View Poll Results: Which right holds sway?

Voters
79. You may not vote on this poll
  • 2nd Amendment

    17 21.52%
  • Property Rights

    62 78.48%
Page 12 of 54 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 538

Thread: Which right holds sway?

  1. #111
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    If you consider it an infringement, then so be it. It's a justified infringement, not the first, but one of several already in existence. You can't discriminate and you have to comply with building codes. If you don't like you can close shop.
    Oh, there's a lot of infringement going on, to be sure. If you want to infringe on employers rights, so be it. But know that it has nothing to do with the second amendment, or rights whatsoever. It's just increased big-government regulation being imposed on businesses.

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I didn't say you were.
    Then WTF are we talking about?

    Seriously, if we failed at discussing the thread topic then we're going to fail at talking about who was or was not talking about what.

    That's why I just restated my argument.

    I don't give a **** who did or did not say what. I want to discuss the topic, not all that stupid bull****.

  3. #113
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,797

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    I also don't believe the employer has the right to infringe on your Constitutional rights. BTW, I am very torn on this issue. Its a darned if you, darned if don't scenario IMO. As has been posted already, employers can't infringe on your religious rights or be racist towards you. Why can they take this right?
    It's quite simple. You want to keep working there, leave your gun at home. If you want to bring your gun, you won't have a job. Nobody is infringing on any rights, you have no right to a job.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  4. #114
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    It's quite simple. You want to keep working there, leave your gun at home. If you want to bring your gun, you won't have a job. Nobody is infringing on any rights, you have no right to a job.
    The elephant in the room, I think, is that this applies to race and religion as well.

    Frankly, it's the strict libertarian view on the matter, to oppose any sort of anti-discrimination laws. It should be within in private company's rights to discriminate however they please.

    So I can understand if you are not a strictly orthodox libertarian how you could make a case for this on similar grounds as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

  5. #115
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,927

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    That's my point exactly: The gun is my property and it's on my person, the employer does not have a default right to regulate my person, there has to be a 'need', general a search warrant along with it, therefore my private property rights take precedence.

    I'm sure the pro-choice'ers out there would agree: It's my body so it's my choice. The government has the obligation to protect my rights unless and until my executing those rights harms someone without justification. Merely carrying a concealed gun onto an employer's property doesn't effect you or anyone else in any way. It doesn't harm you so it must be allowed.
    While I am very pro 2nd amendment to the point I think you should be able to posses nuclear weapons if you so choose, in this case I stand with property right of the employer. They have the right to regulate as they see fit. That would include dicrimination based on whatever suits their fancy, including color creed sex ect. If you are on the employers property they are the masters of their domain. (They pretty much do what they damn well please.) That said if you at their place of employment and there is a shooting well they are fully culpible civily in my opinion because they denied you the ability to defend yourself especially if there is no overaching saftey concern such as explosives, hazadous eviorment ect. And they had inadequate security.
    Last edited by PirateMk1; 08-03-12 at 02:14 AM.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  6. #116
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,927

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    As a side note, empoyment should only be a temporary stepping stone to working for yourself, were you yourself can decide the rules. The nature of employment requires compliance, with your customer IE your employer. The customer is always right even if they are wrong. If dont want to compromise with employers dont be an employee. I've been in business for myself since 2006, I can tell you that I will never be able to work for anyone else again, I love the go out hunt it, kill it, drag it home, responsibility and mentality. Most employers would not be able to handle that mentality.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  7. #117
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,050

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    That's kind of insulting. You can't possibly believe that's a decent argument to allow discrimination against a constitutionally protected right. I would appreciate it if you would put a little more effort into your argument.
    Why you seem to add whatever you want to mine why should I bother? I never offered any view that was discriminatory against owning firearms. In fact I support the 2nd Amendment fully. I even go further than that and support the private ownership of assault rifles. If people can afford to buy bullets for automatic weapons why should it bother me? Well as long as they are following the laws and using them safely who cares. But I do not believe that it is the governments place to tell me what I can command other citizens not to bring on my property or in my place of business. If you do not feel safe on someone elses property and feel that you need a firearm to be safe perhaps it is not a wise place to be? At any rate its my call as a business and property owner to say whether I want you on my property or not. It is reasonable to let me be the judge of my properties safety not the guests.


    I know how to handle my own weapons I do not exactly trust some of the people that hire to be responsible with a weapon on my property. And if they do not like my judgement that they are idiots they can find another job. If they disagree and take me to court so be it. Ill take my chances with the Constitution thank you very much.

    There is no reason to expand laws that further hedge the rights of property owners. its bad enough that you need a permit to take a **** on your own property much less having the government dictate further what I can do or not do. Especially when it is a judgement call on the safety of myself, the peoples safety that I am by law responsible for and the property itself. I pay insurance and I can see how having an employee with a gun could raise the cost of the premiums.
    Last edited by FreedomFromAll; 08-03-12 at 02:30 AM.

  8. #118
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    There are some major flaws with this argument. First of all, political opinions are not protected from discrimination. Employers can fire employees for political opinions all the live long day.

    There are some things that employers cannot discriminate against, such as race and sex, but this is because of legislation, not because these things are constitutional rights.

    You have a constitutional right to freedom of speech, but an employer can fire you for saying the wrong thing. In at will employment states, an employer can fire you for no reason at all, except prohibited reasons like race and sex.

    So your argument is fundamentally faulty. But, honestly, not a bad attempt at a rational argument. Kudos
    It's going to take more then some loosely strung half-thoughts and a smily to overcome hard examples like NY where it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of political affiliation or activities. Keep trying though, maybe one day you'll stop ****ting all over this thread and try actually debating.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Oh, there's a lot of infringement going on, to be sure. If you want to infringe on employers rights, so be it. But know that it has nothing to do with the second amendment, or rights whatsoever. It's just increased big-government regulation being imposed on businesses.
    That's just something cute you folks say when you loose an argument. There's a reason your party never had a President in office, and you're a pretty example of why.

    It all comes down to property rights. There's the person, then the person's home/car/building, then the person's property, then the person's property which has been opened to the public.

    Just as you can't stop an employee from having a gun in their car while on your land, neither can you stop them from having a gun on their person while in your building. The right of the person is most important, so if you infringe on an employee's person, you devalue your own person and further devalue rights protected on your land. It doesn't logically follow that the car is protected since it's an extension of the employee, but the employee herself is not protected. That's how it all fits together, and the law needs to reflect that.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-03-12 at 04:43 AM.

  9. #119
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    It doesn't logically follow that the car is protected since it's an extension of the employee, but the employee herself is not protected.
    That's not necessarily true. For example, police often have a right to search ("pat down") a person without having the right to search locked areas of the vehicle in which that person is traveling. Obviously the law does recognize the difference between a person and a vehicle owned by that person, especially secured areas of that vehicle.

    Ed:
    Some state-specific examples:
    1. Endorsement does not authorize concealed firearms, where:
    (1) Any police, sheriff, or highway patrol office or station without the consent of the chief law enforcement officer in charge of that office or station. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of the office or station shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

    (2) Within twenty-five feet of any polling place on any election day. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of the polling place shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

    (3) The facility of any adult or juvenile detention or correctional institution, prison or jail. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of any adult, juvenile detention, or correctional institution, prison or jail shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;
    http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/missouri.pdf
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 08-03-12 at 05:17 AM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  10. #120
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    That's not necessarily true. For example, police ......
    Stop.
    Here's how I think you're moving the goal posts...

    Dependent Variable (the point we're debating):
    • Private person > Private Business.


    Independent Variables (the scope and context under which the point being debated should be true):
    • A right specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
    • A right which is otherwise being lawfully exorsized.
    • A private 'real', 'natural' person exorsizing the right.
    • A private business forbidding the exorsize of that right.


    IMO what you just did was change Independent Variable #4 from a privately owned building to a police officer in the performance of her duties. Cops can do many things private citizens can not, and it's not valid to interchange the two.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-03-12 at 07:48 AM.

Page 12 of 54 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •