carrying a gun in their store they have every right to deny them entry - that is their right, but they can't discriminate without a policy.

So you are agreeing with me, disguised as arguing with me. I've been telling you that a business can ban guns on their property and the constitution does not come into play at all if they do, and you finally get it.
 
I was convicted of a class 4 felony when I was 18-years-old and I can vote and buy guns...

Once you're out of the system you can vote and buy guns.... Sure it takes 7 years for that felony to go away but you can still vote if you're off parole - it just takes 7 years to clear your name to buy a gun.

I've bought a few.
I have a friend who was convicted of manslaughter and will be able to buy guns in just a couple months.
 
I was convicted of a class 4 felony when I was 18-years-old and I can vote and buy guns...

Once you're out of the system you can vote and buy guns.... Sure it takes 7 years for that felony to go away but you can still vote if you're off parole - it just takes 7 years to clear your name to buy a gun.

I've bought a few.

My bad, it varies state by state, but in most states convicted felons can never own guns or vote again, so people do lose their constitutional rights.
 
Should Target take action to prevent people from walking around in their stores with long guns? That answer should come from Target itself, and not from the government, or political talking heads. If it is driving other people away, then it would be a good business practice to disallow carrying long guns inside their stores. And, if the bottom line is unaffected, and people are not leaving because they feel uncomfortable around others who carry long guns inside Target stores, then I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to carry long guns inside Target stores. It's all about the market place, and Target's decision will be based on the impact upon their business, and not based on politics. In short, common sense will rule here.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores?

I agree that constitutional rights should not be violated, but I don't think you know when and where the constitution is in effect. Target, or any business, making a rule that says you can't open carry inside of their stores violates no constitutional rights. Target can also kick you out of their store for cursing too loudly and it would not be a violation of your constitutional rights.

I know exactly what 'm talking about....

In reality I could sue a store if I was open and carrying and there was no sign posted that said such an act was forbidden.

It's store policies.

Hell, I could open a store and forbid gays from shopping there - they have no more constitutional right than an individual that open/carries.
 
Re: Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores?

I know exactly what 'm talking about....

In reality I could sue a store if I was open and carrying and there was no sign posted that said such an act was forbidden.

It's store policies.

In reality you could sue a store for absolutely anything you want to.

Hell, I could open a store and forbid gays from shopping there - they have no more constitutional right than an individual that open/carries.

You could do that, but you'd be forced to change or shut down very quickly. The two are not the same.
 
Should Target take action to prevent people from walking around in their stores with long guns? That answer should come from Target itself, and not from the government, or political talking heads. If it is driving other people away, then it would be a good business practice to disallow carrying long guns inside their stores. And, if the bottom line is unaffected, and people are not leaving because they feel uncomfortable around others who carry long guns inside Target stores, then I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to carry long guns inside Target stores. It's all about the market place, and Target's decision will be based on the impact upon their business, and not based on politics. In short, common sense will rule here.

Damn right it should be store policy and not government policy weather or not a business is willing to accept open carry, and I'm sure in some regions it's more acceptable to open/carry than others.

I'm still not sure why anyone would want to go shopping with a rifle, I could certainly see a sidearm but a rifle is just making a political statement - and there is nothing wrong with that.

Also, who really cares anyways?
 
Damn right it should be store policy and not government policy weather or not a business is willing to accept open carry, and I'm sure in some regions it's more acceptable to open/carry than others.

I'm still not sure why anyone would want to go shopping with a rifle, I could certainly see a sidearm but a rifle is just making a political statement - and there is nothing wrong with that.

Also, who really cares anyways?

Who on this thread argued that it SHOULDN'T be store policy? Of course it should be store policy, if they want it. Government doesn't come into play in this, and shouldn't.
 
Re: Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores?

In reality you could sue a store for absolutely anything you want to.



You could do that, but you'd be forced to change or shut down very quickly. The two are not the same.

Quit interchanging law with your opinions...

IF you can refuse to serve a man embracing his Second Amendment rights then you sure in the hell can refuse to serve a homosexual - who have ZERO rights beyond what the Bill of Rights grants them.
 
Who on this thread argued that it SHOULDN'T be store policy? Of course it should be store policy, if they want it. Government doesn't come into play in this, and shouldn't.

You want it to be store policy because you hate the Second Amendment and I would oppose such a store policy for tyrannical ideas.
 
Back
Top Bottom