-
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.
-
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.
Opinions about "Private Business"
- Thread starter ainokea
- Start date
imported post
ainokea wrote:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine
BTW, with regards to the question of how to bring about change, I lean toward an anti-incumbent approach and do not agree with utbagpiper that we should support the current two party system. Both R's & D's have demonstrated an ability to disregard constitutional doctrine when they are in power. I would rather see them replaced by third party candidates- repeat as necessary until we finally have public servants whom owe their allegiance to the Constitution rather than to party bosses.
Aside to 33itmefs: I do not deem your "tough questions" (such as where I am from) worthy of a reply.
ainokea wrote:
Interesting perspective, but what do you think of my suggestion that gun-free zones should be considered attractive nuisances?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine
BTW, with regards to the question of how to bring about change, I lean toward an anti-incumbent approach and do not agree with utbagpiper that we should support the current two party system. Both R's & D's have demonstrated an ability to disregard constitutional doctrine when they are in power. I would rather see them replaced by third party candidates- repeat as necessary until we finally have public servants whom owe their allegiance to the Constitution rather than to party bosses.
Aside to 33itmefs: I do not deem your "tough questions" (such as where I am from) worthy of a reply.
imported post
ne1 wrote:
And that's how it is when folks like to spew their rhetoric without giving what they demand of others.
Complain about politicians and you're being worse.....they'll at least give a BS answer that tap dances around the question, you try to be holier than thou saying that valid questions are far beneath you. Not really surprising seeing how you attempt to twist every response you've made in this thread.
I realize this is casting pearls before swine so a response isn't necessary.....
....see what I did thar?
ne1 wrote:
And that's how it is when folks like to spew their rhetoric without giving what they demand of others.
Complain about politicians and you're being worse.....they'll at least give a BS answer that tap dances around the question, you try to be holier than thou saying that valid questions are far beneath you. Not really surprising seeing how you attempt to twist every response you've made in this thread.
I realize this is casting pearls before swine so a response isn't necessary.....
....see what I did thar?
imported post
I am not the one claiming this thread is about "private" businesses and then beating my chest and twisting the issue into the right to defend one's home- they really are two quite different concepts and if you cannot make the distinction then there is nothing gained by casting pearls before swine.
Did you see this story?
http://www.dailyitem.com/0100_news/local_story_170003058.html
I am not the one claiming this thread is about "private" businesses and then beating my chest and twisting the issue into the right to defend one's home- they really are two quite different concepts and if you cannot make the distinction then there is nothing gained by casting pearls before swine.
Did you see this story?
http://www.dailyitem.com/0100_news/local_story_170003058.html
scorpioajr
Regular Member
imported post
33itmefs wrote:
33itmefs wrote:
Im sure you could have said this a bit nicer, no?
scorpioajr
Regular Member
imported post
33itmefs wrote:
PC
?
33itmefs wrote:
PC
?
scorpioajr
Regular Member
imported post
33itmefs wrote:
33itmefs wrote:
no no.. i dont know what "PC" stands for, thats what i meant.
utbagpiper
Banned
imported post
ne1 wrote:
As a former Treasurer of the Libertarian Party of Utah I am fairly favorably disposed toward third parties. But the reality is, I cannot name the last time a third party candidate even held the margin of victory in a race in Utah, much less could claim to have ousted an anti-RKBA incumbent.
HOWEVER, Utah's RKBA actitivists, working as delegates within the incumbent parties can claim very legitimate success in either directly defeating or hastening on to retirement a dozen or so of the worst legislators in the last 6 elections and in thus encouraging many others to vote far beter on RKBA than they otherwise would have. Similarly, they have helped to retain those rare gems who do defend RKBA including those who have been targeted for defeat by organizations that are directly or generally anti-RKBA.
Again, it takes all of about 60 votes out of 100 in convention to either replace, or help protect, an incumbent legislator. A mere 41 votes out of 100 will force a bad legislator into an unwanted primary race as punishment for his anti-RKBA votes. Simple maty says THAT is a LOT more effective use of your time than trying to round up the 5,000 or more votes needed to defeat him in a general election.
I am involved in GOUtah! (and within the GOP) because after several years of being involved in the Libertarian Party I realized that I could be more effective at actually effecting change doing what I am doing now. (I also came to realize that there are some significant areas of the Libertarian Party platform and ideals where I disagree, but those are off topic here).
Take a look at where Utah guns laws have come in the last 15 years and try to tell me that what we have been doing is not very effective.
Spend your time as you see fit. But it is pretty hard to find anything more effective than actually being a delegate to the incument party in your area (GOP or Democrat) and making very clear to the incumbent that the difference between re-election and defeat (or at least an unwanted primary) is how he/she votes on RKBA.
Charles
ne1 wrote:
You misunderstand, and thus mischaracterize, my position. I do NOT advocate supporting the two party system. I advocate working within the party of your choice in the most effective manner possible to replace bad incumbants.
As a former Treasurer of the Libertarian Party of Utah I am fairly favorably disposed toward third parties. But the reality is, I cannot name the last time a third party candidate even held the margin of victory in a race in Utah, much less could claim to have ousted an anti-RKBA incumbent.
HOWEVER, Utah's RKBA actitivists, working as delegates within the incumbent parties can claim very legitimate success in either directly defeating or hastening on to retirement a dozen or so of the worst legislators in the last 6 elections and in thus encouraging many others to vote far beter on RKBA than they otherwise would have. Similarly, they have helped to retain those rare gems who do defend RKBA including those who have been targeted for defeat by organizations that are directly or generally anti-RKBA.
Again, it takes all of about 60 votes out of 100 in convention to either replace, or help protect, an incumbent legislator. A mere 41 votes out of 100 will force a bad legislator into an unwanted primary race as punishment for his anti-RKBA votes. Simple maty says THAT is a LOT more effective use of your time than trying to round up the 5,000 or more votes needed to defeat him in a general election.
I am involved in GOUtah! (and within the GOP) because after several years of being involved in the Libertarian Party I realized that I could be more effective at actually effecting change doing what I am doing now. (I also came to realize that there are some significant areas of the Libertarian Party platform and ideals where I disagree, but those are off topic here).
Take a look at where Utah guns laws have come in the last 15 years and try to tell me that what we have been doing is not very effective.
Spend your time as you see fit. But it is pretty hard to find anything more effective than actually being a delegate to the incument party in your area (GOP or Democrat) and making very clear to the incumbent that the difference between re-election and defeat (or at least an unwanted primary) is how he/she votes on RKBA.
Charles
imported post
utbagpiperwrote....
Good fer ya! As you said I misunderstood but respect your position nonetheless.
Perhaps another way to effect change would be to actually sue when rights are violated and not just settle out of court for an undisclosed sum. When things are settled out of court no precedence is set and Wally World gets to say it is just another cost of doing business....
utbagpiperwrote....
Good fer ya! As you said I misunderstood but respect your position nonetheless.
Perhaps another way to effect change would be to actually sue when rights are violated and not just settle out of court for an undisclosed sum. When things are settled out of court no precedence is set and Wally World gets to say it is just another cost of doing business....
brokenarrows
Regular Member
imported post
33itmefs wrote:
33itmefs wrote:
Easy there my friend, I know a certain person that got banned from a similar website by making a similar post. I agree we need to be able to debate and call it what it is... but I like you, and dont I want to figure out your new screen name.
brokenarrows
Regular Member
imported post
33itmefs wrote:
33itmefs wrote:
Easy there my friend. I know a certain person that got banned from a similar website for making similar comments. I agree that we need to tell it how it is. But some cant handle it. I dont want to have to figure out what your new screen name is.
ainokea
Regular Member
imported post
ne1 wrote:
I understand your logic here, however, I am not sure that a gun free zone would quailify. Think of the Trolley Square tragedy I do not believe the victims sued Trolley Square and they were a "Gun Free Zone." (see pic) I know they sued the pawn shop that sold the guns but I could not find anywhere that Trolley Square was held liable.
ne1 wrote:
I understand your logic here, however, I am not sure that a gun free zone would quailify. Think of the Trolley Square tragedy I do not believe the victims sued Trolley Square and they were a "Gun Free Zone." (see pic) I know they sued the pawn shop that sold the guns but I could not find anywhere that Trolley Square was held liable.
LovesHisXD45
Regular Member
imported post
ainokea wrote:
Aye, but I don't think that anyone who got shot or killed had a permit to carry a weapon and did not carry that day because of the "gun free zone". If I had been there and was not carrying because of their policy, and I or one of my family were hurt of killed, there would be a huge law suit going on. I don't believe that anyone has thought about the prospect of liability in a case like that. It would be an interesting case and would possibly effect future legislation on the matter.
If you were on somebody's boat, and you brought your lifejacket along, and the owner told you not to take it and made you leave it ashore because they didn't think it was necessary, there would probably be some kind of liability if you drowned when you othewise would not have if you had not left your lifejacket ashore.
Kevin
ainokea wrote:
Aye, but I don't think that anyone who got shot or killed had a permit to carry a weapon and did not carry that day because of the "gun free zone". If I had been there and was not carrying because of their policy, and I or one of my family were hurt of killed, there would be a huge law suit going on. I don't believe that anyone has thought about the prospect of liability in a case like that. It would be an interesting case and would possibly effect future legislation on the matter.
If you were on somebody's boat, and you brought your lifejacket along, and the owner told you not to take it and made you leave it ashore because they didn't think it was necessary, there would probably be some kind of liability if you drowned when you othewise would not have if you had not left your lifejacket ashore.
Kevin
Jim675
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Something like "The Luby's Law", for the Luby's incident in Texas where Suzanna Hupp's parents were killed after she left her self-defense weapon in the car to comply with the restautant's rules.
Something like "The Luby's Law", for the Luby's incident in Texas where Suzanna Hupp's parents were killed after she left her self-defense weapon in the car to comply with the restautant's rules.
LovesHisXD45
Regular Member
imported post
Jim675 wrote:
Exactly!
Kevin
Jim675 wrote:
Exactly!
Kevin
ainokea
Regular Member
imported post
LovesHisXD45 wrote:
I understand what you are saying. The laws as they currently stand allow business to restrict firearms if they want to and from a legal standpoint (IANAL) I do not believe they carry anymore liability for their customers by restricting firearms because you ultimately have a choicewhether you enter their property or not.
The difference between your example and the discussion is Life Jackets are required by law to be available for each passenger on any boat. So if this was not the case the owner/operator would be liable.
LovesHisXD45 wrote:
I understand what you are saying. The laws as they currently stand allow business to restrict firearms if they want to and from a legal standpoint (IANAL) I do not believe they carry anymore liability for their customers by restricting firearms because you ultimately have a choicewhether you enter their property or not.
The difference between your example and the discussion is Life Jackets are required by law to be available for each passenger on any boat. So if this was not the case the owner/operator would be liable.
LovesHisXD45
Regular Member
imported post
ainokea wrote:
You have a good point there. The boat scenario was a bad choice for comparison.
It would be interesting though to see if a jury would override the business and find sympathy for the victim in an actual case though. A jury can do that can't they? I wish I knew more about that kinda stuff.
Kevin
ainokea wrote:
You have a good point there. The boat scenario was a bad choice for comparison.
It would be interesting though to see if a jury would override the business and find sympathy for the victim in an actual case though. A jury can do that can't they? I wish I knew more about that kinda stuff.
Kevin