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 16 of 54 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 538

Thread: Which right holds sway?

  1. #151
    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?

    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.


    *****
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    No you are trying to ignore the fact that the gun owner never looses possession of his gun at all.
    I'm talking about concealed carry, you're talking about mere 'possession'. The gun could be left in my safe at my house and I would still have "possession" of it. I'm talking about carrying concealed on my person, and I've made that perfectly clear.

    It would be nice if you could confront my argument for what it is instead of shying away behind straw-men.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    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.
    Anti-gunners tried that argument, too, when trying to convince their state not to allow guns in employee cars. The link I provided above shows that states which do protect an employee's car, also specifically except the property/business owner from any and all liability.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    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.
    I'm talking about employees. A hitchhiker is not an employee, they are what the law calls a "social guest". You bringing up hitchhikers is another straw-man.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    How do you feel about abortion? Lol just kidding dont answer that I was just giving pro-choicers ammo.
    That's a good analogy, actually.

    • Mother = employer.
    • Womb = the business's building/land.
    • ZEF = the employee.


    If one values bodily sovereignty then one necessarily opposes elective abortion and supports an employee's right to carry while at work. However, if one is pro-choice then it follows that they would support banning guns on business property regardless of anyone else's personal rights.

    The analogy reaches it's limit, however, when we account for the fact that the ZEF is not the mother's employee, but is closer to the aforementioned "social guest". A 'social guest' per-se can be removed from private property for any or no reason, unless doing so would cause that social guest to die. Therefore it follows that elective abortion not be allowed when it would cause the death of the ZEF.

    Great analogy, you just proved my logical consistency across political topics, and for that I thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    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.
    What we don't need are mercury-saturated curly-Q light-bulbs, government controlled thermostats or mandatory 'energy-star rated' appliances. Those things harm the property owner and society in general, whereas a concealed pistol is a benefit to everyone.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-06-12 at 06:55 AM.

  2. #152
    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
    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.
    Just like when SCOTUS stepped in and told states they couldn't have handgun bans, or segregate schools...or will in the relatively near future tell states they have to allow and honor same-sex marriage.

    Yes, occasionally the federal government has to step in and safeguard individual rights against local state infringement.

  3. #153
    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
    Just like when SCOTUS stepped in and told states they couldn't have handgun bans, or segregate schools...or will in the relatively near future tell states they have to allow and honor same-sex marriage.

    Yes, occasionally the federal government has to step in and safeguard individual rights against local state infringement.
    The only individual right at stake here is the right to run your business as you see fit and exclude the people you want. You obviously have no concern for liberty.

  4. #154
    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
    The only individual right at stake here is the right to run your business as you see fit and exclude the people you want. You obviously have no concern for liberty.
    Banning guns is no more a business decision then banning blacks or gays. You obviously have no concern for liberty.

  5. #155
    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
    Just like when SCOTUS stepped in and told states they couldn't have handgun bans, or segregate schools...or will in the relatively near future tell states they have to allow and honor same-sex marriage.

    Yes, occasionally the federal government has to step in and safeguard individual rights against local state infringement.
    Ok so your movement is in support of more Federal controls of the States. Im sure that will go over well.

  6. #156
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,548

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Ok so your movement is in support of more Federal controls of the States. Im sure that will go over well.
    Not more Federal control, less state control. The Feds saying you can't ban hand hand guns from ownership within city limits etc, for example. They did not right a new law, they threw down the old's one as unconstitutional.

    So it depends.

    I do however agree that it is a property issue, not a particular gun issue per say.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 08-06-12 at 03:27 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  7. #157
    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
    Ok so your movement is in support of more Federal controls of the States. Im sure that will go over well.
    As per the 10th Amendment, it is the federal government's right to enforce gun regulation on all the states. Gun ownership is specifically enumerated, unlike same-sex marriage, so if an employer can be forced to honor a same-sex marriage then an employer can be forced to allow their employees to keep and carry at work.

  8. #158
    Guru
    Aberration's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 08:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,699

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    If government did not regulate business, did not issue business licenses, I would side with them being able to do whatever they want.

    Because they are licensed, I believe the government has an obligation to force compliance of protecting our Constitutional rights.
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”
    ― Thomas Jefferson

  9. #159
    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 Aberration View Post
    If government did not regulate business, did not issue business licenses, I would side with them being able to do whatever they want.

    Because they are licensed, I believe the government has an obligation to force compliance of protecting our Constitutional rights.
    And thus labor-law was born.

  10. #160
    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
    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.


    *****
    We are not actually talking about Private person rights vs Private Business rights. We are actually talking about Private property rights vs Private Property rights. I own land which is my private property which also not a government entity. When you enter my private property and tell me that you can carry a gun non matter what I say you have violated my control of my private property.It does not matter whether that land is a business or not since I am the owner of the private property I am the legally responsible party of that private property.

