Do you support a businesses right to ban guns(Poll added) - Page 31

Do you support a businesses right to ban guns(Poll added)

This is a discussion on Do you support a businesses right to ban guns(Poll added) within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; This thread is no place for reason or logic so stop trying to use those things. It's much to late for them anyway...

View Poll Results: Do you support a business's right to ban guns?

Voters
105. You may not vote on this poll
  • YES

    87 82.86%
  • NO

    18 17.14%
Page 31 of 33 FirstFirst ... 2127282930313233 LastLast
Results 451 to 465 of 490
Like Tree293Likes

Thread: Do you support a businesses right to ban guns(Poll added)

  1. #451
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,524
    This thread is no place for reason or logic so stop trying to use those things. It's much to late for them anyway
    “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein,


  2. #452
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,053
    Very true, don't confuse them with facts their mind is made up.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  3. #453
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,927
    We go over this and over this. Quite frankly I am surprised the thread is still open. But that is a good thing. I try to have an open mind and do listen to folks that have a different opinion. And I really do look things up to educate myself the best I can as a layperson on law and the 2A. I have been studying the meaning and use of different levels of scrutiny that courts use. I would not have been studying about that unless it has not been brought up a zillion times. And putting my bias and emotion away I can now state that with my puny understanding of Constituional law that "strict scrutiny" does not apply currently to the issue before us. That is based on how the courts have been ruling. So though I disagree with Aarmyman it did make me get educated on a subject. Unfortunaltely for him I think my facts about strict scrutiny are more accurate than his

    When one starts a debate on an issue they have to have a premise and support that premise with facts. In this forum that means the best layman can do when talking about serious subjects such as Constitutional law. When after a debate starts you can not be adding different premises for your arguement. They needed to be articulated at the beginning.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  4. #454
    Member Array Miamieddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Miami,Fl.
    Posts
    225

    Correct me if im wrong

    I think that no guns posted signs are not for our safety but the safety of the bg (thug)why ? Because if I was a thug I would feel safe to rob that store without any worries..... Eddie
    ArmyMan likes this.

  5. #455
    Member Array Miamieddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Miami,Fl.
    Posts
    225
    Not if im wrong if you THINK im wrong!!!

  6. #456
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Miamieddie View Post
    I think that no guns posted signs are not for our safety but the safety of the bg (thug)why ? Because if I was a thug I would feel safe to rob that store without any worries..... Eddie
    Or Eddie they could be for the safety of the staff. It could be that once in the past someone came in to hold up the store and a customer decided to play John Wayne and accidentally shot and killed an employee or family member of the owner.

    Or it could have nothing to with safety at all, just the owners values and beliefs.
    Miamieddie likes this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  7. #457
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,524
    This thread is open because it hasn't gotten heated. When we can disagree agreeably it is much more pleasurable to have a discourse like we have had here. While i disagree with Armyman, he has with his persistence made me rethink my arguments.

    When we are reasonable and don't disregard the message because we don't like the messenger or punish the messenger because we don't like the message we tend to learn much more as a person and society. Good advice is good advice no matter who it comes from, and just because you don't like what you hear/read doesn't make it any less real.
    “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein,

  8. #458
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,927
    Quote Originally Posted by pgrass101 View Post
    This thread is open because it hasn't gotten heated. When we can disagree agreeably it is much more pleasurable to have a discourse like we have had here. While i disagree with Armyman, he has with his persistence made me rethink my arguments.

    When we are reasonable and don't disregard the message because we don't like the messenger or punish the messenger because we don't like the message we tend to learn much more as a person and society. Good advice is good advice no matter who it comes from, and just because you don't like what you hear/read doesn't make it any less real.
    I agree 100 percent and that was kinda what I was trying to say. I disagree with him also onmost everything but there are a few common agreements. Such as the right to store your wepaon in your vehicle on company property. And I have been thinking about a lady that has an estranged hubby and he as threatened to kill her.....do you let her carry in work or not?

    That would be an interesting hypothetical for another thread. On one hand the lady does have a demonstratable need to self defense. On the other hand if the employer knew that was the reason she was carrying maybe he should have the right to put her on a LOA because her prescence alone can cause others harm (hubby shows up).

    But even listening to his arguments, or anybody's, I will not change my mind becuase it is a total disagreement on the arguments foundations: whose rights are more important and or how are they defined.
    ArmyMan likes this.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  9. #459
    Member Array Miamieddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Miami,Fl.
    Posts
    225
    Good point.

  10. #460
    VIP Member
    Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    6,339
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmyMan View Post
    When asked, I leave without a fuss. That's compliance.
    You are being asked by the owner of the property through the use of a sign. Signage is a very effective and accepted way to communicate with large numbers of people. Ignoring a sign or doing exactly the opposite of what the sign instructs the reader to do is in no way "compliance". Are you saying that you will only comply if told verbally by the property owner or his/her agent and no other forms of communication are acceptable reasons to comply?
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  11. #461
    Member Array Roon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    So here you state that you do not respect the rights of property owners you behave as you do only from fear of prosecution. Great value system. You are a poster child for the Brady Bunch.
    I would suggest that you do not respect the rights of property owners either. Unless of course you support their ability to ban anyone from their property for any reason without exception.

    So when are you going to present some facts and logic?
    Fact: The right to exclude is a basic property right that is recognized by courts all over the world.
    Only in certain circumstances. Courts for example to not recognize the right to exclude based on race, color or creed. So the "right to exclude" is actually more of a privilege.

    Fact: Your presence in a place of business which is private property is a privilege, not a right.
    Fact: A right can not be based on privilege, so you do not have a right to bear arms any place where your presence is by privilege.
    No argument here.

    Fact: You want the government to deny property owners the right to exclude which is a taking under the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
    The government already denies that right to property owners.

    Fact: For the government to do that (here is your strict scrutiny) there must be a compelling government interest to do so which you can not show.
    There is no compelling interest that anyone can present to allow the government to violate property rights. That is absurd.

  12. #462
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Roon View Post
    There is no compelling interest that anyone can present to allow the government to violate property rights. That is absurd.
    Eminent Domain is one, for example. Though whether such things are compelling enough is open to debate.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  13. #463
    Member Array Roon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Eminent Domain is one, for example. Though whether such things are compelling enough is open to debate.
    Eminent Domain is usually tied to what the government deems the "public good". I would suggest that if the public felt it was good they would simply do it themselves.

  14. #464
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Roon View Post
    I would suggest that you do not respect the rights of property owners either. Unless of course you support their ability to ban anyone from their property for any reason without exception.
    I do. However the courts have established protected classes which limit that right.


    Only in certain circumstances. Courts for example to not recognize the right to exclude based on race, color or creed. So the "right to exclude" is actually more of a privilege.
    So since the courts have ruled you cant yell fire in a crowded theater we have free speech privileges? No, it is a right and the right has been limited by the courts. I have never said it is an absolute right. In fact in previous posts I mention protected classes. Gun owners are not a protected class.
    The government already denies that right to property owners.
    Only on a limited and narrowly defined basis (protected class) or when a compelling need can be shown. And when that right is denied the property owner must be compensated for it. Typically they are paid the market value of the property.


    There is no compelling interest that anyone can present to allow the government to violate property rights. That is absurd.
    There are some cases with national security implications or where a condition on a property creates a specific well defined hazard to the greater community. But still to address the issue it is a taking under the fifth amendment and they must (and do) compensate the property owner.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  15. #465
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Roon View Post
    Eminent Domain is usually tied to what the government deems the "public good". I would suggest that if the public felt it was good they would simply do it themselves.
    I think it was in New Hampshire there was an eminent domain case where a town took a property from an individual and gave it to a developer. The property owner had refused to improve the property the developer did what developers do and built on it. The additional revenue from the property and other taxes generated by the new businesses was held to be a good enough reason for the taking.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

buisness banning guns in michigan
,
gun control
,
powered by mybb business license in washington
,
powered by mybb consumer protection cases
,
powered by mybb internet services in my area
,

powered by mybb mail sign in

,
powered by mybb move to colorado
,
powered by mybb ownership
,
powered by mybb public opinion
,
powered by mybb taurus firearms
,

powered by mybb top employers

,
when do you have a legal right to deny service in public accomdation facility
Click on a term to search for related topics.