• 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!

Don’t shoot: NRA bans guns from its annual meeting

No, they should not. It's their property, they need not demonstrate any damn thing at all except a desire to keep certain things off of their property. If you don't like their rules, don't go onto their property. Where is the issue here?

You never loose your right to carry.

You can only relinquish it by choice in order to gain access to their property.

Since all evidence shows that guns lower crime, by barring firearms they are posing a public hazard no different in nature then a factory with exposed machinery. They need to file for a permit to justify/regulate that hazard and have their property zoned accordingly. Hospitals and government buildings are examples of locations which could justify the public hazard.

IMO, posting a sign that no firearms are allowed in your home is exactly identical to posting a sign stating that you have Black Mold. you can't just just choose to keep the hazard on your property. You have to clean it up. So sure, maybe we should treat such anti-gun signs and behaviors as criminal activity and subject the home owner to civil and criminal penalties for refusing firearms in the home.
 
Last edited:
Jerry, no matter how many ways you slice it, you can force someone to not carry a gun on your property, period. Gun laws, gun stats, safety stats, none of that matters. What matters is who's name is on the deed to the land. THATS who makes the rules.
 
Last edited:
Since all evidence shows that guns lower crime, by barring firearms they are posing a public hazard no different in nature then a factory with exposed machinery. They need to file for a permit to justify/regulate that hazard and have their property zoned accordingly. Hospitals and government buildings are examples of locations which could justify the public hazard.

One might be able to argue that it is a hazard, but it is impossible to call it a public one.

As such, the government has no authority to infringe upon property rights.
 
Jerry, no matter how many ways you slice it, you can force someone to not carry a gun on their property, period. Gun laws, gun stats, safety stats, none of that matters. What matters is who's name is on the deed to the land. THATS who makes the rules.

It's wise to keep context when in discussion forums.

You're talking about the current state of the law.

That's not at all what I'm talking about.

What I said was:
I can't agree with the notion that we should leave rights at the door if that's what a private business owner wishes.

"All women who enter are subject to rape."

"Children may be confiscated and sold at the building owner's discretion"

No one should have the authority to keep you from your weapon while on their private property any more then they can keep you from drawing breath.

Everyone already shakes hands and agrees to a mutual understanding of the current state of affairs, but if you would like to join us in discussing theory please jump right in.
 
I'm going based off of your OP, which is what you quoted. You said no one should have authority to keep you from your weapon while on private property. I said that's bull****, damn right I have the authority to and I SHOULD have the authority to.

That being said I would NEVER do that, but.....I would ALWAYS fight for the right of the landowner to have that freedom.

Your comment about discussing theory is moot.
 
Last edited:
One might be able to argue that it is a hazard, but it is impossible to call it a public one.

If it's a public building, it's a public hazard. A private home may not be a public hazard, but then regulation would simply fall within a different section of the title code.

Being pregnant: Not a hazard.
Being Black: Not a hazard.
Remaining un****ed: Not a hazard.
Breathing: Not a hazard.
Being unarmed: Hazard.

As such, the government has no authority to infringe upon property rights.

So just do away with building code, aye? Let people build whatever they like, how ever they like, wherever they like?
 
Last edited:
Anyone who thinks Raw Story is a legitimate source for news should have their head examined. Maybe there should be a forum entitled "*Breaking News* - Lying Bastards" for this kind of bull****.
 
No I'm saying that if you invite anyone into your home, you are giving them permission to carry in the same act.

You are, unless you specifically tell them "You may not bring a gun in my home".

If you proceed to do so you are then trespassing, as you are entering their personal property against their permission, as their permission for you to be on their property ONLY extends to you if you do not have a gun on your person. Once you do, you are trespassing, and therefore violating their rights and the law.

Denying someone to carry is identical to denying someone to breath. If someone says "stop breathing or GTFO", I would of course leave.

Of course you would. Because if you didn't you'd be trespassing and breaking the law and infringing upon their property rights. No one ever said someone has to have a reasonable reason to bar you from their home.

This person is being highly irrational just as those who say "don't bring you firearm in my home" are.

No, the only thing that is irrational is comparing something that is physically and scientifically proven and undisputable as being necessary for the continuation for life to carrying a firearm.

If someone says "you can't be pregnant in my home", they are being irrational.

And yet are fully in their right to tell said person to leave their home, and if they don't that person is trespassing.

If someone says "you can't be Black in my home", they are being irrational.

And yet are fully in their right to tell said person to leave their home, and if they don't that person is trespassing.

