Swayed by a last-minute push from business groups, the Virginia Senate on Wednesday turned aside a bill that would have made it illegal for businesses that allow the public into their parking lots to adopt rules prohibiting weapons in locked cars.At the risk of starting our debate all over again, I do think there's a question to be asked of the members of the Virginia Chamber of Commerce, which has led the opposition to this bill: Do you oppose firearms on your premises, or do you just oppose being told you have no choice in how you control your property?
Perhaps we can explore a new branch of this discussion: Would you boycott a business that welcomed firearms-carrying citizens, but opposed a mandate telling them they had to allow it under force of law?
40 comments:
I would completely respect that stance and not boycott. Just as I would choose to eat a place that prohibited smoking but opposed a legal ban.
Ok, not a perfect analogy but the point is that the difference between the sphere of government and that of private entities. It's something we've lost in this country and all freedom-loving citizens should constantly fight to get back...even if government restraint leads to a private entity doing something with which you disagree (like banning firearms on their property).
I would not boycott a business that welcomed firearms-carrying citizens, and I would oppose a mandate telling them they had to allow it under force of law.
The problem in this nation is that we have come to rely entirely too much on government solutions, instead of relying on market solutions.
As Tom said, he probably would not boycott and respect their stance. I probably would respect their stance, after all it's their property, but would not patronize this company. Much like it is their choice to ban firearms on their property, it would be my choice not to visit. That simple.
Each action has a consequence, and the consequence for said company would be a possible loss of clientele. They would have to weigh the benefits of their decisions from there.
I've written about this topic here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/m.lora4.html
and here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/m.lora5.html
I agree with tom
As a business owner, I have enough regulations to deal with. I don't need the government telling me I must allow or not allow something else.
I don't blame the CoC for standing against the bill. I would too - but it has nothing to do with firearms or gun owners - it has everything to do with the government dictating more rules for me to follow in order to do business. Enough, already. I won't go into an economic analysis here, but every government regulation costs a business money.
As to your question, "Would you boycott a business that welcomed firearms-carrying citizens, but opposed a mandate telling them they had to allow it under force of law?" Yes. Absolutely. There are two different issues at hand.
One issue is how the business welcomes and treats firearms-carrying citizens. The next issue is how the company responds to additional government regulation. Two different issues. I would have no problem supporting the company that says "no" to further government regulation.
On the other hand, if a company voluntarily prohibits firearms-carrying citizens, that would change the situation and I wouldn't support them.
Jay, if I understand your response correctly, your answer would be "No, I would NOT boycott a business that welcomes firearms owners but resists property control laws."
I'm waiting for straightarrow to jump in...:)
I'm not sure I like the question. I'm opposed to mandates by the government myself. And if they welcome weapons then a mandate isn't necessary and if they don't that's their right. Boycott isn't really the right word for not shopping where you're not welcome. What I would like to see is assumed responsibility for anything that happens that could've been prevented by someone carrying.
David C,
My response is "I would NOT boycott a business that welcomes firearms owners but resists property control laws."
Thanks for the correction!
242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
The law reads "WHOEVER" and is not restricted to LEO. it also refers to "CUSTOM"
in addition to law, ordinances etc. What part of "Shall not be infringed" is not understood?
OK, David. I think I'm beginning to understand a little more clearly now.
David Codrea LIKES to DEBATE! He THRIVES on it. And me, BEING AS BULLHEADED as ever. Thrives by the same method.
(Pondering to self)...From which ANGLE shall we DEFLATE the reasoning on the subject THIS time?
What will help POOR David realize that The Framers BOUND US ALL to the CONSTITUTION with the attached Bill of Rights?
(I had stumbled across more PROOFS, but considering David as a friend, I didn't hoard them up in anticipation for ATTACK. The PROOFS being so poignant, that they might cause severe emotional distress).
You'll have to excuse me, for now. I shall be back with you shortly, I assure you. Need to guzzle some coffee and do a little research.
As a famous absolute jerk once uttered, 'I'll be back'!
anon and edavid:
You guys are going way far afield. I'm not talking about infringing on anyone's rights. I'm not talking about depriving anyone of anything under color of authority.
My position is simple: you and I have the right to freely associate with one another on mutually acceptable terms.
Don't diverge from this point. Do you agree or disagree that we have the right to do this, as long as no one is forcing themselves on or coercing the other party?
Yes or no?
Yes, David. In an ideal world in which men were governed by Angels and entirely BOUND to observance of ABSOLUTE PRINCIPLES. Under the punishment of instant VAPORIZING, should even the THOUGHT of evil arise. Then, and only then. Yes, I would agree with your position.
However, It is my FIRM conviction that our Country was FOUNDED upon diferrent PRINCIPLES. And that liberty was viewed in an ABSOLUTE sense.
The ONLY restraint being, that in exersizing my OWN RIGHT of pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness, I do not INFRINGE on anothers pursuit of the same.
Not meaning any disrespect, nor as to attack you personally. (You know that, but providing clarification for new-comers). And, again, just merely attempting to sway. (And spent a LOT of time gathering this, so I can't let it go to waste). This is what I hold out as to being the INTENT of the Framers on matters such as these;
The RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT be INFRINGED.
"What the law does is simply to PREVENT OTHER men to a greater or less extent from INTERFEREING with my USE or ABUSE. And this analysis and example APPLY to the case of POSSESSION, as well as to OWNERSHIP."
"Such being the DIRECT WORKING OF THE LAW IN THE CASE OF POSSESSION, one would think that the animus or intent most nearly parallel to its movement would be the intent of which we are in search. If what the law does is to EXCLUDE OTHERS FROM INTERFERING WITH THE OBJECT, it would seem that the intent which the law should require is an INTENT TO EXCLUDE OTHERS." - Oliver W. Holmes, Jr., The Common Law, Lecture #6
"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an EXCESS of power prevails, property of no sort is DULY RESPECTED. No man is SAFE in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his POSSESSIONS." - James Madison, National Gazette Essay, 27 March 1792
"And as to the conduct of the officers of the revenue, the provision in favor of trial by jury in criminal cases, will afford the security aimed at. Wilful abuses of a public AUTHORITY, to the OPPRESSION of the subject, and EVERY SPECIES of official extortion, (1 : the act or practice of extorting especially money or OTHER property), are offenses AGAINST the government, for which the persons who commit them may be indicted and punished according to the circumstances of the case." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #83
"...the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in EXACT PROPORTION as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States OPPRESSIVE combinations of a MAJORITY will be facilitated: the BEST SECURITY, UNDER THE REPUBLICAN FORMS, FOR THE RIGHTS OF EVERY CLASS OF CITIZENS, WILL BE DIMINISGED: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until LIBERTY BE LOST IN THE PURSUIT. In a society under the forms of which the STRONGER FACTION can readily unite and OPPRESS the WEAKER, ANARCHY may as truly be said to REIGN as in a STATE of NATURE, where the WEAKER INDIVDUAL is NOT SECURED AGAINST the violence of the STRONGER; and as, in the latter state, EVEN THE STRONGER INDIVIDUALS are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, TO SUBMIT to a government which may PROTECT the WEAK as WELL as THEMSELVES; so, in the former state, will the MORE POWERFUL FACTIONS or PARTIES be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will PROTECT ALL PARTIES, the WEAKER as well as the MORE POWERFUL." - James Madison, Federalist #51
(Can a Lion be de-clawed before he approaches you? Or, a wolf de-fanged?)
"A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is NOTHING TO CHECK the inducements to SACRIFICE the WEAKER party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have EVER BEEN FOUND INCOMPATIBLE with PERSONAL SECURITY or the RIGHTS of PROPERTY; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their DEATHS. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."
"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and PROMISES the CURE for which we are seeking. - James Madison, Federalist #10
"WE HAVE seen the necessity of the Union, as our BULWARK against foreign danger, as the CONSERVATOR of PEACE AMONG OURSELVES, as the GUARDIAN of our commerce and other COMMON INTERESTS, as the ONLY SUBSTITUTE for those military establishments which have SUBVERTED the LIBERTIES of the Old World, and as the PRPOER ANTIDOTE for the DISEASES of FACTION, which have PROVED FATAL to other popular governments, and of which ALARMING SYMPTOMS have been BETRAYED by our own." - James Madison, Federalist No. 14
"To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a DEFENSE to the PEOPLE AGAINST their OWN TEMPORARY ERRORS and DELUSIONS. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in PUBLIC AFFAIRS when the people, STIMULATED by some IRREGULAR PASSION, or some ILLICIT ADVANTAGE, or MISLED by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may CALL FOR MEASURES which THEY THEMSELVES will AFTERWARDS be the MOST READY TO LAMENT AND CONDEMN. In these CRITICAL moments, how salutary will be the interference of some TEMPERATE and respectable body of citizens, in order to CHECK the misguided career, and to SUSPEND the BLOW meditated by the PEOPLE AGAINST THEMSELVES, until REASON, JUSTICE, and TRUTH can REGAIN their AUTHORITY OVER THE PUBLIC MIND? What BITTER ANGUISH would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so PROVIDENT a SAFEGUARD against the TYRANNY of their OWN PASSIONS? POPULAR LIBERTY might then have ESCAPES the INDELIBLE REPROACH of DECREEING to the same citizens the HEMLOCK on one day and statues on the next." - James Madison, Federalist No. 63
"I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from OPPRESSIVE measures, that THEY CAN MAKE NO LAW which will not have its FULL OPERATION on THEMSELVES and THEIR FRIENDS, AS WELL AS as ON THE GREAT MASS OF SOCIETY. This has ALWAYS been DEEMED one of the STRONGEST BONDS by which HUMAN POLICY can CONNECT the rulers and THE PEOPLE together. It creates between them that COMMUNION of INTERESTS and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but WITHOUT WHICH EVERY GOVERNMENT DEGENERATES INTO TYRANNY. If it be asked, what is to RESTRAIN the House of Representatives from MAKING LEGAL DISCRIMINATIONS in FAVOR of THEMSELVES AND A PARTICULAR CLASS of the SOCIETY? I answer: THE GENIUS OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM; the NATURE of JUST and CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS; and ABOVE ALL, the VIGILANT and manly SPIRIT which ACTUATES the PEOPLE OF AMERICA -- a SPIRIT which NOURISHES FREEDOM, and in RETURN is NOURISHED BY IT.
