Do you still conceal carry into posted "No Carry" businesses?

[NavyLCDR]

Trace Adkins said it best:

"Excuse me
First amendment?
Son, the first amendment protects you from the government
Not from me
You can say whatever you want to out there
You come within reach of me
I'll exercise my right to give you a good ol' country ass whoopin'
Is what I'll do for you
By God"

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
So much confusion about the right to carry and entering private property that bans guns.

There's no confusion at all. 'Shall not be infringed' means exactly that.

Still so much confusion.

Just as NavyLCDR said above about the 1st Amendment so it is with the right to keep and bear arms...

The Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" applies only to the government and does not apply to private citizens and their private property.

 

[Blueshell]

Trace Adkins said it best:

"Excuse me
First amendment?
Son, the first amendment protects you from the government
Not from me
You can say whatever you want to out there
You come within reach of me
I'll exercise my right to give you a good ol' country ass whoopin'
Is what I'll do for you
By God"

Attacking another person over what they say is not a right. It's because of unstable people who would attack someone merly over words is why I carry past your cute little sign in the first place.

So you can go ahead and try to give me a 'good oll country ass whoopin'. You'll just get shot.

 

[Blueshell]

Still so much confusion.

On your end. The rest of us read: shall not be infringed.

 

[Eidolon]

Blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah rights blah blah sheeple blah blah blah SHEEPDAWG blah blahblahblah 'Murcica!! Blah blah blah Obama!

Does that just about sum up all 97 pages of this yap?

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Still so much confusion.

On your end. The rest of us read: shall not be infringed.

So much confusion about the right to bear arms and who the 2nd Amendment restricts... ... on your end. For example:

Second Amendment | Law Library of Congress

United States: Gun Ownership and the Supreme Court
-snip-

In cases in the 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not bar state regulation of firearms. For example, in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.” Although most of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated (PDF) into the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and thus cannot be impaired by state governments, the Second Amendment has never been so incorporated. [UPDATE: In McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), the Supreme Court addressed this issue, ruling that Second Amendment rights are applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment.-snip-

Please provide a reputable cite and link that says the 2nd Amendment's "shall not be infringed" restriction applies to private individual citizens and private property owners.

 

[Blueshell]

Blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah rights blah blah sheeple blah blah blah SHEEPDAWG blah blahblahblah 'Murcica!! Blah blah blah Obama!

Does that just about sum up all 97 pages of this yap?

Pretty much, yeah.

 

[Blueshell]

So much confusion about the right to bear arms...

Well we do our best to explain things to you but victims of the public education systom require more therapy than a forum can provide.

I guess if you don't like it you can move to Canada with your libtard buddies.

 

[Bikenut]

I provided a cite and a link in post #966 that shows the restriction of "shall not be infringed" of the 2nd Amendment does not apply to private property (like a store) owners but applies only to the government and then I asked you:

So much confusion about the right to bear arms and who the 2nd Amendment restricts...
-snip-
Please provide a reputable cite and link that says the 2nd Amendment's "shall not be infringed" restriction applies to private individual citizens and private property owners.

And you replied:

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
So much confusion about the right to bear arms...

Well we do our best to explain things to you but victims of the public education systom require more therapy than a forum can provide.

I guess if you don't like it you can move to Canada with your libtard buddies.

So the only thing I can surmise is that you do not have any cites and links to support your position and are reverting to the liberal default of attacking the messenger instead of providing proof.

Thank you for showing all and sundry your argument holds as much water as a well worn sieve.

 

[Blueshell]

I provided a cite and a link in post #966...

And we've been quoting the constitution throughout this whole thread.

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. There's nothing about private property in there.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
I provided a cite and a link in post #966...

And we've been quoting the constitution throughout this whole thread.

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. There's nothing about private property in there.

The Constitution is a document that creates the government of the United States and enumerates what powers that government has. The Bill of Rights enumerates what powers the government does not have. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are what restricts the government... not the people. Without that basic understanding there will always be confusion.

 

[Blueshell]

The Constitution is a document that creates the government of the United States and enumerates what powers that government has. The Bill of Rights enumerates what powers the government does not have. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are what restricts the government... not the people. Without that basic understanding there will always be confusion.

Don't you see...the government is not allowed to give your sign force of law. Any such violation is purly a civil matter.

So you go ahead and have your sign and I'll go ahead and have my gun. We both get what we want.

 

[corneileous]

So you go ahead and have your sign and I'll go ahead and have my gun. We both get what we want.

Like I've said so many times, I don't know why these people are so worried about the defensive carrier. We're not the ones they should be concerned with. But if they are so hellbent on keeping ALL guns out, they need to make sure ALL guns stay out. If not, my safety is more important than your supposed rights to ban guns in a public place, private or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
The Constitution is a document that creates the government of the United States and enumerates what powers that government has. The Bill of Rights enumerates what powers the government does not have. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are what restricts the government... not the people. Without that basic understanding there will always be confusion.

Don't you see...the government is not allowed to give your sign force of law. Any such violation is purly a civil matter.

So you go ahead and have your sign and I'll go ahead and have my gun. We both get what we want.

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen. The ultimate in mental masturbatory tortured logic in defense of the selfish attitude of "I don't care about your rights! I want it MY way!!!"

 

[corneileous]

"I don't care about your rights! I want it MY way!!!"

The same can be said about these store owners who won't let us carry our protection as well. Just sayin'...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
"I don't care about your rights! I want it MY way!!!"

The same can be said about these store owners who won't let us carry our protection as well. Just sayin'...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Incorrect. No one has any right to be on/in the private property owned by someone else. The property owner isn't violating anyone's rights since no one has any right to be there in the first place. Folks can keep on exercising all of their rights simply by not entering. But if they do wish to enter while respecting the property owner's right to grant or deny permission to enter they would agree to abide by the conditions (rules) governing who has/who doesn't have the owner's permission to enter.

Or folks can knowingly trespass by ... sneaking... their gun in thinking the property owner doesn't have any right to stop them while missing the point that if the property owner doesn't have the right to stop them why is it necessary for them to... sneak.. their gun in?

 

[corneileous]

Incorrect. No one has any right to be on/in the private property owned by someone else. The property owner isn't violating anyone's rights since no one has any right to be there in the first place. Folks can keep on exercising all of their rights simply by not entering. But if they do wish to enter while respecting the property owner's right to grant or deny permission to enter they would agree to abide by the conditions (rules) governing who has/who doesn't have the owner's permission to enter.

Or folks can knowingly trespass by ... sneaking... their gun in thinking the property owner doesn't have any right to stop them while missing the point that if the property owner doesn't have the right to stop them why is it necessary for them to... sneak.. their gun in?

Really don't care. Private or not, it's still a public place where everybody is still invited in until they do something wrong, whether it's just a concealed carrier who carries for defense or a thug who comes in to hurt, kill or steal. Once that person comes in, it's too late.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Blueshell]

The same can be said about these store owners who won't let us carry our protection as well. Just sayin'...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've tried pointing that out to him before. Thick heads are hard to crack.

 

[Blueshell]

... they would agree to abide by the conditions (rules) governing who has/who doesn't have the owner's permission to enter.
...

We have permission to enter, though. The owner even does business with us.

They post the sign and then waive the prohibition.

I don't see the point in posting the sign.

 

[corneileous]

I don't see the point in posting the sign.

I don't either. Put me on the same "criminal" boat all you want but until they make an effort to keep the real threat out, I'm not gonna disarm. Period. That's stupid. That's why people, yes, the supporters of these retarded signs get killed everyday.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk