Are anti-gun private businesses discriminating and violating our rights?

The Big Guy said:

That's interesting, as I consider anyone who wouldn't take the time to study the issue and go ahead and vaccinate their children to be foolish. Imagine that. Drink the cool aid. Imagine this as well, I don't trust big pharma...

TBG

Click to expand...

Agreed. This why I consider people who buy into vaccine paranoia without studying the issues to be fools.

The Big Guy said:

That's interesting, as I consider anyone who wouldn't take the time to study the issue and go ahead and vaccinate their children to be foolish. Imagine that. Drink the cool aid. Imagine this as well, I don't trust big pharma...

TBG

Click to expand...

I'm not going to insult you for your personal choice. I was on the fence for a long while about it, still am even going through with vaccinations. Honestly for me, I have not found enough peer reviewed empirical evidence to prove that my child could end up with long term serious effects from the vaccines. My little girl had cold-like symptoms for about a week after her first round, which I pretty much planned on happening, and she's been fine ever since. I see zero evidence of autism or any other brain function deficiencies. Maybe I rolled the dice and won, who knows. I do know that having had vaccinations she is at an advantage now over non-vaccinated kids to survive, and will be immune to some pretty serious diseases in the future.

I don't trust big pharma either, but vaccinations do make sense. Maybe there should be more research into dosages? Seems like the ones who get sick or the alleged autism cases were predisposed to the sicknesses to begin with.

We actually had an ultrasound tech tell us that our daughter might be autistic once. Why? Because she had long femurs. LONG FEMURS. I am 6'2", my grandfather was 6'4", you get the drift. My partner was extremely distraught. Multiple doctors told us that the ultrasound tech should be fired on the spot for such an idiotic assessment. I couldn't believe it. For those of you that have met my daughter, obviously she is very bright, very healthy.

Nightmare said:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/how-safe-artificial-turf-your-child-plays-n220166

Click to expand...

The actual article does not present the conclusion that you attempt to present.

Fair-use excerpts:

NBC’s own extensive investigation, which included a review of the relevant studies and interviews with scientists and industry professionals, was unable to find any agreement over whether crumb turf had ill effects on young athletes, or even whether the product had been sufficiently tested.

Click to expand...

“If you look at the ingredients that go into a car tire, some people take those ingredients and turn them into health concerns,” Gill said. “But after the vulcanization process, those ingredients are inert.”

Industry leaders say while they encourage additional research, studies have shown that the substances found in crumb rubber are not at levels high enough to be at risk to children or athletes.

Click to expand...

Did this turn into a pro/anti vaccine thread?

Jeannette said:

Did this turn into a pro/anti vaccine thread?

Click to expand...

Sort of. The Autism caused by vaccines "is based on research by ONE doctor from Scotland who was disbarred from the Royal Academy of Science when other researchers reviewed the data and found out he LIED about the results by "adjusting" resultant figures that were completely out of sync with the figures he started with.

Most of the anti vaccine cultists are Hollywood actors who pretend to be somebody else.

You going to believe them or my son ? B.S. in Biology, father of (2) twin girls, 15 years working in R&D at one of the largest vaccine companies in the world. He sees EVERYTHING that goes into the Meningitis, Lyme Disease, and children's vaccines. There is NO mercury in vaccines. There was a suspension substance in vaccines that was removed (15) years ago to shut up the anti vaccine cult that was safe. Every btcth made by his company goes through his department for testing before they release it.

I trust him with my grand daughter's health as would I trust him with mine.

You (everyone) ever read the "possible" side effects on prescription meds. Some are worse than the condition they treat. There is inherent risk in ALL meds and medical procedures as well as driving, etc.

NAVYBLUE

NAVYBLUE said:

Sort of. The Autism caused by vaccines "is based on research by ONE doctor from Scotland who was disbarred from the Royal Academy of Science when other researchers reviewed the data and found out he LIED about the results by "adjusting" resultant figures that were completely out of sync with the figures he started with.

Most of the anti vaccine cultists are Hollywood actors who pretend to be somebody else.

You going to believe them or my son ? B.S. in Biology, father of (2) twin girls, 15 years working in R&D at one of the largest vaccine companies in the world. He sees EVERYTHING that goes into the Meningitis, Lyme Disease, and children's vaccines. There is NO mercury in vaccines. There was a suspension substance in vaccines that was removed (15) years ago to shut up the anti vaccine cult that was safe. Every btcth made by his company goes through his department for testing before they release it.

I trust him with my grand daughter's health as would I trust him with mine.

You (everyone) ever read the "possible" side effects on prescription meds. Some are worse than the condition they treat. There is inherent risk in ALL meds and medical procedures as well as driving, etc.

NAVYBLUE

Click to expand...

Issues that are certainly caused by vaccines .. peanut allergies ... 'cause they changed to peanut oil in many vaccines

People really don't want to know about their drugs and vaccines...if they knew, they would not want to take many.

Remember kids ... medical science is not SCIENCE .... when it was tried as a science, they did not like the results.

Risks? Well at least when I'm driving I know I will have my eye fall out just due to driving...lol And yes, I read all inserts..but know that pharma companies sometimes hide things too...they got politicians bought and paid for.

If you thought you got injured by a vaccine, guess what? You cannot bring your case to a federal district court .. oh no...not possible...not you lowly plebs v. pharma company in a fair trial (well, assuming its fair)...

davidmcbeth said:

Remember kids ... medical science is not SCIENCE .... when it was tried as a science, they did not like the results.

Click to expand...

I find this comment one-sided. No offense.

Of course the medical industry is profit driven....but usually anyone stating the kind of stuff you did is hypocritical, I see it ALL the time.

First, a new drug or vaccine passes rigorous testing to be fda approved, and is.

Someone doesn't like the drug because of a boogeyman reaction that may have nothing to do with it, so everybody cries for more testing.

Next, fizer or another drug company complies, funds the study(s) and they make it through a rigorous peer review process and ethics board review, and results are published after non-biased scientists (that could not give a flying f. About the politics, especially with their reputation on the line), slave away for sometimes years to set up a perfectly solid clinical study.

Results come out that don't match the confirmation bias of the people convinced a medicine or vaccine is the cause of their poor health or medical problems, and they ALWAYS turn back to blame the funding of the study and call it corrupt.

You can't have it both ways. I'm not saying this is occurring here, but it happens ALL the time.

The money for these studies doesn't come out of thin air. Everybody wants studies until it comes time to pay for them.

Funding truly has nothing to do with validity of an experiment 99.9% of the day, and pissed off ethical scientists jump at the chance to call it out in the very rare case it does happen (see "gluten" sensitivity or aspartame causing cancer)

NAVYBLUE said:

Sort of. The Autism caused by vaccines "is based on research by ONE doctor from Scotland who was disbarred from the Royal Academy of Science when other researchers reviewed the data and found out he LIED about the results by "adjusting" resultant figures that were completely out of sync with the figures he started with.

Most of the anti vaccine cultists are Hollywood actors who pretend to be somebody else.

You going to believe them or my son ? B.S. in Biology, father of (2) twin girls, 15 years working in R&D at one of the largest vaccine companies in the world. He sees EVERYTHING that goes into the Meningitis, Lyme Disease, and children's vaccines. There is NO mercury in vaccines. There was a suspension substance in vaccines that was removed (15) years ago to shut up the anti vaccine cult that was safe. Every btcth made by his company goes through his department for testing before they release it.

I trust him with my grand daughter's health as would I trust him with mine.

You (everyone) ever read the "possible" side effects on prescription meds. Some are worse than the condition they treat. There is inherent risk in ALL meds and medical procedures as well as driving, etc.

NAVYBLUE

Click to expand...

I thought this was about "Are businesses violating our right" thread. I guess vaccines have alot to do with open carry
Carry on!!!!

Jeannette said:

I thought this was about "Are businesses violating our right" thread. I guess vaccines have alot to do with open carry
Carry on!!!!

Click to expand...

Fine! Haha.

My two cents- if they cannot ask a male - male couple to leave their "gay" (no offense) at the door, then don't make me leave my firearm at the door.

Legality? Idk. Ethically? I think its obvious. to me anyway.

Jeannette said:

I thought this was about "Are businesses violating our right" thread. I guess vaccines have alot to do with open carry
Carry on!!!!

Click to expand...

Sorry for going off-topic, things were getting all touchy feely there for a minute!

My fiancee has a whole bunch of ink going up her side similar to you! Cool!

So a chicken with a .44 mag at his side walks into a bar....

twoskinsonemanns said:

The truth is the government has had an increasingly successful agenda to disarm the people. While gun sales continue, the people buying guns are most likely people that already have guns. Actual households that have a gun in it seems to be on a steady decline. It's down to the high 30%. Now we have allowed our schools to become outright anti-gun! Where you get expelled for wearing an NRA shirt or using your finger as a gun to play cops and robbers. What percentage of these kids are going to OWN, let alone carry, guns when they have their own household? That anti-gun sentiment WILL stick in adulthood for the high majority. There is really no stopping it any more.

Click to expand...

Actually the State of Nevada estimates that 42-45% of households have firearms. That's HOUSEHOLDS, not people. The national number is estimated to be at 40-45%. I'm guessing that it's more like 50% because there are a ton of people out there who aren't on ANYONE'S list. It may be even higher. Estimates are that there are 90-100 million GUN OWNERS in the USA. That's nearly 1 out of 3 Americans. Factor that into the 'average family of four' (or 3.2 or whatever it is) and you're getting close to 100%! But just because homes don't have firearms it doesn't mean they aren't supportive of owning them. People have many different reasons for not having a gun in their home but don't deny the need, right, or advantage of those who do.

The Big Guy said:

Are there actually people who can't make the decision to home school based on financial problems, sure. Some single parent homes com to mind, of which there are far too many of. Most people could if they would just make the decision to do it. As a long time home schooler I can tell you that the majority of people that I encounter who say they can't do it, won't for purely selfish reasons. They are not willing to give up the vehicles they can't afford, the houses they can't afford, the technology they don't need, and they won't turn off that damn idiot box or get off their "smart" phones and video games long enough to give their children the attention they need. Creature comforts and status symbols are vastly more important to them than the well being of their children.

The public system is brainwashing your children, injecting them with toxic vaccines, and teaching them that what is immoral is moral. They certainly are "educating" them that firearms are evil and the state and federal constitutional guarantees should not exist.

Stepping off my soapbox now.

TBG

Click to expand...

Regarding the schooling, yes indeed, a very sad state of affairs. Home schooling or private/charter schools that are funded by public dollars are what I support. We raised our kids in very conservative public schools but went private for a year when the district boundaries weren't suitable for our preferences. Home schooling is awesome and I agree with TBG about making good choices (sacrifices) on behalf of our children.

Jeannette said:

I thought this was about "Are businesses violating our right" thread. I guess vaccines have alot to do with open carry
Carry on!!!!

Click to expand...

LOL a good discussion is always a good thing but this thread certainly did get hijacked. The vaccine question was a tough one for us as new parents because we were faced with the issue in the first few days of our child's existence. You want to be good parents but at the same time you know you could be making a choice that would negatively impact them for the rest of their lives. This was in the 80's before we had a chance to do the internet research that we can do today. We went with the vaccines but have no way of knowing if or how they impacted our girls over the years.

Regarding the private/public exclusion issue, I believe that as long as we allow the haters to dictate the discussion we'll be behind on the issue. The bottom line is that we have a right to carry. Whether it's public or private it's still about our fundamental RTKBA. Don't let them divide and conquer. Not even SCOTUS. If we focus on the basics then the discussion will never drift to mag capacity, types of weapons, registration, background checks, or where we carry. If they don't like it they can amend the Constitution. The Founders would have had none of this.

We can't be 'half pregnant'. Either we are or we aren't. However in our case 'abortion' is not legal...

Ron_O said:

So a chicken with a .44 mag at his side walks into a bar....

Click to expand...

Why a .44?
Because a smaller round would be....................................................................paltry! :lol:

Sorry I'm late to the party

Jeannette said:

I thought this was about "Are businesses violating our right" thread. I guess vaccines have alot to do with open carry
Carry on!!!!

Click to expand...

Pro and con of vaccines is totally off topic for this thread:

Restrict your comments/replies to the original premise:
[h=1]Are anti-gun private businesses discriminating and violating our rights? [/h]

Jeannette said:

I thought this was about "Are businesses violating our right" thread. I guess vaccines have alot to do with open carry
Carry on!!!!

Click to expand...

Finally a posting I feel I can share an opinion on regarding vaccinations. Agree, off topic.

Oh my bad, I didn't realize off-topic yet genuine, important, and well-thought-out comments have such a negative effect on your life 14 days later. Not a single post addressing the original topic made since, but somehow 2 people made 3 posts bitching about it. How constructive!

Got any comments related to OP?

I do believe they are discriminating. It is our right to carry, and they are discriminating people's lifestyles. That's not liberty. They are still free to do so, but how fair is that practice? When does the right to protect one's self override private property rights? Why are law abiding citizens with guns assumed to be criminals?

Ron_O said:

The national number is estimated to be at 40-45%.

Click to expand...

Not sure my statement of percentage of households with guns being in the high 30's is much different from your own number. High 30's so let's say 38% or 39%. The low side of your estimate being 40%...

The Truth said:

Oh my bad, I didn't realize off-topic yet genuine, important, and well-thought-out comments have such a negative effect on your life 14 days later. Not a single post addressing the original topic made since, but somehow 2 people made 3 posts bitching about it. How constructive!

Got any comments related to OP?

I do believe they are discriminating. It is our right to carry, and they are discriminating people's lifestyles. That's not liberty. They are still free to do so, but how fair is that practice? When does the right to protect one's self override private property rights? Why are law abiding citizens with guns assumed to be criminals?

Click to expand...

Of course the property owner is discriminating against those who carry guns. He is NOT discriminating against the right to carry... he only discriminates against those who exercise that right. Just like folks have the right to not wear a shirt or shoes but the property owner can refuse to allow those who are shirtless and/or shoeless to come in/on his property.

And who said life was "fair" or even that it should be "fair"? The idea that things should be "fair" sounds like a progressive belief subject to whoever isn't getting his way and thinks the other guy isn't being "fair".

The right of the property owner to refuse entry to individuals trumps ALL the rights of that individual since if the individual isn't allowed in/on the property then everything about that person... his thoughts... his words... his deeds... his possessions including the gun he sneaked in hidden in his clothes... his farts.... and his rights too are not allowed to be there simply because the individual person is not allowed there.

Want to keep the ability to protect yourself? Stay off of/out of private property (and a business is still private property no matter how folks want to use the excuse of "open to the public means the public should make the rules") that bans guns.

Remember... no one has the right to be on/in someone else's private property without the owner's permission. And "open to the public" really means those individual members of the public who agree to abide by the owner's rules are invited and those who do not agree are not invited.

Bikenut said:

Of course the property owner is discriminating against those who carry guns. He is NOT discriminating against the right to carry... he only discriminates against those who exercise that right. Just like folks have the right to not wear a shirt or shoes but the property owner can refuse to allow those who are shirtless and/or shoeless to come in/on his property.

And who said life was "fair" or even that it should be "fair"? The idea that things should be "fair" sounds like a progressive belief subject to whoever isn't getting his way and thinks the other guy isn't being "fair".

The right of the property owner to refuse entry to individuals trumps ALL the rights of that individual since if the individual isn't allowed in/on the property then everything about that person... his thoughts... his words... his deeds... his possessions including the gun he sneaked in hidden in his clothes... his farts.... and his rights too are not allowed to be there simply because the individual person is not allowed there.

Want to keep the ability to protect yourself? Stay off of/out of private property (and a business is still private property no matter how folks want to use the excuse of "open to the public means the public should make the rules") that bans guns.

Remember... no one has the right to be on/in someone else's private property without the owner's permission. And "open to the public" really means those individual members of the public who agree to abide by the owner's rules are invited and those who do not agree are not invited.

Click to expand...

Nailed it! ^^^^^^^^

Bikenut said:

Of course the property owner is discriminating against those who carry guns. He is NOT discriminating against the right to carry... he only discriminates against those who exercise that right. Just like folks have the right to not wear a shirt or shoes but the property owner can refuse to allow those who are shirtless and/or shoeless to come in/on his property.

And who said life was "fair" or even that it should be "fair"? The idea that things should be "fair" sounds like a progressive belief subject to whoever isn't getting his way and thinks the other guy isn't being "fair".

The right of the property owner to refuse entry to individuals trumps ALL the rights of that individual since if the individual isn't allowed in/on the property then everything about that person... his thoughts... his words... his deeds... his possessions including the gun he sneaked in hidden in his clothes... his farts.... and his rights too are not allowed to be there simply because the individual person is not allowed there.

Want to keep the ability to protect yourself? Stay off of/out of private property (and a business is still private property no matter how folks want to use the excuse of "open to the public means the public should make the rules") that bans guns.

Remember... no one has the right to be on/in someone else's private property without the owner's permission. And "open to the public" really means those individual members of the public who agree to abide by the owner's rules are invited and those who do not agree are not invited.

Click to expand...

sorry, but you are wrong. If you have a open to the public business you are subject to laws and that has nothing to do with rights. if you don't want to let people in you don't like then turn in your operators licenses and close your doors. you are allowed to discriminate against people exercising their rights, is the laws that allow it

papa bear said:

sorry, but you are wrong. If you have a open to the public business you are subject to laws and that has nothing to do with rights. if you don't want to let people in you don't like then turn in your operators licenses and close your doors. you are allowed to discriminate against people exercising their rights, is the laws that allow it

Click to expand...

Are you aware that all the laws that say a property owner cannot discriminate against certain persons are infringements upon the private property right to control who is, and who is not, allowed to be in/on said private property?

And those laws are just as much infringements upon the property owner's private property rights as are gun control laws infringements upon the right to keep and bear arms?

Just because an infringement upon the rights of someone else is in your favor doesn't mean they still are not infringements. It only means you agree with those infringements because you benefit from them.

***I used the terms "you" and "your" in the generic sense... they are not intended to be directed at papa bear personally.