If this SPIRIT shall EVER BE SO FAR DEBASED as to TOLERATE A LAW NOT OBLIGATORY on the legislature, AS WELL AS ON THE PEOPLE, the PEOPLE will be prepared to TOLERATE any thing BUT LIBERTY." - James Madison, Federalist No. 57
" The art of war teaches general principles of organization, movement, and discipline, which APPLY UNIVERSALLY." - James Madison, Federalist #56
(Are we NOT in an UNDECLARED war? A war, in which those who treacherously practise it against US, utilize cowardly tactics? Using methods that may emanate from ANY source at ANY time, without warning? Not to mention the domestic CRIMINAL element. If we find ourselves at the house of a friend, or in the establishment of a business, in which we are employed OR are a customer. Can it JUSTLY be reasoned that OUR RIGHT ENDS at the doorway to our friend, employer or to a business TO WHOM WE ARE SPENDING OUR MONEY. Money which is going to the support of the ENJOYMENT of THEIR OWN RIGHT? How can the PRINCIPLE of LIBERTY be reasoned to APPLY, when it can be NEGATED out of FEAR or PREJUDICE of OTHERS? Liberty is therefore NO LONGER LIBERTY, by applying that SUPPOSITION! In REALITY, ones LIBERTY is then made SUBJECT to the ARBITRARY RULE of OTHERS).
"But if the EXECUTION OF THE LAWS of the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT should NOT REQUIRE the INTERVENTION of the STATE LEGISLATURES, if they were to PASS INTO IMMEDIATE OPERATION UPON THE CITIZENS THEMSELVES, the particular governments COULD NOT INTERRUPT their progress without an open and violent exertion of an UNCONSTITUTIONAL power." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #16
Are WE, The People, allowed to ARBITRARILY pick and choose WHICH laws we will follow and which are REPUGNANT to our OWN senses?
We desire the PROTECTION of ONE part, but because the other is undesirable to OUR OWN convictions - it doesn't APPLY?
That supposition DEFEATS the WHOLE PURPOSE of a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC! EQUAL LAW, WITH EQUAL PROTECTION APPLIES TO ALL THAT ARE BOUND BY ITS APPLICATION.
Once again, The RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT be INFRINGED. By NO ONE, ANYWHERE, AT ANYTIME - PERIOD!
Respectfully submitted, David, my friend.
Once again, I am not infringing and never would. I qualified that no coercion would be involved, so I guess you must agree with my position--you and I have a right to associate with each other on mutually acceptable terms. If the terms aren't acceptable, either one of us has the right to withdraw, free from the worry that the other party will sic the state goons on him.
E. David,
That's quite a way to say "I agree." You ever think of teaching political science?
Well if you think you actually own the property then your argument may have validity. But if you live where you pay a property tax or are subject to the states Right of Eminent Domain you really don't "own" the property, even if you have a paid up mortgage. The authorities will come with their guns regardless of your no gun rule, even if you don't want to associate with them they will leave you no choice.
You will not be convinced by anything that you hear or read but here goes; Where in the 2nd A. does it qualify the the "shall not be infringed" statement? Does it mention "property owners" "government agents" is there a time restriction mentioned like not "between 1 AM and 2PM" "not at work" or anything like that? Is there a locality restriction, "you can't carry between 3d Ave and Main St. or on specific property. If you can find those restrictions in the 2nd A. then you have to be smarter than a whole lot of people or just another person that doesn't really agree with the BOR, because the BOR is an all or nothing proposition.
David, my friend, the point I'm trying to make is that the Constitution IS the acceptable terms. And ALL citizens of the United States, at whatever level they may be, are BOUND by it.
Believe me, when I first discovered in my studies, that I was BOUND by the Constitution. It ruffled by individual feathers. But, when I went on to try to aascertain the 'spirit' behind the use of the 'bonds'. I discovered the true genius of what the Framers were trying to provide for us.
ENSURING FREEDOM and LIBERTY for ALL, with as little restrictions to be applied as possible. And to NEGATE the use of ARBITRARY RULE, from WHATEVER source it may emanate.
Does it stand to reason that a citizen, of ANY stature is allowed to arbitrarily decide, that in order to enter into whatever relationship there may be entered into. The other citizen must first surrender their RIGHT for that relationship to be allowed?
Logic would seem to dictate, that the above premise would put an END to society as we know it. That each man has decided for Himself, that He and He alone is GOD. And can demand their OWN terms in order that others may enter their sphere. That if each individual's prerequisite was not satified, we would soon be a nation of the 'individual'. Rather than the intended well-functioning community.
Believe the above scenario, is best described by the word anarchy.
Disclaimer: many things to do, so won't edit this for typo. You're getting raw, flawed me.
anonymous and edavid: Where have I said I wanted to infringe on anything?
I want to offer you terms and conditions. You are free to either say "Yes, please" or "No, thank you."
You are even free to use stronger terms.
I would never support anyone infringing on anyone's property or freedom.
But your arguments presuppose:
a. Because government criminals already control my property (and I stipulate yu are correct in this observaton, anon, but that does not make it RIGHT) the solution is to give them more control.
b. We cannot be trusted as free individuals to be mature enough to come up with mutually acceptable terms and conditions for voluntary association without:
i. intervention by angels; or
ii. Big Brother telling us it's acceptable.
I'm sorry, but I don't need Big Brother and the angels violate the 1A proscription against establishment of religion. I'll deal with them in God's Kingdom, not in man's.
Now, as I said--you are free to say "NO" and I am powerless to force you to associate with me. However, if--say Ms. Fellenzer who commented above, says "Why yes, David, those terms are to my liking," it is really no one else's business what contractual arrangements we have made.
Let me put it another way--we all have the right of free speech. Does that extend to this forum? Am I within my rights to turn off comments, or delete the ones I don't like or agree with?
I believe I am--and as long as I don't interfere with your right to go elsewhere and exercise your free speech, no one has infringed on your rights. Now of course I would not do that because that would be an AH thing to do, but do you agree it is my right?
I do not believe the way to achieve freedom is to give government more power to control the property and asctions of others. Yet you are both endorsing a law to do just that.
I'm not endorsing a law. I'm endorsing laissez faire--let people decide for themselves whether they wish to accept or reject offers.
Your position actually reminds me of the antis, and I'm not syaing that to pick a fight, just bear with me here: They say we can't be trusted with the choice of owning a gun. You say we can't be trusted with the choice of voluntarily dealing with each other.
Guess what, fellas--that's what we're doing right now--voluntarily associating--something EDavid said we need Angels and vaporizing to do...:) If any of us decides we don't wish to accept this free exchange, no one can compel them to endure it or infringe on their right to associate with someone more to their liking.
One last thought on letting government have more say in what an owner can and cannot do with his property: You might want not to open that door any wider, seeing as how firearms are property.
Let us go way back in history and dig up some Truths used by the Framers in their formulations. And this in order to help give an understanding of the reasoning used behind my assertion(s);
Matthew 22:37-40
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the FIRST and GREAT commandment.
39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy NEIGHBOUR as THYSELF.
40 On these two commandments HANG ALL THE LAW and the prophets.
Who is the ACTUAL OWNER of the earth and the fullness thereof? Of the world, and they that dwell therein?
Can it reasonably be asserted, that upon inviting a NEIGHBOUR into your realm. A realm in which you yourself, may or may not possess arms. (this being an unknown fact to your NEIGHBOUR). And, if indeed, you are in possession of arms, whether your own arms, or by those who may be armed that are employed by you. That by negating the RIGHT of your NEIGHBOUR, as a 'condition' in order to enter your realm. Are you not then placing yourself in a superior position to that of your NEIGHBOUR? Is your NEIGHBOUR then on the same equal footing as you? Would you then truly, be loving thy neighbour as yourself?
No, absolutely, I would not be a loving neighbor to do this, and I certainly never would. And I wouldn't want to associate with anyone who would do that. And if he imposed it by force I would fight him.
But edavid, you cannot base US Constitutional law on your Christian beliefs without violating the First Amendment. We are not, nor should we be, a theocracy.
But I am not negating rights by setting conditions. Because you are free to reject them and me.
Do I have a right to free religion?
If you have a church school and need to hire a teacher, and I show up with fully qualified credentials and tell you I'm a satanist, are you within your rights to not hire me--that is negate my rights by imposing conditions in order to enter your realm?
I say you are.
I see Jed wanted to weigh in on this, but couldn't get past the comment word verification...
If it's any consolation, I can't comment on FreedomSite either...
So there.
I just hope that you mark your property so everyone will know where they no longer have a right to defend themselves. Of course you do retain the right to be armed, right? Will you also provide for the safe keeping of the arms left at your property line, I forgot that you don't associate with just anyone. If everyone was to abide by the tenets of the founding Fathers and be armed all the time you would be an island of one. As for the relgious part of this Read the Preamble to The Bill of rights.
Anonymous--
Please show me where I have ever said I wish to force you or anyone else to do anything you don't readily want to do. Please show me where I have said anything to support anyone forcing anyone else to do something they don't readily want to do.
If you and I can't agree on terms, we won't associate--it's as simple as that. If I and someone else agree to terms you don't agree with, it doesn't concern you.
We would never force ourselves on you. So why do you feel compelled to use the state to force us to bend to your will?
I can only speculate that if you think about me what your comments imply, you're unfamliar with me and my work over the years.
You appear to be getting hostile. You shouldn't. We can engage in debate and disagree--even strongly-- because the purpose is to help determine the truth--not to "win".
E David and I have been colliding with each other big time in this thread. He knows I'm having a good time, and he's getting in his points, and he knows at the end of the day I hold him in respect and gratitude for his efforts and friendship.
For the record: No one has the right to force anyone to disarm--when have I ever said otherwise? But if two or more people wish to be sheep and set up a private reserve where they don't allow guns on their property, I'll avoid them and their damned property. And I won't be sympathetic when the wolves come to visit. But I won't interfere with them or force my beliefs on them either. Let 'em sing "Kumbaya" and be devoured.
The perversions of the Intended order of Our System of government, that have been applied by the Supreme Court, has NO legitimate bearing whatsoever. Witness;
"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in the sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." - George Washington, from his Farewell Address to the Nation as quoted in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1792
"The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government." - Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States, January 1, 1802, in an address to the Danbury Baptists
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!" - Patrick Henry
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." - John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of Supreme Court and an author of The Federalist Papers
"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: that it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." - John Quincy Adams
"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing." - Runkel v. Winemiller, 1796
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people...it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams
"Whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government."
- People v. Ruggles, 1811
"Had the people, during the Revolution, had any suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle...At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect.... in this age there can be no substitute for Christianity....That was the religion of the founders of the Republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants...The great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ." - House Judiciary Committee Report, March 27, 1854
"No, because this country was not founded upon the Qur'an. It was not founded upon a Muslim faith. It was founded upon a Christian faith and the acknowledgement of God of the holy scriptures."
"The acknowledgement of God was the very reason for the existence of this country." - Roy Moore, Judge
"We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." - William O. Douglas, (holds the record for continuous service on the Supreme Court: 36 years and 7 months).
We have been hoodwinked my friends. By a perverse government that seeks our enslavement. The Courts are obviously complicite to the perversion of Our Intended sytem.
I have to eat some crow, I mis-understood your position. Your last statement clarified it. Thank you.
David C. said: "And if he imposed it by force I would fight him."
I submit that isn't quite true. I am not impugning your character. I believe you believe it. I am questioning your judgment of the issue.
Of course,you advocate using force to deny a private citizen his rights. Who is the property owner going to call if a person refuses to comply with his wishes? Trust me on this, it will be somebody armed and they will apply force.
It has been established that one entity cannot give to another what the first did not own. It has also been established that no one is allowed to deny the rights guaranteed under the constitution. No one, not a judge, not a cop, not a president and for damn sure, not another citizen.
It being impossible to negotiate acceptable terms for association, if the acceptance of the terms involves the demand by one that the other surrender rights, force is the only vehicle by which the demand can be satisfied; the question becomes moot as unanswerable due to its impossibility to occur.
Here is a really radical thought. If the exercise of one's rights offends another, the offended party should be the one to remove himself, if the exercising party is behaving within the bounds of his rights and that exercise is the only issue. Do not confuse this with unacceptable overt behavior or transgressions against another. Not imagined unacceptable behavior, which is what we are really talking about here.
Once again, if one's deportment is within bounds and the only issue is the exercising of rights then the unacceptable behavior of the exercisor is "imagined", while the unacceptable behavior of the party who demands the surrender of rights is real.
So, David, your question as asked is unanswerable. However, I would not shop there. I don't smoke, but I don't go to restuarants that ban it either.
I am not in favor of a government edict requiring employers or business places to force them to do what they should. I am not in favor of it, because I believe it should not be needed. No man should try to deny the rights of another. But since some do, either we restrain them with law, or we make them liable for any harm, or we return to Coda Duello and let them force their will on others at some risk to themselves.
Glad to be back, been out of pocket, came home mad as Hell. BTW, I was the offended party, my choices; leave or kill the sonofabitch. So I do practice what I preach, I left.
No, SA-- no one is going to demand anyone surrender anything in my scenario. Everyone engages willingly.
Glad you showed up==thought you were gonna miss the party.
Also glad you didn't kill anybody.
"If you have a church school and need to hire a teacher, and I show up with fully qualified credentials and tell you I'm a satanist, are you within your rights to not hire me--that is negate my rights by imposing conditions in order to enter your realm?"
"I say you are."
And David, you would be correct with that decision. For a satanist, by mere definition, is on the side of wrong and an actual enemy of the people. (As clearly outlined above in the various quotations outlining the REAL INTENTION of OUR 1st Amendment. Not the perverted S.C.O.T.U.S. interpretation/decision).
What the satanist should be grateful for. Is that through the application of the Christian Principles which ARE the TRUE BASIS of OUR INTENDED sytem. He is NOT beheaded, hung or burned at the stake.
Returning to the subject at hand. Just want to be absolutely sure that my contention is summarized correctly. IMHO, your wrong on your contention. For force should not prove necessary in enforcing a Law that already exists, (2A, and is Universally applied, or should be). The obstacles perversely erected to inhibit that Right, are what need the visit of the enforcers of the law. For that would be the PROPER use of delegated authority - to enforce the REAL LAW of the land. And violators of THE REAL law are subject to proper penalties for not abiding by THE REAL LAW.
Instead of the FBI focusing on citizens, they should be focusing on things Federal - like Constitutional Infringements. Any politician attempting to subvert the True Intentions of OUR Constitution, should be imprisoned. And the guilty politician, as well as the satanist, should be glad they are not in Revolutionary France. For the common method of disposal of such problems was the guillotine.
Rather, it should be readily accepted as being a fact, (which in reality, it is). Despite all the perversions applied by various branches of government at all levels and by assorted citizenry. The RIGHT of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT be Infringed...By NO one, No how, in No way or in ANY Fashion. It is a Natural, God-given, Constitutionally Protected, (Supposedly - UNIVERSALLY), non-humanly negotiable, RIGHT.
Now, tell me just WHO is able to TRUMP a God-given Right? (Keep that guillotine in mind when answering).
Well, David Codrea, you know how to stir up a hornets nest.
Make sure you never ask something like "If the government ruled you could only keep one gun, which one would you keep?" It might start a revolution.
For a satanist, by mere definition, is on the side of wrong and an actual enemy of the people.
So your basic point is that only Christians have rights?
What happened to loving your enemy?
Here is a really radical thought. If the exercise of one's rights offends another, the offended party should be the one to remove himself, if the exercising party is behaving within the bounds of his rights and that exercise is the only issue.
So if someone is "exercising their rights" on MY PROPERTY I'm supposed to leave MY PROPERTY if it offends me?
So you wouldn't mind if I set up a political rally for the Brady campagn on your front lawn? They would just be exercising their First Amendment Rights, you would have no right to stop them would you? You'd just have to leave if you don't like it.
You guys are twisting David's original point beyond recognition. The point is this:
On my property, I have the right to determine who I invite and who I do not invite to enter. What criteria I use to determine which particular people to whom I am willing to extend an invitation is up to me.
If I only allow left-handed red-heads wearing purple pants onto my property, that is up to me...and that is MY right under the principles of freedom of association.
To imply that, by failing to offer an invitation to you, I am somehow infringing on your rights is specious. You have NO RIGHT to be on my property without an invitation. That's called tresspassing. Oh, and that's what you will be charged with if you attempt to exercise any of your Constitutional rights (First, Second or otherwise) on my property without my permission.
The main issue was forcing a business, which should be assumed to be open to the public, to resist a government mandate to allow firearms in their parking lot. I think some of the points that have been made have gone far afield from the question.
I am opposed to government mandates on anything, including forcing someone to allow me to do what I want to do. Such as bearing a firearm into someone's business or home.
Sailorcurt - "So your basic point is that only Christians have rights?"
Negative, thought I had qualified the statement and made clear the satanist DID have rights, (below the quote you used). Was merely providing reasoning as to why I WOULD'NT hire a satanist for such a task. Thought I spelled out the protection of the satanist's rights and how fortunate the satanist was that his rights were in place. For, at one time in this country, a satanist would have been hung or burnt at the stake, (tossed in beheaded to set up the guillotine joke).
"What happened to loving your enemy?"
Sometimes not to difficult to apply. Other times, near impossible - for me anyways.
Had a long post on this, but it went somewhere else, I guess.
Short version. Sailorcurt, yep!
As long as you insist on equating the exercise of rights with the abuse of rights or insist on denying rights based on your assessment of potential abuse of those rights, you should be the one to leave, no matter where you are.
You have no right to deny anyone their right to life just because they are on your property at invitation. Why would you have the right to deny them or demand they surrender any other rights? If they are there without invitation then they have violated your rights and you are not required to suffer them. You have no moral or legal right to demand surrender of their rights whether you invite them or not. If it is a problem for you, ask, then if you don't like the answer don't invite them.
If I were invited somewhere, but told "you must, however, surrender your rights to my power if you accept this invitation" there the inviter would have reason to file charges or try to take me down himself. For the insult to me, my rights as a human being, and more importantly for the blatant attack on the founding principles of my country would result in entirely avoidable ugliness were he not to assume my misbehavior and his superiority to me. Or if he did kept his mouth shut and didn't invite me. Simple isn't it?
Nobody's rights are violated, but that isn't really the thing, is it? It is about a little kingdom many of us desire where we can assert our divinity. I don't play that.
Just don't invite me, no problem. That is your right. At no point, not on your property or my property or public property do you have the right to demand I surrender my rights to your power. Period.
However, what you and David C. are missing, is the question in every manifestation has been based on a false premise.
Force is already in use, therefore there is no way to answer that question. Force is being employed daily to maintain the status quo and serve the interests of the employer and the CofC entities that have created this problem by not minding their own business. Since governmental force is already at work, my vote is to apply it in defense of the citizen and the constitution.
We have laws to deal with the abuse of rights. If I abuse my right to keep and bear arms, and shoot someone undeserving of being shot, there are laws to address that.
So far I have seen every reason given as property rights defense degenerate into what someone might not like what someone else does. Yeah? So? If he is within his rights and his behavior (that is the key word-behavior) is non-interfering with the rights of others that's just tough.
I am always amazed when I see people that claim to believe in the second or any other amendment use the same red herring that the rights deniers of the Brady Bunch and others use. How is this stance any different, except in who gets to deny rights to whom and for what reason?
If you can get me past that I can try to see your point. Until then I view it the same as every other tyrannical edict wherein someone sets himself up to be your moral and legal superior and therefore entitled to determine what you do in your life, while you dare not even require he respect your rights. HUH UH! Ain't goin' dere.
SA-- assume I am morally against guns-- a Quaker or some such.
Do I have a right to set up a private facility and name it "Gun free Haven" and put up a sign that says "All without guns welcome"?
And allow people who believe as I do to congregate there with me, singing "Kumbaya," free of all you scary gun owners?
Yes or no?
Yes.
You do not have the right to hire me to work in your garden and as a requirement of that employment I become less of a citizen than you.
Especially if you are going to use the power of the law and the force of armed men to make it happen. That is what we are talking about. Force is already part of the equation, now we are just deciding who gets to use it and to what purpose. I elect to use it in defense of the citizen and principle.
Put all the lipstick you want on this pig, it is still a pig.
You may ask me if I carry firearms, if I believe in the right to carry, or if I am Baptist, if you don't like the answers you don't have to hire me. If I answer falsely and you later learn that I lied you don't have to retain me. But you cannot invite me in then apprise me of conditions affecting my personal rights and demand my acquiesence, especially not as regards surrender of my citizenship or rights of citizenship.
That dog won't hunt.
"You do not have the right to hire me to work in your garden and as a requirement of that employment I become less of a citizen than you."
I don't see where I ever asked for that kind of power over your free will. You keep talking about me using force, which I have yet to do. I keep talking voluntary association, where both parties come to MUTUALLY AGREEABLE terms. And you then endorse the use of force to prevent me from doing this. I'm getting dizzy here.
If it's not for you, we won't associate. If it is for someone else, how is that any of your business--to the point where you want to interfere with the relationships of others and pass laws--backed by armed men--to bend me and my voluntary partners-- who may not agree with you-- to your way of thinking?
"You may ask me if I carry firearms, if I believe in the right to carry, or if I am Baptist, if you don't like the answers you don't have to hire me. If I answer falsely and you later learn that I lied you don't have to retain me."
Correct. We agree on this point. It's one I've been trying to make throughout this thread, but you just said it better.
"But you cannot invite me in then apprise me of conditions affecting my personal rights and demand my acquiesence, especially not as regards surrender of my citizenship or rights of citizenship."
I'm not demanding that you do anything. I'm defining the conditions under which I'M willing to engage. I thought you just said I could do that.
Before we get too far afield, let me just clarify: I'm not "for" employers banning guns from cars on their lots, from employees, from customers, etc. I'm against it--just as much as anyone who has commented here.
Where we diverge is in our method for dealing with this. I don't believe further empowering the state with yet more controls over property and free association rights is the superior way to deal with this--at least in the long run. I believe that a society where people voluntarily engage without interference or coercion is ultimately what we need to strive for. I think there are free market solutions to this and other issues that will effect a superior outcome--and these are unachievable as long as we rely on the coercive state enforcement approach.
I actually agree with you on a central point--if anyone tells me I have to surrender my rights, they can have them when they can take them, and the fight is on. No one SHOULD do this--anyone who does is a pig. But what I'm more concerned about is waking up my fellow men to not be sheep who would surrender to such outrages--in other words, creating the market demand for freedom that would allow the noncoercive strategy I endorse to become a market force to create a supply to fill the demand for freedom.
Food for thought:
1. Son falls during an outdoor activity and breaks leg, rib, etc. Since you are in a rural location and it would take a while for EMS to arrive, you decide to transport him to the local Hospital yourself. As you enter the ER, you notice the "Weapons Free Zone" sign. You have your carry gun on you but at this moment it is the last thing on your mind since you notice he is a little pale and blue lipped. You suspect he might have a collapsed lung. You carry your son into the ER and place him on the gurney. While placing him on the gurney someone notices your gun (you had to remove your jacket to keep your son warm). They call police and you are arrested. Did you really have the freedom to disassociate in this case?
2. Disaster strikes. Infrastructure is devastated and survivalist operations are in full swing. You thought you prepared well enough by stockpiling food, water, gas, guns, ammo, etc. You are beginning week two and your potable water is running low with no immediate help in sight. You travel several miles to a distribution site where you hear they are handing out water. At the entrance to the "area" you see a "No Weapons" sign. Are you really free to disassociate in this case?
3. You are in a completely strange (more ways than one) town on a vacation. You and your wife (both armed) just left a concert and are making the long trip back to the hotel. It was a long concert and you forgot to put gas in the car earlier in the day (your fault). It's now after 2300 and almost everything is closed as you look for a gas station and restaurant that might still be open. You find a gas station but as you go in to pay you notice the "No guns on premises" sign. You can disregard, enter, pay and be on your way or you can return to your car, disarm and then go pay. You note the local night life and decide on choice number one. You find a restaurant, same sign and now you can either disregard the sign entirely and enter and eat or you can disarm in the car or you can move on and go to bed hungry. Were you free to disassociate at the gas station (you already pumped the gas)? Are you free to disassociate at the restaurant?
The analogies in all of these are not perfect but could fall under the topic at hand. All of these are viewed from the citizen's viewpoint, not the entity that posted the sign. Admittedly, in the third example the citizen bears the biggest burden of responsibility for being in the situation he and his wife are in ... out late, hungry and low on gas.
I just wanted to throw in my two cents. I would hate to have the government tell me what I can or can not do with my own property. I also know that I could never forgive myself if harm came to my loved ones because I had voluntarily disarmed in adherence to someone else’s wishes regardless of whether it was on their property or not.
{Where we diverge is in our method for dealing with this. I don't believe further empowering the state with yet more controls over property and free association rights is the superior way to deal with this--at least in the long run.}
You are correct in that this is where we diverge. We are in agreement on most of this. However, my point is that you are trying to avoid a process already in place. We would not be "further empowering the state with yet more controls..."; they are already exercising those controls. It is my contention that those controls should be utilized in defense of the constitution, instead of as they now are in contravention of it.
{I believe that a society where people voluntarily engage without interference or coercion is ultimately what we need to strive for. I think there are free market solutions to this and other issues that will effect a superior outcome--and these are unachievable as long as we rely on the coercive state enforcement approach.}
I have no problem with that belief and could endorse it if reality did not intrude. The coercive state enforcement approach is already in use in service to those that will not abide our rights and seek to make our employment of our rights technically impossible if they can't succeed in rescinding them. Therefore, we would not be adding another layer of state control or enforcement, but would instead be redirecting the existing layer to honorable and legal use as opposed to the current situation.
And BTW, I don't carry, I used to, and I never asked anybody's permission, I would again if I felt I needed to, and I still recognize no one's authority to prevent me, but that is my choice, no one else is allowed to make it for me. I do not even recognize the state's authority if they seek to deny me what is mine. But since I don't carry and don't expect to again, I don't really have a dog in this fight except my loyalty to my country and the sacrifices made for my benefit by others. Upholding the principles of the constitution is the proper function of enforcement, if it is a given that enforcement is to be employed, then we should, at the least, employ it properly.
And, finally. I respectfully submit the following;
1. As citizens of the US, EACH and EVERY ONE of us is already BOUND by our SOVEREIGN RULE - THE U.S. CONSTITUTION with the attached BILL of RIGHTS. It would seem logical, (IF THE SOVEREIGN RULE WAS BEING DULY ENFORCED as INTENDED), that NO ONE, NO HOW, in NO FASHION, in WHATEVER CAPACITY or STATION in life they might be, WOULD BE ALLOWED TO INFRINGE UPON MY NATURAL, GOD-GIVEN RIGHT.
2. Anyone DEMANDING that I DISARM myself, before being ALLOWED to enter THEIR graces, would be BETRAYING THE SOVEREIGN. Their REQUEST, is therefore ILLEGAL.
3. And in a country THAT actually was APPLYING the TRUE INTENT of the SOVEREIGN LAW, the ONE MAKING SUCH A REQUEST WOULD BE SUBJECT TO BETRAYAL of THE SOVEREIGN. One would naturally ASSUME, that since the one making such a REPUGNANT demand, would be SUBJECT to CRIMINAL CHARGES. And, IN REALITY, since the CONSTITUTION w/the BOR IS the SOVEREIGN. THE OFFENDER COULD VERY WELL BE CHARGED WITH TREASON!
That's my take anyways.
Serf - Sire, might I enter into your graces?
Lord - You may approach, knave, provided you relinquish your Right to Arms first. For, I have deemed, MY Serfdom to be weapon free! And this being MY property, your Rights no longer have validity. Disarm yourself and enter!
Serf - Thank you, my Lord.
Post a Comment