• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which right holds sway?

Which right holds sway?

  • 2nd Amendment

    Votes: 15 21.7%

  • Property Rights

    Votes: 54 78.3%
  • Total voters
    69
Your running all kinds of sideways here.


Anyone can sue anyone else whenever the right courthouse is open, there are ramifications that will make the possibly undesirable outcome not worth the possible gain.

There is a filing fee. Without this I could sue you right now (If I knew who you are and the courthouse where you live was open.)

If you sue me, I can counter sue. It there is found to be no basis for your original lawsuit winning a false claim suit is a gimme.


When we speak of business we speak of money. If you own a business you do not want to give anyone a valid reason to sue you. Losing a lawsuit is very bad for business. When we speak of acts that violate a persons rights, we are speaking if lawsuits and civil actions (Civil/Civic? I forget which). Meaning if I am breaking no laws, all you can do is call the police and try to convince them to arrest me.

If I happen to be breaking a law, and we are talking about something actually illegal the police can indeed arrest me. By illegal I am not speaking of what Mickey Mouse scrawled on a 30 foot high neon wall. Laws.

Trespassing and Disturbing the peace are typical misdemeanor crimes that are basically there for the police to have something to arrest people for in these sorts of incidence. If the police will arrest you, which is at their discretion. If they see trouble with a 1st amendment 'conflict' they won't bother with the piddly charges OR they may hold you on disturbing the peace until that charge can be upgraded to *Whatever*.

Let me throw something out here to refocus the discussion, If I may.

You own a humongous amusement park somewhere. I get through your security and you personally see a pistol in my dufflebag when I move to store my new t-shirt. You tell someone and security arrives, when they do I sit down and do nothing but smile at you with an annoying smug look on my face.

What happens next?

Let me quickly address Tucker here as it's the same point. The Park can easily stop me from entering. If push comes to shove they will stand in my way and if I brush against them, file an assault charge. This will let the police arrest me for assault and away to the cop shop I go. See easy. By physically preventing me from entering, you don't have to deal with the 'trouble' involved in making me leave. If I try and push past you, I've assaulted you. When I assault you the fact I wanted to enter into your park becomes a moot point. This is important because since I broke a law, I am the legal system's problem and no longer yours.


I enter the 21 Club. I'm wearing shorts, flip flops and no shirt. Someone sees me juuuuust inside the door and I sit and grin. What happens?
How about juuuuust outside the door?
How about inside the door and I'm wearing a turtleneck sweater with an image of something clearly lewd and obviously intended to offend on it. I'm also wearing flip flops and shorts. What happens?

Just an idea as we may actually get somewhere if we refocus the conversation. :)
 
Tucker Case said:
21 Club, New York City / Famous NYC Restaurant with Banquet Rooms - Hours and Dress Code

I'm sure that "Jackets are necessary for gentlemen. Jeans and sneakers are not permitted." is something that the health department forced upon the business, though. :lol:
Click to expand...

This is a policy sign. No one ever broke any company policy 'guidelines' and got arrested for it unless the guideline was backed up by an actual law. Getting someone off the premises becomes a cost / benefit analysis sort of decision. Sure you can have someone who violates the policy and insists on being seated arrested at the risk of.:

Offending your other customers.
Getting bad (or good) publicity.
Zeroing yourself in for 'troublemakers'.
Everything else a nightclub owner has to worry about on a day to day basis in order to bring in business.

If the business owner CAN overlook their own policy, chance are they will. Arbitrarily you can be instant lawsuit lightning attracting business if you appear to have discriminated against someone. Some places can't afford to ignore their own policies because it can be the beginning of the end for some policies and the clients have come to expect you to enforce your own policies. Can't tick them off either.
 
Tucker Case said:
21 Club, New York City / Famous NYC Restaurant with Banquet Rooms - Hours and Dress Code

I'm sure that "Jackets are necessary for gentlemen. Jeans and sneakers are not permitted." is something that the health department forced upon the business, though. :lol:
Click to expand...

Are you laughing at me because I womped your butt right off the boat and into the crocodile infested waters?

If your going to abandon a point to jump to another, at least don't be so smug as to try and rub my face into it. :p
 
Airborne375 said:
Your running all kinds of sideways here.


Anyone can sue anyone else whenever the right courthouse is open, there are ramifications that will make the possibly undesirable outcome not worth the possible gain.

There is a filing fee. Without this I could sue you right now (If I knew who you are and the courthouse where you live was open.)

If you sue me, I can counter sue. It there is found to be no basis for your original lawsuit winning a false claim suit is a gimme.


When we speak of business we speak of money. If you own a business you do not want to give anyone a valid reason to sue you. Losing a lawsuit is very bad for business. When we speak of acts that violate a persons rights, we are speaking if lawsuits and civil actions (Civil/Civic? I forget which). Meaning if I am breaking no laws, all you can do is call the police and try to convince them to arrest me.

If I happen to be breaking a law, and we are talking about something actually illegal the police can indeed arrest me. By illegal I am not speaking of what Mickey Mouse scrawled on a 30 foot high neon wall. Laws.

Trespassing and Disturbing the peace are typical misdemeanor crimes that are basically there for the police to have something to arrest people for in these sorts of incidence. If the police will arrest you, which is at their discretion. If they see trouble with a 1st amendment 'conflict' they won't bother with the piddly charges OR they may hold you on disturbing the peace until that charge can be upgraded to *Whatever*.

Let me throw something out here to refocus the discussion, If I may.

You own a humongous amusement park somewhere. I get through your security and you personally see a pistol in my dufflebag when I move to store my new t-shirt. You tell someone and security arrives, when they do I sit down and do nothing but smile at you with an annoying smug look on my face.

What happens next?

Let me quickly address Tucker here as it's the same point. The Park can easily stop me from entering. If push comes to shove they will stand in my way and if I brush against them, file an assault charge. This will let the police arrest me for assault and away to the cop shop I go. See easy. By physically preventing me from entering, you don't have to deal with the 'trouble' involved in making me leave. If I try and push past you, I've assaulted you. When I assault you the fact I wanted to enter into your park becomes a moot point. This is important because since I broke a law, I am the legal system's problem and no longer yours.


I enter the 21 Club. I'm wearing shorts, flip flops and no shirt. Someone sees me juuuuust inside the door and I sit and grin. What happens?
How about juuuuust outside the door?
How about inside the door and I'm wearing a turtleneck sweater with an image of something clearly lewd and obviously intended to offend on it. I'm also wearing flip flops and shorts. What happens?

Just an idea as we may actually get somewhere if we refocus the conversation. :)
Click to expand...

When you entered the property you chose to agree to the park rules which is a legal agreement. Since you lied and did not follow the park rules are now in breech of a legal agreement. You will be surrounded by park security at this point and required to give up your bag and it will be returned to you by the police. The park security has the duty to protect everyone from you since you have no valid reason to have a gun in a park where you legally agreed to not bring a weapon. SO obviously your intent is not good in the first place. You are personal threat to everyone in the park. Since you refused to leave and have a gun on your person security will most likely close the park or if its huge like Disney parks they will close a large portion of the park.


The police would respond quickly since everyone knows that no sane person would enter such park with a a damn gun ans that no responsible gun owner would ever put them self in that situation. You will be arrested on the spot and go to jail. You will be charged with criminal trespass for disobeying an legal agreement by entering with a gun. Next the park will sue you for lost revenue. And if you refused the arrest you will be charged accordingly.

In your other example the person in control of the property can still call the police and have them remove you. Since you sat down like some fool and refused to move you are no longer a patron.
You can not loiter on any property and get away with it if the person in control of the property does not allow it. You can at this point be banned from the property. And business like Club 21 has the resources to fight any law suit you can muster against them. Now if its a mom and pop business you are **** out of luck since many laws do not apply to them since they do not meet the size requirements.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
When you entered the property you chose to agree to the park rules which is a legal agreement. Since you lied and did not follow the park rules are now in breech of a legal agreement. You will be surrounded by park security at this point and required to give up your bag and it will be returned to you by the police. The park security has the duty to protect everyone from you since you have no valid reason to have a gun in a park where you legally agreed to not bring a weapon. SO obviously your intent is not good in the first place. You are personal threat to everyone in the park. Since you refused to leave and have a gun on your person security will most likely close the park or if its huge like Disney parks they will close a large portion of the park.


The police would respond quickly since everyone knows that no sane person would enter such park with a a damn gun ans that no responsible gun owner would ever put them self in that situation. You will be arrested on the spot and go to jail. You will be charged with criminal trespass for disobeying an legal agreement by entering with a gun. Next the park will sue you for lost revenue. And if you refused the arrest you will be charged accordingly.

