One of my bosses just asked me to procure 200 "No Guns Allowed" signs for our stores.

[dutchwrangler]

Hypocrit! You denying my right to control my private property is covered in more amendments than your right to carry a gun.

Sometimes it amazes me that people can claim to be such constitutionalists yet only want to use the ones that fit them. No better than any stinking liberal that does it. UNAMERICAN! BOOOOOO!

Hypocrit? Hardly. I acknowledge your right to your business and conducting it as you see fit. If you post a gun-buster sign I will abide by that and take my money elsewhere as my money is my private property and you have no right to it. If you want my money as a tool to continue your business and have it grow, then don't post the signs. It's all about choice... yours and mine. The trick of business is for two parties to agree to the terms of the transaction for mutual benefit. If the business owner shows hostility with gun-buster signs then enticing my private property out of my wallet isn't going to happen. My money goes elsewhere. You lose.

Whether a right is covered by one amendment or more does not reduce the right of another right mentioned fewer times. A right is a right and can only be singular. We don't have two or more rights to speech if it's mentioned two or more times. We only have one right to life, one right so liberty, one right to bear arms, one right to own property, etc.

 

[WhiteyMacD]

Hypocrit? Hardly. I acknowledge your right to your business and conducting it as you see fit. If you post a gun-buster sign I will abide by that and take my money elsewhere as my money is my private property and you have no right to it. If you want my money as a tool to continue your business and have it grow, then don't post the signs. It's all about choice... yours and mine. The trick of business is for two parties to agree to the terms of the transaction for mutual benefit. If the business owner shows hostility with gun-buster signs then enticing my private property out of my wallet isn't going to happen. My money goes elsewhere. You lose.

Whether a right is covered by one amendment or more does not reduce the right of another right mentioned fewer times. A right is a right and can only be singular. We don't have two or more rights to speech if it's mentioned two or more times. We only have one right to life, one right so liberty, one right to bear arms, one right to own property, etc.

And you fail...

Those who have gun-buster signs are anti-Constitution which makes them enemy.

You are a hypocrit, plain and simple. That statement says it all. Have fun in your cafeteria constitution plan. Carrying in a business is not a matter of 2A, 2A does not apply on private property. So you are the enemy of the CotUS and the USA since you fundamentally believe that the people exercising their constitutional rights are the enemy. So tell me, what other rights exercised and protected by CotUS makes you an enemy to people like you?

 

[vvvvvvv]

You need to brush up on the constitution and the court cases decided to uphold it. Businesses are not public property just because they are open to the public.

Except when dealing with certain "civil rights" issues.

 

[Peacemaker]

Except when dealing with certain "civil rights" issues.

This is a good point. I think that if you can't refuse service because of skin color, why can you refuse service based on exercising the 2nd amendment? I don't know if our liberal courts would ever rule that way but I think it would be a ruling consistent with precedent already set.

 

[WhiteyMacD]

Except when dealing with certain "civil rights" issues.

I thought that court case resulted in the fact that since manager nor owner asked the sit ins to leave, the business was considered open to those sitting in?

on my phone so multi quote is hard, but for the post following VM, color of skin I'd far removed from carrying a gun. Although, I think if a business owner wants to discriminate on any bias he should be able to do so without gov't tyranny.

 

[Peacemaker]

... color of skin I'd far removed from carrying a gun. Although, I think if a business owner wants to discriminate on any bias he should be able to do so without gov't tyranny.

To some people, they are two different things. To those who view the Bill of Rights as sacred to our republic, we don't. I can respect the Libertarian view of "I can discriminate in my business any way I want to" although I disagree with it, but what I cannot respect is those who think that we should be able to discriminate based on some civil rights and not others, by order of law and not the establishment owner's choice.

 

[dutchwrangler]

You are a hypocrit, plain and simple.

Your opinion. I'll agree to disagree and let it go...

 

[Werewolf]

This is a good point. I think that if you can't refuse service because of skin color, why can you refuse service based on exercising the 2nd amendment? I don't know if our liberal courts would ever rule that way but I think it would be a ruling consistent with precedent already set.

The issue noted above is the one part of gun buster signs that I have never been able to resolve. Conflicted describes my stand.

On the one hand a property owner should have the right to determine - freely and without restriction - who can and cannot come on his property. There is a difference, for sure, between property meant as a residence and property used as a business but when push comes to shove the difference is irrelevant as both are privately owned.

BUT! And this is a big but the supreme court has ruled many times that a business cannot refuse its services to customers based simply on race, creed, religion, sex etc. Can't be done. All of those are ensconsed within various amendments to the constitution.

YET! The 2nd amendment, you know, the one right after the 1st and put in that order for a reason is not considered a civil right for some reason and it is OK for a private business owner to refuse entry to someone exercising that civil right.

Some will say you can't change your skin color but you can remove the gun. Kind'a like the arguments about the differences between residential and business property; ultimately irrelevant. Discrimiantion is discrimination when it comes to rights. Either a civil right is a civil right or it isn't. There doesn't really seem to be a middle ground in that regard.

Conundrum. I don't get it. Why is one form of discrimination legal and culturally accepted while the other is not?

Someone help me understand.

 

[WhiteyMacD]

Let's take this a step further.

The givens:
Under the CotUS, we are granted the right to assemble in order to petition congress under the 1st amendment.

The scenario:
You own a retail shop of some manner, where said shop is seperate from your place of residence. A group of people want to use your place of business to assemble in order to petition the right to:

Choose any of the following that you would have the most opposition to:
A.) Lengthen the term of presidency to 20 years without re-elections for our current president.
B.) Increase taxation to support social programs such as welfare.
C.) Allow Sexual Affinity as a protected class.
D.) Recognize Same Sex marriage on a federal level and enforce states to adhere.
E.) Ban all high capacity magazines, and require thorough background checks and licensing for only "sporting" firearms. All other firearms are restricted. (think Euro gun laws)

Would you allow this assembly on your private property? Or lets even take away the grey areas of right to assemble. Would you allow the freedom of speech concerning these topics on your private property?

 

[jcizzle]

Let's take this a step further.

The givens:
Under the CotUS, we are granted the right to assemble in order to petition congress under the 1st amendment.

The scenario:
You own a retail shop of some manner, where said shop is seperate from your place of residence. A group of people want to use your place of business to assemble in order to petition the right to:

Choose any of the following that you would have the most opposition to:
A.) Lengthen the term of presidency to 20 years without re-elections for our current president.
B.) Increase taxation to support social programs such as welfare.
C.) Allow Sexual Affinity as a protected class.
D.) Recognize Same Sex marriage on a federal level and enforce states to adhere.
E.) Ban all high capacity magazines, and require thorough background checks and licensing for only "sporting" firearms. All other firearms are restricted. (think Euro gun laws)

Would you allow this assembly on your private property? Or lets even take away the grey areas of right to assemble. Would you allow the freedom of speech concerning these topics on your private property?

+1 point. set. match