Concealed carry

Re: Concealed carry

Postby aunt betty » Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:18 pm

And some people don't. Sorry about messing up your well-structured debate. I hope you win. :thumbsup:
I've heard that it's incredibly stupid to fuck around with a crazy man's head.
User avatar
aunt betty
 
Posts: 14634
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:37 pm
Location: East Side

Re: Concealed carry

Postby Olly » Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:28 pm

Bootlipkiller wrote:And some like to attack people who are trying to bring light to a conversation. Like you. Some also like to attack people when they feel backed in a corner on their argument. Again this is you. You need to relax turbo and let people have opinions without attacking them. You called Jehler a hypocrite for his opinion but if someone calls you one you can't handle it without attacking someone personally. Cool your jets buddy, thought we were here to have fun.;)


I never called John a hypocrite I was pointing out the hypocrisy of his view. That's what a debate is.... you point out flaws in someone's view and try to change their view with facts.

de-bate
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v.intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.


So buddy, just cool your jets and if your actually able provide some input instead of trolling please do so.

Also as a moderator I feel inclined to remind you that

6. Trolling for the sake of Trolling will not be tolerated.


Turbo :thumbsup:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” ― Samuel Adams
User avatar
Olly
WFF Administrator
 
Posts: 15521
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 9:05 am

Re: Concealed carry

Postby Bootlipkiller » Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:40 pm

Olly wrote:
Bootlipkiller wrote:And some like to attack people who are trying to bring light to a conversation. Like you. Some also like to attack people when they feel backed in a corner on their argument. Again this is you. You need to relax turbo and let people have opinions without attacking them. You called Jehler a hypocrite for his opinion but if someone calls you one you can't handle it without attacking someone personally. Cool your jets buddy, thought we were here to have fun.;)


I never called John a hypocrite I was pointing out the hypocrisy of his view. That's what a debate is.... you point out flaws in someone's view and try to change their view with facts.

de-bate
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v.intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.


So buddy, just cool your jets and if your actually able provide some input instead of trolling please do so.

Also as a moderator I feel inclined to remind you that

6. Trolling for the sake of Trolling will not be tolerated.


Turbo :thumbsup:

Well if you think I'm trolling ban me buddy. I just think you get out of hand sometimes and I'm not afraid to point it out to you. Moderate away man.
AKPirate wrote:The sins of Boot and Gaddy are causing the Cali drought and knowing they have no limits to their depravity... :mrgreen:
User avatar
Bootlipkiller
 
Posts: 14361
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:47 am
Location: you stay classy Sutter County... Im Ron Burgandy???

Re: Concealed carry

Postby aunt betty » Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:45 pm

I like pie. :mrgreen:
I've heard that it's incredibly stupid to fuck around with a crazy man's head.
User avatar
aunt betty
 
Posts: 14634
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:37 pm
Location: East Side

Re: Concealed carry

Postby Olly » Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:47 pm

Bootlipkiller wrote:Well if you think I'm trolling ban me buddy. I just think you get out of hand sometimes and I'm not afraid to point it out to you. Moderate away man.


:lol: Like I'd ban you over this, that's silly to think. You do have a PM though.

:beer: :beer:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” ― Samuel Adams
User avatar
Olly
WFF Administrator
 
Posts: 15521
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 9:05 am

Re: Concealed carry

Postby Tomkat » Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:51 pm

My opinion on how it all went down.

Looking at this debate from an objective view, Olly, has a stronger case on the concepts being debated.

Olly was spot on that no one forces you to enter BWW with out your gun; you are free to choose where you do business.
The business owner has a right to not allow guns in his place. He also may require you to wear a shirt and some shoes.

I agree (and so did Olly) that the 2nd amendment was a different set of rules for publicly funded buildings.

Boot had a good point that Olly tends to get painted in a corner, debate wise, and attack the attacker, probably unknowingly . In this case it was not necessary as he really has this one nailed down.

Jehler is a first rate shit starter, brillant in that he stirs the pot and dissapears.
Dan dont wanna take shit from no one.
Assateague is looking for any opening to start the revolt.
Boot will probably get to pull Olly over one day and use a flashlight on him...
Acorn has a lot of cool shit from the old days, good memories.
Olly has some rank and is not used to back sass from the underlings.

