autosurgeon
Regular Member
Rights in general only protect you from the Govt. Not your peers outside of the Govt.
-
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.
Ponderosa Steakhouse in Ludington robbed
- Thread starter office888
- Start date
TheQ
Regular Member
Tell that to the folks who say we can force any public accommodation (private business) to allow open carry. They're around here. Some are in the leadership of MOC. Don't strain yourself looking.
NHCGRPR45
Regular Member
good pick bail, but i believe thats for a MP5K could have the model number wrong of course, and i was being somewhat sarcxastic about the ar 15 holster thing, i use a blackhawk weapon catch when sporting my AR's, i am pretty sure i said something about the blackhawk weapon catch's on an older thread, they work great and cover the trigger guard so its nice for that thing we can't talk about, and it works very well with MI pistols
NHCGRPR45
Regular Member
well ar type MI pistols anyway!
Bailenforcer
Regular Member
Wait a minute you being sarcastic, I refuse to believe that...
yes that is the lovely mp5k and I get all warm and fuzzy feeling when I touch those lol... That would be my Sunday go to meetin weapon of choice.
yes that is the lovely mp5k and I get all warm and fuzzy feeling when I touch those lol... That would be my Sunday go to meetin weapon of choice.
manicdevery
Regular Member
true true, thanx for the correction, that is what i meant
NHCGRPR45
Regular Member
there have been other ponderosa incidents??:question:
link please
i have not seen said video and would like to:question:
how true
huh?
WHHHhhhhhhattt????
hey, how'd that happen?? i really meant:shocker: wait, scr** it see cat at left!
Bailenforcer
Regular Member
Comparing Watermelons to cherries again? At least apples and oranges would make some sense.
This site is "membership" based and thus is NOT a public accommodation, but you knew this, and your intellectual dishonesty once again shows. You may continue to side with a baseless non-point, I will continue to side with the Founding Fathers, Constitution and recently Judge Andrew Napolitano and all the aforementioned know a lot more than you by far on this issue. Oh and you might read a little on the founding Fathers on their utter contempt of Corporations, a Government created, owned and controlled act of fiction and yes it is fiction as defined in Law. Corporation "Entity created in fiction" the Constitution was not written to protect Fictional entities like Godzilla, it as stated is to enumerate rights of the "natural born persons".
Time to turn off cartoon network, as you called no one out and instead made yourself appear to be the fool everyone thought you were. Next time try intellectual discourse and not childish antics, if you wish to be taken seriously.
This site is "membership" based and thus is NOT a public accommodation, but you knew this, and your intellectual dishonesty once again shows. You may continue to side with a baseless non-point, I will continue to side with the Founding Fathers, Constitution and recently Judge Andrew Napolitano and all the aforementioned know a lot more than you by far on this issue. Oh and you might read a little on the founding Fathers on their utter contempt of Corporations, a Government created, owned and controlled act of fiction and yes it is fiction as defined in Law. Corporation "Entity created in fiction" the Constitution was not written to protect Fictional entities like Godzilla, it as stated is to enumerate rights of the "natural born persons".
Time to turn off cartoon network, as you called no one out and instead made yourself appear to be the fool everyone thought you were. Next time try intellectual discourse and not childish antics, if you wish to be taken seriously.
B
Bikenut
Guest
An opinion.... unasked for and worth exactly what was paid for it....
The natural born "right to life" supersedes all other rights, including "property rights" because once a person is dead they do not have any "rights" what so ever.... they are dead.
It makes no difference if the "property" is someone's back yard and I am attacked by a neighbor's pit bull................ or if the "property" is a business open to the public and I am attacked by a criminal.... I, and every other living human being, has the natural right to defend my "right to life" in order to continue to live regardless of who owns the property the attack happen on.
Here is a simple concept..... and my personal belief...
With "rights" come "responsibility". When a "property owner" invites a person or group of persons onto their property for any reason then it is the "property owners" responsibility to either honor the individual's right to defend their own life... or accept the responsibility to defend their life while they are on the property.
The natural born "right to life" supersedes all other rights, including "property rights" because once a person is dead they do not have any "rights" what so ever.... they are dead.
It makes no difference if the "property" is someone's back yard and I am attacked by a neighbor's pit bull................ or if the "property" is a business open to the public and I am attacked by a criminal.... I, and every other living human being, has the natural right to defend my "right to life" in order to continue to live regardless of who owns the property the attack happen on.
Here is a simple concept..... and my personal belief...
With "rights" come "responsibility". When a "property owner" invites a person or group of persons onto their property for any reason then it is the "property owners" responsibility to either honor the individual's right to defend their own life... or accept the responsibility to defend their life while they are on the property.
TheQ
Regular Member
But a few facts
1. Anyone from the public can get a "membership".
2. It costs nothing.
3. The membership only exists to identify who the poster is.
This doesn't pass the smell test of a private membership thing. Let's say there was no sign-up/in. Instead it was a blog and all you had to do to leave a comment was leave "a" name.
The blog has rules posted. If you don't follow the rules can the blog master block your IP address?
Bailenforcer
Regular Member
Well said and may I expound further.
See how this evolved:
The first and second article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776 and written by George Mason, is:
That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Then a sudden departure from property was agreed on:
Benjamin Franklin was in agreement with Thomas Jefferson in downplaying protection of "property" as a goal of government, replacing the idea with "happiness". It is noted that Franklin found property to be a "creature of society" and thus, he believed that it should be taxed as a way to finance civil society.[7] The United States Declaration of Independence, which was primarily drafted by Jefferson, was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. The text of the second section of the Declaration of Independence reads:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Now understand that Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, was the paramount of the idea. Property was not included because it would have competed with Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, this is not to say that property was unimportant in the founders thought processes, it was a common sense decision as with no life there is no liberty and no pursuit of happiness and no property rights. So the defense of ones life MUST be the first and foremost. Yes property rights are important but what good would they be if we have no life to enjoy them. It is a simple and straightforward thought process, and is undisputed by anyone with two working brain cells. But working brain cells is obviously not a requirement for those who wish to disrupt disrupt a site like this with their collectivist thinking.
The mere notion that we can surrender life and the protection thereof to an inanimate object is folly at best. Property in itself is not limited to 100 acres of farm land, acreage. or a plot of ground. Property can be any object that one claims ownership of. What next ones cell phone is more important than my life? The slippery slope here driven by sheer ignorance can and will lead all of us without the right to defend ourselves.
Today with roads, highways, and infrastructure being sold off quietly by Local, State, and Federal Governments in the so called interest of privatization will leave us with no right to self defense of that very right most important in the Bill of Rights, life itself. The ignorant fail to see the inherent dangers here and maybe should examine their Mortgage contracts and deeds where they are only listed as a user or tenant, and not the sole property owner.
I find it appalling that so called rights advocates speak as it an object in possession has more rights than my own life. Unless we wake up we will soon be serfs of our own doing. Yes we have a right to property but never shall that right supersede our right to life and the defense of our life.
See how this evolved:
The first and second article of the Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously by the Virginia Convention of Delegates on June 12, 1776 and written by George Mason, is:
That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Then a sudden departure from property was agreed on:
Benjamin Franklin was in agreement with Thomas Jefferson in downplaying protection of "property" as a goal of government, replacing the idea with "happiness". It is noted that Franklin found property to be a "creature of society" and thus, he believed that it should be taxed as a way to finance civil society.[7] The United States Declaration of Independence, which was primarily drafted by Jefferson, was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. The text of the second section of the Declaration of Independence reads:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Now understand that Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, was the paramount of the idea. Property was not included because it would have competed with Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, this is not to say that property was unimportant in the founders thought processes, it was a common sense decision as with no life there is no liberty and no pursuit of happiness and no property rights. So the defense of ones life MUST be the first and foremost. Yes property rights are important but what good would they be if we have no life to enjoy them. It is a simple and straightforward thought process, and is undisputed by anyone with two working brain cells. But working brain cells is obviously not a requirement for those who wish to disrupt disrupt a site like this with their collectivist thinking.
The mere notion that we can surrender life and the protection thereof to an inanimate object is folly at best. Property in itself is not limited to 100 acres of farm land, acreage. or a plot of ground. Property can be any object that one claims ownership of. What next ones cell phone is more important than my life? The slippery slope here driven by sheer ignorance can and will lead all of us without the right to defend ourselves.
Today with roads, highways, and infrastructure being sold off quietly by Local, State, and Federal Governments in the so called interest of privatization will leave us with no right to self defense of that very right most important in the Bill of Rights, life itself. The ignorant fail to see the inherent dangers here and maybe should examine their Mortgage contracts and deeds where they are only listed as a user or tenant, and not the sole property owner.
I find it appalling that so called rights advocates speak as it an object in possession has more rights than my own life. Unless we wake up we will soon be serfs of our own doing. Yes we have a right to property but never shall that right supersede our right to life and the defense of our life.
TheQ
Regular Member
Can't the same property owner simply un-invite any person? (Option #3 you didn't mention)
Without a valid invite (license to use the property) what does the person become? A trespasser?
Bailenforcer
Regular Member
Even accepting of responsibility, one can not guarantee my right to life, thus my right to defend my own life I hold so dear is unalienable and this means I can't surrender or abrogate this right.
TheQ
Regular Member
But you can always not do business there.
Once again, I suspect we won't ever agree on this point.
Bailenforcer
Regular Member
In all due respect you never made a point and still you evade the Founding Fathers, Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Judge Andrew Napolitano's recent and consistent interpretation. Your only defense is one can not do business? I hate to belabor this but the Nazi party had an identical view of rights. And eventually it lead to many businesses refusing to serve Jews. I reject a fascist view of property rights as dangerous. Corporations in no way can usurp rights and I know full well the second you are treated in this manner you will be screaming. Maybe we can restrict people's rights who work for any Government agency as well, this would be much more plausible than to assume that a business has the rights to remove mine. That was part of the Fascist party platform, and sadly I am all too familiar with it.
I strongly suggest you do research on the Fascists and their views and you may be uncomfortable with your commonality of views.
It is perfectly fine to be wrong, and be enough of an intellectual to see the errors and admit you are merely human, it is unforgivable to hold to a disastrous ideal to save face as nothing is saved.
I strongly suggest you do research on the Fascists and their views and you may be uncomfortable with your commonality of views.
It is perfectly fine to be wrong, and be enough of an intellectual to see the errors and admit you are merely human, it is unforgivable to hold to a disastrous ideal to save face as nothing is saved.
Bailenforcer
Regular Member
Membership is not a financial definition it is an agreement in principle. This site does to block my view of another store in a mall, it exists merely as something I or you sought out.
TheQ
Regular Member
Damn dude. I'm tired of you quoting a retired judge who has less current power in government than my pinky finger (I'm a civil servant and work in IT). What's more is, he never served in the Michigan Circuit. His opinion is just that, his opinion. Are you not intelligent enough to make your own reasoned argument without dropping someone else's name. I hope so.
Until you do, sadly, I cannot have a reasoned discussion with you.
TheQ
Regular Member
Care to address the point I made about the blog scenario in the same post?
Bailenforcer
Regular Member
You argue your point like an errant child, when you can't refute anything I have said you resort to tantrums. Who cares that you are just another leech on the tax payer. All civil servants are leeches on the tax base by their job description. Your being a so called IT worker just denotes another problem of the computer aged troll mentality where they visit sites hurls little invectives, throw tantrums when they can't be right about something they are clueless of, and never make one salient point.
You have yet to refute anything, you have never yet made a single point to defend your assumptions, frankly I have wasted my time. You in your mind are right no matter what all the experts say, and yes the founding Fathers are the experts on what they have done. Arguing with you is like arguing with a trash can, no matter what I say you are still full of garbage.
If you like you have done several times in threads, hurls silly insults tell people how dumb you think I am and how wrong I am then provide one piece of evidence, of which you have yet to do. All you have done is provide your feelings as evidence and frankly feelings are for women not men, as men THINK, they don't feel. I don't feel the law should be this way or that way, I THINK it should and I show why, which is something you never do. Reasoned thought is something that by all your posts and I mean ALL of them because I have read the countless dribble posts of no substance, They are evidence of no reasoning and instead just tantrum throwing foot stomping insistence you feel you are right.
Grow up and act like a man, this is the very reason I placed you on my ignore list, you can never have a conversation or substantive debate.
You have yet to refute anything, you have never yet made a single point to defend your assumptions, frankly I have wasted my time. You in your mind are right no matter what all the experts say, and yes the founding Fathers are the experts on what they have done. Arguing with you is like arguing with a trash can, no matter what I say you are still full of garbage.
If you like you have done several times in threads, hurls silly insults tell people how dumb you think I am and how wrong I am then provide one piece of evidence, of which you have yet to do. All you have done is provide your feelings as evidence and frankly feelings are for women not men, as men THINK, they don't feel. I don't feel the law should be this way or that way, I THINK it should and I show why, which is something you never do. Reasoned thought is something that by all your posts and I mean ALL of them because I have read the countless dribble posts of no substance, They are evidence of no reasoning and instead just tantrum throwing foot stomping insistence you feel you are right.
Grow up and act like a man, this is the very reason I placed you on my ignore list, you can never have a conversation or substantive debate.
Bailenforcer
Regular Member
Rules? Tell where in life rules are absent. This proves nothing and you provided nothing, once again you debate like an errant woman, no points, no logical progression, nothing.. Rules are everywhere and you made my point this site is MEMBERSHIP based so when you sign up you agree to ruled before access, unlike a public accommodation where you walk in unmolested, and it is OPEN to the public.
You keep arguing my point well. Thank You.
It has become a complete waste of my time to keep arguing with someone who can't, won't, or refuses to provide any evidence of his case or point of contention. Back on the ignore list, I gave you a chance to act like a man, and like a child you continue.
You keep arguing my point well. Thank You.
It has become a complete waste of my time to keep arguing with someone who can't, won't, or refuses to provide any evidence of his case or point of contention. Back on the ignore list, I gave you a chance to act like a man, and like a child you continue.
Last edited: