• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Civil Right not a Civil Right

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
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

[h=1]Gun Owners ‘We Don’t Like Your Kind Here’ – When is a Civil Right Not a Civil Right?[/h] Published on Wednesday, September 04, 2013
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
“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.
 

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
“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:

 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
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?
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
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:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
i was hoping for more discussion, especially from you "private property" bunch
Who's the 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.

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
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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?
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Yep. "Public accommodation" law is an affront to property rights and the right of association.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
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

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
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 
Top