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 38 of 54 FirstFirst ... 28363738394048 ... LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 538

Thread: Which right holds sway?

  1. #371
    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
    Its not a matter of need Jerry. Its matter of control, rights, domain and sovereignty. Need is not a factor.
    According to SCOTUS "Strict Scrutiny", need overrides preference every time. Pro-carry can demonstrate a need, so pro-property has to counter with a demonstratable need of their own, or pro-property will not win. When both sides have a demonstratable need, that's when they're on equal footing, and that's when the property owner's preference will rule. Which ever side does not have a need, loses.

    Once you open your property to the public, or hire employees, if you don't have a need to ban something the public or employees have a right to do, then you can't ban it.

  2. #372
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,041

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Please link to these statistics.



    Please link to the statistics you referred to.
    Here these gun control nuts made a page for you: VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry Killers

    Unless you live under a rock it is common knowledge that guns can be dangerous whether legally owned or not.

    47 countries. Any uniformed ISAF force can carry a loaded weapon on any ISAF installation. All bases are ISAF. Even when Americans operate and control a base, it's still not an 'American base', it's an ISAF base.
    MyBaseGuide.com | MILITARY | KITSAP | Rules & Regulations

    Naval Base Kitsap Weapons Registration
    Weapons of any kind are prohibited on Naval Base Kitsap. Weapons are defined as firearms or other devices or instruments such as bow and arrows, brass knuckles, switchblades or butterfly knives, compressed air or gas powered guns, nun chucks, etc. Private firearms are authorized in family housing if registered with the NBK Small Arms Training Center (SATC), 396-5458 for Bremerton, or Bangor Security, 315-4064 if in Bangor housing. Only weapons owned by residents will be registered. Weapons belonging to residents of the barracks or ships must be registered with the NBK SATC Kitsap-Bremerton Police Headquarters in Building 433, who will coordinate weapons storage. For more information, Bremerton Security may be reached at 476-8232

    (I picked this base because I was born on it.)

    Now back to private property within the US, not international war zones.
    Bases in the US are war zones?


    Please link to the s statistics you referred to.
    Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Variable Details

    Again you would have to be totally not paying attention to reality to not know that statistically guns are dangerous. Hell every gun safety class is centered around the premise that guns are dangerous objects that should be used with great care to avoid injury or death.

    Since CCW carriers are the least likely to commit any crime (and are generally better shots then LEOs) you shouldn't have any objection.
    Least likely is not void of likely. A CCW carrier is more likely to cause injury or death than someone without a gun.

    ***
    I ask again, how are you materially damaged?
    Well if so and so shows up at work and shoots everyone... Or perhaps old Hank was a little hung over and dropped his gun right out of the holster oops forgot to snap it in.

    Really it comes down to the property owner reducing potential dangers. A loaded gun cannot be guaranteed not to accidently be discharged by the owner no matter how much training they have had. "Friendly fire"?

    Sure there might not be a large chance that an gun owner would make a big mistake on my property. But **** happens Gun Cleaning Accidents-- Brady Campaign Blog

    Notice that there are plenty of gun control site capitalizing on gun safety failures. Bringing a gun onto private property despite the opinion of the property owner just feeds more ammo for these gun control nuts. Just wait until a CCW carrier goes on a mass murder rampage or drops his gun.. oh wait they have already done that.

    Tracey Grissom 'shot ex-husband dead after he made an obscene gesture at her' | Mail Online

    Laquintta Turk sentenced to 18 years for reckless murder fueled by jealousy | al.com

    Or you can look at the list here: http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/ccwtotalkilled.pdf

    I am sure at this point you will again point out that statically speaking the numbers are low. Sure but so are the chances of you needing your gun in self defense. SO if you use the claim that there isnt much danger to warrant barring someone form carrying a gun on private property, the same argument could be used to assert that there isnt really much of a danger being unarmed on private property. Especially if there is security measures being enforced on said property. Mass shooting in America despite the hype are extremely rare. And I can assure you that there never has been a shooting or accidental shooting on my property since I have been in control of my property. What you are doing by insisting on carrying a gun onto my property is insisting that my property is a dangerous place to be. If I hired you I made you sign a contract in the first place that explains to you that reserve the right to make all decisions concerning my business. And by default that would include what I determine you should have on your person. As legally proven an employer can make the employees change out of street cloths and remove all jewelry and any other item. I can make rules that bar you from using cell phones since today cell phones have cameras. Cameras I can bar from my property for copyright legalities and/or privacy issues. I can make you not where an ipod. And if you fail to live up to this contract down the road you go.

    Let me say it again since you keep slipping back into the arguments against gun control nuts. I do not bar all guns from my property. I allow people who I trust to carry a gun on my property. In my opinion that type of trust is earned not a given. I have kids who are often coming into a portion of my shop (there is a painted line they cannot cross without permission) so I am over protective of my kids so sue me if it bothers you that much. But as it stand right now in New Mexico I can tell you to leave for any reason legally. And in most states even the parking lot law states businesses like mine are exempt since my shop is on the same property as my house. Which means you as a contractor even in parking lot law states have no legal grounds to carry on the job on someones property. You have to ask for permission and if you do not ask for permission and are caught you can been ejected from the property. And if the police are involved they will remove you from the property at the owners request. The fact that you may refuse to leave will show that you are not using your best judgement. Perhaps such behavior will show up when you request to renew your CCW?

  3. #373
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,041

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    That's because hunting and fishing licenses are geographically limited, even within the states where they are issued. A hunting license in Illinois doesn't allow me to shoot deer in a Cook County forest preserve, for example.
    FindLaw | Cases and Codes

    Justice Thomas, concurring.

    The Court today properly holds that the Brady Act violates the Tenth Amendment in that it compels state law enforcement officers to "administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." See ante, at 25. Although I join the Court's opinion in full, I write separately to emphasize that the Tenth Amendment affirms the undeniable notion that under our Constitution, the Federal Government is one of enumerated, hence limited, powers. See, e.g., McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819) ("This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers"). "[T]hat those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803). Accordingly, the Federal Government may act only where the Constitution authorizes it to do so. Cf. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).

  4. #374
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    FindLaw | Cases and Codes

    Justice Thomas, concurring.

    The Court today properly holds that the Brady Act violates the Tenth Amendment in that it compels state law enforcement officers to "administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." See ante, at 25. Although I join the Court's opinion in full, I write separately to emphasize that the Tenth Amendment affirms the undeniable notion that under our Constitution, the Federal Government is one of enumerated, hence limited, powers. See, e.g., McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819) ("This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers"). "[T]hat those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803). Accordingly, the Federal Government may act only where the Constitution authorizes it to do so. Cf. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).

    What does that have to do with what I said? We're not talking about federal laws being forced upon the states, are we? We're talking abut the full faith and credit clause, which is a totally different animal altogether.

    I don't think a federal CCW should exist, because that would certainly violate the 10th.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #375
    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
    Here these gun control nuts made a page for you: VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry Killers
    From your link: Because detailed information on such killings is not readily available, the VPC is forced to rely primarily on news accounts for reports of such killings and subsequent legal proceedings.

    So the VPC source is garbage...

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Naval Base Kitsap
    You wanted to know about my specific situation. There are no Naval bases in Afghanistan. There are only ISAF, and 46 non-US militaries carry their weapons into these installations.

    This source doesn't distinguish between Justifyable Homicide and Murder...so it's out...

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Please quote the relevant position of the study which supports your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Biased source and it's blog, double garbage....

    That site is based on what the media chooses to report, which is hardly any kind of objective scientific measure of anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    I am sure at this point you will again point out that statically speaking the numbers are low.
    A fact which punches a hole in your argument.

    ...and the rest of your post is just you ranting on and on.

    So, you have no credible source material, you just did a quick google thinking I wouldn't perform due-diligence and check your sources. All you have is some vague irrational fear you yourself can't articulate.

    That will cost you the fight.

  6. #376
    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
    FindLaw | Cases and Codes

    Justice Thomas, concurring.

    The Court today properly holds that the Brady Act violates the Tenth Amendment in that it compels state law enforcement officers to "administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." See ante, at 25. Although I join the Court's opinion in full, I write separately to emphasize that the Tenth Amendment affirms the undeniable notion that under our Constitution, the Federal Government is one of enumerated, hence limited, powers. See, e.g., McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819) ("This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers"). "[T]hat those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803). Accordingly, the Federal Government may act only where the Constitution authorizes it to do so. Cf. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).
    Reciprocity is not a federal law being forced upon the states. It is forcing the states to honor eachother.