    An adult over 21 can have alcohol on their person legally. Yet there are private properties that do not allow you to have alcohol in your possession on their property. The Constitution also promises free movement within our borders yet you cannot freely enter private property at anytime that you wish.

    As a contractor you are not allowed to do whatever you want on the property that you are working on. You cannot just waltz into the off limits area of the property without permission. You also cannot in many cases use foul language as an employee around the customers. Doing so may get you fired on the spot. So much for free speech?


    I'm talking about concealed carry, you're talking about mere 'possession'. The gun could be left in my safe at my house and I would still have "possession" of it. I'm talking about carrying concealed on my person, and I've made that perfectly clear.

    It would be nice if you could confront my argument for what it is instead of shying away behind straw-men.
    I am confronting your argument. But you are not accepting any of the logic that I am showing you. For example in order for you to carry a weapon it must be in your possession. What you are calling mere possession is actually inescapable reality. If you are entering a piece of private property and are confronted with a rule that has banned you from carrying a gun you can take the gun off of the property and store in a place that you pick. So legally you ahve not lost possession of your gun at all. I raised this concept since you were asserting that your person was being violated while in reality your person was not violated at all.



    Anti-gunners tried that argument, too, when trying to convince their state not to allow guns in employee cars. The link I provided above shows that states which do protect an employee's car, also specifically except the property/business owner from any and all liability.
    The different states have different opinions on liability. You might want to look into that a little.


    I'm talking about employees. A hitchhiker is not an employee, they are what the law calls a "social guest". You bringing up hitchhikers is another straw-man.
    Ok so you are a taxi driver instead and the person is a customer.


    That's a good analogy, actually.

    • Mother = employer.
    • Womb = the business's building/land.
    • ZEF = the employee.


    If one values bodily sovereignty then one necessarily opposes elective abortion and supports an employee's right to carry while at work. However, if one is pro-choice then it follows that they would support banning guns on business property regardless of anyone else's personal rights.

    The analogy reaches it's limit, however, when we account for the fact that the ZEF is not the mother's employee, but is closer to the aforementioned "social guest". A 'social guest' per-se can be removed from private property for any or no reason, unless doing so would cause that social guest to die. Therefore it follows that elective abortion not be allowed when it would cause the death of the ZEF.

    Great analogy, you just proved my logical consistency across political topics, and for that I thank you.
    In your own mind sure. But for me you were not very logical, you just stretched things to make your claim look good.

    Mother = person

    Womb = inside of a person and is not controlled by the government

    ZEF = A shorthand online term used in pointless go nowhere debates about abortion.

    I am not going to turn this into an abortion debate. I you feel that you won something here I am willing to let you believe that and let you brag in order to stay out of the abortion debate all together.


    What we don't need are mercury-saturated curly-Q light-bulbs, government controlled thermostats or mandatory 'energy-star rated' appliances. Those things harm the property owner and society in general, whereas a concealed pistol is a benefit to everyone.

    A concealed pistol is not a benefit to everyone. You should have said a legally carried concealed firearm. You have already justified Federally intrusive laws that benefit your movement.
    Yet you seem to think that other Federally intrusive laws are unjustified. Either the Federal Government is being too intrusive or it ius not. We cannot pick and choose what is intrusive by our individual bias. If you grant the Federal Government powers they exist no matter what issues you support. Which means that the Federal Government will be within its power to ban guns as policy and that happened because of the collective result of the acceptance of Federally intrusive laws such as the one that your movement is proponents of.


    But you should be more educated about the laws that have been put in plce in the so called worker protection/parking lot law states. Workplace protection gun laws are usually limited to locked vehicles on employee parking lots. Thus, covered employers can often prohibit guns from company buildings and other areas. Some statutes allow the employer to ban handguns from a secured or gated parking lot. Under some statutes, employers can also designate certain parking lots for concealed handgun licensees, so long as the parking lot is reasonably close to the main parking lot. Not all states provide immunity that protect employers from liability. Respondeat superior, negligence in breach of a duty to protect employees, and negligence in hiring and retaining dangerous employees all pose a possibly liability for employers.


    The worker protection/parking lot laws have not been challenged yet in the courts to any real degree. Beyond those laws it will be a tough sell to go beyond and force an employer to allow an employee to carry a concealed weapon while working. Parking lot laws are nothing compared to the resistance that you will see from employers and employees when you guys start pushing for workplace guns.
    Last edited by FreedomFromAll; 08-06-12 at 05:08 PM.

Page 16 of 54 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... 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
  •