In your other example the person in control of the property can still call the police and have them remove you. Since you sat down like some fool and refused to move you are no longer a patron.
You can not loiter on any property and get away with it if the person in control of the property does not allow it. You can at this point be banned from the property. And business like Club 21 has the resources to fight any law suit you can muster against them. Now if its a mom and pop business you are **** out of luck since many laws do not apply to them since they do not meet the size requirements.
Click to expand...

Ok looks like we disagree concerning the legality of a company policy. Personal property laws, the 'duty' of private security.

Lets see if Tucker wants a swing at the ball before I answer fully.

I'm hardly claiming to be an expert. I have been in the security business before. As a unarmed security guard, a security supervisor, an executive bodyguard and bouncer. I also owned a 'small change' security company. However what we really need for this discussion is a prosecutor, a civil attorney or a cop. Just wanted to be clear that I'm just poking sticks at the 'problem' in the dark here. I mention this because someone could easily pop up and say, "I'm a lawyer and your full of crap." and everyone will realize I am indeed full of crap or rather opinions. Laws vary from state to state so what I'm accustomed to may not be a particular states laws or the laws could have changed. I've been out of the security business for a long time now.

Thanks for the reply, we now have something to sink into.
 
Airborne375 said:
This is a policy sign. No one ever broke any company policy 'guidelines' and got arrested for it unless the guideline was backed up by an actual law.
Click to expand...

If someone refused to leave the premises after being kicked out for violating the policy, they'd be arrested for trespassing.
 
Airborne375 said:
Are you laughing at me because I womped your butt right off the boat and into the crocodile infested waters?
Click to expand...

I'm laughing because you have been proven wrong every way possible, but still have the delusional belief that you're right.

If your going to abandon a point to jump to another, at least don't be so smug as to try and rub my face into it. :p
Click to expand...

What point are you imagining that I have abandoned?
 
Airborne375 said:
Ok looks like we disagree concerning the legality of a company policy. Personal property laws, the 'duty' of private security.

Lets see if Tucker wants a swing at the ball before I answer fully.

I'm hardly claiming to be an expert. I have been in the security business before. As a unarmed security guard, a security supervisor, an executive bodyguard and bouncer. I also owned a 'small change' security company. However what we really need for this discussion is a prosecutor, a civil attorney or a cop. Just wanted to be clear that I'm just poking sticks at the 'problem' in the dark here. I mention this because someone could easily pop up and say, "I'm a lawyer and your full of crap." and everyone will realize I am indeed full of crap or rather opinions. Laws vary from state to state so what I'm accustomed to may not be a particular states laws or the laws could have changed. I've been out of the security business for a long time now.

Thanks for the reply, we now have something to sink into.
Click to expand...

We're talking about whether or not a companies private policy relates to the bill of rights in any way. The answer is that they don't.

Why would anyone need to be an attorney or a cop to know something that is very self-evident based on the preamble of the bill of rights?
 
Airborne375 said:
Ok looks like we disagree concerning the legality of a company policy. Personal property laws, the 'duty' of private security.

Lets see if Tucker wants a swing at the ball before I answer fully.

I'm hardly claiming to be an expert. I have been in the security business before. As a unarmed security guard, a security supervisor, an executive bodyguard and bouncer. I also owned a 'small change' security company. However what we really need for this discussion is a prosecutor, a civil attorney or a cop. Just wanted to be clear that I'm just poking sticks at the 'problem' in the dark here. I mention this because someone could easily pop up and say, "I'm a lawyer and your full of crap." and everyone will realize I am indeed full of crap or rather opinions. Laws vary from state to state so what I'm accustomed to may not be a particular states laws or the laws could have changed. I've been out of the security business for a long time now.

Thanks for the reply, we now have something to sink into.
Click to expand...

Yes the States have different laws. For example in New Mexico a property owner has the right to tell a person with a weapon to leave. And why shouldnt a property owner have the right to tell a person with a weapon to leave?
 
Tucker Case said:
I'm laughing because you have been proven wrong every way possible, but still have the delusional belief that you're right.



What point are you imagining that I have abandoned?
Click to expand...