  7. #377
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,041

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    From your link: Because detailed information on such killings is not readily available, the VPC is forced to rely primarily on news accounts for reports of such killings and subsequent legal proceedings.

    So the VPC source is garbage...
    I agree but I wasnt standing behind the link.



    You wanted to know about my specific situation. There are no Naval bases in Afghanistan. There are only ISAF, and 46 non-US militaries carry their weapons into these installations.
    None the less security protocol exists.

    This source doesn't distinguish between Justifyable Homicide and Murder...so it's out...
    No its not out I am asserting that guns are dangerous by design. Hence gun safety courses that you insist should be required.



    Please quote the relevant position of the study which supports your argument.
    The link simply shows that guns are dangerous objects or at least can be if not taken care of properly. I do not rust that everyone on my property can take the necessary care of their weapon or at least with some people I do not want gamble mine or other peoples liveson their care.



    Biased source and it's blog, double garbage....
    Please follow the leads there as a stating point. I linked that site for two reasons it consolidated things for me and it shows what the gun control nuts are working off of.



    That site is based on what the media chooses to report, which is hardly any kind of objective scientific measure of anything.
    Then ignore the site that you cant seem tog et past and look up the indivusdual casses which are real trust me I looked them up. Or if you want to claim that no CCW permittee has killed anyone the first two links prove you wrong. In fact i can also point you to a mass murder by a CCW permittee.
    My point is that just because there is a low amount of people legally carrying guns using them for violence does not mean that there are 0% of those people committing violent crimes with their guns.


    A fact which punches a hole in your argument.

    ...and the rest of your post is just you ranting on and on.

    So, you have no credible source material, you just did a quick google thinking I wouldn't perform due-diligence and check your sources. All you have is some vague irrational fear you yourself can't articulate.

    That will cost you the fight.

    Ok enough with your online psychology crap. Obviously you are not here to debate but to parrot the dogmatic talking pints of the NRA.

    BTW I am not the one that is afraid to go anywhere without a gun.

  8. #378
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,041

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Reciprocity is not a federal law being forced upon the states. It is forcing the states to honor eachother.
    The S. 2188: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012 is an an attempt to amend Federal law.
    The acts purpose is to add to the Federal Laws already on the books.

    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

    ‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.


    So you guys are completely wrong. It is a Federal Law you cannot deny the the proven facts. Lol nice try though had I been some idiot I would have gone along with you.

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.


    Try looking up title 18, United States Code hint it is a Federal Law geniuses. lol Perhaps you guys dont know enough about what you are talking about?

  9. #379
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    The S. 2188: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012 is an an attempt to amend Federal law.
    The acts purpose is to add to the Federal Laws already on the books.

    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

    ‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.


    So you guys are completely wrong. It is a Federal Law you cannot deny the the proven facts. Lol nice try though had I been some idiot I would have gone along with you.

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.


    Try looking up title 18, United States Code hint it is a Federal Law geniuses. lol Perhaps you guys dont know enough about what you are talking about?

    That reciprocity law doesn't appear to have anything to do with the FFaC clause.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #380
    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 S. 2188: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012 is an an attempt to amend Federal law.
    The acts purpose is to add to the Federal Laws already on the books.

    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

    ‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.


    So you guys are completely wrong. It is a Federal Law you cannot deny the the proven facts. Lol nice try though had I been some idiot I would have gone along with you.

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.


    Try looking up title 18, United States Code hint it is a Federal Law geniuses. lol Perhaps you guys dont know enough about what you are talking about?
    The CCW is not federal. A state's CCW is not a federal regulatory program. Another state having to honor any state's CCW is not forcing that state to enforce a federal regulatory program. In fact, a state isn't even enforcing another state's regulatory program since a person with an out-of-state CCW must comply with all local ordinances.

    If a CCW can carry into a bar in their home state, but goes to a state where guns in bars are prohibited, that CCW can't go into the bar armed in that other state. Ditto for any such restricted location.

    If a CCW can carry open or concealed in their home state, but visits a state where only open carry is allowed, than that CCW may only carry open.

    Therefore there is no enforced regulatory program.

    This is how reciprocity already functions.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-22-12 at 02:54 PM.

Page 38 of 54 FirstFirst ... 28363738394048 ... 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
  •