Gordie
Regular Member
imported post
Felid`Maximus wrote:
Felid`Maximus wrote:
Let me know when, I'll video it and we'll put it on Youtube.:celebrate
-
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.
"No Handguns Allowed" A new form of racism?
- Thread starter Urban Knight
- Start date
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Devils Advocate wrote:
Last time I looked Judaism was a religion not a race, and people change religions like they do cloths. So that is a bad example for use in this discussion.
I agree with you insofar as the nature of discrimination relating to salient features of an individual is concerned. However even immutability of a characteristic does not guarantee protection from discrimination. Nor does the law allow a business to restrict activities of individuals unfettered by regulation.
There most certainly are governmental limitations on what activities a business may prohibit and/or allow on its premises. Your contention to the contrary is absurd. We routinely legislate what may and may not be done by people and business and in particular we legislate what a business may allow even if the owner wants to allow it.
The most obvious limitation is smoking in restaurants. That activity is outlawed indoors throughout California, and other states even if the owner of the business wants to allow it. In certain bars the GOVERNMENT requiresthe ownerto make a certain percentage of the profits from the sale of food. Clearly the business would prefer that not be the case. The list goes on and on.
On those grounds imposing some level of consistency in the area of firearms carry would be no different.
Regards
Devils Advocate wrote:
Last time I looked Judaism was a religion not a race, and people change religions like they do cloths. So that is a bad example for use in this discussion.
I agree with you insofar as the nature of discrimination relating to salient features of an individual is concerned. However even immutability of a characteristic does not guarantee protection from discrimination. Nor does the law allow a business to restrict activities of individuals unfettered by regulation.
There most certainly are governmental limitations on what activities a business may prohibit and/or allow on its premises. Your contention to the contrary is absurd. We routinely legislate what may and may not be done by people and business and in particular we legislate what a business may allow even if the owner wants to allow it.
The most obvious limitation is smoking in restaurants. That activity is outlawed indoors throughout California, and other states even if the owner of the business wants to allow it. In certain bars the GOVERNMENT requiresthe ownerto make a certain percentage of the profits from the sale of food. Clearly the business would prefer that not be the case. The list goes on and on.
On those grounds imposing some level of consistency in the area of firearms carry would be no different.
Regards
G
Gentleman Ranker
Guest
imported post
Hawkflyer (22 December 2008 Monday 12:56) says:
The actual definition of "race" itself can be a bit slippery, but I'm sure you take the point.
Sorry if that's unnecessarily pedantic. Back to our regularly-scheduled programming.
regards,
GR
Hawkflyer (22 December 2008 Monday 12:56) says:
Not to create too much of a tangent, but there is significant disagreement about this point, among Jews and non-Jews alike. Certain anti-Semites in particular have held that one cannot "convert out" of being Jewish. Certain types of status within Judaism (kohanim and leviim are the two most obvious examples, though there are others) are established by birth, and in traditional Judaism cannot be renounced or acquired thereafter.
The actual definition of "race" itself can be a bit slippery, but I'm sure you take the point.
Sorry if that's unnecessarily pedantic. Back to our regularly-scheduled programming.
regards,
GR
Devils Advocate
Regular Member
imported post
Hawkflyer wrote:
Sorry, Hawk..... My example was not properly drafted. I had to run and posted without complete review.
What I meant was that there is a difference in who you are and what you do.
You cannot ban people for who they are (sex,race, national origin.. ect, ect, ect..... I guess I crossed over into religion as a side example. Discrimination can carry over to what you believe in and that is wrong too. We are all allowed to choose what welike and it has no impact on you as a business owner.
But you, as the property owner,can decide on what you will allow people to do on your property.
Laws are in place to prevent you from using discrimination in your business. This goes for those you hire as well as those you serve. IF you discriminate you can be sued.
As a business owner I am not going toprohibit pink socks or cut off shorts. This is commonly accepted and is of no threat to anyone exceptthose with fashion sense. But weapons are a different animal.
Now I do not agree with signs that say "No outside food" and "No firearms allowed" but if I want to visit the establishment I will follow their rules.
I am not going to go bitch to the owner or manager and threaten to boycott the business if they do not submit to my demand that they change their mind.
It is my choice to go in and it is their choice to set the rules.
Hawkflyer wrote:
Sorry, Hawk..... My example was not properly drafted. I had to run and posted without complete review.
What I meant was that there is a difference in who you are and what you do.
You cannot ban people for who they are (sex,race, national origin.. ect, ect, ect..... I guess I crossed over into religion as a side example. Discrimination can carry over to what you believe in and that is wrong too. We are all allowed to choose what welike and it has no impact on you as a business owner.
But you, as the property owner,can decide on what you will allow people to do on your property.
Laws are in place to prevent you from using discrimination in your business. This goes for those you hire as well as those you serve. IF you discriminate you can be sued.
As a business owner I am not going toprohibit pink socks or cut off shorts. This is commonly accepted and is of no threat to anyone exceptthose with fashion sense. But weapons are a different animal.
Now I do not agree with signs that say "No outside food" and "No firearms allowed" but if I want to visit the establishment I will follow their rules.
I am not going to go bitch to the owner or manager and threaten to boycott the business if they do not submit to my demand that they change their mind.
It is my choice to go in and it is their choice to set the rules.
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
imported post
Gentleman Ranker wrote:
Gentleman Ranker wrote:
Be aware that there exists a web site called www.reinhardheydrich.org If you speak german then you may find many interesting comments about what constitutes racial identity, most of them from the Chief of the Reichsicherheithauptamt his very self.:uhoh:It is pretty appalling, so go look at the site and then let's not talk race on the forum HMMMMM???:X
FreedomJoyAdventure
Regular Member
imported post
FWIW, most of the original gun control laws (and anti-drug laws as well) had racist origins.
Charging license/registration fees, extra taxes, ('pay to play') etc. makes it harder for the lower classes to be able to afford arms for their protection.
Particularly odious, given the hypcrisy of those who legislate ever greater and more expensive hoops for would-be gun owners to jump through, when they have bodyguards and/or carry permits in places where the average citizen cannot (like Blagojevich, Feinstein, Kennedy, etc.).
FWIW, most of the original gun control laws (and anti-drug laws as well) had racist origins.
Charging license/registration fees, extra taxes, ('pay to play') etc. makes it harder for the lower classes to be able to afford arms for their protection.
Particularly odious, given the hypcrisy of those who legislate ever greater and more expensive hoops for would-be gun owners to jump through, when they have bodyguards and/or carry permits in places where the average citizen cannot (like Blagojevich, Feinstein, Kennedy, etc.).
Devils Advocate
Regular Member
imported post
FreedomJoyAdventure wrote:
Today, gun control is mostly for other reasons. "No guns = no crime" and we all know this is falsie. No guns = criminals have the upper hand. We will never do away with those that choose crime as their profession.
FreedomJoyAdventure wrote:
I think there were a variety of reasons gun control happened in the past. As I recalla few laws were to prevent black slaves from being armed.
Today, gun control is mostly for other reasons. "No guns = no crime" and we all know this is falsie. No guns = criminals have the upper hand. We will never do away with those that choose crime as their profession.
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Alexcabbie wrote:
DA- You are correct that the roots of firearms restrictions rest in the late 1860s and emanate from precisely the source you mention. The second wave of laws comes out of the 1930s and was a gross overreaching of the Interstage Commerce Clause. It is in fact a tax law, and a lot of people have died needlessly over it.
Regards
Alexcabbie wrote:
With apologies to Alexcabbie for the "SNIP" above, I refuse to repost a link I personally find offensive. I would agree that we need not discuss either religion OR race on this forum. Though I would point out that it does come up as an issue related to carry from time to time. With that Lets just move quietly away from that ticking time bomb in the corner shall we?
DA- You are correct that the roots of firearms restrictions rest in the late 1860s and emanate from precisely the source you mention. The second wave of laws comes out of the 1930s and was a gross overreaching of the Interstage Commerce Clause. It is in fact a tax law, and a lot of people have died needlessly over it.
Regards
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
imported post
Hawkflyer wrote:
Hawkflyer wrote:
Yeah, I just thought maybe seeing the intro would alert some folks as to where the discussion could wind up. I am no National nor any othe kind of Socialist. As to the overreaching of the Interstate Commerce Clause, abuse of that small part of the Constitution has been since FDR the loophole big enough to drive a MACK truck through .... and right over every right therein enshrined. And it has GOT to stop.
zoom6zoom
Regular Member
imported post
Just as long as they don't start calling them ni..... ckel plated.
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
imported post
If you have several thousand dollars worth of nickel plated firearms does that make you "Nickel rich??" :lol::banghead::lol:
If you have several thousand dollars worth of nickel plated firearms does that make you "Nickel rich??" :lol::banghead::lol:
cccook
Founder's Club Member
imported post
zoom6zoom wrote:
zoom6zoom wrote:
My blued guns call my polymers "plastic" just to insult them. Man it pisses 'em off. Funny thing is, from a distance they kinda both look the same.
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
imported post
All them damn Hi-points look the same.....
All them damn Hi-points look the same.....
cccook
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Oh no you di'-en! (Sometimes pronounced "denent").
Oh no you di'-en! (Sometimes pronounced "denent").
AWDstylez
Banned
imported post
mrbiggles wrote:
As someone said already, race and sexual orientation cannot be changed. However, you can leave your gun in the car.
mrbiggles wrote:
As someone said already, race and sexual orientation cannot be changed. However, you can leave your gun in the car.
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
Or you can stop patronizing the store.
G
Gentleman Ranker
Guest
imported post
Alexcabbie (22 December 2008 Monday 14:11) finds it necessary to say:
If you are intending to imply in any way, shape or form that I am anti-Semitic or racist, I take very grave exception. The question of "race" was raised by the OP and is inherent in the idea proposed in his post. Hawkflyer raised the issue of Judaism as race/religion.
My experience of Judaism is from having been married to a Jewish person for about 12 years, interacting with her family and being a (very associate) member of a synagogue for part of that time. I simply wished to point out that traditional Judaism considers several forms of personal status to be defined by birth and family, and irrelevant to what the individual holding that status believes about who s/he is. Anti-Semites believe similarly, though the content of their belief is of course very different. If either of those views constitutes thinking that Jews are a "race", then so be it, the opinions are those of traditional Jews and anti-Semites, and irrelevant to my own.
I know perfectly well who Heydrich was, and what That German Political Party thought about Jews (I am trying very hard to avoid invoking Godwin's Law here).
I hope I have misunderstood your post, and if so I will gladly apologize. But I will thank you, sir, to never again associate my words or opinions with the despicable doctrines of That German Political Party or with the criminal swine who carried them out.
I apologize to the participants of this thread for continuing this tangent, but I will not have my name, pseudonymous as it is, associated with such hateful doctrines or evil men.
sincerely,
Gentleman Ranker
Fairfax County, VA
Alexcabbie (22 December 2008 Monday 14:11) finds it necessary to say:
Since you raise this after quoting my post, I feel compelled to speak to the matter.
If you are intending to imply in any way, shape or form that I am anti-Semitic or racist, I take very grave exception. The question of "race" was raised by the OP and is inherent in the idea proposed in his post. Hawkflyer raised the issue of Judaism as race/religion.
My experience of Judaism is from having been married to a Jewish person for about 12 years, interacting with her family and being a (very associate) member of a synagogue for part of that time. I simply wished to point out that traditional Judaism considers several forms of personal status to be defined by birth and family, and irrelevant to what the individual holding that status believes about who s/he is. Anti-Semites believe similarly, though the content of their belief is of course very different. If either of those views constitutes thinking that Jews are a "race", then so be it, the opinions are those of traditional Jews and anti-Semites, and irrelevant to my own.
I know perfectly well who Heydrich was, and what That German Political Party thought about Jews (I am trying very hard to avoid invoking Godwin's Law here).
I hope I have misunderstood your post, and if so I will gladly apologize. But I will thank you, sir, to never again associate my words or opinions with the despicable doctrines of That German Political Party or with the criminal swine who carried them out.
I apologize to the participants of this thread for continuing this tangent, but I will not have my name, pseudonymous as it is, associated with such hateful doctrines or evil men.
sincerely,
Gentleman Ranker
Fairfax County, VA
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Gentleman Ranker wrote:
Just one small correction. I did not broach this subject Devils advocate mentioned it. I was merely pointing out that in the context offered the mention of Judaism might not be correct.
I certainly meant no disrespect to anyone in pointing out what I did.
Regards
Gentleman Ranker wrote:
Just one small correction. I did not broach this subject Devils advocate mentioned it. I was merely pointing out that in the context offered the mention of Judaism might not be correct.
I certainly meant no disrespect to anyone in pointing out what I did.
Regards
G
Gentleman Ranker
Guest
imported post
My apologies, Hawkflyer for the misattribution. I found nothing offensive in your post and apologize again if it seemed that way.
I hope that I have similarly misunderstood Alexcabbie, and if I have I will apologize to him in turn.
As you can tell, I feel rather strongly about this subject.
regards,
GR
My apologies, Hawkflyer for the misattribution. I found nothing offensive in your post and apologize again if it seemed that way.
I hope that I have similarly misunderstood Alexcabbie, and if I have I will apologize to him in turn.
As you can tell, I feel rather strongly about this subject.
regards,
GR
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
imported post
I was not impling anything about any of my brother posters, I just wanted to put out a stark reminder of where debate about race can lead. The intro to the site ia quite shockung and a reminder that there are still people who think that way. I certainly dont and I dont think anybody else here does either and if I gave the impression this was the case I am very sorry indeed.
I was not impling anything about any of my brother posters, I just wanted to put out a stark reminder of where debate about race can lead. The intro to the site ia quite shockung and a reminder that there are still people who think that way. I certainly dont and I dont think anybody else here does either and if I gave the impression this was the case I am very sorry indeed.