I don't understand...

The Don said:

I'm not sure what "gubmint" means since it's a ridiculous made up word, but if you'd bother to read the thread, a lot of people have, in fact, been saying that the businesses should not be prohibited from declining service to whomever they choose.

Click to expand...

There are a few people here that say they object to government(is that better?) infringements on the rights of businesses to refuse service, but they only get hot under the collar when considering gun "infringements".

It seems hypocritical to me.

Spartacus said:

There are a few people here that say they object to government(is that better?) infringements on the rights of businesses to refuse service, but they only get hot under the collar when considering gun "infringements".

It seems hypocritical to me.

Click to expand...

Holy crap!

I actually agree with Spartacus........

Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

The Don said:

I'm not sure what "gubmint" means since it's a ridiculous made up word, but if you'd bother to read the thread, a lot of people have, in fact, been saying that the businesses should not be prohibited from declining service to whomever they choose.

Click to expand...

The word "Gubmint" is used to poke fun of the way that many African Americans pronounce words years ago.
It would seem that while some here are losing ground on their personal attacks due to the fact that the other members no longer pay attention to them, they have to resort to the racial biases in an effort to keep up their harassment of others. Seems the "all knowing" doesn't know that there are some African American, Irish, Hispanic and other cultural members here as well.

J.Gleason said:

The word "Gubmint" is used to poke fun of the way that many African Americans pronounce words years ago.
It would seem that while some here are losing ground on their personal attacks due to the fact that the other members no longer pay attention to them, they have to resort to the racial biases in an effort to keep up their harassment of others. Seems the "all knowing" doesn't know that there are some African American, Irish, Hispanic and other cultural members here as well.

Click to expand...

According to the liberals, everyone on this board is an angry white male. You mean the lefties are wrong?

anmut said:

According to the liberals, everyone on this board is an angry white male. You mean the lefties are wrong?

Click to expand...

Lefties works as well!

Spartacus said:

There are a few people here that say they object to government(is that better?) infringements on the rights of businesses to refuse service, but they only get hot under the collar when considering gun "infringements".

It seems hypocritical to me.

Click to expand...

Technically you're probably right, however, I think as J.Gleason and Brass Magnet said, we've moved past those days and that sort of thing isn't really socially or morally acceptable anymore, though one can argue it is technically an infringement.

From my perspective, historical fact supports the argument that the public accommodations laws were necessary to prevent discrimination. There's no historical fact to support the argument that it is necessary for businesses to prohibit carrying firearms within their stores. In fact, there is historical fact (in the form of numerous studies about the decline of violent crime in states that have legalized open and concealed carry) to the contrary.

So yeah, technically you're probably right, but realistically it's not the same thing, which I think is why so many of us get so worked up about one and not the other.

(and thanks for saying 'government', btw)

I believe as a matter of principle every private property owner (or as Doug has recently pointed out leassor, since you don't REALLY own your property, you really only rent it from the government with property tax as your rent payment) I digress...

Private property owners have every right to do business with whomever they choose.

I do not support any government regulations that would force private property owners to allow anything in their stores they don't want. Including guns.

Its a myth that government fixes social problems. Government creates social problems.

People fix social problems, government is just a tool used by the few to impose their will upon the many.

I think its wrong to refuse service to anyone because of their race alone. That kind of bigotry is offensive. However, I'm not of the belief that the government stepping in and "forcing" business owners to serve people they would prefer to discriminate against solves ANY problem. It only hides the problem and makes it bigger.

Black, white, asian, mexican, whatever... Do you WANT to patronize a restaurant... spend your hard earned money in a restaurant where the owner doesn't WANT to serve you? Do you want to make someone who doesn't 'really' like you, but is being forced to serve you wealthier with your business?

Ultimately the free market is not perfect. Last time I checked there are no angels walking the earth to make everything 'just'. But its the best we have.

If we have social problems we won't fix them by leveraging government to force people to do something they don't want to do. That just breeds more resentment.

Same with guns.

If a business owner doesn't understand my right to self-defense and my right to carry, I DAMN sure don't want to make his business more profitable by shopping there and I damn sure don't want the government getting involved to force a business owner to hide their anti-rights views and trick me into patronizing his establishment.

If you don't like something, vote with your pocketbook.

If you have to go running to big brother to pass laws to FORCE on a business, your own personal desires, you are not expanding freedom, you are destroying it.

Wisconsin Carry said:

I believe as a matter of principle every private property owner (or as Doug has recently pointed out leassor, since you don't REALLY own your property, you really only rent it from the government with property tax as your rent payment) I digress...

Private property owners have every right to do business with whomever they choose.

I do not support any government regulations that would force private property owners to allow anything in their stores they don't want. Including guns.

Its a myth that government fixes social problems. Government creates social problems.

People fix social problems, government is just a tool used by the few to impose their will upon the many.

I think its wrong to refuse service to anyone because of their race alone. That kind of bigotry is offensive. However, I'm not of the belief that the government stepping in and "forcing" business owners to serve people they would prefer to discriminate against solves ANY problem. It only hides the problem and makes it bigger.

Black, white, asian, mexican, whatever... Do you WANT to patronize a restaurant... spend your hard earned money in a restaurant where the owner doesn't WANT to serve you? Do you want to make someone who doesn't 'really' like you, but is being forced to serve you wealthier with your business?

Ultimately the free market is not perfect. Last time I checked there are no angels walking the earth to make everything 'just'. But its the best we have.

If we have social problems we won't fix them by leveraging government to force people to do something they don't want to do. That just breeds more resentment.

Same with guns.

If a business owner doesn't understand my right to self-defense and my right to carry, I DAMN sure don't want to make his business more profitable by shopping there and I damn sure don't want the government getting involved to force a business owner to hide their anti-rights views and trick me into patronizing his establishment.

If you don't like something, vote with your pocketbook.

If you have to go running to big brother to pass laws to FORCE on a business, your own personal desires, you are not expanding freedom, you are destroying it.

Click to expand...

Exactly, couldn't be said any better.

Who are we without the fed?

About all I could ever add to a thread like this is to try and remind people that it did take the national guard to just get blacks into the public school system. If it were left up to the “people” of that time, some states would still have no schooling for any blacks. Hell some states would still have slaves (yea the fed had to stop that also). So, no fed government controls? I don’t think I want to see that America. I am not saying that the fed is correct all the time, but I do feel that we need them from time to time.
Now would I want the fed to tell stores that I have a right to carry? No, -but-, I would like it understood that if a store does ban me from self-protection, and it does get held up, and I get hurt, the store should be liable for any damages. I think the store is taking on the burden of responsibility for protecting its customers.

Hmmm. Since I'm technically a "protected class" as a hearing impaired person, could I open carry in a "no gun" signed store, cause I'm a "deaf guy with a gun"? :lol:
Talk about your mixed signals!

How is the American government a "federal" government and not a national government of a nation? Remember that some here have said states have no rights, that States Rights are dead and that President Lincoln killed them.

I am American by the Grace of God and Southeron by my free choice.

Re protected class, only if the government tyrant permits it. See the American's with Disabilities Act for your protected freedoms.

AaronS said:

About all I could ever add to a thread like this is to try and remind people that it did take the national guard to just get blacks into the public school system. If it were left up to the “people” of that time, some states would still have no schooling for any blacks. Hell some states would still have slaves (yea the fed had to stop that also). So, no fed government controls? I don’t think I want to see that America. I am not saying that the fed is correct all the time, but I do feel that we need them from time to time.
Now would I want the fed to tell stores that I have a right to carry? No, -but-, I would like it understood that if a store does ban me from self-protection, and it does get held up, and I get hurt, the store should be liable for any damages. I think the store is taking on the burden of responsibility for protecting its customers.

Click to expand...

Many of the founders wanted to abolish slavery in the constitution but were worried IF they did some of the states wouldn't ratify it. IF the 14th amendment (which; I might add is was the constitutional way to go about civil rights) wouldn't have been neutered in "slaughterhouse" shortly after it was passed we would have had a civil rights movement 100 years earlier. Of course, that's a lot of IF's.

Now, why did they not abolish slavery in the constitution? Because that would have been unpopular at the time. Why didn't the 14th stop Jim Crow? Because that would have been unpopular at the time. Why did they pass the civil rights acts?

Because that WAS popular at the time.

What if civil rights become unpopular again? Well, since we've empowered the government by letting them have any say in the matter, they would just pass another law to make slavery legal and repeal the civil rights acts.

That's one of many reasons that government shouldn't have any say in the matter. We need to be protected from government who's legislations are derived from politics and popularity at least to the point that they have no power over our rights, both as a private property owner and an individual.

This doesn't even take into account that the acts are unconstitutional.

neoinarien said:

How are they infringing by denying open carry? Don't they have a property right?

Click to expand...

Sometimes people use one right to infringe on another right, grasshopper.

Clearly there is a hierarchy of rights and self-defense is not the highest. Hmmm, where have we heard that before, that all rights come from the right to property?

About all I could ever add to a thread like this is to try and remind people that it did take the national guard to just get blacks into the public school system.

Click to expand...

Whoa whoa whoa... you breezed through pages worth of context in that comment and you are also missing another critical distinction.

First, it did NOT take the national guard to get black kids into the public school system.

LONG before the "Little Rock 9" there were black kids in public schools ALL across the country WAY before any law required it. Long before the "Little Rock 9" there were integrated public schools all across the country before any law required it.

SECOND, the Arkansas national guard were the ones who BLOCKED the students from entering Central High School.

President Eisenhower sent the 101st airborne to escort the students into central high school after the Arkansas National Guard blocked them.

Third, these are PUBLIC schools. In this thread we are not talking about public schools or public property at all. Critical distinction. No one here is suggesting the government shouldn't be, by law, prohibited from discriminating.

If it were left up to the “people” of that time, some states would still have no schooling for any blacks.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, this is also false/conjecture. You cannot honestly predict what would have happened over the course of 50 years. Suggestions that there would still be states that had "no schooling" for black people are pure conjecture. And I might remind you that even in 1957 there WAS schooling for black kids, in Little Rock, it was just segregated. Regardless I STILL reject the assertion that in 2010 there wouldn't be integrated schooling without government intrusion.

Hell some states would still have slaves (yea the fed had to stop that also).

Click to expand...

More conjecture BUT now you have completely skewed the discussion away from a discussion of private property to a discussion of human rights. Owning another human and federal laws banning that stand the "freedom" test. Government telling you that you HAVE to allow someone on your property with a gun, or a loud obnoxious kid, or anything else of the sort do not serve individual rights, they blur individual rights.

So, no fed government controls?

Click to expand...

another overstatement. No one is saying no federal government controls. I am saying on private property, where people make a choice to go or not go, to patronize, or not, its better to stand for freedom and let INDIVIDUALS decide what is best for them (both the private property store owner and the customers) than have the federal government get involved. The government should never get involved in situations that individuals have every capacity to deal with appropriately themselves.

When you can't walk down public roads with a sidearm. That is a PROBLEM the government needs to address. When you can't walk into 7-11 with a gun by the choice of the owner, that is a problem for individuals to address without government intervention.

Very good points. Thanks for the correction.

Brass Magnet said:

Many of the founders wanted to abolish slavery in the constitution but were worried IF they did some of the states wouldn't ratify it. IF the 14th amendment (which; I might add is was the constitutional way to go about civil rights) wouldn't have been neutered in "slaughterhouse" shortly after it was passed we would have had a civil rights movement 100 years earlier. Of course, that's a lot of IF's.

Now, why did they not abolish slavery in the constitution? Because that would have been unpopular at the time. Why didn't the 14th stop Jim Crow? Because that would have been unpopular at the time. Why did they pass the civil rights acts?

Because that WAS popular at the time.

What if civil rights become unpopular again? Well, since we've empowered the government by letting them have any say in the matter, they would just pass another law to make slavery legal and repeal the civil rights acts.

That's one of many reasons that government shouldn't have any say in the matter. We need to be protected from government who's legislations are derived from politics and popularity at least to the point that they have no power over our rights, both as a private property owner and an individual.

This doesn't even take into account that the acts are unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

excellent analysis! Spot on.

Government is not pro-active. Not with social policy, not with economic policy.

By the time government gets involved in social policy the societal shift has already begun and politicians are just there to glam onto the movement for political gain and bastardize it before it runs its full course.

In the case of civil rights, I believe we'd be in a much better place now without most of the government intervention. The shift had already begun when government jumped on board and tried to legislate the change resulting in discrimination of a different kind, thus assuring that rather than settle into harmony, our society would, because of government intervention, over correct and bounce back and forth between discrimination of one group and that of another.

By the time government gets involved in economic situations the problem has already occurred and the market begun to correct itself when for political gain politicians jump in to address a crisis and leverage it to empower government and inhibit the ability of the market to adjust in the future.

Brass Magnet said:

Many of the founders wanted to abolish slavery in the constitution but were worried IF they did some of the states wouldn't ratify it. IF the 14th amendment (which; I might add is was the constitutional way to go about civil rights) wouldn't have been neutered in "slaughterhouse" shortly after it was passed we would have had a civil rights movement 100 years earlier. Of course, that's a lot of IF's.

Now, why did they not abolish slavery in the constitution? Because that would have been unpopular at the time. Why didn't the 14th stop Jim Crow? Because that would have been unpopular at the time. Why did they pass the civil rights acts?

Because that WAS popular at the time.

What if civil rights become unpopular again? Well, since we've empowered the government by letting them have any say in the matter, they would just pass another law to make slavery legal and repeal the civil rights acts.

That's one of many reasons that government shouldn't have any say in the matter. We need to be protected from government who's legislations are derived from politics and popularity at least to the point that they have no power over our rights, both as a private property owner and an individual.

This doesn't even take into account that the acts are unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

Right F*cking On

anmut said:

According to the liberals, everyone on this board is an angry white male. You mean the lefties are wrong?

Click to expand...

::looks down::
Yeah, I'd say they're wrong.

MKEgal said:

::looks down::
Yeah, I'd say they're wrong.

Click to expand...

OMG - John Stewart might pop an eyeball out!