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 13 of 54 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 538

Thread: Which right holds sway?

  1. #121
    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
    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.
    The case of police search was only one example. There are other examples that you did not address that do not rest on any special case of police powers.

    In fact, the link I provided offered 14 cases where a person cannot carry a concealed weapon on their person but is allowed to have said weapon in their vehicle. Forum rules prohibit me from displaying all 14 cases, so I only quoted three of them.

    http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/missouri.pdf
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 08-03-12 at 08:31 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

  2. #122
    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?

    What Jerry fails to understand is that, Ny laws notwithstanding, there is nothing in the Constitution that protects you from getting fired for political views. There isn't even anything in the Constitution that prevents an employer from firing you over race or religion (that is from federal statutory law).

    Anyway, you can always tell somebody's got a loser argument when they resort to ad hominem attacks.

  3. #123
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    .....do I really need to link employer anti-discrimination laws here.....just tell me right now, what level of debate are we going to have....are there things we already know, or do we need to start at square one....just let me know....I mean, I was looking forward to looking at levels of scrutiny, compare how different states handle the issue and their local crime rate....but evidently you aren't even aware of existing anti-discrimination limitations placed on employers by the government to protect employees....so just let me know where you're at.....
    Anti-discrimination laws are not the Constitution. The Constitution, in and of itself, does not protect you from having your rights limited by businesses. Since the second point is my argument, anti-discrimination laws are irrelevant to it.

  4. #124
    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
    The case of police search was only one example. There are other examples that you did not address that do not rest on any special case of police powers.

    In fact, the link I provided offered 14 cases where a person cannot carry a concealed weapon on their person but is allowed to have said weapon in their vehicle. Forum rules prohibit me from displaying all 14 cases, so I only quoted three of them.

    http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/missouri.pdf
    Oh you only want to talk about Missouri law?

    *****
    For the sake of clarity of context I'm riposting my argument for the casual reader:

    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.
    *****

    Now lets have a look at your link:

    Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 17 do not qualify under Independent Veritable #4 as I'm not talking about police stations, air-ports, federal buildings or schools.

    Item 7 doesn't qualify under Independent Variable #2 so long as the person carrying the firearm is not consuming alcohol. This is why many states now allow guns in malt-beverage-serving establishments. Therefore #7 should be repealed.

    Item 11 is without evidence that the mere presence of a concealed firearm is any danger to children. Without the ability to meet strict scrutiny this law is unconstitutional and should be repealed.

    Item 12 is justified due to the high consumption of alcohol by all patrons and the emotionally charged nature of gambling.

    Items 13, 14, and 15 are without merit since the mere presence of a concealed firearm is not a danger to anyone.

    ****
    So from your link, riverboat gambling is the only private business which has a 'need' and is thus justified in banning firearms. I would add to that any business which has above-ground refueling tanks or other hazardous chemicals.

  5. #125
    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
    Oh you only want to talk about Missouri law?

    *****
    For the sake of clarity of context I'm riposting my argument for the casual reader:

    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.
    *****

    Now lets have a look at your link:

    Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 17 do not qualify under Independent Veritable #4 as I'm not talking about police stations, air-ports, federal buildings or schools.

    Item 7 doesn't qualify under Independent Variable #2 so long as the person carrying the firearm is not consuming alcohol. This is why many states now allow guns in malt-beverage-serving establishments. Therefore #7 should be repealed.

    Item 11 is without evidence that the mere presence of a concealed firearm is any danger to children. Without the ability to meet strict scrutiny this law is unconstitutional and should be repealed.

    Item 12 is justified due to the high consumption of alcohol by all patrons and the emotionally charged nature of gambling.

    Items 13, 14, and 15 are without merit since the mere presence of a concealed firearm is not a danger to anyone.

    ****
    So from your link, riverboat gambling is the only private business which has a 'need' and is thus justified in banning firearms. I would add to that any business which has above-ground refueling tanks or other hazardous chemicals.
    Translation: "If the law doesn't agree with me then it must be wrong." LOL!
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 08-04-12 at 02:09 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

  6. #126
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,928

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Oh you only want to talk about Missouri law?

    *****
    For the sake of clarity of context I'm riposting my argument for the casual reader:

    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.
    *****

    Now lets have a look at your link:

    Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 17 do not qualify under Independent Veritable #4 as I'm not talking about police stations, air-ports, federal buildings or schools.

    Item 7 doesn't qualify under Independent Variable #2 so long as the person carrying the firearm is not consuming alcohol. This is why many states now allow guns in malt-beverage-serving establishments. Therefore #7 should be repealed.

    Item 11 is without evidence that the mere presence of a concealed firearm is any danger to children. Without the ability to meet strict scrutiny this law is unconstitutional and should be repealed.

    Item 12 is justified due to the high consumption of alcohol by all patrons and the emotionally charged nature of gambling.

    Items 13, 14, and 15 are without merit since the mere presence of a concealed firearm is not a danger to anyone.

    ****
    So from your link, riverboat gambling is the only private business which has a 'need' and is thus justified in banning firearms. I would add to that any business which has above-ground refueling tanks or other hazardous chemicals.
    Jerry for the most part I agree with you. However you way off the reservation on this one. My property, my business, my rules. Period. If I own a bar I welcome all with green, but if your strapin you aint drinkin. You wanna drink check your iron. You come to my home and I dont know you, you be checkin your iron. You work for me, because of my clients wishes you check your iron, cause your on my time with my clients. I dont agree you get to go on someone elses property and carry as you please. Same goes with being employed. Its a matter of mutual politeness and respect.
    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. #127
    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 PirateMk1 View Post
    My property, my business, my rules. Period.
    Well...your rules...and local building code rules...and liquor serving licence rules....and Public Accommodation rules...and Labor laws....etc...

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    If I own a bar I welcome all with green, but if your strapin you aint drinkin. You wanna drink check your iron.
    Sounds like we agree, then. If I'm armed then I'm not consuming alcohol, not because you say-so, but because that's already illegal through other regulation.

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    You come to my home and I dont know you, you be checkin your iron.
    You're ignoring the context and scope of my argument again. You're trying to change the goal-posts by changing Independent Variable #4 from a 'private business' to a 'private residence'. Please stop doing that.

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    You work for me, because of my clients wishes you check your iron, cause your on my time with my clients. I dont agree you get to go on someone elses property and carry as you please. Same goes with being employed. Its a matter of mutual politeness and respect.
    You toss respect right out the door when you want a gun-free zone but don't have a 'need'. Preference is invalid because gun-free zones are a public hazard, see the CO shooting.

    The instant you ask for my weapon and/or post a sign, you are being a disrespectful little punk.

  8. #128
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,062

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Well...your rules...and local building code rules...and liquor serving licence rules....and Public Accommodation rules...and Labor laws....etc...



    Sounds like we agree, then. If I'm armed then I'm not consuming alcohol, not because you say-so, but because that's already illegal through other regulation.



    You're ignoring the context and scope of my argument again. You're trying to change the goal-posts by changing Independent Variable #4 from a 'private business' to a 'private residence'. Please stop doing that.



    You toss respect right out the door when you want a gun-free zone but don't have a 'need'. Preference is invalid because gun-free zones are a public hazard, see the CO shooting.

    The instant you ask for my weapon and/or post a sign, you are being a disrespectful little punk.
    And again you do not need to be on anyone elses property, private home other otherwise. If you feel it is too dangerous to be at a establishment that has banned guns then it is your right to not go there. The laws already exist that allow people to choose whether they want firearms on their property, the fact that it is a business makes no difference to those laws. The only difference that it would make is if the business was a place that the laws already ban guns. So PirateMk1 was not moving any goal posts.

    As gun safety dictates high intensity populated locations are not a good place to discharge a weapon. Inside a poorly lit movie theater jam packed full of people would mean that if a citizen was carrying a gun that that person would have been hard pressed to find a clear target. On top of that the idiot shooter was wearing protective gear. A pea shooter would not have done anything but get the holder of the pea shooter shot. A good sized knife would have been the best weapon in those conditions. But in either case there is no guarantee of success as if someone else having a gun would magically save everyone. Especially if its one of those idiots at the shooting range that seem to hit the target 40% of the time. So yea perhaps it could have saved lives or not. As you know a person with a gun is a target. And in Colorado most likely anyone with a gun would have been out gunned.

  9. #129
    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 FreedomFromAll View Post
    And again you do not need to be on anyone elses property, private home other otherwise.
    When you hired me as a contractor, yes, I actually do have a right to be there. You gave me that right when you signed on the bottom line. You can't hit we with trespassing while I'm performing my job. You can't execute Castle Doctrine while I'm performing my job. In some cases you can't even fire me (exposed utility lines posing a 'Public Hazard' or the city needs your job finished by a deadline and replacing me would take to long). Should I be kicked off 'just because' you have an irrational fear of firearms, I can sue for the value of the contract, a lawsuit which will damage you far more than my pistol.

    When you sign any kind of contract, you are giving up some level of sovereignty.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    As gun safety dictates high intensity populated locations are not a good place to discharge a weapon.
    "Gun safety dictates" huh? I can't wait to see your link on that one....I'll go ahead and open my pre-written response file because I already know what I'm going to post in response to any link you could possibly give...

  10. #130
    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
    [...] Should I be kicked off 'just because' you have an irrational fear of firearms, [...]
    Guns don't make people afraid - people make people afraid. So, no, it wouldn't be an irrational fear of the gun you're carrying - it would be a very rational fear of a person so paranoid they feel a need to be armed at all times, even on someone else's property without giving them notice or option.
    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

Page 13 of 54 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... 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
  •