Catfish Cove Moore Ok --Gun Buster Sign--

The issue with Cleveland County, is that we PERCEIVE that: 1) An official government agency is going around pressuring businesses to create fallacious victim disarmament zones, and 2)We believe that their signs are misquoting state law in order to create the illusion that their signs hold weight of law, when in fact, they may not.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you, also there are other questions, who paid for these signs, how many were made, how were they dispersed, why is Sheriff Lester the only Sheriff in the state doing this.

Norman PD, the largest law enforcement agency in Cleveland County has been very receptive to the new law, but yet, the chief law enforcement agency for the county posts thse signs, some in places where it is in violation of their company corporate policy????

If deputies are passing these signs out to buisnesses during time which they should be on patrol, that is a whole other can of worms.

I have no issue with a buisness posting a no firearms sign, my issue is with an elected official pushing a political opionion on a law he should be enforceing, and using tax payer money to do it.

Ok I can understand the Walmart scenario but does that also include someone exercising there religious speech? Also I had the impression that when they wrote the SDA that were over stepping their authority by adding that wording.

They wrote in the intent that;
TITLE 21 § 1290.25 LEGISLATIVE INTENT
The Oklahoma Self- Defense Act shall be liberally construed to carry out the constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense and self-protection. The provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act are cumulative to existing rights to bear arms and nothing in the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act shall impair or diminish those rights.

And then they also wrote;
TITLE 21 § 1290.22 BUSINESS OWNER’S RIGHTS
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, nothing contained in any provision of the Oklahoma Self- Defense Act, Section 1290.1 et seq. of this title, shall be construed to limit, restrict or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of any person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity to control the possession of weapons on any property owned or controlled by the person or business entity.
And therefore imo should read unlawful weapons.

1290.22 seemed to contradict 1290.25 in that 1290.22 impairs or diminishes the right to bear arms.

So what are the laws that prohibit owners from discriminating on race or religion etc if not the bill of rights? I know about the labor laws against such things but those are for employees not patrons. Also the disabilities act not only protects the labor side but also provides for accessibility to the property mind you that it's public accessible private property or rental property and not ones private residence that those laws are enforceable on. I'm not aware of any other law that specifically allows a business to say that can ban someone from praising God (1st amendment)in their store like 1290.22 says they can against lawful weapons (2nd amendment).

Note that they titled it business owners not propery owners which also gives the impression of contradicting the intent to insure 2nd amendment rights. Now I also must say that it is not my desire to deny business owners or employers the right to protect their place or property nor is it my desire to deny the right for individuals the ability to protect themselves without having to endure undeserved hardships in that they have to sacrifice an otherwise good job or store just to ensure they can defend themselves should the need arise. But let's be realistic the banning of lawful weapons does not make anyone safer but more vulnerable and has the effect of denying our right to bear arms. Yeah we can shop somewhere else or go work somewhere else, but if they are the only supplier in the region or an employer can hang that over people's heads it has the effect of causing people to disarm or go jobless or pay higher prices to get the specialty items from farther away, how does that help business or economy or more importantly anyones safety?

You asked a lot of questions. I'll try to address them one by one.

Robert318 said:

Ok I can understand the Walmart scenario but does that also include someone exercising there religious speech?

Click to expand...

Your 1A freedom of speech only protects you from the government arresting you for the content of your speech. If you are on private property (ie Walmart) and are making a scene and are asked to leave and refuse to do so, you can be arrested for trespassing. Except for some very specific circumstances, generally you could not be legally forced to leave from a truly public place, like a city park or the steps of the state capitol for expressing religious or political speech.

Also I had the impression that when they wrote the SDA that were over stepping their authority by adding that wording.

They wrote in the intent that;
TITLE 21 § 1290.25 LEGISLATIVE INTENT
The Oklahoma Self- Defense Act shall be liberally construed to carry out the constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense and self-protection. The provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act are cumulative to existing rights to bear arms and nothing in the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act shall impair or diminish those rights.

Click to expand...

All this means is that any existing gun owners rights that were in effect before the SDA were still in effect (ie, things that were allowed like having a gun in your home or business, like open carrying a rifle while hunting, etc)

And then they also wrote;
TITLE 21 § 1290.22 BUSINESS OWNER’S RIGHTS
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, nothing contained in any provision of the Oklahoma Self- Defense Act, Section 1290.1 et seq. of this title, shall be construed to limit, restrict or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of any person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity to control the possession of weapons on any property owned or controlled by the person or business entity.
And therefore imo should read unlawful weapons.

1290.22 seemed to contradict 1290.25 in that 1290.22 impairs or diminishes the right to bear arms.

Click to expand...

See what I wrote above... I think you are reading too much into the "intent of the legislature" part.

So what are the laws that prohibit owners from discriminating on race or religion etc if not the bill of rights? I know about the labor laws against such things but those are for employees not patrons.

Click to expand...

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial discrimination in places of public accommodation, stating, ―[a]ll persons shall be entitled to
the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public
accommodation . . . without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Also the disabilities act not only protects the labor side but also provides for accessibility to the property mind you that it's public accessible private property or rental property and not ones private residence that those laws are enforceable on.

Click to expand...

The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, State and local government, public accommodations, commercial facilities, transportation, and telecommunications. It also applies to the United States Congress.

To be protected by the ADA, one must have a disability or have a relationship or association with an individual with a disability. An individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment. The ADA does not specifically name all of the impairments that are covered.

I'm not aware of any other law that specifically allows a business to say that can ban someone from praising God (1st amendment)in their store like 1290.22 says they can against lawful weapons (2nd amendment).

Click to expand...

This isn't really a good analogy. I mean, Title II prevents denying someone service under public accomodation for their religion, but if you made a scene, you could be thrown out and trespassed if you refused to leave.

Note that they titled it business owners not propery owners which also gives the impression of contradicting the intent to insure 2nd amendment rights. Now I also must say that it is not my desire to deny business owners or employers the right to protect their place or property nor is it my desire to deny the right for individuals the ability to protect themselves without having to endure undeserved hardships in that they have to sacrifice an otherwise good job or store just to ensure they can defend themselves should the need arise. But let's be realistic the banning of lawful weapons does not make anyone safer but more vulnerable and has the effect of denying our right to bear arms. Yeah we can shop somewhere else or go work somewhere else, but if they are the only supplier in the region or an employer can hang that over people's heads it has the effect of causing people to disarm or go jobless or pay higher prices to get the specialty items from farther away, how does that help business or economy or more importantly anyones safety?

Click to expand...

You keep comparing discrimination against people who have no control over their skin color, their handicap, or their (in most cases) religion... to people who can choose to disarm before coming in the store. I'm sorry, but while you do have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, there isn't a court in the land who is going to say that you have a constitutional right to carry a gun into another man's privately owned place of business.

All of the above is my opinion, and is worth what you paid for it. I've studied some of this extensively. I have a disability that qualifies me for some protection from discrimination under that ADA, so I made it a point to learn that law (and a lot of relevant case law) as much as I could. I like to make sure I know what I'm doing when it comes to laws. Now I just hope I nested all the quote tags properly...lol

okiebryan said:

Are you saying that if a hotel refused to rent a room to someone because they are confined to a wheelchair, that's ok with you? Or if a restaurant refused to serve food to a family because they are Korean American? Would you support that? How about making black people ride in the back of a Greyhound bus? Denying a blind person the ability to fly on a commercial passenger airline because they use a service dog? Or how about an apartment manager refusing to show an apartment to someone because they attend a Catholic church? There is some discrimination that we as a society have decided is not acceptable. As I believe it should be.

Owning a gun is not a protected class. It's not going to be a protected class, because you can choose not to carry it into a business where you have been put on notice that it's not welcome. In most cases, you can also choose to do business somewhere else that is more in line with what you believe.

I don't think that we are harassing any businesses. That is not the intent of the OKOCA. What we are doing is to provide thoughtful and reasoned information on why we believe that limiting the self defense rights of their clientele is a bad idea. If they decide to see things our way, great. We reward them with our continued patronage. If they do not see things our way, and choose to continue with the victim disarmament zone nonsense, then we can choose to comply with their wishes, or to find someone else to spend our money with. Either way, we are honoring their private property rights as enumerated in Oklahoma state law.

That's it. That's all. No rights are being violated, no harassment is happening.

The issue with Cleveland County, is that we PERCEIVE that: 1) An official government agency is going around pressuring businesses to create fallacious victim disarmament zones, and 2)We believe that their signs are misquoting state law in order to create the illusion that their signs hold weight of law, when in fact, they may not.

Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't support or agree with those things. But I also don't support or agree with using the government to force my views onto those establishments. I think that it is the responsibility of the local community and its citizens to get those people to change. As you said, we as a society have decided certain forms of discrimination is unacceptable. The difference is in some people being ok with using the government to enforce such views, while I personally don't agree with using the government in such a capacity.

Bryan,
Well finally a little more clarity into this subject, until now everyone that I have asked similar questions or discussion on this has only ever offered me a that's just how it is or tried to justify their thoughts or views on some fictional or far fetched base of misinformation riddled with their on bias.

Lol, that wouldn't be the first time I have been told that I ask a lot of questions. Not only was I taught that is the better way to learn in comparison to learning the hard way yourself but it is also my belief. If we always stand by and wait for someone else to ask we may never find the answers to the questions we neglect to ask ourselves. The only dumb question is the one you didn't ask.

Thank you for understanding it is not my intent to be argumentative but to find factual information(the truth). I too seek more knowledge and insight of law not only for my own safety as to abide by the law but to be able to share with others who are misinformed.

Property owners' rights

What I should have said was, "the property owner has the right to do as he pleases, within the law." Unfortunately, under current law (whether we like it or not), a store owner may ban concealed carry or open carry.

As stated by others above (much better than I ever could), barring patrons due to skin color, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc., is prohibited by law. Not so 2A exercisers. Whether it SHOULD BE is an argument for another day - but today, it's perfectly legal for the Stop & Rob owner to prohibit you from CC or OC in his store.

My point merely was - the store owner has the right to do with his property, as he wishes, as long as he's within the law. With rights come responsibilities. If he chooses to alienate those folks who disagree with his position, that's his right, and he pays the price for that (whatever the price may be). He may calculate that the loss is so minimal, he doesn't care. He may calculate that he's alienating so many customers, he backtracks and pulls the sign down.

As in the example about poultry owners in Norman, there are far too many instances of government interfering with a property owner's use of his property. I would personally not want to see CC/OC become another area.

Many states grant civil immunity to property owners arising EITHER from permitting, or prohibiting, Concealed Carry on their property (I presume that would extend to OC in OK, since you need a CC permit). I don't know if such immunity exists in OK. That would arguably immunize them from liability if, for instance, they are in a known high-crime area but prohibit CC - a patron gets shot by a thug - patron sues store for failure to take reasonable steps to insure his safety in light of a known hazard, and particularly, for prohibiting CC in their store. I don't know of any such statutes that have been tested for Constitutionality. I have some Equal Protection arguments with it, but I'm no Constitutional scholar. Carving that kind of immunity out of what is generally accepted liability theory just seems a little much to me, but it probably would take getting to a state Supreme Court to get ironed out.

Anyway, point is -it's presently legal for OK merchants to ban CC. Personally (YMMV), I think they should retain that right. They may rue the day they decided to post the sign - but it's still their right.

And as to the CCSO signs - I'm fairly sure that if Joe Lester's name was on them, naming him as County Sheriff, they were likely printed up on the tax dollar. I would think an Open Records Act request would disclose that, if his office won't tell you.

And as to the funding for the Sheriff's office - my recollection was that the County Commissioners controlled his budget. I may have been wrong, and/or that may have changed. However, if the commissioners do hold his purse strings, if you can't get any dialog going with Lester, going to them may get better response. I continue to believe that even if Lester is not sympathetic to our protests about such signs, the politicians (if they run his budget) will be a bit more sympathetic if they detect votes potentially going out the window.

Yeah that sounds better, words can so easily be interpreted wrong quite easily when no one can see the emotion or can quickly ask what was meant by what was just said.

I wouldn't really call it an argument as much as I would a discussion or even a debate. Also I would be inclined to agree about your statement

docachna said:

As in the example about poultry owners in Norman, there are far too many instances of government interfering with a property owner's use of his property. I would personally not want to see CC/OC become another area.

Click to expand...

Maybe this next session they can write in an exemption clause for releasing any liability from property owners similar to the one they did for the storing of firearms in locked vehicles.

TITLE 21 § 1289.7a
B. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be liable in any civil action for occurrences which result from the storing of firearms or ammunition in a locked motor vehicle on any property set aside for any motor vehicle, unless the person, property owner, tenant, employer, or owner of the business entity commits a criminal act involving the use of the firearms or ammunition. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to claims pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Click to expand...

As for the Sheriff Lester thing I feel comfortable stating that it will come out in the wash, whether some criminal act has taken place and he is punished under the law or by the people simply not voting him back in next go around.

Robert318 said:

Maybe this next session they can write in an exemption clause for releasing any liability from property owners similar to the one they did for the storing of firearms in locked vehicles.

Click to expand...

Here's how Ohio addressed it:

(2)(a) A private employer shall be immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to a licensee bringing a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer, including motor vehicles owned by the private employer, unless the private employer acted with malicious purpose. A private employer is immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to the private employer’s decision to permit a licensee to bring, or prohibit a licensee from bringing, a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer. As used in this division, “private employer” includes a private college, university, or other institution of higher education.

Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.126 (C)(2)(a).

As you can see, they also included immunity from liability when a property owner prohibits licensed weapon carry on their property. It is this section I question. I have serious doubts it would stand up to Constitutional scrutiny, given the level of duty on the part of a business owner to protect from known dangers. As I said, however, my guess is it would have to go to the OK Supremes to be dealt with, even if it were enacted.

Robert318 said:

As for the Sheriff Lester thing I feel comfortable stating that it will come out in the wash, whether some criminal act has taken place and he is punished under the law or by the people simply not voting him back in next go around.

Click to expand...

I doubt he committed any criminal act. Whether he did something unwise, either ethically or politically, may be a matter between he and whoever he reports to; and unless he drafts and approves his own budget - he unquestionably reports to SOMEONE.

okiebryan said:

Are you saying that if a hotel refused to rent a room to someone because they are confined to a wheelchair, that's ok with you? Or if a restaurant refused to serve food to a family because they are Korean American? Would you support that? How about making black people ride in the back of a Greyhound bus? Denying a blind person the ability to fly on a commercial passenger airline because they use a service dog? Or how about an apartment manager refusing to show an apartment to someone because they attend a Catholic church? There is some discrimination that we as a society have decided is not acceptable. As I believe it should be.

Click to expand...

This is a dangerous argument, gentle readers. It equates personal opposition with approval for government to regulate.

I don't like the idea of a restaurant refusing to serve food to a Korean family, but I like even less the idea that government get involved and force a restaurant owner to serve them.

While the idea of property rights and forced service should be enough, permit me to add a few other things for persuasion.

Keep in mind that a government so empowered won't stop at forcing service and violating property rights.

You also get Title IX arguments about women in college sports, the end result being that some smaller schools had to give up entirely on some sports programs because they couldn't fund both men and women.

You get small businesses forced into expensive compliance with ADA at a point in the businesses' development where they can ill-afford it like wheelchair ramps and restrooms and hiring less qualified employees when better qualified employees are available.

I've been to small parking lots where all customers had to wait for a parking place to open and jockey not unlike the kids sliding-number puzzle, except for the rarely used handicapped parking slot. Not to mention the space lost by the wheelchair zone beside the space.

The situation on race compliance had devolved to the point where qualified people are turned away from schools because they are not of the race the school is trying to find in order to avoid government attack on nebulous grounds that the school does not reflect the ratio in the population.

Same for banking. Now, I am one of the last people to support fractional reserve bankers for anything, so I am only offering this to show how absurd things can get when government is empowered in this area. Not long ago a good-sized regional bank had to settle with government over the government's accusation that a certain credit or loan activity did not have enough minorities. I'll concede that the info I have is limited. But, I find it striking the bank was not accused of denying minorities. You see the implications here, right? What if the shortfall in minority business was not caused by the bank, but by inactivity by minorities? Is the bank supposed to go door to door trying to sign people up for the financial service? Reduce rates to unprofitable levels so a portion of the service is being given away? Who pays for that? All the rest of the banks customers, of course. Including other minorities who would do that type of business with the bank.

And, a fundamental driver of the recent economic crash was banks lending to unqualified people. One thread of this has been traced to banks trying to avoid government action for failing to serve minorities (keeping in mind that while some minorities are successful, middle-class, and even affluent, many are not.) Now, I don't believe for one minute that banks did not also say, "Hey! Lets make some money. We can get these shaky loans off our books by selling them to investment companies." Nonetheless, the coercion to avoid government civil suit was there.

What a mess it has become. All because people equated personal opinion about fairness with government authorization to act.

I agree that discrimination is bad; it is even worse to empower government to do something about it. Be very careful, gentle readers, before shaking a fist and saying, "There ought to be a law against that."

Every example I offered is already in violation of Federal Law. That's not about to change.

I'm amazed at people saying they don't think that government should be involved in enforcing these laws. I guess some have either not read history to remember what it was like to be a minority before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or have come to hate certain groups of people so much that they just don't care whether or not people are treated as subhuman for no reason other than the color of their skin or for their religious beliefs.

One major purpose of the bill of rights is to protect the rights of the few from the political whims of the many. This isn't about majority rule. If it was, you all would have lost your RKBA back when gun ownership wasn't very popular (which wasn't that long ago). People who said unpopular things would not have 1st amendment protections. The majority religion would be the only religion. And racial minorities would still have separate drinking fountains and be not allowed to eat lunch at white only diners. Disabled people would still be sent off to insane asylums. Our country has some very dark things in its history that I guess some people want to pretend never happened. The Federal Government was the only avenue that was able to correct those problems.

If you want to fight for your rights, you have to fight for everyone's rights. Otherwise, you're being extremely intellectually dishonest. It's no different than the CC only crowd fighting to limit OC rights.

Citizen said:

It equates personal opposition with approval for government to regulate.

Click to expand...

I'm not even understanding what this even means. Maybe it's because I'm sleep deprived, I don't know.

I don't like the idea of a restaurant refusing to serve food to a Korean family, but I like even less the idea that government get involved and force a restaurant owner to serve them.

Click to expand...

Unless you can envision an alternative to stop individuals from violating someone's rights, then what other alternative can you offer? Can you even imagine traveling outside your state with your family and not being able to find a place to eat because all of the restaurants in the area are run by racists? Un freaking acceptable.

Keep in mind that a government so empowered won't stop at forcing service and violating property rights.

Click to expand...

See Slippery Slope Logical Fallacy

You also get Title IX arguments about women in college sports, the end result being that some smaller schools had to give up entirely on some sports programs because they couldn't fund both men and women.

Click to expand...

Totally off topic to this discussion. We were discussing discrimination in public accomodation for reasons of race, religion, disability, and how that doesn't equate to telling a gun owner to leave it in the car.

You get small businesses forced into expensive compliance with ADA at a point in the businesses' development where they can ill-afford it like wheelchair ramps and restrooms and hiring less qualified employees when better qualified employees are available.