We can all agree I am a loud mouthed dick and will spout off anytime for any reason.
User avatar
Tomkat
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:46 pm

Re: Concealed carry

Postby Bootlipkiller » Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:53 pm

Tomkat wrote:My opinion on how it all went down.

Looking at this debate from an objective view, Olly, has a stronger case on the concepts being debated.

Olly was spot on that no one forces you to enter BWW with out your gun; you are free to choose where you do business.
The business owner has a right to not allow guns in his place. He also may require you to wear a shirt and some shoes.

I agree (and so did Olly) that the 2nd amendment was a different set of rules for publicly funded buildings.

Boot had a good point that Olly tends to get painted in a corner, debate wise, and attack the attacker, probably unknowingly . In this case it was not necessary as he really has this one nailed down.

Jehler is a first rate shit starter, brillant in that he stirs the pot and dissapears.
Dan dont wanna take shit from no one.
Assateague is looking for any opening to start the revolt.
Boot will probably get to pull Olly over one day and use a flashlight on him...
Acorn has a lot of cool shit from the old days, good memories.
Olly has some rank and is not used to back sass from the underlings.

We can all agree I am a loud mouthed dick and will spout off anytime for any reason.

:lol: TK your not a dick. And for the recorded I completely agree with Olly on this subject.
AKPirate wrote:The sins of Boot and Gaddy are causing the Cali drought and knowing they have no limits to their depravity... :mrgreen:
User avatar
Bootlipkiller
 
Posts: 14361
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:47 am
Location: you stay classy Sutter County... Im Ron Burgandy???

Re: Concealed carry

Postby rebelp74 » Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:55 pm

Pretty damn sure we are all hypocrites. We all want to get blow jobs but none of us want give blow jobs.
Reinstate TomKat

4-20MJ
User avatar
rebelp74
 
Posts: 12506
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:49 am
Location: nw louisiana

Re: Concealed carry

Postby Olly » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:02 pm

It's all good. Bootlipkiller and I agreed we're both to Alpha as fuck to debate on here.

:beer:

Sent from my phone.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” ― Samuel Adams
User avatar
Olly
WFF Administrator
 
Posts: 15521
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 9:05 am

Re: Concealed carry

Postby Bootlipkiller » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:02 pm

rebelp74 wrote:Pretty damn sure we are all hypocrites. We all want to get blow jobs but none of us want give blow jobs.

:lol: truth
AKPirate wrote:The sins of Boot and Gaddy are causing the Cali drought and knowing they have no limits to their depravity... :mrgreen:
User avatar
Bootlipkiller
 
Posts: 14361
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:47 am
Location: you stay classy Sutter County... Im Ron Burgandy???

Re: Concealed carry

Postby DeadEye_Dan » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:07 pm

Olly wrote:
So you don't think private property rights mean anything? Does that mean I can walk onto your front yard and trespass? If you don't think BWW has the right to stop you from bringing a gun onto THEIR property then you can't have the right to stop me from walking onto yours.

What if you were a home owner and invited a bunch of people over for dinner but we're strictly against guns. Do your dinner guest have the right to go against your wishes in your house on your property?


Sent from my phone.


The primary difference (as I see it) in these two scenarios are this:

1) BWW (while a "private" establishment) is open to the general public. They advertise to the public. They take money and provide service to the general public. Their very business depends on the public entering their premises. If they discriminated against a protected class of citizenry (disability/racial/religious) they'd get shut down - how is my right to bear arms any different? It should be breaking the law by discriminating against me.

2) My front yard is not advertised as a meeting place. I receive no personal benefit by your loitering in my front yard.
I don't serve cold beer in my yard to lure you in.

In summation: If you stand to benefit from the general public - then you accept the general public, discriminating against none.

I'm also not to keen on constitutional rights extending to corporations or any entity other than an individual. But, I can see both sides of that argument.



In the dinner party scenario, I'd have to make an assumption: if we are friendly enough that you invite me to dinner, then you knew I'd be carrying at the dinner when you sent the invite. If you didn't want a gun at your table, you would have considered that prior to sending the invite. My assumption is that you knew and were implying consent for me to carry by sending the invite.
Last edited by DeadEye_Dan on Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cover your ears, Darlin'
User avatar
DeadEye_Dan
WFF Supporter
 
Posts: 7164
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:59 am
Location: The Zoo

Re: Concealed carry

Postby DeadEye_Dan » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:11 pm

Dammit! Got stuck on a call half way through my response - missed all the chest thumping and then posted after all the dust settled.

I miss all the cool shit.
Cover your ears, Darlin'
User avatar
DeadEye_Dan
WFF Supporter
 
Posts: 7164
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:59 am
Location: The Zoo

Re: Concealed carry

Postby Tomkat » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:29 pm

rebelp74 wrote:Pretty damn sure we are all hypocrites. We all want to get blow jobs but none of us want give blow jobs.


True dat!
User avatar
Tomkat
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:46 pm

Re: Concealed carry

Postby rebelp74 » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:30 pm

Fuck y'alls hypocrisy, I'm the only one right and everyone else is wrong! Does that help Dan?
Reinstate TomKat

4-20MJ
User avatar
rebelp74
 
Posts: 12506
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:49 am
Location: nw louisiana

Re: Concealed carry

Postby Olly » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:36 pm

So before my response I will concede that Dan you're probably a much smarter man than me but I'll try my best even though I know I'm biting off more than I can chew :lol:

DeadEye_Dan wrote:
The primary difference (as I see it) in these two scenarios are this:

1) BWW (while a "private" establishment) is open to the general public. They advertise to the public. They take money and provide service to the general public. Their very business depends on the public entering their premises. If they discriminated against a protected class of citizenry (disability/racial/religious) they'd get shut down - how is my right to bear arms any different? It should be breaking the law by discriminating against me.


Are we debating the current law or what someone's rights should be? (serious question) I believe that a business SHOULD be able to refuse anyone based on any reason including race, sex, religion. I think it'd be wrong morally and that business would for sure go out of business but if we're debating natural property rights then a propitiatory for a restaurant should be able to exclude any group of people for any reason.

Secondly in response to your argument that a BWW is a public place and should follow the same rules as public parks for example I don't agree with. The main reason being that you do not pay taxes on BWW, other then your choice to enter the establishment you do not fund BWW in any shape or form and do not have a stake in ownership. Unlike a national park or city hall where every legal citizen in takes ownership through funding via taxes.

2) My front yard is not advertised as a meeting place. I receive no personal benefit by your loitering in my front yard.
I don't serve cold beer in my yard to lure you in.


You can't blame BWW for making you enter their restaurant. Saying that they "lured" you in is putting the blame on them for your actions. You're an adult and I'm almost sure you've never been forced to enter a BWW. When you make that choice (freely) you should understand that it's their property and you have to abide by their rules.

In the dinner party scenario, I'd have to make an assumption: if we are friendly enough that you invite me to dinner, then you knew I'd be carrying at the dinner when you sent the invite. If you didn't want a gun at your table, you would have considered that prior to sending the invite. My assumption is that you knew and were implying consent for me to carry by sending the invite.


I don't think you can assume in this scenario. Here's another one in more detail.

You're new to an office and the manager is passing out flyers (advertising) a big dinner as his house (private property), you get a flyer and even though you don't know each other well have been invited to the dinner and will attend. However the flyer says in bold letters "please don't bring a firearm" (the sign).

So you were advertised too.
You were welcomed with open arms.
You were also asked not to bring in a firearm.

Do you think that your 2nd amendment right trumps your new bosses private property rights and in this case he loses the ability to dictate what comes into his home?
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” ― Samuel Adams
User avatar
Olly
WFF Administrator
 
Posts: 15521
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 9:05 am

Re: Concealed carry

Postby assateague » Wed Jun 26, 2013 4:44 pm

I still think, in order to avoid hypocrisy, my "color" test is more accurate than saying "public" and "private", since those are open to "debate". If you can say "no black people allowed", then you should be able to say "no guns allowed". That's it. That simple.

Because basically, rights are "infringed" every day, everywhere. That's a simple fact. The Bill of Rights only applies to GOVERNMENT taking away/infringing those rights, not BWW, not the Chevy dealership, not your neighbor, not anything else. And technically, the Bill of Rights only applies to the FEDERAL government taking away/infringing your rights, not the state of California, not Michigan, not any other state.

