|
|
No Guns Allowed (Page 5)
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
I'm confused here. You give a solid argument against licensing, and then it looks like you praise a licensing system.
I'm not trying to be combative, I honestly think there's something I'm misunderstanding.
I don't think that I have made the distinction very clear.
First is the issue of people with a history of violence owning guns. I do not have a problem with the prohibition of these people owning guns. If you hurt people it is perfectly appropriate for you to lose certain rights as a part of your punishment.
That's all the Indiana system is doing is checking for these people. If you are clean, they give you the license. No training requirements, no proving you really "need" it, they issue to everyone who is clean. Until recently the license itself was just a pink piece of paper that you can laminate yourself.
All the licensing does is simplify the enforcement of the laws above. It is not intrusive and most importantly, it doesn't allow the state to choose whom they want to be allowed to carry, and doesn't impose a list of arbitrary requirements. If one agrees that the right to bear arms can be taken from violent people, and one agrees that everyone else should be allowed to carry however they like, I think this is a decent solution. No, it's not perfect, but decent. I would also note that Indiana restricts "felons" from carrying, which I do not agree with. I think that it is too vague as there are an awful lot of felonies that have nothing to do with violence and committing such a felony doesn't in any way make such a person prone to violence, nor should it take away their right to protect themselves. However, Indiana has new laws that make it easier for those with older misdemeanors and minor felonies to get their convictions expunged, which alleviates some of that. I also have a problem with having to PAY to exercise a right, however the cost is relatively low and it is not unreasonable to have to pay a fee when there are people who have to perform background checks and such. Plus part of the fee goes to the local sheriff's office, which isn't a horrible way to help fund them.
I also think that such a licensing system may possible lead to one day having more restrictions on who gets them, but such restrictions open the door to a state constitutional challenge in a very pro-gun state.
Perhaps it seems a little inconsistent but the right to bear arms is unique in that it is the only enumerated right that specifies carrying a certain type of object, and thus there are different challenges once one commits a crime and has that right taken away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
Now, explain to me how concealed carry qua concealed carry harms anyone.
I never said that it did.
Personally, I have no issue with individuals who have a CCL being able to take their concealed firearm wherever they want for the most part. OTOH I think it is more than reasonable for certain types of businesses to be able to restrict this. For example … bars, nightclubs, and airlines? Those types of businesses have a legitimate reason to have a weapons free zone on their premises. Chipotle's, Target, or the local convenience store? Not so much.
OAW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OAW
I never said that it did.
Personally, I have no issue with individuals who have a CCL being able to take their concealed firearm wherever they want for the most part. OTOH I think it is more than reasonable for certain types of businesses to be able to restrict this. For example … bars, nightclubs, and airlines? Those types of businesses have a legitimate reason to have a weapons free zone on their premises. Chipotle's, Target, or the local convenience store? Not so much.
OAW
Maybe I misunderstood your position then. As I said to Cap'n Sweatpants I think that businesses should be able to restrict whomever they like on their property. They don't need an excuse.
This is not a restriction on rights. I don't have a right to make a speech in Target without their permission, I don't have a right to fall on the floor and pray to Allah in Starbucks without their permission and I don't have a right to carry my gun into a cheese store if they don't want me to. If I don't like it I can go somewhere else, and tell everyone who'll listen who they are and why I won't shop there.
Now, if the government passes a LAW stating that I can't carry my weapon onto someone else's private property? We got a problem. This is a violation of the owner's property rights as well as mine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
You never answered the question, is it private property or not?
Do you really not understand that your choice to carry a gun is not the same as someone's race?
Also, for the record I do not support laws that force business owners to serve anyone they don't want to for whatever reason. The very idea that since someone chose to let people on their property to voluntary trade for some goods or services, he has to by law serve people who belong to certain groups is absurd. If we had a proper view of private property in our legal system this gun argument wouldn't be an argument, but the issue has been obfuscated by bad philosophy and improper laws.
It's a business property, not "private", at least not anymore. With the court rulings recently requiring businesses to serve practically anyone who walks through the door (which I don't agree with), they've tainted the idea that a business can be both private and serve the public. The courts have said that the "right to refuse service to anyone" no longer applies, for any "Constitutionally protected" right or status. (See where I'm going with this?)
No, within a strict interpretation of this, there is no difference between race, sex, religion, or the right to bear arms. They're all enumerated, protected rights. So sorry civil rights warriors, you can't have it both ways, either you force them to allow everyone in or you allow the business owner to be the one who makes the ultimate decision. Sure, nasty things can come from this, like a few businesses not allowing specific races, religions, or orientations, but that doesn't mean that you have to shop there or that you can't legally protest against them.
|
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
Maybe I misunderstood your position then. As I said to Cap'n Sweatpants I think that businesses should be able to restrict whomever they like on their property. They don't need an excuse.
This is not a restriction on rights. I don't have a right to make a speech in Target without their permission, I don't have a right to fall on the floor and pray to Allah in Starbucks without their permission and I don't have a right to carry my gun into a cheese store if they don't want me to. If I don't like it I can go somewhere else, and tell everyone who'll listen who they are and why I won't shop there.
Now, if the government passes a LAW stating that I can't carry my weapon onto someone else's private property? We got a problem. This is a violation of the owner's property rights as well as mine.
But how would a business be able to "restrict whomever they like on their property" without the backing of a government passed and enforced law? Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems like you are trying to have it both ways.
OAW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OAW
But how would a business be able to "restrict whomever they like on their property" without the backing of a government passed and enforced law? Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems like you are trying to have it both ways.
OAW
Seriously? Look up the word "inalienable". There are rights that don't require laws, they're granted by birth, re. "by their Creator", not by the government.
|
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
No, within a strict interpretation of this, there is no difference between race, sex, religion, or the right to bear arms. They're all enumerated, protected rights.
I think you're confusing two things here: one is the issue of discrimination, the other is the issue of exercising a right on private property. You're not allowed to refuse service to a muslim, but that doesn't mean the muslim customer has the right to pray right inside the store. You can easily come up with similar examples involving free speech and other religions. Ditto for gun owners, it's not reasonable to refuse service to a gun owner, but I don't see that it gives the gun owner a right to bring a gun into the store, trumping property rights.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OAW
But how would a business be able to "restrict whomever they like on their property" without the backing of a government passed and enforced law? Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems like you are trying to have it both ways.
OAW
I'm not sure what kind of laws you think are necessary in this case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
I'm not sure what kind of laws you think are necessary in this case.
Say there is a convenience store and for whatever reason the owner decides he doesn't want to sell to people with red hair. A red headed woman walks in and he promptly tells her that she is not welcome in his establishment. She then sues him. When they have their day in court what LAW(S) will guide the judge's decision one way or the other? That's the point I'm trying to make.
OAW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
Now, if the government passes a LAW stating that I can't carry my weapon onto someone else's private property? We got a problem. This is a violation of the owner's property rights as well as mine.
I don't think any and all such laws are onerous. For instance, before you get onto someone else's property, does the gun owner have to ask for permission to bring his or her gun or is it up to the property owner to make known that he or she doesn't want you to bring guns onto the premises? Does this »default« depend on the location, e. g. for private properties it's one thing, for businesses and certain public grounds another? Are restaurants treated differently than book shops? What about gated communities where certain parts of the property are shared or owned by, say, a company? What about schools and universities? For instance, in many cases there are restrictions in place inside of school zones.
I find it quite weird that certain open carry advocates insist on their individual liberties but see their rights infringed if someone else has a different opinion and forbids guns on their property?
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
Also, for the record I do not support laws that force business owners to serve anyone they don't want to for whatever reason. The very idea that since someone chose to let people on their property to voluntary trade for some goods or services, he has to by law serve people who belong to certain groups is absurd. If we had a proper view of private property in our legal system this gun argument wouldn't be an argument, but the issue has been obfuscated by bad philosophy and improper laws.
I think you are going too far here.
If I need an emergency asthma inhaler while I'm out of town and drop in on some medical place, they shouldn't be able to turn me away if they think that I'm gay, or whatever else, when this decision puts me at risk.
If we can define what sort of services and products are purely luxury goods, this might be a fine thing to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
All of these arguments about the constitution, rights, etc. are fine and dandy, but they are a distraction to me.
I want to find out why it is that Americans feel like they want to/need to/should be armed to ridiculous extents, and (because I already kind of know the answer to that question), whether the root of this answer is something that is healthy and/or desirable for this country.
Some answers to the first question:
1) to form armed rebellion against their government should it come to this
2) for self-defense
3) for feelings of safety
4) for sport
Some root issues with each question:
1) is it healthy to distrust our government to this extent, even with all of the separation of powers built into this pseudo-democracy? I can kind of empathize with this, esp. with the minuscule approval ratings of congress, but I think we should address the root of this problem rather than just accepting it as some sort of norm and buying bazookas for your kids. Everybody distrusts their governments to some extent, but most others in first world countries (Europe, Canada, Japan, etc.) don't feel like they need to purchase 209482039482309 guns, and in most cases for more than a century now this has proven to work for them.
Guns are an insurance policy to a corrupt government that is being bought by corporations, not a remedy.
2, 3) what is the root cause of this fear, and can we do something to address this threat and/or perception of this threat?
4) fine, but I don't want to hear arguments about how you need bazookas to hunt deer, because this isn't a good argument. I'm not saying that there aren't valid arguments to own weapon A or B, this is just not one of them. Yes, I realize this (bazookas to hunt deer) is also a strawman argument, I'm being silly here, but you get my drift...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OAW
Say there is a convenience store and for whatever reason the owner decides he doesn't want to sell to people with red hair. A red headed woman walks in and he promptly tells her that she is not welcome in his establishment. She then sues him. When they have their day in court what LAW(S) will guide the judge's decision one way or the other? That's the point I'm trying to make.
OAW
In my opinion, that person should have NO recourse. The law should give the property owner sovereignty over his property and why exactly he discriminates should not matter legally (As long as he's not robbing her, assaulting her or some such genuine harm of course). Her suit should have about as much of a reason for consideration as if she sued a friend for kicking her out of her house.
However, trespassing laws would apply for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
I think you are going too far here.
If I need an emergency asthma inhaler while I'm out of town and drop in on some medical place, they shouldn't be able to turn me away if they think that I'm gay, or whatever else, when this decision puts me at risk.
If we can define what sort of services and products are purely luxury goods, this might be a fine thing to say.
I know I'm out of the mainstream, which IMO is a feature not a bug.
Explain to me why your "need" of something means another person should be forced to provide it for you. Your need for food shouldn't mean that you can force someone to sell it to you if they don't want to, likewise for anything else. Refusing to provide you with an inhaler isn't a violation of your rights anymore than not giving you CPR is. Is it wrong and ignorant? Of course, but being wrong and ignorant doesn't mean that it should have the force of law behind it.
Needs are not rights. That is another equivocation.
That's just my view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
All of these arguments about the constitution, rights, etc. are fine and dandy, but they are a distraction to me.
I want to find out why it is that Americans feel like they want to/need to/should be armed to ridiculous extents, and (because I already kind of know the answer to that question), whether the root of this answer is something that is healthy and/or desirable for this country.
Some answers to the first question:
1) to form armed rebellion against their government should it come to this
2) for self-defense
3) for feelings of safety
4) for sport
Some root issues with each question:
1) is it healthy to distrust our government to this extent, even with all of the separation of powers built into this pseudo-democracy? I can kind of empathize with this, esp. with the minuscule approval ratings of congress, but I think we should address the root of this problem rather than just accepting it as some sort of norm and buying bazookas for your kids. Everybody distrusts their governments to some extent, but most others in first world countries (Europe, Canada, Japan, etc.) don't feel like they need to purchase 209482039482309 guns, and in most cases for more than a century now this has proven to work for them.
Guns are an insurance policy to a corrupt government that is being bought by corporations, not a remedy.
2, 3) what is the root cause of this fear, and can we do something to address this threat and/or perception of this threat?
4) fine, but I don't want to hear arguments about how you need bazookas to hunt deer, because this isn't a good argument. I'm not saying that there aren't valid arguments to own weapon A or B, this is just not one of them. Yes, I realize this (bazookas to hunt deer) is also a strawman argument, I'm being silly here, but you get my drift...
Do you have insurance on your home(s) or car(s)? A fire extinguisher? How about medical insurance? Are you really so paranoid about health issues and property damage that you feel the need to give away thousands upon thousands of your hard-earned dollars for protection against some impending doom?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
In my opinion, that person should have NO recourse. The law should give the property owner sovereignty over his property and why exactly he discriminates should not matter legally (As long as he's not robbing her, assaulting her or some such genuine harm of course). Her suit should have about as much of a reason for consideration as if she sued a friend for kicking her out of her house.
However, trespassing laws would apply for sure.
Understood. I will just say that IMO it is reasonable to have different rules governing different spaces. In order from the least restrictive on the property owner to the most:
1. Private Property (e. g. residence, land, etc.)
2. Membership Organization (e. g. church, non-profit association, club, etc.)
3. Privately owned business that does NOT serve the general public.
4. Privately owned business that serves the general public.
5. Publicly owned business.
6. Publicly owned property.
OAW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
I don't think that I have made the distinction very clear.
Thank you for the clarification!
As to whether concealed carry is covered by the Second Amendment, it seems to me this is the type of question where the first half of the amendment actually becomes relevant. Regulation of concealed carry has close to zero (if not zero) impact on maintaining a militia or securing a free state. Pistols in general have little to do with these things.
OTOH, background checks have a huge impact on maintaining the militia and the securing a free state. Background checks amount to a government list of who's armed. The value of a militia tasked with keeping the government in check is significantly undermined when the government has the name and address of everyone in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
I know I'm out of the mainstream, which IMO is a feature not a bug.
Explain to me why your "need" of something means another person should be forced to provide it for you. Your need for food shouldn't mean that you can force someone to sell it to you if they don't want to, likewise for anything else. Refusing to provide you with an inhaler isn't a violation of your rights anymore than not giving you CPR is. Is it wrong and ignorant? Of course, but being wrong and ignorant doesn't mean that it should have the force of law behind it.
Needs are not rights. That is another equivocation.
That's just my view.
Because if you advertise selling asthma inhalers, I aim for your place in an emergency and am turned away because I'm gay, that puts me in physical peril, like I said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
Do you have insurance on your home(s) or car(s)? A fire extinguisher? How about medical insurance? Are you really so paranoid about health issues and property damage that you feel the need to give away thousands upon thousands of your hard-earned dollars for protection against some impending doom?
What part of my post was this in response to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
If a business is required to serve people due to race, orientation, or other factors that are protected, then the right to bear arms should be protected as well.
I was wondering if anyone would be awful enough to try this argument. Carrying a gun is a choice. One you can flip back and forth on as often as you change your clothes. You should be ashamed of yourself.
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
I was wondering if anyone would be awful enough to try this argument. Carrying a gun is a choice. One you can flip back and forth on as often as you change your clothes. You should be ashamed of yourself.
What if your arm is a gun, you thoughtless bastard?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
Because if you advertise selling asthma inhalers, I aim for your place in an emergency and am turned away because I'm gay, that puts me in physical peril, like I said.
I always looked at it a different way. People love to talk about their rights while neglecting the fact they are often conditional. If you break the law, you get locked up.
The right to operate a business or service is conditional on you not discriminating against other citizens (or it should be in any place that values freedom and equality). You have every right to be a sexist, racist, homophobic POS if you want to, but if you also want to run a business, better be prepared to compromise on your beliefs, otherwise stay poor and indoors where its harder for you to spread your shitty opinions.
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
What if your arm is a gun, you thoughtless bastard?
Those are a different kind of guns. Ask Ron Burgundy.
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
1) is it healthy to distrust our government to this extent, even with all of the separation of powers built into this pseudo-democracy? I can kind of empathize with this, esp. with the minuscule approval ratings of congress, but I think we should address the root of this problem rather than just accepting it as some sort of norm and buying bazookas for your kids. Everybody distrusts their governments to some extent, but most others in first world countries (Europe, Canada, Japan, etc.) don't feel like they need to purchase 209482039482309 guns, and in most cases for more than a century now this has proven to work for them.
You have it backwards.
I trust our government because we have the check. It's too risky for someone to attempt to be a dictator.
If we didn't have guns, I'd no longer have that trust (i.e. the unhealthy state you describe).
I mean, sure it works in Europe in "most cases", except when, you know... it doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
All of these arguments about the constitution, rights, etc. are fine and dandy, but they are a distraction to me.
I want to find out why it is that Americans feel like they want to/need to/should be armed to ridiculous extents, and (because I already kind of know the answer to that question), whether the root of this answer is something that is healthy and/or desirable for this country.
Some answers to the first question:
1) to form armed rebellion against their government should it come to this
2) for self-defense
3) for feelings of safety
4) for sport
Some root issues with each question:
1) is it healthy to distrust our government to this extent, even with all of the separation of powers built into this pseudo-democracy? I can kind of empathize with this, esp. with the minuscule approval ratings of congress, but I think we should address the root of this problem rather than just accepting it as some sort of norm and buying bazookas for your kids. Everybody distrusts their governments to some extent, but most others in first world countries (Europe, Canada, Japan, etc.) don't feel like they need to purchase 209482039482309 guns, and in most cases for more than a century now this has proven to work for them.
Guns are an insurance policy to a corrupt government that is being bought by corporations, not a remedy.
2, 3) what is the root cause of this fear, and can we do something to address this threat and/or perception of this threat?
4) fine, but I don't want to hear arguments about how you need bazookas to hunt deer, because this isn't a good argument. I'm not saying that there aren't valid arguments to own weapon A or B, this is just not one of them. Yes, I realize this (bazookas to hunt deer) is also a strawman argument, I'm being silly here, but you get my drift...
Maybe I could answer a little more directly:
1) History has shown that the one and only way to insure liberty is to be able to physically defend yourself from tyranny. No constitution or legal system can stand up to people with bad ideas that twist or ignore the words and ideas contained in them. This is what we have now. It is interesting that we are way, way beyond having the kind of system that would have caused our founders to revolt. We just don't have the same ideas and will that they did. So yeah people who say that it will never happen here or it is so unlikely, it already has. We've just not responded.
2, 3) Have you ever heard the phrase "When seconds count, the police are minutes away."? It's not necessarily fear, it's insurance. The statistics are difficult to parse but assaults, threats, armed robberies, "home invasions", etc. all occur by the millions (total) in this country. Is there a legitimate problem with people wanting to give themselves a chance? Most people go their entire lives (80+ years!) without a house fire. Are they paranoid for having insurance or a fire extinguisher? What is wrong with taking control of your own safety rather than relinquishing that control to police that are not only too far away to help you, but also have been told repeatedly by judges that they are under no legal obligation to defend your life for you?
4) I would ask the question, really what business is it of yours? People generally do not use military or pseudo-military style weapons for hunting, but so what if they did? Functionally, there is no difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle with a magazine and a semi-automatic AR with a magazine. So what's the problem? Does it really matter?
Also, not all people who shoot for sport are hunting. Shooting is fun, and the "scary" guns are often the most fun. What does it matter to you why people are into these things?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
All of these arguments about the constitution, rights, etc. are fine and dandy, but they are a distraction to me.
Really no surprise to me. Didn't read the rest - this answers everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
The right to operate a business or service is conditional on you not discriminating against other citizens (or it should be in any place that values freedom and equality). You have every right to be a sexist, racist, homophobic POS if you want to, but if you also want to run a business, better be prepared to compromise on your beliefs, otherwise stay poor and indoors where its harder for you to spread your shitty opinions.
This is a completely arbitrary statement. You have a right to try to make a living however you can.
You do not have a right to force someone to provide you with a service or a certain kind of treatment just because "it's wrong".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
Thank you for the clarification!
As to whether concealed carry is covered by the Second Amendment, it seems to me this is the type of question where the first half of the amendment actually becomes relevant. Regulation of concealed carry has close to zero (if not zero) impact on maintaining a militia or securing a free state. Pistols in general have little to do with these things.
I disagree completely. I think hiding a weapon for personal protection has quite a bit to do with securing a free state. Also, and this has been argued a million times, the first half does not negate second half that says "shall not be infringed" There is nothing in the constitution or any other documents that suggests that maintaining a militia for security is the one and only reason for bearing arms.
OTOH, background checks have a huge impact on maintaining the militia and the securing a free state. Background checks amount to a government list of who's armed. The value of a militia tasked with keeping the government in check is significantly undermined when the government has the name and address of everyone in it.
I agree with this, though in my state all the process tells them is that I possibly possess at least one handgun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Really no surprise to me. Didn't read the rest - this answers everything.
The term for him is "concrete bound".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
This is a completely arbitrary statement. You have a right to try to make a living however you can.
You do not have a right to force someone to provide you with a service or a certain kind of treatment just because "it's wrong".
The 1A garauntees that you can operate your home and your business free from government intervention to your speech/views/expression. It's up the the society to boycott/vote with dollars on views they agree/disagree with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
I think you're confusing two things here: one is the issue of discrimination, the other is the issue of exercising a right on private property. You're not allowed to refuse service to a muslim, but that doesn't mean the muslim customer has the right to pray right inside the store. You can easily come up with similar examples involving free speech and other religions. Ditto for gun owners, it's not reasonable to refuse service to a gun owner, but I don't see that it gives the gun owner a right to bring a gun into the store, trumping property rights.
No, you can tell a customer to keep their firearm hidden (same as their religion), but you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against someone who has theirs concealed from view. Yes, it's the same thing.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
I was wondering if anyone would be awful enough to try this argument. Carrying a gun is a choice. One you can flip back and forth on as often as you change your clothes. You should be ashamed of yourself.
There's the bullshit moral superiority card, I was wondering who would play it. You should be ashamed of yourself. Religion is a choice, yet you can't refuse service to someone due to theirs.
|
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Snow-i
The 1A garauntees that you can operate your home and your business free from government intervention to your speech/views/expression. It's up the the society to boycott/vote with dollars on views they agree/disagree with.
|
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
No, you can tell a customer to keep their firearm hidden (same as their religion), but you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against someone who has theirs concealed from view. Yes, it's the same thing.
The issue is not concealment, concealment just means that you don't get caught. And to equate this with discrimination to anyone who has had to face real discrimination.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
There's the bullshit moral superiority card, I was wondering who would play it. You should be ashamed of yourself. Religion is a choice, yet you can't refuse service to someone due to theirs.
Non-sense. If you insist to conflate being a gun owner with insisting to bring a gun into an establishment, then ok, our discussion on this ends here. I just think those are two completely different aspects, and shops should discriminate against gun owners but it's alright to mandate that they don't bring guns onto your premises.
And even if it turns out that you're doing something legal, that doesn't mean you're doing something that is right. If you insist on bringing guns (open carry) into a Chili's, you're still an asshole. Sort of like the folks who protest at funerals.
(
Last edited by OreoCookie; Jan 24, 2015 at 06:02 PM.
)
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Well, given that we (meaning the law and really most Americans) buy into the notion that a business owner cannot "discriminate against" people in their own establishment, how exactly does it NOT follow that they should not be allowed to discriminate against someone for carrying a gun? The fear/loathing of a random person with a gun on his hip is just as irrational and "wrong" as it would be for a person wearing a turban or t-shirt with a rainbow on it.
C'mon. If you are going to refute Cap'n Sweatpants at least give actual reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
Well, given that we (meaning the law and really most Americans) buy into the notion that a business owner cannot "discriminate against" people in their own establishment, how exactly does it NOT follow that they should not be allowed to discriminate against someone for carrying a gun?
Because I see a distinction between someone carrying a gun and someone carrying a gun in my premises, and to me that's a sensible distinction -- even if you don't agree with me that the former is ok while the other isn't. If you wish, it's the difference between Westboro Baptists protesting outside of the premises of the cemetery (legal, even though highly disrespectful and reprehensible), and protesting on the premises of the graveyard (not legal). I find it ok if parents decide against vaccinating their children, but I am for kindergartens making vaccinations mandatory if you want your child to be able to attend. Inalienable rights aren't absolute if they interfere with the inalienable rights of others.
Originally Posted by smacintush
The fear/loathing of a random person with a gun on his hip is just as irrational and "wrong" as it would be for a person wearing a turban or t-shirt with a rainbow on it.
I think it's misguided and incorrect to equate a gun with a piece of dress (e. g. a T-shirt, a kippa or a turban). And I don't think you need to give a good reason for doing something, because by that token, you could turn it around and wait for the open carry advocates to give good reasons why they want to have their food while carrying a rifle. There is no good reason for doing that, it's not as if they're having lunch in downtown Falluja.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
This is a completely arbitrary statement. You have a right to try to make a living however you can.
You do not have a right to force someone to provide you with a service or a certain kind of treatment just because "it's wrong".
You choose to offer a service in exchange for money, but if you want to offer it, you have to offer it to everyone. Businesses enjoy various benefits funded by taxpayer money, some taxpayers have opinions at odds with yours. Since they are helping you out and can do nothing about it, why should you have the right to refuse them a service for which they are willing to pay just like any other customer?
Interesting that you say make a living any way you can, not any way you like. Any way you can means you sell your goods or services to anyone. Refusing service based on prejudice is hindering your own effort to make a living. Probably also means you'll have to charge extra to the people you do approve of.
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
There's the bullshit moral superiority card, I was wondering who would play it. You should be ashamed of yourself. Religion is a choice, yet you can't refuse service to someone due to theirs.
Last I checked, freedom of religion was a big deal. Freedom to take a gun onto someone else property regardless of how they feel about is not. Its my understanding that doing that means the property owner can legally shoot you in a number of states.
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
You have it backwards.
I trust our government because we have the check. It's too risky for someone to attempt to be a dictator.
If we didn't have guns, I'd no longer have that trust (i.e. the unhealthy state you describe).
I mean, sure it works in Europe in "most cases", except when, you know... it doesn't.
I don't see any logical reason for any of us to trust our government any more because he have some guns. In fact, I find this ridiculous.
For starters, I don't think our government is worried about their physical well-being. When/if we protest violently over their corrupt dealings they'll just tone down what they are doing for a while, establish a new norm, whatever. It's not like there is a single dictator to target, it's kind of death by a thousand cuts, they have ways to get away with what they are doing without a violent uprising. They're doing it as we speak, and yet a very significant percentage of this population doesn't even vote, so they are getting away with it quite easily, they are able to push the envelope with little to no resistance.
Secondly, do you think you are a representation of those politically active in trusting the government? I would say that most ideologues don't trust the government, the polls certainly seem to agree with this. Do you think this would be even worse if our gun laws had been stricter for several decades now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Really no surprise to me. Didn't read the rest - this answers everything.
Most of the obsession over the constitution is just the basis of justification for things that certain ideologues don't like. The debate is often purely masturbatory, many everyday folk who try to make arguments invoking the constitution don't know ponies and rainbows about it, and are self-delusional in thinking that the crux of their emotional reactions are really based on pseudo-academic beliefs as opposed to just other... stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
The term for him is "concrete bound".
I hope you plan to bring Ayn Rand into this discussion, it might make things interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Snow-i
The 1A garauntees that you can operate your home and your business free from government intervention to your speech/views/expression. It's up the the society to boycott/vote with dollars on views they agree/disagree with.
Except in the hypothetical asthma case that I mentioned? How would you handle that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
You choose to offer a service in exchange for money, but if you want to offer it, you have to offer it to everyone.
Completely arbitrary. You again reassert this without argumentation.
Businesses enjoy various benefits funded by taxpayer money, some taxpayers have opinions at odds with yours. Since they are helping you out and can do nothing about it, why should you have the right to refuse them a service for which they are willing to pay just like any other customer?
Oh, social contract BS? Also completely arbitrary.
Interesting that you say make a living any way you can, not any way you like. Any way you can means you sell your goods or services to anyone.
Don't try to twist my words. "Can" implies that one is attempting to convince people voluntarily and nothing more. I didn't use the word "like" because to me then it would carry the connotation of entitlement.
Refusing service based on prejudice is hindering your own effort to make a living. Probably also means you'll have to charge extra to the people you do approve of.
Hey! I agree! In this case he would get what is coming to him wouldn't he? Or perhaps you would prefer to indirectly subsidize the corner store racist by making him take money from people he would otherwise turn away?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
I hope you plan to bring Ayn Rand into this discussion, it might make things interesting.
I bring Ayn Rand into most of my responses.
The implication being my other posts aren't interesting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
I bring Ayn Rand into most of my responses.
The implication being my other posts aren't interesting?
No, I like you, you are interesting. This thread itself just seems to be going nowhere though. I don't feel like we are collectively closer to understanding one another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by besson3c
Most of the obsession over the constitution is just the basis of justification for things that certain ideologues don't like. The debate is often purely masturbatory, many everyday folk who try to make arguments invoking the constitution don't know ponies and rainbows about it, and are self-delusional in thinking that the crux of their emotional reactions are really based on pseudo-academic beliefs as opposed to just other... stuff.
So the Constitution is just words on paper to you eh?
It's a bit more than that - it's an ideology for a system of governance that prevents those "certain ideologies" from morphing into a totalitarian state - the inevitable outcome of any governance that does not expressly forbid overreach into certain functions of society (i.e. expression, search and seizure, the right to bear arms etc etc).
I know quite a bit about the Constitution, it's intent, and it's effectiveness. That you believe the government to be the solution for every problem is disturbing to me, because human nature is such that any potential for abuse will ultimately become that abuse. Its happened a thousand times throughout history, and I believe it's absurdly arrogant to think that somehow we are more enlightened and less beholden to our nature than literally every other society in the history of man.
The point is to keep the citizenry in control, and when you charge the government with legislating societal and cultural issues, you'll ultimately end up buggered. Once we collectively give up our existing rights to the government, the only way to get em back is bloody and unreliable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
The issue is not concealment, concealment just means that you don't get caught. And to equate this with discrimination to anyone who has had to face real discrimination.
That's your perception, it isn't fact (a part of the "no real Scotsman" fallacy). You don't like guns and wouldn't carry one on a daily basis, so you automatically assume that anyone else would be fine leaving theirs in a car (where it could be easily stolen), or at home (where it does no good anywhere else).
Non-sense. If you insist to conflate being a gun owner with insisting to bring a gun into an establishment, then ok, our discussion on this ends here. I just think those are two completely different aspects, and shops should discriminate against gun owners but it's alright to mandate that they don't bring guns onto your premises.
And even if it turns out that you're doing something legal, that doesn't mean you're doing something that is right. If you insist on bringing guns (open carry) into a Chili's, you're still an asshole. Sort of like the folks who protest at funerals.
Then our discussion ends here, and moving the goalposts to include open carry (when I already said that shouldn't be included) is ridiculous. A gun owner lawfully carrying a concealed handgun isn't hurting some squeamish shop owner with a hatred for firearms, no more than a Muslim entering a movie theater is harming, or even inconveniencing, other theater patrons (unless he just whips out a rug in the middle of the lobby and starts loudly doing his prayers). What your moral opinion is on guns, or even Islam, doesn't matter.
|
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
Well, given that we (meaning the law and really most Americans) buy into the notion that a business owner cannot "discriminate against" people in their own establishment, how exactly does it NOT follow that they should not be allowed to discriminate against someone for carrying a gun? The fear/loathing of a random person with a gun on his hip is just as irrational and "wrong" as it would be for a person wearing a turban or t-shirt with a rainbow on it.
C'mon. If you are going to refute Cap'n Sweatpants at least give actual reasons.
It's dead easy to force others to comply in matters that don't trip your moral trigger, like making a wedding cake for gays who are getting married (though that wouldn't bother me either), but it's a lot harder when the shoe is on the other foot and it's something that you feel is "wrong". Is there a general right to refuse service or not? Because this picking and choosing based on how we "feel" about specific issues is absurd.
|
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by smacintush
I disagree completely. I think hiding a weapon for personal protection has quite a bit to do with securing a free state. Also, and this has been argued a million times, the first half does not negate second half that says "shall not be infringed" There is nothing in the constitution or any other documents that suggests that maintaining a militia for security is the one and only reason for bearing arms.
Don't worry, I know how to parse a sentence.
We have this ridiculously broad descriptor "arms". AFAICT, there are three ways we can interpret it.
1) Embrace the ridiculousness and let civilians stockpile cannon and grapeshot tac-nukes.
2) "Seat of our pants" through what's acceptable.
3) Use the militia clause as a guideline.
The third seems to be what we've done up to this point and strikes me as the obvious choice of the three.
Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see how concealment intersects with the security of the free state. It doesn't for external threats, and using the arms against an internal threat is going to be extralegal anyway. A concealment rap is pretty penny-ante when they can legit bag you on treason
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
Last I checked, freedom of religion was a big deal. Freedom to take a gun onto someone else property regardless of how they feel about is not. Its my understanding that doing that means the property owner can legally shoot you in a number of states.
What you feel is a "big deal" doesn't matter, we (Americans) either have freedoms based on our Constitutional rights or we don't. Businesses either get to choose who they serve or they don't. And your "understanding" is completely false, there's no threat from a person carrying a holstered and concealed gun, unless you plan on attacking them and endangering their life for some reason. Then, well, you've only proven that they needed that weapon in the first place, so they could be protected from you.
|
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
That's your perception, it isn't fact (a part of the "no real Scotsman" fallacy). You don't like guns and wouldn't carry one on a daily basis, so you automatically assume that anyone else would be fine leaving theirs in a car (where it could be easily stolen), or at home (where it does no good anywhere else).
You're projecting here. If you're not fine leaving your gun someplace safe, then don't frequent places where it's not ok for you to bring a gun. That's your choice as I see it. If you believe that you can't safely go shopping or go to a fast food place without your gun, I think your problem is not the store banning guns from their premises. In fact, respecting all the rules and regulations is part and parcel of responsible gun ownership.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Then our discussion ends here, and moving the goalposts to include open carry (when I already said that shouldn't be included) is ridiculous. A gun owner lawfully carrying a concealed handgun isn't hurting some squeamish shop owner with a hatred for firearms, …
If you're on someone else's property, you have to accept that certain rules are up to them and no longer up to you. It doesn't matter whether the gun is concealed or not, if I don't want them on my premises I fail to see how that changes anything. Your argument in favor of allowing concealed carry even if the property owner doesn't allow guns to me is like arguing that cheating on a spouse is ok as long as the spouse doesn't notice it. And to equate people think that the self-determination of the owner on his property trumps your right to bear arms are squeamish or opposed to gun rights is just a deflection.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|