Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 139

Thread: Civil Right not a Civil Right

  1. #1
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258

    Civil Right not a Civil Right

    this is something i have been saying for a while. there are many on this site that don't agree. So when i seen this article i thought maybe it would open a dialog. here you go

    Gun Owners ‘We Don’t Like Your Kind Here’ – When is a Civil Right Not a Civil Right?

    Published on Wednesday, September 04, 2013
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Davis County, Utah
    Posts
    528

    Re: Civil Right not a Civil Right

    Interesting read.

    Bookmarked to share with others.

    Thanks for posting this.

  3. #3
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    “displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.”

    This is my favorite line. They only way a normal person would be alarmed is if it was pointed at them. I guess this is subjective as to the alarm part as they are making it the carrier's job to read the emotions and minds of everyone they contact.

    If someone has a cold (could be a deadly weapon to those with low ammune systems) and cough on you are they calculating alarming that person by coughing or sneezing on them?

    If a person has a pocket knife and someone has a phobia about knifes and passes them on the street and the person panics...did they calculate the persons reaction?

    A car...what if a person..you get the picture except a weapon is protected by the US Constitution a car, knife, and other deadly weapons are not.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    “displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.”

    This is my favorite line. They only way a normal person would be alarmed is if it was pointed at them. I guess this is subjective as to the alarm part as they are making it the carrier's job to read the emotions and minds of everyone they contact.

    If someone has a cold (could be a deadly weapon to those with low ammune systems) and cough on you are they calculating alarming that person by coughing or sneezing on them?

    If a person has a pocket knife and someone has a phobia about knifes and passes them on the street and the person panics...did they calculate the persons reaction?

    A car...what if a person..you get the picture except a weapon is protected by the US Constitution a car, knife, and other deadly weapons are not.
    Yes they are. Right to keep and bear arms. Do not fall into the trap of assuming "arms" to only mean "firearms" as that is not the only word usage. If the FF meant guns, they would have said guns.

    Dictionary.com:
    noun1.Usually, arms. weapons, especially firearms.

    10.bear arms,a.to carry weapons.

    b.to serve as a member of the military or of contending forces:


  5. #5
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Thanks for the post. The read makes me think.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    People love $$$ in this country .. more than their own kids...

    The thought that carrying a gun is a civil right scares the crap outta the antis ... if it becomes this then all businesses would have to allow carry and we get carry rights w/o a permission slip.

    This should be a focus of the carry community.

    I've said it many times.

  7. #7
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    People love $$$ in this country .. more than their own kids...

    The thought that carrying a gun is a civil right scares the crap outta the antis ... if it becomes this then all businesses would have to allow carry and we get carry rights w/o a permission slip.

    This should be a focus of the carry community.

    I've said it many times.
    this is one of the reasons i have always wondered why liberals were against private gun ownership. you would think a liberal was for all the freedoms.
    what i think is for the most part the ones against firearms, and for freedom in general is progressives. you will find progressives in both parties.

    now what do you think about carrying a civil right?
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by papa bear View Post
    this is one of the reasons i have always wondered why liberals were against private gun ownership. you would think a liberal was for all the freedoms.
    what i think is for the most part the ones against firearms, and for freedom in general is progressives. you will find progressives in both parties.

    now what do you think about carrying a civil right?
    well, I think the RKBA is shown in both the 2nd and 9th amendments. So I think that these create a RKBA .. bear arms ~ means carry.

  9. #9
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    On one hand, I think these types of open carry “demonstrations” harm our cause, as they frighten and inflame people who might otherwise support us.
    I hate it when I read something like this. What does it really even mean? Our cause is open carry. Open carry hurts our cause. WTF? You're fighting for a right, but **** don't exercise it cause then they might get inflamed and take it away! WTF?

    And if open carry, or more generally, the liberty to keep and bear arms, is not his cause, then what is? IMO you cannot say that you're legitimately fighting for the right to keep and bear arms, and not pursue the right to open carry, or say that it "hurts the cause". Your goals and efforts are not pure in such a case. You are not coming from a position of liberty or morality, you're coming from a position of classfulness and elitism and privilege. Just because you are fighting to increase, to some degree, the 'liberty' of 'a lower class' or of the majority of people doesn't mean that you're fighting against class division and elitism. You're basically fighting for a fake liberty. I guess the most obvious way to put it would be that you're fighting for privilege, not liberty. You're asking for a little bit more permission, and open carry rocks the boat. Open carry advocates, as opposed to asking for a little bit more permission, tend to demand their liberty, and it jeopardizes the success of those asking for a little more permission.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 09-07-2013 at 04:04 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    i was hoping for more discussion, especially from you "private property" bunch
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by papa bear View Post
    i was hoping for more discussion, especially from you "private property" bunch
    seems as if they think that business owners who invite people into their dwellings can keep guns out but us private citizens must allow cops on our land.

    They do think that businesses are different than us ... that businesses have more rights than we do.

  12. #12
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by papa bear View Post
    i was hoping for more discussion, especially from you "private property" bunch
    Who's the private property bunch?
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    seems as if they think that business owners who invite people into their dwellings can keep guns out but us private citizens must allow cops on our land.

    They do think that businesses are different than us ... that businesses have more rights than we do.
    I certainly don't think so. Not sure what you mean tho. A property owner should be able to prohibit firearms from their property whether the property is their house or business or car or boat. I don't see it as one person's rights vs another's

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Who's the private property bunch?


    I certainly don't think so. Not sure what you mean tho. A property owner should be able to prohibit firearms from their property whether the property is their house or business or car or boat. I don't see it as one person's rights vs another's
    Just saying .. they invite the public onto their land ... why discriminate?

  14. #14
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Just saying .. they invite the public onto their land ... why discriminate?
    Doesn't matter why, they're within their right to do so. I mean, maybe they 'shouldn't' but no one has the right to force them to do otherwise

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Doesn't matter why, they're within their right to do so. I mean, maybe they 'shouldn't' but no one has the right to force them to do otherwise
    Just sayin ... nobody is forcing the businesses to exist or to open their doors to the public; many businesses exist w/o saying "come on in"-- and they are not born like people are~they really cannot die in the manner that we can~ a business is really just a piece of paper ..

    I think that one has to look at and try to expand the right to carry not only as a constitutional one but also as a civil right cause of action.

  16. #16
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Just sayin ... nobody is forcing the businesses to exist or to open their doors to the public; many businesses exist w/o saying "come on in"-- and they are not born like people are~they really cannot die in the manner that we can~ a business is really just a piece of paper ..

    I think that one has to look at and try to expand the right to carry not only as a constitutional one but also as a civil right cause of action.
    Ohh ok, I think I see what you were saying.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by papa bear View Post
    i was hoping for more discussion, especially from you "private property" bunch
    The government stepping in to mandate who can or can't enter or use someones property even a business open to the pubic is a worse crime than A-hole bigots who won't do business with whomever they hate.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Civil Right not a Civil Right

    Yep. "Public accommodation" law is an affront to property rights and the right of association.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  19. #19
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Doesn't matter why, they're within their right to do so. I mean, maybe they 'shouldn't' but no one has the right to force them to do otherwise
    Sorry STEALTH, but you have it wrong. they have the privilege of law, to expel a legal carrier from their business. when you open a "public accommodation" business you are subject to all kinds of laws that you have no control over

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Yep. "Public accommodation" law is an affront to property rights and the right of association.



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    EYE you sound like the people that would have busted the heads of the "sit ins" at the Woolsworth in Greensboro NC, or you would also like to have broken Rosa Park's arms for not going to the back of the bus (BTW the bus company was private owned, but the law was the Government). are you the one that dump the milk on one of their head?
    why do you hate black people so much. was there something in your past?

    there is no property rights in America
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  20. #20
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Claiming racism where none is evident is despicable behavior and could possibly be a insult thus a Rule 6 violation. From a individual liberty perspective, public accommodation "law" is an affront to individual liberty. A business that does not accommodate to all paying customers survives or not based on those business decisions.

  21. #21
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by papa bear View Post
    Sorry STEALTH, but you have it wrong. they have the privilege of law, to expel a legal carrier from their business. when you open a "public accommodation" business you are subject to all kinds of laws that you have no control over



    EYE you sound like the people that would have busted the heads of the "sit ins" at the Woolsworth in Greensboro NC, or you would also like to have broken Rosa Park's arms for not going to the back of the bus (BTW the bus company was private owned, but the law was the Government). are you the one that dump the milk on one of their head?
    why do you hate black people so much. was there something in your past?

    there is no property rights in America
    I should have noted that I wasn't really talking about the legality of the issue, just the morality of it. Probably a portion of the members here don't care about this aspect very much, or at least don't care to discuss it here. I, on the other hand, think it's very important. Legality has nothing to do with rights. Some rights can be legally protected, but that doesn't mean there is any real relationship between a right and a law. Man can make and change and overrule law, but he can do nothing to manipulate what rights a person has.

    So, when I said "they should be able to" I meant that, IMO, it would be within their right to do so, whether it was morally reprehensible or legal or not.

    It may seem like a contradiction to say that "it's moral" for a property owner to have the power to discriminate against a certain person or group (if I said that, I can't remember or be bothered to re-read the thread again), then turn around and say that discrimination is immoral. Basically, what is meant, is that it's moral for a property owner to have the power to discriminate, whether he actually does it or not. It would generally be immoral for someone to use coercion against the property owner in retaliation to discrimination alone, IMO. It may be immoral/unethical to discriminate, in a manner such as saying don't come into my business with a gun, but it isn't a violation of another persons rights/liberty such that physical intervention would be justified.

    So, legally speaking, I have no idea what a property owner can or can't do in which states as far as denying service or trespassing individuals/groups goes.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Civil Right not a Civil Right

    I, too, was discussing the morality of the issue. But PB's snark makes me believe the he does not care about the property rights and association rights of others.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  23. #23
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968

    Unhappy

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Doesn't matter why, they're within their right to do so. I mean, maybe they 'shouldn't' but no one has the right to force them to do otherwise
    Ok riddle me this batman.


    1. A shop owner discriminates against a OC'er that is just going about his/her day doing what is protected under the US Constitution. People yell and screem that it is the right of the shop keeper to keep anyone out he wants to "it is his right" as it is private property.

    2. A shop owner discriminates against a Homosexual couple by refusing to serve them and tells them to leave, being gay isn't protected under the US Constitution or gay marriage would be legal in every state. People scream and yell that the shop keeper needs to be put out of buisness as he is discriminating against the gay couple.

    Why is there a double standard?

    Why is the one that is protected by the US Constitution EVIL and the one that isn't OK?

    If a shop keeper can't refuse serving one group than why can they refuse the other group?

    I have yet to see someone give a good answer to these questions.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3796604.html

    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/F...202241361.html
    Last edited by DocWalker; 09-09-2013 at 02:51 PM.

  24. #24
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I, too, was discussing the morality of the issue. But PB's snark makes me believe the he does not care about the property rights and association rights of others.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    How can PB care about something that he believes does not exist -- private property rights? Seems to me that he's ignoring reality, but he and some others consistently beat that drum. It also seems to me that it's time to just ignore that silliness.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Civil Right not a Civil Right

    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    Ok riddle me this batman.


    1. A shop owner discriminates against a OC'er that is just going about his/her day doing what is protected under the US Constitution. People yell and screem that it is the right of the shop keeper to keep anyone out he wants to "it is his right" as it is private property.

    2. A shop owner discriminates against a Homosexual couple by refusing to serve them and tells them to leave, being gay isn't protected under the US Constitution or gay marriage would be legal in every state. People scream and yell that the shop keeper needs to be put out of buisness as he is discriminating against the gay couple.

    Why is there a double standard?

    Why is the one that is protected by the US Constitution EVIL and the one that isn't OK?

    If a shop keeper can't refuse serving one group than why can they refuse the other group?

    I have yet to see someone give a good answer to these questions.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3796604.html

    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/F...202241361.html
    I don't advocate a double-standard. True property rights means that the owner can deny entry to anyone for any reason. Color, homosexuality, carry, religion, sex...whatever.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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