These are exactly the same as "you can't be armed in my home".

Um, no, the black one is not exactly the same. You really need to learn what words mean jerry, when you use them in error it makes your argument ridiculous. One can not simply, say, leave their "blackness" in the car. They can not store their blackness at home. They can not store their blackness in some other location. You can do that with your gun. It is not exactly the same.

As to a public building, the owner should have to demonstrate a need to disarm the public in order to bar firearms. "zomg gunzorz r baaad mmkay rfol kthxby" doesn't cut it.

"I believe patrons of my business will fill uncomfortable with guns present, thereby causing me financial damage in loss of business, and as such disallow guns into my place of business".

Perfectly reasonable.

You don't seem to grasp that your gun rights does not violate their private property rights. They can't "move" their private property, you can your gun. They aren't entering into your gun ownership, you are entering into their private property. You are making the CHOICE to enter into their private property and, in ignoring their rules, CHOOSING to violate their private property rights and FORCING them to experience that violation. They have no choice in whether or not your violate their private property, and thus why we have law enforcement. On the contrary, you DO have a choice. You have the choice not to enter that facility.
 
Last edited:
As much of a gun supporter as I am, this is just not true. You have NO RIGHT to be on someone elses property, period. They are ALLOWING you onto their property. In that instance, you have to abide by their rules, period. No one is making you go on their property. If you step foot on someones land with a gun and they specifically say no guns they can deem you an immediate threat and shoot to kill.

I can make any rule I want to on my property and you must obey or I can have you removed. You have ZERO RIGHT to my land. You better damn well believe I can make you leave your gun in your car.

Gun-Free zones are hazards. If you can't justify the hazard, you need to remove that hazard.

If you don't want firearms in your home because....your grandmother who lives with you uses oxygen...there's an exposed gas line being maintenanced.....SHIZZAM my ass had better keep that Glock in the car.

If you give me das-boot because I refuse to disarm I should be able to file a complaint with the county, have you inspected and subject to fines if you don't have a permit for that hazard.
 
Last edited:
Jerry, you are comical. You say "gun free zones are hazards." Well, thats up for debate, the debate is whether you have the right to infringe on someones rights to deny you access to your firearm while on their property.

I don't need a permit to say leave your gun in your car or else don't come on my property.

Jerry, are you just playing games? You really think you can call the law on someone who kicks you off their property because you have a gun? Yea, and I'll file harassment charges on you quick as you please.
 
If it's a public building, it's a public hazard. A private home may not be a public hazard, but then regulation would simply fall within a different section of the title code.

Being pregnant: Not a hazard.
Being Black: Not a hazard.
Remaining un****ed: Not a hazard.
Breathing: Not a hazard.
Being unarmed: Hazard.



So just do away with building code, aye? Let people build whatever they like, how ever they like, wherever they like?

Gun-Free zones are hazards. If you can't justify the hazard, you need to remove that hazard.

If you don't want firearms in your home because....your grandmother who lives with you uses oxygen...there's an exposed gas line being maintenanced.....SHIZZAM my ass had better keep that Glock in the car.

If you give me das-boot because I refuse to disarm I should be able to file a complaint with the county, have you inspected and subject to fines if you don't have a permit for that hazard.

Did someone forget to take their medication this morning... ? :shock:
 
You are, unless you specifically tell them "You may not bring a gun in my home".

If you proceed to do so you are then trespassing, as you are entering their personal property against their permission, as their permission for you to be on their property ONLY extends to you if you do not have a gun on your person. Once you do, you are trespassing, and therefore violating their rights and the law.



Of course you would. Because if you didn't you'd be trespassing and breaking the law and infringing upon their property rights. No one ever said someone has to have a reasonable reason to bar you from their home.



No, the only thing that is irrational is comparing something that is physically and scientifically proven and undisputable as being necessary for the continuation for life to carrying a firearm.



And yet are fully in their right to tell said person to leave their home, and if they don't that person is trespassing.



And yet are fully in their right to tell said person to leave their home, and if they don't that person is trespassing.



Um, no, the black one is not exactly the same. You really need to learn what words mean jerry, when you use them in error it makes your argument ridiculous. One can not simply, say, leave their "blackness" in the car. They can not store their blackness at home. They can not store their blackness in some other location. You can do that with your gun. It is not exactly the same.



"I believe patrons of my business will fill uncomfortable with guns present, thereby causing me financial damage in loss of business, and as such disallow guns into my place of business".

Perfectly reasonable.

You don't seem to grasp that your gun rights does not violate their private property rights. They can't "move" their private property, you can your gun. They aren't entering into your gun ownership, you are entering into their private property. You are making the CHOICE to enter into their private property and, in ignoring their rules, CHOOSING to violate their private property rights and FORCING them to experience that violation. They have no choice in whether or not your violate their private property, and thus why we have law enforcement. On the contrary, you DO have a choice. You have the choice not to enter that facility.

You're creating a hazard without a justification. That's irrational.

The way to be free of a Gun-Free zone and keep your patrons happy is to only allow concealed carry.
 
Last edited:
Did someone forget to take their medication this morning... ? :shock:

Mods, please do not warn/infract her for that, I like it when she gets feisty :devil:
 
Mods, please do not warn/infract her for that, I like it when she gets feisty :devil:

I'm just sayin'....

You seem a little paranoid ;)

Oh wait! You've been hitting the doobies, haven't ya? I wondered where my stash went. :2razz:
 
Jerry, you are comical. You say "gun free zones are hazards." Well, thats up for debate, the debate is whether you have the right to infringe on someones rights to deny you access to your firearm while on their property.

I don't need a permit to say leave your gun in your car or else don't come on my property.

Jerry, are you just playing games? You really think you can call the law on someone who kicks you off their property because you have a gun? Yea, and I'll file harassment charges on you quick as you please.

Yes, although I would like to see this happen, I know fully well that it will not, and am thus playing games. It's debate, we're not here to site around and play scrabble (rivrrat would kick my ass at scrabble anyway).
 
It's already been said, but no right is being infringed upon, as nothing is forcing you to enter the building. If you want to keep your gun, then don't go in. You have a choice.
 
It's already been said, but no right is being infringed upon, as nothing is forcing you to enter the building. If you want to keep your gun, then don't go in. You have a choice.

What if there was something forcing me into the building?

Let's say my X came over with the kids for a b-day party, had a little to much to drink and is leaving with a friend. She calls me and tells me to pick up the kids.

You don't know I'm armed when I approach because I carry concealed. Once in your home you notice something, note that it's a firearm and tell me to leave.

Kids aren't ready and the only person I know is my drunk X.

I'm not leaving until my kids are good to go.

I have a right to protect my children. I have a right in the care, control and custody of my children. By trying to force me out you are trying to violate my rights.

Not to sound like an ass, but that's something I would be willing to go to jail for. I would have no problem telling my NCO that I got arrested for trespassing because I wouldn't leave my children alone with my drunken X and a group of strangers.

I would be cool and civil with you, but if push came to shove, I'm not abandoning my kids.
 
Last edited:
Don’t shoot: NRA bans guns from its annual meeting

Can someone tell me where this title came from?
 
You're creating a hazard without a justification. That's irrational.

Except for those studies are not air-tight and are controversial at best, and attempting to make an argument based on them as if they're absolute fact is hilarious in and of themselves. If those studies alone were reason enough to actually back up your statement there would be no states that have strict gun laws or cities that outright disallow guns for the most part...all of which isn't the case. Because you have a few studies, that are contested, does not mean its absolute fact it creates a hazard. This is not the same as the notion that not wearing a hardhat on a construction site creates a hazard.

Cease your attempts at poor logic, its almost as hilarious as you glossing over the vast majority of my posts pointing out your other flawed arguments.

The way to be free of a Gun-Free zone and keep your patrons happy is to only allow concealed carry.

No, that's A way, and its a poorer one because they're still aware of the possibility there may be a firearm and thus still potentially uneasy about entering the establishment.

Face it, you're argument is that somehow YOUR right is more important than theirs. This is not the case. Rights are not tiered. You have a right to carry a firearm. A home or business owner has a right to private property. As long as those two rights do not come into conflict you both are fine. Once one person forces a violation of someone elses rights however a problem ensues. A person stating that you can not carry a gun into their business is not violating your right, because he is not keeping you from carrying a gun. You are free to still walk around with that gun wherever you like according to him, just not in his place of business. However, you forcefully entering his private property without following his rules is forcefully infringing upon his rights and thus negates your right to carry a firearm. Unlike the case with your rights, he can not magically pick up and move his building. He is not taking any action that is forcefully infringing upon someone elses rights, the gun owner is.
 
What if there was something forcing me into the building?

Let's say my X came over with the kids for a b-day party, had a little to much to drink and is leaving with a friend. She calls me and tells me to pick up the kids.

You don't know I'm armed when I approach because I carry concealed. Once in your home you notice something, note that it's a firearm and tell me to leave.

Kids aren't ready and the only person I know is my drunk X.

I'm not leaving until my kids are good to go.

I have a right to protect my children. I have a right in the care, control and custody of my children. By trying to force me out you are trying violating my rights.

Not to sound like an ass, but that's something I would go to jail for. I would have no problem telling my NCO that I got arrested for trespassing because I wouldn't leave my children alone with my drunken X and a group of strangers.

I would be coll and civil with you, but if push came to shove, I'm not abandoning my kids.
You wouldn't have to leave your kids there. You'd just have to leave your gun in car.

Problem solved. Your kids are safe, you're not forced anywhere. No pushing. No shoving. No officers required.
 
What if there was something forcing me into the building?

Let's say my X came over with the kids for a b-day party, had a little to much to drink and is leaving with a friend. She calls me and tells me to pick up the kids.

You don't know I'm armed when I approach because I carry concealed. Once in your home you notice something, note that it's a firearm and tell me to leave.

Kids aren't ready and the only person I know is my drunk X.

I'm not leaving until my kids are good to go.

I have a right to protect my children. I have a right in the care, control and custody of my children. By trying to force me out you are trying to violate my rights.

Not to sound like an ass, but that's something I would go to jail for. I would have no problem telling my NCO that I got arrested for trespassing because I wouldn't leave my children alone with my drunken X and a group of strangers.

I would be coll and civil with you, but if push came to shove, I'm not abandoning my kids.

If you were armed and refused to leave when directed, the home owner would be within his rights to use his gun.

Because the point where you refuse to leave is the point when you become an armed intruder.

It is perfectly legal to shoot an armed intruder.

If that scenario ever happened, go back outside, put the gun in the trunk, come back in and get the kids.

It's the safer alternative.
 
Except for those studies are not air-tight and are controversial at best, and attempting to make an argument based on them as if they're absolute fact is hilarious in and of themselves. If those studies alone were reason enough to actually back up your statement there would be no states that have strict gun laws or cities that outright disallow guns for the most part...all of which isn't the case. Because you have a few studies, that are contested, does not mean its absolute fact it creates a hazard. This is not the same as the notion that not wearing a hardhat on a construction site creates a hazard.

Cease your attempts at poor logic, its almost as hilarious as you glossing over the vast majority of my posts pointing out your other flawed arguments.



No, that's A way, and its a poorer one because they're still aware of the possibility there may be a firearm and thus still potentially uneasy about entering the establishment.

Face it, you're argument is that somehow YOUR right is more important than theirs. This is not the case. Rights are not tiered. You have a right to carry a firearm. A home or business owner has a right to private property. As long as those two rights do not come into conflict you both are fine. Once one person forces a violation of someone elses rights however a problem ensues. A person stating that you can not carry a gun into their business is not violating your right, because he is not keeping you from carrying a gun. You are free to still walk around with that gun wherever you like according to him, just not in his place of business. However, you forcefully entering his private property without following his rules is forcefully infringing upon his rights and thus negates your right to carry a firearm. Unlike the case with your rights, he can not magically pick up and move his building. He is not taking any action that is forcefully infringing upon someone elses rights, the gun owner is.

I'm certain I have a Standard Issue Response for this on a thumb drive somewhere....hold on....made it while I was hanging out on AtheistIreland.com....one sec....
 
If you were armed and refused to leave when directed, the home owner would be within his rights to use his gun.

Because the point where you refuse to leave is the point when you become an armed intruder.

It is perfectly legal to shoot an armed intruder.

If that scenario ever happened, go back outside, put the gun in the trunk, come back in and get the kids.

It's the safer alternative.

Why would a gun owner oppose people carrying...and how much did he have to drink....hmm...

Anyway, I would have to pose some kind of threat to him. Packing up my kids is not a threat. No, I'm not going back out. I'm not leaving my kids with a group of drunken strangers and a drunken X, especially if the homeowner is waving around a firearm. Hell ****ing no. The home owner will just have to keep his cool and we'll be out asap.
 
You wouldn't have to leave your kids there. You'd just have to leave your gun in car.

Problem solved. Your kids are safe, you're not forced anywhere. No pushing. No shoving. No officers required.

leaving the gun in the car is the problem, because being unarmed is a hazard.

Home owner notices, everyone keeps their cool, I pick up kids and go. No problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom