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 39 of 54 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 538

Thread: Which right holds sway?

  1. #381
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,063

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    That reciprocity law doesn't appear to have anything to do with the FFaC clause.
    Ok progress now its a law. But you guys are stilling going off on a strawman argument since my point was in the first place that the NRA is drumming up Federal Laws to control what we can and cannot do under the 2nd Amendment. All that other stuff that I wrote that you refused to address was relevant to that point. I suspect that you guys are concentrating on the strawman arguments to lead me away from my claims that more Federal Laws pertaining to gun ownership will just open the door for more controls.

    So while you are trying to first destroy Private property rights wile trying to preserve your gun rights you will pave the legal way of destroying our gun rights. I also wonder what other rights you are willing to trample on to get more gun rights?


    When you keep applying band-aids instead of actually fixing the problem all that the band-aids can do is soak up the blood. Meaning that we need repeal laws not add laws left and right. You are just cementing in existing laws that we dont agree with. Hell Jerry you even back some of the provisions of these gun control laws.

    Read this timeline: Federal Gun Control Legislation - Timeline — Infoplease.com It reads as if you are leading upto complete gun control and perhaps eventually complete gun bans. The only headway made since 1791 was in 2008. Outside of that all the so called victories of the NRA all are added laws to all the other things in the timeline save a couple local victories.

  2. #382
    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
    But you guys are stilling going off on a strawman argument since my point was in the first place that the NRA is drumming up Federal Laws to control what we can and cannot do under the 2nd Amendment.
    I oppose any such federal laws in both directions.

    Also, what I've been saying is not a strawman because I've only been discussing the FFaC clause and how it would pertain to certain state laws.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #383
    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 progress now its a law. But you guys are stilling going off on a strawman argument since my point was in the first place that the NRA is drumming up Federal Laws to control what we can and cannot do under the 2nd Amendment. All that other stuff that I wrote that you refused to address was relevant to that point. I suspect that you guys are concentrating on the strawman arguments to lead me away from my claims that more Federal Laws pertaining to gun ownership will just open the door for more controls.

    So while you are trying to first destroy Private property rights wile trying to preserve your gun rights you will pave the legal way of destroying our gun rights. I also wonder what other rights you are willing to trample on to get more gun rights?


    When you keep applying band-aids instead of actually fixing the problem all that the band-aids can do is soak up the blood. Meaning that we need repeal laws not add laws left and right. You are just cementing in existing laws that we dont agree with. Hell Jerry you even back some of the provisions of these gun control laws.

    Read this timeline: Federal Gun Control Legislation - Timeline — Infoplease.com It reads as if you are leading upto complete gun control and perhaps eventually complete gun bans. The only headway made since 1791 was in 2008. Outside of that all the so called victories of the NRA all are added laws to all the other things in the timeline save a couple local victories.
    All you keep saying is "federal law = bad".

    That's called the Legalistic Fallacy.

    CCW reciprocity isn't going to lead to a gun ban any more than marriage reciprocity lead to marriage ban or drivers license reciprocity lead to a car ban.

    These laws expand your choices. You aren't forced to do anything. If you don't like guns, don't own one, don't carry one, no problem, that's your choice. If you don't want to carry while at work, then don't, most Americans don't either. No problem.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-22-12 at 03:39 PM.

  4. #384
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,063

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I oppose any such federal laws in both directions.

    Also, what I've been saying is not a strawman because I've only been discussing the FFaC clause and how it would pertain to certain state laws.
    Sorry about that it was actually addressed to Jerry. My bad.

  5. #385
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,063

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    All you keep saying is "federal law = bad".

    That's called the Legalistic Fallacy.

    CCW reciprocity isn't going to lead to a gun ban any more than marriage reciprocity lead to marriage ban or drivers license reciprocity lead to a car ban.

    These laws expand your choices. You aren't forced to do anything. If you don't like guns, don't own one, don't carry one, no problem, that's your choice. If you don't want to carry while at work, then don't, most Americans don't either. No problem.
    Um I am not asserting that the Reciprocity Act of 2012 will cause hardship on gun owners. I asserted that the cumulative Federal Laws will give the legal base to make things hard for us. Its already too late since Amendments pushed by the NRA, show that the NRA supports Federals laws governing firearms.

    You still are assuming that I somehow oppose firearms and CCW. I have never said anything of the sort. I have said now several times that I am a gun owner and that I fully support the 2nd Amendment. I am asserting that the tactics that the NRA are using are bad tactics to say the least. It is my opinion that it would be better to steadfastly protect the 2nd Amendment rather than spend millions of dollars playing into the hands of the gun control nuts. The main problem are Federal Laws that are already on the books. We will never be able to repeal those laws if we add to them and go on campaigns that in reality make all gun owners look bad. You already let it be known in this conversation that parking lot laws are only a beginning. The goal you said was to be able to carry a gun anywhere that a gun owner wants too. Do you really think thats going to be obtainable. If it is obtainable it will come with a cost to liberties. The first being who exactly can own a gun. I am saying this because if you can take a gun anywhere the only way that you will get that goal is by banning certain types of guns and banning certain people form owning guns. That is called gun control. And that is exactly where the NRA is headed. Which explains why they are not actually fighting the more important Federal Laws and are going off on pet projects like forcing business owners to allow guns on their property.

    But It is obvious that you believe otherwise so I will just leave it at that and disagree with.

  6. #386
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,928

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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.
    I cannot and will not go there. I know you are trying to be able to protect yourself whereever you are. I understand and sympathize. And even partialy agree. But the law the NRA proposes is foolish. I believe the second amendment applies to ALL. This includes anybody not incarcerated. If you are not in someones custody you are free to defend yourself as you see fit. Thats the way I see it. The law the NRA proposes further limits your rights to keep and bear arms by defining who can or cant be armed. This compounds the situation we have as it stands now. The only law that is required is the ability to sue for damages if a publicy accessable place is inadequetly defended and someone is damaged by this inadequesy, if property owners decide not to allow arms. That is as far as I would be willing to go as far as law. We have too many as is. Reciprocity should be adjudicated. The basis of our society is property rights. We must preserve ALL our rights without damaging them. This requires balance in our thinking. How do we accomidate BOTH the person who wishes to be armed and the property owner. It is a delicate balance that requires compromise on BOTH sides to achieve the goals of BOTH sides. This is why I go with tort law and reciprocity instead of the NRA's frankly clumsy attempt at universal carry. The person who wishes to be armed has a duty acceed to the wishes of the property owner, and the property owner has a duty if they dont allow carry to protect the people who come onto their property. This should only apply to publically accessable property IE business goverment building ect.

    As far as strict scutiny goes I don't think that even applies in this case.

    That be my take for the day.
    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.

  7. #387
    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 asserted that the cumulative Federal Laws will give the legal base to make things hard for us. Its already too late since Amendments pushed by the NRA, show that the NRA supports Federals laws governing firearms.
    More "Federal law = bad".

    You aren't explaining how, and on the rare occasion you provide sources, they're not credible or authoritative, or they have nothing to do with the topic (military instalations and the brady bill, for example, have nothing to do with this thread).

    Once again, reciprocity is not a federal law. Guns-in-cars laws aren't Federal, either. Guns-at-work wouldn't be a Federal law, but yes we're willing to take it there if need be.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    You still are assuming that I somehow oppose firearms and CCW. I have never said anything of the sort.
    That's all you've been saying this whole time, that you don't trust the average CCW despite all the sourced evidence debasing your concerns, and that you should have some ability to arbitrarily deny an employee or customer their right to self defense without a need or just cause.

    That's about as anti-2A as gets, even more-so than the Brady Bill since the Brady Bill still allowed you to carry something.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    But It is obvious that you believe otherwise so I will just leave it at that and disagree with.
    You may be willing to agree to disagree, but I'm not. Agreeing to disagree means allowing the difference to exist. We're not leaving the issue alone, we're pressing forward. You can retract your hand, I'll not be shaking it.

  8. #388
    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 basis of our society is property rights.
    My body is my property. While in the public domain (employment and commerce) even the police must have a damn good reason to infringe on my rights. A private realestate owner isn't even a cop to then be able to use 'probable cause' and infringe upon me without a warrant.

    Laws supporting your ability to ban guns must conform to Strict Scrutiny, and this means you personally must have a demonstratable "need". Gun owners have such a need and can demonstrate it, to then be in compliance with Strict Scrutiny and thus infringe upon a land owner's right to control their property.

    The second part of Strict Scrutiny is the law must be narrowly tailored, as narrow as possible. This means while an employee or customer may carry a gun for self defense, this is limited to pistols which are concealed. We wouldn't be allowed to carry just whatever we felt like and how ever we felt like carrying it. The property owner can still disallow rifles (might sound strange for non-hunting states where a good number of trucks have rifle racks). The property owner can still enforce uniform/dress-code. Our ability to carry a gun would not be a free license to do just whatever we want on your property. You are still very much in control.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-23-12 at 04:52 AM.

  9. #389
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,928

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    My body is my property. While in the public domain (employment and commerce) even the police must have a damn good reason to infringe on my rights. A private realestate owner isn't even a cop to then be able to use 'probable cause' and infringe upon me without a warrant.

