imported post
utbagpiper wrote:
What if the owner of a store decided to chain his fire doors shut? Whose civil rights would be violated if we passed laws preventing store owners from doing that?
You see, when we are talking about the lawful possession of firearms we are NOT talking about "civil" rights. We are talking about LIFE, and the protection of life. Life trumps property.
Store owners do NOT get to endanger my life by chaining fire doors shut, or refusing to install them in the first place. Try building a home with a bedroom without two means of egress. Fail to install and maintain a fire sprinkler system in a commercial building. Refuse to shovel the snow and ice off the walks, fail to maintain a safe environemnt in a business, and the law will impose penalties. Property rights do NOT allow a business owner to endanger the life and limb of the public and customers, regardless of what contracts he may have customers sign.
We've long since decided that life trumps property.
Admittedly, the law does not (yet) recognize this fact when it comes to the lawful possession of firearms. But I believe it should. At one time the law allowed businesses to discriminate against customers who were minorities. I see no reason why gun ownerrs/carriers should be the only minority without some protections.
I think you raise some valid points, but I also think that you're trying to apply two different ways of thinking at the same time. You can't apply the reasoning that the current "safety" laws are just, then try to say that the laws against firearms aren't. If you are really raising the case about property rights versus civil liberties (natural rights), then you need to weigh them both equally and under the same scrutiny. You're right when you say that life trumps property, but not necessarily correct when you compare
risk of life with life itself.
For instance, you give the example of chaining shut fire doors. This is illegal by law currently, but should it be? Am I not free to leave any business where I feel their policies put me in danger? Let's say I run a business and I want to build a new facility without sprinklers and fire alarms. Does this violate anyone's right to life? Have I actually harmed anyone by not having sprinklers and alarms? Is anyone forced against their will to be there if they don't think it's safe? Let's say that I run a skydiving business instead. Is it any less safe to jump out of a plane than it is to enter a building without fire doors?
Let's say that my building catches fire and an employee dies. Am I, as the business owner, responsible for their death? Was their death a result of my negligence or a result of their choosing to be there? Ditto for someone dying because they failed to open their parachute in time. Is that death the fault of the business owner for not properly instructing them or is it the fault of the customer who chose to take the risk of jumping out of the plane?
Yes, the right to life trumps property rights, but there is a vast (or perhaps subtle?) difference between actual violation of the right to life (deliberately attacking you) and a person making the conscious choice to risk their life (jumping out of an airplane).
While I would agree with you that your right to life is more important than my right to property (ie: I can't murder you simply because you're on my land), I would suggest that you have no right to be on my property anyway. So, in this case, your right to life is not jeopardized except at your choice.
And let's not take the notion that gun owners should be "protected" like other groups. NOBODY should be protected, as we are all equals.