Might not sound right, but that's the way it is, notwithstanding what a few political appointees may say. MD, as much as I hate to say it, would be perfectly within their rights to say "no guns allowed within our borders at all". So I'm not really concerned with BWW.
User avatar
assateague
 
Posts: 23627
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:52 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Concealed carry

Postby Olly » Wed Jun 26, 2013 5:02 pm

assateague wrote:. And technically, the Bill of Rights only applies to the FEDERAL government taking away/infringing your rights, not the state of California, not Michigan, not any other state.


That is absolutely not true. A perfect example would the the 13th amendment (I know not the bill of rights but still an amendment to the constitution just like the first 10).

According to you if a state in the union chooses to they can legalize slavery but the federal govt cant.

Unless I misunderstood you.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” ― Samuel Adams
User avatar
Olly
WFF Administrator
 
Posts: 15521
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 9:05 am

Re: Concealed carry

Postby Tomkat » Wed Jun 26, 2013 5:06 pm

I have always thought states ought to be able to have more say in their laws and customs. The federal gubment has gotten out of control.

What applies in Kansas does not apply in New York or Alabama.
User avatar
Tomkat
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:46 pm

Re: Concealed carry

Postby 3legged_lab » Wed Jun 26, 2013 5:55 pm

DeadEye_Dan wrote:
The primary difference (as I see it) in these two scenarios are this:

1) BWW (while a "private" establishment) is open to the general public. They advertise to the public. They take money and provide service to the general public. Their very business depends on the public entering their premises. If they discriminated against a protected class of citizenry (disability/racial/religious) they'd get shut down - how is my right to bear arms any different? It should be breaking the law by discriminating against me.

Open to the public is still private property - they can ask you to leave at any time. If you refuse, the police will help you leave. When you are there you are a guest.
When I go into the grocery store there is a sign out front that says "no pets allowed in the store, except service animals". Does that mean its ok for that fat bitch to have her yappy Pomeranian sitting in the child seat of the cart (buggy for our southern friends), that may have just been rolling in the yard in its own shit, because her rights are being infringed upon?

"No shirt, No shoes - No service"? If walk you in sportin yer pecks and want to buy $200 in beer are they gonna take your money? Probably.



For the record, I don't care where you carry. I only leave mine in the truck for federal buildings.
Bootlipkiller wrote: all the mallards I killed today had boners do to my epic calling.
User avatar
3legged_lab
WFF Supporter
 
Posts: 17344
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:19 pm
Location: OREGON

Re: Concealed carry

Postby jehler » Wed Jun 26, 2013 6:01 pm

Olly wrote:My biggest thing with this is you don't have a right to go to buffalo wild wings for example. BWW requesting that you don't carry a gun on THEIR property doesn't infringe on your 2nd amendment rights in any way. It's your choice or not to go in there...

People that CCW on private property knowing that the owners don't want it that way are full of themselves. Just simply respect their rights and go somewhere else.

I used BWW as an example because I used to love going there, the wings weren't great but my friends and I used to go all the time. I made a choice based on my beliefs to respect their rights and at the same time practice my own values and that meant never going there again.

Sent from my phone.
where is this right to keep firearms out of a public building. It may be privately owned but until you are asked to leave it is open to the public. What amendment gives them this right to tell me not to carry "in public"?
FREE THE QUOTE STREAM!
User avatar
jehler
 
Posts: 11453
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: Concealed carry

Postby jehler » Wed Jun 26, 2013 6:02 pm

Looks like Dan beat me, but, like said before, it's public until asked to leave, you can give up your rights if you want olly but don't dis in those who hold them dear
FREE THE QUOTE STREAM!
User avatar
jehler
 
Posts: 11453
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: Concealed carry

Postby assateague » Wed Jun 26, 2013 6:03 pm

Olly wrote:
assateague wrote:. And technically, the Bill of Rights only applies to the FEDERAL government taking away/infringing your rights, not the state of California, not Michigan, not any other state.


That is absolutely not true. A perfect example would the the 13th amendment (I know not the bill of rights but still an amendment to the constitution just like the first 10).

According to you if a state in the union chooses to they can legalize slavery but the federal govt cant.

Unless I misunderstood you.



Nope. That's exactly what I'm saying. The 14th amendment is what incorporated the Bill of Rights onto the state level, but the 14th was never properly ratified. Lest you think I'm just "making this up", even the Supreme Court agreed with me:

The Bill of Rights was understood from its inception to regulate the actions of the federal government, and did not originally apply to the states. All states had their own constitutions, and all state constitutions included a bill of rights, many of which mirrored the language of the US Constitution, and some of which afforded greater freedoms.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the Supreme Court often ruled in favor of state law when they were presented with cases that contradicted the first nine amendments (the 10th doesn't really confer any rights). For example, in Barron v. Baltimore, 32 US 243 (1833), the Court ruled the 5th Amendment Takings Clause, which wasn't written into the Maryland Constitution, did not apply to the city of Baltimore or, by extension, to the state of Maryland.

An 1866 charge against the state of Massachusetts in Pervear v. Massachusetts, 72 US 475 (1866) had similar results. In this case, the petitioner filed for relief under the 8th Amendment after the State sentenced him to 3 months prison with hard labor for failing to maintain his state liquor license. The Court again responded that the 8th Amendment did not apply to state government, but to federal legislation, only.

After the Civil War, the US government decided it needed a way to enable Reconstruction and supplement the Civil Rights Act of 1866, so Congress created the 14th Amendment, ratified in July 1868, which could have applied the Bill of Rights to the States via Total Incorporation, but the Supreme Court restricted its use.


BUT, the 14th was never introduced nor ratified per the Constitution. Matter of fact, the president even vetoed it. But Congress threatened to permanently disenfranchise the southern states if they did not ratify it, and in a couple cases (I don't remember which states, but there were a couple) Congress dissolved the state legislatures, installed military governors who appointed legislatures which would ratify it.

The Bill of Rights most certainly does NOT apply to the states.
User avatar
assateague
 
Posts: 23627
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:52 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Concealed carry

Postby assateague » Wed Jun 26, 2013 6:07 pm

And in case wiki isn't enough, here is a treatise from the William and Mary School of Law regarding the issue. I'd recommend reading it if you ever get the time (it's not too bad), but here are some highlights:

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1554&context=wmborj

But consider this: until 1947, the First Amendment to the Constitution would
have had nothing to say about the case I just described. For the first 156 years of the Bill
of Rights' existence, the First Amendment would not have been applicable because this
was a dispute under state law, and the Establishment Clause and all the other provisions
of the Bill of Rights applied only to claims of federal abuse of power.


The framers of the Constitution who omitted a federal bill of rights were quite
familiar with, indeed conscious of, the importance of rights. Most of them had grappled
with state constitutions, many of which included bills of rights well before the
constitutional convention was convened. While these localized protections of rights were
quite imperfect, the framers by and large believed that the problems created by these
shortcomings could be dealt with at the state level.


Chief Justice John Marshall put the debate to rest in 1833 in his opinion in
Barron v. Baltimore.27 Mr. Barron was upset because the city of Baltimore diverted
several streams from their normal course in the process of paving some city streets. This
diversion of water had the side effect of replacing the deep water surrounding Barron's
commercial wharf with deposits of sand and gravel. His lawsuit charged the city with
taking his property without just compensation, a violation of the Fifth Amendment.2
"
Chief Justice Marshall was to have no part of that claim, ruling that "the Fifth
Amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not
as applicable to the states."29


The purpose of this talk is to bridge as much of the gap as time permits between
the colonial conceptions of rights and the modem view. This will be accomplished with
a look back at the revolution in constitutional law that took place, not in the late 1700's,
but primarily between 1925 and 1969, the period in which the Supreme Court ruled that
most provisions of the Bill of Rights function as checks on the power of state
governments, not merely as limits on federal authority.
User avatar
assateague
 
Posts: 23627
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:52 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Concealed carry

Postby DeadEye_Dan » Wed Jun 26, 2013 6:09 pm

For the record - I argue from what I think the laws should be, not what they actually are.

And arguing is fun.
Cover your ears, Darlin'
User avatar
DeadEye_Dan
WFF Supporter
 
Posts: 7164
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:59 am
Location: The Zoo

Re: Concealed carry

Postby Olly » Wed Jun 26, 2013 6:16 pm

jehler wrote:where is this right to keep firearms out of a public building. It may be privately owned but until you are asked to leave it is open to the public. What amendment gives them this right to tell me not to carry "in public"?


So you're saying that my house and property are open to the public until I ask them to leave? What makes a building public or not is ownership.

jehler wrote:Looks like Dan beat me, but, like said before, it's public until asked to leave, you can give up your rights if you want olly but don't dis in those who hold them dear


:lol: nice try.

Dan, I proposed another scenario. Will you respond to it? I'm curious.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” ― Samuel Adams
User avatar
Olly
WFF Administrator
 
Posts: 15521
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 9:05 am

Re: Concealed carry

Postby jehler » Wed Jun 26, 2013 6:21 pm

Do you have a sign on your front door that says "open 8-5 come in and check out our menu?" I know your not so thick as to not see the difference, so why keep making analogies that are apple to orange?
FREE THE QUOTE STREAM!
User avatar
jehler
 
Posts: 11453
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: Concealed carry

Postby Olly » Wed Jun 26, 2013 6:25 pm

jehler wrote:Do you have a sign on your front door that says "open 8-5 come in and check out our menu?" I know your not so thick as to not see the difference, so why keep making analogies that are apple to orange?


Putting a sign that says open for business doesn't mean you give up rights to your property. If your argument was true then business wouldn't be able to refuse service to anyone. Or require that people wear shoes for example.

John, I don't think your whole heart is in this argument and I smell a little bit of trolling going on. Leave that for the white fish.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” ― Samuel Adams
User avatar
Olly
WFF Administrator
 
Posts: 15521
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 9:05 am

Re: Concealed carry

Postby DeadEye_Dan » Wed Jun 26, 2013 6:29 pm

The boss one?

Sure, he can stipulate in the invite that no guns are allowed. That's his right.

In reality, unless he's got a metal detector, he's never gonna know either way.
If he says "no guns", and I carry anyway - but he never knows it, how have I materially affected his life?

Your rights and my rights get violated dozens of times every day and the only reason we tolerate it is because we are unaware it's occurring.
Cover your ears, Darlin'
User avatar
DeadEye_Dan
WFF Supporter
 
Posts: 7164
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:59 am
Location: The Zoo

Re: Concealed carry

Postby Olly » Wed Jun 26, 2013 6:33 pm

DeadEye_Dan wrote:
Sure, he can stipulate in the invite that no guns are allowed. That's his right.


But Buffalo Wild Wings can't because they take money for their services?


DeadEye_Dan wrote:
In reality, unless he's got a metal detector, he's never gonna know either way.
If he says "no guns", and I carry anyway - but he never knows it, how have I materially affected his life?

Your rights and my rights get violated dozens of times every day and the only reason we tolerate it is because we are unaware it's occurring.


We aren't talking about what you can get away with. I'd never argue that you obviously are right. Also excusing this argument because you're rights get violated everyday doesn't end the debate. In fact that is the worst way to insult the rights the framers dared to create for us.

We are talking about what is right and what is wrong. Morally & constitutionally.

Okay so now you've CCed a handgun into his dinner party. Have you or have you not violated his right to control his private property?
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” ― Samuel Adams
User avatar
Olly
WFF Administrator
 
Posts: 15521
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 9:05 am

Re: Concealed carry

Postby jehler » Wed Jun 26, 2013 6:35 pm

Olly wrote:
jehler wrote:Do you have a sign on your front door that says "open 8-5 come in and check out our menu?" I know your not so thick as to not see the difference, so why keep making analogies that are apple to orange?


Putting a sign that says open for business doesn't mean you give up rights to your property. If your argument was true then business wouldn't be able to refuse service to anyone. Or require that people wear shoes for example.

John, I don't think your whole heart is in this argument and I smell a little bit of trolling going on. Leave that for the white fish.
no troll, when you open your doors for business you still have rights sure, but it's not the same as your home, if I owned a bar and put a sign up that said "no Jews, retards or redheads" would that be legal? It's my property right, could have that rule at my house...
FREE THE QUOTE STREAM!
User avatar
jehler
 
Posts: 11453
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:18 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Handguns & Self Defense

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests