Firearms Owner's Rights V. Property Owner's rights


Treo said:
The problem with these analogies is that smoking does affect other people. Even if everything they say about second hand smoke is false I still have to smell you’re your smoke I still have to breathe it and it’s still going to stink up my house.

A gun in my pocket doesn’t affect you as long as I behave responsibly and I submit that the type of person that wouldn’t behave responsibly wouldn’t obey the sign either
Click to expand...

But that's exactly my argument. Wile I know for a fact that treo is a responsible gun owner and won't be fidgeting with the trigger or safety, I cannot be sure that blue (just borrowing names here) IS and nobody likes bullets and fragments zipping around the room.

The gun does affect other people if the carrier is an idiot, like that UC boulder professor...
 

Treo said:
A gun in my pocket doesn’t affect you as long as I behave responsibly and I submit that the type of person that wouldn’t behave responsibly wouldn’t obey the sign either
Click to expand...

Except by having it in your pocked when the owner has said he does not wish them to be in HIS/ HER home or business you are violation there RIGHT to to decide what is in there home/ business. If it is NOT yours then your rights are limited there by the OWNERS wishes.

If you do not like the rules do not go in. I say again for all those of you who say you will ignore the sign because your right to carry trumps the owners wishes. Go into a federal building or a airport boarding area while being armed.
 
OK, how 'bout this.......instead of telling you to leave because you're packing, the property owner tells you to leave because he/she doesn't like your hair?? Would that make you (i.e. those who believe a PP owner should be forced by the constitution to allow firearms on their property) feel better about the situation?? Also, since you support the 2A above a PP owner's rights you must also support the other amendments equally as well, yes??? They are part of the same Constitution. I'm sure you wouldn't trample on someone's 1A rights either......you'd have no problem with someone coming on to your private property and preaching the benefits of Islam, explaining to any and all that Christ was a whoremonger, and spewing non-stop rhetoric about how great Obama is, etc. (i.e. practicing their freedoms of religion and speech).....that'd be ok with you, huh....because you're such a staunch defender of Constitutional rights.....all of them??

Yeah.....I'm sure it would.

The bottom line is that a PP owner doesn't have to give a reason to tell someone to leave. Any will do.
 
More food for thought...

We always have the right to bear arms and all the other rights we were born with just because we were born... and we will always have those rights (while alive anyway) because they cannot be taken away.. but there is a difference between having the right and exercising that right. And there are two things that can affect the actual exercising of those rights.

1. The government infringes upon the right by passing laws that gives the government control of who, how, and where, a right can be exercised with laws that assess penalties for exercising that right.

2. We ourselves voluntarily agree to give up the ability to exercise a right in exchange for some privilege or gain that we consider more important than being able to exercise the right.

We never actually "lose" the right to bear arms... the government might punish us for doing it in a certain way, or by certain people, or at certain places... or we ourselves might voluntarily decide to temporarily not exercise the right in exchange for some special privilege... but we never ever "lose" the right itself.

Even in other countries that don't have a 2nd Amendment people have the right to keep and bear arms... they were born with that right just like we were. It's just that their governments have laws that assess such horrendous penalties upon anyone who dares actually exercise that right that keeps folks from doing it.

However.. an argument could be made that it is the people themselves who are voluntarily agreeing to not exercise their right(s) by allowing that government to continue to have those laws.

So who is to blame for all the gun control laws we have on the books? I believe (my opinion only) the following....

"We the people" are voluntarily allowing them to be there. And as long as "we the people" think it's Ok to have laws that control other people who aren't as skilled or as decent or don't measure up to what we think they should, or if folks are willing to give up the rights of others because it makes themselves "feel good" ... and especially if those laws don't apply to the folks making those judgements... those laws will remain on the books.
 
I realize your last post (#117 - sorry, been up all night and words ain't flowin' as easy or fast as they were last night) was not directed at me specifically, and I'm not being defensive here at all. I'm simply replying to/answering a point that both of us have been discussing. To wit:

Bikenut said:
#2 Isn't even about guns or rights... it is about a person's personal integrity. I'm not judging anyone... I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy involved when a person wants their rights respected while they are disrespecting the rights of others.
Click to expand...

The only point I want to make is that I didn't make a "my-rights/his-rights" argument, I made a responsibility/irresponsibility argument. I acknowledged a minor (more like miniscule to my way of thinking) level of personal disrespect if I were to walk past a sign, buy some chocolate milk and a pack of doughnuts or whatever, and walk back out, but I never, and never would, make any assertion that my rights are infringed upon by the sign, or by the demand the shopkeeper might make to give it force of law here in my state. Nor did I claim, and never would, that I would resist by refusing, or even hesitating for a second, to leave when the lawful demand was made. I fail to see how that is hypocritical at all, but I do see how that charge could legitimately be leveled at someone who would "stand their ground" so to speak, by refusing to leave on the basis of some (mistakenly) perceived right they're asserting by being, and defiantly remaining, there armed if/when outed. I'm not positive anyone here is saying that that's what they'd do in such a circumstance, but I am certain I am not.

Blues
 
maine04619 said:
I say again for all those of you who say you will ignore the sign because your right to carry trumps the owners wishes. Go into a federal building or a airport boarding area while being armed.
Click to expand...

Up until just a couple of months ago, I, or my partner, walked right past (around) the security check-point of the Huntsville International Airport terminal while open carrying every single night that we worked. I either had an Airport PD officer or one of the TSA agents escorting me, but I was never disarmed while ferrying a flat-bed dolly full of cash, coin and bank instruments from the businesses inside back out to the armored, and heavily armed, truck parked right in front of the terminal. Obviously, not everyone has that kind of access, but we were just civilian employees doing a job, and if that's your yardstick for measuring how fully or partially a person's rights are being upheld, well, I guess mine were fully upheld for the last five years.

So does that have anything to do with walking past a no-guns-allowed sign while armed? Not really.

That said, I am not one who has asserted, or believes, that my rights trump anyone else's rights. I just found it interesting that you used an example of something that was so commonplace for me to do every night for the last five years, that I had to literally force myself to remain acutely aware of my surroundings, as the repetitiveness of performing the same tasks five nights a week for five years made it easy to become complacent. I'm not positive that bigger airports in larger metropolitan areas allow the same routine with armored transporters, but here and in the Birmingham airport, it's as routine as a TSA agent feeling up another man's wife. Link Removed

Blues
 
BluesStringer said:
I realize your last post (#117 - sorry, been up all night and words ain't flowin' as easy or fast as they were last night) was not directed at me specifically, and I'm not being defensive here at all. I'm simply replying to/answering a point that both of us have been discussing. To wit:

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
#2 Isn't even about guns or rights... it is about a person's personal integrity. I'm not judging anyone... I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy involved when a person wants their rights respected while they are disrespecting the rights of others.
Click to expand...

The only point I want to make is that I didn't make a "my-rights/his-rights" argument, I made a responsibility/irresponsibility argument. I acknowledged a minor (more like miniscule to my way of thinking) level of personal disrespect if I were to walk past a sign, buy some chocolate milk and a pack of doughnuts or whatever, and walk back out, but I never, and never would, make any assertion that my rights are infringed upon by the sign, or by the demand the shopkeeper might make to give it force of law here in my state. Nor did I claim, and never would, that I would resist by refusing, or even hesitating for a second, to leave when the lawful demand was made. I fail to see how that is hypocritical at all, but I do see how that charge could legitimately be leveled at someone who would "stand their ground" so to speak, by refusing to leave on the basis of some (mistakenly) perceived right they're asserting by being, and defiantly remaining, there armed if/when outed. I'm not positive anyone here is saying that that's what they'd do in such a circumstance, but I am certain I am not.

Blues
Click to expand...
Blues.. I'm not taking nor intending anything to be personal. We are discussing... not "dis"ing and "cuss"ing.

Let me see if I understand correctly...

Are you saying that even though you have no right what so ever to go into the property you consider the degree of disrespect to the property owner's right to ban guns to be so minor it is Ok to engage in that disrespect by carrying your gun into/onto his property for your personal convenience of buying some donuts and milk because it is irresponsible to leave your gun in the car or at home?

I wonder what degree of disrespect the property owner would consider that to be?

Edited to stick to just one point.....
 
Bikenut said:
Blues.. I'm not taking nor intending anything to be personal. We are discussing... not "dis"ing and "cuss"ing.

Let me see if I understand correctly...

Are you saying that even though you have no right what so ever to go into the property you consider the degree of disrespect to the property owner's right to ban guns to be so minor it is Ok to engage in that disrespect by carrying your gun into/onto his property for your personal convenience of buying some donuts and milk because it is irresponsible to leave your gun in the car or at home?
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty much, that's what I'm saying, although there is a minor caveat or two. One, I would never leave my weapon at home unless I was headed to the airport to fly out of town, which is something I have refused to do at all since about '04 or so, because I also never volunteer to give up my 4th Amendment rights to the TSA. If I absolutely had to go to court for some reason, that's the only other destination that I can think of that I would leave the house disarmed (not unarmed) for. If I'm dressed and on my way out the door, I strap-up every time, just like I wallet-up every time, or key-up every time, cell-up, knife-up and flashlight-up every time. I honestly do believe that it is irresponsible to leave my weapon in my car. I know I could make it safer by buying a hard-mounted lock-box, but my security measures at the house are way more impenetrable than a box made out of 16 or so gauge steel, so if I absolutely have to allow myself to be disarmed, I'll just leave it at home.

But second, and maybe more important for you to understand about my position here, is that I would never take off headed for a place that I already knew had a gun ban in it. I would only find that out by a sign upon approaching a business, and like I said before, with me, I can't think of an instance where it would happen at someone else's home, so we're only talking about the potential for me being surprised when I stopped at a convenience store or something, which is why I used the doughnut and choco-milk example. It really wasn't to be a smart-a$$. I love doughnuts and choco-milk! LOL But I tried to answer the question the thread poses in any real-life situation that I might encounter, and with one hand pullin' the door open while suddenly noticing a sign saying no guns allowed probably wouldn't make me let the door close while I'm walking away.

Bikenut said:
I wonder what degree of disrespect the property owner would consider that to be?
Click to expand...

This is about how significant I think the level of disrespect would be: The shop owner could put a sign in the window that says "No nose-pickin' in my store," but you know how it is, sometimes you get somethin' rattlin' around in there, and you find a corner away from the cameras and blind-spot mirrors, knock the offending umm...organic matter loose, stick it your pocket, grab your choco-milk out of the cooler and head on down the road after payin' up. Technically, yeah, I broke his rules and there's some minor, though I guess measurable, amount of disrespect, but I cleaned up after myself and no one got hurt, so really, is there a problem here?
.......................................................................Link Removed

Or maybe there's a no-farting sign....... Link Removed ......Or a no-balls-scratching sign...... Link Removed

Sorry man, I'm off tonight and haven't slept all day. I'm trying to be funny, not insulting, but truthfully, I don't see running in and running out for some doughnuts and choco-milk while armed to be any more significantly disrespectful than any other normal trivial imperfections humans are imbued by God with. I just can't get too hyped up about it, though I acknowledge that yours is the higher-ground position. Mine's funnier though. :biggrin:

Blues
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 211 (members: 0, guests: 211)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,544
Messages
611,260
Members
74,959
Latest member
defcon

Share this page

Back
Top