Click to expand...

Your first statement has some merit, but the 2nd one I'm calling ********. There are no quota requirements for the disabled, never have been. An employer cannot refuse to hire a qualified person because they might need to make reasonable accommodation for a disability. Back to the 1st point, businesses have to have a complaint filed by a disabled person before the government will lift the 1st finger. There aren't federal access police who go around looking for cases. When a customer expresses an access problem, be proactive. How can you expect someone to be a productive member of society, rather than a welfare recipient, when they cannot even get to a job, or get to the desk because the able bodied majority decided it wasn't that important?

I've been to small parking lots where all customers had to wait for a parking place to open and jockey not unlike the kids sliding-number puzzle, except for the rarely used handicapped parking slot. Not to mention the space lost by the wheelchair zone beside the space.

Click to expand...

Your gift of hyperbole is amazing. You are either trolling this one, or you totally lack the ability to consider others.

The situation on race compliance had devolved to the point where qualified people are turned away from schools because they are not of the race the school is trying to find in order to avoid government attack on nebulous grounds that the school does not reflect the ratio in the population.

Click to expand...

This discussion wasn't about affirmative action. It's about people being allowed to access public accommodations without fear of being turned away because of illegitimate discrimination.

Same for banking. Now, I am one of the last people to support fractional reserve bankers for anything, so I am only offering this to show how absurd things can get when government is empowered in this area. Not long ago a good-sized regional bank had to settle with government over the government's accusation that a certain credit or loan activity did not have enough minorities. I'll concede that the info I have is limited. But, I find it striking the bank was not accused of denying minorities. You see the implications here, right? What if the shortfall in minority business was not caused by the bank, but by inactivity by minorities? Is the bank supposed to go door to door trying to sign people up for the financial service? Reduce rates to unprofitable levels so a portion of the service is being given away? Who pays for that? All the rest of the banks customers, of course. Including other minorities who would do that type of business with the bank.

And, a fundamental driver of the recent economic crash was banks lending to unqualified people. One thread of this has been traced to banks trying to avoid government action for failing to serve minorities (keeping in mind that while some minorities are successful, middle-class, and even affluent, many are not.) Now, I don't believe for one minute that banks did not also say, "Hey! Lets make some money. We can get these shaky loans off our books by selling them to investment companies." Nonetheless, the coercion to avoid government civil suit was there.

What a mess it has become. All because people equated personal opinion about fairness with government authorization to act.

Click to expand...

This discussion wasn't about affirmative action. It's about people being allowed to access public accommodations without fear of being turned away because of illegitimate discrimination. Again, unless we are talking about preventing people from opening a savings account at the bank because of skin color, etc, then this is totally irrelevant to the original topic, which was as I remember, how that telling you to leave your piece in the car does not equate to denying one the ability to have lunch because of how they look....

I agree that discrimination is bad; it is even worse to empower government to do something about it.

Click to expand...

They who else? Please answer me that.

Be very careful, gentle readers, before shaking a fist and saying, "There ought to be a law against that."

Click to expand...

There already are laws against that, as I quoted above. Those laws aren't going to go away.

okiebryan said:

SNIP I'm amazed at people saying they don't think that government should be involved in enforcing these laws. I guess some have either not read history to remember what it was like to be a minority before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or have come to hate certain groups of people so much that they just don't care whether or not people are treated as subhuman for no reason other than the color of their skin or for their religious beliefs.

One major purpose of the bill of rights is to protect the rights of the few from the political whims of the many. This isn't about majority rule. If it was, you all would have lost your RKBA back when gun ownership wasn't very popular (which wasn't that long ago). People who said unpopular things would not have 1st amendment protections. The majority religion would be the only religion. And racial minorities would still have separate drinking fountains and be not allowed to eat lunch at white only diners. Disabled people would still be sent off to insane asylums. Our country has some very dark things in its history that I guess some people want to pretend never happened. The Federal Government was the only avenue that was able to correct those problems.

If you want to fight for your rights, you have to fight for everyone's rights. Otherwise, you're being extremely intellectually dishonest. It's no different than the CC only crowd fighting to limit OC rights.

Click to expand...

The federal government was the only avenue that was able to correct these problems? Oh? Charles Dickens, Jonathon Swift, and Mark Twain would be surprised to learn that. Historically, social advancement has come from social persuasion, not government enforcement.

Also, there is no way I will believe that a congress that was abusing and ignoring the constitution suddenly came all over virtuous and passed the Civil Rights Act. Johnson pressed for it for political reasons.

There is no reason to believe that equality wouldn't have advanced without the government intervention. To say otherwise is to claim that PC wouldn't exist unless government first decreed what everybody should think.

There is no intellectual dishonesty going on here. Your argument conflates fighting against government for rights so that it doesn't interfere in certain ways on certain subjects with persuading people socially to abandon bigotry. You imply that all fighting must be done in the same arena with the same tools.

okiebryan said:

[post #31]

Click to expand...

Picking apart the pieces doesn't erase the totality.

okiebryan said:

I'm not even understanding what this even means.

Click to expand...

Its the central mistake. Your argument has the premise that just because something is bad or unfair, that government should be the solution.

In 1954, the SCOTUS ruled that segregation was unconstitutional. The Jim Crow crap continued well into the 1960s and the congress finally passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 that gave some teeth to the laws. Before that happened, there was violent opposition to doing away with these practices. People clearly weren't going to stand around and sing kumbya and just agree that what they were doing was wrong. The hatred was so strong, that anyone who spoke out (just like I'm doing now) was called "****** lover" and were subjected to physical violence in order to shut them up.

Let's look at a timeline.
May 1954, SCOTUS overturns Plessy v Ferguson and rules that segregation is unconstitutional.

Aug 1955 Fourteen-year-old Chicagoan Emmett Till is visiting family in Mississippi when he is kidnapped, brutally beaten, shot, and dumped in the Tallahatchie River for allegedly whistling at a white woman. Two white men, J. W. Milam and Roy Bryant, are arrested for the murder and acquitted by an all-white jury. They later boast about committing the murder in a Look magazine interview.

Dec 1955 Rosa Parks refuses to give up her seat at the front of the "colored section" of a bus to a white passenger, defying a southern custom of the time. In response to her arrest the Montgomery black community launches a bus boycott, which will last for more than a year, until the buses are desegregated Dec. 21, 1956.

Sep 1957 Little Rock AR...Nine black students are blocked from entering the school on the orders of Governor Orval Faubus. President Eisenhower sends federal troops and the National Guard to intervene on behalf of the students, who become known as the "Little Rock Nine."

Summer 1961 Over the spring and summer, student volunteers begin taking bus trips through the South to test out new laws that prohibit segregation in interstate travel facilities, which includes bus and railway stations. Several of the groups of "freedom riders," as they are called, are attacked by angry mobs along the way.

Oct 1962 James Meredith becomes the first black student to enroll at the University of Mississippi. Violence and riots surrounding the incident cause President Kennedy to send 5,000 federal troops.

Jan 1964 The 24th Amendment abolishes the poll tax, which originally had been instituted in 11 southern states after Reconstruction to make it difficult for poor blacks to vote.

July 1964 President Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The most sweeping civil rights legislation since Reconstruction, the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination of all kinds based on race, color, religion, or national origin. The law also provides the federal government with the powers to enforce desegregation.

Aug 1964 (Neshoba Country, Miss.) The bodies of three civil-rights workers—two white, one black—are found in an earthen dam, six weeks into a federal investigation backed by President Johnson. James E. Chaney, 21; Andrew Goodman, 21; and Michael Schwerner, 24, had been working to register black voters in Mississippi, and, on June 21, had gone to investigate the burning of a black church. They were arrested by the police on speeding charges, incarcerated for several hours, and then released after dark into the hands of the Ku Klux Klan, who murdered them.

While I am not saying that the Federal Government was completely perfect in everything they did, I strongly contend that civil rights would never had happened if not forced on the south at gunpoint by the Federal Government. I am not advocating affirmative action, but I am advocating that every person be allowed to access public accommodations.











There is no other scenario that would have successfully ended the Jim Crow garbage that was happening in the south than the Federal Government telling powerful people in the south that if they didn't cut it out, they would face prison time.

Citizen said:

Picking apart the pieces doesn't erase the totality.

Click to expand...

Yes, actually it does. When an entire argument is built on faulty premise after faulty premise, then the entire argument is shown to be fallacious.

If P and Q then R. It follows that Not P and/or Not Q means Not R. Logic 101.

Citizen said:

Its the central mistake. Your argument has the premise that just because something is bad or unfair, that government should be the solution.

Click to expand...

In this case, there could be no other solution. See post 35 for evidence of this. Should the government work to ensure equal outcome for all? No, of course not. Should the Federal Government prevent states and cities from willfully violating the civil rights of it's citizens? Absolutely. Don't you support the Federal Government telling DC that it's handgun ban was unconstitutional? I'm pretty sure you also support the same thing happening to Chicago, yes?

Plaintiff rests.

I feel that I must apologize, I did not intend to start a racial / disabilities debate but was merely seeking some understanding to the logic behind it not being ok to discriminate via race,sex or religion but was ok to discriminate against someone for exercising their right to bear arms. To me a sin is a sin no matter what one may want to shade it with, likewise is discrimination.

Robert318 said:

I feel that I must apologize, I did not intend to start a racial / disabilities debate but was merely seeking some understanding to the logic behind it not being ok to discriminate via race,sex or religion but was ok to discriminate against someone for exercising their right to bear arms. To me a sin is a sin no matter what one may want to shade it with, likewise is discrimination.

Click to expand...

There can be no understanding because there no logic behind it.

The problem isn't that guns are discriminated against, while other discrimination is illegal. The problem is that other discrimination is illegal. It shouldn't be. Government shouldn't have that power.

It is one thing for government to punish the initiation of force--rape, murder, assault, robbery--and fraud. Its something else for government to compel service and property use. Such devolves toward the absurdity of thought control--today there are additional penalties for violent crimes against minorities if the crime was born of "hate". "Hate" is now worse than murder, aggravated assault, and mayhem.

Citizen said:

There can be no understanding because there no logic behind it.

The problem isn't that guns are discriminated against, while other discrimination is illegal. The problem is that other discrimination is illegal. It shouldn't be. Government shouldn't have that power.

It is one thing for government to punish the initiation of force--rape, murder, assault, robbery--and fraud. Its something else for government to compel service and property use. Such devolves toward the absurdity of thought control--today there are additional penalties for violent crimes against minorities if the crime was born of "hate". "Hate" is now worse than murder, aggravated assault, and mayhem.

Click to expand...

Well let me say first of all the fact that you can still have or speak your own opinion in this country speaks volumes.
Secondly I was referring to the understanding in regards to the existing laws outside the understanding that if all people's regardless of their potentially bias opinions would have morals in their life's our government would have no need to step in and make such laws that you are referring to.

There in lies the fact that one must understand that our country and our government was founded upon the beliefs that such morals existed within its lands and it's peoples. But since those morals are so few that in efforts to prevent our country's own self destruction it is forced to make such laws. So the true problem does Not lie in the government but in the hearts and minds of the people.

One example of this fact is the false propaganda of seperation of church and state. This law was created not to keep the church out of government but was created so that government couldn't force people to be atheist, baptist, Christian, etc.. Therefore allowing us to think how we so chose knowing that Love not hate is the answer and that by that very same love that those that are lost might be found. For people cannot be forced but must make the choice themselves for imposing that force would show differently. There is only one truth any thing else is just a lie. Just as truth can set a man free likewise can a lie set a man into bondage.