This is a discussion on Property v. human rights redux within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I think property rights DO trump the right to carry a gun. The Second Amendment is a protection against the government. It says that the ...
I think property rights DO trump the right to carry a gun. The Second Amendment is a protection against the government. It says that the government canít disarm you. It doesnít have anything to do with what you can do on another personís property. I as an individual can required that you disarm to come onto my property.
Also, I think the difference between the rules related to your home and business is a small one. It doesnít matter if you are a racists, sexist or whatever, you have the right to exclude ANYONE for ANY REASON from your home. It is your castle.
With a business, I believe that you should not be allowed to exclude people from your business property based on anything they cannot change. For example, people cannot change their ethnic group. To bar someone from your business because of skin color is wrong and I support laws to keep this from happening.
But for anything else, the owner should have the right to operate as he sees fit. I donít like cigarette smoke and I wonít hang out at a restaurant or bar where there is smoking allowed. BUT, I fully support the right of the owner to decide if smoking is allowed. That should be his choice. Mine is whether I patronize the place.
Same thing with carrying a gun. If I am a rabid sheep who is scared to death of guns and I own a business, it should be my right to ban firearms from that business if I so choose. Besides, I donít want to help anyone financially if they are anti gun so I want to know who bans guns. I wonít shop there.
But I will always support their right to decide the rules in place related to their own property.
Actually, it wasn't until the 1960's that you were allowed to carry on a plane.By your logic, you should be able to carry on planes, but that isn't the case.
Also, a plane is a bad example because it is like the postal service where the government is making the rules for the owners of the planes.
The last time that I flew it was by charter and the pilots didn't only not care (the word mind gives the wrong idea what I wanted to say) that we were armed, they were as well. They truly owned their property and since we didn't have to go though the main airport, only to the hanger, the government wasn't involved.
The way I see it, property rights don't trump my right to life. I believe that the one right that does trump all others is the right to life. I choose to use a firearm (as well as other weapons such as my knife) to ensure, or to at least even the odds, that my right to life is maintained.
As for not going to some of the places, there are cases when it is just not possible to shop elsewhere, medical services in a hospital comes to mind.
Just because I have to use the services that specialist provide doesn't mean that I need to remove any rights that I have in order to do so.
Last edited by Wayne; November 14th, 2006 at 01:29 PM.
I think if we were allowed to carry on planes what happened on 9-11-01 wouldn't have happened. Why? Criminals prefer unarmed victims.
ETA: I think we should be allowed to carry anywhere in the US except where private citizens (homes) or private businesses post or wish to disallow.
Last edited by Tubby45; November 14th, 2006 at 01:24 PM. Reason: Content
07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006
Probably the only home based FFL that doesn't do transfers.
"Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18
Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
Paramedics With Guns Scare People!
...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller