Civil Right not a Civil Right

DocWalker · Sep 10, 2013

eye95 said:
If I were a cop, I would be duty-bound to arrest a trespasser.

At the moment, it is lawful to trespass a carrier (as it should be).

At the moment, it is unlawful to trespass a black man for being black (as it should NOT be, morally).

So, in the first case, I would arrest. In the second, I would not--but only because it would be unlawful to do so, errantly IMO.

So you want your cake and to eat it also...nice

I don't disagree with anything you say let me get that out there.

What I'm saying is (and I think we agree), that the goverment needs to butt out of peoples lives. Property owners should be allowed to make their own rules on who they serve and who they don't. We also agree that if a buisness discrimniates due to race, age, color, carry or any other reason then it should be ok just not right. A buisness or private property can be boycotted and maybe go out of buisness due to their narrow vision.

The problem is this isn't reallity; the goverment tells private property owners and buisnesses they can't NOT serve someone due to certain things...and until everyone is equal then we will have this problem.

My solution would be to have any private buisness or land owner that invites people into their property but restricts the freedom of carry is responsiable for the safety of everyone allowed on their property. If someone gets attacked or hurt they are responsiable and can not only be sued for everything they have but can criminaly be charged with neglect as they should have known that a "no firearms" sign doesn't work. We also have data to back it up the stats on that.

sudden valley gunner · Sep 10, 2013

DocWalker said:
So you want your cake and to eat it also...nice

I don't disagree with anything you say let me get that out there.

What I'm saying is (and I think we agree), that the goverment needs to butt out of peoples lives. Property owners should be allowed to make their own rules on who they serve and who they don't. We also agree that if a buisness discrimniates due to race, age, color, carry or any other reason then it should be ok just not right. A buisness or private property can be boycotted and maybe go out of buisness due to their narrow vision.

The problem is this isn't reallity; the goverment tells private property owners and buisnesses they can't NOT serve someone due to certain things...and until everyone is equal then we will have this problem.

My solution would be to have any private buisness or land owner that invites people into their property but restricts the freedom of carry is responsiable for the safety of everyone allowed on their property. If someone gets attacked or hurt they are responsiable and can not only be sued for everything they have but can criminaly be charged with neglect as they should have known that a "no firearms" sign doesn't work. We also have data to back it up the stats on that.

In the other thread....

Originally Posted by 77zach

The choice to be in law enforcement is difficult because you will be required to do unethical things to keep your job.

Which others strongly disagreed with yet.....

carolina guy · Sep 10, 2013

eye95 said:
But a right being denied by law does not stop it from being a right. Gun laws are proof of that.

It becomes an injustice.

carolina guy · Sep 10, 2013

DocWalker said:
So you want your cake and to eat it also...nice

I don't disagree with anything you say let me get that out there.

What I'm saying is (and I think we agree), that the goverment needs to butt out of peoples lives. Property owners should be allowed to make their own rules on who they serve and who they don't. We also agree that if a buisness discrimniates due to race, age, color, carry or any other reason then it should be ok just not right. A buisness or private property can be boycotted and maybe go out of buisness due to their narrow vision.

The problem is this isn't reallity; the goverment tells private property owners and buisnesses they can't NOT serve someone due to certain things...and until everyone is equal then we will have this problem.

My solution would be to have any private buisness or land owner that invites people into their property but restricts the freedom of carry is responsiable for the safety of everyone allowed on their property. If someone gets attacked or hurt they are responsiable and can not only be sued for everything they have but can criminaly be charged with neglect as they should have known that a "no firearms" sign doesn't work. We also have data to back it up the stats on that.

The problem being is that nobody forced the person to enter a private self-defense free zone. I think your example works well for PUBLIC spaces...at that point, I think that LEOs should be OBLIGATED to protect and defend defenseless citizens, even at risk to themselves.

papa bear · Sep 10, 2013

carolina guy said:
The problem being is that nobody forced the person to enter a private self-defense free zone. I think your example works well for PUBLIC spaces...at that point, I think that LEOs should be OBLIGATED to protect and defend defenseless citizens, even at risk to themselves.

CG the USSC has already said that LE does not have any obligation to risk their lives to help others. so you have no right to expect it

DOC your post on comparison was good. why should a right specifically pointed out in the Constitution, play second fiddle to one not mentioned at all. for people to say there are certain rights by their opinion, is the same as those that say we have a job right, or a house right, or health care right

STEALTH i think you miss the fact that businesses "open to the public" have limited rights and are subject to laws. so if a person does not allow someone in their store is is subject to the privilege of law. if you break one of the laws, then you are subject to lose your license to operate.

BTW. can anyone tell me of a business that can operate with out a license, or permission from the government. i probably should limit that to "public accommodations"

EYE, you have said that businesses "open to the public" or "public accommodations". have private property rights. can you cite this? can you show where in America, there is private property rights, with a cite? i would really appreciate it. so i can be corrected.

by the way your opinion doesn't count. also where the business is not subject to law

carolina guy · Sep 10, 2013

papa bear said:
CG the USSC has already said that LE does not have any obligation to risk their lives to help others. so you have no right to expect it

DOC your post on comparison was good. why should a right specifically pointed out in the Constitution, play second fiddle to one not mentioned at all. for people to say there are certain rights by their opinion, is the same as those that say we have a job right, or a house right, or health care right

STEALTH i think you miss the fact that businesses "open to the public" have limited rights and are subject to laws. so if a person does not allow someone in their store is is subject to the privilege of law. if you break one of the laws, then you are subject to lose your license to operate.

BTW. can anyone tell me of a business that can operate with out a license, or permission from the government. i probably should limit that to "public accommodations"

EYE, you have said that businesses "open to the public" or "public accommodations". have private property rights. can you cite this? can you show where in America, there is private property rights, with a cite? i would really appreciate it. so i can be corrected.

by the way your opinion doesn't count. also where the business is not subject to law

You are correct, and I do not expect anyone to protect me or my family other than myself.

I took DOC's comments to be hypothetical and responded as such.

Remember, ALL LEO initiated encounters with citizens are VOLUNTARY on the part of the LEO.

OC for ME · Sep 10, 2013

5A: ...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ...

I submit that the intent of this portion of the 5A is to reflect the taking of private property as a result of criminal activity. Though, I disagree from a liberty centric position because this could negatively impact innocents associated with the criminal. Denying entry to my private property (business premises) to those whom I do not desire to enter my private property is currently a civil matter and not a criminal matter. So, capitalism should be the final arbiter of the "moralness" of my business decisions.

carolina guy · Sep 10, 2013

papa bear said:
BTW. can anyone tell me of a business that can operate with out a license, or permission from the government. i probably should limit that to "public accommodations"

You bring an excellent point...basically, the government has determined that virtually ALL business is illegal unless you have permission from it. Although, I am not sure you need to limit it to "public accommodations".

Freedom1Man · Sep 10, 2013

OC for ME said:
I submit that the intent of this portion of the 5A is to reflect the taking of private property as a result of criminal activity. Though, I disagree from a liberty centric position because this could negatively impact innocents associated with the criminal. Denying entry to my private property (business premises) to those whom I do not desire to enter my private property is currently a civil matter and not a criminal matter. So, capitalism should be the final arbiter of the "moralness" of my business decisions.

And the state gets to define 'due process' now. The government decides what is or is not due process anymore, it's sickening.

carolina guy · Sep 10, 2013

Freedom1Man said:
And the state gets to define 'due process' now. The government decides what is or is not due process anymore, it's sickening.

The state has always determined what is "due process"...the idea being that if you want it changed, you petition the legislature or elect those that will fix what is broken, or so the theory goes.

davidmcbeth · Sep 10, 2013

eye95 said:
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>

This coming from a person who does not like notice of trespasses? Oh my.

eye95 · Sep 10, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
This coming from a person who does not like notice of trespasses? Oh my.

I don't care to discuss anything on topic with a troll. I will simply say that you misrepresent me.

sudden valley gunner · Sep 10, 2013

papa bear said:
CG the USSC has already said that LE does not have any obligation to risk their lives to help others. so you have no right to expect it

DOC your post on comparison was good. why should a right specifically pointed out in the Constitution, play second fiddle to one not mentioned at all. for people to say there are certain rights by their opinion, is the same as those that say we have a job right, or a house right, or health care right

STEALTH i think you miss the fact that businesses "open to the public" have limited rights and are subject to laws. so if a person does not allow someone in their store is is subject to the privilege of law. if you break one of the laws, then you are subject to lose your license to operate.

BTW. can anyone tell me of a business that can operate with out a license, or permission from the government. i probably should limit that to "public accommodations"

EYE, you have said that businesses "open to the public" or "public accommodations". have private property rights. can you cite this? can you show where in America, there is private property rights, with a cite? i would really appreciate it. so i can be corrected.

by the way your opinion doesn't count. also where the business is not subject to law

The constitution isn't there to protect your rights from other citizens on their property. The founding of this country and its whole philosophy was all rights are property rights.

Maybe the founders would have made it an enumerated power if they ever would have thought a few generations later people would think their personal rights trumped someones property rights.....

papa bear · Sep 11, 2013

OC for ME said:
I submit that the intent of this portion of the 5A is to reflect the taking of private property as a result of criminal activity. Though, I disagree from a liberty centric position because this could negatively impact innocents associated with the criminal. Denying entry to my private property (business premises) to those whom I do not desire to enter my private property is currently a civil matter and not a criminal matter. So, capitalism should be the final arbiter of the "moralness" of my business decisions.

i forgot about the property part of the 5th, i thought more of the fourth

carolina guy said:
You bring an excellent point...basically, the government has determined that virtually ALL business is illegal unless you have permission from it. Although, I am not sure you need to limit it to "public accommodations".

well theoretically, you could start a business in your garage, with out permission from the government. but if you make more then 600$ then you have to file as a business

Freedom1Man said:
And the state gets to define 'due process' now. The government decides what is or is not due process anymore, it's sickening.

sudden valley gunner said:
The constitution isn't there to protect your rights from other citizens on their property. The founding of this country and its whole philosophy was all rights are property rights.

Maybe the founders would have made it an enumerated power if they ever would have thought a few generations later people would think their personal rights trumped someones property rights.....

i guess you are right, maybe we should use the term "real estate". though that can mean different things too.
but i do have to disagree with you that the constitution only applies to government. it is a agreement that when we are citizens that we all adhere to. that is what is meant by the 10th. if it is not spelled out by the Constitution then it falls to the states. there is some description in this. the states used to have their own religions. but also there has been people charged with the violation of another's constitutional rights

Freedom1Man · Sep 11, 2013

carolina guy said:
The state has always determined what is "due process"...the idea being that if you want it changed, you petition the legislature or elect those that will fix what is broken, or so the theory goes.

When '"administrative agencies" get to decide due process there are too many problems. Theory and practice are not the same.

carolina guy · Sep 11, 2013

Freedom1Man said:
When '"administrative agencies" get to decide due process there are too many problems. Theory and practice are not the same.

Just remember, the same legislature that determines "due process" for the courts also sets up and allows those administrative agencies it created to determine their own rules and procedures. You have been served!

Time for another Constitutional Convention!

stealthyeliminator · Sep 11, 2013

DocWalker said:
Ok let me put it another way. If your a cop would you....arrest someone for trespass that was OCing in a buisness that didn't allow firearms? yes or no?

yes (putting aside the fact that I'd likely never become a cop due to the inevitable conflicts with my beliefs)

DocWalker said:
If yes; would you be ok with supporting a buisness owner putting up signs that say "whites only" or "no gays allowed"? yes or no?

I would trespass anyone that they did not want on their property (edited this from a simple "yes" answer because "supporting" could be taken more than one way. Originally I presumed it to mean would I apply trespass law [natural law] equally in both instances, to which the answer is yes. If it is meant, would I support the business by promoting it or purchasing from them, that's not relevant, because my choice of association doesn't constitute coercion against the business or anyone else)

DocWalker said:
If NO that a buisness owner shouldn't have the right to put up those signs or any sign that excludes a group than you have a double standard. The double standard comes from not supporting a buisness right to post "no carry" but not "whites only" signs.
The double standard comes from your arresting a person for tresspass that is an OC'er but not supporting

not applicable because I said yes

DocWalker said:
If you say YES the buisness should be able to put up the signs then you have a double standard. The double standard comes from supporting a buisness right to post any sign but still endorsing the trespass of the OCer by arresting the OCer.

I don't follow. You seem to be saying that I'd have a double standard regardless of which action I took.

DocWalker said:
If you say you are just following the law and/or doing your job then you are part of the problem. Find a different job that doesn't cause someone to be a hypocrite. I'm not saying you are but if you would arrest someone for ocing but not sexual orientation or the color of their skin within the same context ie. Business doesn't want to serve them then you have a double standard regardless of what some law said. Blindly following someone, some regime, or some law is what a lot of guards and German soldiers claimed while giving a certain population free showers.

I'm not a cop so I'm not sure this applies to me.

eye95 said:
Man, you said that so much better than I did.

Thanks, lol. I almost didn't post that at all because we were saying basically the same thing, but since I was specifically addressed I figured I'd go ahead and regurgitate

papa bear said:
STEALTH i think you miss the fact that businesses "open to the public" have limited rights and are subject to laws. so if a person does not allow someone in their store is is subject to the privilege of law. if you break one of the laws, then you are subject to lose your license to operate.

Nope, I am not missing the fact that businesses will be punished by the government for exercising certain rights that aren't protected or that are outright denied by law.

Freedom1Man · Sep 12, 2013

carolina guy said:
Just remember, the same legislature that determines "due process" for the courts also sets up and allows those administrative agencies it created to determine their own rules and procedures. You have been served! Time for another Constitutional Convention!

Oh good, I am glad you understood my point.

Not time for a constitutional convention though, it IS time for a stripping and re-building of laws though.

georg jetson · Sep 12, 2013

Freedom1Man said:
Oh good, I am glad you understood my point.

Not time for a constitutional convention though, it IS time for a stripping and re-building of laws though.

True. A con-con would be a bad idea, but an amendment here or there would be useful. How about an amendment restricting the commerce clause?
How about one to repeal the sixteenth?

carolina guy · Sep 12, 2013

georg jetson said:
True. A con-con would be a bad idea, but an amendment here or there would be useful. How about an amendment restricting the commerce clause?
How about one to repeal the sixteenth?

And you expect the same "legislators" that are causing the problems to actually fix it? ??

Civil Right not a Civil Right

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member