Muskegon Michigan to Milwaukee Wisconsin Ferry

Moral Scmoral, they are a providing a service to the general public and the public has a right to be armed. This is not their little hole in the wall shop or their living room, it's open for the public to enter and use for a fee. They can take their no gun policy and hang it on the wall next to the no Blacks, No Irish, No Women allowed signs. It belongs to the same era.

Old Grump said:

Moral Scmoral, they are a providing a service to the general public and the public has a right to be armed. This is not their little hole in the wall shop or their living room, it's open for the public to enter and use for a fee. They can take their no gun policy and hang it on the wall next to the no Blacks, No Irish, No Women allowed signs. It belongs to the same era.

Click to expand...

This is actually an offensive analogy. Comparing what some in this nation did to blacks to a policy prohibiting firearms is despicable and demeans the horrific treatment of an entire race of people in this country. Shame on you.

However, if one really believes in individual rights, he recognizes the rights of others--specifically the right to enjoy his property on his terms. If that includes the repugnant practice of disallowing firearms or the infinitely worse practice of discriminating against blacks simply because they are black, so be it. You don't have to like how someone exercises his rights. You just need to respect the right itself.

If you wish your rights to be protected, the best place to start is to advocate for the rights of others. Your rights are meaningless in the absence of the rights of others.

Old Grump said:

Moral Scmoral, they are a providing a service to the general public and the public has a right to be armed. This is not their little hole in the wall shop or their living room, it's open for the public to enter and use for a fee. They can take their no gun policy and hang it on the wall next to the no Blacks, No Irish, No Women allowed signs. It belongs to the same era.

Click to expand...

Complete bull-puckey. If their property rights don't mean anything, neither do yours or "the little hole in the wall shop's". You don't have to use their service. Don't like it? Don't go there. You have no right to their property or mine.

When you open to the public all of your property rights don't just go away. How ridiculous! Do you know what kind of can of worms that would open?

As far as the law is concerned, look up "implied consent" vs. "specific consent".

Aknazer said:

The thing here is that the ferry is privately owned. So regardless of the state and federal law, they have the (property) right to ban weapons on their ferry. Well unless state or federal law prevents them, but then you run into an issue of state/federal law stepping on property rights.

Click to expand...

Completely irrelevant. Greyhound is private. Many intra- and interstate carriers are privately owned. If this owner is the one behind the policy, and not federal or state law, boycott the snot out of them and publicize it.

DCR said:

Aknazer said:

The thing here is that the ferry is privately owned. So regardless of the state and federal law, they have the (property) right to ban weapons on their ferry. Well unless state or federal law prevents them, but then you run into an issue of state/federal law stepping on property rights.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant in the context of federal carriers. Greyhound is privately owned. Many intra- and inter-state carriers are privately owned.

My point stands - if it's not governed by federal or state law, the owner's the problem. Boycott the snot out of them and publicize why.

Click to expand...

What's irrelevant? I was saying that since it is a privately owned ferry that they have the right to ban weapons on their ferry; regardless of if we agree with them doing so. The next point is that the first sentence is true unless the state or federal government has infringed upon the property rights of the ferry owner (similar to how they have infringed upon the property rights of most store owners via the smoking bans).

So while I disagree with their act of banning weapons, I respect their right to do so.

eye95 said:

:banghead: Once again, "moral" as opposed to "legal," not as in "good or right."

I give up.

Click to expand...

I think most of the folks on the thread agree with what you are trying to say. The issue is that you seem to be misusing the word "moral". Moral is about right and wrong. Perhaps "intrinsic", "natural" or "un-enumerated". None of those are really that great either. There may not be an English word to fit your sentence as it is structured. I'm really, really not trying to be a smart-###. If you still disagree could you please cite specifically which definition you are using?

Flopsweat said:

I think most of the folks on the thread agree with what you are trying to say. The issue is that you seem to be misusing the word "moral". Moral is about right and wrong. Perhaps "intrinsic", "natural" or "un-enumerated". None of those are really that great either. There may not be an English word to fit your sentence as it is structured. I'm really, really not trying to be a smart-###. If you still disagree could you please cite specifically which definition you are using?

Click to expand...

Nope. I choose my words very carefully. A "moral" right is one that, morally, one should have, maybe not exercise, but have. The exercise of the right, under specific circumstances might be immoral, but others respecting that right would be the moral thing to do. Therefore, even if the right is not a legal right, it is a moral right.
_____________________________________

"Moral rights" is not a concept that I have invented. There is a legal concept called a "moral right" that refers to copyrighted works. Ignoring that, you will find that the term is used extensively by many folks in exactly the same way that I have here: to refer to a right that may not be codified in the law, but is accepted as one that should be respected by others.

I won't bother to respond further to anyone else on my use of this widely accepted term. If you want to discuss what I had to say, let's. If you want to (incorrectly) nit-pick the term I used, I won't bother with your distraction from the point being made.

eye95 said:

Nope. I choose my words very carefully. A "moral" right is one that, morally, one should have, maybe not exercise, but have. The exercise of the right, under specific circumstances might be immoral, but others respecting that right would be the moral thing to do. Therefore, even if the right is not a legal right, it is a moral right.
_____________________________________

"Moral rights" is not a concept that I have invented. There is a legal concept called a "moral right" that refers to copyrighted works. Ignoring that, you will find that the term is used extensively by many folks in exactly the same way that I have here: to refer to a right that may not be codified in the law, but is accepted as one that should be respected by others.

I won't bother to respond further to anyone else on my use of this widely accepted term. If you want to discuss what I had to say, let's. If you want to (incorrectly) nit-pick the term I used, I won't bother with your distraction from the point being made.

Click to expand...

So ironic that you, who demands cites from others and demands that someone describe what they are linking and will REFUSE to search for things yourself at times, are now refusing to cite where your information is from and instead want us to do the research for you. But its ok, I'll do some research for you since I'm bored.

http://ivr-enc.info/index.php?title=Legal_and_Moral_Rights

Specifically:

The contrast that I have just suggested may be overdrawn; for skepticism about moral rights is understandable within some theoretical frameworks, but not all. Skepticism about moral rights is understandable when it reflects the broader philosophical idea that moral principles express arbitrary attitudes and cannot be sound. Skepticism about moral rights is likewise understandable when it reflect endorsement of a moral theory like utilitarianism, which is usually thought inhospitable to moral rights. For utilitarianism endorses the promotion of aggregate welfare over all else, whereas moral rights are understood to set limits on the pursuit of such values. (Dworkin 1977)

Click to expand...

Which means that my skepticism towards your view on moral rights is understandable (though neither right or wrong). We will obviously never agree, but to flat out say that you are right and that those who don't believe the same as you are wrong is, well, wrong itself. You will notice that my view the whole time has been one of morals being a philosophic idea that can be unique to each person (as what is right or wrong varies from person to person). You can continue to disagree but that doesn't magically make you right and me wrong. Likewise, through no help of you, I see how one "can" use the word how you have even if I disagree with how its been used. It all depends on one's view on the subject. Maybe next time you will learn to properly defend your view with cites when asked.

I have moved on from your distraction.

Care to discuss the substance of my post, or do you wish to continue the distraction?

eye95 said:

I have moved on from your distraction.

Care to discuss the substance of my post, or do you wish to continue the distraction?

Click to expand...

Translation: I've lost the arguement but refuse to admit it.

Maybe next time you'll take your own advice and provide cites for what you say when asked? The whole point of the arguement wasn't about the "substance" of your post. Most people here agree with the substance of it. It was about the potential misuse of the word "moral." And as you love to say, words have meanings. Then when questioned on the meaning of the word you got all angsty and refused to give a cite to prove that you had used it correctly. Instead you simply said "I'm right, you're wrong" and made other people look it up. Even when a link to the term "moral" was given you refused to give anything that supported your view. And that is very hypocritical given how when you don't believe someone when they say something you ask for a cite.

I have a problem with the term "moral." 'We' have a 'moral' duty to respect others' rights. They have a 'right' to run their business anyway they chose, so long as it is 'ethical'; we have the right to not patronize them. The rules they impose are not a question of morality; they are a question of expediency in their business practice. I don't see morality entering into it on their part, but rather on ours as customers who respect their civil rights. And yes, I mean civil as the term encompasses all human intercourse. And no, I don't mean 'that' intercourse.

"What is the meaning of 'is'?"

Back on topic... I received a call (left a message) from them stating that firearms can be transported on their ship provided that they are in a case and unloaded. As an example, "Taking a rifle from Michigan to Wisconsin for deer hunting". I am trying to confirm with them their CPL/OC rules for hangun carry. I would think they're the same as with a rifle (unloaded and in a case), but am waiting to hear back.

...forgot to add that you must "declare" the firearm to the agent checking you in.