    Laws supporting your ability to ban guns must conform to Strict Scrutiny, and this means you personally must have a demonstratable "need". Gun owners have such a need and can demonstrate it, to then be in compliance with Strict Scrutiny and thus infringe upon a land owner's right to control their property.

    The second part of Strict Scrutiny is the law must be narrowly tailored, as narrow as possible. This means while an employee or customer may carry a gun for self defense, this is limited to pistols which are concealed. We wouldn't be allowed to carry just whatever we felt like and how ever we felt like carrying it. The property owner can still disallow rifles (might sound strange for non-hunting states where a good number of trucks have rifle racks). The property owner can still enforce uniform/dress-code. Our ability to carry a gun would not be a free license to do just whatever we want on your property. You are still very much in control.
    Did you read what I wrote? It doesent seem like you did. You have the right to carry in public as you please. The problem occurs on others property. The key is the police need a warrent, private property owners dont. You are on their turf in their domain, with their permission subject to their rules. On others property you can be searched and ejected by the private property owner leagaly. Employers have the right to eject you from their premisis and search your person on their property. Store owners have the same rights. They have signs posted all over were I live. They dont even need probale cause. If you dont believe me consult an attorny. Apperntly you think I am for banning guns. There should be NO restrictions to who can own arms so long as they are not in anothers custody. This would include felons. In the eyes of the court property rights outweigh gun rights at this current juncture. You cannot disregard property rights without repurcusion for other rights. Once you go down the path of diregarding one set of rights over another none of your rights will be worth anything. Property owners must retain control of their property, gun owners need to be able to carry. The only way that will be able to be balaneced is though tort law. IE the property owner must provide adequete security or allow people to carry. If done otherwise both rights will be eroded. The NRA will destroy what they are trying to protect if they continue the route of forcing property owners to accomidate CCW's. There a lot of reasons people are not allowed to carry on private property the prime one though being liability. That will need to be addressed before people will accept CCW holders willingly.
    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.

  10. #390
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,063

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    More "Federal law = bad".

    You aren't explaining how, and on the rare occasion you provide sources, they're not credible or authoritative, or they have nothing to do with the topic (military instalations and the brady bill, for example, have nothing to do with this thread).

    Once again, reciprocity is not a federal law. Guns-in-cars laws aren't Federal, either. Guns-at-work wouldn't be a Federal law, but yes we're willing to take it there if need be.
    Oh dear complete denial of given facts you couldnt be anymore dogmatic than that. Should I explain to you again? Its the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012 which its only legal purpose is to amend a Federal law. You cannot just pretend things to go along with your claims, not when I have proven this simple fact already.

    And whats wrong with Federal Laws? Are you for real man? How about Federal gun control for starters? The way they would do that is through Federal Law. Obviously I am not saying that we should get rid of all Federal Laws but certainly you can see the wisdom of not letting the Federal Government have too much power right? Probably not so I will just tell you. Federal Laws = gun control.

    BTW the NRA is just another civil rights group trying to force society to conform with their demands. The 2nd Amendment is a universal right and should treated as such. Civil rights groups only represent a section of society. I say that the 2nd Amendment is unmovable and therefor should not be treated as movable. But the NRA will concede the 2nd Amendment to pass laws that do not need to exist since the 2nd Amendment exists in their place already.

    That's all you've been saying this whole time, that you don't trust the average CCW despite all the sourced evidence debasing your concerns, and that you should have some ability to arbitrarily deny an employee or customer their right to self defense without a need or just cause.

    That's about as anti-2A as gets, even more-so than the Brady Bill since the Brady Bill still allowed you to carry something.
    No I have not! I have made it clear that I reserve the right to decide who I trust. Federal Laws that force me to trust people puts everyone in danger. If I cannot decide for myself who poses a threat I am powerless to stop the threat legally and must act outside of the law to save my life and others lives.

    And the Brady Bill is ****. And your argument is becoming exceedingly strawman.



    You may be willing to agree to disagree, but I'm not. Agreeing to disagree means allowing the difference to exist. We're not leaving the issue alone, we're pressing forward. You can retract your hand, I'll not be shaking it.[
    If you keep denying reality I will just write you off as a fanatic who is a threat to the 2nd Amendment. I do not expect you to agree with me. I realize that people have different points of view but I do expect people to honestly engage in conversation. Your continued denial of proven facts plus the fact that you cannot seem to argue anything but strawman arguments tells me that it is pointless to continue the conversation with you.

Page 39 of 54 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... 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
  •