- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
For the sake of clarity of context I'm riposting my argument for the casual reader:
Dependent Variable (the point we're debating):
*****
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.
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.
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.
That's a good analogy, actually.
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.
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.
Dependent Variable (the point we're debating):
- Private person > Private Business.
- 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.
*****
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: