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 20 of 54 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 538

Thread: Which right holds sway?

  1. #191
    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 are barking up the wrong tree since I oppose Federally protected classes.
    Federally protected classes aren't going away, and what you view as an encroachment of your rights is going to continue, mostly because you're taking a position which is impossible to win; the elimination of Federally protected classes.

    You would do well to use this forum to learn how to combat an argument's merits, show that the conclusion is not necessarily the logical consequence of it's premises, instead of trying to change it's premises (logical fallacies called Straw-Man and Moving the Goal Posts), which is all you've don on this thread.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-08-12 at 09:03 AM.

  2. #192
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    05-01-14 @ 03:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    12,879

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Let's see if I can come up with a means to make everyone either Happy or Unhappy, depending on how you look at it.......

    If you wish to deny me my RTKBA on your property, it should have to be indicated at the edge of your property. Whether that is the door to your building, the driveway, walkway, etc.... It should be required to be a large enough sign to ensure it is visible at all times. You should also be required to provide this information to the local and state police agencies and to maintain sufficient liability insurance in case I am assaulted and injured while unable to defend myself while on your property.

    If you are a commercial business and you wish to deny me my RTKBA on your property, you should be required to provide a couple things.....

    1. A means to legally secure my firearm while I am on your property doing business with you.
    2. Armed security to ensure my safety while on your property

  3. #193
    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
    Amen, brother! People need to realize that guns are great, but you can't put guns above liberty.
    There wouldn't be a first, without the second.

  4. #194
    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 Tigger View Post
    Let's see if I can come up with a means to make everyone either Happy or Unhappy, depending on how you look at it.......

    If you wish to deny me my RTKBA on your property, it should have to be indicated at the edge of your property. Whether that is the door to your building, the driveway, walkway, etc.... It should be required to be a large enough sign to ensure it is visible at all times. You should also be required to provide this information to the local and state police agencies and to maintain sufficient liability insurance in case I am assaulted and injured while unable to defend myself while on your property.

    If you are a commercial business and you wish to deny me my RTKBA on your property, you should be required to provide a couple things.....

    1. A means to legally secure my firearm while I am on your property doing business with you.
    2. Armed security to ensure my safety while on your property
    I fall on the 'unhappy' side, naturally.

    I seek protection of my right to carry a firearm everywhere not specifically designated as a 'gun-fee' zone by Federal law. There will be no compromise, no middle ground, and I will not agree to disagree.

    So long as my right to carry is protected, I will offer concessions to the employer while the firearm is on my person. These concession include but are not limited to:
    • The employer my make a copy of my CCW for their records.
    • The employer my apply dress-code standards to the method of carrying the firearm.
    • The employer is exempt from liability from the use of a firearm on their property.

  5. #195
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    396

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I fall on the 'unhappy' side, naturally.

    I seek protection of my right to carry a firearm everywhere not specifically designated as a 'gun-fee' zone by Federal law. There will be no compromise, no middle ground, and I will not agree to disagree.

    So long as my right to carry is protected, I will offer concessions to the employer while the firearm is on my person. These concession include but are not limited to:
    • The employer my make a copy of my CCW for their records.
    • The employer my apply dress-code standards to the method of carrying the firearm.
    • The employer is exempt from liability from the use of a firearm on their property.
    My property = my right to say who is allowed on it for whatever reason I want. If I want to not allow you on it because you have brown eyes, I have that right. If I want to ban you from my premises because you have a gun, that's my right. And if you choose to not come on my land without a gun, that's your right.

  6. #196
    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?

    Evidently I need to repost my argument more frequently:

    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 fredmertzz View Post
    My property = my right to say who is allowed on it for whatever reason I want. If I want to not allow you on it because you have brown eyes, I have that right. If I want to ban you from my premises because you have a gun, that's my right. And if you choose to not come on my land without a gun, that's your right.
    You don't have any such right to do that to an employee now, to say that right should be protected.

    If you hire someone and then fire them just because they have brown eyes, they are going to win a wrongful-termination claim against you and draw unemployment off of you:
    Wrongful Termination of At Will Employment

    The Civil Rights Act in 1964 extended anti-discrimination protections to employees, whose employment could no longer be terminated for reasons such as their race, gender, skin color, religion, or national origin. Additional legal protections now exist to deter certain forms of age discrimination. Following the creation of these anti-discrimination laws, it became possible for employees to argue that their terminations were "pretextual" - that is, although their employers were citing lawful reasons to terminate their employment, their employers were actually motivated by unlawful discriminatory motives.

    ~snip~

    Some states will permit an "at will" employee to bring a lawsuit on the basis that the employer violated an implied covenant of "good faith and fair dealing" in association with the termination decision. In such states, even with an at-will employee, the employer must extend some degree of fairness in the decision to terminate employment.
    I argue that 'lawful possession of a firearm' be added to the list due to the fact that laws supporting preferences of private property owners do not meet SCOTUS "Strict Scrutiny" standards.

    ***
    If you operate a private business and then kick a customer out just because they have brown eyes, you will be cited by the city for braking Public Accommodation codes.

    ***
    The way you win this argument is to demonstrate a 'need' to keep firearms off your property. 'My property, my rules' fails the SCOTUS "Strict Scrutiny" standard because a right always supersedes preference.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-08-12 at 10:32 AM.

  7. #197
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    05-01-14 @ 03:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    12,879

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I fall on the 'unhappy' side, naturally.

    I seek protection of my right to carry a firearm everywhere not specifically designated as a 'gun-fee' zone by Federal law. There will be no compromise, no middle ground, and I will not agree to disagree.

    So long as my right to carry is protected, I will offer concessions to the employer while the firearm is on my person. These concession include but are not limited to:
    • The employer my make a copy of my CCW for their records.
    • The employer my apply dress-code standards to the method of carrying the firearm.
    • The employer is exempt from liability from the use of a firearm on their property.
    Jerry, I understand where you're coming from. I'm much closer to your side on this than it might seem. I have businesses and individuals who I no longer interact with because I am not allowed to carry a firearm when interacting with them. However, I can also see why certain types of business (banks, jewelry stores, etc...) do not like the idea of having armed customers on their property. I can also understand why a private property owner might want to restrict the individuals who are allowed access to their property. Naturally, my first suggestion to those individuals is a fence with a locked gate, but that isn't always what they prefer.

    We have to find a reasonable middle ground on this topic, or we're going to keep having the arguement ad infinitum.

  8. #198
    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 Tigger View Post
    Jerry, I understand where you're coming from. I'm much closer to your side on this than it might seem. I have businesses and individuals who I no longer interact with because I am not allowed to carry a firearm when interacting with them. However, I can also see why certain types of business (banks, jewelry stores, etc...) do not like the idea of having armed customers on their property. I can also understand why a private property owner might want to restrict the individuals who are allowed access to their property. Naturally, my first suggestion to those individuals is a fence with a locked gate, but that isn't always what they prefer.

    We have to find a reasonable middle ground on this topic, or we're going to keep having the arguement ad infinitum.
    All banks insured by FDIC (which is pretty much just 'all banks') are Federal "gun-free" zones. Anyone other than police, military, or armed currier bringing a firearm into a bank is comitting a Federal offence. They are not otherwise lawfully carrying that firearm (see my Independent Variable #2). Otherwise lawfully carrying the firearm is a premise of my argument. The moment the firearm is not otherwise legally carried, I'm not defending it.

    I invite you to source a jewelry store's 'need' to be a gun-free zone, especially considering the following:

    The moment 65-year-old woman thwarts robbery on jewellery store after opening fire on five armed men
    By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
    PUBLISHED: 14:07 GMT, 4 August 2012 | UPDATED: 14:50 GMT, 4 August 2012


    Five armed men who attempted to rob a jewellery store were left scrambling for the door when a 65-year-old woman opened fire on them.
    The handgun-wielding thieves, clad in hoodies, were forced to flee Continental Jewelry in Garden Grove, California, after the woman chased after them last week.
    The men pulled up to the store in a white Ford SUV and entered one by one, pointing their guns at the clerks and one customer.

    They ordered everybody to drop to the ground, while opening up pillowcases and demanding cash in what was likely to be a violent smash-and-grab heist.

    But the robbers were thwarted in their tracks when the 65-year-old storeowner heard the commotion from the back of the store.

    She ran into the main room while firing two rounds, causing the men to panic and attempt to flee the store.
    The one-minute incident, which was captured on surveillance camera, shows the men falling over and stumbling into each other as they try to open the door.
    You're telling me that the average CCW citizen, who has passed a background check, is the same as these criminals who have no regard for the law or the public?
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-08-12 at 11:05 AM.

  9. #199
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    396

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    All banks insured by FDIC (which is pretty much just 'all banks') are Federal "gun-free" zones. Anyone other than police, military, or armed currier bringing a firearm into a bank. They are not otherwise lawfully carrying that firearm (see my Independent Variable #2). Otherwise lawfully carrying the firearm is a premise of my argument. The moment the firearm is not otherwise legally carried, I'm not defending it.

    I invite you to source a jewelry store's 'need' to be a gun-free zone, especially considering the following:

    Continental Jewelry: The moment woman, 65, thwarts robbery on store after opening fire on five armed men | Mail Online
    Under this logic, would you suggest legally licensed-to-carry individuals ought to be able to bring guns into local courthouses, etc.? What more 'need' does the court house have that a jewelry store owner does not have?

    You do not have a 'right' to be on my property unless the government says that you do not. We're not talking about the right to bear arms. We're talking about your right to be on my property. Which you will have if I say you have, as it is MY property. If I set requirements, you ought to abide and the government ought to respect my rights as the owner of the property. I understand that this is not entirely how it currently is, but I am speaking ideologically. You cannot come on my property and say whatever you want, despite your freedom of speech. You cannot come on my property with a gun. You cannot come on my property and practice your religion.

  10. #200
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    05-01-14 @ 03:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    12,879

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I invite you to source a jewelry store's 'need' to be a gun-free zone, especially considering the following:
    I don't necessarily think there is a NEED for it to be a gun-free zone. However, I would tend to believe that most jewelry store owners would disagree with me. Especially ones in places like malls or shopping centers. As both you and I know, the vast majority of people are not competent to handle a firearm in a self-defense situation. Most of the chain stores wouldn't even consider allowing an employee to do any such thing, nevermind require it.

    Now, maybe I have a different take on this whole thing because there are certain groups of people who I would and do bar from my personal property; and who the inability to bar from a business would keep me from ever opening one of my own.

Page 20 of 54 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... 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
  •