I know some of you are going to bash me

[Bikenut]

You don't see that this is part of the discussion? If you are going by the 2nd adm. Rights, the 2nd adm. Does not say the right to bear arms does not extend to crazy people and felons, right? So based on your literal interpretation of someones rights under the constitution everyone should be able to carry around a gun. Lets talk personal property rights. I own a farm, it's my farm I can do anything I want on my personal property right? Can I decide to not pay taxes? Can I grow pot? Can I shoot anyone that comes on my property? I do have property rights and gun rights but they are limited by the law. I think this about what people value. You want to judge others based on your own personal values. People disagree on what they value, pretty obvious based on all the posts. But it is obvious you are the better person, the rest of us should not be trusted!! I was about to shave this morning but I could not look myself in the mirror.

I see by the part of your post I put in bold you still can't resist the failed tactic of insult and ridicule.

I also see you have the concept of rights and laws backwards. Laws do not give rights... laws stem from the desire to control the exercising of rights.

Rights themselves are absolute. Everyone has them. That is why the 2nd Amendment specifies "we the people" meaning all of the people (that includes felons and nuts) and "shall not be infringed" means the government is not allowed to restrict or deny the right.

The problem never is the right to keep and bear arms nor is the problem controlling who has the ability to exercise that right. The problem is that folks are focusing on the gun and not the individual, the actual person, who either commits crimes or lacks the judgement to safely handle a gun. The problem is our judicial, penal, and mental health system.

Our judicial system assesses a penalty of imprisonment for X amount of time for a crime and then releases that person back into society. The problem is releasing violent felons back into the victim rich environment called .. society. If the felon can't be trusted to own/carry a gun they should not be released. A very simple concept.

And nuts should be treated the same way... nuts with violent tendencies who can't be trusted with a gun need to be hospitalized.

But the concept of focusing on the person instead of the gun isn't popular because people don't want to pay for the housing of felons and nuts. They would rather pass a law that says those folks aren't "allowed" to have a gun so they "feel" safe... never understanding that the felon and the nut don't, and won't, obey the law anyway. So the law only gives the illusion of being safe because it has no effect upon either the felon or the nut.

 

[Bikenut]

You don't see that this is part of the discussion? If you are going by the 2nd adm. Rights, the 2nd adm. Does not say the right to bear arms does not extend to crazy people and felons, right? So based on your literal interpretation of someones rights under the constitution everyone should be able to carry around a gun. Lets talk personal property rights. I own a farm, it's my farm I can do anything I want on my personal property right? Can I decide to not pay taxes? Can I grow pot? Can I shoot anyone that comes on my property? I do have property rights and gun rights but they are limited by the law. I think this about what people value. You want to judge others based on your own personal values. People disagree on what they value, pretty obvious based on all the posts. But it is obvious you are the better person, the rest of us should not be trusted!! I was about to shave this morning but I could not look myself in the mirror.

Now to address your comments about property rights....

Just like the right to keep and bear arms has been infringed by many laws that restrict and control who, where, and how, that right is allowed to be exercised the private property owners property rights have been infringed by many laws that control what he is allowed to do on, in, with, his property.

The problem isn't the rights... the problem is the law infringing upon those rights.

The thing is... along with exercising those rights comes responsibility... you do have the right to limit access to your property and to use force to remove someone from your property. And any laws that say you can't remove someone infringe upon your private property right to limit access to your property. But if you cause harm while using that force then you are responsible for causing that harm and laws that force you to be responsible for that harm are good things.

And it is forcing the reluctant to take responsibility for causing harm while exercising their rights that brought about............... laws.

 

[Pitbull11]

Rights are not absolute. Your rights end where mine begin. Laws help regulate that. Example your right as a business owner to regulate what happens on your property and my 2nd adm. Right to bear arms. The law has decided that as long as my gun is concealed and I have a carry permit I am allowed to carry on your property with no violation of the law and my right to bear arms. If my weapon is not concealed even though I have a legal right to carry it your right to ask me to leave your property is then upheld by law and if I refuse to leave I am in violation of the trespass law. Even though in your opinion both the business owner and gun owner are disrespecting each others rights.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Rights are not absolute. Your rights end where mine begin. Laws help regulate that. Example your right as a business owner to regulate what happens on your property and my 2nd adm. Right to bear arms. The law has decided that as long as my gun is concealed and I have a carry permit I am allowed to carry on your property with no violation of the law and my right to bear arms. If my weapon is not concealed even though I have a legal right to carry it your right to ask me to leave your property is then upheld by law and if I refuse to leave I am in violation of the trespass law. Even though in your opinion both the business owner and gun owner are disrespecting each others rights.

It doesn't matter if the firearm is concealed or openly carried. I can open carry past a no gun sign, and its not trespassing until they ask my to leave. Same goes for concealed carry. So what's the difference? One is honest, the other believes "as long as you don't get caught it's ok," even though if both get caught they will be asked to leave.

That is a very scary mentality. What else do these same people think they can get away with as long as they don't get caught? Drunk driving? Domestic abuse? Theft? Speeding? ...as long as they don't get caught it's all right? Sorry, I have more integrity than that.

 

[Bikenut]

It doesn't matter if the firearm is concealed or openly carried. I can open carry past a no gun sign, and its not trespassing until they ask my to leave. Same goes for concealed carry. So what's the difference? One is honest, the other believes "as long as you don't get caught it's ok," even though if both get caught they will be asked to leave.

That is a very scary mentality. What else do these same people think they can get away with as long as they don't get caught? Drunk driving? Domestic abuse? Theft? Speeding? ...as long as they don't get caught it's all right? Sorry, I have more integrity than that.

I agree... but, in my opinion, there are some who really do not understand the meaning of the word... "integrity"... and are quite content to disrespect the rights of others as long as they don't get caught.

Yet the major flaw in their arguments is always the fact that they know they are disrespecting the rights of others because they know they have to sneak their gun in... and so was born the phrase...

"Concealed means concealed" ---> Translation.... I'll sneak it in so I don't get caught.

After all... if there wasn't any need to be worried about getting caught why is there the need to sneak the gun in concealed?

 

[Bikenut]

Rights are not absolute. Your rights end where mine begin. Laws help regulate that. Example your right as a business owner to regulate what happens on your property and my 2nd adm. Right to bear arms. The law has decided that as long as my gun is concealed and I have a carry permit I am allowed to carry on your property with no violation of the law and my right to bear arms. If my weapon is not concealed even though I have a legal right to carry it your right to ask me to leave your property is then upheld by law and if I refuse to leave I am in violation of the trespass law. Even though in your opinion both the business owner and gun owner are disrespecting each others rights.

Your rights end where mine begin.

And your right to bear arms ends where my private property rights begin.

The law has decided that as long as my gun is concealed and I have a carry permit I am allowed to carry on your property with no violation of the law and my right to bear arms.

Incorrect... that carry permit allows you to exercise your right to carry a gun in a concealed manner without suffering legal punishment... it does NOT grant permission to carry on private property... it only grants permission to carry where it is allowed and when a property owner says "no guns" then that property is a place where carrying a gun, whether legally concealed with a permit or legally openly.. or even illegally, is a place where carrying a gun is not allowed.

If that permit allowed you to carry on private property then the property owner would not have any legal right to throw you out for .... carrying a concealed pistol.

You can try to justify it with any manner of convoluted logic you want but the fact remains...

A private property owner has the right to deny you the ability to exercise your right bear arms on/in his property.

 

[Firefighterchen]

I agree... but, in my opinion, there are some who really do not understand the meaning of the word... "integrity"... and are quite content to disrespect the rights of others as long as they don't get caught.

Yet the major flaw in their arguments is always the fact that they know they are disrespecting the rights of others because they know they have to sneak their gun in... and so was born the phrase...

"Concealed means concealed" ---> Translation.... I'll sneak it in so I don't get caught.

After all... if there wasn't any need to be worried about getting caught why is there the need to sneak the gun in concealed?

It all boils down to that individuals responsibility. I reread the OP, and it's interesting that in all CAPS he talks about how its OUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY. We can make excuses like it's the private property's decision to "disrespect our rights", "concealed means concealed," etc etc but in the end it's OUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY, it was that INDIVIDUALS CHOICE to be disrespectful back, and there is no excuse for that.

I'd like to think people in general, and firearm owners specifically, would strive to be above reproach. Sadly, that is not the case anymore.

 

[Pitbull11]

Just because you two think you are right, does not make you right or nobel.

 

[Bikenut]

Just because you two think you are right, does not make you right or nobel.

Just because you think we are wrong doesn't make you right nor does it make us not noble either. Although I've never considered just doing the right thing as being special or noble.

The reality is rights are rights and all rights have equal importance and deserve equal respect. To do less is hypocritical.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Just because you two think you are right, does not make you right or nobel.

You also keep trying to make yourself sound like you are the honorable person, which is fine you are following your own ideals. But it does not make someone that disagrees with you any less honorable when they follow their ideals.

Oh come on now, wasn't it you who said as long as we are following our own ideals, we are being honorable? I mean...a druggy wife beating loser could feel doing drugs, beating his wife, and doing nothing in his life is following his ideals, and he would be honorable, or noble, or whatever, right? Or are you gonna take that back?

 

[AndeyHall]

A sign on the door or a law written on a piece of paper in Washington or my state capital isn't going to protect my fiancé or kids (when I have them some day). That's my job. I don't see how anyone feels they have the right to take that away from me.

 

[Pitbull11]

Oh come on now, wasn't it you who said as long as we are following our own ideals, we are being honorable? I mean...a druggy wife beating loser could feel doing drugs, beating his wife, and doing nothing in his life is following his ideals, and he would be honorable, or noble, or whatever, right? Or are you gonna take that back?

Let me try again to make this very clear to you and bike nut. I think you guys are wrong in your beliefs and I don't think you are special or Nobel like you both "think" you are because you don't carry a concealed weapon where the law gives you the right to carry. Please stop with your way out posts. Like being able to search anyone you want.

 

[Bikenut]

A sign on the door or a law written on a piece of paper in Washington or my state capital isn't going to protect my fiancé or kids (when I have them some day). That's my job. I don't see how anyone feels they have the right to take that away from me.

The thing is... you do not have any right to be on/in someone elses property just like no one has any right to be on/in your property. "Open to the public" is an invitation..... it does not confer or grant, or even recognize, any right to be on/in the property.

So if you want to protect yourself and your loved ones ... don't go where your right to bear arms is trumped by the private property owner's right to deny access to anyone who bears arms.

 

[Bikenut]

Let me try again to make this very clear to you and bike nut. I think you guys are wrong in your beliefs and I don't think you are special or Nobel like you both "think" you are because you don't carry a concealed weapon where the law gives you the right to carry. Please stop with your way out posts. Like being able to search anyone you want.

You are the one who decided to call us "noble". I thank you for the distinction but I do not consider myself as anything special or noble... I merely understand that other people have rights that are just as valid and important as mine... and I strive to do the right thing instead of thinking that it's Ok to demand my rights be respected while disrespecting the rights of others ....as long as I don't get caught.

Edited to add... the law does NOT allow you to carry a concealed weapon into/onto private property where doing so is banned by the owner. If it did then the property owner would have no legal backing to throw you out.

Trespass might be the legal charge levied against a gun carrier who disobeyed the property owner's no guns rule but... "disobeying the no guns rule" would be the evidence submitted in court to uphold the trespass charge.

So tell me again the law gives a person the right to disobey a property owner's no guns rule.

Now a bit of a rant.....

The law doesn't "give" rights to anyone... and a concealed carry permit is the exact heinous governmental control, the infringement, of a right mentioned in "shall not be infringed".

We all have the natural right to bear an arm in any manner we wish... it is the governmental infringement upon that right that requires a permit in order to not be punished for doing it.

 

[AndeyHall]

(null)

What about school? I should give up my right to protect myself because I simply want a college education? It's one thing to sacrifice seeing a move in theaters, but you're also saying I should stay out of school if I don't like it.

 

[JimTh]

Sometimes it is better to ask for permission than for forgiveness. The reverse only works well with the wife!

 

[Bikenut]

What about school? I should give up my right to protect myself because I simply want a college education? It's one thing to sacrifice seeing a move in theaters, but you're also saying I should stay out of school if I don't like it.

When a store/theater/or even a garage sale, all of which are private property that is "open to the public" the private property owner has invited people into/onto his property so they can buy the stuff he has for sale.. but that invitation is contingent upon the customer agreeing to abide by any rules the store owner has. Disobey the rules and the store owner revokes the invitation and throws you out. We all know that is how it works. And the law will stand behind the store owner's right to make the rules and his right to revoke his invitation because if you tell that store owner he can't take away your right to carry a gun and refuse to leave the police will come and arrest you. The charge will be trespass but the infraction (or evidence of trespass) that caused the charge would be disobeying the store owner's rules.

And the same thing goes for any private property.. including private universities/colleges and universities/colleges in some States that have separate powers granted to them by law to make their own rules... and it even applies to your own yard and home. The property owner and/or his representative has the power to make the rules and the power to deny access to the property (kick them out) to anyone who disobeys the rules.

Just because a person "wants" to buy a widget from a store or "wants" to get a college education doesn't mean he has the "right" to do it.

And if a person really wants the widget then he voluntarily agrees to the store owner's rules that are a condition of the store owner allowing the person to buy what he wants. Disobey the rules... get thrown out.

And in the case of a college there generally is a rule book and a form (a contract) the person signs saying they voluntarily agree to the rules. Want the education? Obey the rules that are a condition of getting that education. Disobey the rules... get thrown out.

And getting thrown out is legal since just because someone "wants" something doesn't mean there is a "right" to have it.

Orrrr ... a person could just selfishly think they have some kind of right to ignore the rules that others have a right to make and enforce and just.... sneak the gun in since "concealed means concealed" could be translated into "I'll do what I damn well please... as long as I don't get caught."

But it is that little bit "as long as I don't get caught" that indicates the person knows they are doing something wrong... because if they weren't doing anything wrong they wouldn't have to sneak it in and hope they "don't get caught".

Now folks can, and will, do whatever they wish to do.... but what I've been saying is quite simple...

Anyone who demands or expects their right to bear arms be respected while intentionally disrespecting the property rights of others to ban the bearing of arms on/in their property is being hypocritical.

 

[AndeyHall]

When a store/theater/or even a garage sale, all of which are private property that is "open to the public" the private property owner has invited people into/onto his property so they can buy the stuff he has for sale.. but that invitation is contingent upon the customer agreeing to abide by any rules the store owner has. Disobey the rules and the store owner revokes the invitation and throws you out. We all know that is how it works. And the law will stand behind the store owner's right to make the rules and his right to revoke his invitation because if you tell that store owner he can't take away your right to carry a gun and refuse to leave the police will come and arrest you. The charge will be trespass but the infraction (or evidence of trespass) that caused the charge would be disobeying the store owner's rules.

And the same thing goes for any private property.. including private universities/colleges and universities/colleges in some States that have separate powers granted to them by law to make their own rules... and it even applies to your own yard and home. The property owner and/or his representative has the power to make the rules and the power to deny access to the property (kick them out) to anyone who disobeys the rules.

Just because a person "wants" to buy a widget from a store or "wants" to get a college education doesn't mean he has the "right" to do it.

And if a person really wants the widget then he voluntarily agrees to the store owner's rules that are a condition of the store owner allowing the person to buy what he wants. Disobey the rules... get thrown out.

And in the case of a college there generally is a rule book and a form (a contract) the person signs saying they voluntarily agree to the rules. Want the education? Obey the rules that are a condition of getting that education. Disobey the rules... get thrown out.

And getting thrown out is legal since just because someone "wants" something doesn't mean there is a "right" to have it.

Orrrr ... a person could just selfishly think they have some kind of right to ignore the rules that others have a right to make and enforce and just.... sneak the gun in since "concealed means concealed" could be translated into "I'll do what I damn well please... as long as I don't get caught."

But it is that little bit "as long as I don't get caught" that indicates the person knows they are doing something wrong... because if they weren't doing anything wrong they wouldn't have to sneak it in and hope they "don't get caught".

Now folks can, and will, do whatever they wish to do.... but what I've been saying is quite simple...

Anyone who demands or expects their right to bear arms be respected while intentionally disrespecting the property rights of others to ban the bearing of arms on/in their property is being hypocritical.

If they require you to be disarmed while taking part in their business, are they liable for your safety?

 

[Bikenut]

If they require you to be disarmed while taking part in their business, are they liable for your safety?

No... YOU decided to go in.. no one forced you and you do not have any right to be there in the first place. Simple solution? Don't go in.

Let me ask... if I were to visit your home and a few home invaders kicked your door down... are you liable for my safety?

Remember.. in the arena of private property rights there isn't any difference between your private property home and Wal Mart. Both are private property and both property owners have the right to make the rules. In the interest of honesty a business often has extra laws governing who they cannot deny access/service to that homeowners don't have........... yet both STILL have the right to make the rules.

 

[AndeyHall]

If they require you to be disarmed while taking part in their business, are they liable for your safety?

No... YOU decided to go in.. no one forced you and you do not have any right to be there in the first place. Simple solution? Don't go in.

Let me ask... if I were to visit your home and a few home invaders kicked your door down... are you liable for my safety?

Remember.. in the arena of private property rights there isn't any difference between your private property home and Wal Mart. Both are private property and both property owners have the right to make the rules. In the interest of honesty a business often has extra laws governing who they cannot deny access/service to that homeowners don't have........... yet both STILL have the right to make the rules.

How do you explain fire codes? If businesses are liable for all other forms of negligence, why doesn't that apply? If someone breaks in and causes some type of harm to a patron that wasn't afforded the right to protect themselves, that's on them. If you come in my house you can arm yourself in anyway you please. Therefore, no, I should not be liable.