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 33 of 54 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 538

Thread: Which right holds sway?

  1. #321
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,922

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I want to have your child.
    Sorry buddy I dont swing that way. But thanks anywhooo LOL.
    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.

  2. #322
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,922

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I want to have your child.

    I won't ask your clan name, but what is your nationality? I don't want to guess because I'm usually wrong and folks take offence.

    My clan is Scottish, though we've thinned out over the last couple generations, sadly.
    The Lyons clan and we be Genuine Certified mutts, though English in origin. When god said go forth and mulitiply, our clan took that command VERY seriously. My nation is the good ole US of A, from the land of fruits nuts and flakes, California.
    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.

  3. #323
    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
    I dont care to change your position, but I reserve the right to assert my position. And my position is that you and the Government have no right to dictate who and what I allow on my property. And the fact that other people have dishonestly wiggled around the Constitution is not grounds for you to do the same. I am a firm supporter of the right to bear arms in doing so I have the right to protect my property. You demanding to be on my property with a firearm despite my opinion on the matter, is in reality you making it harder for me to protect my property.
    Permit holders are the least likely demographic to commit any kind of crime. Not just violent crime, but any kind of crime at all, including theft while you're not home, or even littering on your property. Permit holders are not your enemy, the guy who has an illegal firearm and intends to brake some laws today is your enemy, and he's not gong to tell you he's armed or honor any sign. Gun control doesn't work, whether we're talking a public policy on public land or your own private rule in your business. Gun control does not work.

    What does work, is an armed population. This is true whether we're talking about a public population, or the micro population just on your land. More gun = less crime, categorically.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    As I have said from the beginning you have no right to be on my property, therefore you have no right to carry a gun on my property. You and the NRA want to force yourselves onto my property, that I cannot stand for, which makes me question the honesty of yours and the NRA's motives in why you guys think you must force a private property owner in allowing gun owners special rights under the law. That is why I refuse to accept your claims. Because there is a lot more at stake than just the right to carry a firearm, the right to protect my private property, my family, and my employees is a stake here. And I will not just sit by and watch it happen. SO no I do not want to change your mind I want to inform the readers of the dangers that you are supporting.


    Perhaps you can explore those concerns for a change?
    I try to state things as simply as I can, for my own sake if not for others...

    We hold that just like race, religion, nationality, etc, that lawfully possessed firearms are part of what you are choosing to welcome on to your property when you welcome the public per-se onto your property, because lawfully possessed firearms are a part of the law-abiding public.

  4. #324
    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
    The Lyons clan and we be Genuine Certified mutts, though English in origin. When god said go forth and mulitiply, our clan took that command VERY seriously. My nation is the good ole US of A, from the land of fruits nuts and flakes, California.
    Lyons with the "s" is Irish, if I'm not mistaken...yes? Low landers...

  5. #325
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,922

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Lyons with the "s" is Irish, if I'm not mistaken...yes? Low landers...
    As you may know there are a lot of us. As far I know linage wise we be English though to be honest its probably very likely to be more than one Recorded linage considering how widespread we be.
    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. #326
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,040

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Permit holders are the least likely demographic to commit any kind of crime. Not just violent crime, but any kind of crime at all, including theft while you're not home, or even littering on your property. Permit holders are not your enemy, the guy who has an illegal firearm and intends to brake some laws today is your enemy, and he's not gong to tell you he's armed or honor any sign. Gun control doesn't work, whether we're talking a public policy on public land or your own private rule in your business. Gun control does not work.

    What does work, is an armed population. This is true whether we're talking about a public population, or the micro population just on your land. More gun = less crime, categorically.
    Thats great but I do not care demographically what people do, what I do care about is what a individual is doing on my property. This is not a social issue or a race issue etc. what is, is about is private property rights of individuals. And the NRA supports special laws that circumnavigate the Constitution in order to give a person carrying a gun a special right that no one else has.

    The 2nd Amendment is all that us gun owners need, not yet more laws.

    I dont really agree though with the reasoning that "More gun = less crime". In fact the notion is silly. There are plenty of historical examples that prove otherwise. Which puts all guns owners in a disadvantage when we parrot things like that. The reason is that it easily argued against. All one needs to do is point out that there are people that are not responsible gun owners, like gang members for example. Go into south central L.A. and tell me that all those guns made a safer society. Ever heard of the term outgunned? It isnt responsible gun owners that are being thought of when the gun control nuts go off on their tangents. They are afraid of the bad people with guns. Every time there is a mass shooting the gun control nuts capitalize on it. And when people like the NRA in tun claim that if there had been a gun carrier there all would have been different. But those that want gun control dont want people shooting it out with innocent people in between. And thats all they can see is people shooting despite people being around them. They think that guns are too dangerous for common people to own, since they are afraid of guns and would never own one. So it takes a little tact on our part to not say things like 'yep if I were there I would have..'. The fact is that you were not there, so its pointless to assume that you would have been a hero.

    Better too attack illegal gun use in my opinion.


    I try to state things as simply as I can, for my own sake if not for others...

    We hold that just like race, religion, nationality, etc, that lawfully possessed firearms are part of what you are choosing to welcome on to your property when you welcome the public per-se onto your property, because lawfully possessed firearms are a part of the law-abiding public.
    A manufacturing plant does not allow the public on the property. And the employees in most cases are under strict orders to behave a certain way to dress a certain way and to not go in certain areas at all unless authorized. Which demonstrates that employees are invitees. AN employer at their own discretion can make any spot off limits to employees for the reasons that they want. AN employer can also ban personal music players and cell phones. An employer can make a rule saying that you cannot eat except during lunch or break. AN employer can make a rule against the employees speaking at certain times or in certain places or at least at a low volume. An employer can fire you for making rude comments. An employer can make you go home and change your clothes before coming back to work. An employer can require you to put all of your belongings in a locker and wear a uniform while at work.

    The point is that the employee voluntarily does these things if they want the job. If there are rules you do not want to follow quit and get another job.

    But a contractor working at someones home has even more stringent laws to follow than in a manufacturing plant. The home has special legal status under the Constitution. The right to privacy in a citizens home is top priority. Your right to carry a gun takes a bake seat to private property rights especially in someones home. Regardless of what corrupt laws that you and the NRA get passed most Americans will still choose who goes in their homes. Call us a bunch of assholes if you wish but it wont change a thing, we will still judge you as the people hedging liberties.

  7. #327
    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
    I dont really agree though with the reasoning that "More gun = less crime". In fact the notion is silly.
    Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
    Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?
    A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.
    Din B. Kates* and Gary Mauser**


    The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

    The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

    Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population)
    .


    EDITORIAL: Guns decrease murder rates
    In Washington, the best defense is self-defense
    By THE WASHINGTON TIMES


    More guns in law-abiding hands mean less crime. The District of Columbia proves the point.

    <snip>

    Few who lived in Washington during the 1970s can forget the upswing in crime that started right after the ban was originally passed. In the five years before the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 murders per 100,000. In the five years after the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. One fact is particularly hard to ignore: D.C.'s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but only once fell below what it was in 1976 before the ban. That aberration happened years later, in 1985.

    This correlation between the D.C. gun ban and diminished safety was not a coincidence. Look at the Windy City. Immediately after Chicago banned handguns in 1982, the murder rate, which had been falling almost continually for a decade, started to rise. Chicago's murder rate rose relative to other large cities as well. The phenomenon of higher murder rates after gun bans are passed is not just limited to the United States. Every single time a country has passed a gun ban, its murder rate soared.


    <snip>

    Two Little Square Black Dogs: I do not have a gun... I am not a murderer

    ....The LA Times had an article about the The European disdain for America violence but shouldn't spend too much time congratulating themselves. In 2000 the rate at which people where assaulted was higher in England, Scotland, Finland, Denmark and Sweden than in The United States. In the decade since England banned all private possessions of gun the number of gun crimes has gone up.Some of the worst examples of mass gun violence has occurred in Europe from students and teachers killed in Germany, 14 legislators shot in Switzerland to 8 city council members being shot outside of Paris.

    Just recently a taxi driver in Cumbria, England killed 12 people and wounded 11.
    UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph

    Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offenses in the UK since Labour came to power.

    The total number of violent offenses recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa
    .
    [The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
    By James Slack
    Last updated at 12:14 AM on 3rd July 2009




    In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.

    The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:


    • The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
    • It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
    • The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
    • It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.



    But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

    In the UK, there are 2,034 offenses per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.
    The intentional homicide rate shows North America is lower than Eastern Europe, and also lower than the world average, and FAR lower than MANY other regions in the world: List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    England's Homicide Rate

    The homicide rate (per capita) in England and Wales was 9.1 in the year 1900, a time when gun control laws were relatively lax.
    In 2009, when gun laws are of draconian strictness, the homicide rate is 14.1
    This is from an official parliament report.
    GunCite-Gun Accidents

    Fatal gun accidents declined by almost sixty percent from 1975 to 1995, even though the number of guns per capita increased by almost forty percent.

    Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drowning’s or burns than from gun accidents.

    (Gun supply statistics are from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, gun accident rates from the National Safety Council)
    .
    England has worse crime rate than the US, says Civitas study

    England and Wales has one of the worst crime rates among developed nations for rapes, burglaries and robberies, a major report has found.

    The study found that England and Wales ranked highly in a survey of crime rates among more than 30 developed counries, based on the frequency of crimes recorded by police for every 100,000 people.

    • For burglaries and robberies England and Wales had more crimes per 100,000 people than the USA. England and Wales was ranked sixth for burglaries – worse than Sweden, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Turkey, Italy and Chile - and for robberies, England and Wales was seventh.
    • For rapes, England and Wales was ranked ninth, worse than the likes of Norway, Poland, Sweden, Australia and Germany, while for car thefts, England and Wales was eighth – worse than Slovenia, Chile, Mexico, Greece and the Czech Republic.



    Nearly half of all offenders sent to prison are reconvicted within a year of release, creating a revolving door of crime.

  8. #328
    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
    Thats great but I do not care demographically what people do, what I do care about is what a individual is doing on my property. This is not a social issue or a race issue etc. what is, is about is private property rights of individuals.
    If you fire an employee just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, 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 because laws supporting preferences of private business owners to arbitrarily ban a right do not meet SCOTUS "Strict Scrutiny" standards. The typical employee has a need to carry, whereas the typical employer does not have a need to ban.


    ******
    If you remove a customer just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, you will be cited by the State for braking Public Accommodation codes.

    For example:
    South Dakota Code 20-13-23

    20-13-23. Public accommodations--Unfair or discriminatory practices. It shall be an unfair or discriminatory practice for any person engaged in the provision of public accommodations because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, ancestry, disability, or national origin, to fail or refuse to provide to any person access to the use of and benefit from the services and facilities of such public accommodations; or to accord adverse, unlawful, or unequal treatment to any person with respect to the availability of such services and facilities, the price or other consideration therefor, the scope and equality thereof, or the terms and conditions under which the same are made available, including terms and conditions relating to credit, payment, warranties, delivery, installation, and repair.
    When you open your business to the public, you have to conduct 'fair and equal treatment' to each person who voluntarily walks through your door. You cannot deny access to your business just because a customer is one of these protected classes. You cannot refuse to sell to a customer just because the customer belongs to one of these classes. You can't do that now, you wouldn't be able to do that if 'lawfully carrying a firearm' were added to the list.

    I want to add 'lawfully carrying a firearm' as a protected class because I have a need to carry whereas the business does not have a need to deny.


    *****
    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.

  9. #329
    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
    The point is that the employee voluntarily does these things if they want the job. If there are rules you do not want to follow quit and get another job.

    But a contractor working at someones home has even more stringent laws to follow than in a manufacturing plant. The home has special legal status under the Constitution. The right to privacy in a citizens home is top priority. Your right to carry a gun takes a bake seat to private property rights especially in someones home. Regardless of what corrupt laws that you and the NRA get passed most Americans will still choose who goes in their homes. Call us a bunch of assholes if you wish but it wont change a thing, we will still judge you as the people hedging liberties.
    More sloganeering, not impressive. Your right to property has limits, especially when you open it to the public or hire employees.

    Your irrational fear is just that, irrational, so why am I even entertaining your incoherent nonsense? Good question.

    Later bud
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-18-12 at 03:22 PM.

  10. #330
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    If you own the property, you can dictate what people can bring onto that property. The bill of rights are meant to limit government power, not property rights.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

Page 33 of 54 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... 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
  •