Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Help me understand the bias

  1. #1
    Regular Member wrearick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Va.
    Posts
    635

    Help me understand the bias

    I truely appreciate the wealth of legal knowledge here on the forum and I have what is probably a dumb question but I will ask anyway. I could spend hours researching an answer that others here could provide in the time it takes to type it.

    So here we go. I understand that in our countries past, not all rights were afforded to everyone. The right for women to vote, slavery, segregation, are all things that I am glad have been addressed. I believe most of the were through constitutional ammendments but I could be very wrong.

    Jump to today and I hear the argument that buisness owners can prohibit firearms in their buisnesses. Doesn't that allow a individual to take away my 2nd ammendment rights? A buisness owner could not choose to refuse to sell to a certain sect or race of people (Arab, Catholics, Venezualians) in a public business. They have to form a private club or members only establishment and carefully control those they allow to become members. If someone tried to ban a certain group of people there would be a cry and hue about their rights being denied.

    I am serious in my question - I really don't understand. .... Why do we have to chose to shop elsewhere as our only recourse when our 2nd ammendment "right" is infringed by a buisness owner? Help me understand why it is okay to tell me I can't come in if I am exercising my right but they can't tell me I can't come in due to my color or beliefs because I have that right if they are going to do buisness with the general public.

    thanks,

  2. #2
    Regular Member ron73440's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Suffolk VA
    Posts
    477
    Because they have the right to own private property and with that comes the right to deny certain people access to your property.

    As far as I am concerned it should be that way for everything, the government should not be telling business owners who they have to serve.

    If you're a racist and you want the world to know it you should be able to put up a sign "No blacks allowed."

    I would rather know who they are, instead of helping them hide, and the free market (what little bit we still have) would drive these people out of business, or they would change voluntarily, without government force.
    What I told my wife when she said my steel Baby Eagle .45 was heavy, "Heavy is good, heavy is reliable, if it doesn't work you could always hit him with it."-Boris the Blade

    MOLON LABE

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The Constitution was intended to protect rights from governmental intrusion, not from individual intrusion. For example, you may prohibit a person who enters your property from standing on a soapbox and spewing, say, racist hatred from your property onto the street, even though the First Amendment would protect that speech from governmental intrusion.

    Unfortunately, a stupid little legal concept called "public accommodations" was instituted by the courts and then codified by some laws. This idea did not protect rights from governmental intrusion. Instead, it is a governmental intrusion into private property rights, telling owners what they may and may not do with their private property. The idea was accepted because it was seen as protecting individual rights. However, until then, we never had laws where one individual had to give up his rights to keep him from infringing on another's "rights."

    One of the insidious aspects of the "public accommodation" nonsense was that it gave some who love Liberty the impression that forcing others to give up their rights, so that we might be able to lord ours over them, was a protection of rights rather than an infringement.

    It is an infringement.

    True Liberty means that property owners have the right to deny service to anyone, based on any criteria they choose, including skin color and armed status. We may not like that (I don't), but, if we want our rights respected, we must first respect the rights of others--including their right to do things we find objectionable.

  4. #4
    Regular Member wrearick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Va.
    Posts
    635
    I hear what you are saying and I too think it would be better for the free market to force people to act properly but....

    Quote Originally Posted by ron73440 View Post
    Because they have the right to own private property and with that comes the right to deny certain people access to your property.
    what allows them to deny people with guns access to their property but not people of color if the right for both resides in the constitution. where is the line between what they have to accept and what they can choose to accept?

  5. #5
    Regular Member wrearick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Va.
    Posts
    635
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    One of the insidious aspects of the "public accommodation" nonsense was that it gave some who love Liberty the impression that forcing others to give up their rights, so that we might be able to lord ours over them, was a protection of rights rather than an infringement.

    It is an infringement.
    So is there a way we can use the system to make it illegal for business owners to discriminate against those exercising their 2nd ammendment rights?

  6. #6
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,276
    Quote Originally Posted by wrearick View Post
    So is there a way we can use the system to make it illegal for business owners to discriminate against those exercising their 2nd ammendment rights?
    Why do you wish to invite more government intrusion into our lives? If you don't like it go to the business down the road, stop looking to Uncle Sam to be everything to everybody. That got us into this mess to begin with!
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Catholics are now terrorists ... so says the US Army ...

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by wrearick View Post
    So is there a way we can use the system to make it illegal for business owners to discriminate against those exercising their 2nd ammendment rights?
    Only if the Liberty of others does not matter to you and you want their rights infringed just to satisfy you.

  9. #9
    Regular Member ron73440's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Suffolk VA
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by wrearick View Post
    I hear what you are saying and I too think it would be better for the free market to force people to act properly but....



    what allows them to deny people with guns access to their property but not people of color if the right for both resides in the constitution. where is the line between what they have to accept and what they can choose to accept?
    The difference is the Fed Gov overstepped its' bounds and passed a law to force property owners to let protected classes in their stores.

    Even if they wanted to pass a new law making it illegal to deny gun carriers, I would be against it on Constitutional grounds.
    What I told my wife when she said my steel Baby Eagle .45 was heavy, "Heavy is good, heavy is reliable, if it doesn't work you could always hit him with it."-Boris the Blade

    MOLON LABE

  10. #10
    Regular Member wrearick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Va.
    Posts
    635
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Only if the Liberty of others does not matter to you and you want their rights infringed just to satisfy you.
    No I don't want it at that cost.

  11. #11
    Regular Member wrearick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Va.
    Posts
    635
    Quote Originally Posted by ron73440 View Post
    The difference is the Fed Gov overstepped its' bounds and passed a law to force property owners to let protected classes in their stores.

    Even if they wanted to pass a new law making it illegal to deny gun carriers, I would be against it on Constitutional grounds.
    I agree, two wrongs don't make a right.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by wrearick View Post
    No I don't want it at that cost.
    That statement demonstrates that you truly love Liberty. Then you must respect the right of the property owner to enjoy his property. Just don't go there.
    Last edited by eye95; 04-16-2013 at 09:35 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Eastern NC
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    That statement demonstrates that you truly love Liberty. Then you must respect the right of the property owner to enjoy his property. Just don't go there.
    This thread literally brought a smile to my face. A decent debate/conversation that culminated in a simple understanding of what this country [should] stand[s] for.
    Last edited by Aceman7496; 04-22-2013 at 10:52 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •