Friday, April 30, 2010

"Raw Anger"

Lady, if that's what you think is me being angry...[Read]
Posted by David Codrea at 4/30/2010 02:44:00 PM

17 comments:

Axeanda45 said...

This is the comment I left there:

What possible right does a restaurant or any other business have in restricting our 2nd Amendment rights? Do they have the right to restrict our 1st Amendment rights? Can they kick us out if we want to pray over our food? If we want to talk politics while we eat? Can they kick us out /refuse service because of the color of our skin? Then why can they infringe on the right to bear arms?

PRIVATE PROPERTY IS NOT THE SAME AS BUSINESS PROPERTY

4/30/2010 4:20 PM
straightarrow said...

Don't you just love the hysterical mewlings about "threats to boycott" those establishments with a no guns policy. I mean, what the Hell. Isn't that a self-fulfilling boycott created by the establishment? Are these simpletons suggesting that gun carriers should ignore the store's policy and carry their guns in anyway in order to grace them with money?

Did not the stores create the boycott by telling a large segment of their potential clientele to stay out?

Compliance with that would not be a boycott. It would be honoring the owners' wishes. What can these hysterical bleaters be upset about? I mean, other than what we already know. They want to control everyone around them. But even if it means trespassing a store owners rights?

Uh, let's think this out. Whoops, not a lot of thought necessary. They want to violate the rights of everyone else while taking their money. And they think we're enraged. Well, yeah! I am. Don't piss down my neck and tell me it's raining.

4/30/2010 4:25 PM
Anonymous said...

@Axeanda45

Uh, easy tiger.

The constitution is about restricting the government. Not citizens.

If I ask you to please leave my property - for whatever reason - I'd expect you to respect that.

You don't have any sort of right to a cheeseburger the way you want it. That's what voting with your wallet is for.

We're on the same side for the Second, but keep your eyes on the Fourth.

Rhett III

4/30/2010 6:39 PM
PeaceableGuy said...

Actually, Axe, I'd venture to state that business property IS private property, and the owners can kick whomever they damned well like for whatever they damned well like out of their property whenever they damned well like.

Many of the federal "civil rights" laws in this nation were a terrible mistake.

The difference between myself and a disgrace such as that Federale chap is that I view such discrimination as you list as something that must be legally allowable but is morally and socially abhorrent. I will therefore boycott such places of business, share news of such wrongdoing with other free persons, and encourage others who believe in the wrongness of the owner's actions to also boycott and spread the news.

Private property is the basis of ALL rights, and if you can't have control over your own property, you have absolutely nothing.

4/30/2010 6:46 PM
Axeanda45 said...

So, Rhett and Peaceable.........Please, explain to all of us here how a BUSINESS can legally kick me out for praying over my meal (freedom of religion) Please tell us how a BUSINESS may discriminate against me because of the color of my skin. You both fail in the concept of BUSINESS VERSES PRIVATE property. You have confused the 2.

A business, that has INVITED the public onto its "property" must abide by certain laws or be shut down, fined, etc.......

4/30/2010 8:58 PM
Ed said...

Fuddrucker's management has decided that they do not want to serve the market segment that carries weapons yet are not police officers. Fuddrucker's management fears that carriers of weapons will drive away those who do not carry weapons.

The filing of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy reorganization by Fuddrucker's management explicitly indicates that they currently are not profitably serving whatever market they chose to serve. So what does this say for Fuddrucker's management? The bankruptcy filing enables the Fuddrucker's management to break leases on unprofitable restaurant locations. It will be interesting to observe which locations do shut down.

4/30/2010 10:30 PM
PeaceableGuy said...

Axe, you ask a fairly complicated (and somewhat off-topic) question, so please understand if I am not able to make my assertions crystal clear with one post...

1. Which came first: a human or a government? By all viewpoints I'm aware of, a human existed before a government ever did.

2. Why did our human ancestors form government? As it concerns us here and now, the Declaration of Independence holds the answer: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

Okay, so our government was instituted to secure, or preserve, our God-given rights, of which only a scant three are enumerated in that part of the Declaration.

3. If the government was only established to secure individuals' rights, who then has a rightful say in any individual's rights? This is a bit more complicated, but John Locke, a person whose writings our Founders respected, has a fair deal to say on this matter: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-a.html

In summary, the individual has the final say on the matter of the individual's mind, body, and all other property which the individual owns.

4. Therefore, in light of the above, where is the moral authority derived from to forbid that the individual who owns private property from allowing other individuals to frequent the property subject to certain restrictions of the owner's choosing?

It's a hard answer to find from scratch - for example, it took me over five years to arrive at the answer, so I don't expect one post to do the trick for anyone else. Further reading, though, will help you on the way. I recommend the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, the Antifederalist Papers, referenced works of John Locke (and the many, many others referenced by the Founders), the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution.

4/30/2010 11:15 PM
Gregg said...

Peaceable,
So I give up ownership of myself by stepping onto your property? That is exactly what you are saying. Your private property rights end at the soles of my feet, or the end of my nose. Simple as that.

5/01/2010 3:54 AM
Axeanda45 said...

Peaceable, You failed again to distinguish between private and BUSINESS property. You have made not one single solitary statement that answered or countered my comments/statements. Let me see if I can make it easy enough for you......

Can a BUSINESS in these United States,(one that depends on the general public to come onto their property in order to make money from them) deny me my right to free speech? Can they deny me entrance/service because of the color of my skin?

5/01/2010 9:06 AM
Mack said...

This is not a 2nd A. issue -- this is a civil rights issue.

Therefore, the question is: is there a rational basis for discriminating against American citizens in public accommodations who wish to carry lawfully a weapon, such as a firearm, for self-protection?

If there is no rational basis, then it is justified to enact and enforce civil rights legislation that would protect the civil rights of gun owners in public places, just as current civil rights laws protect the rights of the disabled, for example.

5/01/2010 12:19 PM
PeaceableGuy said...

Axe, I did not, as you say, distinguish between private and business property because the material I'd referenced recognizes no such thing as "business" property outside of private property.

Perhaps there is a fundamental miscommunication regarding ownership here: who owns "business" property?

You seem to think that someone other than the business owner owns (controls) the property such as a restaraunt... how does that square with a business such as a lawn-mowing company who does not have an office, only a phone number a truck and trailer for the mowers, and refuses to mow a lawn where there is an openly armed person nearby? Who has the right (in light of the above material I'd referenced) to force the lawn-mower to mow the lawn?

In short, I am only aware of two categories of property, those being PRIVATE property (private being a legal term meaning property owned by a free individual and not necessarily a dictionary term meaning "kept hidden") and so-called PUBLIC property owned/controlled by a government at some level.

If you wish to have me explain my views on a category of "business" property, you'll have to clarify what it is you're talking about, primarily by identifying who the owner (controller) of the property is, and how, where, and when the ownership of the property changed from either a private individual or a government body.

I expect that you'll find that there is no such thing, in a Constitutional/legal sense, as "business property", merely private property that has been opened for use by others subject to certain restrictions set by the private owner.

5/01/2010 2:48 PM
PeaceableGuy said...

Gregg, no, I am certainly not saying that your standing on another's private property surrenders your rights to the owner. You are correct in that someone else's private property rights (to their land, store, etc.) do not override your own private property rights (to your body, possessions, etc.)... just that if your actions or possessions are in conflict with the stated conditions of the properry owner whose property you're standing on, you must either choose to abide by the stated conditions or leave the property.

Private property used for a business is in practice no different than that used for a house, with the obvious exception that for business people are openly invited vs. a house where each visitor must ask permission to enter first (i.e. subject to the conditions of the owner).

5/01/2010 3:26 PM
Axeanda45 said...

Peaceable, You show by your answers that you have no clue about reality. You say that business property IS private property. The law say's different. Sure, a business might be privately owned, no arguing that.... the question you fail to grasp is....... Can that business lawfully discriminate against me because of the color of my skin?, or because of my religious prefs?

No, it may not, not if it wants to continue being a business in these United States.

So, if you might possibly be able to fathom that actual fact.......

How does a business that CANNOT BY LAW discriminate against me because of religion, etc....., be ok by the same constitution/laws... discriminate against one of the other amendments?

5/01/2010 3:34 PM
PeaceableGuy said...

Axe:
Ah, and we're getting closer to the crux of the matter. "The law" is a curious phrase, and means many thing to many people. To me, "the law" means the legal framework used to establish what we now know as the United States of America. The federal government of that country is not legally allowed to do anything excepting a very small number of things explicitly listed within the Constitution. (I hope we're in agreement thus far.)

Where then does the *federal* government claim legal authority to tell a property owner of any sort how use of that same property can't be restricted by conditions which the owner set forth? I've read the Constitution, and I can't find the legal authority to do so anywhere. If such authority doesn't actually exist, than I must fall back to one of the conclusions illustrated in the case of Marbury vs Madison in that any law repugnant to the Constitution is void; an illegal law legally doesn't exist.

More controversially, I am well aware that if I open a lunch counter and refuse to serve anyone of a specific skin color, I will ultimately be thrown in a cage (or killed) and have my property stolen from me. I also agree that such refusal to provide service is abhorrent. However, I see no federal authority to make such abhorrent behavior illegal.

Therefore, while the perception of reality is that the the nation of united States is a nation operating under the rule of law, the reality is that, in many areas, this is not so and the only rule being applied is that of brute, lethal force and dictation by fiat. If that sounds strange, then please explain to me why there can be ANY legal federal law which puts any restriction whatsoever on any free person's ability to buy, sell, or carry a weapon of any sort. Further, explain where the legal authority comes from to allow the federal government to pass a law forcing a free person to purchase a service from a private entity or else be fined, caged, or murdered (i.e. the new "health care" law).

So, while I believe I now see your point of view clearly, in that, yes, there are federal laws against the discrimination against others based on race, religion, etc., I state that those very laws, having no legal authority under the Constitution to exist, are in fact illegal themselves. The only reason those laws remain in existence is through the ignorance of the the public at large, to include the law enforcers, and because the enforcers have guns that they are more than willing to use in ignorance.

5/01/2010 4:21 PM
Axeanda45 said...

Peaceable, You have made your case and I have made mine. It seems that now we see each others point, and may agree on alot of things.


There is one point I would like you to explain further though, on your stance of Private property. You said on YOUR private property, you have the right to enforce ANY rules you, as the owner choose, correct?

SO, if, for example... you, as such private property owner, choose that all females that step onto your property must undergo a pelvic exam by you, that is an ok thing?
How about just a check to see if they have on pink underwear, because that is the only color allowed on YOUR property?

You said it is YOUR RULES on YOUR PROPERTY, right?

Please, tell us when the other persons rights to their own private property, like from the soles of their feet to the top of their head come into play here? ( the private property known as their body) Why do their inalienable rights end just because they happen to step past a property line?

Yes, there are limits, and you can, and do have the right to keep those you want off your property, but if you allow someone onto your property, their rights dont disappear.........

5/02/2010 12:06 AM
PeaceableGuy said...

Axe, that's pretty much my argument, with one major clarification: I as the property owner can set whatever conditions I like upon any visitors to my property... but I cannot force the visitors to comply. If the vistors do not agree, there is of course the option to leave my property without complying. The visitors would probably be aghast at my stated terms (using your example), and aside from never setting foot or spending a dime in my property again, would tell others about my stupid behavior. Voluntary market forces would then decide my property's fate (i.e., how long I could afford to keep paying the utility bills), rather than a so-called law which has no legal authority to exist other than that which comes out of the barrel of a gun.

As far as I can see from the Constitution, the federal government certainly has no authority whatsoever to pass or enforce laws to restrict the usage of private property, even if some of the intentions for passing the illegal laws were very good. While I'm not as informed as I'd like to be on the level of State government, the reasoning of the Founders makes a strong argument that even the sovereign States do not have the authority to meddle with private property restrictions and freedom of association.

If property rights (which also include the free person's body) were truly respected in this country, many of the problems we face in the USA would either disappear, or quickly be resolved through nothing but voluntary economic behavior. As Jefferson said and I paraphrase, freedom isn't easy, but it is well worth the hassle, even if it means having to find another place for a burger. :)

5/02/2010 2:03 AM
Anonymous said...

@Axeanda45:
"You said on YOUR private property, you have the right to enforce ANY rules you, as the owner choose, correct?"

I don't think so.

Simply - if you do something I don't like - I can ask you to leave.

It's called trespass.

I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Ever seen one of those signs?

The law you're looking for is the Civil Rights Act of 64, which basically says if I ask you to leave, it better NOT be because of race / religion.

Rhett III

5/03/2010 7:13 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)