![:thumbsup: :thumbsup:](./images/smilies/thumb.gif)
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.
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.
6. Trolling for the sake of Trolling will not be tolerated.
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 that6. Trolling for the sake of Trolling will not be tolerated.
Turbo
AKPirate wrote:The sins of Boot and Gaddy are causing the Cali drought and knowing they have no limits to their depravity... :mrgreen:
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.
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.
AKPirate wrote:The sins of Boot and Gaddy are causing the Cali drought and knowing they have no limits to their depravity... :mrgreen:
rebelp74 wrote:Pretty damn sure we are all hypocrites. We all want to get blow jobs but none of us want give blow jobs.
AKPirate wrote:The sins of Boot and Gaddy are causing the Cali drought and knowing they have no limits to their depravity... :mrgreen:
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.
rebelp74 wrote:Pretty damn sure we are all hypocrites. We all want to get blow jobs but none of us want give blow jobs.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Bootlipkiller wrote: all the mallards I killed today had boners do to my epic calling.
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"?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.
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.
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 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.
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"?
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
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?
DeadEye_Dan wrote:
Sure, he can stipulate in the invite that no guns are allowed. That's his right.
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.
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...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.
Return to Handguns & Self Defense
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 180 guests