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 15 of 54 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 538

Thread: Which right holds sway?

  1. #141
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,045

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Your own body > personal space > home/car > business building > land.

    All property rights are based on the rights of the individual, so when you undermine personal space you undermine your own land rights. Your entire argument is hypocritical.
    And you just confirmed that your entire argument is a strawman. Not once did I encourage the intrusion of any gun owners body or personal space. But I did show that private property owner can make demands of the people who wish to go onto their private property on what they can have in their possession. I also pointed out that a vehicle cannot or your person cannot be searched without your consent. If you do not consent to a search you may not be allowed on the property but that was your choice. Which is the key legal point to your complaint, you still have a choice to keep all of your possessions including your gun in your control. If you were in control of your possessions at all times your were not violated in any legal sense. Meaning that you have no case.

    I also established that private property rights are eroding. And to add to this erosion of property rights you want to add another law. At the core of the Constitution is private property rights.

    I think that you are still blinded by your perception that if a property owner wants to deny you access to their property for carrying a gun is a anti gun position. While the property owner may actually be a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. The property owners like myself are actually fighting for private property rights not gun control. I have not posted any signs stating my shop as a gun free zone. And as I have said I do allow people that carry to enter and remain on my property. I have also allowed them to bring other things onto my property and it did not bother me at all. But some people I do not allow to even be on my property whether they have a gun or not. My point is that as a property owner and employer I want to retain my right to determine what can and cannot be on my property. Not all Americans are good people, some people like the shooter in Colorado have ill intentions.

    I reserve the right to make the call on who can and cannot go unto my property regardless if they have a gun or not. If the law that you are asserting comes to reality I will be forced to let anyone with a gun on my property or possible be sued by a gun owner. That means that I cannot perform any judgement call and will be forced to allow someone that I do not feel safe around to come onto my property. Some legal gun owners actually go into movie theaters and shoot people.

  2. #142
    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 you just confirmed that your entire argument is a strawman. Not once did I encourage the intrusion of any gun owners body or personal space.
    Yes you did. Several times. Just as when an employer tries to ban guns in the employee's car, that is an intrusion on the employee's personal space, so is a ban on the employee carry a gun an intrusion on the employee's personal space.

    Please start respecting personal property rights.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-05-12 at 01:19 PM.

  3. #143
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,045

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Yes you did. Several times. Just as when an employer tries to ban guns in the employee's car, that is an intrusion on the employee's personal space, so is a ban on the employee carry a gun an intrusion on the employee's personal space.

    Please start respecting personal property rights.
    You keep ignoring the fact that you never loose possession of your gun at any point. If you submit to going onto the property without a gun you still own the gun and the gun is still in your possession. By doing so you agreed to the conditions that the property owner has set. If you do not submit to those conditions then you simply do not enter the private property.


    You have also ignored the legal example that a business may require that certain items of private property can and are banned as a condition of the invite. No one actually touches you and removes anything form your body. Anything that you remove from your body is done voluntarily. You have to submit to the request. Just like the property owner would have to submit voluntarily to approval of your person being on their property. When you are hired you have entered a contract with the person paying you. That contract must respect the law of the land. And the law of the land says that a property owner has the right to determine what physical objects can be on their property. Yes a human has rights but a physical object does not.

  4. #144
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    You are not allowed to infringe on my constitutional rights while I'm an employee in your service. Period. This is true for any and all employers who can't demonstrate a 'need'. It's not harming you, so don't make a deal out of it and let me get back to crafting what is going to become your beautiful new bathroom.
    When you win the battle, let me know. As for now, my private property rights trump guns.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  5. #145
    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
    You keep ignoring the fact that you never loose possession of your gun at any point. If you submit to going onto the property without a gun you still own the gun and the gun is still in your possession.
    Now you're trying to change Independent verifiable #3, ie 'personal possession'.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    By doing so you agreed to the conditions that the property owner has set. If you do not submit to those conditions then you simply do not enter the private property. You have also ignored the legal example that a business may require that certain items of private property can and are banned as a condition of the invite. No one actually touches you and removes anything form your body. Anything that you remove from your body is done voluntarily. You have to submit to the request. Just like the property owner would have to submit voluntarily to approval of your person being on their property. When you are hired you have entered a contract with the person paying you. That contract must respect the law of the land. And the law of the land says that a property owner has the right to determine what physical objects can be on their property. Yes a human has rights but a physical object does not.
    I agreed to no such thing. My armed presence on your property simply stands in silent violation of your silly little rule, and that's not illegal for me to do so long as I'm otherwise lawfully carrying.

    The law I propose is to safeguard personal property rights against unjustified infringement by employers. So far we've made some headway, getting our foot in the door by protecting an employee's car. It's only a matter of time before we shore up personal property rights to protect the individual's personal space; much of the required groundwork has been in place for decades.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-05-12 at 03:08 PM.

  6. #146
    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 MaggieD View Post
    When you win the battle, let me know. As for now, my private property rights trump guns.
    I'm letting you know, then, that the hand-gun ban of your state has been overturned by SCOTUS, and I'm further letting you know that SCOTUS has separately ruled that an employee may store a gun in their car while that car is on your private property no matter how much you don't like it.

    Its a small step to go from 'car' to 'individual', and the reasoning for each is identical.

    Your rights stop where mine begin, and mine begin at my arm's length (the common determinant for 'personal space').
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-05-12 at 03:14 PM.

  7. #147
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I'm letting you know, then, that the hand-gun ban of your state has been overturned by SCOTUS, and I'm further letting you know that SCOTUS has separately ruled that an employee may store a gun in their car while that car is on your private property no matter how much you don't like it.

    Its a small step to go from 'car' to 'individual', and the reasoning for each is identical.

    Your rights stop where mine begin, and mine begin at my arm's length (the common determinant for 'personal space').
    The gun ban was in Chicago and a few suburbs, and I'm aware of that. What I'm not aware of is a SCOTUS ruling that says one has the right to have a gun in their car on private property. Link?

    If you're right, then I think it may be because SCOTUS considers your car as your private property. That makes sense to me, actually.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  8. #148
    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 MaggieD View Post
    The gun ban was in Chicago and a few suburbs, and I'm aware of that. What I'm not aware of is a SCOTUS ruling that says one has the right to have a gun in their car on private property. Link?
    I was inaccurate. The 'guns in cars' issue is not a SCOTUS ruling, this is a fast-growing trend among states, for example:
    If your state allows concealed carry, then firing an employee who is licensed to carry, just because he or she keeps a gun in the car while parked at work, may invite a wrongful discharge suit. | Employment Law Daily

    On April 26, the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed summary judgment in favor of an employer that fired an employee for keeping a gun in his car (Mitchell v University of Kentucky). In finding that the employee’s wrongful discharge claim should have been allowed to proceed, the court pointed to Kentucky statutes that preclude employers from prohibiting individuals with concealed carry licenses from storing firearms in their vehicles, even while on property owned by the employer. Although the case involved a public employer, the Kentucky statute applies to private employers as well. Further, it provides that an employer that fires an employee for lawfully storing a gun in his or her vehicle could be liable for civil damages.
    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    If you're right, then I think it may be because SCOTUS considers your car as your private property. That makes sense to me, actually.
    That is the reasoning behind these laws.

    What I further argue is just as my car is my property, so is my person my property. It doesn't follow that a car would have more rights than it's owner. If I have a permit and am otherwise lawfully carrying, then firing me for carrying shouldn't be allowed.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-05-12 at 04:19 PM.

  9. #149
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,045

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Now you're trying to change Independent verifiable #3, ie 'personal possession'.
    No you are trying to ignore the fact that the gun owner never looses possession of his gun at all. The gun owner has to agree to the landowners request before he enters the property and thus leaves his gun wherever he chose to leave it. In such an agreement the gun owner did not lose anything on his person that he did not choose to leave behind in a place of his choosing.



    I agreed to no such thing. My armed presence on your property simply stands in silent violation of your silly little rule, and that's not illegal for me to do so long as I'm otherwise lawfully carrying.
    You did not agree to the terms of being an invitee so therefor passage on to the property was not allowed and now you are with your gun but not able to work until you follow a simple rule set by the landowner. It is not the landowners fault that you made the decision to not comply with his terms. Since you are presumed to be an adult you have the liberty to seek employment elsewhere.

    The law I propose is to safeguard personal property rights against unjustified infringement by employers. So far we've made some headway, getting our foot in the door by protecting an employee's car. It's only a matter of time before we shore up personal property rights to protect the individual's personal space; much of the required groundwork has been in place for decades.
    The law that you a re purposing will increase the landowners overhead necessary to ensure the safety of the property from accidental discharge of a firearm. And since the other employees will feel threatened in this age of work place violence there must be metal detecters at the entrances to the building to ensure that no employee enters the building carrying a weapon. And more guards and interference for the employees to assure that a fight will not escalate into gun fire. Because not every gun owner is level headed enough to not be stupid. But then above you said that we must allow a asshole with a gun on any landowners property regardless. Well you actually just agreed by saying "Yup"

    You actually have a weak argument in protecting private property rights that doesnt make much logical sense. In protecting private property rights you seem to be asserting that property that a person keeps on their person holds higher value Constitutionally than deeded land. Perhaps the root of the problem is that you are not a landowner?


    But I hear what you are saying though. You are basically saying that if you were to pick up a hitch hiker and noticed that they were carrying a gun, that you are asserting that the hitch hiker cannot be thrown out of your vehicle. Because the gun id on his person and you cannot dictate what is on another person body. How do you feel about abortion? Lol just kidding dont answer that I was just giving pro-choicers ammo.

    You or I should say the movement that you support is suggesting new laws. I am also making the suggestion that private property laws for land owners has eroded too much already. We do not need your stinking new laws hedging the Constitutional rights of landowners. I would also suggest that you think hard about the ramifications of the laws that you are backing. If special laws protect special citizens then more special laws will protect other special citizens which is a slippery slope to oblivion.

  10. #150
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,045

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Oh and i almost forgot the most important part of my argument. The state of New Mexico as I linked and posted states that a landowner has the right to chose whether to have a person carrying a gun on their property or not. That is a state law. Any federal laws saying otherwise would be dictating to the state of New Mexico on gun laws. Thats called federal intrusion to a state. I do not think that you are going to find a lot of gun owners that would back new federal laws telling states what they can or cannot do.
    Last edited by FreedomFromAll; 08-06-12 at 05:06 AM.

Page 15 of 54 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... 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
  •