Precise use of the language is important in any discussion concerning the law. Terms like 'Kicked out' and 'Proven' are worth quibbling over because they change the whole meaning of a discussion when wielded like a hammer as opposed to a scalpel.

You jumped horses when you switched from a 'No Shirt, No Shoes' issue to another dress code not covered by the Health Department. One is forced upon a business where the other is preference concerning who a business wants to allow on their property. These are two different issues.

What was proven when? I asked for you to show me a law concerning the legality of a backpack and you shied away. I challenged your opinion on the no shirts sign, and you switched horses. Those would be points (Plural)
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Yes the States have different laws. For example in New Mexico a property owner has the right to tell a person with a weapon to leave. And why shouldnt a property owner have the right to tell a person with a weapon to leave?
Click to expand...

The problem here is that some people have the thoroughly misguided belief that the property owner is violating the second amendment by making that request, but that belief is entirely false because the second amendment (like all of the amendments in the bill of rights) is simply a restriction on governmental authority.
 
Tucker Case said:
We're talking about whether or not a companies private policy relates to the bill of rights in any way. The answer is that they don't.

Why would anyone need to be an attorney or a cop to know something that is very self-evident based on the preamble of the bill of rights?
Click to expand...

Cops know when they can arrest someone or not.
Attorneys know when someone actually broke a law or not.

I never said anyone 'needed' either, I said either would be better qualified than I to have actual real world answers to the question of which right trumps which and under which circumstances.
 
Airborne375 said:
Precise use of the language is important in any discussion concerning the law. Terms like 'Kicked out' and 'Proven' are worth quibbling over because they change the whole meaning of a discussion when wielded like a hammer as opposed to a scalpel.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about laws, we're talking about company policies and whether or not they can potentially violate the rights described in teh bill of rights, which they can't.


You jumped horses when you switched from a 'No Shirt, No Shoes' issue to another dress code not covered by the Health Department. One is forced upon a business where the other is preference concerning who a business wants to allow on their property. These are two different issues.
Click to expand...

Did you forget your example with the t-shirt? The backpack?

And the no shirt no shoes no service thing is not just a health department thing. You've made the claim that it is a health department thing, but you pretty much just made that up because, as I have noted, places that are not under the jurisdiction of the health department have that same kind of policy and more (like the example I provided).

What was proven when?
Click to expand...

You were proven incorrect when I provided evidence that you were incorrect.


I asked for you to show me a law concerning the legality of a backpack and you shied away.
Click to expand...

False. You asked: "Your going to have to show me where a backpack is LEGALLY prohibited anywhere."

You just made the argument that we need to be precise in our language, yet here you are trying to pretend that teh above statment is the same as saying "you are going to have to show me where a backpack is prohibited BY LAW anywhere" when they are extremely different statements.

It's LEGAL for a business to prohibit the wearing of backpacks. That is to say, if a business prohibits backpacks, and it is legal for them to do so, then backpacks are LEGALLY prohibited by that company as opposed to being ILLEGALLY prohibited by that company.

You did not ask for a law that prohibits backpacks in certain places. Which is good, because we aren't talking about laws, we are talking about company policies.



I challenged your opinion on the no shirts sign, and you switched horses.
Click to expand...

I pointed out that you were wrong in your assumptions about dress code policies and then offered absolute proof of your flawed assumptions. How is that "switching horses".

Those would be points (Plural)
Click to expand...

But they are imaginary points.
 
Tucker Case said:
The problem here is that some people have the thoroughly misguided belief that the property owner is violating the second amendment by making that request, but that belief is entirely false because the second amendment (like all of the amendments in the bill of rights) is simply a restriction on governmental authority.
Click to expand...

And we've come full circle again. You say certain bill of rights issues are set into stone yet others can be altered. Anyone who knows that the second amendment is part of the constitution has a 'direct' idea. Way to butcher the language.

You've spammed up the forum by posting 3,000 times in a row and now are just swimming in circles. Keep swimming. I'm going to watch a bit.
 
Airborne375 said:
Cops know when they can arrest someone or not.
Attorneys know when someone actually broke a law or not.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about laws, we're talking about company policies and whether or not those policies can violate the rights described in the bill of rights (they can't).
 
Airborne375 said:
And we've come full circle again. You say certain bill of rights issues are set into stone yet others can be altered. Anyone who knows that the second amendment is part of the constitution has a 'direct' idea. Way to butcher the language.

You've spammed up the forum by posting 3,000 times in a row and now are just swimming in circles. Keep swimming. I'm going to watch a bit.
Click to expand...

Anyone who knows the introduction to th ebill of rights knows that they are in place because:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

That language makes it very clear that the bill of rights are meant to restrict the governments authority.

I cannot violate your right to free speech, for example, no matter how hard I tried I am incapable of doing it. For example if I owned this website or one like it and I banned anyone who said something I disagree with, I wouldn't be violating their right to free speech. It's simply not possible for me to do it.

The same is true with any right in the bill of rights.
 
Tucker Case said:
We're not talking about laws, we're talking about company policies and whether or not those policies can violate the rights described in the bill of rights (they can't).
Click to expand...

I have no clue what you are babbling about because you use sloppy terms to define your concept of 'The Law'.

I have no clue what your talking about if it isn't the law. 'Oh, in Tucker's head anyone can infringe on a person's rights whenever it is convenient for them.' isn't what I'm discussing. This makes the We're statement invalid.
 
Airborne375 said:
I have no clue what you are babbling about because you use sloppy terms to define your concept of 'The Law'.
Click to expand...

:lol: I'm not the person who said "legally prohibited" when they apparently meant to say "prohibited by law".

I mean, that ****'s sloppier than the floor in a bukake circle.

I have no clue what your talking about if it isn't the law.
Click to expand...

The fact that you have no clue is quite clear.

'Oh, in Tucker's head anyone can infringe on a person's rights whenever it is convenient for them.' isn't what I'm discussing
Click to expand...

People cannot infringe on people's rights at any time because it is impossible for them to do so.

Therefore, what you just made up above and attributed to me isn't what anyone is discussing. It's just an imaginary thing that you made up.


This makes the We're statement invalid.
Click to expand...

We're discussing company policies. That's pretty clear given the nature of the thread. the question becomes what on Earth have you decided to arbitrarily discuss?
 
I'm disregarding most of your reply because there is nothing there deserving of a reply. You're just rehashing your broke down and poorly structured arguments Nothing save this:

** People cannot infringe on people's rights at any time because it is impossible for them to do so. **

Define how the hell your using the word 'People' here. Defining impossible would be grand as well. Oh fret not, I am asking so I can cram the statement down your throat so you cannot wriggle out later. This is your statement, defend it.
 
Airborne375 said:
I'm disregarding most of your reply because there is nothing there deserving of a reply. You're just rehashing your broke down and poorly structured arguments Nothing save this:
Click to expand...

Translation: "I'm going to ignore the points you have made so that I may continue to pretend that I am correct"

** People cannot infringe on people's rights at any time because it is impossible for them to do so. **

Define how the hell your using the word 'People' here. Defining impossible would be grand as well. Oh fret not, I am asking so I can cram the statement down your throat so you cannot wriggle out later. This is your statement, defend it.
Click to expand...

People = human beings. I am using this term as opposed to an entity like the government which is comprised of people but has an authority of it's own that is greater than that which any individual can have and has authority over individuals.

Impossible = unable to be done

I look forward to your future attempts to pretend that you are right, or as you call it, attempt to "cram the statement down my throat".
 
Tucker Case said:
Translation: "I'm going to ignore the points you have made so that I may continue to pretend that I am correct"



People = human beings. I am using this term as opposed to an entity like the government which is comprised of people but has an authority of it's own that is greater than that which any individual can have and has authority over individuals.

Impossible = unable to be done

I look forward to your future attempts to pretend that you are right, or as you call it, attempt to "cram the statement down my throat".
Click to expand...

Real Translation: Your head is shoved too far up your ass to listen to any points made, valid or otherwise. I'll let what I've said already stand for itself. When you argue with a fool, speculators may have a hard time judging who the true fool is.

FBI
FBI — Civil Rights

ACLU
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

Blood Sucking Lawyers
Civil Rights Lawyers - Legal Information | Lawyers.com

I can post thousands of links if need be, those three should spell it out even for you. If the FBI investigates Civil Rights Abuses don't you think someone's rights are being infringed upon on the criminal level? If the ACLU files civil lawsuits don't you think civil liberties are being stepped on somewhere? And of course the 'blood sucking' lawyers. Capitalism in motion. If these cases weren't winnable, if no ones rights are being stepped on to the point where these lawyers aren't winning cases and making money, why are they doing it?

Follow along:

Rights Infringed Upon + Federal Government investigates and perhaps prosecutes those who infringe or Private law firms sue over the same and win = Judges are declaring rights can indeed be infringed upon.

Questions?

Knowledge is 'power, reading is fundamental, Google is your friend.


Mutter and sputter away.
Oh don't forget to respond in 30 different posts so you spam this off the screen.
 
Last edited:
Airborne375 said:
Real Translation: Your head is shoved too far up your ass to listen to any points made, valid or otherwise. I'll let what I've said already stand for itself. When you argue with a fool, speculators may have a hard time judging who the true fool is.

FBI
FBI — Civil Rights

ACLU
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

Blood Sucking Lawyers
Civil Rights Lawyers - Legal Information | Lawyers.com

I can post thousands of links if need be, those three should spell it out even for you. If the FBI investigates Civil Rights Abuses don't you think someone's rights are being infringed upon on the criminal level? If the ACLU files civil lawsuits don't you think civil liberties are being stepped on somewhere? And of course the 'blood sucking' lawyers. Capitalism in motion. If these cases weren't winnable, if no ones rights are being stepped on to the point where these lawyers aren't winning cases and making money, why are they doing it?

Follow along:

Rights Infringed Upon + Federal Government investigates and perhaps prosecutes those who infringe or Private law firms sue over the same and win = Judges are declaring rights can indeed be infringed upon.

Questions?

Knowledge is 'power, reading is fundamental, Google is your friend.


Mutter and sputter away.
Oh don't forget to respond in 30 different posts so you spam this off the screen.
Click to expand...

Civil rights are something vastly different from the rights we are discussing here. :shrug:
 
Airborne375 said:
Real Translation: Your head is shoved too far up your ass to listen to any points made, valid or otherwise. I'll let what I've said already stand for itself. When you argue with a fool, speculators may have a hard time judging who the true fool is.

FBI
FBI — Civil Rights

ACLU
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

Blood Sucking Lawyers
Civil Rights Lawyers - Legal Information | Lawyers.com

I can post thousands of links if need be, those three should spell it out even for you. If the FBI investigates Civil Rights Abuses don't you think someone's rights are being infringed upon on the criminal level? If the ACLU files civil lawsuits don't you think civil liberties are being stepped on somewhere? And of course the 'blood sucking' lawyers. Capitalism in motion. If these cases weren't winnable, if no ones rights are being stepped on to the point where these lawyers aren't winning cases and making money, why are they doing it?

Follow along:

Rights Infringed Upon + Federal Government investigates and perhaps prosecutes those who infringe or Private law firms sue over the same and win = Judges are declaring rights can indeed be infringed upon.

Questions?

Knowledge is 'power, reading is fundamental, Google is your friend.


Mutter and sputter away.
Oh don't forget to respond in 30 different posts so you spam this off the screen.
Click to expand...

So then you should be in agreement that the rights of private property owners can be stepped on? Private property owners have rights especially when the rights of others may be infringed on by one individual invitee on the property. If it is made illegal for a private property owner to tell people with weapons that they are required to scram or beat tracks off of their property then when can a property owner protect their property? Are you saying that gun owners have rights but property owners do not have any rights?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
So then you should be in agreement that the rights of private property owners can be stepped on? Private property owners have rights especially when the rights of others may be infringed on by one individual invitee on the property. If it is made illegal for a private property owner to tell people with weapons that they are required to scram or beat tracks off of their property then when can a property owner protect their property? Are you saying that gun owners have rights but property owners do not have any rights?
Click to expand...

It exactly why we have a supreme court. When one right overlaps another a ruling has to be made. I haven't bothered to look at all the cases the court has ever heard regarding the 2nd amendment but I'll say this, the second amendment surely trumps property rights. It's not stepped on in the above instances, it's recognizing that amendment #2 overrides the concerns of property owners. Madison didn't draft the bill of rights up willy nilly. He didn't just jot down what kept to mind and have that list make it to the final draft.

Questions:

Where does your concept of 'Property Rights' stem from?

Who do you think enforces them?

I'm not trying to be snarky. I am trying to figure out how to field your questions so you 'get' my answers. I've answered the above question 2+ times already in this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom